I used to follow a number of feminist-related blogs, newsfeeds and the like. It finally got to the point where I unfollowed them all - first of all because it was drowning my feed in items, which is hard enough to get through at the best of times (and I do want to absorb all the things I read!), but mainly because I seriously didn't think I could ever go out with any guy if I kept on reading it. There is a saying that goes something like 'God made women both incredibly smart and incredibly foolish - foolish for falling in love with men.' It's insane how the male-dominated culture has persisted so in our world - understandably stemming from the fact that males do, in general, grow larger than females, and so have physical dominance.
But with the advent of other types of dominance, where being the strongest in a melee is no longer the defining factor, why hasn't this changed? I guess we humans are more resistant to change than we like to think we are. There is no reason why women can't dominate, and indeed they do, in areas like academic achievement (there are now, apparently, more women at university than men - though how that's an achievement nowadays is not really clear to me, given that it is nigh impossible to find a job uneducated) - but yet at a high level, there is still an absence of women. It's like we're the right end of a bell curve topped by a little helping of men at the 3rd standard deviation. And still, the sexism persists - no longer mainstream, granted - but hiding just under the bland surface of acceptance and equality lurks an unwarranted resentment at that bell curve. Why? What is wrong with women progressing? Having careers? Making their husbands take care of their children if they have to work?
Which brings me back to my original point. That women are foolish and love men. The problem with all the feminist propaganda I used to enjoy reading was that it actually made too much sense sometimes. Why do we even need men? What have men ever done for women except, I don't know, give them sexual gratification? But my parents say (and my parents are usually right) humans are wired to relationships. And lately, I've realised, dammit, they are. It's like trying to be a dog when you were born a cat. It's something that you can indeed fight against, and work towards, but in the end the path of least resistance is always going to be towards pairing up. Fighting against it takes up energy that, in my opinion, is probably better used to, well, advance careers. Ironically.
I guess I'll always have that feminist streak. I am definitely not a sandwich maker and damn all to hell I want to have a successful career. I guess I just want it all. Is that too much to ask?
Friday, June 24, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Exam competitions
Me, exhausted: Whoo! Just finished 8 hours of exam study today!
My brother: Meh, I did 10 hours last Saturday.
Me: Well, I finished my semester's notes for Pharmacology and did 3 past papers.
Bro: Eh. Well, I did 5.
Can't beat the engineers, can you XD
My brother: Meh, I did 10 hours last Saturday.
Me: Well, I finished my semester's notes for Pharmacology and did 3 past papers.
Bro: Eh. Well, I did 5.
Can't beat the engineers, can you XD
Friday, June 10, 2011
Final Night of Miss Saigon
Tonight is the final night of the season of Miss Saigon at the Civic, Auckland, which I was very lucky to be able to participate in... I'm excited like you won't believe, but that excitement is also tinged with sadness - this is the last night of being able to party it up with the most diverse, interesting, and yet so intelligent people I have ever met. I seem to be using the word 'excited' and 'amazing' so much during this season... I guess it's just one time where it actually is appropriate!
Especially since there are exams on Monday. Truely the Morning of the Dragon comes after the Last Night of the World, dammit!
I seem to be particularly incoherent tonight. Usually I am more facile with my words than this... that's what singing your heart out every night does for you!
Especially since there are exams on Monday. Truely the Morning of the Dragon comes after the Last Night of the World, dammit!
I seem to be particularly incoherent tonight. Usually I am more facile with my words than this... that's what singing your heart out every night does for you!
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The GAMSAT Essay Series... Censorship
As humans, we are constantly searching for new knowledge – whether that be in the ‘pure’ learning areas of the sciences, searching for the nature of black holes and puzzling out monkey behaviours, or in the more intimate areas of human nature like social circles and the reason behind our quest for knowledge in the first place. Regardless of the reason why we search, this search for knowledge is an important part of our humanity, what makes us who we are. Censorship, basically, is the knowing withholding of information from one human to another and is such a direct antithesis to this fundamental urge, which some dub ‘curiosity’.
