It also makes me think of the whole Pluto renaming. Articles on this:
You Call That a Planet? (prior to Pluto being reclassified)
Articles on Pluto (including some that discuss Pluto’s 2006 reclassification as a “dwarf planet” and how the voting on the definition of planet could have also created new planets, rather than demoted existing ones).

Of course, this “definition debate” clearly illustrates an example of “invented knowledge” within the natural sciences. Pluto hasn’t actually changed – the labels we have use to describe celestial objects and their definition is what has changed. Clearly, we invent such names – as we invent words generally.

See how is it is to find real (rather than hypothetical) examples for your essays? All you need to do is keep your eyes and ears open and follow the current news!

Scientists at the Helmholtz Center have discovered six chemical elements, numbered 107-112, since 1981.The remaining five elements have already been recognized and named.

In 1925, scientists discovered the last naturally occurring element on the periodic table. Since then researchers have sought to create new, heavier elements.

This is rather interesting – because the suggestion here is that the elements that have been added since 1925 are essentially created (they don’t naturally exist, but have to be made), but also discovered (even if they are made they have to found). If using this example, I’d probably do a bit of research on the elements and exact distinction between natural and not natural.

China’s Version of the Tianmen Square Massacre: We have, on occasion, discussed how history is in many ways rather subjective, and that different sides exist for every historical event. We heard about the Rape of Nanking, which is – to the anger of the Chinese – not officially recognised in Japan. Here is an example of a piece of history the Chinese are ‘rewriting’ in their favour, or rather, pretending it essentially did not happen.

Scientific Research into Humour. Somewhat related is this article, which considers the scientific nature of blushing.

Remember that ludicrous Facebook Quiz “Are you a potato?”? Seems like Proctor & Gamble should have taken that quiz: Pringles Are Potato Chips.

Not so light-hearted, on the other hand, this report on illegal abortions and their consequences: The Deathly Toll of Abortions

So, peruse at your own leisure:
Mathematically Calculating Love: Yes, you have read correctly.
Gay Divorce Still Legal: Legal Messes….
Moving to Raze an Ancient City: Uighur Kashgar: I’m not sure what example there is in this – but it is an interesting, though saddening read. If nothing else, this article is to share with you some of our amazing human cultural heritage that, if you have the chance, you should go visit before it is destroyed.
Retouching Beauty: The Socio-cultural impact of photoshopping celebrities.
Human Language Gene Changes How Mice Squeak: Absolutely fascinating research into areas we know so little about…

More to come soon!
 

Autopsies of War Dead

Language and Gender Stereotypes: Two Slate writers discuss Obama’s use of a “gendered code word” in his search for a Supreme Court nominee (Note: he just nominated Sonia Sotomayor). Such words, they argue, “will only hurt women in the long run”.

Another update from today: California Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban
This ruling raises a number of interesting issues – given that same-sex marriage is now definitely banned in California but that the couples who married during the time period when it was allowed last year will legally stay married. This double-ruling obviously creates some sort of ‘no man’s land’ for 18,000 gay people – they have certain rights that other gay people do not. I have no doubt that this situation will eventually change, but for the moment it is (intriguingly?) paradoxical. That said, some of the arguments posited by NYT reader commenters are debatable and sometimes fallacious. One reader (No. 4) states that “[i]t’s incomprehensible to me how a simple majority of voters can change the constitution. This should require a two-thirds majority of the votes, together with minimum-turnout requirement.” If we take this line of reasoning, I would imagine many civil-right victories would take many years more to happen. Indeed, aren’t such victories often decided by a handful of votes/voices of lonesome pioneers and only over time establishing themselves as the majority position? Isn’t this exactly what democracy is about (and not about it giving you always what you want?)? I am not saying the democratic process is perfect, but this is how it is supposed to work.
Do peruse the article and comments, and comment yourself!

An interesting tidbit: Obama (first African-American US president) was elected on the day that Proposition 8 was confirmed (banning gay marriage). Obama announced his Supreme Court Nominee (only the third woman on the US Supreme Court and the first Hispanic) today, same day as Proposition 8 was reconfirmed (upholding the ban). It’s a contrast of more diversity versus less diversity. What does this mean? I have no idea – perhaps that humans are a complicated species? Again, do ponder.

