Why We use Mercury in Barometers and not Water
I believe in the opening of this clip, the gentleman is explaining why we use mercury to measure barometric pressure instead of water. Barometric pressure was originally discovered using water, but the column of water rose so high (32 feet, if I recall correctly) that it made housing the apparatus unwieldy. Mercury is used instead because its density leaves the column of liquid to just a smidge under 30 inches (29.92) at one atmosphere of air pressure under normal circumstances.
Rising and falling barometric pressure is one of the factors that contributes to what we experience as weather.
Falling barometric pressure means a storm is coming. A pressure of around 28 inches is very low and usually indicates a violent storm, so you can just imagine what conditions were like when the lowest pressure of over 25 inches was recorded.
High pressure usually means skies will be clear, but can also mean a dip in temperatures. The highest barometric pressure recorded was just over 32 inches and the temperatures were between -40 and -58 that day in Siberia.
I know this stuff thanks to a couple of books I've read in recent history, one being Connections by James Burke and another being Isaac's Storm by Erik Larson.
Anyway, the point of this post was to show this clip of a cannonball floating in liquid mercury, which is just plain cool.
1
What's also very cool is this: did you notice how the cannon ball does not get 'wet' from the mercury? It floats there and spins around but the liquid mercury does not stick to it. I was expecting the cannon ball to turn all silvery.
Posted by: Earl at April 07, 2009 10:39 AM (+oX5A)
2
this Website is very good. you can find something surprise if click it.
http://www.gucciusaoutlet.com/
Since its birth in the 1920s, physicists and philosophers have grappled
with the bizarre consequences that his theory has for reality,
including the fundamental truth that it is impossible to know
everything about the world and, in fact, whether it really exists at
all when it is not being observed. Now two groups of physicists,
working independently, have demonstrated that nature is indeed real
when unobserved.
So, basically, what I'm hearing is that existence exists.
You know what? Someone should design a philsophy that starts with this as a fundamental premise. It would finally be a truly objective approach to philosophy! If you know any PhD people in philosophy, you should suggest this to them. They could be famous!
Of course, this is a little worrisome:
Dr Yokota and his colleagues went so far as to call their results “preposterous”.
Facts about Allergies
When I was little, I was allergic to the class of antibiotics that include penicillin. I outgrew the allergy and actually took penicillin and related antibiotics several times through my adolescence and teenage years.
Twice, while in middle school, I had an allergic reaction to some unknown substance. I still don't know what it is, but I believe I was exposed in a pool.
These reactions came in the form of skin rashes.
In college, I got another rash. And then another. I went to the medical center where the doctor couldn't figure out what was going on and she gave me penicillin and a steroid. Then I got a rash on top of my existing rash. WOOO!
I pointed out that I had an early childhood allergy to penicillin and so she took me off of that and the steroid was able to stave off the other rash for limited periods of time.
I also discovered that if I could stress my body enough I could also get the rash to go away for a short period of time. By "stress" I mean it would go away during tests and while I was playing racquetball. My theory at the time was that the adrenaline my body was producing functioned in a way that was similar to the steroids and my doctor said that was plausible.
Eventually my rash just went away on its own. To this day, I still have no idea what caused it, but I refuse to take penicillin and tell all my doctors not to give it to me.
I am not sure if I've re-developed my allergy to penicillin, but why take the chance? If I am allergic to those antibiotics another dose could do worse than a skin rash. There's no way to know how bad my reaction will be the next time I'm exposed or even if I will react at all.
1
Thanks for the link. I'm also super-allergic to penicillin. Interesting about your discovery that stress improves your symptoms. Epinephrine is synthetic adrenaline, as I'm sure you're aware. I suppose if I ever accidentally take penicillin or sulfa drugs again . . . or I could just use the Epi-pens!
Posted by: Rational Jenn at February 23, 2009 03:02 PM (mg5Rl)
2
That makes sense, then. If epinephrine is synthetic adrenaline, then natural adrenaline should work well, too. Of course, I am fortunate because my reactions are so slight that my body can produce enough adrenaline to knock out a reaction. I am sure that if my reactions were more severe, then I would not be so fortunate.
Posted by: Flibbert at February 23, 2009 06:07 PM (Cniw0)
It's just a series of videos of chemistry experiments. They're very cool, like the one in which they use ice to cause water to boil or the "elephant toothpaste."
1
Nice video. However, anyone who is skeptical of man made global warming could be lumped by liberals as just people with their bias interfering with interpretation of reality. After reading Good Calories, Bad Calories I think the problem is political interference when interpreting scientific evidence. If only we could make a separation of science and state as well.
Posted by: Andrew Baker at January 27, 2009 05:56 PM (bVVsH)
Wisdom of the Ages: Don't Eat Slugs
Dr. Monica wrote to me today to tell me that no matter how desperate I am to pay off my credit cards, I should not eat slugs. Especially Hawaiian slugs. I don't know why she thinks I would eat slugs unless someone was offering to pay me for that, but I think it is important to recognize that there is a certain wisdom to her advice. Being a couple of faithless heathens, she did also provide me with some evidence for her recommendation:
Three people in Hawaii have come down with what appears to be a rare parasitic disease called rat lungworm disease in recent weeks. Two of the victims (friends who had a meal together) told the Honolulu Star Bulletin that they experienced "agonizing pain" after eating raw vegetables – and physicians fear they may have accidentally swallowed slug larvae hidden inside folds of raw peppers.
There are numerous aspects to this story that are really just outrageously disgusting, but I think the most terrible part is imagining all those poor dead slug babies, or, as I like to call them, "goo guppies," with their cute, fat, little bellies and eyes all stalky and stuff. Like little pink and grey bubbles with two pins sticking out of them or something.
Ok. I made that up. I've never seen a goo guppie before, but you can be damn sure I'm not trying to slaughter their cute little bottoms for a salad, which brings me to this part of the article:
The best way to avoid rat lungworm disease? Don't eat raw snails or
slugs and wash your vegetables and fruit very well, Park advises
And lest you think he's being a smartass and just stating the obvious for you, please note that it is the job of the scientist to study reality and tell us about it. It's right there in front of your face. He's just doing his job.
I loved the first part of this book with the discussion about relativity (both general and special!) and quantum theories. But I am not very interested in Black Holes, the Big Bang or that other stuff. My personal preference here led me to blast through the last half of the book, not fully absorbing the very complex concepts contained therein.
I thought I kind of understood relativity before I read it and now I know I didn't, but now I know more.
And also, quantum theory is more strange than I thought, but also not what everyone seems to think it is.
By and large, the book is very well-written and the ideas, though complex, are laid out in such a way that even non-science people like me can grasp it.
I did not appreciate his entertainment of the notion that God might could possibly exist. No, it cannot.
I also did not appreciate his glossing over the role of philosophy in science, especially because many of the topics he discusses, like the Anthropic Principle, are easily addressed by philosophy.
1
"I did not appreciate his entertainment of the notion that God might could possibly exist. No, it cannot."
Nobody is certain of this question. The fact that you claim to be says more about your desire than your knowledge.
Posted by: Matt at April 19, 2010 10:00 AM (2ZwUR)
2
I suppose that a personal experience could confirm God's existence, but the lack of such an experience, coupled with a vast scientific knowledge that suggests a completely random universe could not disprove God's existence. (Not at this time, anyway.)