In our gut instinct, even the very concept of censorship is abhorrent. Yet we se governments, corporations, heck, even the film agencies do it all the time. Every single movie released is rated – G, PG, or even R, where under-16s are simply not permitted to see it. Governments classify documents ‘sensitive’ or ‘top secret’, and do not allow their citizens to even know of their contents, or sometimes, of its existence.
So if most people would agree that the concept of censorship is bad, why is it still rife in what is really not that bad a society? Of course, one could take the hard line and expound numerous criticism of society today, but take the optimistic route and assume we’re not that bad. Why do we censor? Taking a step back from the automatic, righteous kneejerk reaction, we can see that there are some good things about censorship.
Our quest for knowledge is by nature eternally incomplete. We seize upon whatever knowledge is easiest to learn and nearby us in an effort to complete the puzzle of life. However, bad news is easier to come by – the media leaps on it, people are curious (and to some extent) more fascinate by bad news than good. Yet when that bad news becomes so prominent that it obscures the good news, or even stops people from digging further, perhaps that is when it should be censored. The censorship of R-rated movies is an example. Often containing bloody gore or sadistic, sexual themes, young children are barred from watching them because they have not yet experienced the deep rush of positive emotion and wellbeing that comes from a healthy (and – dare I say it – physical) relationship that may be eclipsed by a previous viewing of a violent rape scene.
Censorship allows the benevolent powers that be to guide their people’s thoughts along a more positive, constructive line that continually encourages their thirst for more information and doesn’t put them off or disgust them to the point where they cease to seek out more information, or makes them so opinionated that they refuse to consider other options.
But, of course, that would be in a perfect, utopian society. With all issues in our admittedly less-than-perfect society, though, things are not quite so easy or black and white. Governments have ulterior motives; things are censored not for the right reasons, and often, it is not clear-cut at all as to whether something should be censored. In the recent Wikileaks releases, for example, some of the details of the US dealings with its fellow UN countries revealed individual diplomats didn’t always get along with their international allies. Fair enough – we don’t always agree – but the tone set some brisling. For internal documents meant to be read by US eyes only, it was like a friend gossiping to her friend’s friend – mostly harmless, but not always appreciated and never setting a good tone for a fruitful relationship.
Although censorship does have its place in society, ultimately the ulterior motives of governments and the fact that it is so hard to decide what to show their people means that ultimately the best path for a country to take is with their gut instincts. As Frank Davison says, let the people themselves decide what they want to read, and remove censorship, although it may focus their attention on the wrong things.
In our gut instinct, even the very concept of censorship is abhorrent. Yet we se governments, corporations, heck, even the film agencies do it all the time. Every single movie released is rated – G, PG, or even R, where under-16s are simply not permitted to see it. Governments classify documents ‘sensitive’ or ‘top secret’, and do not allow their citizens to even know of their contents, or sometimes, of its existence.
So if most people would agree that the concept of censorship is bad, why is it still rife in what is really not that bad a society? Of course, one could take the hard line and expound numerous criticism of society today, but take the optimistic route and assume we’re not that bad. Why do we censor? Taking a step back from the automatic, righteous kneejerk reaction, we can see that there are some good things about censorship.
Our quest for knowledge is by nature eternally incomplete. We seize upon whatever knowledge is easiest to learn and nearby us in an effort to complete the puzzle of life. However, bad news is easier to come by – the media leaps on it, people are curious (and to some extent) more fascinate by bad news than good. Yet when that bad news becomes so prominent that it obscures the good news, or even stops people from digging further, perhaps that is when it should be censored. The censorship of R-rated movies is an example. Often containing bloody gore or sadistic, sexual themes, young children are barred from watching them because they have not yet experienced the deep rush of positive emotion and wellbeing that comes from a healthy (and – dare I say it – physical) relationship that may be eclipsed by a previous viewing of a violent rape scene.
