What do you do when you have writer's block? I'm in the mood to write (I'm sitting in class and, therefore, I have nothing better to do) but I can think of absolutely nothing to write about. I have plenty of opinions, but none that you care about. I mean, what could it mean to you if Punjabi groundsmen seem to be preparing horribly draw-oriented batsmen's pitches in their cricket stadiums? Why would you care if I just finished taking a final exam that I postponed because I was going to Pakistan?
And there are plenty of things that readers care about, but I really don't want to write about them. If I poured out my opinions on P.Diddy & Jennifer or Nick & Jessica or Ben & Jennifer or Brad & Jennifer or Brad & Angelina or Tom & Angelina or Tom & Katie or Aishwariya & the guy from Masti or whoever the hot new couple is in Hollywood or Bollywood (forgive me if one of the couples I mentioned is broken up by now), then I'm sure I'd have plenty of readers. And readers would leave comments like "yeah... Nick and Angelina would make such a cute couple!!!! Nick's so hot!!!! I wish I was Jessica!!!! heehee giggle giggle!!!! I don't have the capacity to challenge myself in my own life, so I like to worry about other people's lives!!!!"
I apologize to whoever is currently reading this for killing a couple of your brain cells.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Thursday, January 19, 2006
9. Evolution and Science Education
Scott Adams (the genius who draws Dilbert cartoons and writes a pretty damn good blog) recently made a post his blog (click here to see it) that concerns how he knows nothing about evolution, but believes it because scientists -- his specific example mentioned microbiologists -- say that it must be true. He basically said that a person who is vehemently opposed to the concept of evolution would make a "crappy microbiologist."
As a religious microbiologist, I was delighted that he mentioned that issue. No reasonable microbiologist can deny the concept of evolution; a plethora of microbiology experiments not only rely on evolution as background information, but also validate the fact that it happens. Even as I type this post, I am sitting in the lab and waiting for the results of such an experiment.
Mutations happen in every species; this is undeniable. Even in humans, every person has unique characteristics that define the difference in their respective genomes. Larger distinctions exist in populations that were isolated from one another for thousands of years, as evidenced by the clear variations in genetic traits between East Asians, South Asians, Africans, Europeans, Australian Aborigines, and Native Americans. When we go a little bit farther back in time and get a little bit broader in the spectrum of life, clear variations exist in genetic traits between chimpanzees, humans, and the various other members of the ape family. The question is, "have we had enough time for our genomes to change from a bacterial genome to a monkey genome?"
Whether or not evolution gave rise to us the way we are today, I can guarantee you (based on experiments that I have performed with my own two hands) that evolution does, as a matter of fact, happen. Maybe the world was made as it is today and evolution started afterwards (although a paleontologist would kick me for saying that), but evolution is happening right now for all scientific purposes.
Typically, the main reason why we care about history is to learn how to handle the future. We only really care about evolution because (notwithstanding the "curiosity" factor) understanding evolution helps us plan future scientific experiments in, among other fields, microbiology. Therefore, whether or not evolution happened in the past, all that really matters is that it's happening now.
Anyway, my point is that for all practical purposes, it shouldn't matter whether evolution happened. We should still learn about it in school because, even if it's not true, it's a great guide for experiments. If you choose not to believe in it, that's fine, but remember that it can explain all physical principles and its validity can be assumed for any study. So, even if you believe that evolution didn't happen, keep in mind when you're planning some form of study that evolution is happening now (take my word for it) and, assuming that recorded history wasn't simply fabricated, has been happening for all of recorded history.
But if you do care about history, then stay tuned...
COMING SOON, TO A BLOG NEAR YOU:
Shan uses a mathematical proof (involving probabilities) to determine whether evolution in history is plausible.
Monday, January 09, 2006
8. Trust
I generally attempt to be laid back and accept the world as it is. However, there are a few things that bother me to the extent that I am probably developing a brain tumor just by thinking about it. I don't have many of these pet-peeves, but here is all that I can think of:
1. Lies
2. People accusing me of lying
3. Murder
4. Stubbornness
As an honest man, I would like to advocate a provision that requires a form of lie detector to be affixed to everybody. This would easily solve many of the problems aforementioned. Although I have occasionally done something to lose an element of trustworthiness, I would be delighted if I had hard evidence to prove every correct statement I made.
I fail to understand why people must accuse me of lying, especially about subjects where I have nothing to gain from lying. So, I would like to hereby formulate this new philosophy:
Choose to either trust a person or to not trust a person, and be very selective about who you trust. If you trust a person:
1. Believe everything they say, and:
2. Expect from them what they expect from themselves; applaud them when you get more, chastise them when you get less.
If you do not trust a person:
1. Believe only what is believable, but:
2. Expect nothing from them; applaud them when you get more and chastise them only if they hurt you.
By following these simple guidelines, a person will be affected much less adversely by the actions of others.
