It's Sunday. That means football. Well, at least for the US that means football. For the rest of the world... uhhhh, I don't know what that means. Probably means they worship Marx and Lennin. Damned communists.
Ok, politics aside, my friend loves, and I mean loves the New York Giants. I don't know why, since he's only ever been to New York to watch their games. Still, he owns their swag, he watches their games, he's one of those guys who even watches people watching the game. I can't even begin to describe how much I hate John Madden.
I know all about the psychology of sports, namely that males in competition experience massive fluctuations in their hormone levels. The winner feels a massive boost of testosterone while the loser experiences a massive drop. After watching him flip out over a touchdown pass, I realized how this was all possible. It's actual as simple as reinforced behavior.
Why do people watch games religiously? They're hoping for the high that comes from their team winning. The connection is so great, that people just watching the game experience similar fluctuations in hormones. When the home team wins, the fans get a big high. It's like a drug.
My friend is actually positively reinforced to watch the games! This may explain why he loves a team he'd never been anywhere near. His first experience with the positive high from a sports win may have been with some Giants fan. Lord knows who. I know none of his family like the team. He then actively watched another game and experienced the same high.
Only adding to the iron grip of sports fan-ism is the schedule of reinforcement. The fan gets small hits during the game, after great plays or big scores, then gets a huge hit if his team wins. As all you psychologists know, intermitant reinforcement is the absolute strongest kind, since the subject never knows when the next hit may come, they just keep on trying.
This is a great perspective from which to look at sports. The sports with the biggest hormone hits both during and after the game are the ones that are most popular. Both football and soccer are big on action and plays, and low on points. That means that for every point comes a huge hormone hit. Not a perfect theory, I admit. It fails to explain why hockey is so unpopular. I bet I can explain it away by the need for ice and lots of expensive equipment.
This is quite a revelation for me. Perhaps if I had opted to take that class on sports psychology I would have simply read this in a book, but then my sense of mental achievement would be deadened. Gimme' a break. I don't like sports. I need to get my highs from somewhere.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
They Paved Paradise and Put up a Parking Lot.
I recently purchased a book. Actually, that's a rather rare event for me. What with the infinite resource of the internet and a total disinterest in fiction, I spend almost no time in book stores anymore. Barnes & Noble has cheesecake to die for, though.
I picked up a book that I can safely say is worth the $20 it cost me. It's called A Field Guide to Sprawl. It is not directly anti-development, but it places images in front of you that can only lead to one conclusion; we're screwing up our planet in spectacular fashion.
The general point of the book is to define urban and rural developmental phenomena. They define well-known terms, like "Big Box Retailer" and a few less-known words, like "Boomburg" and "Starter Castle." You can guess what they mean, for the definitions make little difference to my point.
What the photos drive home is how devastating the current, unchecked, low-density expansion is to the planet and to the overall "nice" factor of our home. We go into an area, overpopulate it, destroy it, then the rich people leave, the poor people are left behind, we have a ghetto, and then we get the eventual sprawl of rich people ever outward, looking to get away from the horrid mess they left behind.
None of this is new. Conservationists and their ilk have been talking about this for the past 50 years. Pretty much since the dawn of Levittown, this has been seen. What I think is changing is that now, as opposed to even as little as twenty years ago, the effects of this sprawl are now very visible. The damage is real, as opposed to way off in the future.
I ranted and raved about yuppies and an earlier post. I hate them. Their unchecked expansion and total stupidity is, as I see it, the most destructive force in America. Materialism, the American Dream, and a population that's becoming ever more deliniated economically all fuel the expansion of America outwardly.
We aren't there yet. The world is not coming to and end, but sometime this month, the 300 millionth American will be born, and yet household sizes are at record lows. The growth is logarithmic, the worse it gets, the worse the getting worse gets. Within just one lifetime, we'll more than double our population. The US can NOT survive with current demographic distribution and a population of 600 million, or perhaps 1 billion. Eventually, we'll have giant megalopoli covering the entire landmass of the US like some sickened pestilence. Then there will be nowhere left to which the yuppies can escape. No new, virgin land they can bulldoze. It will all be done, and then what?
As I said, the world is not ending. Things are, in reality, pretty good. But we must begin taking action now, or the damage in the future may be too great to repair. Especially now, taking action can be pretty cheap. The government can heavily restrict development on virgin land. In my opinion, there are many areas of the country where development on virgin land should be halted entirely. Then, give developers subsidies and tax breaks for building up instead of out.
Population growth is not bad. In fact, I think it's great. If we are to achieve the wondrous, interplanetary civilization that sci-fi has foretold we actually need more people. It's the unchecked outward, low-density growth that's bad. We spread like a bacteria when we should be building towards the heavens.
I picked up a book that I can safely say is worth the $20 it cost me. It's called A Field Guide to Sprawl. It is not directly anti-development, but it places images in front of you that can only lead to one conclusion; we're screwing up our planet in spectacular fashion.
The general point of the book is to define urban and rural developmental phenomena. They define well-known terms, like "Big Box Retailer" and a few less-known words, like "Boomburg" and "Starter Castle." You can guess what they mean, for the definitions make little difference to my point.
What the photos drive home is how devastating the current, unchecked, low-density expansion is to the planet and to the overall "nice" factor of our home. We go into an area, overpopulate it, destroy it, then the rich people leave, the poor people are left behind, we have a ghetto, and then we get the eventual sprawl of rich people ever outward, looking to get away from the horrid mess they left behind.
None of this is new. Conservationists and their ilk have been talking about this for the past 50 years. Pretty much since the dawn of Levittown, this has been seen. What I think is changing is that now, as opposed to even as little as twenty years ago, the effects of this sprawl are now very visible. The damage is real, as opposed to way off in the future.
I ranted and raved about yuppies and an earlier post. I hate them. Their unchecked expansion and total stupidity is, as I see it, the most destructive force in America. Materialism, the American Dream, and a population that's becoming ever more deliniated economically all fuel the expansion of America outwardly.
