Showing posts with label Scientific Observations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scientific Observations. Show all posts

Monday, March 01, 2010

Still More Things That Make You Go "Hmmm . . ."



I heard a report on NPR this morning about how the human brain changes during its lifespan. The latest research indicates that while middle-aged brains aren't very good at multi-tasking and are also not as fast as they once were in processing information, they are at their life's peak of being able to perform complex reasoning tasks, and are also at maximum capacity for seeing issues from someone else's point of view, a/k/a empathy. Teenaged brains, on the other hand, while being able to cope with levels of information input that would disorient the rest of us, have very little, if any, capacity to empathize and even less to recognize and anticipate the consequences of the actions they prompt.

The common element affecting both ages of brain is the presence and thickness of myelin, the fatty sheath around nerve endings that improves nerves' ability to process information. Middle-aged brains have a lot of myelin. The quantity and thickness of the myelin enhances complex reasoning functions. Teenaged brains have less myelin, especially around the nerves connecting to the brain's frontal lobes, which are the home of these same higher reasoning functions.

I've bemoaned for years our society's seeming race to the bottom in terms of public behavior, expression of opinions, and general attitude towards civic discourse and political and philosophical differences. Almost nobody cares anymore to be polite, to speak with a civil tongue, and to argue based on the issues and the facts. It seems as if whomever shouts the loudest and longest is declared "the winner," correct on the merits or not. Usually not, too, or else there'd be no need to scream and shout. I always used to think of it in terms of my generation's [yes, I'm talking to and about you, fellow Baby Boomers.--Ed] tendency to raise its children to be its friends instead of raising its children to be good citizens, which in turn those children replicated when raising their own, resulting in at least 3 generations now of selfish brats being at the forefront of society.

But now I wonder. Is there a genetic difference that makes certain people more likely to have less myelin in their brains all their lives? And if so, does this explain the schoolyard bullying and high-school-cliquish behavior of people like Rush Limbaugh and the anchors on Fox "News"?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Texans are to Americans the way Ugly Americans are to the rest of the world. This could also mean, based on the previous observation, that Texans, too, tend to be permanent teenagers. It's as good an explanation as any for what is largely boorish behavior. Please don't get me wrong. I have lived in Texas. I have friends and family members who have lived in Texas--indeed, some of them are still there. There are a lot of things to love about Texas and Texans. But that does not include the Texans making all the noise about how Texas is better at everything than everybody else, ever, period.

And that constant crowing gets real old, real quick. [Maybe at its deepest heart, it's a sign of fundamental insecurity--the most frightened act the bravest?--Ed.] And it's even worse when listening to Texans turn on one another, as they have during the current campaign among GOP candidates for governor. I will not repeat the accusations, lies, and mud that has been slung. I will say only this: when candidates who've openly claimed to support Texas' secession from the Union are accused by their fellow candidates of not being conservative enough, well, let's just say the train has derailed. [Thank God the primary is this-coming Tuesday, so we'll soon have an at least brief respite.--Ed.]

I always shake my head in rueful wonder when I hear talk of secession as though it were a viable option. The Civil War ended 145 years ago, people. Secessionists lost. Get over it. Besides, as a purely practical matter, would those pro-secessionists really be so keen to leave the Union when doing so would cost them incalculably? I'd like to see Texas try to survive without all the money the federal government dumps into its economy through military bases, NASA, local jobs with everything from the National Park Service to the IRS, and contracts for everything from oil and gas leases to research and weapons development.

Still, Texas and Texans can be as grating as fingernails running down a blackboard. And just because they can't secede doesn't mean we can't throw them out, does it?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I see from this morning's news that all the financial pundits have their collective knickers in a twist about the fact that Americans' spending levels have gone up again, even though incomes have not. One consequence is that what we're saving has declined again, down to approximately 4 percent of income, though that figure is still twice as high as it has been for most of the past few decades. The pundits are wailing about Americans' bad habits and predicting the end of the world as we know it [hey--a little hyperbole is never out of order when being sarcastic.--Ed.].

I don't think it's any particular cause for alarm, and I want to know what world these pundits inhabit, because it certainly isn't the real one in which I and my fellow normal Americans live. It's simple, really. When times are hard, purchases are put off. I don't buy a new car just because my current car is 15 years old. I wait. But there comes a time when, no matter how bad my economic circumstances are, I can wait no longer. My car is no longer repairable, for any amount of money. So I go and buy another car (even if it's not brand new, it's new for me). So I'm putting myself back into a financial hole, but that hole would be twice as deep if I lacked dependable and reasonably safe transportation to and from my job (if I'm one of the ones lucky enough to still have one) or to and from job interviews (if I'm one of the too many who doesn't).

Frankly, it's no different from how people without health insurance are forced to live. Minor injuries and illnesses are ignored or given band-aids, and only when circumstances have gotten so bad that there's no other option will people go to the emergency room. This is not a good way to live. It's more costly to everyone in society in the long run than stopping problems while they are still minor and treatable would be. But when wages are stagnant, costs are rising, and those with the money and power are more concerned with maximizing their own comfort than in making society better for every one of its members, there really aren't other options.

Such are the consequences of letting those with the mentality of teenagers run the world.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

At The Nexus Of Science And Religion



I confess to being one of those people who sees no real conflict between the concepts of science and of religion. For me, science is designed to answer the question "How?" and religion, the question "Why?"

There may seem to be overlap, but that's only because people are all-too often imprecise in how they use language. Science can tell us the Universe began in the Big Bang--but it cannot tell us why the Big Bang happened beyond a physical description of the conditions, which equals "how." Only religion can answer the larger philosophical question of Who prompted that "how" in the first place.

I was paying not enough attention to a program on the Science Channel HD this afternoon when I heard a cosmologist express an idea that was one of the most creative and yet simple observations I've heard in years. I regret that I wasn't paying closer attention. I have no idea what his name is or at what university he works--but I think his idea is well worth exploring. He himself admitted he may be wrong, but as he also rightly noted, this is how science and knowledge advance. People observe things; they formulate theories (in the scientific sense); they then test the theories by making more observations which will confirm, modify, or obliterate those theories. They then make further observations to test the "new" theories.

[Note that Darwin's "theory" of evolution is a "theory" only in that scientific sense; so far, no evidence has been repeatedly observed which contradicts it; at most, additional observations have caused minor modifications to the "theory's" details. Only the ignorant still deny that Darwin's general "theory" is correct.--Ed.]

Anyway, this cosmologist's idea came from his observation that, based on what we now know, the Universe cannot be as big as it is when considering how old it is. For when we "run the cosmic clock backwards," certain parts of the Universe that must at some point have been in mutual physical contact have not had enough time to come back together. He called this "the horizon problem."

So in a flash of insight, he postulated that at some point in the past, the speed of light must have been faster than it is now. He calls this "VSL," or "varying speed of light." Other scientists have called is idea the "very silly speed of light." If he is correct, however, we must retool Einstein's general theory of relativity . . . and I can no longer display my bumper sticker that says "186,000 miles per second. It's not just a good idea. It's the law."

But it makes sense to me, based on yet another fundamental law of science (and one against which I've been fighting most of my life): the second law of thermodynamics, which says in its most concise form that "entropy increases."

We all know that things change over time--hot things cool off, orbits decay (anyone remember SkyLab and Mir?), wind-up toys slow down. Entropy increases. Things get messier, often seemingly of their own accord. But the changes are due partly to loss of energy sources, partly due to the action of friction, and partly due to the effects of gravity. We all know gravity bends light waves. That's one of the major predictions of Einstein's theory which has been proved only recently. Only recently did we get the technological sophistication to make the measurements/observations in a way that can be confirmed independently. Remember, the sine qua non of the scientific method is independent corroboration, by observation or by duplicating experimental results. That's the main reason that those who claimed to have produced "cold fusion" failed. No one could repeat their results when performing their same experiments under rigorous, scientifically-controlled conditions.

The other thing I like about this cosmologist's idea is that it embodies Occam's Razor: when you have more then one possible explanation for something, the simplest one normally is correct.

He may well be proven wrong someday. Still, it doesn't matter to him or to me. What matters is that his idea will engender further scientific inquiry. With additional facts come additional knowledge, and that is never bad . . . despite what many claim happened in the Garden of Eden.