The Slow Regard of Silent Things
11 years ago
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Philosophical Solutions to Scientific Problems
So a couple of days ago I went to a talk by this guy:
It turns out that it is not only possible to have three Ph.D.'s in different disciplines, but to actively research in all those at one time as well. Unless you're a Nobel Laureate, this guy likely makes anyone feel like an underachiever. "You only have two Ph.D.'s? That's nothing. Massimo Pigliucci has 3."
Dr. Pigliucci's talk was on the intersection of philosophy and science. He talked on scientific versus nonscientific disciplines, the limits of science, the application of philosophy to scientific ideas.
An important thing that I took away was an understanding that I really do not know very much about philosophy. I guess that is the price I pay for taking intensive science-based courseloads to expand my depth of knowledge in the sciences, specifically molecular sciences; I've sacrificed breadth. Most of my knowledge concerning critical thinking and logic have come from sources outside of my academic career, and of course these don't get nearly as in-depth as postsecondary courses would into the subject matter.
An interesting example that I took away from his talk, while not unknown to the scientific community, was largely ignored by myself until present. The definition of species is in fact quite a difficult task for scientists to concretely do. In fact, scientists remain divided on this seemingly innocuous concept. While intuitively we can know that two different organisms are different species, no one definition is concrete, because every criterion that has been suggested has been broken somewhere in the living world. There is no point trying to ascribe rules to nature, because nature finds a way, somewhere, to break them. And then nature mocks you for being so crass as to tell Her what she is.
We learn in grade school that a species is a group of interbreeding organisms that are mutually compatible. However, by this definition all bacteria would be considered a single species as they can generally swap genetic information with any other bacterium. The definition is not useful in this case. Similar exceptions are observed for any other criterion you may suggest. Dr. Pigliucci suggests an intuitive, though not scientifically rigorous solution, in that of any number of criteria one could use to define a species, if a certain amount are satisfied then a species is present. This thinking comes from the philosophy side of things, and probably won't gain acceptance any time soon by the scientific community, it is much more inclusive than previous methods.
The point is that not everything scientists look at can be completely explained by science. While many a scientist (sadly, myself included) will scoff at the humanities, they are necessary to our understanding of the world. Dr. Pigliucci calls for more discourse and mutual exchange between the presently divided disciplines. I couldn't agree more.
It turns out that it is not only possible to have three Ph.D.'s in different disciplines, but to actively research in all those at one time as well. Unless you're a Nobel Laureate, this guy likely makes anyone feel like an underachiever. "You only have two Ph.D.'s? That's nothing. Massimo Pigliucci has 3."
Dr. Pigliucci's talk was on the intersection of philosophy and science. He talked on scientific versus nonscientific disciplines, the limits of science, the application of philosophy to scientific ideas.
An important thing that I took away was an understanding that I really do not know very much about philosophy. I guess that is the price I pay for taking intensive science-based courseloads to expand my depth of knowledge in the sciences, specifically molecular sciences; I've sacrificed breadth. Most of my knowledge concerning critical thinking and logic have come from sources outside of my academic career, and of course these don't get nearly as in-depth as postsecondary courses would into the subject matter.
An interesting example that I took away from his talk, while not unknown to the scientific community, was largely ignored by myself until present. The definition of species is in fact quite a difficult task for scientists to concretely do. In fact, scientists remain divided on this seemingly innocuous concept. While intuitively we can know that two different organisms are different species, no one definition is concrete, because every criterion that has been suggested has been broken somewhere in the living world. There is no point trying to ascribe rules to nature, because nature finds a way, somewhere, to break them. And then nature mocks you for being so crass as to tell Her what she is.
We learn in grade school that a species is a group of interbreeding organisms that are mutually compatible. However, by this definition all bacteria would be considered a single species as they can generally swap genetic information with any other bacterium. The definition is not useful in this case. Similar exceptions are observed for any other criterion you may suggest. Dr. Pigliucci suggests an intuitive, though not scientifically rigorous solution, in that of any number of criteria one could use to define a species, if a certain amount are satisfied then a species is present. This thinking comes from the philosophy side of things, and probably won't gain acceptance any time soon by the scientific community, it is much more inclusive than previous methods.
The point is that not everything scientists look at can be completely explained by science. While many a scientist (sadly, myself included) will scoff at the humanities, they are necessary to our understanding of the world. Dr. Pigliucci calls for more discourse and mutual exchange between the presently divided disciplines. I couldn't agree more.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Why Biochemistry?
I'm back.
I want to go through why I chose to study biochemistry, and to pursue it into the future. But to do that we must go back, back, back, in to a simpler time. A time when things were simpler. The pace of life moved a bit slower. People dressed a little differently.
2004.
I want to go through why I chose to study biochemistry, and to pursue it into the future. But to do that we must go back, back, back, in to a simpler time. A time when things were simpler. The pace of life moved a bit slower. People dressed a little differently.