Posted by: Matt at April 19, 2010 10:05 AM (2ZwUR)
Wrinkled Space-Time
I started reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time the other day and as I was walking home last night with my half a rotisserie chicken in hand from Chirping Chicken, I suddenly understood what relative time means. Well, on a very basic level anyway.
It's incredibly hard to even envision relativity because, I think, Newtonian physics is so properly suited to the context of human existence. We simply do not encounter blackholes often enough to worry about the impact of the singularity on temporal measurements. And while we think we think of time as a dimension of existence referring to changing relationships between entities, trying to imagine what it means to say that two enties traveling at the same rate cover different distances in different amounts of time is simply mind boggling, especially because each entity would look at the other, check their watch and think something else.
I am not too clear on why the speed of light is a set limitation, though. I understand how it's being used as a constant -- although it seems to me that when we calculate its change in speed when interacting with gravitational fields, we're saying that it is, in fact, not a constant -- but I'm really only a dozen pages or so into the book.
I also object to the idea of there being a beginning of time. A beginning of time implies a beginning of existence and existence does not have a beginning. When people like Stephen Hawking refer to the beginning of time, they're speaking coloquially, referring to a point in existence which is beyond our consideration because it sits at a point where observation is impossible... unless you can travel faster than the speed of light.
Sooooooo... that is what is going on in my brain right now. I need to clean my room and find my passport.
Update: I read a little more and now I see what he means by relative time. This is absolutely incredible. Ok, but for serious, we'll all live longer (in comparison to how long we'd live on Earth in Earth years) if we load up into a spaceship right now and start zooming along as close to the speed of light as we possibly can. Who's with me?
Concept cars give automotive designers a chance to let their
imaginations run wild, often with outlandish results. But even by that
measure, BMW has come up with something as strange as it is innovative
-- a shape-shifting car covered with fabric.
Instead of steel, aluminum or even carbon fiber, the GINA Light Visionary Model
has a body of seamless fabric stretched over a movable metal frame that
allows the driver to change its shape at will. The car -- which
actually runs and drives -- is a styling design headed straight for the
BMW Museum in Munich and so it will never see production, but building a practical car wasn't the point.
You Know What's Neat?
People are pretty symmetrical right to left, but they aren't symmetrical top to bottom or front to back.
That might not SEEM very neat, but when you think about the fact that the vast majority of cells in your body all contain the same exact set of instructions and you start out as a perfectly symmetrical little ball of cells which some how figure out where they are in the ball and then start activating different parts of those instructions to become what they become.
SOMEHOW cells that make your head know they're becoming your head and not your elbow or pinky toe.
This would be amazing in itself even if people were like giant worms and symmetrical top to bottom, right to left, and front to back. But people have faces only on one side of their body and arms on the top but legs on the bottom.
I'm just saying, it's pretty neat. I wonder what tells those cells where they are in the blob just before they start becoming belly buttons and ears and such.
Posted by: Rational Jenn at April 13, 2008 08:35 PM (IYvUd)
2
Wouldn't the simple answer be DNA? Of course, I've always blamed my mother.
Posted by: Curtis Plumb at April 14, 2008 06:41 AM (cb5WK)
3
Well, yes, that would be the simple answer, but it is insufficient to the question asked. Like, if I asked you how you get energy from the food you eat and you responded with "Nuclear Fusion." That would be true because that's what the sun does which shines light on the planet and the plants make it into chemical energy and... yadda yadda yadda.
The question I'm pointing out in my post is actually pretty profound.
Each and every cell in your body (some exceptions do exist as in the case of red blood cells and sperm/egg cells) carries the same set of DNA, though. One might guess, therefore, that they would all do the same thing at the same time, but they don't. Something causes the cells to differentiate according to their location in the zygote. At differentiation, the cells start to pick and choose the sections of DNA that they actually execute.
It'd be kind of like putting a bunch of people in a room with Atlas Shrugged which they are to read in perfect sequence, without telling them who reads which part at which time. (It's an imperfect analogy, but I don't want to get into the vagaries of DNA.)
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at April 14, 2008 07:46 AM (ErOeR)
4
It's an interesting question. Sean Carroll's new book "The Making of the Fittest" has some incredible insight into this topic (I believe the subtitle is something like "DNA and the Ulimate Forensic Record for Evolution"--I'd have to check to be sure though).
Posted by: Matt F. at April 14, 2008 08:59 AM (rNuhF)
Ascaris lumbricoides
I know I haven't talked about it much in recent history, but a fun fact about me is that if I were a doctor of medicine of some sort, I would probably study parasitology. This is because I find parasites REALLY fascinating. And they're super gross.
Knowing that, a friend of mine sent me a link to this video of Ascaris lumbricoides being removed from a woman's GI tract.
Happy Equinox, Y'all!
The earth went perfectly upright early this morning and day and night are roughly equal today. Now, the northern hemisphere will start leaning toward the sun and our days will be come longer and warmer.
1
NOOOOOO! This can only be bad news here in Phoenix. It's 100F+ nonstop from May to September.
Speaking of equinoxes, I just finished my history of science midterm today on the West's transition from Ptolemy's astronomy to Copernicus' heliocentric system. Interestingly, my professor scheduled the test on the vernal equinox.
Posted by: Tom Rexton at March 20, 2008 03:11 PM (lRQG+)
Whenever I see the sun rising at 5:30am (when I am usually on my way to work) I take it as a bad omen.Earlier sunrises mean that the oppressively hot weather is not far behind.I dread seeing sunlight when I am driving to work...because I know that when I get off work later that day, it will be 275 degrees in my sun-baked vehicle.
110+ degree days here in Phoenix are just as miserable as winter blizzards in New York, Chicago or Boston.
People who live in harsh winter climates have to plug their vehicles in at night, and scrape the ice off of their windshields in the morning.On the other hand... in the summers we Phoenicians can barely touch our steering wheels because of how hot they are.On more than one occasion, I have literally burned myself on metal seatbelt buckles.
Posted by: Tiberius at March 23, 2008 09:35 AM (zm/aP)
4
You don't sound like you've actually lived in Chicago, which is where I grew up. No, it is not nearly as bad here in the summer as it is in Chicago in the winter. And it is surprisingly close to as bad there in the summer as it is here, with their humidity and all. Nor does the bad part of our year last half as long as the bad part of theirs.
"Temperatures have been in the low- to mid-80s all week and promise to remain so for as long as the forecast at noaa.gov
provides. It would be understatement to say that this was not the work
and the glory. I hear of family and friends suffering through sleet in
Detroit, ice storms in the Atlantic corridor, freezing floods in the
Mississippi River valley, and blizzards in the intermountain West. I
hear of those things, and I cluck and shake my head, for clearly they
should be living out here in Babylon. They will shudder and point at
weather reports in June showing 119 degrees, but until one has compared
the dry heat to the humid, they will still fail to perceive the
superior quality of This Place. Only at the peak of the monsoon season
do things in Arizona get genuinely uncomfortable.
In the meantime, you folks enjoy drying out those galoshes. I think I'll go work on my tan."
Posted by: Inspector at March 24, 2008 02:41 AM (yST62)
5
I love the miserable cold, though. I take the adverse conditions as a challenge and it makes me feel good to put a roof over my head and triumph.