Notes on InterToK – Follow Up Session

Andy Fletcher’s book recommendations → to be found on his webpage, specifically here: Bibliography

String Theory
- No evidence: not wrong, not right. Cannot be falsified.
- Quarks are made of strings

Name derived from James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake, taken from the phrase “Three quarks for Muster Mark” (see: Finnegan’s Wake, scroll all the way down the page to “Cultural Impact”)

Loop Quantum Gravity

Absolute motion: There is only motion that is relative to something else. Is there any point in space that you can consider an absolute coordinate, which can be used to for all the other coordinates? (No…)

Some further information on Loop Quantum Gravity:
on Wiki
LQG

Is math safe?
You can trust math in a relative sort of way. No absolute frame of reference exists anywhere in space as it is impossible to define even a point (see above.)

Particles don’t look like particles… look like you want them to look. Don’t have a definition until we give them – doesn’t mean they don’t have one, but that we can’t understand it.

“It’s real…it’s just not real the way you thought it was.”

Mathematical evidence: is not absolute, is not a finality… but you start with mathematical evidence. Mathematical evidence is theory, for which there is no (scientific) evidence.

If we have support it does not mean something is true. If we have a little bit of evidence, it is a little bit true.

Multiverses: different options. Infinity of universe. Separate universe, separate laws, etc. Where are they? Somewhere else?

Explanations for multiverses:
→ String theory: one origin of multiverse.
→ Another explanation: Hugh Everett: observation – you cannot get rid of observation. When you make an observation, there are multiple options, e.g. there is both a cat that is alive and dead. Every time you make an observation you get ALL the possible options, resulting in a very large or infinite number of coexisting multiverses. Is there evidence for them? No.

Stephen Hawkins: there are multiple, possible universes, but all go away when you actually make an observation (only the universe that you live in remains).

There is no evidence for other universes except this one, which doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

Big Bang: there is both mathematical and scientific evidence. This universe has lots of evidence that it came from something (physical evidence):
Super-rapid expansion: evidence that should be there and has been found: cosmic microwave background radiation – should be there and measurable. Heat from Big Bang: at 3 Kelvin (was found to be at 2.768 Kelvin

A resource on Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation: CMB

Do we know it is true? No, but:
When all evidence points in a certain direction: allowed to think that your theory is very good.
Do we know that it is true? No.
Is it reasonable to think that it is true? Yes.
→ crucial difference!

Scientists and The BIG BANG

Scientists didn’t like Big Bang – didn’t look for evidence, found it though they didn’t want it to be true. But… kept finding evidence that it is true.
Many times: particularly in classic science – we look and find what we want to find, but in this case – with the Big Bang and Quantum Mechanics – we found evidence for what we didn’t like and didn’t want to find (but nonetheless encountered).

- Anthropic Principle
- Complexity Theory

“Particles can be in two places at a time….”

Observer of the universe: 13 billion light years in time out into space (furthest reaches)…

Particles that are conscious:
“If light is conscious” vs.
“If light is conscious as it appears to be, the most you can say about light, particles, electrons, etc. it is that they appear to react to your attempt to interact with them.”

“it appears to be conscious” – crucial, we can’t say anything more about it.
This is an example of the precision of language: You can use language in a sloppy or precise way, but this kind of precision is of the utmost importance in the sciences! [And you thought, it was just us literature and language teachers that were overly finicky about language! I feel vindicated! Quote from a conversation after the follow-up session: “So the sciences are all semantics”]

How do you “prove” that?
Proof vs. evidence – profound difference.

Just because you believe it’s true says nothing whether or not it is true. Doesn’t say it is true, it doesn’t say it is false. Says nothing to the rest of us – it might be true and you might be the only person to know it.

If two people believe something: it is a little bit true… this depends on their reputation with you. Are they an authority? Are they lunatics? (Factors that might influence this.)
Three believe something… or all of us believe something: Does that mean there is a greater chance that it is true? Not really.

Does that mean that there is no truth? It depends – we have to ask whether there is evidence, whether there is less or more or no or lots of evidence.
But, again: If you can’t establish that something is true, that doesn’t make any statement about whether it is possible.

Should term “absolute truth” exist?
Can variables be known? Not by you… but can only be known by an omniscient observer? Can you know that there is an omniscient observer?
Even belief in God is based on evidence.

