Saturday, December 13, 2014

Go here to find full listing of my blogs. some are of spurious and over spontaneous thought. But I have left them as they are.

https://www.blogger.com/profile/01011719426074300898                                                                       https://www.blogger.com/profile/01011719426074300898

Google

Google

Friday, December 12, 2014

Updating my own amnesiac state and pushing to reform my own knowledge has resulted in changes: To whit I will illucidate

I have left this blog in sort of disarray and hope to correct that. I have been lately in a state of depression and this has left deficits, and I am in the process of mental renovation.  Here are a few topics that  have attracted my interest.

In the world of academia and its processes that have resulted in a tradition that is fixed.  Dispute and controversy go through channels.  Scientific progress and the review of methodologies has its detractors and its defects that have been noted by some objective observers.  Thomas S. Kuhn in his introduction of the very familiar (to many book), "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Said "History , if viewed as a repository for more than anecdote or chronology, could produce  a decisive transformation in the image of science by which we are now possessed.   [The aim of text written by those in their time is persuasive and pedagogic ] a concept drawn from them is more likely to fit the enterprise that produced them than the image of a national culture drawn from a tourist brochure or a language text." (paraphrase here) 'The result has been an image of science with profound implications about its nature and development where in upon overturning some long accepted iconography often beggars belief in the mind of many how the previously accepted facts stood firmly as virtual fact in the face of the new paradigm.'  To many, today it seems almost inconceivable that many of the theories,  some relatively new, some now so long standing and well supported that it appears impossible that they could fall, ( for example darwinian natural selection ).  But do not forget that newtonian mechanics held sway for 250 years until a man named Albert Einstein upset the apple cart.  I concede that newton's prinkipia matematica still holds for much of the smaller range theater ( for example the forces played out in a football game need little refinement from general and special relativity.) But quantum mechanics was difficult for Einstein to accept.  But egos grow large...(imagine 5 revolutionary papers in one year) 1. the photo-electric effect (noble prize) 2. Brownian motion and proof of the existence of atoms.  3. General Relativity.  4. Special Relativity. 5. Mass energy equivalence that included the E = m(c squared)So the pace of science and its acceptance is personal.  That is,  it has personal effects and responses.  Also the scientific method has certain tenants that are considered a prerequisite for scientific research and progress to take place.

What is phenomenal is that application of the last 50 to 75 years of science has lead to an avalanche of dazzle among the public without a commiserate evaluation of the what best applications in a post 80's (no growth for middle to lower income persons) would have been best for investment if anyone had been analyzing the cornucopia of novel discoveries that should have delivered an at least notable improvement in living standards universally as well as taxable income if not for those on the lower rungs if we accept that the wealth went to to 20% peoples.  (Why hasn't the deficit been eroded significantly during the period say 92- 2006?)

Lets add the fact that it takes no presupposition "personal dazzle in the form of incredulity" to reach such a conclusion ( by that I mean personal incredulity being subjective) economics 101 should bare this out.

We can see that also there was no palpable outrage at the obvious gain by the wealthy through their betting against a market that they obviously set up to fail and that this clear no brainer was made unnecessarily complex by the media as well as the congressional hearings.  Ok maybe I have covered a little too much in this post.  But there is more to say that does not fall in the category conspiracy theory.  It is just corruption plain and clear.  There are more, many more, topics to cover that question where, we as a nation, are being lead, and why no one seems to notice.

Monday, May 5, 2014

Our public schools, our curricula, and even our home-life (via generational exposure to the proto-curricula of the of the same sort of which I will explicate following) degenerates and has degenerated our capacity to remember.  I taught middle school and high school Spanish and French beginning in 1985 through 1992. Significantly, I began to observe these deficits and subsequently I began to use my own form of curriculum unimpeded (due to an unusual freedom because of a principal who was very pro teacher, defending the good as well as the bad in some cases.) Almost immediately I began to see a prominent correlation between dramatic and novel presentations of new material and memory. For example I would try all sorts strange connections to other disciplines like biology history mathematics, and alphabetical comparisons to Greek Russian and Arabic. I started teaching entirely in Spanish and French after the first week i.e. before I was familiar with the names of the students, I spoke only in the language I was teaching.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Contextual mathematics of direct contact with nature, emotion, explanatory grace, poetry and prose......


by
M_50x66
's review
Aug 01, 08

Recommended to Stephen by: found it myself
Recommended for: anyone interested
Read in May, 2005

I have noticed that all the reviews of this book that are negative or refer to it as well debunked and (every scientist already knows this is crap). Not one can give a specific simple example of how behe can be challenged. simply stated they have no such answer. They can't. Because Behe is right. no matter whether you believe in creationism or design or evolution or what ever your stance, there simply is no well articulated answer to his argument. when someone points one out. not with some footnote, but a real explanation for how complexity of this order of magnitude can arise by darwinian mechanisms then ,...hooray but i havent seen it anywhere in any review or any analysis by some great scientist such as dawkins, wilson, dennet or any other. Because they simply dont have a rebuttal that makes sense in the darwinian mechanism. maybe there is some other mechanism that can be at work. I dont claim to be a creationist but scientists ought to look at their shortcomings with some guts, instead of just poo pooing what they've read. come on give us a real response that can really challenge what Behe has come up with. be brave. where are you???
12 likes · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Darwin's Black Box.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-4 of 4) (4 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

Brian Hodges You're right. Behe IS right, that when you look at certain biochemical processes, some things don't make sense. There are some things we don't know. There are some glaring things that science has not yet figured out. BUT, where Behe makes his mistake is when he jumps from "we don't know how this happens" to "it MUST BE Design." Sorry, that's not how science works. If we threw up our hands every time we didn't have an answer to something and said, "Oop, it must be God," we'd never figure ANYTHING out.

As I pointed out in my own review of this book, Behe does make some interesting points about certain gaps in the natural selection theory. If he had left it at that, I could have gone with him. It's when he says, "well we don't know what it is, but it LOOKS like this so it must be that," that he lost me.

Bounded Terrain: Remember or Explain. Why Americans Don't Think for Themselves. Derivations of Curtis White.

Discover new books on Goodreads
Meet your next favorite book:

Stephen Andrew's Reviews > Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution


message 2: by Aldrea (new)

Aldrea I found your review interesting. I haven't read this book yet, but I am curious what he has to say. As a molecular biologist, I have to state that simply because scientists have not yet been able to explain something yet, does not mean that it is unexplainable. Perhaps we have not yet progressed to a level of being able to explain certain things but will in the future. 20 years ago my particular specialty within my field did not even exist. Now we have the human genome mapped. Jumping right into - we can't explain it, so it must be God - is a cop out and not proof or evidence of the existence of a god or creator.
Note that I personally do believe in a God.
~Aldrea


message 3: by Nullifidian (new)

Nullifidian There is a very simple challenge to what Behe has come up with: it's a fallacy.

Consider the logic of claiming that designed objects exhibit irreducible complexity, and we see irreducible complexity in biological organisms, therefore biological organisms are designed. It's like claiming that rain makes things wet, therefore when we see something that's wet we know it was rained on. Given the fallacy at the heart of Behe's logic, it doesn't matter how many examples of "IC systems" he comes up with, because they can never warrant the conclusion of design.


message 4: by Adam (new) - added it

Adam Stephen - I would recommend "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller for a direct answer to the questions Behe poses. They have not gone unanswered.


back to top