We aren't there yet. The world is not coming to and end, but sometime this month, the 300 millionth American will be born, and yet household sizes are at record lows. The growth is logarithmic, the worse it gets, the worse the getting worse gets. Within just one lifetime, we'll more than double our population. The US can NOT survive with current demographic distribution and a population of 600 million, or perhaps 1 billion. Eventually, we'll have giant megalopoli covering the entire landmass of the US like some sickened pestilence. Then there will be nowhere left to which the yuppies can escape. No new, virgin land they can bulldoze. It will all be done, and then what?
As I said, the world is not ending. Things are, in reality, pretty good. But we must begin taking action now, or the damage in the future may be too great to repair. Especially now, taking action can be pretty cheap. The government can heavily restrict development on virgin land. In my opinion, there are many areas of the country where development on virgin land should be halted entirely. Then, give developers subsidies and tax breaks for building up instead of out.
Population growth is not bad. In fact, I think it's great. If we are to achieve the wondrous, interplanetary civilization that sci-fi has foretold we actually need more people. It's the unchecked outward, low-density growth that's bad. We spread like a bacteria when we should be building towards the heavens.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
False Fallacies.
I have a few pet peeves. I keep them in a kennel. I tried letting them stay in the house, but they tore up the couch and shat everywhere.
I have a whole family of peeves associated with grammar and the general usage of words. Maybe it comes from a scientific perspective, but I believe that language should be rigid. While spoken language can be more fluid, I use slang all the time, written language, unless trying to imitate said spoken language, should be rigid and within form.
If I am the slightest bit foggy on the exact definition of a word, I look it up. I even look up other defitions from other dictionaries. It drives me up a wall when someone uses a word when they shouldn't. My mother drilled it into my head, as she had it drilled into hers by a professor years ago, that if you use a ten-letter word when a five-letter word will do, you're pompous.
And since the pompous word is usually not the same as the five-letter, being either more finely defined or more broadly, using it sounds pompous and stupid because the word doesn't mean what you're trying to say.
I also hate how words evolve through incorrect usage. Yes, I understand that language must evolve, but the only reason language works is because it follows rules. We cannot abandon the rules in favor or evolution. A prime example of this is 'contact.'
'Contact' is now a verb. Just look at the usage note here, at Dictionary.com. While I agree with their argument, that using it as a verb is rather useful, I still refuse to use it. I MAKE contact. I do not contact. I don't care what you say. I'm going to pull a fundamentalist Christian on this one and say it's what I believe and fuck you if you believe otherwise.
One that I utterly refuse to budge on is 'impact.' It's not a verb, people! It's either a noun or a dental term. I don't care what Dictionary.com says. If I see it in formal writing I will make fun of the author.
What has triggered this tirade? An article on Wired News. It's an old term and it exemplifies the other part of modern language that annoys me. I think old terms that don't make sense, anymore, should be eliminated.
The focus of my pissed-offedness is 'false pretenses.' It's been around, apparently, since the mid 1700's and it doesn't make any sense, now. Just look up 'pretense,' alone. False pretenses and pretenses are exactly the same thing! 'pretense' is older, so it wins.
When you say 'false pretenses,' it's the equivalent of saying false fallacies. Does that mean it's true? I don't know! Is this incredibly stupid? Very much!
I have a whole family of peeves associated with grammar and the general usage of words. Maybe it comes from a scientific perspective, but I believe that language should be rigid. While spoken language can be more fluid, I use slang all the time, written language, unless trying to imitate said spoken language, should be rigid and within form.
If I am the slightest bit foggy on the exact definition of a word, I look it up. I even look up other defitions from other dictionaries. It drives me up a wall when someone uses a word when they shouldn't. My mother drilled it into my head, as she had it drilled into hers by a professor years ago, that if you use a ten-letter word when a five-letter word will do, you're pompous.
And since the pompous word is usually not the same as the five-letter, being either more finely defined or more broadly, using it sounds pompous and stupid because the word doesn't mean what you're trying to say.
I also hate how words evolve through incorrect usage. Yes, I understand that language must evolve, but the only reason language works is because it follows rules. We cannot abandon the rules in favor or evolution. A prime example of this is 'contact.'
'Contact' is now a verb. Just look at the usage note here, at Dictionary.com. While I agree with their argument, that using it as a verb is rather useful, I still refuse to use it. I MAKE contact. I do not contact. I don't care what you say. I'm going to pull a fundamentalist Christian on this one and say it's what I believe and fuck you if you believe otherwise.
One that I utterly refuse to budge on is 'impact.' It's not a verb, people! It's either a noun or a dental term. I don't care what Dictionary.com says. If I see it in formal writing I will make fun of the author.
What has triggered this tirade? An article on Wired News. It's an old term and it exemplifies the other part of modern language that annoys me. I think old terms that don't make sense, anymore, should be eliminated.
The focus of my pissed-offedness is 'false pretenses.' It's been around, apparently, since the mid 1700's and it doesn't make any sense, now. Just look up 'pretense,' alone. False pretenses and pretenses are exactly the same thing! 'pretense' is older, so it wins.
When you say 'false pretenses,' it's the equivalent of saying false fallacies. Does that mean it's true? I don't know! Is this incredibly stupid? Very much!
Monday, September 25, 2006
Back From the Breach.
After a long break, I'm back. Ahh, how fate conspires to keep this blogger from his appointed rounds.
The European Space Agency's Mars Express orbiter has been puking up photos of Mars' surface for a couple of weeks, now, and of course a good deal of attention is being directed at the Martian "face."
For those of you who don't know what the face is, Google it. Where have you been for the past thirty years? Under a rock? Perhaps the infamous "C" rock?
Yeah, you'll have to Google that one, too.