Evidence for a “Creator” or higher being of some sort: half the scientists say “yes”, the other half says “no”, despite the fact that they are looking at the same evidence. Indeed, the same group of people can look at same evidence, but make their own decision, depending on their background, leanings, biases – but that has nothing to do with truth or lack thereof.

Important: Science does not disprove nor prove existence of god. It simply provides evidence. [Remember our article on The Science of Believing?]

Do you, do I exist?
Existence – mathematical definition: occupying a place in a certain time and space
We are space and time at the same time. Einstein: we are all part of space-time (seamlessly), we are a “focused bit of space time”.
Space travel: an astronaut is affected by space time. He will live, say, 100 years but his 100 years could be stretched over 1000 years

Example: Franklin Chang Diaz: has been to space 7 times, 300 microseconds less x 7 x 10 times = 2100 microseconds less old (2 seconds) – after 70 days

[I find this is rather inriguing: it is a tiny difference... but it is already measurable!]

Everything changes in aspaceship: space-time affects everything – you, your watch, etc.

Gravity is infinite in a black hole…. space and time cease to exist in a black hole.
Black holes go away over immense amount of time.

No time and space, but gravity: measure gravity not over time and space, but over space-time. Space-time is bent by gravity, but everything warps space-time but is extreme in a black hole.

Reference to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: Ultimate Answer (= 42)
on Wiki
on BBC

Black Hole:
Event horizon – point of no return
Black Hole warps space – dust particles, planets, etc. get rolled into region of influence

Do black holes move: yes, rotate, move, etc. but black holes don’t suck anything in….
Close enough that space time is warped, so larger object warps space time sufficiently. (Marble – bowling ball on trampoline example)

“Spaghettification”

Spaghetti——–
——–fication

P.S. Just in case you are wondering about the flying spaghetti monster…..
P.P.S. Andy Fletcher’s Website

Though not mentioned here, I have also heard that the technology for an “invisibility cloak” is nearly complete at this point. I find all that fascinating, though I also have moments where I think we are lacking behind with tech development. Just like Slate’s tech writer, I wonder why downloading any movie at any time isn’t a possibly (hence the flourishing of many illegal downloading sites) and Manjoo’s following observation makes me shake my head (I mean, why make the same mistake twice?):

Just like in the music business, eventually the entire home-video market is sure to move online, and many consumers will abandon pirate sites in favor of easy-to-use legal services. The music industry lost a lot of money when it dithered over this transition, and now the movie business seems to be making the same mistake.

Similarly, I frequently wonder why wireless internet isn’t yet available everywhere for free – at least in developed nations? It’s certainly possible, but we are being ridiculously slow here. And why aren’t all mobile phones multi-application devices like the iPhone? I mean, we know that that is where it is all going to go. (Remember when cameras on phones where a novelty? Long time ago, wasn’t it?)

Yet, at the same time all the technology advancement is speeding away from us. I tweeted for the first time today (Manjoo has a recent article for the uniniated of you.). I’m semi-familiar with stumble it or stumble upon, but there are also other internet applications like “DIGG”, “LINKEDIN” and “MIX” which I know only by name. Familiar with any of these? Just hop over to the New York Times, click on any article there and note a box on the side that says “share”, providing you with all these options (and more). And surely, there are other applications I’m not even aware of….

So, how are you all feeling about our light-speed advancements in sciences and technology? (-:

“Dividing Science by God”

….relating to “The Science of Believing” New York Times article from recently. It asks some good questions, although I think the NYT article still tops it….

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

1) What are the stereotypical male/female traits? Identify and write them down.

2) Do the textbooks examined in the study reflect any of these stereotypical traits?

3) Does your biology textbook (whether from IB Biology or from lower grades) reflect any of these stereotypical traits?

4) What does this parallel suggest about language? What does it suggest about Biology, and, possibly, the other Natural Sciences?

5) In what ways does this reflection of stereotypes have implications (according to the article)?

6) How do the arguments presented in the article support the idea that ‘language shapes our perception’? What kind of implications might this have?

7) In what ways is this kind of discussion significant (regardless of how you personally feel about it)?

How does this discussion fit into the realm of “politically correct language”?

9) What do you personally think about all this? What might your opinion be influenced by?

