Why are humans so repulsed by the idea that they are animals? Perhaps "Terror Management Theory" can shine some light on this important issue. When I started this blog in 2006, one idea that motivated me was that human beings simply can't deal with the idea that they are animals.…
...especially when described in Ebonmuse's inimitable, emotive style in "The Age Of Wonder": Consider what we witness when we peer into the cosmos with our telescopic eyes. We see light born billions of years ago in the crucible of dying stars, shining out across the cosmos and becoming ever more…
What if there were far too many people living on planet Earth, but no one had the courage to talk about it? According to Global Population Speak Out, that is exactly our situation. Consider that we repeatedly see news reports about scarce and dwindling resources (e.g., water, food, fish, fuel, topsoil), but these news reports rarely consider the exploding population on Earth as a major contributor to these problems. This refusal to consider the carrying capacity of Earth is truly staggering. As a thought experiment, consider how our "environmental" issues would be altered if each country had 25% fewer people than it currently does. Or 50%. Instead, we the human population of earth is at 6.5 billion, headed toward at least 9 billion by 2050. When it comes to discussing sex, reproduction and birth control, we freeze up, even when out-of-control population growth threatens our way of life.
I spend waste hours each week reading arguments between those who think that science education should be strictly based on science, versus those who think that alternate views (usually Biblical) should be taught along side. This is a skit about a father outraged at the amoral and unlikely (scientific) theory…
The language of science is always so amazingly precise . . . except when it isn't. Consider, for example, the word "life." Scientists have long struggled to determine exactly what qualifies as "life." For instance, are viruses “alive?” In the October 23, 2008 edition of Nature (available only to subscribers online), an article titled "Disputed Definitions" considers other often-used disputed terms. The article is divided into sections written by specialists from the relevant disciplines. The subtitle of the article is "Nature goes in search of the terms that get scientists most worked up." Consider how often you encounter the following disputed terms. Consider "paradigm shift," made popular by Thomas Kuhn in his often-cited 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn argued against the then-popular view that science marched incrementally toward the truth. Sometimes, "normal science" doesn't explain all of the phenomenon, straining a prevailing scientific theory. If the strain of accommodating evidence is great enough "eventually some new science comes along and overturns the previous consensus. Voila, a ‘paradigm shift.’" The often-used term "paradigm shift" is used in at least two ways, however. In its broad sense it encompasses the "entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community." In the narrow sense, it refers to "concrete puzzle-solutions." Another often-debated (and currently fashionable) term is "epigenetic."