I'm totally exhausted from a weekend trip to DC and currently doped up on pain meds from the slipped disc in my back. Fortunately sleep will come shortly and a short operation on my back is scheduled for wednesday ... Halloween!
Contributing to my mental and physical exhaustion was today's return trip by bus, where there was quite an invigorating debate between myself and another fellow choral member on the subject of war, religion, and morality. Whereas science is my area of expertise, his skill is with history and politics. Several other people joined in from time to time to voice their opinion, but the argument stemmed heavily from the two of us. I was shocked to see his unwillingness to accept a gray world. There are many points I could describe for the sake of making my case, but I'll only select one at the moment - dealing with divorce.
Let's say, for example, that a woman and a man decide to get married. They go to the church to get marriage counseling before tying the knot, at which point their wedding is blessed in the eyes of God. Life is good for quite sometime, until the children come along, jobs don't work out well, and the husband begins to cope by drinking. In his inebriated state he begins to become physically abusive with his wife. Over time, this leads to more verbal, physical and mental abuse even during sober moments. The wife is terribly unhappy and sometimes fears for the well-being of herself as well as her children when her husband reacts during a particular rage. She finally decides that she wants to be separate from him as he shows no signs of change and lacks the willingness to hear her wishes. However it turns out that divorce is illegal, thus preventing the woman from escaping the tyranny of her husband and trying to start a new life as a single mother or with a second chance with another marriage. This doesn't sound much different than the political and legal issues abounding in southern Ireland in the mid- to late-1980s. Despite the woman being persecuted, she has no legal right to start anew, because divorce is seen by the Catholic faith as immoral and the Vatican does not endorse such practices.
As I was relaying this story to my friend, as a hypothetical, I wanted to know if he thought that the woman should be allowed to divorce her husband. His simple answer was "no" although to his credit (however little that may be) he seemed hesitant to say that. In his mind, since divorce and remarriage meant that the woman would end up with another man, that was clearly adultery as defined in the Bible and that is a sin in the eyes of God. As a result he felt it appropriate that she obey God's commands and stay married, even if she was being abused by her husband.
As if this isn't bad enough, the conversation moved to HIV in Africa. The Vatican does not approve of the use of condoms. It is a popular Catholic belief that condoms are (1) evil, (2) interrupt a holy process, and (3) actually promote sexual immorality. As for the first point, I can only say that tools in and of themselves are neutral. They can only be used by humans for good or evil. As for the second point, I hardly see how the production of gametes and their fusion to conceive another organism is hardly so precious - I'm positive that my friend has killed many flies before, which subsequently destroyed the sperm and eggs that would give rise to many future generations. The process isn't holy ... it's just natural. And finally for the third point, it's just simply not true. I've read from many credible sources that condom use does not increase or decrease sexual promiscuity among young people. My friend believes that the Pope is well within his right to denounce the use of condoms, despite the fact that should the Pope actually endorse the use of condoms, lay people who obey the word of the Vatican as law (which include many people in Africa) could be saved from the HIV epidemic. The case has been made that the Vatican has the opportunity to prevent these infections from occurring, but chooses not to endorse the method because the method is itself immoral - why is it immoral? ... because God said so.
Well, I guess that just says it all, doesn't it?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Ahhh for the Dark Ages
I don't have time to submit a full posting on any topic in particular, but I couldn't help but share this bit of news with anyone who might read. 'The View' on ABC has finally let Rosie O'Donnell go (thank Zeus!) and have replaced her with a black woman named Sherri Shepherd ... a creationist.
Yes, that's right ... a creationist. After all we must tolerate ALL view points, right? I've posted the link to the clip on youtube so that you can enjoy the sadness with me. You see, Whoopi Goldberg, by chance or sheer calculated cunning (I'm going with luck on this one), was trying to get Sherri to describe her view point and was attempting to toss her some softball questions. Along the way, she begins to lead with the question, "Do you believe that the world is flat?" Simple question - I suppose it deserves a simple answer. Response is .... "I don't know ... I've never thought about it before."
What?
That's right, she continues to reiterate the point that she 'doesn't know' and then proceeds to say that she doesn't worry about such things - she's busy worrying about how to feed her son. Apparently it's too much to have to go to work to earn a living AND be smarter than a 2nd grader. But there you have it in the link to the left, in all its glory. Someone who isn't sure if the world is flat, and we're supposed to accept her belief in creationism as based on any sound or credible logic?
On that note of 'tolerance' - I find it interesting that people think science should be tolerant of creationism. When pollsters ask citizens whether or not they think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom, the majority say yes. Why? Because we've hyped up the idea of DEMOCRACY so much, that people think Science is democratic ... nothing could be farther from the truth! Science rules with an iron fist - the reason it's wrong to 'teach the controversy' in the science classroom between creationism and evolution is because the very act is intellectually dishonest - THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. On some later posts, I will undoubtedly tease this out into many individual arguments, but for now it should suffice to reason that Science is NOT tolerant of all view points. It eternally rejects those that are ignorant and stupid. As such, let's keep creationism out of school and leave it where it belongs ... on The View.