Of course, I feel the same way about buying air conditioners, too, but moreso with the cold.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at March 24, 2008 09:06 AM (ErOeR)
6
I should say, that although I complain about the summer weather here in Arizona, this is not to imply that I would rather be elsewhere during the fall, winter and spring seasons, which are just almost perfect here. There's just no natural disaster to speak of, besides some extreme rainfall for a very brief period. Of course, I'd rather be in Western Washington (Seattle-Tacoma area) in the summer time. I used to live there and still visit my family there a couple of times a year.
Posted by: Tom Rexton at March 24, 2008 02:08 PM (lRQG+)
7
I think I just resent that - for reasons beyond my control - I must leave The Valley for a number of years. I don't want to leave.
I like it here.
I hate rain. I hate humidity. I hate atmospheric moisture in all of its forms. And I hate overcast days. We get, like, 3 cloudy days a year and they piss me off.
So to hear someone complain about it here, when I am forced by the ridiculous government mismanagement of medical residencies to leave... well, it is a sore spot.
This is paradise. There should be no complaining. That's my opinion, anyhow.
Posted by: Inspector at March 25, 2008 05:36 AM (yST62)
A neckband that translates thought into speech by picking up nerve
signals has been used to demonstrate a "voiceless" phone call for the
first time.
With
careful training a person can send nerve signals to their vocal cords
without making a sound. These signals are picked up by the neckband and
relayed wirelessly to a computer that converts them into words spoken
by a computerised voice.
Users
needn't worry about that the system voicing their inner thoughts
though. Callahan says producing signals for the Audeo to decipher
requires "a level above thinking". Users must think specifically about
voicing words for them to be picked up by the equipment.
1
I've seen a video demonstration of a man with a prosthetic arm that he could control with his mind via a chip embedded in his brain. It, too, reads his brain waves, translates them into computer lingo, and moves his arm accordingly.
Posted by: Tom Rexton at March 14, 2008 11:38 AM (lRQG+)
2
Yep! Apparently, this is very similar technology.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at March 14, 2008 12:49 PM (ErOeR)
Shut it, Bill (a Little)
Bill Maher commenting on Heath Ledger's toxicology report said tonight (I'm paraphrasing), the lesson here isn't about the danger of mixing prescription drugs. The lesson is that all prescription drugs are poison; everything in the pharmacy is poison.
And then he said he doesn't take anti-biotics now because he "learned how to be healthy." He went on to criticize the use of anything "poison" for health. He apparently doesn't agree with putting chlorine, for instance, in drinking water. He also thinks that he won't get sick in India if he has a strong immune system.
The conversation went even further into Crazy Town from there, so I'm going to stop describing his nutty ideas about medicine.
On one hand, he's right: everything is poison.
If you drink enough water, you will die. If you eat too much calcium -- strong bones and teeth -- you will die.
Pretty much everything is poison -- if you get too much of it.
The dose makes the poison. And that's where he goes wrong.
I don't know where he got these crazy ideas about immunology, medicine, toxicology, etc., but they are crazy ideas. He reminds me of that crazy guy at my work who thinks women shouldn't give birth to children in hospitals, children shouldn't be given immunization shots, and people should eat only organic food.
Who's manufacturing these weirdos? I want to know right now.
Ok, this is going to be long and separated into several posts due to the length restriction. But I OKd it with Flibbert.
Bill Maher has an odd mixture of views.It is possible that Bill Maher's views on medicine are influenced by his animal rights activism and the fact that he doesn't approve of animal testing. (After all, he is a known supporter of PETA.) There is also a common belief among leftists (since they are collectivists) that some individual sacrifice for the majority is a good thing.So if a few people die of a disease, who cares?The rest will become immune by being exposed.(Ironically that is the same collectivist herd mentality in the government officials pushing vaccinations.)I am sure that some of Maher's views also stem from the common leftist belief that any industry is up to no good. He takes one instance of say, fraud on the part of a pharmaceutical company, and extrapolates to all pharmaceutical companies.Personally, I think there are some entirely corrupt industries out there that must succeed on lies to remain in business at all, but I think this is usually a rare exception.(I think.)
However, a lot of ideas that seem nutty or irrational initially are not necessarily so. It took years for medical "professionals" to believe that the bacterium H. pylori causes stomach ulcers. Not because there was no evidence, but because it violated their conventional wisdom. Anyway, I'll take some of your other points one by one.
Drugs: Each year, roughly 117,000 people are hospitalized for adverse drug reactions. Roughly 100,000 of them die from it. Drugs are poison, doctors and pharma know that, and that is why (thankfully) there are new genotypic tests available for drug dosing.However, the medical community does not often think beyond procedures, pills, and shots because that is all they know and have been trained in. My sister was recently diagnosed with a spinal condition. The doctor told her she'd need cortisone shots for the rest of her life, surgery, and that she would likely be in a wheelchair within years. She walked out of his office and never went back. She's in physical therapy, her pain is gone, and she is doing fine. So much for the advice of a so-called "expert."
Antibiotics: 80% of staph strains are now resistant to penicillin. Methicillin resistant strains of Staph aureus (MRSA) are now widespread and were created by the improper use of antibiotics. As for the effect of antibiotics on human health, some antibiotics (such as rifampicin) are known to be cancerous. (We used to use rifamp with extreme caution in the lab.)Other people have suffered some pretty devastating health effects which are potentially caused by the use of antibiotics.Interestingly, if you go to that link, you’ll see that only 2/5 doctors correctly diagnosed this individual's condition.
Posted by: Monica at February 12, 2008 07:24 PM (fa3BO)
Vaccinations: Mammals evolved to come into contact with pathogens and antigens one by one through mucous membranes -- not by having three to seven "killed" or "weakened" viruses injected wholesale into the bloodstream along with thimerosal (a mercury containing organic compound), formaldehyde, and other foreign protein adjuvants designed to force the immune system to start responding to the virus. Vaccinations are forced by law on children, yet the pharmaceutical companies are not required to tell you everything that is in those vaccines.The protein adjuvants are considered propriety knowledge so pharma does not have to reveal them on the label. Then the government forces people to make an uninformed decision and to inject unknown foreign proteins into their bodies and their pets’ bodies.This is immoral.Apart from meningitis, childhood vaccinations are not for diseases that are usually fatal, nor is there much risk of even contracting these diseases (measles, mumps, rubella) in 2008. Now, chicken pox is being pushed or included in the MMR vaccine!? Parents are also encourage to vaccinate their kids yearly for the flu!? These are not fatal or even dangerous diseases in the vast majority of cases. Many doctors are beginning to speak out about their discomfort with this extreme vaccination of children. And most of the seriously deadly diseases such as polio and smallpox were already on a decline before vaccinations were introduced. This was due to improved hygiene. As hygiene increased and population crowding decreases, virulence also has to decrease.