2004.
Back then, a 12th grade high schooler facing the daunting task of selecting the route of my post-secondary education, I had a good idea what school I would be going to for university, but little clue what for. My interest in science went back to grade 2, where I was put on the spot to say what my favorite subject and replied "science" (remembering a recent super-cool demonstration involving milk, soap, and food colouring). However, science alone is not as specific a subject as it may seem to a 7-year-old. When university loomed and choices presented themselves, I found that I must decide between biology, physics, or chemistry, or something that falls somewhere in between (think chemical physics, molecular biology, and quantum ecology).
Being...ahem....a rock nerd at the time,
I thought that geology - no, geochemistry - might be an appropriate career choice. But so I didn't sound so crazy, I tacked on biochemistry as something similar I may also be interested in. At that time, in one of the most misled moments of my life, I thought the TCA cycle was interesting. Then:
Dad: "It's a lot easier to find a job in biochemistry"
And my decision was effectively made for me.
5 years later, I have an undergraduate degree in the subject, and pretty intricate familiarity with it. Did I make the right choice? Yes and no.
I made a right choice, though i'm sure others would have led me places just as interesting, and carried me on just as far. I couldn't have known at the time that years later I would remain interested in the subject, but I am. I had little idea what biochemistry, or any other sciences (including geochemistry) was actually like. I suspect many others finish high school in a similar situation. However, my choice was a good one. I don't doubt that I would find a niche in any of several other areas, but the one I have is just right for me.
Choices are inevitable, and sometimes lead where you can't know you're going. The trick is to adapt, to learn, and to be happy with wherever you end up.
Did I think that I would enjoy study in biochemistry? I had no idea.
Did I know anything about the subject? None at all.
Am I happy with where my education has taken me? Absolutely.
Might I have been happy in a different discipline? Probably.
Yet here I am. Ready to move on, open a new chapter of my life, and close some more doors as I go. As they shut, the path ahead becomes a little narrower, a little clearer. While those doors don't open again, the ones I walk through take me on. On to new places, new experiences, and new opportunities. I can't wait.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Skeptic's Guide and Perry DeAngelis; Remembering and moving forward
I discovered podcasting and other Web 2.0 stuff by and large in the summer of 2007, when I had considerable free time and a long enough trip to and from work/school to facilitate listening to a full hour of audio per day. A student from my university's Skeptic's club had posted a link to a "podcast" on a message board related to the university. The title: The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Not particularly versed or even really aware of skepticism, I figured perhaps the podcast was something like Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (I later discovered this was indeed no coincidence) and looked into it.
The roughly hour-and-twenty long podcast was not a story of Babelfish, Vogons, the destruction of Earth, or even towels, but instead a panel discussion of all things science, with a little criticism of Bigfoot and TV Psychics thrown in. While all the stuff about ghost hunters, aliens and astrology that the panel discusses is not of much interest to me, the science sucked me in. In the course of 8 months, I had managed to listen to all of the 120 or so (at that time) hour-plus episodes these guys put out, sucking it up like a sponge. Perhaps the best feature of the show is Science or Fiction, where the host presents three science news items, two of them real, one fictitious, and asks his panel of skeptics to guess which one is the fake*.
The show is run by the New England Skeptical Society, and started with Evan Bernstein, Perry DeAngelis, Bob Novella, Jay Novella, and the ringleader, Steve Novella. They were joined after a while by Rebecca Watson, dramatically altering the dude-to-chick ratio and making the show just that much more fun.
In August of 2007, one of the Skeptical Rogues, Perry DeAngelis, passed on. I was not sure if the podcast would continue the same and hold the same draw that sucked me in, but it did, albeit with an understandably subdued tone for quite a while.
With of 4 months when I did not have access to a computer to check out the podcast, followed by a terrible fall semester, I have fallen far behind in my podcast-listening duties. I am slowly catching up, and recently I found myself listening to the 1st Perry DeAngelis Memorial Live Podcast, SGU #169, October 11, 2008. I must say that this has by far been my favorite of the episodes I've heard, perhaps because of the differing format, but likely more just because of the laid-back atmosphere the live show produces, with two guest panelists to add to the mix as well.
If you are interested in science and/or hate creationists, you should take a look at this podcast, and I recommend the memorial as a great example to start with. Although it has a slightly different format, the topics are wide-ranging and discussions are particularly thoughtful. Check it out.
*After 100+ hearing Steve say this blip at the start of Science or Fiction, you can recite (type) it from memory
The roughly hour-and-twenty long podcast was not a story of Babelfish, Vogons, the destruction of Earth, or even towels, but instead a panel discussion of all things science, with a little criticism of Bigfoot and TV Psychics thrown in. While all the stuff about ghost hunters, aliens and astrology that the panel discusses is not of much interest to me, the science sucked me in. In the course of 8 months, I had managed to listen to all of the 120 or so (at that time) hour-plus episodes these guys put out, sucking it up like a sponge. Perhaps the best feature of the show is Science or Fiction, where the host presents three science news items, two of them real, one fictitious, and asks his panel of skeptics to guess which one is the fake*.
