Chemistry
I've expressed my lack of faith in the Chemistry paradigm (ie the atomic model) before, in this post in our old blog.As Freya pointed out kindly in Chemistry: "There's always a freaking exception."
And there is. And Occam's razor states that the way we think subatomic particles interact with each other are probably incorrect.
Because you know you're wrong if you're making exceptions for yourself all over the place. I do believe there is something succinct that describes all subatomic interactions in a way that works intuitively, and gets rid of exceptions that "just are."
How many times have you asked "WHY IS SUCH AND SUCH DIFFERENT TO EVERYTHING ELSE?"
And your teacher will reply "I dunno lol. Just memorise that this is different."
And silently your doubt for the periodic table grows and grows.
Oh lol I just remembered an FML where some girl's boyfriend memorised her menstrual cycle (so she can't pull the "no sex I'm on my period" on him). And then he forgot her birthday LOL. Hope I don't ever end up like that :L
Physics
Conventional current. Do I have to say any more? I mean everyone knows that it's the electrons from the "negative" terminal flowing towards the positive, as you can clearly see in a CRO. Yet plenty of calculations involve seeing it as electricity flowing from positive to negative. Including freaking voltage. And the force on a wire due to electromagnetic interactions. Everything's so counterintuitive, and you need to think twice before going "so current flows THIS way in this question..."And the "laws" of physics are rather arrogant. How can we possibly prove that the laws of physics apply in outer space? Most (if not all) the experiments regarding mechanics have been conducted on Earth. And I know for sure all mechanics experiments have been conducted within our solar system. Just because it APPEARS to work for the greater universe (ie bending of light due to gravity and what not), we can't be sure it's true, simply because we can't test it.
The rest of the universe could have massively messed up physics, and gravity doesn't exist, etc etc. How could we tell?
Biology
And in the event of aliens approaching Earth, are we going to classify them as "alive"? What if they're not made of cells, but are capable of moving and intelligent thought? Do we just call that super-slime and refuse to give them the title of being "alive"?Though I guess apart from cells defining life, biology seems very Earth-based, and everything is relative to our own Earth. Not like we can go classifying organisms from anywhere else anyway :L
And on an unrelated but still biological note - why do girls seem to have a reduced sense of fear/self-preservation when it comes to things like heights and the possibility of hurting yourself in general?
I have two theories:
- Back before humans cared about equal rights, women did what the females of any species did: stay at home and raise the offspring. Due to their rarely used fight/flight instincts, nature decided they didn't need them. I mean, it's not like the female Neanderthals were hunting the mammoths, right? So why would they have an instinct for running out of the way when the mammoth fell and is potentially going to crush them? (I don't have to give an example of reduced self-preservation, right?)
- Well, maybe not! Maybe even before that, women were more hardcore than men (like in many species of spiders!), and they went out and did the jobs that men couldn't do. Like dive off cliffs and the like. And how can any of those things be done if you have fear? Yeah fuck fear. Evolve women with little to no self-preservation, to ensure the success of the species.
7 comments:
By Occam's Razor, all atoms would be solid balls. (And the laws of physics would be the same everywhere.)
While it's true that science isn't always correct, it's based off experimental testing and analysis, and from these hypotheses are formed, unlike religion in which the beliefs are basically unfounded. And a lot, if not all, of the things you've pointed out are based on this too. Who's to say that nature isn't governed by crazy rules which decide to do whatever the hell they want when they feel like it? It doesn't give a poopwhistle what we think, it's still there. Also, your 'making exceptions all over the place is wrong' point kinda contradicts with your 'laws of physics are weird everywhere else' point. Anyway, my point is, while science may not always be correct, it's the best we've got and it's continually improving and adapting to explain the natural phenomena we experience.
awkward ending
Solid balls, while simple, is far from comprehensive. Why does almost every element seem to shrink as it changes from gas->liquid-> solid, yet water goes "eff you rules" and grows bigger from liquid->solid?