After doing some research, I have decided that my children (if I ever have any, which I doubt) and pets will only be vaccinated over my dead body. The risk of the vaccines has to be balanced against the virulence of the disease and the risk of contracting it. People simply have been conditioned to think vaccines are safe and that vaccination = immunization.In many cases vaccines (especially flu vaccine) do not even provide the immunity they are supposed to. (This has been shown by huge numbers contracting flu after vaccination, and in vaccination challenges for a variety of diseases in pets. There is now a rabies challenge study underway.) In other cases the vaccine causes the very disease it was designed to prevent (polio for instance). Smallpox vaccination (or even exposure to a person vaccinated for smallpox who is shedding the virus!) can cause a widespread, severe rash (eczema vaccinatum) in anyone who has ever had eczema. The smallpox vax dangers are fairly widespread knowledge in the immunological community and it’s know that eczema vaccinatum would happen in millions of Americans and prove to be a major practical impediment (I hope) to Homeland Security's desire to force their herd vaccinations for smallpox on the entire population (though I don’t think it should interfere with an individual’s choice). And let's not forget the suspected link between vaccinations and neurological dysfunction, autism, etc. in humans. That's not surprising since mercury is a known neurotoxin. Yet most of the medical community and the government will continue to deny that vaccines might be anything but safe, of course, until decades more proof are accumulated.
Posted by: Monica at February 12, 2008 07:25 PM (fa3BO)
Pet vaccinations, IMO, are even worse because they are unnecessarily given yearly, even though immunity often lasts a pet's lifetime (from either the initial vaccination or naturally acquired immunity).Many dogs have acquired natural immunity before they even get vaxed. Furthermore, puppy shots are often given at such a young age that the maternal antibodies interfere with the vaccine and no immunity is even produced.As for the dangers of pet vaccines, sudden death and paralysis have been reported in vaxed dogs immediately after vaccination.Less severe problems such as allergic issues or aggression usually onset within 1-3 months of vaxing (many dogs have had to be be put down due to aggression from rabies vax.)As far as a pet owner’s desire to vax for only the 2 fatal diseases (parvo and distemper), it is nigh impossible to go to a vet and get these vaccines.They have to be special ordered because the standard vaccines that everyone uses are combination vaccines.
Thankfully, the medical and veterinary communities are starting to wake up. Sublingual therapy for allergies has been widespread in Europe for some time, and is now being adopted by the topmost allergy experts in the US because it's safer and more effective than allergy shots (something already long known by the homeopathic community but only recently "discovered" by the mainstream medical community). And a more infrequent 3 year vaccination schedule is now being introduced by many vets after studies have shown long lasting immunity from a single vax or natural exposure.Many people refuse to vax their pets and try to get government officials or kennels to accept titre for antibodies as proof of immunity. In my opinion, though, a 3 year vax schedule is still overkill since only 2-3 of the 8 diseases vaxed for in dogs are fatal, and usually only in puppies.My dog has had core shots and is never getting vaxed again.I can be fined for refusing to vax for rabies, which is required by law, but I don’t care.There has been one coyote that has tested postive for rabies in Colorado in the past 30 years. It’s a non-issue.
As for childbirth, I have not researched that issue in any great detail as I don't plan to have kids. However, apart from receiving an epidural or experiencing a complication, the hospital is the last place I would want to have a baby since it is the chief place people contract deadly MRSA strains. Besides those issues, it seems much more logical to me that a woman should deliver a baby squatting than to try to work against gravity by lying down on a bed. Since the vagina is tilted forward the baby comes out upward – not just horizontally - when lying down. Logical? I think not.I know that in ancient Israel women gave birth squatting.My guess is that giving birth lying down is a relatively recent phenomenon of the past few centuries but I don’t know. A quick search of the web for an authoritative publication on the safety of home birth vs. hospital birth reveals this article.It indicates that there is no significant difference in outcome between home and hospital births.So, my guess is that home birth is a safe option for many women.
Posted by: Monica at February 12, 2008 07:26 PM (fa3BO)
Organic: Unless animals for meat are grass fed, they will have an improper ratio of omega 3, 6, and 9 fatty acids. I don't usually buy organic meat so I supplement with Omega 3 caps. I'm also not happy about the idea that there is a recombinant hormone in conventional milk so I buy organic milk (though I have not yet researched that issue in full to see what the effects of RBGH are or could be).I buy organic eggs because they are not significantly more expensive than non.
If the mainstream medical community and their allies in government were a bit more open to reason on some points, rather than resisting new things because "this is the way we have always done it" more people would be open to dealing with them. Much of what I have written may sound conspiratorial but after researching many things in detail I have realized that the medical community is often very slow to depart from their way of doing things, even if there is any logic or science behind it. Med and vet school does not teach people to question authority or convention.For instance, many medical professionals are openly hostile to traditional Chinese medicine or homeopathy.While it is true that we are only beginning to understand the mechanism of action of some of these therapies, that doesn’t mean they don’t work.While they have not been tested in a double blind placebo trial they are often based on centuries, (in the case of TCM, millenia), of trial and error.
As I grow older I'm becoming MadEye Moody and questioning everything and everyone. Unfortunately, one practically does need to defer to the authorities because there is simply not enough time to research it all. To me, that's distressing since I don't think even most so-called experts are really expert. They do not think critically and are simply trusting that what they were taught is true.I don’t think any of this is a conspiracy except at perhaps the top levels.
I am learning that a lot of stuff paraded as science is total bunk. This is disturbing, since I'm a scientist and would like to place at least some confidence in scientific authorities. For instance, I have always been told that a vegan needs beans and rice to get the proper amount of essential amino acids if he or she chooses not to eat meat. I even taught this to my students in General Botany last year -- this is classic textbook information. Come to find out, it's simply untrue. Many veggies, especially potatoes, provide all the 8 essential amino acids. Yet.... the old viewpoint is the prevailing position among nutritionists and vegans. Why? I don't know. I can't see that anyone besides rice or bean farmers would profit or benefit from perpetuating this myth, so I am not sure why it continues to be believed.
Now that I have gone on a four post rant about medicine, I will say that I do work on the side as a medical writer and I don't believe medicine or pharmaceutical companies are out to kill us.
I simply think more critical thinking needs to go on. If it does not, the "authorities" and "experts" will simply get away with a certain amount of myths and lies.
Posted by: Monica at February 12, 2008 07:31 PM (fa3BO)
I do want my readers to understand: it isn't my contention that everything doctors say is true and that they should be trusted blindly. The examples you give and the arguments you present are perfect arguments for being informed consumers of health care.
There is a limit, though. Medicine is a complex topic and we can't hope to become the experts our doctors (presumably) are and we have to to weigh their advice accordingly -- but not blindly.
At the same time, I do maintain that Maher's categorical denunciation of pharmaceutical products as obviously idiotic -- although it's his business if he wants to run his life that way.
Caveat emptor!
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at February 12, 2008 10:51 PM (8/6kK)
Turn Down the Heat!
So, this morning, some people were complaining about how cold they feel and, by coincidence, I had been complaining about the heat lately.
I'm not saying it's really HOT. I mean, it is January and the temperature is really only in the 30's or 40's outside. But I feel hot. When I'm standing on my subway platform in the morning, I'm usually sweating under my jacket, which it usually unzipped to let some air in.
Anyway, our discussion turned to why people feel hot or cold. My coworkers asserted that it must be due to my "high metabolism."
I hate when people talk about "metabolism" because it's one of those things that few people really clearly understand. It's like the difference between price and cost (often that's just a matter of perspective) in economics that often sets me off on a rant. I don't even really understand metabolism, but my basic idea of it is that the term "metabolism" refers to the life sustaining processes of the body and I have the vague notion that it refers a lot to eating and burning energy. I have a very, very strong suspicion that "metabolism" actually refers to a LOT of different processes in the body. And since I don't know what they are, it's rare that I will talk about my metabolism at all.
