Aaron McDaid

Community finding on a network is a scientific problem. We have data in the form of nodes and links, and we want to find out where the data came from. It is not really a mathemical or computer science question, any more than physics research is. Community finding on observed networks, and similar questions, is a scientific question. And there is no good science without good statistics.

Thinking recently about the relative importance of various skills required by scientific researchers, I wondered if expert programming skills would become more important in future, rather than less so. The same question goes for expertise with statistics.

We're generally accustomed to the idea of evolution by natural selection of DNA and genes. We are simply machines to help our sperm and eggs to copy their data into the next generation. Or are we? Why do many people die, childless, for a political or religious idea? Our brains use our mouths to try to copy ideas from one brain to another, the obvious examples being political or religious ideas. There is a symmetry between our brains and our sex organs - each tries to take advantage of the other to advance their own copying. Nature obviously chooses the genes that are best at replicating themselves. But the same is true of memes; why else do we want to 'win the argument'? It probably explains why I'm writing this piece! Winners of arguments are helping the meme to replicate, and may be actually harming their genes' prospects.

Economics is fascinating. I've only just scratched the surface, but I'm eager to learn more. The mess we're in now (2008) is both very simple, and very complicated, at the same time. Economics seems to be a mixture of mathematics, common sense and a manageable amount of non-rationality.

... continues ...

The Red Queen by Matt Ridley discusses sexual reproduction and is much better than I thought it would be. There is often debate as to why organisms don't simply clone themselves and reproduce asexually, and as with any big debate there is a fair share of woolly thinking. Prior to reading this book, which was recommended by a friend whose research includes genetics, I thought the book would be only about how sexual reproduction came to be; my only major gripe is that the book spends too little time on this.

Discuss: "Science and morals don't mix"

Don't simply discuss the immoral uses to which science is put.
There are three words to define in that heading. "Mix" can mean so much more than simply the use of knowledge gathered scientifically to do immoral things.

Mix
Any form of knowledge can be used to do moral or immoral or amoral things. Science (however you define science) is not unique. Knowledge of history and of theology can be used to brainwash and do great harm too.

Copyright is dead. Even copyright holders don't want it any more. Quality content is now worthless in itself. I have access to loads of good music, and I also have access to loads of new music. But I'm usually bored of the music I already have; and the new music is mostly rubbish (like most new content).