Social Sciences

I was inadvertently exposed to the filth and depravity of VH1's "Rock of Love Bus," also known as STDs on Wheels, when I turned on my TV to watch the (relatively) innocent and science-fueled Big Bang Theory.

If you feel like dropping 150 IQ points, here's the clip in all its intellectual and classy glory. If you don't have any neurons to spare, here's a quote that sums up the few minutes' worth of the show I saw (and that's all I ever want to see), as Bret Michaels expresses his heartfelt emotions with lyricism inspired by the deep wells of pure love: "You are this rocking hot centerfold, ok?"

My friend Sue sent me this.  I asked her why fish has anything to do with people!   Could somebody please explain that to me?

ScienceDaily (Oct. 18, 2005)
—

CHAPEL HILL -- In a new study of cichlid fish descended from
others caught in East Africa’s Lake Tanganika, scientists have made
some surprising observations about how those animals respond to changes
in their environments known as "social opportunities."

Subordinate male fish underwent a radical and
rapid transformation when more dominant males were removed.

My very smart friend Bob, tells me this is related to The Atlantic article. I don't understand the science but my Dad struggled with this.

All the best :-)

Big-Time Financial Risk Taking: Blame It On The Genes?
ScienceDaily (Feb. 11, 2009) — Financial institutions continue to teeter on the brink of ruin. Banks are still devouring bailout money without loosening credit enough to make a difference in a recession that is sweeping the globe. And everyone keeps asking, "How in the world did so many financial titans take such huge risks with our nation's well being?"

A new Northwestern University study provides provocative insights that relate to, if not answer, that extraordinarily complex question.

My friend David, today in the store showed me this article from The Atlantic, it's online so I am providing a link.  My little girl, has some of these quirks and we've had her tested so we're working with specialists.  
I sure don't understand all the science so would appreciate any education.    Here is an excerpt:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene

The question was just raised in a previous blog entry about what a research scientist could learn from philosophy.  Perhaps this article, "Mad Science? Growing Meat Without Animals" can provide some insight.

Particularly telling was this quote:

"In principle, we could harvest the meat progenitor cells from fresh human cadavers and grow meat from them," Post said. "Once taken out of its disease and animalistic, cannibalistic context — you are not killing fellow citizens for it, they are already dead — there is no reason why not."

Still, Post suggests that marketing could overcome such hurdles.

   The mind is a powerful thing. Not only does it allow us to control our entire body, but it allows us to also reason and solve problems facing the world today. It is said that we, as humans, use 10% of our brain power! If we are able to do the things we have done in the history of the world with only 10% imagine what we could accomplish with the other 90%. It is amazing to even think about all the possibilities that could happen if we had that ability. 

I recently re-read a classic piece by J.L. Mackie (April 1955), entitled “Evil and Omnipotence,” a stupendous philosophical essay about why theologians like Richard Swinburne are forced by their belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevelont and omnipowerful god into incredible and rather painful feats of mental gymnastics. One of Mackie’s minor points in the essay is that the so-called “free will defense” for the existence of evil in the world is problematic because the concept of free will itself is incoherent. Although, sometimes accusations of incoherence are thrown around a bit too easily in philosophy, I think this one has the potential to stick.

Attentive readers of this blog may have noticed that those who post comments to my entries often show two interesting and complementary attitudes: a fundamental distrust of (if not downright contempt for) philosophy, coupled with an overly enthusiastic endorsement of science. Take, for instance, my recurring argument that some (but not all!) of the “new atheists” engage in scientistic attitudes by overplaying the epistemological power of science while downplaying (or even simply negating) the notion that science fundamentally depends on non-empirical (i.e., philosophical) assumptions to even get started.

In my younger years, the belief in a world populated by divine entities plagued my thoughts. To the eyes of an atheist, I was a religious adherent, albeit not as devoutly as some of my contemporary acquaintances. What underlay my faith in Buddhism was my familial connection to its tradition. The early exposure to the rituals, the teachings, the occasions celebrating the many aspects of the religion endorsed my confidence in the existence of deific figures. Blindly, I called myself a Buddhist without ever enquiring my parents if we truly were. Their answer was, astoundingly, "No, we are not. It is sort of a Eastern Asian culture thing". The dazzling answer abruptly reconstituted my belief in life but was inadequate to invite me to atheism.

...ok folks...due to unpopular demand...i believe this is the latest....gee, and i "thought" my goodness was a conscious choice...another silly illusion crushed by the facts...i HATE that!!