Censorship allows the benevolent powers that be to guide their people’s thoughts along a more positive, constructive line that continually encourages their thirst for more information and doesn’t put them off or disgust them to the point where they cease to seek out more information, or makes them so opinionated that they refuse to consider other options.
But, of course, that would be in a perfect, utopian society. With all issues in our admittedly less-than-perfect society, though, things are not quite so easy or black and white. Governments have ulterior motives; things are censored not for the right reasons, and often, it is not clear-cut at all as to whether something should be censored. In the recent Wikileaks releases, for example, some of the details of the US dealings with its fellow UN countries revealed individual diplomats didn’t always get along with their international allies. Fair enough – we don’t always agree – but the tone set some brisling. For internal documents meant to be read by US eyes only, it was like a friend gossiping to her friend’s friend – mostly harmless, but not always appreciated and never setting a good tone for a fruitful relationship.
Although censorship does have its place in society, ultimately the ulterior motives of governments and the fact that it is so hard to decide what to show their people means that ultimately the best path for a country to take is with their gut instincts. As Frank Davison says, let the people themselves decide what they want to read, and remove censorship, although it may focus their attention on the wrong things.
Friday, February 25, 2011
The GAMSAT Essay Series... Peer Pressure
Humans are a funny little species. Although herd animals by nature, with the easiest route for us being simply the same route as everyone else, the idealists among us actively encourage being different, standing out, and doing our own thing – i.e., being the ‘tall poppy’. Conversely, those of us who decide to do things differently – whether it be wearing loud clothing (or no clothing!), achieving highly in sports or academia, or being gay – are often and easily mocked or put down by our more ‘average’ peers. What could have possibly gone wrong in our evolution that would have caused such a discrepancy between the right and easy paths in our lives?
The people we grow up to be are the product of our society, reflective of the world around us. Therefore, it stands to reason that the sources of these conflicting inputs we receive are mostly from the people around us. They, in turn, have received these values from others who have come before them in much the same way. No man is an island. We cannot survive on our own; we would be lost. It may almost be beneficial that this huge ball of society rolls us around the great wilderness of space and time, guiding us along with it.
However, if this alone were the case, why would people go through the effort to be different in the first place? Why be gay when you can be straight? Why score well when just being average will do? I think it comes down to that little spark within us – our personality, which takes the values we receive from society, and processes them, changing them slightly, like an inter-generational game of Chinese Whispers. Much like it changes the values we receive from society, it gives us our own little glowing ball of guidance that is uniquely our own: a confidence in ourselves, and the values we come up with on our own.
Some of us have stronger personalities than others; they are able to take in the values society gives them and change them to a greater degree than most of us are able to do, sometimes to the extent that by the time they present them to the world, they appear fresh and new: think inspiring figures like Nelson Mandela’s ideal of racial equality in South Africa, Aung San Suu Kyi, the living symbol of freedom for Burma, and even visionaries in the creative fields like Beethoven or Pink Floyd. The strength of one’s personality gives them a confidence in their own, revolutionary, ideas – the self-respect, as Logan Smith says, to not ‘peep at their reflections in unexpected mirrors’ of other people’s disparaging views and to press forward irrespective.
Although society is the source of many of our values and beliefs, the core values that truly make up our individual self come from our personality – or, if you like, our soul. However, these core values are, to some extent, based on those of the society around us. In the end, though, it is acting on these core values, usually modified somewhat from societal values, that bring us true happiness in self-confidence, rather than acting purely on the values that society brings us. They enable us to ‘stand a lot’, through being able to ‘stand ourselves’, as Axel Munthe says, allowing us to be that ‘tall poppy’ if need be, irrespective of others’ views.
The people we grow up to be are the product of our society, reflective of the world around us. Therefore, it stands to reason that the sources of these conflicting inputs we receive are mostly from the people around us. They, in turn, have received these values from others who have come before them in much the same way. No man is an island. We cannot survive on our own; we would be lost. It may almost be beneficial that this huge ball of society rolls us around the great wilderness of space and time, guiding us along with it.
