I have to say that finding trustworthy people seems to be much harder than it should be. One of the groups of people which I will generally trust what their findings say is scientists. Obviously not everything that they say is absolutely true, but the actual science part is before the interpretation goes into it. In the case of dinosaurs for example, anybody can say that they didn't exist or that they did and got wiped out somehow, but the bottom line is that there are dinosaur fossils that have been found all over the world and there is no way to refute that. Someone would have to come up with a conspiracy theory of people burying these bones, which is just ridiculous. The point after the bones are discovered, when people try to determining more than is actually present, is where the problems and mistrust can arise. I say all this just to talk about NASA. I trust most of what NASA would tell me. It wouldn't surprise me if they know stuff that they won't tell the general public, but I don't see why people wouldn't trust what NASA actually tells them. It's all the end products of science, the tangibles and the useful discoveries. People can say that the moon landing was staged in a Hollywood set all that they want to, but the fact of the matter is that nobody would go to that much trouble in the first place to stage the takeoffs and landings and then make the video of them actually on the moon, plus there are visible signs of the endeavors such as satellites orbiting the earth that can be seen with the naked eye. Most of what NASA does is develop technologies that perform specific tasks, these are very hard to doubt since they are actually in existence. The only part that I could seen having a lack of trust in would be the theoretical sector where they don't have hard evidence. They talk about how they think that they found traces of water on Mars or something like that but until they actually go there and investigate it, it is still a theory and therefore can't be fully trusted anyways.
As far as I can tell the tenuous relationship between creator and created that is shown in 2001: A Space Odyssey is very far away if even possible. As it relates to us right now the only way that technology can control us is if we let it, such as with the online video games like WoW, GuildWars or SecondLife, movies that are constantly being churned out, and music that people can't live without. The entertainment technologies are a big business and are such because people spend so much time involved with them. If people spent less time watching movies then less movies would be made in the future. If half of the people playing WoW quit all of a sudden, drastic changes would have to be made in the games infrastructure. If hardly anybody went out and bought a rap CD then very few rap Cd's would be made. It's all simple supply and demand and the supply which we have today shows the type of demand that is involved with this technology. It is dominating the lives of people because they let it, not because it is trying to. I saw a show recently on the Discover Channel about the cars of the future and what they might look like in 25 years. The show was talking about a car network that would allow cars to talk to each other and drive themselves at high speeds with little following distance and still be safer than drivers today. Many people cringe when they hear about this idea but only because they fear giving up control. This sort of thing still makes it very hard to get taken over by the technology, especially because it has an override and it can be adjusted to varying degrees of control. Technology won't take over it's creators, it won't even come close for many many years.
Absolute rights and wrongs absolutely exist. There is always going to be an absolute good and bad, right and wrong. Man can not achieve this absolute but it still exists. There is also the absolute best that any given person actually can achieve. I believe that everybody is morally obliged to perform this action, the problem is just that the majority of people seem to not be very morally inclined. I view this as very similar to my grades in High School. My mom would always tell me that it didn't matter what grades I actually got just so long as I did the best that I could. There was always the possibility of getting a 100 on the test, but for purposes of this analogy we will assume that academic perfection is impossible, which it really kind of should be anyways. So as long as I tried my hardest in the class and on the test then I should be happy with what I did. If I skipped class the day of the test and ended up getting a horrible grade in the class just because I wanted to go to the amusement park instead that day then I should feel bad about my effort and I really did do a bad job in the class no matter what people could try to tell me. This means that my 95 in a class wouldn't necessarily be better than my friend's 78, it's all relative to the person it involves.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Science
I think that science is a very useful tool when used within reason. It can lead to many answers and create new things for us to play with and enjoy, but it can't answer everything. Specifically I would say that it has problems dealing with social behaviors. Men have spent many millennia trying to figure out a way to predict women and still haven't even made any progress towards an answer. People are very complicated and usually unpredictable. It is impossible to predict everything that even the most predictable person will do. Science can however identify patterns with human interaction and emotion and there are some things that science can at least clarify a little if not explain. It is just important for people to see the restraints that science has and to use it for what it can do and not try to push it beyond that.
