The Professor's Notes

Feyerabend’s book, “Against Method” stands as a critical look at science, and how we “know.”  As part of the domain “philosophy of Science” he stands as one of the interesting challengers to what we think we know, categorized often as an “anarchist.”  While the political scientist in me as a rule stops listening when I hear someone is an “anarchist” the use of the word in this case carries far different baggage.  That said, here’s the quote from his introduction, page 2:

“But if scientific achievements can be judged only after the event and if there is no abstract way of ensuring success beforehand, then there exists no special way of weighting scientific promises either–scientists are not better off than anybody else in these matters, they only know more details.  This means that the public can participate in the discussion without disturbing existing roads to success (there are no such roads).  In cases where the scientists’ work affects the public it even should participate:  first, because it is a concerned party (many scientific decisions affect public life); secondly, because such participation is the best scientific education the public can get–a full democratization of science (which includes the protection of minorities such as scientists) is not in conflict with science.  It is in conflict with a philosophy, often called “Rationalism,” that uses a frozen image of science to terrorize people unfamiliar with its practice.”  (emphasis his)

If you can take a few moments, read through this a few times, and think through what it is saying.

• The role of the public in Science, as many view the “public” as being too poorly educated as to be able to fully grasp science (Some have heatedly called the recent political era the “era of anti-intellectualism”)
• Perhaps think about it in the context of the discussions concerning stem cell research and the “promises” made by scientists concerning the cures that will come.
• Consider the discussions about the origins of man in the context of his point of the “philosophy … called ‘Rationalism’” and what appeals are made to authority on the various sides.

How do you view science and the nature of discovery?

A while back I wrote about the abiogenic theory of petroleum production. According to Wikipedia:

The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin holds that natural petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to theformation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the solar system is taken as evidence that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids which migrate upward from the mantle.

The theory thus challenges the view that petroleum products are “fossil fuels” created over millions of years by the decaying of dinosaurs and ancient pre-historic plant life. It argues that petroleum may be a renewable resource that flows up from the magma. In fact, it is a theory that has had a recent resurgence to popularity with the release of the book “The Deep Hot Biosphere” by Thomas Gold.

Why do I bring this up? First, my daughter is a geology major, and so I have renewed interest in all things “rock.” Even more recently, I have been reading the book “Omnivore’s Dilemma” in which the author, Pollan, constantly refers to the use of “fossil fuels” in the production of food. It struck me, after reading this over, and over again, that he has “bought in” to the traditional view completely. He rarely if ever refers to this as “petroleum products.” I have since noticed that the use of the term “fossil fuel” is quite prevalent in the media–far more so than the non-value statement petroleum. Read the rest of this entry »

A brief respite from the Jesus Floor…

Faithful readers may remember my post about the Russian News Agency incorrectly referring to the “Dark Side of the Moon.” (No, not the music…)  Well, here is another apparently common mis-perception.  I say common because I have been told the local TV media made the same mistake.

So, dear readers… send me an email telling me what YOU think is wrong with this picture! (I really need to come up with a prize for this–guest spot on the next “Brothers” podcast perhaps?)

Several people have asked some very good questions. I figured I would answer a few now!

1. “Did it suddenly appear?” A very good question. Actually I have been staring at it for a while, and wasn’t sure I wanted to say anything about it. Hey, you see a religious figure in your bathroom floor, people think you are nuts! But we were just chatting in the car, and I brought it up… and as I said, my son finished the sentence!
2. Was it just an inexplicable urge to study the floor?” Well, sometimes one gets bored sitting there… ya know?
3. “How do I know what Jesus looked/looks like?” From the documentary photographs and contemporary parchment etchings, of course.
4. “He looks more like…” (Jerry Garcia, later Jim Morrison, even this lowly correspondent.) Perhaps. And perhaps JG, JM and I are simply blessed with a divine countenance.
5. “How many people have you shown this to?” Well, until today, I haven’t SHOWN it to anyone. Those who have used the bathroom have all had opportunity to view Him, but apparently He reveals Himself only to those whom He chooses.
6. “Who installed the flooring? What is their religious affiliation?” The floor was installed when the house was constructed nearly 4 years ago. I have no idea what their religious affiliation is. One could speculate catholic for various reasons.
7. “Do we use any special cleaning materials when cleaning the floor?” Actually, we use normal water on a damp cloth. I suppose, given this highly religious event, it may well transform into Holy Water on contact. Perhaps I should squeeze out the cloth and sell small vials of the “Juice?” I have received a recommendation to start using frankincense and myrrh.