You may want to read about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in relation to this article.

Some other, related articles:

Language as Context
Scientists show that language shapes perception

Bonus reflection question: How do you feel about this latter article (on colour perception)? Do you feel the same way about this article as on the “Egg and Sperm” one? Why or why not?

The Stem Cell War

There is also The IVF Battlefield.

Still involving children (though not in their embryonic form) and somewhat less controversial, there is also the heated discussion on whether forward phasing strollers might impede a child’s language learning. Yes, I know, that’s one issue you probably had never thought about before!

In a Helpless Baby, the Roots to our Social Glue: Here’s an article for those of you who take IB Anthropology.
Ethics Quandary at Harvard Medical School: Should universities receive funding from pharmaceutical companies?

Slate asks Who should pay for in vitro fertilization?, a question that has arisen as part of the recent octuplets controversy. Also related to some of the presentation topics (e.g. “Synthetic Biology”) we have seen in class is another Slate article, which considers the the bad uses of good technology.

I would also like to recommend a film. As you may or may not know, I rather adore movies, particularly non-mainstream ones. I have seen most of those independent features available at my local video store, but the store manager pointed out one I had missed: Så som i Himmelen (As It Is in Heaven), a Swedish film from 2004. Why it is of interest to us? Although the film deals with a variety of noteworthy and complex issues (human relationships, moral responsibility of the individual in a community that has a long-established and unwritten agreement of ’silence’ and ‘looking away’), central to it is the power of music. Some of the most pivotal scenes in Så som i Himmelen communicate their message through this different form of language. As I watched the film, I was moved by the power of this – of a song that contained words, but, sung in Swedish, being only partially comprehensible to me (“Gabriellas sång”) as well as (SPOILER ALERT!) of the wordless sounds of the final scene. Of course, both these clips will make much more sense to you if you watch all of Så som i Himmelen!

Fallen Soldiers, Coming Home in Public:…From our discussion in F-period today, a real-life example of a current discussion on how certain images – or the lack thereof – in media outlets can shape our views.

Plastic Surgery Confidential

Textual Misconduct: What to do about teens and their dumb naked photos of themselves

From the New York Times Blog “Motherlode”:
Update on the Octuplets (Do peruse the readers’ comments.)
From CNN:
Eight Times the Ethical Questions
Risks of Multiple Births

Some of the questions raised in the articles:
- Is it ethical to transplant that many embryos? (In the US, there are no regulations about this, only ‘guidelines’ which suggest no more than 2-3 embryos be transferred to the womb.)
- Is it ethical to ‘reduce’/'abort’ any embryos if all of them take?
- To what degree should doctors and/or the state intervene with this kind of situation? What kind of regulations should be established or is this an entirely personal issue? (Some doctors state that it is only their job to educate their clients about the risks of multiple births, whereas others contend that this is a case of malpractice. The question of to what extent the US taxpayer will have to carry the burden of these octuplets has also been raised.)
- What and who is IVF for? Is it for people who have trouble conceiving even a single child? Is it to screen out genetic diseases in severely affected families? Or should it be for anyone who wants a child and has the money required for the procedure? (Some of the discussions focus on the fact that the “money buys anything” dictum does not apply for adoption and foster care, which involve extensive – also psychological – screening, whereas IVF is largely unregulated.)

Presently, many details about this particular case are still not known and a proper discussion can really only be had when they are available. Nonetheless, I thought I should alert you to this case so you can follow its developments.

As a final thought, we might also ask does this case of IVF-conceived children compare to that of couples who have large families naturally? Are the answers to the relevant questions above necessarily the same?

And while we are debating if its ethical to have such a large number of children, we might also consider if it is ethical to have only one child? (or none at all?)

Creature Comforts – Service Animals
Motherhood at 70
Leave this Child Behind: Sports, Segregation and Environmental Eugencis

Anyhow: An NYT article on how religious belief and piety promote self-control.

And since you probably weren´t paying much attention to such issues in your pre-ToK time, here are some more articles:

• First Face Transplant Carried Out in France (November 2005) – also check the links to articles on the top right
• Facing Up to Face Transplants: Ethical Questions and Concerns. Again, check articles on the side.
• Face Transplant in China…with accompanying pictures (WARNING: Includes somewhat graphic images that you may find disturbing).