Science is definitely not controllable. Since most scientific discoveries happen by accident anyways the only way to control that would be to hide the discovery. Due to its nature though the same discovery would keep happening and so you would have to hide it over and over and eventually it becomes impossible to keep covering it up. All that man can do to hinder science is exactly that, just a hindrance. It will just slow down the scientific advancement but will never stop it. Not even the uses of science are controllable. Many scientific discoveries will invariable be used for purposes which they were not intended for, some of which aren't good but there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Laws can be made to prohibit the uses of things in some ways but as history has proven countless times, it is very easy to get around the law if there is a desire to do so. People and governments just need to do the best that they can to advance the science with beneficial possibilities and prohibit the use of science to do evil as much as possible.
The primary principle behind science is just to figure out what makes things do what they do, in other words just answering the question of "Why?" anything happens. This is naturally what people want to know, just like a young child will always ask their parents why things have to be a certain way, often times never stopping or being satisfied because there really isn't any end to the questioning. That is why theoretically scientists probably have one of the most stable jobs in regards to the almost limitless amount of information that they have to process and understand. Scientists are some of the only people that like to answer these questions. It makes many parents uncomfortable when their kids ask them why something happens. I think that the main reason for that is just because humans don't like the idea of not knowing everything and if we are asked a question that we don't know the answer to then we feel week and useless almost. I realise that this is a very broad generalization but it is somewhat of a subconscious feeling that everyone has, it is just more apparent in certain people. In short, it is the basic human fear of the unknown.
I would have to say that the most apparent case of science and society not being in step to me has to do with drugs. Although the penicillin problem was not necessarily within the last 30 years, this still happens today all the time. People always want drugs when they are sick because they think of them as a quick way to get better. Doctor's don't really want to deal with the issue so they just give out the drugs to the belligerent patients. Science then showed that this offering of medicine to anybody who wants it just makes the bacteria more resistant to that treatment, making everybody worse off in the end anyways. I have heard of some doctors trying to be much more careful about this now, but it is still a big problem. Personally, the last 5 times that I went to the doctor I got a prescription for something, even if there really wasn't anything wrong with me. I would go in wondering if I had a problem or an infection or something, and usually the doctor just says that he doesn't think it's an infection but that I should take this medication just in case. It is a good example of science caving to the naive views of society without really explaining the problems to them and then coming out later and saying that there is now an even bigger problem.
Science is definitely not controllable. Since most scientific discoveries happen by accident anyways the only way to control that would be to hide the discovery. Due to its nature though the same discovery would keep happening and so you would have to hide it over and over and eventually it becomes impossible to keep covering it up. All that man can do to hinder science is exactly that, just a hindrance. It will just slow down the scientific advancement but will never stop it. Not even the uses of science are controllable. Many scientific discoveries will invariable be used for purposes which they were not intended for, some of which aren't good but there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Laws can be made to prohibit the uses of things in some ways but as history has proven countless times, it is very easy to get around the law if there is a desire to do so. People and governments just need to do the best that they can to advance the science with beneficial possibilities and prohibit the use of science to do evil as much as possible.
The primary principle behind science is just to figure out what makes things do what they do, in other words just answering the question of "Why?" anything happens. This is naturally what people want to know, just like a young child will always ask their parents why things have to be a certain way, often times never stopping or being satisfied because there really isn't any end to the questioning. That is why theoretically scientists probably have one of the most stable jobs in regards to the almost limitless amount of information that they have to process and understand. Scientists are some of the only people that like to answer these questions. It makes many parents uncomfortable when their kids ask them why something happens. I think that the main reason for that is just because humans don't like the idea of not knowing everything and if we are asked a question that we don't know the answer to then we feel week and useless almost. I realise that this is a very broad generalization but it is somewhat of a subconscious feeling that everyone has, it is just more apparent in certain people. In short, it is the basic human fear of the unknown.