Send your questions my way! I will certainly answer them for you! And share the news with your friends and family! I am sure they would welcome the blessing received from this manifestation.

I came across this quote today, and wanted to share it with you all:

“When you make the finding yourself – even if you’re the last person on Earth to see the light – you’ll never forget it.” Carl Sagan

Did you want to know what we talked about before we recorded part two? Well here it is!

Quoted from my Brother’s site:

Two Bradys, Two Brothers, Two Doctorates, and at least Two Views.

We discuss our different set ups, Windows for Steve (XP) and Mac OSX for Chris. I followed the directions found here.
More topics covered:

• Honda Civic Hybrid – See Steve’s blog entry and why Steve is now a Conservative environmentalist. (And what that means.)
• Why some want higher taxes on gas.
• Steve’s del.icio.us tags. Including “Cats kill birds, not windmills.“
• Environmental issues in general.
• iPhone (again).
• Cole’s Blog (”Who the Hell is He?” wanting internet transparency) and Being a Digital Native
• Rathole: Dad’s idea that our brains process in binary.

And we reached the end of GarageBand’s recording capacity.

So there you have it. Enjoy.

Oh–if you are a listener, please, write or comment and let us know. Obviously we talk, but it’s nice to know if we make a sound. (you know… tree… .forest… fall…)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

“Spinal Tap reunites to fight Climate Change”

In MY mind it’s not too bizarre that a “fictional band” is “reuniting” to fight a fictional problem.

All kidding aside, I am not a “disbeliever” in climate change. I do remain unconvinced that mankind is responsible for it. More to follow later, when I put together a podcast highlight how the “fake” 90% probability figure was created for the IPCC report.

I am not sure if this approach actually lends credibility to the argument that climate change is a man-made. When you read the story, the band continues to spoof on any number of subjects. Quoting:

In the new film, Reiner, reprising his role, takes credit for coining the term “global warming.” The band members discuss their long history of charity work, such as campaigns to help ferrets — by raising money to feed them Caesar salad — and to help people with high insteps.

As I see this, they are comparing Climate Change to ferrets, Caesar salad and high insteps. Hmmm. Perhaps Reiner is also not “a believer.”

Many blogs and websites these days, including one of my favorites, Supply Chain Innovations Today, are using rss newsfeeds to provide news and information services right next to their (our?) insightful comments and commentary.

I couldn’t help but chuckle when I saw these two news stories, as the top two stories on the “I, Ramble” site.

Now, the placement of the ads is not controlled by the owner of the blog or website, so this is purely coincidental–at least at how it happens to display on the blog.

It’s not every day that I get to write a blog that essentially “corrects” a story from the Russian News and Information Agency, but today, I thought I would quickly write a note about what is perhaps a simple, yet significant, error.

In a story, titled “Russia to join U.S. lunar exploration program if funded” the author of the story writes “The permanently sunlit half of the Moon opens up good opportunities for electricity generation, and comet ice deposited in craters can be converted into breathable air, drinking water and even liquid rocket propellants.” So what’s the problem with the science here? What had me checking my facts?

I think I will take advantage of the “read more” feature here, and tell you what is “wrong” if you click through! Check and see if you are right! Read the rest of this entry »

My brother has chosen to poke the hornet’s nest, by writing about Richard Dawkins, and his apparent attack on no lesser figure than God Himself. Prior to his posting, he and I had several conversations about this topic, and the broader view that there is a strong “anti-religion” movement amongst the scientific world as of late. His post has resulted in several comments, and conversations between him and a commenter, Tim.

I decided to weigh in with this podcast, since I had recently heard two interviews with Dr Dawkins. The first was on Science Friday on NPR. In that interview he asserts that science has all but proven that God does not exist. The other interview was on one of my other favorite podcasts, The New Scientist. His views are a bit more muted in that interview, but that whole episode was dedicated to the battle between science and religion.

I have several excerpts in this podcast from both of those shows, and share my thoughts on how assumptions shape and shade research and the conclusions that one reaches. I do recommend that you go listen to the full shows, and perhaps even subscribe to the podcasts. They are quite good!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download