Well the Martian face is the one conspiracy that I can truly understand. While yes, I can psychologically trace the reasons for any given conspiracy, and explain probable reasons for its existence, I can not, on a personal level, understand. Kennedy, Area 51, men in black, I don't get any of them. But the Martian face, oh yes, do I understand.
We have always been interested in Mars. From the very moment that that Giovanni Schiaparelli discovered canals and Percival Lowell popularized them, the idea that a civilization far more ancient and wise than our own had lived, or was currently living, on mars has captured the imagination. It certainly captured mine. It's an idea that is both wild and otherworldly, yet accessible.
They're different from us, but so close that they couldn't possibly be too different. They are very much like us, but different enough to be exciting. It's a breathless idea. Lord knows, it's certainly an idea that has paid dividends in science fiction. As recently as just last year, a War of the Worlds remake directed by Steven Spielberg and headlined by Tom Cruise charged its way to over $200 million in the US box office.
It all boils down to the fact that at our core is a drive to explore. If we look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, those of our ancestors that were more curious were more likely to find new resources, new lands, maybe new friends. Curiosity didn't kill the cat, it helped its species survive. We are the most curious animals to ever walk to Earth. We love it. We wandered about the entire globe before we could brew beer. There is no rational reason to go out into space, at least not yet, and still, millions of people read newspapers, magazines, and look to the stars every night.
The idea that something so cool could be so close is an idea so intense that it's hard to even deal with. I can totally understand why people believed the myth and, against all logic, continue to do so. It's just like the idea of Atlantis, just grander and all the more enticing for it.
The European Space Agency's Mars Express orbiter has been puking up photos of Mars' surface for a couple of weeks, now, and of course a good deal of attention is being directed at the Martian "face."
For those of you who don't know what the face is, Google it. Where have you been for the past thirty years? Under a rock? Perhaps the infamous "C" rock?
Yeah, you'll have to Google that one, too.
Well the Martian face is the one conspiracy that I can truly understand. While yes, I can psychologically trace the reasons for any given conspiracy, and explain probable reasons for its existence, I can not, on a personal level, understand. Kennedy, Area 51, men in black, I don't get any of them. But the Martian face, oh yes, do I understand.
We have always been interested in Mars. From the very moment that that Giovanni Schiaparelli discovered canals and Percival Lowell popularized them, the idea that a civilization far more ancient and wise than our own had lived, or was currently living, on mars has captured the imagination. It certainly captured mine. It's an idea that is both wild and otherworldly, yet accessible.
They're different from us, but so close that they couldn't possibly be too different. They are very much like us, but different enough to be exciting. It's a breathless idea. Lord knows, it's certainly an idea that has paid dividends in science fiction. As recently as just last year, a War of the Worlds remake directed by Steven Spielberg and headlined by Tom Cruise charged its way to over $200 million in the US box office.
It all boils down to the fact that at our core is a drive to explore. If we look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, those of our ancestors that were more curious were more likely to find new resources, new lands, maybe new friends. Curiosity didn't kill the cat, it helped its species survive. We are the most curious animals to ever walk to Earth. We love it. We wandered about the entire globe before we could brew beer. There is no rational reason to go out into space, at least not yet, and still, millions of people read newspapers, magazines, and look to the stars every night.
The idea that something so cool could be so close is an idea so intense that it's hard to even deal with. I can totally understand why people believed the myth and, against all logic, continue to do so. It's just like the idea of Atlantis, just grander and all the more enticing for it.
Monday, September 18, 2006
In Regards...
In regards to my previous post where I ranted about those two goofballs who were writing about science's intolerance of religion, I found this on PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog.
It is something that brings me pleasure to no end. You can always spot real science by looking at papers written on the subject a number of years ago. In this case, a quarter century.
In real science, the works done decades ago are almost quaint in the simplicity of their knowledge. What they are writing about and what they discuss has changed drastically compared to now. Conclusions are different, directions of research have changed, and what people know and what they think they know are in a different dimension.
Pseudo-science, religion, and just general bullshit never changes. It's the exact same arguments laid out by the exact same people. Oh sure, the names change, and sometimes the gender, but it's the still same person. I knew the war in Iraq was bullshit the day I read quotes from politicians on some liberal-wonk website.
All the quotes were blatantly pro-war. They all discussed the impending doom faced by our country. They all sounded ex-ACT-ly like the stewards of our governmental branches that grace our televisions today.
They were all from different eras, ranging from the Spanish-American War, up to the Vietnam war. Not one had to do with the current war, and yet they you couldn't tell the difference. The arguments haven't changed. The people haven't changed. Nothing has changed.
This article is exactly the same. Same words, different author, just as wrong. Science must advance by its very nature. Words written twenty years ago can't possibly be the same as they are today. It is this inherent advancement that separates science from all other disciplines.
We sometimes walk and we sometimes run, but we can never sit still.
Related:
Of Scientists And Popes.
What works, what doesn't: the futility of appeasing creationists (Via Pharyngula)
It is something that brings me pleasure to no end. You can always spot real science by looking at papers written on the subject a number of years ago. In this case, a quarter century.
In real science, the works done decades ago are almost quaint in the simplicity of their knowledge. What they are writing about and what they discuss has changed drastically compared to now. Conclusions are different, directions of research have changed, and what people know and what they think they know are in a different dimension.
Pseudo-science, religion, and just general bullshit never changes. It's the exact same arguments laid out by the exact same people. Oh sure, the names change, and sometimes the gender, but it's the still same person. I knew the war in Iraq was bullshit the day I read quotes from politicians on some liberal-wonk website.
All the quotes were blatantly pro-war. They all discussed the impending doom faced by our country. They all sounded ex-ACT-ly like the stewards of our governmental branches that grace our televisions today.
They were all from different eras, ranging from the Spanish-American War, up to the Vietnam war. Not one had to do with the current war, and yet they you couldn't tell the difference. The arguments haven't changed. The people haven't changed. Nothing has changed.