The truth is, however, that I am 6'2" and I weigh 190lbs now (w00t!) and I probably consume between two and three thousand calories every day. I can get by for a couple of days on just a few hundred (this happens on the weekends sometimes because I forget to eat when I'm outside of my weekday routine and I'm also too cheap and lazy to go get food.) but in general I eat what regular people eat every day plus two snacks and an additional 700 calories from my weight-gainer shake. The point here is that I do eat a lot, but I also burn off a lot of those calories in my day and so I don't gain weight easily.
It seems to me that my "metabolism" does probably contribute to my body temperature, but it also seems to me that there are other factors that can affect.
Activity I'm particularly hot on the subway platform because if permitted I refuse to take the stairs at a rate of anything less than two at a time. Yes, I am the guy who is breathing down your neck on the stairs when you do not step aside. And I feel colder when I've just been sitting at my desk a long time.
Hot Shower / Hot Room I take hot showers and I've noticed that after I've had a shower I seem to retain some of that heat for a short period of time after I get out. My room is also often insanely hot, so I'm probably taking on some of that heat, too.
Humidity People have a hard time understanding this, but humidity does affect our sense of the temperature in the environment. It's very dry here, though, and I would expect that to make it feel cooler, not hotter, but still. It's a factor that is NOT "metabolism."
Body Fat A person's body fat will certainly affect how much heat they store.
Muscle Density, Size, etc...
Further, certain medical conditions can affect how you feel heat. You know how you get the chills and the sweats when you're sick? Like that.
One of my coworkers is a young man of about 27. He's a runner, so he's thin, but he also consumes a lot of food and so would be regarded as having a "high metabolism." He, however, often feels cold. He blames "poor circulation." I have great circulation, I think.
My point here is that there are clearly numerous factors that affect how a person feels about the temperature of their environment. Some of them are confined to that individual's particular biological situation and some are dependent upon the environment itself. I'm not sure how many of those things are part of one's "metabolism" in the proper, scientific sense of the word, but I am sure that white-washing the issue by referring to one's metabolism does not increase anyone's understanding of the problem.
1
As 6 feet and around 160 lb. I feel cold most of the time. I sometimes wear 5 layers to keep warm. At least you're more comfortable during winter.
Two steps at a time. I understand that. I dislike when people treat escalators like a ride. I sometimes take the stairs because I get so impatient with those who just stand on the thing in a way that blocks my progress.
Posted by: Andrew Baker at January 31, 2008 10:40 PM (FePMz)
2
Well, I should also point out that I'm really dense because I dress like I'm going to be cold and then I'm not. But I never learn. I still wear too many shirts, sweaters, and jackets.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at January 31, 2008 11:46 PM (ru7wW)
3
"You can never have enough hats, gloves, and shoes." ~Patsy Stone
I too tend to over-accessorize. Winter coat, hat, gloves, scarf, sweater, two shirts, and it's 50 degrees out. I get cold. I'd rather be too warm than too cold.
~Q
Posted by: Qwertz at February 01, 2008 04:07 PM (oXrE3)
I've had body temp trouble since grade school. I'm 65. There was a period of time while living in Southern Calif.when it wasn't so prevalent, but still existed. I've heard seratonin has someting to do with it and am searching for more on that as I'm being treated for seratonin issues for last 17 years, but being chilled or hot still goes on. Upon wakening, Iam cold whether or not I stay in bed. It usually takes over one hour to feel okay but a number of things can push me right back to the chills. My productivity is seriously affected as I am always taking things off and putting them on. Most heat episodes are not like the hot flashes of menopause I'd experienced since I do not usually become damp all over. Also, it's worse during cold winter months whether or not I go outside. I am able to feel small drafts easily. It's been very bothersome lately which has finally driven me to research.
At first I thought metabolism because we'd feed our horses corn in winter so they'd have warm enough body temps to stay in unheated barn. After a bit more thinking, I realized how long I've had this and realize it has to be more than that as diet has changed over time for various reasons.
Since our bodies need and create so many different chemicals, I can see that this is more probably the issue. I just wonder if there's any medical information to help level this off. It's not related to when I take my meds, or eat. It's worse upon awakening and always has been. I'm 5' 104#, thin but had been 128# for some years. I don't hae a big appetite & know I should gain some.
Posted by: L. Folden at March 09, 2008 10:24 PM (MpbMR)
All he does is put mice on a platform that buzzes at such a low
frequency that some people cannot even feel it. The mice stand there
for 15 minutes a day, five days a week. Afterward, they have 27 percent
less fat than mice that did not stand on the platform — and
correspondingly more bone.
So if you think you're getting fat, it could be that you've been standing on a vibrating platform that has actually made your bones bigger.
Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth.
...
The Guardian can reveal that a team of 20 top scientists assembled by Mr Venter, led by the Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, has already constructed a synthetic chromosome, a feat of virtuoso bio-engineering never previously achieved. Using lab-made chemicals, they have painstakingly stitched together a chromosome that is 381 genes long and contains 580,000 base pairs of genetic code.
The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the team pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a fifth of its genetic make-up. The wholly synthetically reconstructed chromosome, which the team have christened Mycoplasma laboratorium, has been watermarked with inks for easy recognition.
This is actually a really huge step in genetics and microbiology. Wouldn't it be cool if scientists could build bacteria that eat cancer? Or arterial plaque? Or what if they could build a virus that adds telomeres to our chromosomes and thus extending our lifespans? What about a virus that goes in and corrects diseases caused by replication errors?
It would be difficult to overstate the potential behind this discovery and this technology.
When huge discoveries like this are made, invariably there is a huge outcry about the lack of solid leadership in "bioethics."
I saw Resident Evil last weekend and it's all about how scientists working for big, evil corporations created a virus that turned the largest part of human civilization into zombies. In Jurassic Park, scientists run amok by creating dinosaurs in their labs. There are lots of other movies in which scientists are blamed for "playing god" and then people die and it's all unpleasantness and screaming.
I don't disagree that proper sterilization and containment methods should be practiced when dealing with dangerous or unknown organisms, but I have my doubts that Mr. Venter is proposing that his new bacteria be dumped into the water supply. I also have my doubts that he would even consider anything that would allow his team's discovery to get away from them.
I will be watching this discussion cautiously for people who claim that this research should be stopped on the grounds that we don't know what will happen and that people shouldn't play god.
It Would Seem that Determinism is Popular
I was just watching this week's episode of Stargate: Atlantis. In it, one of the characters comes into contact with a machine that speeds up the development of his brain (They say "evolution" on the show, but their use of the word is not consistent with biology which uses the word to refer to the change of a species through natural selection.) so that he can "ascend."
Ascension in this show is some kind of magical activity where people turn into energy and become omniscient and nearly omnipotent. Apparently, once that happens the ascended beings have a lot of rules they follow, not the lest conspicuous of them is that they can't interfere with mortal people's affairs.
Anyway, Rodney (the guy who is 'evolving' who is also a scientist) just said:
Look, when you get down to it, even mental states are actually only physical states, are they not? I mean, the brain is just a chemical supercomputer.
Rodney takes a distinctly "non-mystical" approach to things and rejects all forms of "spirituality." So, he talks about how everything is quantifiable, including his "mental states."
I had to use the quotey marks because either the show doesn't mean the words in the way that I mean the words, or I don't even know what they mean, exactly.