Yes, that's right ... a creationist. After all we must tolerate ALL view points, right? I've posted the link to the clip on youtube so that you can enjoy the sadness with me. You see, Whoopi Goldberg, by chance or sheer calculated cunning (I'm going with luck on this one), was trying to get Sherri to describe her view point and was attempting to toss her some softball questions. Along the way, she begins to lead with the question, "Do you believe that the world is flat?" Simple question - I suppose it deserves a simple answer. Response is .... "I don't know ... I've never thought about it before."
What?
That's right, she continues to reiterate the point that she 'doesn't know' and then proceeds to say that she doesn't worry about such things - she's busy worrying about how to feed her son. Apparently it's too much to have to go to work to earn a living AND be smarter than a 2nd grader. But there you have it in the link to the left, in all its glory. Someone who isn't sure if the world is flat, and we're supposed to accept her belief in creationism as based on any sound or credible logic?
On that note of 'tolerance' - I find it interesting that people think science should be tolerant of creationism. When pollsters ask citizens whether or not they think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom, the majority say yes. Why? Because we've hyped up the idea of DEMOCRACY so much, that people think Science is democratic ... nothing could be farther from the truth! Science rules with an iron fist - the reason it's wrong to 'teach the controversy' in the science classroom between creationism and evolution is because the very act is intellectually dishonest - THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. On some later posts, I will undoubtedly tease this out into many individual arguments, but for now it should suffice to reason that Science is NOT tolerant of all view points. It eternally rejects those that are ignorant and stupid. As such, let's keep creationism out of school and leave it where it belongs ... on The View.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Life, Death, and Se(cts) in Between
I finally did it ... I created a blog. And it's about damn time.
It's a crazy world here, and trying to make sense of it is often times more than difficult. Perhaps documenting the crazy times will help me remember what I've learned and clarify things that still seem quite ambiguous.
It's only appropriate to mention that one of the driving factors in me starting this blog is the podcast 'The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.' I highly recommend it to open-minded people who want to be challenged and remain grounded when they seem to be surrounded by crazy people. I credit Leo DiNapoli for directing my fingers to the download on iTunes; I've finally managed to catch up on all 114 episodes, and I can't wait for each week's show to come!
I'm a grad student in the Cell Biology Department at Duke University. Tomorrow I'm supposed to present a paper on the molecular 'twisting' of the protein Dynamin that actually facilitates membrane pinching and subsequent endocytosis - I'm supposed to be working on it at this very moment, as I haven't even begun the presentation aspect yet. Instead, I've been sitting at my lab bench distracted by a friend's email concerning homeopathy.
Yes, that's right - you read correctly. Someone decided to email me the merits of homeopathy, as a legitimate cure for modern ailments - the FDA's official stance on it to be precise. He sent me this link: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html
He actually sent it as an endorsement for homeopathy when, in fact, it is an indictment! The only reason the FDA doesn't call it quackery is because it would offend the many people of the world that practice it, and it wouldn't be very PC to do that, now would it?
Homeopathy functions on the founding 'law of infinitesimals' - it is just as counter-intuitive as it sounds. Diluting something down to mathematically NOTHING, claiming that the water retains an imprint of the substance, and then administering it to an ailing patient in hopes of 'stimulating' the body to respond. It involves a lot of what I like to call, 'woo woo magic.' Last night during a conversation (he's originally from India) my friend informed me that my close-minded nature was preventative to understanding the true merits of this sort of treatment - after all, back home in India there are numerous medical schools of homeopathy, millions of people who take homeopathic drugs, and his grandmother's arthritis got better after practicing homeopathy - clearly this is undeniable evidence that homeopathy works ... right?
There's a crucial logical fallacy that so many people commit because it can be very subtle - generally speaking it's a good rule of thumb, but you can never rely on it to tell the truth. The concept is so old, that there's a Latin phrase epitomizing the thought: 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc.' This essentially means that because something happened after an event took place, then that event must have caused what happened. When made explicit like this, it seems obvious that it's a mistake to think in such a way. But we commit this fallacy all the time. Especially when drugs are concerned - take aspirin for example: when you take 2 aspirin for a headache, and then your headache goes away, you initially think, "Hey! My headache is gone - the aspirin must have stopped it!" Not a bad thought, but by itself, this doesn't prove anything. Fortunately we've done many, MANY clinical studies, as well as medical research showing different receptors that aspirin can bind, and the physiological effects that taking aspirin can elicit. Not to mention that in double blind control tests, patients receiving aspirin fare much better than those taking a placebo. It's clear that aspirin works in very specific ways to manipulate your body and relieve pain, as well as perform a whole host of other reactions.