I would have to say that the most apparent case of science and society not being in step to me has to do with drugs. Although the penicillin problem was not necessarily within the last 30 years, this still happens today all the time. People always want drugs when they are sick because they think of them as a quick way to get better. Doctor's don't really want to deal with the issue so they just give out the drugs to the belligerent patients. Science then showed that this offering of medicine to anybody who wants it just makes the bacteria more resistant to that treatment, making everybody worse off in the end anyways. I have heard of some doctors trying to be much more careful about this now, but it is still a big problem. Personally, the last 5 times that I went to the doctor I got a prescription for something, even if there really wasn't anything wrong with me. I would go in wondering if I had a problem or an infection or something, and usually the doctor just says that he doesn't think it's an infection but that I should take this medication just in case. It is a good example of science caving to the naive views of society without really explaining the problems to them and then coming out later and saying that there is now an even bigger problem.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Math
The phrase "God is a mathematician" is rather self evident in my mind. As always, it depends on what we define a mathematician as. God is definitely not one who studies math with the intent of unlocking new formulas and ideas. In the general aspect of the word though I don't see how it can be refuted. Everything has to have some form of mathematics in it. Even language consists of math and certain rules that never change which allow for universal communication. Everything that God created follows these mathematical rules as long as it stays in it's natural state that he designed it in. Also, the phrase can also be very easily validated to a Christian at least by simply saying that God is everything and math falls under the category of everything.
I don't think that it is really possible to rely too much on statistics. The very nature of them makes them objective as long as they are looked at objectively. It is possible to find statistics that will prove most points if viewed in a particular light so we can't just take statistical evidence that is presented to us as fact. The idea of statistics and a proper statistical study are very useful. Well, as long as the people looking at the data are away that it is statistical and not pure fact. It all goes back to the inductive and deductive reasoning. They have their purposes and statistics fills in where deductive reasoning can't reach. I have heard many people criticize politicians for "following the polls" and say that it is only their selfish attempt to get elected again. I say to that that the whole point of the politicians in our country is to perform the will of the people. Short of a direct democracy, which would fail horribly in our current situation, polls are the only way for the politicians to know the wills of their constituents. Yes the people elect officials that they believe will do a good job and trust on their own, but it is still about the people and the representatives need to represent them. Many people's issues with politicians stem from the fact that many people are too idealistic and don't understand all of the issues the way that the politicians and their specialized staff members understand them. The polls show what the people want, but since the people don't always know everything that is happening and can't grasp the global impact of many of the decisions that is why we have the politicians that will hopefully do what is best for the country while balancing what the people want.
I don't think that it is really possible to rely too much on statistics. The very nature of them makes them objective as long as they are looked at objectively. It is possible to find statistics that will prove most points if viewed in a particular light so we can't just take statistical evidence that is presented to us as fact. The idea of statistics and a proper statistical study are very useful. Well, as long as the people looking at the data are away that it is statistical and not pure fact. It all goes back to the inductive and deductive reasoning. They have their purposes and statistics fills in where deductive reasoning can't reach. I have heard many people criticize politicians for "following the polls" and say that it is only their selfish attempt to get elected again. I say to that that the whole point of the politicians in our country is to perform the will of the people. Short of a direct democracy, which would fail horribly in our current situation, polls are the only way for the politicians to know the wills of their constituents. Yes the people elect officials that they believe will do a good job and trust on their own, but it is still about the people and the representatives need to represent them. Many people's issues with politicians stem from the fact that many people are too idealistic and don't understand all of the issues the way that the politicians and their specialized staff members understand them. The polls show what the people want, but since the people don't always know everything that is happening and can't grasp the global impact of many of the decisions that is why we have the politicians that will hopefully do what is best for the country while balancing what the people want.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
On Education
These are the articles that I mentioned in my previous post. It was a three part series over three days. They should be in order as they are listed.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009535
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009541
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009535
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009541
Learning
Seeing as my previous post was successful, I must now attempt to remember the last five weeks of my thoughts and write them down. I think that I can handle that. I find that I actually learn much more from this class than I do from most of my other classes. As much as I enjoy regurgitating information back at the teacher (which has its place I suppose), I get a lot more out of this class where thinking is actually encouraged and all of the answers to my questions don't have to come out of the textbook. A lot of that might have to do with how I communicate with my parents and my brother. We are very big into discussing things. If any of us have a question about something we just talk about it and figure out the answer. It also helps that my parents are two of the smartest people that I know and so they already know the answers to most of my questions. I really appreciate the fact that even if they know the answer and could easily just tell it to me, they still ask me questions and get me to think about it. In many ways, this class reminds me of that, except that a lot of the questions that we deal with are more subjective and so the answers don't really exist in the same definite way. To me learning involves gaining the tools to be able to figure things out for oneself. My problem with most classes is that they just drill a particular set of facts into everybody and send them on their way, without ever explaining the significance for the information or the reasons for why such facts are the way they are. I guess that I'm still a little bitter about all of my teachers in high school that would "teach" us things and couldn't even tell us why such things were so, we were just supposed to memorize it to pass the test. As much as I like taking tests, I really don't go to school in order to get good grades or spend hours of my life doing busywork, I just want to learn.