However, if this alone were the case, why would people go through the effort to be different in the first place? Why be gay when you can be straight? Why score well when just being average will do? I think it comes down to that little spark within us – our personality, which takes the values we receive from society, and processes them, changing them slightly, like an inter-generational game of Chinese Whispers. Much like it changes the values we receive from society, it gives us our own little glowing ball of guidance that is uniquely our own: a confidence in ourselves, and the values we come up with on our own.
Some of us have stronger personalities than others; they are able to take in the values society gives them and change them to a greater degree than most of us are able to do, sometimes to the extent that by the time they present them to the world, they appear fresh and new: think inspiring figures like Nelson Mandela’s ideal of racial equality in South Africa, Aung San Suu Kyi, the living symbol of freedom for Burma, and even visionaries in the creative fields like Beethoven or Pink Floyd. The strength of one’s personality gives them a confidence in their own, revolutionary, ideas – the self-respect, as Logan Smith says, to not ‘peep at their reflections in unexpected mirrors’ of other people’s disparaging views and to press forward irrespective.
Although society is the source of many of our values and beliefs, the core values that truly make up our individual self come from our personality – or, if you like, our soul. However, these core values are, to some extent, based on those of the society around us. In the end, though, it is acting on these core values, usually modified somewhat from societal values, that bring us true happiness in self-confidence, rather than acting purely on the values that society brings us. They enable us to ‘stand a lot’, through being able to ‘stand ourselves’, as Axel Munthe says, allowing us to be that ‘tall poppy’ if need be, irrespective of others’ views.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Why science is not just a theory.
So. It has come to my attention that apparently some people who dub themselves "Creationists" have a bit of a problem with the theory of evolution. /dripping with sarcasm. But no. As someone born Catholic even, I always thought that God had caused the Big Bang somehow - I mean, if the world was only 6000 years old (or so, I don't know how old people think it is), WHERE WERE THE BLOODY DINOSAURS!? I loved dinosaurs. But anyway, that's off the point. It never occurred to me that the world actually could be created in 6 days. Never seemed logical. But you don't think about that sort of stuff when you're a kid. You just believe in whatever you're told to believe.
Now I'm older, and (presumably) with a bright young adult mind (yeah right), it's now up to me to extrapolate on all the things I've ever been told and believed, and find out more information to help me thresh out my own view of the world. The following is more sort of like a stream-of-consciousness rant that appears to start in the middle of a well-formed essay and ekes out far past a normal expository piece of writing's end point to try and prove something to myself. Or a theory. Or whatever. What I think Creationists think. Why I think the tag 'evolutionist' is a fallacy in itself and how it misrepresents what (I hope) is really going on.
The problem, some creationists see, is that those 'evolutionists' don't even agree about their own theory. There are arguments over the interpretation of the fossil record, whether gradualism or punctuated equilibrium occurred or even over the randomness of mutations vs the targeted nature of natural selection. While this is unfortunate for science, because it cannot present a united front - what creationists don't see is that evolution is not something to be batted for. It is something to be knocked down, again and again, until it fits with all the facts and findings. Hence evolutionists cannot actually argue with creationists about their supposed supported theory, because they admit they don't know everything about it! The key point is in the search for new knowledge, rather than being complacent and thinking that all the knowledge you need to know is in 66 tiny little books, often compressed into one rather larger one.
