Hey, youse guys.
So sorry I waited so long to post these sites...I'm not even going to be in class today, due to a nasty sinus infection that just keeps getting worse.
But here ya go:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
I hope these are useful to you!
Friday, April 13, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Punctured Bovine!
Okay...perhaps I'm not quite ready for my Green Entry. But I do have some appetizers: http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.204586/
For those of you interested in fundraising, there is also a page listing different ideas. One that struck me was the bike-a-thon. If we could raise pledges of, say, $1.00 per mile from churches around the area...
It could be a pretty crazy Saturday trip.
For those of you interested in fundraising, there is also a page listing different ideas. One that struck me was the bike-a-thon. If we could raise pledges of, say, $1.00 per mile from churches around the area...
It could be a pretty crazy Saturday trip.
Monday, March 19, 2007
This One's For You, Prof....
All apologies on my long silence. I don't plan to take advantage of leniency from here on out.
Did I spell "leniency" correctly?
...
Anywho, on ethics:
The first question that struck me from the list of topics was the further discussion on Adam's question: what makes an object immoral/amoral/moral? And why?
This is actually something I believe the Bible addresses and I really want to research it further...so it will be an entire blog entry for another time.
Is there an absolute right and an absolute wrong?
I'd like to think so. If I try to wrap my mind around a world that is void of truth but merely perception, I'm nearly drowned in the pointlessness of it all. Sadly enough, though, even if one refuses to see something that exists, it still will exist. *Pokes at earlier discussion of dead cat-in-a-box*
Which is why the drama between Heaven, Hell, and humanity seems to me a tragedy.
What's more, it could be nigh impossible to prove absolute truth. That doesn't make much sense, does it?Absolute truth must be obvious if it's absolute, right? God should give us proof of absolute truth, I think, but He doesn't.
Or, really, he does, but he cursed us with "interpretation" so we could look at proof and still draw so many other conjectures that seem plausible enough to adopt as worldviews. So really perhaps faith is absolute truth.
But that would go back to relativity.
And I'm kind of going stream-of-consciousness, so excuse my lack of support or well thought-out ideas.
On to the next subject...for now.
How could I argue against abortion to a naturalist, a respect-for-persons person, and an egoist?
Natural Law: Killing babies weakens the population. Our whole purpose is to reproduce.
...that was easy enough.
Respect-for-Persons: A baby is a person. Respect the baby.
Whoops.
But when does a baby become a person? That's when the whole scientific issue comes into play which makes that argument obselete.
One could also argue that the mother, as a person, should have the right to decide whether she wants her body to go through pregnancy. So, it seems, this is a stickier challenge and should be more carefully thought out.
Egoist: Normally an egoist would say immediately that the mother needs to act in her own best interest, and if that implies abortion, so be it.
One could counter that, however, by bringing to the table the many psychological side-effects of abortion. If the mother were to go through with the procedure, would she feel any differently about it than she does now? Wouldn't it be better to go through with the pregnancy and simply give the child away to clear all possible doubts about the legitimacy of killing the unborn? These are also things to consider, but just in the range of pregnancies that would not result in possible bodily injury to the mother.
Coming up next:
All Thing Green - A Late Celebration of Saint Patty's Day!
Did I spell "leniency" correctly?
...
Anywho, on ethics:
The first question that struck me from the list of topics was the further discussion on Adam's question: what makes an object immoral/amoral/moral? And why?
This is actually something I believe the Bible addresses and I really want to research it further...so it will be an entire blog entry for another time.
Is there an absolute right and an absolute wrong?
I'd like to think so. If I try to wrap my mind around a world that is void of truth but merely perception, I'm nearly drowned in the pointlessness of it all. Sadly enough, though, even if one refuses to see something that exists, it still will exist. *Pokes at earlier discussion of dead cat-in-a-box*
Which is why the drama between Heaven, Hell, and humanity seems to me a tragedy.
What's more, it could be nigh impossible to prove absolute truth. That doesn't make much sense, does it?Absolute truth must be obvious if it's absolute, right? God should give us proof of absolute truth, I think, but He doesn't.
Or, really, he does, but he cursed us with "interpretation" so we could look at proof and still draw so many other conjectures that seem plausible enough to adopt as worldviews. So really perhaps faith is absolute truth.
But that would go back to relativity.
And I'm kind of going stream-of-consciousness, so excuse my lack of support or well thought-out ideas.
On to the next subject...for now.
How could I argue against abortion to a naturalist, a respect-for-persons person, and an egoist?
Natural Law: Killing babies weakens the population. Our whole purpose is to reproduce.
...that was easy enough.