This article is exactly the same. Same words, different author, just as wrong. Science must advance by its very nature. Words written twenty years ago can't possibly be the same as they are today. It is this inherent advancement that separates science from all other disciplines.
We sometimes walk and we sometimes run, but we can never sit still.
Related:
Of Scientists And Popes.
What works, what doesn't: the futility of appeasing creationists (Via Pharyngula)
Thursday, September 14, 2006
I Want One!
Haha. Ahh the wonders of interbreeding. I so want a Horkey or a Zeedonk. I would love it and hug it and call it George.
Freaky Lab Animals: Let the Pics Do the Oinking (Via Science.QJ.Net)
Freaky Lab Animals: Let the Pics Do the Oinking (Via Science.QJ.Net)
Set Pasers to Stun.
We're so close! If we add just one letter we'll get a phaser! While paser sounds cool, too, phaser is far cooler. Because, let's face it, the phaser is way nicer than the Star Wars blasters. You never saw a blaster actually incinerate anyone, did you? No. No you didn't.
Particle Acceleration by Stimulated Emission of Radiation -- PASER for Short (Via AIP.org)
Particle Acceleration by Stimulated Emission of Radiation -- PASER for Short (Via AIP.org)
Mmmm, Vital Amines.
I love vitamins. I take a cocktail of them every morning with my ultra-healthy, quasi-vegan breakfast. I am not a vegan, myself, but my breakfasts seem to have evolved into the specification. I take a multi-vitamin, cod liver oil, fish oil, and an aspirin. Yes, I'm not even 30, but I don't drink, so I need to get my blood-thinning goodness from somewhere.
I know that dietary supplements are not the wonder-pills that I thought years ago, but I haven't really looked up any further information. I think some of its intentional ignorance, since I don't want to find out how useless they actually are.
Still, I think current research is inadequate to truly declare one way or another if vitamins are truly useless. The whole point is not to get rid of wrinkles by next week, or something. It's for the purpose of long-term, overall health. I look forward to a study that goes for years, even decades. I think that will give us some insight. Unfortunately, even then, I can see some pretty big problems. People who are taking vitamins are much more likely to be generally healthy, thus we will be unable to tell whether it was their lifestyle or the vitamins who had any effect.
God, what a pain in the ass. I'm definitely not taking doses high enough to be ridiculous, so I'm going to continue as I have been. If nothing else, it makes provides me with my daily hit of placebo. Mmmmm. Placebo.
Dietary Supplements: Too Much of a Good Thing? (Via LiveScience.com)
I know that dietary supplements are not the wonder-pills that I thought years ago, but I haven't really looked up any further information. I think some of its intentional ignorance, since I don't want to find out how useless they actually are.
Still, I think current research is inadequate to truly declare one way or another if vitamins are truly useless. The whole point is not to get rid of wrinkles by next week, or something. It's for the purpose of long-term, overall health. I look forward to a study that goes for years, even decades. I think that will give us some insight. Unfortunately, even then, I can see some pretty big problems. People who are taking vitamins are much more likely to be generally healthy, thus we will be unable to tell whether it was their lifestyle or the vitamins who had any effect.
God, what a pain in the ass. I'm definitely not taking doses high enough to be ridiculous, so I'm going to continue as I have been. If nothing else, it makes provides me with my daily hit of placebo. Mmmmm. Placebo.
Dietary Supplements: Too Much of a Good Thing? (Via LiveScience.com)
I Can Feel It! It's Pulling Me Down!
I've been phutzing around with physics, recently. The thing consuming all my time is problem of "knowing" where a particle is and the resulting decay of interference. Still, because of the all the press coverage it gets, I work on gravity, and the resulting references to dark energy and matter.
This adds an interesting perspective on the problem. What if all of gravitational theory was wrong? If that's the case, I'm giving it up. I don't have the time nor the knowledge to actually go back and re-work GRAVITY. Regardless, whether it proves correct or not, it's very Einsteinian in its approach. Einstein didn't take aything for granted, well, at least early on, and these guys aren't, either. Bravo, I say.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter – The Results of Flawed Physics? (Via Pysorg.com)
This adds an interesting perspective on the problem. What if all of gravitational theory was wrong? If that's the case, I'm giving it up. I don't have the time nor the knowledge to actually go back and re-work GRAVITY. Regardless, whether it proves correct or not, it's very Einsteinian in its approach. Einstein didn't take aything for granted, well, at least early on, and these guys aren't, either. Bravo, I say.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter – The Results of Flawed Physics? (Via Pysorg.com)
Ohboyohboyohboyohboyohboy
One of my favorite areas of historical study is Middle American and South American civilizations. The fact that they were a virgin civilization, free from any contact with Asia, Europe, and Africa until the Conquistadors arrived is in-SANE-ly cool. They had different art, religion, culture, practices, and an environment not seen anywhere else on Earth.
The Inca were an incredible civilization. They perfected agricultural methods and social systems that only now, NOW, are we rediscovering them. The Aztec, Maya, Toltec, and Olmec civilizations in Middle American produced some of the most stunning pieces of architecture to ever stand. Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan stand with the Great Pyramids and Angkor Wat.
If this article is true, if they have actually found an entirely new civilization in Middle America, this is some of the most momentous archaeological news in decades!
I'm pasting from Reuters because they only keep articles up for a short period of time before removing them.
New Ruins in Honduras Hint at New Civilization (Via Science.QJ.Net)
The Inca were an incredible civilization. They perfected agricultural methods and social systems that only now, NOW, are we rediscovering them. The Aztec, Maya, Toltec, and Olmec civilizations in Middle American produced some of the most stunning pieces of architecture to ever stand. Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan stand with the Great Pyramids and Angkor Wat.
If this article is true, if they have actually found an entirely new civilization in Middle America, this is some of the most momentous archaeological news in decades!
I'm pasting from Reuters because they only keep articles up for a short period of time before removing them.