"Evolutionarism" (or whatever... I don't even know if it's the right word) is not a religion, nor is it a single viewpoint. It is instead a philosophy in the seeking of knowledge - they aren't trying to fight *against* christianity, they are simply seeking out more and more facts to try and round out their knowledge of the world - the so-called 'theory of evolution' is simply a product of this seeking. Those who seek the path of evolutionary knowledge (which is a bit futile in the first place, to be perfectly honest - it really isn't the easiest thing to study) shouldn't waste their time trying to explain the theory itself to other people. They should instead concentrate their time on learning and learning new facts, on carrying out new and untried scientific research (and trying to come to logical conclusions from this complete data), and pretty much just bettering their understanding of it. If they are to speak to those who are not so willing to learn (or at least want to limit their learning to specific subjects and view points) they should restrict themselves to encouraging them to just broaden their horizons, rather than trying to impart their own conclusions (which have only been come to after impartial and logical study) on them. I'm guilty of that sometimes - the emotional barrier just breaks down and all the pent-up frustrations with illogical arguments and the names people call each other when they are dead certain that their *own* way is right (which no one should ever be) just come out. I've heard self-dubbed creationists call one man's interpretation of the fossil record "schizophrenic" - I mean, it's not professional at all. Stick to the facts. Please. You may think his chain of logic is faulty (which is entirely fair), but I have no doubt he is sane. Or at least not hallucinating, anyway.
Science is not a religion. The scientific method is something that has been fleshed out over a long period of time (or rather - a short one in the brief period since mainstream 'free thinking' started taking place since the freeing of philosophical thought from the constraints of religious beliefs in the Renaissance - so hopefully in addition to thoughts under the religious bent there are others, too) and is constantly being changed and (hopefully) improved so that it gives us the best possible way to find an understanding of the world that is currently around us. I have to say, its sheer scope makes it not the most efficient and a huge, lumbering, beast, but it's better to be given all the facts rather than what others think are the best selection for us. It differs from religion in that it gives us no prescribed learnings to swallow - only a recommended (and here I use "recommended" - NOT required) method for finding out our own learnings and a chain of common logic to interpret them. It is a form of freedom, of the ability to make your own decisions in your life, of the highest order. You make decisions right from the heights of philosophy down to dumb physical limitations. Or at least, I think it is. The logic I've been raised with finds absolutely nothing wrong with this chain of thought.
I think all those who consider themselves 'scientists' (in the pursuit of learning) should spend at least some time reading literature of a creationist/religious bent, and other such material which doesn't necessarily follow the same logic that they do. It's important to study religion as a different chain of logic - sometimes they match up, sometimes they don't, but in order to see all the viewpoints of the world it is definitely important. I believe you need to take the logic you have and apply it to everything you read and see if it matches up - or even if you can learn something about why so many people believe in it.
The sad thing is, sometimes I feel as if Christianity does indeed feel the need to fight against the theory of evolution. Sure, they have problems with it. Fair enough, it doesn't match up with their own learnings and it definitely doesn't match up with the Christian literature. The problem is though, is that they often progress from villifying the simple facts of the evolutionary theory (which, as we all agree, are definitely not set in concrete and are wont to change at any time should some new evidence arise - which, ironically enough, wouldn't change it much at first. Theories change much like evolution - slowly. After all, we are human and the time taken to take this new fact into account and assimilate it into the greater picture takes time - and impartial acceptance, which is hard) to villifying the entirety of the scientific method. Ok then. There are no problems with disagreeing with evolution (heck, we disagree with ourselves all the time!) but once you start attacking the logic of the scientific thinking with emotive and not always logical arguments (read: the schizo comment before), that's when even the best of us (read: not me) start to get angry. EVERYONE is entitled to their own form of logic and it's not up to anyone else to dictate that, although it is up to us that we follow the path of logic that conforms best to our own personal sense of right.
Science's problem, almost, is that it is hard. It is hard to have to come up with your own sense of righteousness and direction. And if it doesn't stand up and make a case for itself (which it often doesn't, because everyone is too busy learning), it stands at risk of being swamped by unquestioning religious believers, who have been given a simple explanation and a simple acceptance. Now, I know you could say that they go and do research on their own beliefs as well, but in my logic, anyways, religion doesn't really have the potential to undergo a huge upheaval from the bottom out the way science does (and has). Think quantum physics. The discovery that the earth was round. Space exploration. Things have changed the face of science, and modern society has made science a thing that everyone has potential access to through (at least in the 1st world) education and the internet, rather than an elite group of monarch-endorsed 'thinking gentlemen'. Science has been made accessible to women, of which I am very grateful for. The ability to just... just go out and *find* things out. No assumptions. The ability to completely change. It is an amazing gift.