Respect-for-Persons: A baby is a person. Respect the baby.
Whoops.
But when does a baby become a person? That's when the whole scientific issue comes into play which makes that argument obselete.
One could also argue that the mother, as a person, should have the right to decide whether she wants her body to go through pregnancy. So, it seems, this is a stickier challenge and should be more carefully thought out.
Egoist: Normally an egoist would say immediately that the mother needs to act in her own best interest, and if that implies abortion, so be it.
One could counter that, however, by bringing to the table the many psychological side-effects of abortion. If the mother were to go through with the procedure, would she feel any differently about it than she does now? Wouldn't it be better to go through with the pregnancy and simply give the child away to clear all possible doubts about the legitimacy of killing the unborn? These are also things to consider, but just in the range of pregnancies that would not result in possible bodily injury to the mother.
Coming up next:
All Thing Green - A Late Celebration of Saint Patty's Day!
Monday, February 5, 2007
Plea
On a different note, I don't know how to make lists of friends.
Someone please rescue me from this friendless state. :-(
I'm just no good at navigating computers, period.
Someone please rescue me from this friendless state. :-(
I'm just no good at navigating computers, period.
1. What are the presuppositions of science?
Although science is considered one of the most factual fields of study (second only to math), all the logic and careful, meticulous data-gathering rests on one major supposition that, if incorrect, throws all scientific process to heck. Namely, that we can trust our observations; that everything we study can be perceived by one of our five senses and recorded. One gigantic step in the scientific process is termed "experimentation." We decide our experiment results by what we observe. If we can't trust even that, then what's left?
2. Is the scientific process fundamentally flawed?
Yes it is. The answer to number one applies here as well.
3. What, if anything, does science owe society?
Ethics: the thing we owe each other, scientists or no. As far as progress goes, it depends on how much tax money they are being funded by...
4. Is science controllable? Should it be? If so, by whom?
The study itself? Absolutely. That's what experimentation rests on. What is being studied? To a degree: we may manipulate it, but we can't truly create or destroy it (so goes the common belief of today).
5. Why is "Why?" such an uncomfortable question?
One can find the "why" to one question which shakes the foundations of an entirely seperate belief, which could in turn cause another presupposition to be questioned....
What if it all travels to the root of everything you think you know, only to destroy it and make you start all over again?
It's terrifying.
6. How does science relate to our discussion of reality in the first week?
Again, this relates back to questions one and two.
7. It used to be that being a scientist was a big deal! People respected scientists. People valued a scientist's opinion and input. There were few professions more noble than dedicating your life to the advancement of science - not even being a medical doctor was more important! Our modern perception of a scientist is a pasty colored white male with thick glasses, a pocket protector, and no social skills. No one wants their opinion, let alone respects their opinion. Even you, as a class, expressed distrust of NASA - the US's leading science machine - and doubt in the value of the science being conducted by the organization. What changed? Can you point to a specific era in time? Why do we listen more to Al Gore than we do to leading scientist in climatology, biology and environmental science?
Now it's no longer a matter of the mysterious wizards bringing magic to the masses in the form of lightbulbs and steam engines. Each successive generation has more insight into the scientific process than the last, and greater knowledge leads to greater skepticism. I'm not saying that we know anything near what the professionals do, but we know more than we used to.
Can you find evidence of Kuhn's essential tension in a current scientific topic? Non-scientific topic? Discuss why changing paradigms is so traumatic.
8. Discuss any recent or current event (last 30 years say) where science and society have not been in step.
Stem cell research!!!! Science sees it as a grand opportunity to expand knowledge, while many regular folk outside the field look on it unclouded by the passion of exploration and see the actions for what they are: the murder of premature babies.
Some say that science is free of passion, but I beg to differ. It's full of the blinding passion of pure logic.
By the way, a study is being done on amniotic fluid, which may turn out to be an ethically sounds alternative to stem cells. Check it out: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070108-stem-cells.html
Although science is considered one of the most factual fields of study (second only to math), all the logic and careful, meticulous data-gathering rests on one major supposition that, if incorrect, throws all scientific process to heck. Namely, that we can trust our observations; that everything we study can be perceived by one of our five senses and recorded. One gigantic step in the scientific process is termed "experimentation." We decide our experiment results by what we observe. If we can't trust even that, then what's left?
2. Is the scientific process fundamentally flawed?
Yes it is. The answer to number one applies here as well.
3. What, if anything, does science owe society?
Ethics: the thing we owe each other, scientists or no. As far as progress goes, it depends on how much tax money they are being funded by...