From Reuters:
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (Reuters) - Experts are examining the ruins of a pre-Colombian culture in an area of Honduras where there had been no previous evidence of major indigenous civilization.
The site, discovered earlier this year, consists of 14 mounds that form part of what are believed to be ceremonial grounds, the Honduran Institute of Anthropology said.
"They are part of a very important site, a governing center of a pre-Colombian civilization," Oscar Neils, the institute's head of research, told Reuters. "We had no idea that there was a pre-Colombian culture in this area."
The findings so far include an impressive carved stone monument, called a stela, as well as necklaces and grinding stones.
"The stela is a sculpture of various human and animal forms and is truly amazing in how well conserved it is," Neils said.
Three feet (1 meter) high and more than 4-1/2 feet (1-1/2 meters) wide, the stela is being displayed in the park of the nearby town of Moroceli, about 30 miles east of the capital of Tegucigalpa.
Neils said the site has been damaged by tractors involved in sugar cane growing, prompting Honduras' Culture Ministry to move to protect it.
Honduras is home to some 14,000 archeological [sic] sites, including world-famous Copan, which flourished between the fifth and ninth centuries and was one of the first Mayan sites to be excavated.
This site is completely distinct, Neils said.
"Its culture is an enigma," added the Mexican archeologist.
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (Reuters) - Experts are examining the ruins of a pre-Colombian culture in an area of Honduras where there had been no previous evidence of major indigenous civilization.
The site, discovered earlier this year, consists of 14 mounds that form part of what are believed to be ceremonial grounds, the Honduran Institute of Anthropology said.
"They are part of a very important site, a governing center of a pre-Colombian civilization," Oscar Neils, the institute's head of research, told Reuters. "We had no idea that there was a pre-Colombian culture in this area."
The findings so far include an impressive carved stone monument, called a stela, as well as necklaces and grinding stones.
"The stela is a sculpture of various human and animal forms and is truly amazing in how well conserved it is," Neils said.
Three feet (1 meter) high and more than 4-1/2 feet (1-1/2 meters) wide, the stela is being displayed in the park of the nearby town of Moroceli, about 30 miles east of the capital of Tegucigalpa.
Neils said the site has been damaged by tractors involved in sugar cane growing, prompting Honduras' Culture Ministry to move to protect it.
Honduras is home to some 14,000 archeological [sic] sites, including world-famous Copan, which flourished between the fifth and ninth centuries and was one of the first Mayan sites to be excavated.
This site is completely distinct, Neils said.
"Its culture is an enigma," added the Mexican archeologist.
New Ruins in Honduras Hint at New Civilization (Via Science.QJ.Net)
Protecting Our Children.
I have ranted about overly righteous boobs who's sole purpose in life is to "protect our children." One way you can tell they're bunk is in the ways they choose to protect our children. You'll notice that they all involve some moral judgement about something. Since the validity of their actions and claims is usually dubious at best, the only other consistent variable is this underlying morality.
When we have situations where we can actually protect our children, these same defenders of childhood are strangely silent. One of these areas that gets my goat to the absolute max is the over-medication of our children. I say over-medication because it is.
Every person I have ever met who has been "diagnosed" as ADD or ADHD is neither. And what's worse, behavior for which they should be taking responsibility, they are able to explain away with the crutch of their diagnosis. I'm working on a full article for this site and will go into further detail.
A recent study drives the point home, for me. It talks about the emergence of suicidal ideation in children who are taking antidepressants. The drugs can actually make them more depressed, albeit with different outward symptoms. No it should be noted that this is coming from a "Use Natural" group of tree-hugging hippies. They are, in many ways, just as bunk-filled as the drug companies against whom they speak. Still, I believe the point they make is valid.
There are many, non-drug methods to controlling and eliminating depressive symptoms in children. I say symptoms specifically because I don't think many of them are actually depressed. Real, honest-to-god clinical depression can not be stopped through behavior modification or psychoanalytic treatment. I don't think most of these kids have that, though. I think they have the symptoms, but not the root cause.
I liken it to a bad headache. You take Advil, or your doctor prescribes you migrain medication. In reality, you're not drinking enough water. This is an incredibly common problem. Your problem isn't the headache, it's the dehydration.
We have the science. We have the research. We know how raise kids correctly, yet large amounts of us don't. A kid with depressive symptoms might mean any number of things. We have to analyze every aspect of that child's life. We have to dig into the family and rip apart his social group. We have to track his activities and his diet.
We have to turn him upside down before medication is even considered. Because the parents think they're doing a great job, and even if they don't, most won't say so, the kid can barely hold his own piss, his friends are equally clueless, and our school systems are notoriously bad. The job of every medical professional with the power to give kids these drugs is charged with responsiblity to find the truth at the center and diagnose based on that, not just on outward symptoms and the testimony of people who are most likely either idiots, clueless, or lying.
Can Kids Cope With Depression Without Medication? (Via Science.QJ.Net)
When we have situations where we can actually protect our children, these same defenders of childhood are strangely silent. One of these areas that gets my goat to the absolute max is the over-medication of our children. I say over-medication because it is.
Every person I have ever met who has been "diagnosed" as ADD or ADHD is neither. And what's worse, behavior for which they should be taking responsibility, they are able to explain away with the crutch of their diagnosis. I'm working on a full article for this site and will go into further detail.
A recent study drives the point home, for me. It talks about the emergence of suicidal ideation in children who are taking antidepressants. The drugs can actually make them more depressed, albeit with different outward symptoms. No it should be noted that this is coming from a "Use Natural" group of tree-hugging hippies. They are, in many ways, just as bunk-filled as the drug companies against whom they speak. Still, I believe the point they make is valid.
There are many, non-drug methods to controlling and eliminating depressive symptoms in children. I say symptoms specifically because I don't think many of them are actually depressed. Real, honest-to-god clinical depression can not be stopped through behavior modification or psychoanalytic treatment. I don't think most of these kids have that, though. I think they have the symptoms, but not the root cause.