The show is run by the New England Skeptical Society, and started with Evan Bernstein, Perry DeAngelis, Bob Novella, Jay Novella, and the ringleader, Steve Novella. They were joined after a while by Rebecca Watson, dramatically altering the dude-to-chick ratio and making the show just that much more fun.
In August of 2007, one of the Skeptical Rogues, Perry DeAngelis, passed on. I was not sure if the podcast would continue the same and hold the same draw that sucked me in, but it did, albeit with an understandably subdued tone for quite a while.
With of 4 months when I did not have access to a computer to check out the podcast, followed by a terrible fall semester, I have fallen far behind in my podcast-listening duties. I am slowly catching up, and recently I found myself listening to the 1st Perry DeAngelis Memorial Live Podcast, SGU #169, October 11, 2008. I must say that this has by far been my favorite of the episodes I've heard, perhaps because of the differing format, but likely more just because of the laid-back atmosphere the live show produces, with two guest panelists to add to the mix as well.
If you are interested in science and/or hate creationists, you should take a look at this podcast, and I recommend the memorial as a great example to start with. Although it has a slightly different format, the topics are wide-ranging and discussions are particularly thoughtful. Check it out.
*After 100+ hearing Steve say this blip at the start of Science or Fiction, you can recite (type) it from memory
Thursday, January 8, 2009
My muse is gone....
Since I decided to ditch my pseudonym, it has been harder than ever to get something written. I'm probably being overly critical given that I now must be all the more accountable for my words. Agh. One of these days I'll get my groove back, I just need some motivation. Come on science, motivate me!
Friday, December 19, 2008
The evolving world of this blog
Blogging is tricky. I get a bout of inspiration but cannot reach a computer, or I'm busy and so then forget what I was to write, or get halfway done and back-burner the project until it collects too much dust and I give up. I find myself either wanting to write lots and not having the time, or not really wanting to write much when I have the time, either way resulting in not posting as frequently as I might like. And when I recently committed (at least to myself) to taking this blog more seriously, I subsequently found it even harder to put together a post as I effectively raised the bar for myself.
So how shall I fix this? Well, I think the first step is to dissuade myself of the belief that I might have the commitment of the myriad of other blogs out there with the tenacity and devotion to their readers to frequently put together well thought out and coherent posts on a regular basis, often involving photoshopping one's own images and responding in nearly real-time to other posts in the blogosphere. I both lack the technical know-how to do lots of what some bloggers do, and the time to keep up on all of what gets posted around. While it would be cool to give myself a pseudonym such as "Kinked_Strand" or "Tryptophaniac", (both of which I considered, both discarded) I just don't think I can live up to such names. I have a bit of a fight between goofiness and creativity (goofivity?) and a professional, more scientific tone. While a pseudonym might allow that, it's a little beyond me to keep up with posting as such a presence requires.
So I've decided on a different type of pseudonym - in fact not pseudo at all. Just nym. I noted before that most of my readers will know who I am as it is, and so for them this is just a formality. But for those who don't know, it's Shane Caldwell. I just wrapped up my undergrad at the University of Guelph, and who knows what the future has in store for me. There are other blogs from my university who write under their own names, and so unless I am able to justify putting in the time and effort to really maintain a pen name, it seems silly by comparison to do so when I can only manage a post or two every week.
So that's that. Big secret revealed. I imagine no one really cares. Anyone who really di could have pinned me down quite a bit anyway, to one of >10 universities, and if they supposed that the name I was writing under was my initials, actually finding me wouldn't be excessively hard. I hesitated to put my name on the web to begin with because I was nervous of privacy issues and such, and to feel confident in expressing an opinion without worrying about backlash. I'm comfortable now with people knowing who is behind the words, and am willing to own up to my opinions.
Needless to say, I won't be picking on anyone I know on here, including information of anyone else's lives, nor will I be discussing my own research of any sort. This is my space to express my thoughts, experiences, and opinions, and not to release information that belongs to others. Posts in line with my opinion on Craig Venter may still materialize, but as a public figure, he is fair game for anyone. In fact, I get the feeling he would be flattered by what I wrote, should he ever care what a lowly blogger would think. I know that sometimes I can write things that might put off some readers, as I no doubt offended some friends by riling on cell phones back in the summer, or talking about pre-med programs before that. I ask those that read to be understanding and to know that while I may be blogging on a frustration, I don't mean to insult anyone, and if I do, please let me know, and I will do what I can to remedy the issue. Everyone has their own views on issues; and I allow others theirs, and only ask in return that I be allowed my own.