4. Is science controllable? Should it be? If so, by whom?
The study itself? Absolutely. That's what experimentation rests on. What is being studied? To a degree: we may manipulate it, but we can't truly create or destroy it (so goes the common belief of today).
5. Why is "Why?" such an uncomfortable question?
One can find the "why" to one question which shakes the foundations of an entirely seperate belief, which could in turn cause another presupposition to be questioned....
What if it all travels to the root of everything you think you know, only to destroy it and make you start all over again?
It's terrifying.
6. How does science relate to our discussion of reality in the first week?
Again, this relates back to questions one and two.
7. It used to be that being a scientist was a big deal! People respected scientists. People valued a scientist's opinion and input. There were few professions more noble than dedicating your life to the advancement of science - not even being a medical doctor was more important! Our modern perception of a scientist is a pasty colored white male with thick glasses, a pocket protector, and no social skills. No one wants their opinion, let alone respects their opinion. Even you, as a class, expressed distrust of NASA - the US's leading science machine - and doubt in the value of the science being conducted by the organization. What changed? Can you point to a specific era in time? Why do we listen more to Al Gore than we do to leading scientist in climatology, biology and environmental science?
Now it's no longer a matter of the mysterious wizards bringing magic to the masses in the form of lightbulbs and steam engines. Each successive generation has more insight into the scientific process than the last, and greater knowledge leads to greater skepticism. I'm not saying that we know anything near what the professionals do, but we know more than we used to.
Can you find evidence of Kuhn's essential tension in a current scientific topic? Non-scientific topic? Discuss why changing paradigms is so traumatic.
8. Discuss any recent or current event (last 30 years say) where science and society have not been in step.
Stem cell research!!!! Science sees it as a grand opportunity to expand knowledge, while many regular folk outside the field look on it unclouded by the passion of exploration and see the actions for what they are: the murder of premature babies.
Some say that science is free of passion, but I beg to differ. It's full of the blinding passion of pure logic.
By the way, a study is being done on amniotic fluid, which may turn out to be an ethically sounds alternative to stem cells. Check it out: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070108-stem-cells.html
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Starburst Wrappers are Maddeningly Monochromatic in their Warm Hues
Heh...tonight doesn't really fit the "Late Night" title, but when one is suffering from the common cold, one learns to make allowances (and also to go to bed early).
1. Dr. Priest indicated that math is SALT - a Science, Art, Language and Tool. Can you give examples of each?
Science: When any random student lays himself/herself down to sleep at night, is suddenly struck by a possible equation or explanation of a principle, then promptly sets about proving/testing it, you could call the situation a science of numbers.
When applied to the science field in general, math is all-important in measurements, calculations, and a firm base of dependable facts on which to draw hypothesis.
Art: Any well constructed proof has symmetry and efficiency. Art is usually best in its simplicity and (as Persig would term it) Quality... math is valued for the same characteristics. With patterns and repititions, symmetry and lines and structures, a good equation has a beauty in and of itself.
I have a special fondness for the perfection of mathematically precise shapes. Let's guess which is my favorite...
Language: Yes...math people don't speak in opinions...they speak in numbers and numbers in logical relations to one another (AKA equations). For example, an artist might describe a triangle in sharpness of angles or thickness of lines or aesthetic form. A mathematician would describe it in measurements of sides and angles, perhaps a nifty little phrase like "a^2 + b^2 = c^2," and explain how you can measure the circumference of the Earth with it.
Math can explain the why behind any occurrence in nature.
Tool: Math is a tool when used applicably, whether it be in baking measurements or physics. It just helps with procedure and credibility.
2. Dr. Priest indicated that he believes math to be discovered, not invented or created. What did he mean by this? Being that, as indicated in the reading, a lot of mathematics is applicable to things in the physical world, what are some conclusions that we can reach following Dr. Priest's line of thought?
The notation for math (our numeral system) is purely human; however, what we use it to describe (nature) has already been there all along. Every law we describe with numbers was in existence before the formula....we just finally found out how it worked.
Following that thread, we might say:
A) Nature follows specific laws (for the most part).
B) This means that nature has an intellegent design (God)...
C) ...that we can somehow understand when all the other creatures of Earth cannot (again, God).
3. Do we place too much value on statistics?
Yes, we place too much value on statistics, especially majority polls of people's opinions. History goes to show that sometimes humanity can be really stupid en masse. Just read An Enemy of the People.
1. Dr. Priest indicated that math is SALT - a Science, Art, Language and Tool. Can you give examples of each?
Science: When any random student lays himself/herself down to sleep at night, is suddenly struck by a possible equation or explanation of a principle, then promptly sets about proving/testing it, you could call the situation a science of numbers.