I liken it to a bad headache. You take Advil, or your doctor prescribes you migrain medication. In reality, you're not drinking enough water. This is an incredibly common problem. Your problem isn't the headache, it's the dehydration.
We have the science. We have the research. We know how raise kids correctly, yet large amounts of us don't. A kid with depressive symptoms might mean any number of things. We have to analyze every aspect of that child's life. We have to dig into the family and rip apart his social group. We have to track his activities and his diet.
We have to turn him upside down before medication is even considered. Because the parents think they're doing a great job, and even if they don't, most won't say so, the kid can barely hold his own piss, his friends are equally clueless, and our school systems are notoriously bad. The job of every medical professional with the power to give kids these drugs is charged with responsiblity to find the truth at the center and diagnose based on that, not just on outward symptoms and the testimony of people who are most likely either idiots, clueless, or lying.
Can Kids Cope With Depression Without Medication? (Via Science.QJ.Net)
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
I Wonder If It Extends to Donkeys.
In a stunning display of utter stupidity, the House of Representatives has actually passed a bill making it illegal to slaughter horses. This is exactly the sort of mamby pamby nonsense we don't need. It not only fuels extremist groups such as Peta, it shows us for the hypocritical idiots that we are.
We may think consuming certain animals in this country is disgusting, or even wrong, but not everyone feels that way. Perceptions of animals that can and can't be eaten came from the evolution of a particular culture. Horses were at one time important for transport, agriculture, and overall health of the country. It is no surprise that there were laws in place to protect them.
This was a practical reason, not an ideological one. America's modern treatment of horses is ideological, now. This bill only cements that. We should not, and can not busy our already disorganized legal system with laws that only serve to cause problems and make self-important, overly-moralistic buffoons feel better about themselves and their own moral righteousness.
They are animals, we are animals. We eat other animals. That's just the way it is. As soon as we head towards law and regulation based on ideology, we step upon a slippery slope.
New US Bill Makes Killing Horses for Meat Illegal in US (Via Science.QJ.Net)
We may think consuming certain animals in this country is disgusting, or even wrong, but not everyone feels that way. Perceptions of animals that can and can't be eaten came from the evolution of a particular culture. Horses were at one time important for transport, agriculture, and overall health of the country. It is no surprise that there were laws in place to protect them.
This was a practical reason, not an ideological one. America's modern treatment of horses is ideological, now. This bill only cements that. We should not, and can not busy our already disorganized legal system with laws that only serve to cause problems and make self-important, overly-moralistic buffoons feel better about themselves and their own moral righteousness.
They are animals, we are animals. We eat other animals. That's just the way it is. As soon as we head towards law and regulation based on ideology, we step upon a slippery slope.
New US Bill Makes Killing Horses for Meat Illegal in US (Via Science.QJ.Net)
Of Scientists And Popes.
There's an interesting dual article available at The Post Chronicle online about the separation between religion and science. The two articles discuss the Catholic Church's history of repressing scientific advance that didn't jive with dogma. The first, by Stephen M. Barr, has one main point, that most of the great scientific advanced of the past 1,000 years believed in God and were, to a great extent, members of the Church.
This can't be denied, but that's like saying that scientists back then also rode horses. Of course they did. Everyone did. In the Middle Ages absolutely everyone was part of, or a member of, the Church. And since the unwashed masses were usually illiterate, any achievements in any discipline were most likely made by those of the cloth.
The second article, by Thomas E. Brewton, is an almost incomprehensible attack on what he sees as "atheistic materialists." I'm not sure who these people are. Perhaps Madonna counts. He restates what Barr said by saying that the only real example of the Church repressing science was Galileo, and even that was primarily political. I have no way to counter this and have no time to look it up, especially since I write this between classes. I can say this pretty confidently. The Church on the whole was never the big problem, it was the Church in its smaller parts.
For an easy example, look at Witch hunts throughout the later Middle Ages and right into the Renaissance. It was never the "Church" per se, that did anything. It was smaller groups that caused the real damage. Religion is only as good as those who follow it, and the Church proper is responsible for the actions of its constituents, which were very nasty indeed.
Brewton eventually goes on to try and classify science and religion in relation to each other.
I don't know if Brewton thinks these are new ideas. I hope he doesn't. They're older than me, plus him, and his entire family. It's the age old argument of the primacy of philosophy over science. This "bridge" could be seen as modern logic. I have no idea what he means by the drawing of theorems. Is he espousing numbers as pukka abstract entities? Does he mean that the numbers of math "exist" and we simply access them from the Platonic Plane when we perform calculations?
Furthermore, I completely disagree with his assessment that science ignores the big picture. Scientists always have their eye on the big picture, the brass ring. For physicists, it's the ever-elusive "theory of everything." But instead of making sweeping declarations at the very beginning of discovery, they build the puzzle one piece at a time. There's a big difference to saying a jig-saw puzzle is a tiger before putting it together, and actually putting it together to discover it's an elephant. Most importantly, even if it turns out to be a tiger, the original declaration is no more correct. Even philosophers classify knowledge as a justified, true belief. Where's the justification? God? Sorry, pulling Deus from the machina doesn't work in these waters.
In a not quite as dramatic note, he asks "why do humans uniquely among God's creatures construct political societies?" Uniquely? I don't think so. What about the species of tree-dwelling monkeys that seem to hold "elections" to determine the leader. The actual species escapes me. And, again, I have no time to look it up.
He continues his attack against these apparently evil liberals.
He treats these materialistic monsters as though it was some grand conspiracy to destroy religion and morality. He's certainly not alone. There are boat-loads of science-as-conspiracy people wandering around. He actually blames Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union on those evil liberals. Somehow, I doubt that most liberals in this country liked either the USSR or Hitler.