(This is currently explained by hydrogen bonding, but a solid ball model would not accommodate for that)
I personally don't doubt Jesus existed. I also don't doubt some guy called King Arthur existed. All I don't believe is that they were magical, and turned water into wine, or had shady deals with a lady in a lake for an OP sword (respectively)
Also I don't see how "making exceptions all over the place is wrong" is different to "what if laws of physics are weird everywhere else". They would be one and the same if we had to account for differences in different parts of the universe (while still trying to adhere to stuff like gravity, Newton's laws, etc)
Lol yeah maybe I should a few things here, to neutralise the awkward ending:
Male brains are separated into more distinct hemispheres than women, due to being flooded with testosterone as a foetus.
Now this results in men being more able to more completely separate emotion and logic (well at least to me, when I watch a guy and a girl argue, the girl very rarely makes sense). It's also more unlikely that something that happened at work will hardcore-ly negatively impact family relationships. Conversely, it can mean guys being douchebags and bad at empathy stuff.
As women have more joined hemispheres, they are better at empathy and communication. This is when they're not upset. When they're upset everything just gets fucked up and you might as well be talking to a moose. This also reduces rational thought under fear - it's not just the right side of brain going OH SHIT while the left side thinks about running away. It's the whole brain going OH SHIT and then cringing and squeezing eyes shut and internally hoping that the danger will pass (usually doesn't). But yeah the relatively joined hemispheres would do wonders for semi-creative, semi-logical subjects like English =D
Yes the solid ball model is unable to explain weird things like the expansion of water during freezing but that's exactly my point: Occam's Razor in its simplest form is very often incorrect. I think it's insufficient to say that an established scientific view, in this case the atomic model, is wrong simply because 'it's not nice' or 'there are weird exceptions' or because 'Occam's Razor says so'. Taking Occam's Razor as your only evidence is a weak argument because taking it to extremes or too seriously often gives ridiculous consequences. As you say, a comprehensive model is superior to a simple one and that is what our current scientific model is.
Secondly, I think you missed my point on the 'weird exceptions' and 'laws of physics': what I'm trying to say is that saying "you're wrong if you're making exceptions for yourself all over the place" contradicts your "what if laws are different everywhere else etc." Going by your argument, the laws of physics probably won't be different everywhere else because that would create weird exceptions all over the place which then must be wrong, right?
continuing
Your comments about men's brains being separated into more distinct hemispheres and therefore being superior in terms of rational thought etc. (as well as your assertions that girls rarely make sense in arguments and that guys are less hardcorely affected etc.) seem incredibly sexist. Although there are popular generalisations about particular functions e.g. logic, emotion in specific hemispheres of the brain, there is actually very little evidence to support this so really this distinct hemisphere thing has very ltitle to do with females being more 'fucked up' when they're upset or being irrational under fear.
shameless but relevant self promotion:
http://awanderingthought.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/re-apply-to-all/
lol anon, you're the best. jeff, i'm sure you think you're bringing to light some astonishing observations of the differences between the sexes, but you're really exposing the biases with which you observe others. (they're pretty fucking sexist biases, btw.)
Like I promised, some replies
@anon with the two posts
You make a very compelling argument. However, I find it... [insert your own word here] that you can have such strong opinions, yet you are too afraid to put your own name and reputation behind your views.
But in general about the generalisations - generalisations are general because a good deal of the population display those traits.
So if you're a guy who is sensitive and cries during the sad scenes, then I'm sorry.
If you're a girl who rages rationally while on PMS (I'm really sorry for pulling this card, but I've heard enough girls acknowledge PMS as a irrational time for me to think this isn't overly insulting), then I'm also sorry.
But you are not a majority of the population. Like, I'm not going to ignore the fact that half the people in the world have penises and the other half have uteruses. I am not going to ignore that there are different strengths and weaknesses between the genders.
Sue me for pointing them out.
Tell me to my face that males and females are equal in all aspects.
Post a Comment