Biocentrism

Very interesting post published 17th April 2009 on The Scientist Magazine's blog touches on the application of issues I've raised in my previous posts here. Some of those who have left comments on that article have suggest that the biocentrism concept is "egocentric".

However if one analyzes what their comments are saying, their egotism quickly emerges. That same 'brand of egotism' I wrote about in my Science and Egotism post back in February. In a nutshell, they say, if WE can not make sense of something, it can not be true. Some even take this to a further extreme; 'If science can not test it, it can not be so.' This argument is often seen in the wording; "You can not prove it, so you can not say that!" This argument only means that what is being said, is outside the realm of science. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines the scientific method this way;

"principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses" (accessed 05/03/2009)

Inherent within this definition is the limitation that what is to be tested must be falsifiable. This clearly identifies limits as to what is, and is not, within the realm of science.

I encourage you to read the post and judge for yourself. I, for one, am willing to admit that human intelligence and understanding, as well, has it's limits (inherent within our anatomy) that prevents us from a complete "understanding of everything."

How biology is central to constructing a more complete and unified theory of the Universe.

Just a Quick Note

Today's issue of Science Magazine released on line contained a very interesting article, related to sleep and learning. It found that when we sleep, or at least when fruit flies sleep, activity in the brain actually destroys nerve connections! Now don't go overboard here, this is a necessary step in our ability to retain memories. You see, the amount of information our brains receive every day is enormous. Most of this information is 'junk'. As an example, do you remember what the close you were wearing yesterday felt like against your skin? Of course not! That information is deemed 'unnecessary' by the brain. This article may very well have found the mechanism as to what occurs for our brains to do it's 'daily house cleaning' as we sleep.

This activity makes room for the much more important information to be retained for storage into long term memory. How the brain decides which connection to destroy and which to leave is still unknown.

Just thought this was interesting in light of my last few postings!

Is It Finite or Infinite?

It seems, to me at least, that today's society takes too many things for granted! The most frequent appears to be that more is always better'. Of this I am most certainly not convinced. This brings up the question in the title of the post; 'Is it finite or infinite?' Let's look at this from the aspect of 'knowledge'.

If knowledge is truly finite, it then follows that there is a limit to its realm. With this limit, we should be able to establish some sort of unit of knowledge by which it may be measured. What that unit actually is, would take some pretty deep thinking to establish. We do know that a 'memory' (neurophysiologically speaking how a memory is stored) is established by a network of nerve cells (called neurons) forming new connections within the brain. For argument's sake, let assume that our arbitrary unit of knowledge is measured in units we will refer to as a 'neuro'. So for 'one fact' to be remembered (thereby becoming part of our knowledge) it will require one neuro.

Our neuro will, of course, require the space occupied by those nerve cells that make it up. We should then be able to calculate out how much storage space it will take if a person is to 'know everything'. I suspect that some readers will already know where this post is headed, but I will continue!

Scientists have already establish that the average human brain weight is between 1200 g - 1500 g. It contains, an “Average number of neurons in the brain = 100 billion” ¹. So our ability to know or remember pieces of knowledge is most definitely finite. I'm not so convinced that knowledge is finite, are you?

1 Eric H. Chudler, Ph.D.;Brain Facts and Figures; <http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html#brain> Accessed March 09, 2009

Science and Egotism

I guess it really shouldn't any longer however; the advances made these days always seem to amaze me. Advances in science and technology can be fascinating and wonderful things! They have brought about some pretty incredible ways of diagnosis and treatment in medicine. They have been the impetus behind many of the modern-day conveniences which we now enjoy. And of course they have most recently provided a nearly exponential expansion in our database of knowledge.

It seems to me however that this expansion in our knowledge has also served to expand our egotism and self-aggrandizement. Why would I say this? I'll offer up some observations I have made over the past few years;

I have heard countless times, in defense of why one thing or another is done differently now than in the past, "Well, we know better today!" I'm always tempted to follow this up with the question; "How do we know 'better' today?" We certainly know more today however, if one thing experience has taught me ‘more’ does not always equal ‘better’! How can we be so assured that what we know today is better than what we knew yesterday? How can we be assured that what we know today won't be changed or reversed by what we know tomorrow? It's really unclear to me what instrument, scale or gauge is being used to measure this.

Throughout my 13 years in the world of academia I have been exposed to those of my colleagues who act as if (and even those who will outright tell you) "You can't possibly know as much as I do on the subject!" Yet some of the same colleagues are blissfully unaware of some of the more recent discoveries or information available on their own subject. I have also seen those who are of the opinion that if they cannot understand it, being an "expert" in a certain field, it cannot be correct or true. Is this anything other than pure unadulterated egotism? Fortunately they seem to be the exception and not the rule.

There's something about society that seems to cause it to belief or at least act like the species referred to as Homo sapiens is the "ultimate". With some information appearing to go as far as suggesting evolution can no longer improve upon itself. This of course would be in direct opposition with the theory of evolution itself.

Certainly we have an enormously more amount of information today than we have in years past. The bulk of this information is available to so many more people through the Internet than it ever has been. I think it is more imperative now, at least more apparent now than ever, that we comprehend the subtle yet significant difference between knowing and understanding.

I always make it a point on my first day of class to ask the the question, "If a person or a group of people could possibly know everything there is to know but does not understand what to do with that knowledge, what good is the knowledge possessed?"

For now I'll leave you with that and one other question. Even if the technology necessary were available today, could a human being actually "know" everything that there is to know?

In the beginning...

I'll start this blogging stuff out by bringing together a few of the random thoughts that led me to start this blog. I am a creationist by faith and upbringing and I am a scientist by education. Some may find this contradictory or incompatible with each other however, as this blog develops I think you will find that contrary to popular belief science and religion truly have no argument against the other!

"Ridiculous" you may be thinking right about now but if you stop and give it some objective thought it should become quite clear to you as to what leads me to this conclusion. You see science is simply a method of experimentation and collection of data. Religion, or it least I should say any faith-based religion, is a method of belief in the absence of data without data faith is an absolute. On the contrary, if there is data there is very little necessity for faith.

Some would argue that if data exists Faith is absolutely unnecessary. Yet there still exists a necessary component of faith. You see, you must have faith that the data is actually correct and that it is accurate. Furthermore the data itself means nothing without interpretation of that data! Faith is also necessary in the interpretation process. You must have faith that the interpretation itself is correct and free from errors and have faith that the person who does the interpretation is qualified, objective and unbiased.

I understand this may be philosophical gibberish to some. To others perhaps nothing more than religious wacko-ism. And yet others as an attempt by this Homo sapien to explain his own understanding of the continued conflict which is either intentionally or unwittingly perpetuated in our society. My desire is that, to at least more than a few of the readers, it at least makes sense, is intriguing, and begins to stimulate thought processes within your own mind.

Regardless of which category you are a member of, welcome to my blog!