Both articles take a distinctly historical viewpoint on the conflict. This is their major downfall. I, instead, look at the concomitant evolution of religion and science. In the beginning, we didn't understand from where the river came, so it was the Gods. Then, we didn't understand lightning and thunder, so it was the Gods. Then we didn't understand the cosmos, so it was the Gods. Religion has always been there with answers to whatever science doesn't yet understand. Effectively, it has been forever picking up the crumbs of scientific discovery.
Brewton doesn't say this directly, but it can be inferred.
He is taking it to the final evolution, saying that God created the Big Bang. This is an entirely new perspective. He, and the Church which now accepts the Big Bang, are saying that ALL who came before were wrong. God exists, but not in the way previously thought. What?!
God created Eden. No, wait, God created Earth. No, wait, God created the cosmos and Earth formed. No, wait, God created the energy for the Bing Bang. Man, God just gets farther and farther away. How can we be so sure he even cares about us at all?
It is this obvious evolution of religion, which is supposedly the "final" word in everything, that is the real problem with it and science. Science continually picks away at religion and religion has spent the whole of the past millennium retreating back ever more to questions with no answers. We are now finally at the point of studying the very fabric of space-time, so it is no surprise that it is now there where God calls home. Science is evolving progressively, religion, regressively.
Brewton closes with two paragraphs with which I take exception. The aforementioned article where he credits liberal socialists with both WWII and the USSR, and another statement about science and religion's relationship.
In this paragraph, aside from being ridiculous to blame liberals for WWII and the Soviet Union, is the use of the word "experiential." Ooooooh. Not a good word. Even the most devout person must admit that experience is very frequently incorrect. Experiential data can never result in a scientific conclusion. Perhaps he refers to historical data. In that sense, both Nazism and the USSR are grand examples. But grand examples of what?
He calls them liberal socialists and seems to categorize all scientists in with this group. It's here that the lack of a definition for liberal socialists becomes very problematic. Are they different from the atheistic materialists? Do both groups go hand-in-hand? Is liberal socialism a form of political structure? If that's the case, and it is a "savagely destructive religion," as he says, then other forms of politics must be semantically equal. All forms of government must be religion. I think our founding fathers would disagree.
I guess I should return to the real point of this. It's not that some forms of government are bad, but that science is incompatible with religion. His final paragraph makes an equally uncogent argument as the rest of the article.
Once again, his choice of words, and the only words he could choose, sink him. His "cumulative wisdom of Western civilization" comment makes no sense. How are we not using it now? And what about Eastern civilization? Does Confucius not count? Moreover, why are we "returning" to the wisdom? When did we leave? Where did we go? Is he referring to religious wisdom, which science and the world is leaving behind? It seems to me that it's nothing more than the ancient argument that the morals and fibers of modern civilization are crumbling under the weight of heathenism.
And finally, his use of the word "study" to describe religion and philosophy's role with the divine set my teeth on edge. It is impossible, in any sense, to study the divine. Philosophy is the antithesis of study. If you could study anything in either of them, they would automatically become science. No, science is the art of study, philosophy and religion are pure conjecture and contemplation. There is an ocean between the two.
Science Vs. Religion (Via The Post Chronicle)
This can't be denied, but that's like saying that scientists back then also rode horses. Of course they did. Everyone did. In the Middle Ages absolutely everyone was part of, or a member of, the Church. And since the unwashed masses were usually illiterate, any achievements in any discipline were most likely made by those of the cloth.
The second article, by Thomas E. Brewton, is an almost incomprehensible attack on what he sees as "atheistic materialists." I'm not sure who these people are. Perhaps Madonna counts. He restates what Barr said by saying that the only real example of the Church repressing science was Galileo, and even that was primarily political. I have no way to counter this and have no time to look it up, especially since I write this between classes. I can say this pretty confidently. The Church on the whole was never the big problem, it was the Church in its smaller parts.
For an easy example, look at Witch hunts throughout the later Middle Ages and right into the Renaissance. It was never the "Church" per se, that did anything. It was smaller groups that caused the real damage. Religion is only as good as those who follow it, and the Church proper is responsible for the actions of its constituents, which were very nasty indeed.
Brewton eventually goes on to try and classify science and religion in relation to each other.
"Religion looks at the big picture, science at particular natural instances. Mathematics is a bridge between the two: applicable to particulars, but drawing its theorems from extrapolations into the immateriality of mental constructs, as did Plato with his paradigm of Ideal ForMs [sic]."
I don't know if Brewton thinks these are new ideas. I hope he doesn't. They're older than me, plus him, and his entire family. It's the age old argument of the primacy of philosophy over science. This "bridge" could be seen as modern logic. I have no idea what he means by the drawing of theorems. Is he espousing numbers as pukka abstract entities? Does he mean that the numbers of math "exist" and we simply access them from the Platonic Plane when we perform calculations?
Furthermore, I completely disagree with his assessment that science ignores the big picture. Scientists always have their eye on the big picture, the brass ring. For physicists, it's the ever-elusive "theory of everything." But instead of making sweeping declarations at the very beginning of discovery, they build the puzzle one piece at a time. There's a big difference to saying a jig-saw puzzle is a tiger before putting it together, and actually putting it together to discover it's an elephant. Most importantly, even if it turns out to be a tiger, the original declaration is no more correct. Even philosophers classify knowledge as a justified, true belief. Where's the justification? God? Sorry, pulling Deus from the machina doesn't work in these waters.
In a not quite as dramatic note, he asks "why do humans uniquely among God's creatures construct political societies?" Uniquely? I don't think so. What about the species of tree-dwelling monkeys that seem to hold "elections" to determine the leader. The actual species escapes me. And, again, I have no time to look it up.
He continues his attack against these apparently evil liberals.
"From the standpoint of atheistic and materialistic liberals, however, it is necessary first to destroy Western civilization's paradigm of religious morality if they are to replace it with atheistic materialism. Hence the unending assaults by the ACLU and other socialist organizations."
