TAG | science
If you don’t believe in human evolution because you think there isn’t any evidence, you’re mistaken. You’re willfully ignorant. There are mountains of evidence and many books on the subject. All you have to do is look.
Now look.
Evidence of human evolution
Smithsonian Natural Museum of Natural History: Human Origins Initiative
Be careful if you ever find yourself on Mars’ moon Deimos. One misstep and you could wind up in outer space.
XKCD: Gravity Wells
(View really big.)
22
The Science Of Happiness
2 Comments | Posted by Brent Danley in government, health, philosophy, science
Perfectly Happy
Drake Bennett, Boston Globe, May 10, 2009
I am passionate about happiness. I find myself reading all I can on the subject. I think most people spent too much energy and resources trying to attain happiness in ways that are often counterproductive. Most people are terrible at relationships, take too few risks and work to stay within predefined social constructs to their detriment.
Science can help focus our energies on those things that are more likely to appreciably increase happiness. It seems a bit counterintuitive–especially to those of us who struggle financially–that winning the lottery doesn’t make people happy. The research also illuminates one reason long-term relationships often fail: the initial happiness surge of new love eventually wanes.
In recent years, cognitive scientists have turned in increasing numbers to the study of human happiness, and one of their central findings is that we are not very good at predicting how happy or unhappy something will make us. Given time, survivors of tragedies and traumas report themselves nearly as happy as they were before, and people who win the lottery or achieve lifelong dreams don’t see any long-term increase in happiness. By contrast, annoyances like noise or chronic pain bring down our happiness more than you’d think, and having friends or an extra hour of sleep every night can raise it dramatically.
19
A Longitudinal Analysis of Happiness
1 Comment | Posted by Brent Danley in family, health, philosophy, science
What Makes Us Happy?
Joshua Wolf Shenk, The Atlantic, June 2009
I’ve long been intrigued by people and how they relate to one another. I have considered ad nauseum the source of human happiness. Since I was quite young I realized happiness could not be derived from riches alone; there are simply too many who are either happy and poor or sad and rich. When I became an atheist I realized happiness does not derive from god or faith in a higher power. Happiness, I’ve understood well, is all about relationships. It turns out I am correct.
Arlie Bock—a brusque, no-nonsense physician who grew up in Iowa and took over the health services at Harvard University in the 1930s—conceived the project with his patron, the department-store magnate W. T. Grant. Writing in September 1938, Bock declared that medical research paid too much attention to sick people; that dividing the body up into symptoms and diseases—and viewing it through the lenses of a hundred micro-specialties—could never shed light on the urgent question of how, on the whole, to live well. His study would draw on undergraduates who could “paddle their own canoe,†Bock said, and it would “attempt to analyze the forces that have produced normal young men.†He defined normal as “that combination of sentiments and physiological factors which in toto is commonly interpreted as successful living.â€
“Babies come from storks” is not a competing school of thought in medical school.
We shouldn’t teach both.
The media shouldn’t equate both.
~Bill Maher
10
Obama Lifts Ban On Stem Cell Research
0 Comments | Posted by Brent Danley in government, health, news, politics, religion, science
Stem cell scientists hail new era
Carolyn Y. Johnson, Boston Globe, March 10, 2009
Obama yesterday followed through on promises he made during his election campaign, signing an executive order allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and directing the National Institutes of Health to write guidelines within 120 days for how the research should be conducted.
He also signed a memorandum to elevate science within his administration, clarify the responsibilities of the office of science and technology policy, and ensure that “we base our public policies on the soundest science . . . and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.”
“President Obama’s new executive order on embryonic stem cell research is a sad victory of politics over science and ethics,” Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said in a statement.
That’s rich. It is the science community that has been hampered by W.’s anti-science policies and who are cheering this executive order. Furthermore, stem cell treatments and cures have the potential to help many millions of people live longer healthier lives. It is immoral to oppose this research.
My favorite part of this wonderful news may be the memorandum President Obama signed that elevates science within his administration by saying, “we base our public policies on the soundest science”. I think the American people deserve more than wishful prayers. This shift in public policy gives me great hope.
How to Save New Brain Cells
Tracey J. Shors, Scientific American, March 2009, p47
In this fascinating article, professor of psychology at Rutgers University’s Center for Collaborative Neuroscience, Tracey J. Shors, discusses her findings from experiments to determine when and how neurons are produced and cared for. It turns out that we either use our brains or we lose them. Alcohol is bad, blueberries are good. Aerobic exercise is good, too.
Exercise and other actions may help produce extra brain cells. But those new recruits do not necessarily stick around. Many if not most of them disappear within just a few weeks of arising. Of course, most cells in the body do not survive indefinitely. So the fact that these cells die is, in itself, not shocking. But their quick demise is a bit of a puzzler. Why would the brain go through the trouble of producing new cells only to have them disappear rapidly?
Photo: stellaretriever
Scientific American, February 19, 2009
Hebei got its first heavy snow of this year on Wednesday. The provincial weather bureau said that snow too was “enhanced” by artificial seeding.
“The snow has brought moisture to the soil, which may help end the drought,” Guo Yingchun, a senior engineer of the provincial meteorological observatory, was quoted as saying.
She said that 313 cigarette-size sticks of silver iodide were fired into the clouds from Wednesday night to Thursday morning, “a procedure that made the snow a lot heavier.”
I’m not quite sure what to think of this. If seeding clouds with sticks of silver iodide can increase precipitation and reduce the severity of a long drought, then go for it.
Modern science is fantastic and amazing! It’s a great and exciting time to be alive.
Unfinished Business
The Economist, Feb 7th-13th 2009
Charles Darwin ranks among scientists right at the very top with Einstein and Newton. Acceptance of his theory is depressingly low. Especially in the United States. The idea is quite simple and obvious.
The idea of evolution by natural selection is not hard to grasp. It just requires connecting some uncontentious propositions. These are that organisms vary from one another, even within a species, and that new variation can arise from time to time; that some of this variation is passed from parent to offspring; and that more individuals are born than can exist in the available space (or be sustained by the available resources). The consequence is what Darwin described in his book as a “struggle for existenceâ€. The weakest are eliminated in this struggle. The fit survive. The survivors pass on their traits to their offspring. Over enough time, this differential transmission of characters will lead to the formation of a new species.
I should say it is obvious now, after many years of exposure to the theory and the plethora of supporting evidence. Why then, is the theory of evolution rejected by so many?