The Stargate series take a rather confusing view of metaphysics, however. Just as they make statements that would imply a determined existence, they insist that becoming an ascended being requires more than simply physically evolving to the point where ascension can take place. You have to be mentally prepared for it.
There is a distinct mind-body dichotomy going on in this show.
Rodney's comment quoted above struck me, though. I'm still trying to integrate the arguments and conclusions from our recent discussion about the physical origins of mental phenomena.
I really like the elegance of the argument Ergo presented, but I am having trouble thinking of other situations where an entity has characteristics that are so dramatically different from its constituent elements.
But I think I've come up with one: Crystals.
Carbon is just one element that, when the atoms are arranged correctly, can be transparent or opaque. Maybe it's basic, but, but crystal lattices are a curiosity to me. Why can't all elements be arranged to that they're transparent in a solid state? (Can they?) In the Star Trek movie where they have to save the whales, they made transparent aluminum. Why not? I just don't understand how transparency works, but still. Not intuitive.
Yeah, so anyway, just musing over this some more...
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
07:15 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Category: Science!
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I saw that episode too. I cringed when the boss lady (Dr Weir?) said something to the effect that Rodney should realize not everything in life can be explained by science. By this time Rodney (who was already quite brilliant) had an intellect that had increased exponentially and was still rapidly expanding. Somehow the Ancients' device had made Rodney so smart that his IQ was undoubtedly way off the charts... and yet Dr. Weir still felt that she was wise enough to see the flaw in his thinking.
I hate it when people say things like that. Science it just a method of measuring and comprehending the universe. There are many things in life that have yet to be understood by science... but to say that there are things that CAN'T be explained by science is arrogantly presumptuous. This kind of thinking shows an incredible lack of understanding in science, and a lack of trust in the scientific process itself. People who believe this sort of crap have, in my opinion, very tiny minds.
Time and time again I see characters make statements like that on television, and it pisses me off every time.
Posted by: Troy at May 06, 2007 01:38 PM (J76f0)
2
I've gotten to where I just roll my eyes at remarks like that. I really don't think they appreciate the irony of scientists abusing the word "science" like that.
Posted by: Trey Givens at May 06, 2007 02:54 PM (798yk)
The optical properties of a crystal are a function of whether or not the material can absorb photons or not. I don't know how much science education you've had, so bare with me.
From quantum mechanics and experimental results, we know that the energy of electrons in a crystalline material is restricted to two "bands": if the electron is stuck to an atom, it is in the "valence band"; and if the electron is free to move about the crystal, it is in the "conduction band." When the crystal is exposed to light, the photons that make up the light have an energy that is proportional to their frequency (or equivalently, inverseley proportional to wavelength). If the photon energy is high enough, it can break the bond of valence electrons to their atoms, making them conduction electrons. This process results in the absorption of the photon. In other words, the crystal will be opaque to all photons of high enough energy.
Now, "high enough" is dictated by how much energy is required to free the electron from its binding atom. This is referred to as the "bandgap energy". Materials that are insulators have very high bandgap energies, and are thus unlikely to absorb visible light photons. Glass is a material in this catagory. Semiconductors, such as silicon, have moderate bandgap energies, which is the primary reason why they are used for electronic devices. Metals essentially have no bandgap, that is, nearly all electrons in a metal are already capable of conducting electricity.
Anyways, this is actually not the only reason that materials exhibit opacity, as you can readily identify by the existence of clear (non-conductive) plastic. But it's one source, and since I am an electrical engineer it is one I am familiar with!
Posted by: Justin at May 08, 2007 12:11 PM (KJbpZ)
4
My science education is limited to highschool chemistry, physics, biology, and earth science. I did take a geology class in college of which I have little memory and two biology for non-science major classes in college.
All that said, I am familiar with valence levels in electrons and I've looked at the models of crystal lattices in the museum of natural history.
But yours is the best, most succinct explanation of transparency/opacity in crystals I've seen. Thank you!
The point of this example is to come up with something that has unexpected characteristics not exactly shared by its constituent parts. Atoms with their electrons all flying around and interacting with photons join together to form materials with the properties of transparency and opacity.
It's good that we understand how these work and I imagine that one day we'll understand how brains come to exhibit the characteristic of volition.
I just hope it's soon because I don't like it that we don't know how my brain works.
Posted by: Trey Givens at May 08, 2007 02:53 PM (798yk)
The reason you find this confounding is because you have committed a logical fallacy. One cannot attribute the properties of the parts of a system to the whole system itself. To do this is to commit the fallacy of composition.
Again, in the same blogpost that I linked to in my earlier comment, I discussed this matter. It is a fact brain system processes run on a deterministic principle. Certain neural stimuli causes certain neural reactions. However, this is at the level of "parts" of the brain; the whole brain itself, including consciousness, has different properties and attributes, and thereby, its own identity.
The idea here is that while the brain surely is composed of little atoms bouncing about which make up molecules doing their thing which making up cells which are shocking one another and absorbing things, the mass of which makes up the organ we call a brain. And while we might say that down to a certain point Newtonian physics apply flawlessly to these itty-bitty pieces, the end result is a brain which has as one of its characteristics volition or free will.
And then I thought, "Well, does it really have free will? Are we really volitional?" Which made me wonder how one might test a creature for free will.
If we look around the kingdom animalia, we see that most animals are imbued with volition at some level. Puppies choose to chew this shoe over that one. Cats choose to not pay you any mind even though they are quite able. Fish swim this way as well as that.
The evidence of free will and volition is so fundamental that I think it's probably a direct corollary of the axiom of consciousness in itself. (I have to think more on those concepts to be sure.) That one wants for a test for volition is, in a way, a demonstration of volition in itself.
Is it even possible to be self-referential in analyzing consciousness without volition? I doubt it.
But I still want to know how it is that these atoms make molecules that make cells that are equally capable of doing this as well as that. What fuels making a decision this way or that? As a machine, how does the brain work to give we animals this extraordinary quality of volitional existence.
I really ought to point out that the volition of puppies and kitties-- just a sec...
Thank you.
The volition of puppies and kitties is not the same as that of people. The volitional aspect of human beings is different from that of other animals and boils down to the option to think or not to think. For other animals, their volition is very limited in range due to their lack of conceptual faculties and the decisions that they make are always geared toward survival and largely based on the context of the current moment.
Squirrels bury nuts for the winter and they remember where they are. As far as I know, they aren't able to choose not to do that, but they do choose where they want to bury them at the moment.
By contrast, people posses a powerful conceptual faculty that allows us to make and execute plans that span and even exceed our own lifetimes. We have the option to do that or not. A person can choose to be rational and eliminate contradictions in his thinking or not. It's up to him. And that's the key to human volition.
I am made uncomfortable by the fact that I don't know how brains work. I realize that people have been working on that problem for a very, very long time, and given my extremely limited qualifications, it is unlikely that I will contribute to that in any way. But still. I don't like not knowing this stuff.
Anyway, much thanks to Ergo for bringing this up.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
04:23 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: Science!
Post contains 681 words, total size 4 kb.
The so-called hard problem of free will is similar to what you are speculating about. The question is, what are the exact *physical properties* of the brain that give rise to the experience of consciousness in general and free will and volition in particular.
Ideally, I would let neuroscientists find an answer to that question. But like one philosopher told me in a discussion of this matter, "it is the specific impossibility of identifying the actual attributes of consciousness with any combination of the entities countenanced by contemporary physical ontology which defines the "hard" problem of consciousness."