He treats these materialistic monsters as though it was some grand conspiracy to destroy religion and morality. He's certainly not alone. There are boat-loads of science-as-conspiracy people wandering around. He actually blames Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union on those evil liberals. Somehow, I doubt that most liberals in this country liked either the USSR or Hitler.
Both articles take a distinctly historical viewpoint on the conflict. This is their major downfall. I, instead, look at the concomitant evolution of religion and science. In the beginning, we didn't understand from where the river came, so it was the Gods. Then, we didn't understand lightning and thunder, so it was the Gods. Then we didn't understand the cosmos, so it was the Gods. Religion has always been there with answers to whatever science doesn't yet understand. Effectively, it has been forever picking up the crumbs of scientific discovery.
Brewton doesn't say this directly, but it can be inferred.
"The Big Bang requires that all of the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry be in existence prior to the Big Bang. This means, inescapably, that God existed outside of time and outside of the universe, and that the Mind of God is the source of all the natural laws and mathematics that form the subject matter of the physical sciences. God is what Aristotle called the Unmoved Mover where the buck stops, the source of all energy, of all potential and actual movement in the cosmos. Matter being just another form of energy, God is also the source of everything that scientists study to understand the laws of nature."
He is taking it to the final evolution, saying that God created the Big Bang. This is an entirely new perspective. He, and the Church which now accepts the Big Bang, are saying that ALL who came before were wrong. God exists, but not in the way previously thought. What?!
God created Eden. No, wait, God created Earth. No, wait, God created the cosmos and Earth formed. No, wait, God created the energy for the Bing Bang. Man, God just gets farther and farther away. How can we be so sure he even cares about us at all?
It is this obvious evolution of religion, which is supposedly the "final" word in everything, that is the real problem with it and science. Science continually picks away at religion and religion has spent the whole of the past millennium retreating back ever more to questions with no answers. We are now finally at the point of studying the very fabric of space-time, so it is no surprise that it is now there where God calls home. Science is evolving progressively, religion, regressively.
Brewton closes with two paragraphs with which I take exception. The aforementioned article where he credits liberal socialists with both WWII and the USSR, and another statement about science and religion's relationship.
"If, however, liberals were actually to adopt the methods of science to which they give lip service, they would analyze the real-world experiential data of 200 years and draw the scientific conclusion that liberal-socialism is both a pipe dream and a savagely destructive religion. Without it, the totalitarianism of Soviet Russia and National Socialist Germany would have been impossible."
In this paragraph, aside from being ridiculous to blame liberals for WWII and the Soviet Union, is the use of the word "experiential." Ooooooh. Not a good word. Even the most devout person must admit that experience is very frequently incorrect. Experiential data can never result in a scientific conclusion. Perhaps he refers to historical data. In that sense, both Nazism and the USSR are grand examples. But grand examples of what?
He calls them liberal socialists and seems to categorize all scientists in with this group. It's here that the lack of a definition for liberal socialists becomes very problematic. Are they different from the atheistic materialists? Do both groups go hand-in-hand? Is liberal socialism a form of political structure? If that's the case, and it is a "savagely destructive religion," as he says, then other forms of politics must be semantically equal. All forms of government must be religion. I think our founding fathers would disagree.
I guess I should return to the real point of this. It's not that some forms of government are bad, but that science is incompatible with religion. His final paragraph makes an equally uncogent argument as the rest of the article.
"If liberals were to become truly scientific, we could then return to the cumulative wisdom of Western civilization. Religion and philosophy would study humans' relations to the Divine and to each other, and science would stick to discoveries relating to the God-created material world."
Once again, his choice of words, and the only words he could choose, sink him. His "cumulative wisdom of Western civilization" comment makes no sense. How are we not using it now? And what about Eastern civilization? Does Confucius not count? Moreover, why are we "returning" to the wisdom? When did we leave? Where did we go? Is he referring to religious wisdom, which science and the world is leaving behind? It seems to me that it's nothing more than the ancient argument that the morals and fibers of modern civilization are crumbling under the weight of heathenism.
And finally, his use of the word "study" to describe religion and philosophy's role with the divine set my teeth on edge. It is impossible, in any sense, to study the divine. Philosophy is the antithesis of study. If you could study anything in either of them, they would automatically become science. No, science is the art of study, philosophy and religion are pure conjecture and contemplation. There is an ocean between the two.
Science Vs. Religion (Via The Post Chronicle)
Monday, September 11, 2006
Are They Serious?!
Apparently, Ya Ya the panda had one of her cubs suffer SIDS. Namely, she rolled over on the cub and crushed it. While I genuinely feel bad about this, especially after reading that when she awoke to find that her cub had been taken during her rest she lay around listlessly, that's not what I found interesting in the article.
The mention almost in passing that the mother and father, Ling Ling, were shown a "mating video" before breeding. A mating video? So, that's like, pandas having sex.
We showed the pandas porn? We showed... *snicker*... the pandas... PORN?!
They say it so matter-of-factly in the article. The utter absurdity of having PANDAS watch a training video seemed to escape them, or they just didn't mention it.
Panda Accidentally Crushes Cub in China
The mention almost in passing that the mother and father, Ling Ling, were shown a "mating video" before breeding. A mating video? So, that's like, pandas having sex.
We showed the pandas porn? We showed... *snicker*... the pandas... PORN?!
They say it so matter-of-factly in the article. The utter absurdity of having PANDAS watch a training video seemed to escape them, or they just didn't mention it.
Panda Accidentally Crushes Cub in China
"When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death."
Does anyone else remember the episode of The Simpsons where they accidentally wipe out the town's pidgeon population with lizards, then they control the new lizard over-population with snakes, which are in turn controlled by massive groups of snake-eating gorillas.
For some reason, I just don't see this ending well.
Scientists Ponder Releasing Virus to Kill Carp (Via LiveScience.com)
For some reason, I just don't see this ending well.
Scientists Ponder Releasing Virus to Kill Carp (Via LiveScience.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)