Misplaced Pages

Rosalind Picard: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:14, 3 September 2007 editJim62sch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,810 edits →"A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism": add ref to main← Previous edit Revision as of 20:31, 3 September 2007 edit undoAvb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers7,658 editsm →"A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism": punctuationNext edit →
Line 10: Line 10:


=="A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"== =="A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"==
{{main|A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism}} {{main|A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism}}
In February 2006, the ] reported<ref name=NYT> , Kenneth Chang, ], February 21, 2006.</ref> that Picard was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers, out of ], whose names appeared on the ]'s controversial petition, "]".<ref></ref> The two-sentence statement has been widely used by its sponsor, the ], and some of their ] in a ] to discredit ]<ref></ref> and to promote the teaching of ] in public schools<ref name=NYT/><ref name=ForrestMayPaper>{{citation | url= http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf| title = Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy| first = Barbara| last = Forrest| author-link = Barbara Forrest | date = ],]| month = May| year = 2007| publisher = Center for Inquiry, Inc.| place = Washington, D.C.|accessdate = 2007-08-06}}.</ref><ref name=meyer_seattle_times>]:"Forget intelligent design, they argued, with its theological implications. Just require teachers to discuss evidence that refutes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as what supports it." They called it "teach the controversy," and that's become the institute's rallying cry as a leader in the latest efforts to raise doubts about Darwin in school. Linda Shaw. The Seattle Times, March 31, 2005.</ref><ref> ABC News, November 9 2005</ref><ref>"ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 </ref><ref> by ]"The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to "teach the controversy." There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy."</ref><ref>Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the ''Critical Analysis of Evolution'' model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label. Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006</ref>. In February 2006, the ] reported<ref name=NYT> , Kenneth Chang, ], February 21, 2006.</ref> that Picard was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers, out of ], whose names appeared on the ]'s controversial petition, "]".<ref></ref> The two-sentence statement has been widely used by its sponsor, the ], and some of their ] in a ] to discredit ]<ref></ref> and to promote the teaching of ] in public schools.<ref name=NYT/><ref name=ForrestMayPaper>{{citation | url= http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf| title = Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy| first = Barbara| last = Forrest| author-link = Barbara Forrest | date = ],]| month = May| year = 2007| publisher = Center for Inquiry, Inc.| place = Washington, D.C.|accessdate = 2007-08-06}}.</ref><ref name=meyer_seattle_times>]:"Forget intelligent design, they argued, with its theological implications. Just require teachers to discuss evidence that refutes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as what supports it." They called it "teach the controversy," and that's become the institute's rallying cry as a leader in the latest efforts to raise doubts about Darwin in school. Linda Shaw. The Seattle Times, March 31, 2005.</ref><ref> ABC News, November 9 2005</ref><ref>"ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 </ref><ref> by ]"The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to "teach the controversy." There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy."</ref><ref>Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the ''Critical Analysis of Evolution'' model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label. Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006</ref>


Picard's ] of ] is unrelated to ]. Writer ], co-founder of "Michigan Citizens for Science" and the ] website, writes that, "the majority of the people on that list have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology at all. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know what they're talking about, but it does mean that putting them on a list that is used solely as an ] is ridiculous, since they have no authority in the field."<ref>, ], Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Science Blogs, February 19, 2007 9:32 AM</ref> Picard's ] of ] is unrelated to ]. Writer ], co-founder of "Michigan Citizens for Science" and the ] website, writes that, "the majority of the people on that list have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology at all. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know what they're talking about, but it does mean that putting them on a list that is used solely as an ] is ridiculous, since they have no authority in the field."<ref>, ], Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Science Blogs, February 19, 2007 9:32 AM</ref>

Revision as of 20:31, 3 September 2007

Rosalind W. Picard is director of the Affective Computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab, and co-director of the Things That Think Consortium, the largest industrial sponsorship organization at the lab. Picard is the author of Affective Computing, published in 1997. In 2005, she was named a Fellow of the IEEE.

Biography

Professor Picard holds a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering with highest honors from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and master's and doctorate degrees, both in electrical engineering and computer science, from MIT. She has been a member of the faculty at the MIT Media Laboratory since 1991, with tenure since 1997.

Picard is a pioneering researcher in the field of Affective Computing and the founder and director of the Affective Computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab. The Affective Computing Research Group develops tools, techniques, and devices for sensing, interpreting, and processing emotion signals that drive state-of-the-art systems which respond intelligently to human emotional states. Applications of their research include improved tutoring systems and assistive technology for use in alleviating autism.

"According to Rosalind Picard, if we want computers to be genuinely intelligent and to interact naturally with us, we must give computers the ability to recognize, understand, even to have and express emotions."

"A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

Main article: A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Picard was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers, out of five hundred scientists and engineers, whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". The two-sentence statement has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

Picard's field of computer science is unrelated to evolutionary biology. Writer Ed Brayton, co-founder of "Michigan Citizens for Science" and the The Panda's Thumb website, writes that, "the majority of the people on that list have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology at all. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know what they're talking about, but it does mean that putting them on a list that is used solely as an appeal to authority is ridiculous, since they have no authority in the field."

Bibliography

  • Affective Computing, Rosalind Picard, (MIT Press, 1997)
  • T.P. Minka and R.W. Picard (1997), "Interactive Learning Using a 'Society of Models,'" Pattern Recognition, Volume 30, No. 4, pp. 565-581, 1997. (Winner of 1997 Pattern Recognition Society Award)
  • B. Kort, R. Reilly and R.W. Picard (2001), "An Affective Model of Interplay Between Emotions and Learning: Reengineering Educational Pedagogy-Building a Learning Companion," In Proceedings of International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2001), August 2001, Madison, WI. (Winner of Best Paper Prize.)

References

  1. Media Lab Faculty Biography
  2. Publication of Affective Computing
  3. IEEE Fellows of the Class of 2005
  4. MIT Faculty Biography Page
  5. Research Projects of the Affective Computing Research Group
  6. Affective Computing Group Web Page
  7. Current and Past Projects
  8. MIT Press Publication of Affective Computing
  9. ^ Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition, Kenneth Chang, New York Times, February 21, 2006.
  10. Signatories of 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'
  11. Doubts Over Evolution Mount With Over 300 Scientists Expressing Skepticism With Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory
  12. Forrest, Barbara (May,2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF), Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., retrieved 2007-08-06 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link).
  13. Steven C. Meyer:"Forget intelligent design, they argued, with its theological implications. Just require teachers to discuss evidence that refutes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as what supports it." They called it "teach the controversy," and that's become the institute's rallying cry as a leader in the latest efforts to raise doubts about Darwin in school. Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it? Linda Shaw. The Seattle Times, March 31, 2005.
  14. Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate ABC News, November 9 2005
  15. "ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message
  16. Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? by William A. Dembski"The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to "teach the controversy." There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy."
  17. Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists... Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006
  18. Neurosurgeon Challenges Evolution, Ed Brayton, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Science Blogs, February 19, 2007 9:32 AM
  19. Publications in Affective Computing

External links

Categories: