I hope everyone has a safe and fun night.
Eldest is off on a Zombie Walk at a local mall, so Youngest dressed up and went along - whether she'll join the Zombie Walk or trick or treat in the mall, we're leaving for her to decide. Normally, there's just one Zombie Walk a year, and that was last week, but the owners of the mall actually asked the group to invade the mall! There's a club that requested an invasion, too, but the girls are a bit young for clubbing. ;-)
Me, I'm working tonight, though I don't start until 7pm. So I'm missing out on their fun. It's my only shift of the week, so I wasn't about to cancel it. Ah, well. I'm sure my husband will take lots of photos! :-D
Have fun, folks!! :-)
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Dodos
The girls and I just finished watching the dvd, Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus. It's supposed to be neutral, in that it "...tweaks egos and pokes fun at both sides of the evolution vs. intelligent design debate."
No surprise that it wasn't all that neutral. Heck, it even devolved into a Democrat (read: intelligent and open minded) vs. Republican (read: backwards and ignorant) thing.
What we all came away with was some interesting observations that have little to do with the validity of either argument, but rather the attitude of those who hold them. There was a significant difference in the two sides.
On the one hand, there were those who supported ID. When interviewed, they responded intelligently, openly, and respectfully. Sometimes they messed up, but they never lost their cool, so to speak. More telling was their attitude towards their "opponents" and detractors. They spoke respectfully of those who disagreed with them, without denigrating them for holding opposing opinions. Most importantly, they seemed to speak on the assumption that the listener was capable of grasping what they were saying, regardless of what the listener's opinion on the subject was. (Granted, some refused to take part in the documentary, so I have no way of knowing if this applied to them as well.)
Then there were the evolutionists. In part of the movie, a group of 8 PhD's were gathered for a poker game (there's a history behind this). There were others interviewed separately, or in smaller groups. A few things quickly became noticeable. One was the mocking attitude towards those who dared question evolution. There was no acknowledgment that there are even other theories of evolution besides Darwinism (I only recently discovered there are a number of theories, of which Darwin's Natural Selection/gradualism is the least likely or provable). There was a strong disrespect for those who disagreed, with a lot of open, often hostile, emotions displayed. Above all, they came across as thinking that people were just too stupid to believe the truth - and the only truth was their own conclusions.
Near the end of the documentary, one of the poker playing PhD's hit the nail on the head, IMO. He spoke of the difference between Darwin and his contemporary, Agassiz, and how Agassiz was able to relate to ordinary people (well, white ones, anyways - he was pretty racist). Agassiz worked on the assumption that people were intelligent enough to understand what he was saying. The PhD who brought this up suggested that something similar is happening today, where the ID proponents are the Agassiz's to the evolutionist's Darwin.
I think this is the most telling difference between those who insist that only evolution be taught in schools, as if there were only one theory and only one possibility, and those who propose to "teach the controversy." The evolutionists seem to think that anyone who disagrees or questions them are idiots, and that the ordinary person (or student in school) isn't smart enough to come to their own conclusions, and must be told only the 'right' things. Alternative possibilities are simply unthinkable.
Whether or not these individuals truly believe that is debatable. It's how they're coming across.
Another problem I think a lot of scientists have is that, when faced with the gaps in their theories or knowledge, they don't know how to say, "I don't know." Nothing unusual about that. I think most people have a hard time admitting they don't have the answers. When it comes to science, though, there's a different level of expectation. Scientists are supposed to have all the answers. Scientists, like anyone else, like to be right, but they have more at stake than others. Most of us aren't at risk of loosing our reputations or careers if we turn out to be wrong about something. So when presented with a challenge to their theories and conclusions, scientists have the very natural human response of wanting to defend those theories and conclusions in ever more convoluted ways.
Some of my favorite scientific books were those that 1) treated the reader as being intelligent enough to understand what was being presented, without dumb-ing the information down, and 2) are able to say "this is what the evidence is right now, this is what I (the author) think the evidence is saying, but in the end, we just don't know."
I think the most powerful thing anyone can say, but especially a scientist, is "I don't know."
No surprise that it wasn't all that neutral. Heck, it even devolved into a Democrat (read: intelligent and open minded) vs. Republican (read: backwards and ignorant) thing.