When applied to the science field in general, math is all-important in measurements, calculations, and a firm base of dependable facts on which to draw hypothesis.
Art: Any well constructed proof has symmetry and efficiency. Art is usually best in its simplicity and (as Persig would term it) Quality... math is valued for the same characteristics. With patterns and repititions, symmetry and lines and structures, a good equation has a beauty in and of itself.
I have a special fondness for the perfection of mathematically precise shapes. Let's guess which is my favorite...
Language: Yes...math people don't speak in opinions...they speak in numbers and numbers in logical relations to one another (AKA equations). For example, an artist might describe a triangle in sharpness of angles or thickness of lines or aesthetic form. A mathematician would describe it in measurements of sides and angles, perhaps a nifty little phrase like "a^2 + b^2 = c^2," and explain how you can measure the circumference of the Earth with it.
Math can explain the why behind any occurrence in nature.
Tool: Math is a tool when used applicably, whether it be in baking measurements or physics. It just helps with procedure and credibility.
2. Dr. Priest indicated that he believes math to be discovered, not invented or created. What did he mean by this? Being that, as indicated in the reading, a lot of mathematics is applicable to things in the physical world, what are some conclusions that we can reach following Dr. Priest's line of thought?
The notation for math (our numeral system) is purely human; however, what we use it to describe (nature) has already been there all along. Every law we describe with numbers was in existence before the formula....we just finally found out how it worked.
Following that thread, we might say:
A) Nature follows specific laws (for the most part).
B) This means that nature has an intellegent design (God)...
C) ...that we can somehow understand when all the other creatures of Earth cannot (again, God).
3. Do we place too much value on statistics?
Yes, we place too much value on statistics, especially majority polls of people's opinions. History goes to show that sometimes humanity can be really stupid en masse. Just read An Enemy of the People.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Introduction
My blog title will be true to the entries; nearly every blogging spree I've gone on has been at a sad sort of hour when I've long since began longing for my pillow. Perhaps not the most grammatically correct times, but creative juices flow to make up for the rest of the brain, which shut down about an hour ago.
You see, my poor left brain is denied coffee after about five o'clock in the afternoon. Consequently, it receives a massive butt-whooping from the right portion and scurries away for the night to hide somewhere near my spleen.
Or maybe that's just a stomach-ache from the Sunday afternoon caf food.
As a result, this is also when most of my art projects are in full swing. This one drawing and comp piece kept me up 'till 4:30 A.M. last semester, but it was turned in on time. I also managed to make it through nearly a whole economy-sized bag of oyster crackers.
I get the munchies when I'm working hard, but I feel bad spending money for good snacks like chex mix when I probably need another set of pencils or fixatif or something.
So perhaps I should mention something about the class now...
I'm looking forward to dealing with math and science again, especially while tying them in with philosophy and ethics. As good as both fields have been to me, I wantonly threw them aside when I declared my majors.
Especially, especially, I'm excited for anything we will cover in calculus and physics.
On that thread, and glancing back on last class' discussion, where does black matter fit into our physical reality? Has God made something that denies our five senses and begs for a fifth that we will never have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
It's my favorite scientific mystery to-date.
As for any thoughtful reflections of the lesson or life or truth in general...
...
Perhaps I'll come up with something stellar and profound the next time around. It's amazing how easy it is to write much and say nothing.
You see, my poor left brain is denied coffee after about five o'clock in the afternoon. Consequently, it receives a massive butt-whooping from the right portion and scurries away for the night to hide somewhere near my spleen.
Or maybe that's just a stomach-ache from the Sunday afternoon caf food.
As a result, this is also when most of my art projects are in full swing. This one drawing and comp piece kept me up 'till 4:30 A.M. last semester, but it was turned in on time. I also managed to make it through nearly a whole economy-sized bag of oyster crackers.
I get the munchies when I'm working hard, but I feel bad spending money for good snacks like chex mix when I probably need another set of pencils or fixatif or something.
So perhaps I should mention something about the class now...
I'm looking forward to dealing with math and science again, especially while tying them in with philosophy and ethics. As good as both fields have been to me, I wantonly threw them aside when I declared my majors.
Especially, especially, I'm excited for anything we will cover in calculus and physics.
On that thread, and glancing back on last class' discussion, where does black matter fit into our physical reality? Has God made something that denies our five senses and begs for a fifth that we will never have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
It's my favorite scientific mystery to-date.
As for any thoughtful reflections of the lesson or life or truth in general...
...
Perhaps I'll come up with something stellar and profound the next time around. It's amazing how easy it is to write much and say nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
