Yesterday we were given permission by Tom to close George's a couple of hours early. Before heading home, Larry and I had an especially long philosophical discussion. We covered a lot of topics, but mainly debated his assertion that the theory of evolution is being taught as though it were uncontroversial, and that the theory is little more than a baseless human construct, a philosophy that's been presented as the absolute truth. Larry complains that the scientific community and our institutions of learning have tyrannically suppressed any legitimate challenges to the theory of evolution. I, of course, defended the theory as the best, most thorough scientific theory (and perhaps the ONLY theory) we've got to explain life on this planet (other than life's origins). I defended theories in general as being legitimate means of discovering greater truths. And I defended science by observing that it is one of the most democratic, flexible, and trustworthy forms of discovering truth and correcting falsehoods. It was an interesting discussion, primarily because I think it again brought to the fore some of the problems we have with gauging the integrity, the truthfulness, and the quality of knowledge. At the end, we talked a bit about morality, with Larry expressing his feeling that morality will soon be a thing of the past, and with myself pointing out that a true morality is finally emerging from our reprehensible history.
The rest of the day consisted of dinner at home, hanging out at Fern's, going for a walk, and spending the night at her apartment. Eric had invited a gal over to our apartment for New Year's Eve, and wanted to be left alone. I had no problems obliging. In fact, I slept pretty well at Fern's, which is cool because we've usually had issues with comfort/insomnia when trying to share a bed in the past. Oh, and we opted to not celebrate the new year, what with our pissy attitudes about pointless traditions and the fact that we were quite tired and unwilling to spend a bunch of money on alcohol.
So I was at her place this morning. We ended up going to Java for coffee and "breakfast" (usually we have something small like a bagel or muffin when we do breakfast together, like Saturday mornings). We then decided to get ready to go to the YMCA, to get a workout in relatively early in the day. I set off for home to gather up my gym clothes. But on the way I realized that I still had time to make it to Georges before noon in order to take part in the traditional New Year's Day road ride. I called Fern and she wasn't up for it (she hurt her tail bone a couple of days ago). So I rushed, got ready, joined up with 50 or so other riders at George's, and headed out. I had a pretty good time. I didn't feel my best, but felt good enough to make a couple of moves off the front of the group on Gowen Road. I was just having fun. The roads were a little wet and some sections still had some snow/ice on the edges, but the temperatures were in the lower 40s, so we all remained safe and comfortable all the way home. The ride ended up being about one hour, fourtyfive minutes long.
After the ride, after cleaning up, and after lunch, Fern stopped by and we headed out to the mall for some random fun n' shopping. It was apparent when we saw the crowds that we weren't the only ones who couldn't think of much to do on this grey, dreary January day. At the mall, while Fern enjoyed a bowl of tomato soup, we chatted about living in Boise, living in new places, and vacationing right. At Macy's I found the perfect long sleeved shirt, but it cost $90. So I skipped that and stocked up on my favorite wardrobe item-white, cotton, Alfani Tshirts.
Fern became overcome with tiredness. She dropped me off at Dawson Taylor's Coffee Shop and headed home for a short nap. I sat in a comfy chouch (chair/couch) and read my Sagan book.
An hour later, Fern picked me up and we stopped in at Winco to pick up dinner on the way to my apartment. I selected rib eye steaks, Brussels sprouts, and mashed potatoes and cooked them after getting home. We relaxed, ate dinner, and watched a movie written by Woody Allen (we've been on a Woody Allen kick lately). It was a hilarious movie about a playwright (John Cusack) whose plans get all mixed up, and in turn gets mixed up with the mob. Fern left after the movie. Both of us have been feeling like we're just not getting enough sleep. My theory is that we're getting about the same amount of sleep we normally get, its just that the winter season is having its affect.
posted by Josh @ 8:34 PM
2 Comments:
Hi! I just wanted to mention my hesitation for glorifying science. While science is definately an important way of knowing and understanding the world, it is not the only way of knowing. Local knowledge is an example of another way of knowing that has competed with science - - and there are examples of some local knowledge being more accurate than the science (ie, in wildfires, local knowledge about fire has been more accurate than science). Also, while the scientific process may be 'unbiased', actual scientists are biased and they may infuse those biases into the kinds of questions they ask. Even the most noble and ethical scientist is biased somehow someway. And the outcome of the scientific process depends on the questions asked. Furthermore, science is a process and should not be mistaken for 'truth' - - this is evidenced in how scientific understandings are constantly changing and being revised. Science may help us to better understand many things, but it highlights most of all our limited knowledge. Truth is an abolute, connecting all facts and trends - - humans are not capable, in my view, of comprehending absolute truth because it is too vast. Specific facts and trends, this is the realm of science. It is important, therefore, to acknowledge that what we can ever hope to understand is finite and limited. Finally, the linkages between science and politics/policy are strong and the result of this connection has been the politicization of science. Two examples come to mind, how western medicine became the dominant way of viewing health and of treating bodily diseases, and US wildfire policy. Both of these examples demostrate how science and politics merged to dictate policy, purposefully ignored other ways of knowing (in some cases, more accurate ways of knowing), and politics steered science in a certain direction to determine and continue an established polciy. The example of medicine is very interesting because it has determined how modern medicine views the body, treating symptoms and diseases in isolation from the whole, and focusing on intervention rather than prevention. I could write a whole treatise about this, but suffice it to say that it was the manner in which the scientific process was engaged and the biases of the scientists that determined how we now view the human body and disease. The science itself was 'good', but another equally 'good' science could have been achieved if the scientists held different biases and asked different questions. The wildfire example is also interesting because the scientists who studied fire, which then has determined fire policy, began with the idea that fire is bad - - which is in contractition to the local knowledge that fire is necessary for the forests (ie, some seeds can't germinate until after a fire, the undergrowth becomes stronger after a fire).
woowee, what a nice long comment! we talked about some of this tonight over our pupus, so there's not too much to add right now. just keep in mind that i tend to think of all kinds of knowledge which contain factual basis as existing in the realm of science. Those things that folks claim to know based on religious teachings, political ideology, personal opinion, intuition, what have you--these are unscientific things, and primarily the things I am opposed to.
Post a Comment
<< Home