Ancillary Sword

Ann Leckie's Ancillary Sword is the sequel to Ancillary Justice, her knockout first scifi novel. All the excellent elements are there --- multiple simultaneous interwoven viewpoints, indignant outrage, powerlessness in the face of structural inequality. The book is about a spaceship in the body of a person, which body is itself often in other spaceships, and so of course the book is about boundaries and personality and what elements of a mind one can be aware of, and not aware of, and how each person must make conscious decisions that shape her character. Especially, of course, the supreme tyrant, in thousands of bodies, currently having a civil war over a little disagreement with herself.

The book is excellent. I have no idea how the author managed it, but it is supremely impressive. The characters develop meaningfully; the setting changes, without escalating to the Fate of the Universe Lies on One Heroine's Shoulders. Like Ursula K. Le Guin, Ann Leckie makes human-sized problems, daily issues of real life, have real-life-style focus of her books, while still mattering to a larger plot. And it's presented in an intellectually and emotionally engaging way. The mind boggles at the number of things she has juggled here, perfectly. seemingly-effortlessly.

It's weird that there are three types of ship: Justices, Swords, and Mercies, and in book I the main character is a Justice, and the book is called Ancillary Justice, but in book II the main character is captain of a Mercy, and the book is called Ancillary Sword. And of course book III is called Ancillary Mercy, since that's the third type of ship, and it's nice to finish the trilogy off on the note of mercy, but in the interests of evenness, will the third book focus its action on a Sword-class ship? I wonder. Just for structure, you see, because I'm sure that whatever Ann Leckie has plotted is magnificent and deeply satisfying and engaging on every level.


This post's theme word is monish, "to warn; to admonish." The AIs monish, but few humans heed.

Confounding science with science

Scott Alexander is resplendent in this blog post about science, statistics, confirmation bias, control groups, and the study of whether psychic effects are real. If that list of keywords is not enough to hook you, I really knew the article attained a blazing level of reading delight when I reached this paragraph:

Then there’s Munder (2013), which is a meta-meta-analysis on whether meta-analyses of confounding by researcher allegiance effect were themselves meta-confounded by meta-researcher allegiance effect. He found that indeed, meta-researchers who believed in researcher allegiance effect were more likely to turn up positive results in their studies of researcher allegiance effect (p < .002).

Everything about it is a delight. The layers of meta-analysis. The English noun-phrase-constructing rules that permit the construction of a sentence in which the prefix "meta-" appears five times, variously modifying words which themselves are modifying other "meta-"-modified words.

I wonder if the same researcher bias/confounding exists in fields where the experiments are entirely done on computers. Can researchers' belief in the effectiveness of certain machine learning techniques affect their experiments? What about physics simulations? I don't see how, but of course I deeply believe in the inviolable sanctity of mathematics. This is an opinion founded in my acknowledged bias. Maybe coders would self-sabotage by writing bad code, so that experiments run slower? ... but in the end this wouldn't affect the actual outcome, just the agony and feasibility of running the experiment many times.

On a larger scale, I am supremely happy that scientists are using their scientific reasoning to criticize the very practice of science itself. In the same way that I frequently remind myself that the basis of the field studying privacy is "trust no one"*, it would be nice to have big science conferences where we all get together and just shake our heads at how unreliable the current practice of science is. Apparently. I mean, check out this conclusion:

But rather than speculate, I prefer to take it as a brute fact. Studies are going to be confounded by the allegiance of the researcher. When researchers who don’t believe something discover it, that’s when it’s worth looking into.

... which sounds convincing. 

But.

You know what?

I'm skeptical. 

This post's theme word is obverse, "the more conspicuous of two alternatives or cases or sides." The skeptic and his obverse performed a coordinated, randomized, double-blind study.

*Or, as I memorably put it during a job interview, "We've known for a long time that almost everything is impossible."