Lest I fall into the trap of waxing lyrical (and thenceforth start spouting emotive arguments, which should be beneath anyone with a decent sense of logic)... I should probs stop ay. I would also like to quickly stress that although all this ranting about science I completely and utterly stand behind as an idealistic theory, I recognise that, like I said, science is hard. It is far too easy to fall into the trap of defending things like evolution like a religion just to present a strong and united front against something that doesn't follow your sense of logic rather than presenting a justified account which takes into account as much as you can. I'm not against Creationism. I can't figure a ribbon of logic through it that makes sense to me, but it is completely justified if someone else can. Its lack of detail worries me, but there is plenty of other things to puzzle out the details of first to keep me busy. To pull a cliche, I'm only human. I want to concentrate on things that are easier and more definite (rather than working out infinite subtleties) for me to understand. I'm inherently lazy. I try and recognise that fact, and do something about it, but sometimes it's just too easy not to.
Now I'm older, and (presumably) with a bright young adult mind (yeah right), it's now up to me to extrapolate on all the things I've ever been told and believed, and find out more information to help me thresh out my own view of the world. The following is more sort of like a stream-of-consciousness rant that appears to start in the middle of a well-formed essay and ekes out far past a normal expository piece of writing's end point to try and prove something to myself. Or a theory. Or whatever. What I think Creationists think. Why I think the tag 'evolutionist' is a fallacy in itself and how it misrepresents what (I hope) is really going on.
The problem, some creationists see, is that those 'evolutionists' don't even agree about their own theory. There are arguments over the interpretation of the fossil record, whether gradualism or punctuated equilibrium occurred or even over the randomness of mutations vs the targeted nature of natural selection. While this is unfortunate for science, because it cannot present a united front - what creationists don't see is that evolution is not something to be batted for. It is something to be knocked down, again and again, until it fits with all the facts and findings. Hence evolutionists cannot actually argue with creationists about their supposed supported theory, because they admit they don't know everything about it! The key point is in the search for new knowledge, rather than being complacent and thinking that all the knowledge you need to know is in 66 tiny little books, often compressed into one rather larger one.
"Evolutionarism" (or whatever... I don't even know if it's the right word) is not a religion, nor is it a single viewpoint. It is instead a philosophy in the seeking of knowledge - they aren't trying to fight *against* christianity, they are simply seeking out more and more facts to try and round out their knowledge of the world - the so-called 'theory of evolution' is simply a product of this seeking. Those who seek the path of evolutionary knowledge (which is a bit futile in the first place, to be perfectly honest - it really isn't the easiest thing to study) shouldn't waste their time trying to explain the theory itself to other people. They should instead concentrate their time on learning and learning new facts, on carrying out new and untried scientific research (and trying to come to logical conclusions from this complete data), and pretty much just bettering their understanding of it. If they are to speak to those who are not so willing to learn (or at least want to limit their learning to specific subjects and view points) they should restrict themselves to encouraging them to just broaden their horizons, rather than trying to impart their own conclusions (which have only been come to after impartial and logical study) on them. I'm guilty of that sometimes - the emotional barrier just breaks down and all the pent-up frustrations with illogical arguments and the names people call each other when they are dead certain that their *own* way is right (which no one should ever be) just come out. I've heard self-dubbed creationists call one man's interpretation of the fossil record "schizophrenic" - I mean, it's not professional at all. Stick to the facts. Please. You may think his chain of logic is faulty (which is entirely fair), but I have no doubt he is sane. Or at least not hallucinating, anyway.