So what does the future hold in store for Helical Translations? We'll have to wait and see, because I still don't completely know. Grad school is on the horizon and by taking a brief survey of some other similar blogs out there, many write about day-to-day lab life, interpersonal challenges and the like, but in keeping with what I have written above, this is something I want to keep clear of. I want to continue to use this space to put together information so that those reading can learn something. And if it isn't new information, I hope that I might at least be able to provide a unique perspective. It may take more work to put these together than some of the random updates I wrote during the early days of the blog, but I hope to shift my balance a bit from quantity to quality. I also hope to use this as a way of allowing myself to learn of things I otherwise would not have looked into. The issues I know I will deal with is to know whether a post is complete enough to finish with or to just continue to leave it in limbo to hopefully complete later. Perfectionism versus productivity, if you will.
So, if you will excuse me, I must go back to putting off the 10 posts half-complete in my queue. I'm getting used to this all, but it is still taking time.
So how shall I fix this? Well, I think the first step is to dissuade myself of the belief that I might have the commitment of the myriad of other blogs out there with the tenacity and devotion to their readers to frequently put together well thought out and coherent posts on a regular basis, often involving photoshopping one's own images and responding in nearly real-time to other posts in the blogosphere. I both lack the technical know-how to do lots of what some bloggers do, and the time to keep up on all of what gets posted around. While it would be cool to give myself a pseudonym such as "Kinked_Strand" or "Tryptophaniac", (both of which I considered, both discarded) I just don't think I can live up to such names. I have a bit of a fight between goofiness and creativity (goofivity?) and a professional, more scientific tone. While a pseudonym might allow that, it's a little beyond me to keep up with posting as such a presence requires.
So I've decided on a different type of pseudonym - in fact not pseudo at all. Just nym. I noted before that most of my readers will know who I am as it is, and so for them this is just a formality. But for those who don't know, it's Shane Caldwell. I just wrapped up my undergrad at the University of Guelph, and who knows what the future has in store for me. There are other blogs from my university who write under their own names, and so unless I am able to justify putting in the time and effort to really maintain a pen name, it seems silly by comparison to do so when I can only manage a post or two every week.
So that's that. Big secret revealed. I imagine no one really cares. Anyone who really di could have pinned me down quite a bit anyway, to one of >10 universities, and if they supposed that the name I was writing under was my initials, actually finding me wouldn't be excessively hard. I hesitated to put my name on the web to begin with because I was nervous of privacy issues and such, and to feel confident in expressing an opinion without worrying about backlash. I'm comfortable now with people knowing who is behind the words, and am willing to own up to my opinions.
Needless to say, I won't be picking on anyone I know on here, including information of anyone else's lives, nor will I be discussing my own research of any sort. This is my space to express my thoughts, experiences, and opinions, and not to release information that belongs to others. Posts in line with my opinion on Craig Venter may still materialize, but as a public figure, he is fair game for anyone. In fact, I get the feeling he would be flattered by what I wrote, should he ever care what a lowly blogger would think. I know that sometimes I can write things that might put off some readers, as I no doubt offended some friends by riling on cell phones back in the summer, or talking about pre-med programs before that. I ask those that read to be understanding and to know that while I may be blogging on a frustration, I don't mean to insult anyone, and if I do, please let me know, and I will do what I can to remedy the issue. Everyone has their own views on issues; and I allow others theirs, and only ask in return that I be allowed my own.
So what does the future hold in store for Helical Translations? We'll have to wait and see, because I still don't completely know. Grad school is on the horizon and by taking a brief survey of some other similar blogs out there, many write about day-to-day lab life, interpersonal challenges and the like, but in keeping with what I have written above, this is something I want to keep clear of. I want to continue to use this space to put together information so that those reading can learn something. And if it isn't new information, I hope that I might at least be able to provide a unique perspective. It may take more work to put these together than some of the random updates I wrote during the early days of the blog, but I hope to shift my balance a bit from quantity to quality. I also hope to use this as a way of allowing myself to learn of things I otherwise would not have looked into. The issues I know I will deal with is to know whether a post is complete enough to finish with or to just continue to leave it in limbo to hopefully complete later. Perfectionism versus productivity, if you will.
So, if you will excuse me, I must go back to putting off the 10 posts half-complete in my queue. I'm getting used to this all, but it is still taking time.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Where did half of December go?
It has been too long. My, how two weeks of waking up, studying, eating if possible then studying more before sleeping again can just fly by.
But...
This undergraduate can, barring final exam scores in the minuses, consider himself a graduate of the Baccalaureate program.
Now on to another 2-4 years of education. Woo.
But...
This undergraduate can, barring final exam scores in the minuses, consider himself a graduate of the Baccalaureate program.
Now on to another 2-4 years of education. Woo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