I would really like to talk about the idea of college in this class. It is my belief that a large part of the students in college don't really belong there and would get a lot more out of a different path. As far as I can tell, college started out many years ago as a place for people to go and learn for the sake of learning and becoming better people. Once inustrialization took over and communication grew to the point where large businesses could look at a wide variety of applicants for a job, they realized that people who had gone to college would probably do a better job for them. This gave people an incentive to go to college other than simply learning, but that they could get a better job than they could have otherwise. Now it seems that it's at the point where there are so many underqualified people going to college, just because businesses will hire them because they must be smart if they graduate from college. A lot of people just go to college to party and have a good time anyways, which seems to me to be a very expensive way of finding some drinking buddies. I read a study a few weeks ago that my dad sent me about how people's IQ plays a large role in their education. Just because a teacher can take a slacker getting Ds or Fs and inspire them to get As doesn't mean that everybody making Ds or Fs is capable of such an improvement. I'm going to try to post it after this if I can figure out a way to do it. So why not just have a lot of these people go to a vocational school for a couple of years to actually get training in their field without having to take the classes at a college that they don't get anything out of, can't comprehend, and simply don't care about. Maybe I'm going crazy and need to believe in people more, but staying in a dorm with a bunch of freshmen guys hasn't yet been a good way to instill more faith in future generations. I hope that this doesn't sound cynical or condecending, and if it does then I hope that you will believe me when I say that I don't mean it like that
I would really like to talk about the idea of college in this class. It is my belief that a large part of the students in college don't really belong there and would get a lot more out of a different path. As far as I can tell, college started out many years ago as a place for people to go and learn for the sake of learning and becoming better people. Once inustrialization took over and communication grew to the point where large businesses could look at a wide variety of applicants for a job, they realized that people who had gone to college would probably do a better job for them. This gave people an incentive to go to college other than simply learning, but that they could get a better job than they could have otherwise. Now it seems that it's at the point where there are so many underqualified people going to college, just because businesses will hire them because they must be smart if they graduate from college. A lot of people just go to college to party and have a good time anyways, which seems to me to be a very expensive way of finding some drinking buddies. I read a study a few weeks ago that my dad sent me about how people's IQ plays a large role in their education. Just because a teacher can take a slacker getting Ds or Fs and inspire them to get As doesn't mean that everybody making Ds or Fs is capable of such an improvement. I'm going to try to post it after this if I can figure out a way to do it. So why not just have a lot of these people go to a vocational school for a couple of years to actually get training in their field without having to take the classes at a college that they don't get anything out of, can't comprehend, and simply don't care about. Maybe I'm going crazy and need to believe in people more, but staying in a dorm with a bunch of freshmen guys hasn't yet been a good way to instill more faith in future generations. I hope that this doesn't sound cynical or condecending, and if it does then I hope that you will believe me when I say that I don't mean it like that
I hope this works
So after having multiple problems accessing the site and then actually posting this successfully, I have realized that technology isn't always my friend. Although it can make life easier and more fun, it has a nasty habit of complicating everything. At least I think that I have figured this out and have planned for many things that could go wrong, mostly from experience. Nothing can show me how ignorant I truly am except trying to use a website that is designed for the average person to be able to use with ease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)