In other words, she was saying that philosophers are intrigued by the paradoxical fact that nothing that is currently known about physical entities and their properties give any clue as to how consciousnes or mental phenomena arises, and yet we have consciousness as a very real and *physical* part of our reality.
This is a very perplexing area of philosophy, and to my knowledge, no philosopher has yet resolved this problem satisfactorily. I suspect that the cause of so much fog in this issue is because of the traditional vocabulary we use in such discussions of "mental phenomena" and "physical entities" that was set by bad Cartesian philosophy. I strongly believe that this vocabulary has to be first rejected before any attempt at truth can be reached. If language sets the structure of thought at least to some extent, then Cartesianism has adulterated both language and thought in this respect.
I really wanted to make a joke about the irony of Christian directors, but I couldn't work it out. You know how actors say, "Yeah, but what I really want to do is direct?" Something about that, but play up the whole "God is the director" thing they have going on. Anyway, it was a stretch.
So, GodTube. Crazy, right?
You don't even know the half of it:
Ridiculous, right?
Ok, but check this out:
Yeah. Insane.
I watched a couple of videos with that "Charlie" guy and he seems to have stopped his science education around the 8th grade.
I don't mind people arguing against evolution in itself. What bothers me is dishonesty.
This guy is all, "SOMEHOW the woodpecker gets a strong bill to break through wood..." He deliberately makes it sound as if biologists are just sitting around just saying "evolution" without bothering to suggest a mechanism.
Even if you don't know what that natural selection is accepted as the mechanism behind evolution, it's rude to suggest that other people are being so stupid. That is exactly the sort of situation to which the benefit of the doubt applies.
But this guy purports to be a man of science or at least one of scientific understanding. There is no excuse for such a base level of ignorance about what the theory of evolution says. The only explanation for his eye-rolling and exaggerated expressions and grotesque misrepresentation of the claims of sensible, reputable scientific sources is dishonesty.
It doesn't surprise me that a Christian would be dishonest in his counter-arguments, but it should shock and outrage them. That it doesn't only deepens the hypocrisy and self-deception required to subscribe to a religion.
I just started reading With God on Our Side. I expect it to alternately piss me off and give me nightmares.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
06:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: Science!
Post contains 322 words, total size 3 kb.
I, Newtonian
I have this idea that given knowledge of the present position and all facts relating to motion of every single atom and particle in the universe along with the complementary data on every quanta of energy there is, that a computer of sufficient computational power would be able to not merely describe the entire history of existence back to the Big Bang (further) but also project the course of things for the eternity to come.
This is nonsense.
I get the idea thanks to the fact that on my scale of existence and context of operation, Newtonian physics is pure genius and completely reliable.
Even though I find myself spending more time and energy fantasizing about omniscient Macbooks, I am pleased that it is not the case.
Do you even understand quantum physics? I don't.
That whole Schrödinger's cat thing is at best an imperfect analogy for whatever is going on at the tiniest levels we can get to OR it's an abomination to rational, reality-based epistemology. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think that damned cat misleads more people than it helps.
Oh! And you've heard about entanglement, right? Crazy amazing. I wish I knew how that works. It's like two atoms or particles or whatever are connected but they aren't anywhere near one another. Look it up.
If reality really did completely follow my Newtonian vision of things, the concept of free will would be found to be incongruent with reality, an illusion. (Not that some people don't already think that.)
Ergo mentioned two significant ideas in one of his recent comments: randomness and determinism.
The reason I read that book on genetics was because I wanted to understand how some people are attempting to integrate the concept of freewill with our rather young understanding of genetics. On a more fundamental level, I find that I also have the question of how free will can be reconciled with a broader view of the universe.
On any level, the concept of causality, which is a corollary to the axiom of Identity, can be seen as a challenge to the concept of free will.
In Objectivist philosophy, Consciousness is an axiom along with Identity and Existence. This means that Consciousness precedes causality in the hierarchy of concepts, but I am not very clear on how it can possibly be exempt from it.
We have brains and brains make choices, but how do brains make choices if not by the interaction of it's many parts? Those parts must also behave according to their identity, so how can the sum of these little parts all spin together to create a machine that does as it pleases without regard to any deterministic principle? (This time I mean determinism in the standard, philosophical sense.)
This all confuses me quite a bit.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
05:21 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Category: Science!
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Trey, you ask: "how can the sum of these little parts all spin together to create a machine that does as it pleases without regard to any deterministic principle?"
The reason you find this confounding is because you have committed a logical fallacy. One cannot attribute the properties of the parts of a system to the whole system itself. To do this is to commit the fallacy of composition.
Again, in the same blogpost that I linked to in my earlier comment, I discussed this matter. It is a fact brain system processes run on a deterministic principle. Certain neural stimuli causes certain neural reactions. However, this is at the level of "parts" of the brain; the whole brain itself, including consciousness, has different properties and attributes, and thereby, its own identity.
This is why I said that randomness, determinism, and freewill are not incompatible; indeed, they describe different levels of reality. Our free will is *determined* (so to speak) given the nature of our brain system processes.
For example, a solid object appears hard. But at the atomic level, that same solid object is made up of atoms that are very far apart and has vast amounts of empty space in proportion to the number of atoms. In other words, a solid object is actually more empty space than solid atoms.
The fallacy of composition is a common error that really appears reasonable at first glance; but it is not.
2
Ergo, even if we restrict ourselves to ignoring the trees for the forest, we still find ourselves stuck with an unanswered question of how the brain gets those properties. I realize this is a question of science and not philosophy, but that is why I discussed all the technical things I discussed.
Also, did you see the picture of that kitty? SO CUTE?! And how he says he's entangled?! OMG!
I'm gonna go look up this "fallacy of composition" of which you speak, because I have no idea what you're talking about right now.
Posted by: Trey Givens at May 03, 2007 03:25 PM (798yk)
3
Hmmm... ok. I see what you're saying and that makes sense to me.
But now I'm wondering about how we can test for free will.
hmmm...
Posted by: Trey Givens at May 03, 2007 03:42 PM (798yk)
4
hmmm... now I'm thinking that the notion of testing for free will is a little bit bonkers, just because it is so evident that people certainly do choose things.
hmmm...
Posted by: Trey Givens at May 03, 2007 04:19 PM (798yk)
5
Be honest: Wasn't this entire post just an excuse to post that adorable picture?
Determinism v. Fatalism
In that book Genome that I've been mentioning, the author asserts a definition for the term determinism. I don't have the text in front of me to quote it directly, so you'll have you live with my paraphrasing.
Basically, he says that in biology when a characteristic or behavior is "determined" we simply mean that it is a result of influencing factors up to that point. He is extremely careful to contrast this with the idea that characteristics are fatalistic, meaning that their manifestation could have been predicted at the start or that we could look to the future and know how the organism will be down the road. So, the difference, he says, is that "determinism" looks backwards while fatalism looks forward.
"Determined" according to him is an adjective that merely describes the causal relationship of the current state with a past state.
This is how he describes the manifestation of instinctual behavior such as homosexuality.
I do not know if he thinks it impossible for a person without the homosexual genes to become gay or not, but he gives language as an example of an instinct and proceeds at length to present the evidence for the biological foundations for language. If you don't have the genes for language or if your language genes are messed up, then you can't use language like normal human beings.