Science is not a religion. The scientific method is something that has been fleshed out over a long period of time (or rather - a short one in the brief period since mainstream 'free thinking' started taking place since the freeing of philosophical thought from the constraints of religious beliefs in the Renaissance - so hopefully in addition to thoughts under the religious bent there are others, too) and is constantly being changed and (hopefully) improved so that it gives us the best possible way to find an understanding of the world that is currently around us. I have to say, its sheer scope makes it not the most efficient and a huge, lumbering, beast, but it's better to be given all the facts rather than what others think are the best selection for us. It differs from religion in that it gives us no prescribed learnings to swallow - only a recommended (and here I use "recommended" - NOT required) method for finding out our own learnings and a chain of common logic to interpret them. It is a form of freedom, of the ability to make your own decisions in your life, of the highest order. You make decisions right from the heights of philosophy down to dumb physical limitations. Or at least, I think it is. The logic I've been raised with finds absolutely nothing wrong with this chain of thought.
I think all those who consider themselves 'scientists' (in the pursuit of learning) should spend at least some time reading literature of a creationist/religious bent, and other such material which doesn't necessarily follow the same logic that they do. It's important to study religion as a different chain of logic - sometimes they match up, sometimes they don't, but in order to see all the viewpoints of the world it is definitely important. I believe you need to take the logic you have and apply it to everything you read and see if it matches up - or even if you can learn something about why so many people believe in it.
The sad thing is, sometimes I feel as if Christianity does indeed feel the need to fight against the theory of evolution. Sure, they have problems with it. Fair enough, it doesn't match up with their own learnings and it definitely doesn't match up with the Christian literature. The problem is though, is that they often progress from villifying the simple facts of the evolutionary theory (which, as we all agree, are definitely not set in concrete and are wont to change at any time should some new evidence arise - which, ironically enough, wouldn't change it much at first. Theories change much like evolution - slowly. After all, we are human and the time taken to take this new fact into account and assimilate it into the greater picture takes time - and impartial acceptance, which is hard) to villifying the entirety of the scientific method. Ok then. There are no problems with disagreeing with evolution (heck, we disagree with ourselves all the time!) but once you start attacking the logic of the scientific thinking with emotive and not always logical arguments (read: the schizo comment before), that's when even the best of us (read: not me) start to get angry. EVERYONE is entitled to their own form of logic and it's not up to anyone else to dictate that, although it is up to us that we follow the path of logic that conforms best to our own personal sense of right.
Science's problem, almost, is that it is hard. It is hard to have to come up with your own sense of righteousness and direction. And if it doesn't stand up and make a case for itself (which it often doesn't, because everyone is too busy learning), it stands at risk of being swamped by unquestioning religious believers, who have been given a simple explanation and a simple acceptance. Now, I know you could say that they go and do research on their own beliefs as well, but in my logic, anyways, religion doesn't really have the potential to undergo a huge upheaval from the bottom out the way science does (and has). Think quantum physics. The discovery that the earth was round. Space exploration. Things have changed the face of science, and modern society has made science a thing that everyone has potential access to through (at least in the 1st world) education and the internet, rather than an elite group of monarch-endorsed 'thinking gentlemen'. Science has been made accessible to women, of which I am very grateful for. The ability to just... just go out and *find* things out. No assumptions. The ability to completely change. It is an amazing gift.
Lest I fall into the trap of waxing lyrical (and thenceforth start spouting emotive arguments, which should be beneath anyone with a decent sense of logic)... I should probs stop ay. I would also like to quickly stress that although all this ranting about science I completely and utterly stand behind as an idealistic theory, I recognise that, like I said, science is hard. It is far too easy to fall into the trap of defending things like evolution like a religion just to present a strong and united front against something that doesn't follow your sense of logic rather than presenting a justified account which takes into account as much as you can. I'm not against Creationism. I can't figure a ribbon of logic through it that makes sense to me, but it is completely justified if someone else can. Its lack of detail worries me, but there is plenty of other things to puzzle out the details of first to keep me busy. To pull a cliche, I'm only human. I want to concentrate on things that are easier and more definite (rather than working out infinite subtleties) for me to understand. I'm inherently lazy. I try and recognise that fact, and do something about it, but sometimes it's just too easy not to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
