The Scientific Approach. Fact and Myths.
- From: prd <X_header@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:41:02 GMT
I cannot rule on the appropriateness or inappropriateness
of the anthropological discussion but it is appropriate
to remind everyone how science works. This comes out of the
discussion of race.
Somewhere about 3.3 billion years ago science begins, at least
for human kind. The process is completely subjective and emperical,
respond to the enviromnent, survive and reproduce. In the process
of evolution cognizance allows for greater adaptability. C. elegans
has 1000 cells and a handful of neurons, apes have trillions of cells
and billions of neurons. The ability to adapt and respond the environment
is not a linear response to storage and processing capability
of the brain, and socialization is very important to the process.
We have reached a scenario in human evolution whereby we can
look backward on the process, although humans are self-aware, the
true self-awareness came with Darwinian revelation, this is the
gospil of the 3rd millenium. We can also reflect on the evolution
of thought, knowledge and science. And yet the message still has not
set into the population, it is a frieghtening revelation about
our behavior.
At present, even modest scientific libraries have issues that role
back 50 years or more, we look for example in the late 50's it was
discovered that DNA double helix gave the ability to inherit genetic
material, prior to this proteins were encoded with some fidelity, and back
to the determination of what proteins, polynucleotides, chromosomes.
Even a few monks dabbled in science along the way.
The process, starting way back 3.3 million years ago to present
has not been, nor will ever be perfect. Evolution is sloppy, riddled
with errors and bad directions, the failures are all part of the inevitable
success. Science reflects evolution, it evolves, it starts with relative
confusion and progressed from the understanding of goofs and errors. From
this a process of systemization has occurred. I have watched this over
my carreer itself, at the beginning few concerning themselves with
quantitation and statistics, and now complex thinking algorythms to solve
problems.
The argument possed here is that terminology is sloppy. I hate to inform
everyone but alot of words in science refer to rather animistic things. The
pipette is named after male organ, diabetes was named after the taste of
sugar in the urine. Things were discovered or invented and names were
applied out of what was convinient at that time, not a whole
lot of thought was given as to what future generations might think.
And frankly we would be quite arrogant to think they should. We forget we
are animals, communication is a form of emotional exchange.
The critical issue here is that science should be allowed to evolve
its terminology without politicians and popular media involvement,
whether or not something should or should not be reused is a matter to
be discussed in science as data is gathered and discussed. I am sure
there are subjective arguments by scientist interjected, because way back
100 years ago scientist were calling enzymatic activities ethers. The
hormones that control emotional behavior are still present in modern
scientist. But, alas, despite all the defects, scientific progress is made,
despite the misuse of science by charletons and demagogs, progress is made.
But a quick examination of society would reveal that while science
is progressing, society is backtracking, sliding backwards and ignoring
science and its recommendations increasingly more. So who is sloppy.
Is 24 hours of Fox News bringing peace to the middle east? Did Time/Warner
prevent the world trade center attack? Did pat Robertson determine that
S Hussein was not trying to acquire yellow cake or had no weapons of mass
distruction. But this is where advice is coming from. Look at
what is going on, people are not acting as cognizant of darwinian
forces, but as if they are under the control of these forces in their
behavior. Gluttony is a good example, why do we need to eat more when
the land the food was grown on could be returned to indigeonous peoples
or wild animals. Media says have fewer children, you will be wealthier, OK
so you have more wealth, but now you have to many calories, you don't work
as hard, society needs a freeway, it gets built, has that improved
anything. Does a freeway full landscape provide a better economy than
a close nit communities that rely on mass transit, and what will these
freeways bear when all the oil is gone? Liberalism in thought has done
what? Are we neccesarily better of than the Woarani of south america, who
simply spear that which pisses them off?
Let's take a real close look at ethnocentrism and all that it entails.
Way back a couple of years ago, Europeans were up in arms about GM corn.
Hmm let us consider genetically modified. Triticeae Aestivum is hexaploid
genome containing plant that produces and excess amount of gluten. When fed
to rats and mice they spontaneously generate celiac disease. The glutens,
apparently, are also pesticidal, Middle easterners and europeans have
promoted the spread of this and Hodeum Vulgare all over the world.
OTOH, GM corn has not been found to cause any disease in any humans, but
wheat causes disease in 1% of the population. Lets talk about forcing
culture on people, when the spanish set up their mission in southern San
Antonio, one of the most important things they did was to build a mill so
that they could grow and grind wheat. Why, because christians need to have
communion, and communion requires wheat, yeah! We can make fancy breads,
sopapillas, etc. But what about the natives, did they ever ask the question
whether wheat was beneficial or destructive. Why don't they spend a little
of that emotional energy they spent on GM corn and try to reverse the
course of type II diabetes their culture created in the new world?
Hypocrisy. Its really OK when Europeans want to spread their little
recombinants around the world, but when the world gets a bit of the reverse
process going on, . .. . . . . By their own standard all bread crops in
europe should be banned, beer should be banned, since it is a artificially
selected recombinant that has poisonous qualities. We believe that the
product of our technologies is undercontrol, that it is properly managed
for the good of all, but several thousand years of observations shows the
opposite to be true, and science is no different.
So what we are talking about is not science but emotions. So let us all be
clear, you want a world free of race, most people are going to have to
start giving up things near and dear to them. 'Race' is of european origin,
when you ask different native groups they more or less had tribal
identities, la raza in Texas means the 'people of the earth' its not
attached to skin color (anmd what became of their native language and words
for the same?), so that a general meaning is universal and it separates a
group identity from other group(s) and that system has been in place for
more than 100,000 years.
And now here we turn around and say that system is not good or useful,
OK, but don't tell me what system I should be using, because all you are
doing is attempting to ban my corn after you have poisoned me with your
wheat. We, scientist, have a right to decide what is appropriate or
inappropriate, we have a right to argue amoungst ourselves, to publish here
versus there and to draw conclusions.
