You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Science' category.
It is not so surprising in recent times to see the war between creationism and science being waged at every street corner on the Internet. Scientists or people who ‘believe’ in science take a lot of pride in bunking any creationist argument.
Creationism is definitely something I don’t take comfort in. However as my advisor always says, belief is a bad word to use in science and to some extent it really boils down to the semantics of this word when people use it. So, one could as well think of science as a religion and people believing in it. It loses its credence at this point. I think a lot of people see science as being fashionable to rally behind the conclusions it makes.
The science of evolution is perhaps one of the most important questions that challenges this century of biology. Like any other field in science, it is plagued with its own problems. Evolution is not a matter of trivial chance. Complex systems cannot evolve or progress just as a result of freely floating molecules alone which all come together in a sudden burst, but builds on the interactions of multiple molecules. The way the scientific world projects evolution as being this sort of highly improbable event, at least when life first started out, is something which is a good deal of fodder for all creationists! There is no plausible and well tested theory. We like to think that sometime soon there will be one.
Anyone I think who supports the cause of evolution should have at least thought about it. What is evolution? What is the process by means of which it takes place? It didn’t strike me before but I realize how an over arching theory based on the general principles of fitness and natural selection could actually be an impediment to a deeper understanding of evolution. Again the society that supports evolution ‘believes’ these principles to be the answer to life, the universe and everything that we know.
The diversity of the world is something that is beyond our imagination. The diversity of the world we cannot see (microbial), more so. How are we going to explain all of this? How are we going to explain how certain societies of animals flourish?
I think to some extent language is a good start. It has evolved on the time scale of human civilisation and in general has several features that evolution has. This shared relationship is something I hope lends to a deeper picture of the biological world.
I’m glad I don’t work on evolution, as interesting as it is to think about it. Belief can sometimes be a bad thing.
The question of the self is perhaps the most profound and natural question that we can ask ourselves. Thankfully it isnt a question that has a straightforward answer. Why am I thankful for this obscenity in ignorance? Well, it provides an ample appetite for discussion and thought on one of the most fascinating questions that the mind can contemplate.
Steven Pinker has a very interesting article over at Time. (link)
Prof. Pinker makes for a very good science writer and he very elegantly highlights the points of fundamental importance. Neuroscience is broadly plagued with trying to understand two problems and in a manner of rather extreme uninnovativeness, seen mostly in physicists, is called the easy problem and the hard problem. The easy problem deals with trying to weed out the neural circuitry concerned with concious thought versus unconcious thought. Unconcious thought refers to those that direct the functions of the heart and such, stuff that is best not left under our arbitrary control.
The Hard problem, at least at the moment, appears to be a more philosophical question but has some interesting ramnifications from the view point of neuroscience.It deals with the question of subjective experience- the question of perception. Is perception different for each of us? The standard example to understand the nature of the question is to think of colour, which Pinker discusses. Is the red that i see and the one that you see, the same? Though we both might agree on the general nature of its redness, do we percieve different degrees of redness?
Michaelangelo is credited with saying, “A man paints with his brains and not with his hands.” I think that says a lot about our perceptions and abilities.