He rails against the notion that individuals are doomed by their genes to be any particular way when it comes to things like instinct or even personality. Nature, it would seem according to him, is at least as important as nurture.
Ridley draws for us the analogy of a sea shore which has a random appearance shaped by the effects of wind, tides, people, rocks, and even the shape of each individual grain of sand. At least in theory, we could take into account all these myriad and disparate factors and see how the beach came to have its particular shape, but try as we may, we could never predict what the beach would look like in a hundred years, fifty years, or even next year. Sure, we could make a general prediction about things based on past events, but as time increases between the moment the prediction is made and moment about which the prediction is made, the probability for error increases.
Let's say you have a baby. You might predict that tomorrow he'll weigh an ounce more. That's not unreasonable especially if you gorge him full of ice cream and strained carrots today. But how much will he weigh a year from now? You could again guess, but for the sake of a meaningful prediction, you would do better to choose a range. And how much will he weigh in 20 years?
Again, let's say we have a baby, but this time we look at his genes. We see that he has the so-called gay genes. Will the child be gay?
According to Ridley, it's not possible to make that prediction is much confidence. Yes, the child has an increased likelihood of being gay, but the probability that he will wind up being straight is significant.
If the child turns out to be gay, we can safely say that his possession of these genes played a part in his development in addition to many other things, not the least of which are his own ideas, thoughts, and actions. If he does not turn out to be gay, we would conclude that other factors overrode the influence of those genes.
Feral children may be perfectly healthy in all other respects, but have a very difficult time assimilating into human culture. Many do not develop proper conceptualization and language skills.
They have the genes for language. Their brains can do it and their brains certainly attempt to do it, but the process is interrupted by external factors and they rarely ever fully develop these necessary, human, cognitive skills.
I'm still pondering many of these ideas, but there are certain aspects to them that appeal to me.
I do not like the sword of determinism (in the philosophical sense, not how this guy uses the word) that seems to loom over this line of thinking, but I would desperately like to integrate the scientific findings of genetic science with the Objectivist vision of man as a fully volitional creature.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
11:14 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: Science!
Post contains 728 words, total size 4 kb.
1
"...but I would desperately like to integrate the scientific findings of genetic science with the Objectivist vision of man as a fully volitional creature."
I agree and think that it remains for the next major Objectivist intellectual to do just that. I believe Ayn Rand said that an important development in the future of epistemology lay in the study of neural physiology. I would expand that to genetic theory as well.
As for the "gay gene", it sounds as if Ridley is saying that it is a necessary but not sufficient cause for homosexuality. Thanks for your posts on this subject. I enjoy watching you "chew" your way through the subjects you post on. It helps my understanding as well.
Posted by: Bill Visconti at April 30, 2007 03:53 PM (jWCY6)
2
"Ridley is saying that it is a necessary but not sufficient cause for homosexuality"
Ridley's discussion of instincts focus on the language instinct and not on that of homosexuality. I've projected his explanation of instincts onto that topic so I am reluctant to say that he would say that about homosexuality exactly even though it would seem to follow from his remarks on homosexuality and instincts.
This makes me wonder if there are people with messed up sex genes who simply and actually have no sexuality or have sexual responses to non-sexual stimuli.
Actually, I still have a lot of questions about the range of human biology and sexuality.
Posted by: Trey Givens at May 01, 2007 04:06 AM (ErOeR)
Like I said, human sexuality is a tremendously complex issue precisely because it involves genetic *and* volitional components to its manifestation. It certainly should not be undermined.
That said, we must leave it up to science to figure out the *physical properties* both in our genes and in our consciousness that manifest sexuality. Philosophy can only competently say that sexuality in a normal (i.e., not retarded) adult requires higher level cognition, thus indicating a certain degree of choice, cognitive evaluation, and volition, which also makes it open to moral examination.
On a related note, volition is not incompatible with either randomness or determinism. Indeed, volition is a *determined* aspect of the way in which human agents act!
In my post titled "Atheist Methodology," I said this:
"Free will, determinism, and randomness are not logically exclusive or contradictory. Just as it is in the identity of non-conscious phenomena to act in a way determined by its nature, so is it in the nature of man’s consciousness to act volitionally–which is free will metaphysically determined."
Just now, the doctor on their ship said, "The laws of biochemistry on this world may be just as unpredictable as the laws of physics."
First of all, the whole reason they're called "laws" is because they are predictable.
Second of all, you don't get to change the rules just because you've changed your location. I refer again to item 1 above.
Third, (Why do I bother? This show is beyond redemption) if the laws of physics and biochemistry are so unpredictable what -- as the doctor was arguing in the conversation -- do you hope to find out by studying the data further?
There are so many things wrong with that utterance that I am really shocked that it appeared in a Star Trek program. Once upon a time, (TNG) the writers of the show were genuinely interested in science and physics. Lots of time was spent on continuity and at least theoretical scientific accuracy.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
03:29 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: Science!
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What gets me is, IF one of those fields definitely has unpredictable laws, wouldn't it be biochemistry? We know SO MUCH MORE about physics than we do about the chemical mechanisms of biology. Biological systems are much more complicated, and therefore offer a tougher degree of predictability, than do those of physics.
Unless the doctor meant to imply the unpredictability of quantum systems or something. In which case, you are totally right with the fact that the laws themselves aren't unpredictable.
Posted by: Justin at April 10, 2007 11:18 AM (ToYLF)
Ug.
I can't remember if I've mentioned this before, but I absolutely hate that show on SciFi channel, Ghost Hunters. It's so ridiculous.
If you're not familiar, basically it's a reality show. They take some guys and give them some random equipment, like watch that monitors barometric pressure, an infrared camera, and some other junk, and they set them about in a place where they think there are ghosts. Then, they film them in night-vision while they bumble around in the dark, acting like the see ghosts.
They do all kinds of stuff. They talk to each other about seeing moving shadows and lights and stuff. They try to film stuff, but you never really see any ghosts.
Here's why you never see ghosts: GHOSTS AREN'T REAL.
It's a stupid show.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
04:36 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: Science!
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.
1
There is an episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" that really tears these fools apart. The show is about paranormal schmucks in general, but these Ghost Hunters people get a pretty thorough lashing. I believe this was in the third season, which is out on DVD.
Posted by: Matt F. at March 21, 2007 06:27 PM (NpC0w)
Those shows that do interviews with people who've seen ghosts or aliens and look at scratchy pictures are silly, but they don't bother me like this show.
I'm not sure what it is about these idiotic men staggering around in the dark that frustrates and irritates me so much, but I absolutely hate them and that stupid show.
Posted by: Trey Givens at March 22, 2007 02:16 AM (rQ+Fh)
3
Why don't they turn on the damn lights? I'm reminded of Goethe's experiments on the nature of light, sitting in a dark room with his eyes closed.
Posted by: Tasos at March 23, 2007 08:39 AM (B//Bb)
Read my full review of these products under my State of the Arts category!
SEO - create one way text link ads to your website for top search engine listings.
Forex Analysis - investing in stock markets, market analysis
Sofas Jokes From India - jokes from india contains a huge selection of jokes from the various parts of india and also some universal jokes.
Forwarding Agent - www.venthill.com.my/shipping-forwarding.html
I simply think more critical thinking needs to go on. If it does not, the "authorities" and "experts" will simply get away with a certain amount of myths and lies. 