We get back to the process of human discovery. Darwin is not a villian
he is a liberator, but in the words of an earlier philosopher, it is both
a blessing and a curse, and it really depends what you make of it. My
opinion is that the human species is relatively healthy on all ends of the
world; people are intuitive, creative, industrious, and productive. But we
are not all the same, we can't be expected to live by the same rule or
standard, and external standards should not be forced on peoples. Its so
convinient now after plessy vs. fergesson has backfired on the 'whitist' of
the victorian era to now wish the race system to be dissolved. Afterall,
its not austronesian culture that has spread all over the world, its the
european culture that is threatened by these definition, the hippocracy of
the past spews out in great abundance. Native americans did not create
coca-cola. Hamburger is not a Sioux word. The Inca did not invent the
French Fry. Type II diabetes spread from whites to blacks and indigeonous
peoples and the transfer was not a genetic one. Why was alcohol banned on
reservations? Who extracted and purified cocaine?
Victorian Europe propelled themselves on the globe, and while initially
bouyed by great relative power, a reversal of power has resulted in obvious
problems coming forth from far off places, many of which the west does not
understand, which is why I mention the genetics of the middle east. Do you
think we can undo politically what indigeonous groups of SW asia have been
perpetuating in the face of great civilizations for 10,000 years? Our
ideas, however perfect they may seem, fall flat on their asses when
exported. Evolution is still at work in the human population, we are not
all working to the same common outcome, there are different stategies of
competition at work, as it was, as it is and as it will always be. The
middle east has become a testing ground for the western thought, we have
failed. Our ideas of society and race have failed. We forced groups
together we imported peoples and forced the indigeonous populations to
leave. We expected them to integrate, they did not. We expected money from
oil to transform these peoples in to a western moral value system, it did
not. Every thought we had about what should happen did not happen.
The major reason why it did not work is we primarily failed to see one
issue, if the Jews can maintain themselves as an ethnic group for 2000
years floating around western eurasia, how much more easy is a stationary
group to do the same. Why would other groups in the region not tenaciously
defend their ethnic identities? So that our perception of global race was
both at the same time too restrictive and not restrictive enough.
There must be something selective about these behaviors that facilitates
the survival of peoples in areas, despite massive levels of intrafamilial
inbreeding and all the consequences. So instead of looking at what
is race we need to look at what causes racial behaviors.
The important thing to remember is that animals, including people
may not be aware of Darwinian principles, they are still acting on those
principles, that is the nature of the principle, survival and reproduction
warrant "something" and no-one cannot deny that there is a set of
"somethings" for every individual or as a collective species in order that
they may be successful and not go extinct. Darwin noted that races evolve,
and for that to work, in many cases, different races need to identify each
other and this identification leads to competition. Why should they
identify each other, because each cannot evolve everything, so that
clusters evolved adaptive traits, and admixing can dilute those adaptations
therefore competition at the margins is a more likely outcome.
This competition is what we are seeing in the middle east, people of the
same religion, same sect even, are fighting it out on the streets, each of
them believes they are entitled by some higher force to the place they
live, work or control. The competition does not have to be logical,
explainable, but in the end it will work to
make more resources available to a fewer numbers of survivors. The higher
force is evolution, it is their god, it is the god of christian caucasians
and their manifest destiny, it is the god of the catholic spaniards, it is
the idealogy of the Viet Kong, it is Thor and Oden. They may prey to Yahweh
but they a worship at that cryptic alter of Selection. These are the
facts, they are the observations on the ground, this is what science has to
observe and work with. Christian religion told christians to do one thing,
but their interpretation told them to do another, the opposite, thing. IOW
people may claim they are acting on spiritual principles of something
grandious but it is all competition and selection. And so we know the
nature of what drives society even when it appears to be acting in a
cognizant fashion, it cannot overcome the strength of the genes that want
to compete, survive and reproduce.
There is no idealogy on this earth, including anti-racism that is not a
part of the competition. We have seen in this group people who swear up and
down they are not racist but the next word that comes out exudes
ethnocentrism. What you like, what you dislike, what you promote, what you
abhore, it is all wrapped up in your ethnicity and when you promote it, it
is ethnocentrism, racism. This very discussion would be looked on by native
americans and different religious groups as being white ethnocentric/racist
and that belief is also ethnocentric and racist. This is our nature,
unfortunately, we are born to a spot of earth, we toil that earth to
survive, and we repeat the whole process when we reproduce.
This is what science has to observe about the populations political
structure, or should it interpret strictly the genetics? There is no way
to make sense of political meaning. Today, I am a tribe and its convinient;
tomorrow, I follow _________ and its convinient; the next day, I am still
the same tribe and I genuflect at ________ because it suits me. Science
cannot look at past motivations because all are motivated, it can only look
at the cumulative effect of the results and try to create an interpretation
and those observations, are biased, the farmer does not farm all his plots
in one day. The interpretation that is created needs to extend itself in
the direction of some useful meaning. If the goal of science is to promote
european culture, society, etc at the disadvantage of everyone else that is
also Darwinistic, but don't call it something else, cause that is just
plain religion.
Science and scientist are humans, we are animals, and
while realizing that affords some level of forgiveness from bias, the
reality is we still act with bias, and bias is a part of the discovery
process and also recognition of bias and competition is also part of the
process, darwinian processes act on scientist as well. You cannot ask
for discoveries with trial and errors, before you know the answer whatever
solution you try is driven by personal bias, it goes way back, deal with
it.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Latest on Newport Tower dig
- Next by Date: Re: Latest on Newport Tower dig
- Previous by thread: Authenticity of Ilkley rock carvings challenged
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