What we all came away with was some interesting observations that have little to do with the validity of either argument, but rather the attitude of those who hold them. There was a significant difference in the two sides.
On the one hand, there were those who supported ID. When interviewed, they responded intelligently, openly, and respectfully. Sometimes they messed up, but they never lost their cool, so to speak. More telling was their attitude towards their "opponents" and detractors. They spoke respectfully of those who disagreed with them, without denigrating them for holding opposing opinions. Most importantly, they seemed to speak on the assumption that the listener was capable of grasping what they were saying, regardless of what the listener's opinion on the subject was. (Granted, some refused to take part in the documentary, so I have no way of knowing if this applied to them as well.)
Then there were the evolutionists. In part of the movie, a group of 8 PhD's were gathered for a poker game (there's a history behind this). There were others interviewed separately, or in smaller groups. A few things quickly became noticeable. One was the mocking attitude towards those who dared question evolution. There was no acknowledgment that there are even other theories of evolution besides Darwinism (I only recently discovered there are a number of theories, of which Darwin's Natural Selection/gradualism is the least likely or provable). There was a strong disrespect for those who disagreed, with a lot of open, often hostile, emotions displayed. Above all, they came across as thinking that people were just too stupid to believe the truth - and the only truth was their own conclusions.
Near the end of the documentary, one of the poker playing PhD's hit the nail on the head, IMO. He spoke of the difference between Darwin and his contemporary, Agassiz, and how Agassiz was able to relate to ordinary people (well, white ones, anyways - he was pretty racist). Agassiz worked on the assumption that people were intelligent enough to understand what he was saying. The PhD who brought this up suggested that something similar is happening today, where the ID proponents are the Agassiz's to the evolutionist's Darwin.
I think this is the most telling difference between those who insist that only evolution be taught in schools, as if there were only one theory and only one possibility, and those who propose to "teach the controversy." The evolutionists seem to think that anyone who disagrees or questions them are idiots, and that the ordinary person (or student in school) isn't smart enough to come to their own conclusions, and must be told only the 'right' things. Alternative possibilities are simply unthinkable.
Whether or not these individuals truly believe that is debatable. It's how they're coming across.
Another problem I think a lot of scientists have is that, when faced with the gaps in their theories or knowledge, they don't know how to say, "I don't know." Nothing unusual about that. I think most people have a hard time admitting they don't have the answers. When it comes to science, though, there's a different level of expectation. Scientists are supposed to have all the answers. Scientists, like anyone else, like to be right, but they have more at stake than others. Most of us aren't at risk of loosing our reputations or careers if we turn out to be wrong about something. So when presented with a challenge to their theories and conclusions, scientists have the very natural human response of wanting to defend those theories and conclusions in ever more convoluted ways.
Some of my favorite scientific books were those that 1) treated the reader as being intelligent enough to understand what was being presented, without dumb-ing the information down, and 2) are able to say "this is what the evidence is right now, this is what I (the author) think the evidence is saying, but in the end, we just don't know."
I think the most powerful thing anyone can say, but especially a scientist, is "I don't know."
Monday, October 13, 2008
Happy Thanksgiving
I just wanted to take a moment away from today's preparations to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. (For those of you visiting from the US, our Thanksgiving is on the second Monday of October.)
We have much to be thankful for, not the least of which is that tomorrow is election day - which means all the disgusting antics shown by our campaigning party leaders will finally be at an end! I can't imagine going through two years of this, like in the US!! I feel for you guys. Really, I do!
So today, I hope my fellow Canadians get to enjoy a lot of good food with family and friends, then go out and vote tomorrow.
Happy Thanksgiving!
We have much to be thankful for, not the least of which is that tomorrow is election day - which means all the disgusting antics shown by our campaigning party leaders will finally be at an end! I can't imagine going through two years of this, like in the US!! I feel for you guys. Really, I do!