Post comments to this blog if you disagree or if you have suggestions; trust and truth are topics that I love to hear others' opinions about.
1. Lies
2. People accusing me of lying
3. Murder
4. Stubbornness
As an honest man, I would like to advocate a provision that requires a form of lie detector to be affixed to everybody. This would easily solve many of the problems aforementioned. Although I have occasionally done something to lose an element of trustworthiness, I would be delighted if I had hard evidence to prove every correct statement I made.
I fail to understand why people must accuse me of lying, especially about subjects where I have nothing to gain from lying. So, I would like to hereby formulate this new philosophy:
Choose to either trust a person or to not trust a person, and be very selective about who you trust. If you trust a person:
1. Believe everything they say, and:
2. Expect from them what they expect from themselves; applaud them when you get more, chastise them when you get less.
If you do not trust a person:
1. Believe only what is believable, but:
2. Expect nothing from them; applaud them when you get more and chastise them only if they hurt you.
By following these simple guidelines, a person will be affected much less adversely by the actions of others.
Post comments to this blog if you disagree or if you have suggestions; trust and truth are topics that I love to hear others' opinions about.
Monday, January 02, 2006
7. A Prick in Perfection
We, as human beings, are always striving for perfection. We want the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect family. In this quest, however, few succeed in any of their aspirations for even a short period of time.
Many people, including myself until recently, say that you should aim high if you want to come near your goal. Nevertheless, I would like to hereby make a case against the strife for perfection on these grounds:
The navigator on a journey to perfection will be most deeply hurt by an imperfection when the journey is nearly complete.
The perfect job or the perfect partner or the perfect family is, of course, unattainable; many people are simply trying to get as close to it as possible. The navigator of a ship on its journey to perfection will learn when he nears his destination that in the land of perfection, any small imperfection in the ship can cause it to sink.
When a situation is in a perfect state, it cannot tolerate any misgivings. Anything that happens that is less than expected will be devastating. A family of people who hates each other will be relatively unaffected if one of the cousins becomes a wanted criminal; however, a "perfect" family will become distraught if one of the cousins fails to graduate from medical school.
When a near-perfect state is attained, the attainers are clearly very capable of maintaining such a state. However, the negative influence will come from outside rather than inside. Not only can one bad girlfriend or wife or boyfriend or husband can destroy a person's interactions with their perfect family, but collections of militant tribes has succeeded multiple times in destroying the potency of an entire empire (as with the Romans, the Holy Roman Empire, the Mongols, Alexander's empire, the British Empire, and a multitude of others). The founder of the "perfect" state may be spared, but the perfection itself will find its way into a tailspin.
A state of near-perfection can be maintained only in an isolated society; once outside influences become involved, the innocent inhabitants of the perfect society are exposed to the rest of the world and are rarely able to maintain their perfection. They will instead fall into the clutches of temptation and, as many wealthy families can attest to, will annihilate the hard work of their predecessors in less than a generation's time.
Many people, including myself until recently, say that you should aim high if you want to come near your goal. Nevertheless, I would like to hereby make a case against the strife for perfection on these grounds:
The navigator on a journey to perfection will be most deeply hurt by an imperfection when the journey is nearly complete.
The perfect job or the perfect partner or the perfect family is, of course, unattainable; many people are simply trying to get as close to it as possible. The navigator of a ship on its journey to perfection will learn when he nears his destination that in the land of perfection, any small imperfection in the ship can cause it to sink.
When a situation is in a perfect state, it cannot tolerate any misgivings. Anything that happens that is less than expected will be devastating. A family of people who hates each other will be relatively unaffected if one of the cousins becomes a wanted criminal; however, a "perfect" family will become distraught if one of the cousins fails to graduate from medical school.
When a near-perfect state is attained, the attainers are clearly very capable of maintaining such a state. However, the negative influence will come from outside rather than inside. Not only can one bad girlfriend or wife or boyfriend or husband can destroy a person's interactions with their perfect family, but collections of militant tribes has succeeded multiple times in destroying the potency of an entire empire (as with the Romans, the Holy Roman Empire, the Mongols, Alexander's empire, the British Empire, and a multitude of others). The founder of the "perfect" state may be spared, but the perfection itself will find its way into a tailspin.
A state of near-perfection can be maintained only in an isolated society; once outside influences become involved, the innocent inhabitants of the perfect society are exposed to the rest of the world and are rarely able to maintain their perfection. They will instead fall into the clutches of temptation and, as many wealthy families can attest to, will annihilate the hard work of their predecessors in less than a generation's time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
