Showing posts with label Charles Darwin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Darwin. Show all posts

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Simple Science Quotes

The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best – that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. (Thomas Huxley)


Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

(Charles Darwin , Introduction to The Descent of Man, 1871)


We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

(Sir Isaac Newton , Principia: The system of the world)


(Galileo Galilei , 1600) I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. … In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.


(Max Planck, 1920) A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.


The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)


Someday we’ll understand the whole thing as one single marvelous vision that will seem so overwhelmingly simple and beautiful that we may say to each other; ‘Oh, how could we have been so stupid for so long? How could it have been otherwise!’ (J. A. Wheeler)


What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). … The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. … Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrödinger , The Interpretation of Quantum Physics.)


(Aristotle, 340BC) The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. … And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. … That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. … There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity.


(Gottfried Leibniz, 1646 – 1716) Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. … I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity. … I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general.


All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)


When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:

Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. …

Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept ‘empty space’ loses its meaning. … The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. … The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables – the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950)


(Bradley, 1846-1924) We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole.


Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.

It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.

(Albert Einstein)


Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

(Leonardo da Vinci)


Source






The post Simple Science Quotes appeared first on Robert JR Graham.


Tuesday, 23 September 2014

Merging Evolution and Creationism

Why Can’t The Theories of Evolution And Creationism Co-Exist

by: David G. Hallstrom, Sr.


I am not a scientist or a religious authority, therefore my question “Why Can’t The Theories of Evolution And Creationism Co-Exist?” may seem unintelligent, however it seems to me that the theories of evolution and creationism can be merged.


It is my understanding that the theory of evolution basically holds that mankind evolved from a lower species over numerous generations through natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and other selective forces.


It is my understanding that the theory of creationism basically holds that mankind, the earth and everything else was created by a supreme being or god.


When people say that “god created the heavans and the earth in six days and on the seventh he rested”, who can say how long one of god’s days is. Why are we so egotistical as to believe that his day is the same as our’s. We don’t know god (Most of us who believe in god do so because we want to not because we have proof.) but if there is a god why can’t his, her or it’s day be a thousand or a million or even several billion of our years.


Chapter 2, verse 7 of the book of Genises states “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” It does not state how long this took or what form the being we call man originally took. God‘s image can be many things. We have no way of knowing. Additionally, although the bible is supposed to be the word of god, it was written by humans and therefore subject to human interpretation.


When we create something we start out with one thing and then add to it and alter it untill we finish and with some creations, such as a garden, we never finish adding to and altering it. Who says that god could not have started with one cell and through evolution added to it and altered it untill it became a human being. Who can say for sure that he, she or it is still not adding to and altering mankind. Who can say that god did not make us in such a way that we would continue to evolve without his, her or it’s intervention. Who can say that the process is finished. Chapter 2 verse 1 of the book of Genesis states “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”. I have not found any place in the bible that states humans were finished.


It is said that “god created man in his own image”. Since no one has ever seen god who can say what that image is. Who knows what humans will look like or how they will think in a thousand, ten thousand or one hundred thousand years. Maybe someday all humans will look and think exactly alike. Maybe someday all humans will merge into one being.


If there is a being powerful enough to create us then that being would be so far above us that we could not possibly understand it’s thought processes or how it created or is creating us. We can not know what is intended for us or how or if things will end.


No human knows or understands everthing. No human can state beyond all doubt that there is or isn’t a god. No human is infallible. Anything is possible, even the possibility that evolution and creationism are part of the same process.


Source






The post Merging Evolution and Creationism appeared first on Robert JR Graham.


Monday, 25 August 2014

Smile! It will make you happy

Overview:

Theories of Emotion


An emotion, such as happiness or sadness, is a subjective experience that is associated with some phsyiological change in arousal and some characteristic behavior. For example, a feeling of happiness is generally accompanied by a decrease in heart rate, indicating a decrease in arousal, and a smile, an overt behavior. Fear is generally associated with, among other physiological effects, an increase in heart rate and clenched teeth.


Do we smile because we are happy or do are we happy because we smile? Theories of emotion differ in terms of whether the emotion leads to physiological and behavioral changes or the other way around. According to one theory, the facial feedback theory which has its roots in the writings and theories of Charles Darwin and William James , emotion can be regulated by behavior, particularly by facial expression.


Try smiling. Do you feel happy? Try frowning. Do you feel grumpy? Research from the 1970s and 1980s suggests you do – at least physiologically. In one study, participants who mimicked a fearful expression showed an increase in heart rate and skin temperature. Kleinke, Peterson, and Rutledge (1998) added to this theory by examining how mimicking facial expressions might influence mood.

Article Summary


A number of research studies have shown that making a facial expression, such as a smile, can produce effects on the body that are similar to those that result from the actual emotion, such as happiness.


Kleinke, Peterson, and Rutledge (1998) two scientific questions that extend the work on facial feedback theories of emotion:


* Do people who are more self-conscious show stronger mood effects from making facial expressions than people who are less self-conscious?

* Does facial expression have a stronger effect on mood when the person can see his/or her expression?


To study these questions, Kleinke et al. had students view photographs or slides of people with either positive facial expressions (smiling) or negative facial expressions (frowning). Participants in the control group just viewed the photos or slides, participants in the expression group were instructed to mimic the facial expression, and participants in the expression-mirror group matched the expression with the aid of looking in a mirror.


Mood was measured using a mood scale in which participants indicated their degree of agreement with statements reflecting their mood “right now.” The mood scale was administered before and after viewing the photographs/slides and change in mood was used as the dependent variable. In the first experiment, the participants also completed a self-consciousness scale in which they indicated their agreement with statements such as “I’m always trying to figure myself out.”


Happy Baby! I can't help but smile every time ...

Happy Baby! I can’t help but smile every time I look at this picture. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



As found in other studies, facial expressions did affect the participants’ mood: Mood did not change in the control group who simply viewed the expressions. Participants who matched the positive expressions experienced a positive change in mood (they were in a more positive mood after making positive facial expressions) and participants who matched the negative expressions experienced a negative change in mood.


Participants who were more self-conscious showed greater changes in mood following making the positive or negative expressions. Kleinke et al. conclude that this finding indicates that self-conscious people are more in-tune with themselves and therefore more responsive to mood-inducting experiences.


Participants who watched their expressions in a mirror also showed a greater change in mood. It seems that the visual feedback adds to the proprioceptive self-awareness of mood-related facial expression.


Overall, this study adds to the facial feedback theory of emotion by demonstrating that a personality characteristic of self-consciousness and visual feedback both add to the effect of facial expression on emotion.


Source






The post Smile! It will make you happy appeared first on Robert JR Graham.