So today, I hope my fellow Canadians get to enjoy a lot of good food with family and friends, then go out and vote tomorrow.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Cookin' with Hippocrates
I finally tried a recipe I've been eye-balling in The Philosopher's Kitchen; Recipes from Ancient Greece and Rome for the Modern Cook, for some time. I happen to really love barley, but the rest of the family isn't quite so enthusiastic about it - and Eldest doesn't like it at all. I tried it anyways. ;-)
Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.), by the way, swore by barley's healthfulness and "prescribed a diet consisting solely of cereals and breads made from barley for the duration of an illness."
Herbed Barley with Pancetta
4 ounces pancetta, diced
1 medium onion, diced
1 carrot, halved and thinly sliced
1 celery rib with leaves, thinly sliced
1 leek, white and tender green parts, thinly sliced
1 bay leaf (not pictured)
1 garlic clove, minced
1/2 teaspoon dried savory
1/2 cup chopped fresh dill
1 cup pearl barley
1 quart chicken stock
1/3 cup lentils
salt and freshly milled pepper
(note: remember to pick through the lentils and barley to get rid of things like the blackish piece you can see in the lentil bowl.)
Saute the pancetta and onion in a large stockpot over medium heat until golden, about 10 minutes
This photo was taken at about 8 minutes. I figured it looked right.
(I suppose the pancetta was supposed to provide the fat necessary for this part, but it didn't seem to be enough, so I did add a touch of oil.)
Add the garlic, carrot, celery, leek, bay leaf, and savory. (See - I remembered to include the bay leaf...) Saute until the vegetables become tender, about 5 minutes.
Raise the heat, add 2 tablespoons of the dill, the barley, and the stock and bring to a boil.
Lower the heat, cover and slow-boil for 45 minutes.
Add the lentils and continue cooking until tender, 15-20 minutes.
Remove the bay leaf and season to taste with salt and pepper. Serve topped with the remaining 2 tablespoons of fresh dill.
The verdict: It went over fairly well. I loved it, though I think I'll go a bit slighter on the salt next time. Dh liked it, too. The girls... the word "strange" was used, but they said it tasted good. Eldest said she just needed to get over the fact that it was barley. *L*
Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.), by the way, swore by barley's healthfulness and "prescribed a diet consisting solely of cereals and breads made from barley for the duration of an illness."
Herbed Barley with Pancetta
4 ounces pancetta, diced1 medium onion, diced
1 carrot, halved and thinly sliced
1 celery rib with leaves, thinly sliced
1 leek, white and tender green parts, thinly sliced
1 bay leaf (not pictured)
1 garlic clove, minced1/2 teaspoon dried savory
1/2 cup chopped fresh dill
1 cup pearl barley
1 quart chicken stock
1/3 cup lentils
salt and freshly milled pepper
(note: remember to pick through the lentils and barley to get rid of things like the blackish piece you can see in the lentil bowl.)
Saute the pancetta and onion in a large stockpot over medium heat until golden, about 10 minutesThis photo was taken at about 8 minutes. I figured it looked right.
(I suppose the pancetta was supposed to provide the fat necessary for this part, but it didn't seem to be enough, so I did add a touch of oil.)
Add the garlic, carrot, celery, leek, bay leaf, and savory. (See - I remembered to include the bay leaf...) Saute until the vegetables become tender, about 5 minutes.
Raise the heat, add 2 tablespoons of the dill, the barley, and the stock and bring to a boil.
Lower the heat, cover and slow-boil for 45 minutes.
Add the lentils and continue cooking until tender, 15-20 minutes.
Remove the bay leaf and season to taste with salt and pepper. Serve topped with the remaining 2 tablespoons of fresh dill.
The verdict: It went over fairly well. I loved it, though I think I'll go a bit slighter on the salt next time. Dh liked it, too. The girls... the word "strange" was used, but they said it tasted good. Eldest said she just needed to get over the fact that it was barley. *L*
Way cool video!
I found this on The Presurfer.
What you're seeing...
A loudspeaker with a metal plate on top, sprinkled with salt.
The patterns show the different sound vibrations as the tone changes.
WARNING: Keep the sound low or even shut it off. It can get pretty hard on the ears.
What you're seeing...
A loudspeaker with a metal plate on top, sprinkled with salt.
The patterns show the different sound vibrations as the tone changes.
WARNING: Keep the sound low or even shut it off. It can get pretty hard on the ears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)