“… by any means necessary…”

fri.jan.19: snow, ice, and a car (41secs.)

this is a video my mom’s friend sent my mom, and my mom sent me. it’s relevant because the car is covered with snow, and okc is covered in snow. the video clip itself was just okay, though — not hilarious… at least for me… but it’s short enough and interesting enough to warrant one viewing…


Friday, January 19, 2007 Posted by | 500 natural sciences and mathematics | 5 Comments


FROM: “Who do you think you are?” A survey of the brain. Economist magazine. 23 December 2006.

THIS ARTICLE REMINDED ME OF: Iman’s science fair experiment on the brain; Dr. Cheema, a Board Member, who takes care of patients in the field of neurology. Go neuroscience!!

homer simpson brain

Picture (above): Homer Simpson’s brain… If you look real carefully, you could spot it!

EXCERPTS (with my comments under the excerpt, with an arrow):

(1) … think of the brain as being like a computer, and the mind as being like a piece of software that runs on the computer.

—–>Nice analogy, though as they say in the article, it’s not totally valid.

(2) Naturally, the revolution in neuroscience brought about by this new technology has its critics… All these criticisms are justified. But these are early days. In science, time tells. The good studies are repeated and make the textbooks. The bad ones cannot be replicated and vanish down the memory hole.

—–>Excellent that critics and criticisms are not shunned aside and ignored. We aren’t perfect, and if we aren’t told of our imperfections, we will continue to remain imperfect. Accepting *constructive* criticism isn’t always easy, but it can usually do us good. Accepting criticism will allow science to reach closer to “the truth,” as it were.

—–>I like the idea of replication in science. That is, if an experiment’s results are not replicated, then that experiment’s conclusions are tossed aside. If the results of an experiment *are* replicated, then that experiment’s conclusions validate that particular experiment. This is an inherent mechanism that keeps science “honest,” so to speak. Like many things, though, dishonesty could seep into the field of science.]

(3) Such science is very much work in progress. Indeed, it is science of a type that would have been familiar to Broca and his contemporaries, for in many cases the researchers have only the haziest idea of where they are going. In the 19th century, when scientists were feeling their way towards big concepts such as the laws of thermodynamics, electromagnetics and the periodic table without really knowing what they were looking for, that was normal… neuroscience is one area where big concepts certainly remain to be discovered.

—–>This is one of the coolest excerpts ever. Why? Because it ties in nicely with my quotation by Socrates, about how we as people shouldn’t think we’re “all that” and we know everything. Instead, we should recognize that we do *not* know everything. In fact, we know very little. In this particular case, besides knowing that they are trying to learn more about the brain, they recognize that they know little. An example in medicine would be that there are some medications that work in patients, but physicians do not understand why or *how* these medications work. I believe it is important for us to recognize our lack of knowledge. It’s like they say: “If a person tells a parent how to control their child, there is a good chance that that person does not *have* a child.” It’s so easy to advise and preach, and one reason for that is because we *think* we know it all. Sadly, we don’t. And even more sadly, many of us don’t know that we don’t know it all…

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 Posted by | 500 natural sciences and mathematics | 3 Comments