When it comes to homeopathy, we initially hear the same story - someone took a homeopathic drug and their headache stopped - they thought "Hey! There's something to this - it must have stopped my headache!" Unfortunately, the clinical trials have been done, and the medical research is in - there's no effect more than the placebo effect. People think that they're doing something to treat their problem, and the subjective symptoms begin to subside. But this NEVER holds up in group studies. Let's face it, based on the principle of dilutions, there's nothing in the potion to even cause harm. But based on the belief of a molecular 'imprint' in the water, by that definition alone, there should be imprints in the bottled water that you buy at the store that should cure you of all sorts of ailments - and cause lots of harm. This belief doesn't stand up to even a cursory glance - yet somehow hundreds of millions of dollars are made every year on drugs labelled 'homeopathic' ..... ohhhhhh - now I get it; the practice may not work, but if it doesn't cause harm, no one's going to stop you from making money.
Hooray for capitalism ... I think.
It's a crazy world here, and trying to make sense of it is often times more than difficult. Perhaps documenting the crazy times will help me remember what I've learned and clarify things that still seem quite ambiguous.
It's only appropriate to mention that one of the driving factors in me starting this blog is the podcast 'The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.' I highly recommend it to open-minded people who want to be challenged and remain grounded when they seem to be surrounded by crazy people. I credit Leo DiNapoli for directing my fingers to the download on iTunes; I've finally managed to catch up on all 114 episodes, and I can't wait for each week's show to come!
I'm a grad student in the Cell Biology Department at Duke University. Tomorrow I'm supposed to present a paper on the molecular 'twisting' of the protein Dynamin that actually facilitates membrane pinching and subsequent endocytosis - I'm supposed to be working on it at this very moment, as I haven't even begun the presentation aspect yet. Instead, I've been sitting at my lab bench distracted by a friend's email concerning homeopathy.
Yes, that's right - you read correctly. Someone decided to email me the merits of homeopathy, as a legitimate cure for modern ailments - the FDA's official stance on it to be precise. He sent me this link: http://www.fda.gov/fdac
He actually sent it as an endorsement for homeopathy when, in fact, it is an indictment! The only reason the FDA doesn't call it quackery is because it would offend the many people of the world that practice it, and it wouldn't be very PC to do that, now would it?
Homeopathy functions on the founding 'law of infinitesimals' - it is just as counter-intuitive as it sounds. Diluting something down to mathematically NOTHING, claiming that the water retains an imprint of the substance, and then administering it to an ailing patient in hopes of 'stimulating' the body to respond. It involves a lot of what I like to call, 'woo woo magic.' Last night during a conversation (he's originally from India) my friend informed me that my close-minded nature was preventative to understanding the true merits of this sort of treatment - after all, back home in India there are numerous medical schools of homeopathy, millions of people who take homeopathic drugs, and his grandmother's arthritis got better after practicing homeopathy - clearly this is undeniable evidence that homeopathy works ... right?
There's a crucial logical fallacy that so many people commit because it can be very subtle - generally speaking it's a good rule of thumb, but you can never rely on it to tell the truth. The concept is so old, that there's a Latin phrase epitomizing the thought: 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc.' This essentially means that because something happened after an event took place, then that event must have caused what happened. When made explicit like this, it seems obvious that it's a mistake to think in such a way. But we commit this fallacy all the time. Especially when drugs are concerned - take aspirin for example: when you take 2 aspirin for a headache, and then your headache goes away, you initially think, "Hey! My headache is gone - the aspirin must have stopped it!" Not a bad thought, but by itself, this doesn't prove anything. Fortunately we've done many, MANY clinical studies, as well as medical research showing different receptors that aspirin can bind, and the physiological effects that taking aspirin can elicit. Not to mention that in double blind control tests, patients receiving aspirin fare much better than those taking a placebo. It's clear that aspirin works in very specific ways to manipulate your body and relieve pain, as well as perform a whole host of other reactions.
When it comes to homeopathy, we initially hear the same story - someone took a homeopathic drug and their headache stopped - they thought "Hey! There's something to this - it must have stopped my headache!" Unfortunately, the clinical trials have been done, and the medical research is in - there's no effect more than the placebo effect. People think that they're doing something to treat their problem, and the subjective symptoms begin to subside. But this NEVER holds up in group studies. Let's face it, based on the principle of dilutions, there's nothing in the potion to even cause harm. But based on the belief of a molecular 'imprint' in the water, by that definition alone, there should be imprints in the bottled water that you buy at the store that should cure you of all sorts of ailments - and cause lots of harm. This belief doesn't stand up to even a cursory glance - yet somehow hundreds of millions of dollars are made every year on drugs labelled 'homeopathic' ..... ohhhhhh - now I get it; the practice may not work, but if it doesn't cause harm, no one's going to stop you from making money.
Hooray for capitalism ... I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)