Science

[Kamak]

I personally can't force myself to donate my body to science/transplants... I have a fear that doing so will jinx me (like when I had to decide after JUST barely passing my driving test... Ugh...)

 

Plus I always have to question what happens after death... and having read a story 10 years ago (when I was 9) of people being VERY aware of what happens to them when they die (including during cremation), doesn't really help me in how to make a decision.

 

Scientifically speaking, when we die, that should be it, but unfortunately death seems to be the one thing I have to question (mainly because... how can we test the hypothesis?).

 

However, I have told my mom that when they're sure I'm dead (or won't be coming back from like a coma or whatever) that I want my healthy organs donated and the rest of me to be cremated.

 

And Kestra, don't forget, many of the rules in religion were societal rules made to keep the peace and keep the public healthy. Obviously, experimenting on cadavers in an uneducated way is a bad thing to do (especially with the lack of hygiene back then), so such things were banned (they may not have acknowledged that the bodies spread disease, but probably saw the correlation between dead bodies being around, and people dying "inexplicably"). Plus, you have the issue of doctors stealing bodies from graves, which are technically the property of the family,so it's easy to see them outlawing such acts.

 

Now that we are better educated on preserving the bodies and keeping ourselves safe, it's not as much an issue, but of course religion are often based on centuries old societal rules that no longer have any meaning in today's society.

 

-K-

Edited August 27, 2010 by Kamak

[Kestra15]

Scientifically speaking, when we die, that should be it, but unfortunately death seems to be the one thing I have to question (mainly because... how can we test the hypothesis?).

That's just the thing - even scientifically speaking we're not sure. That's when science hands it over to philosophists and priests.

[Kai]

That's just the thing - even scientifically speaking we're not sure. That's when science hands it over to philosophists and priests.

Why would it do that? "Philosophists" and priests are no more qualified.

[TikindiDragon]

The Levitican laws actualy make a good deal fo sense (at least in some areas) when you consider what the hygeine standards of the time were like. Part of the problem is that while knowledge has moved on since than a lot of societal predjudice hasn't.

 

Although, if I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure my body would be too much use to science. It's already been proven that the autistic-spectrum brain is different (incidently - interesting report here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10929032 ) and if the brain is different then it raises the question on how much of the rest of the autistic physiology is different. Yes, I may be of use to someone specificaly researching ASDs, but I'd be a little worried that any results gained from studying my corpse would skew the results on otherwise 'normal' sample of the population. Plus I doubt my liver is a particularly brilliant specimin. I'm not so bad now but I did really abuse it when I was younger.

[Kamak]

Although, if I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure my body would be too much use to science. It's already been proven that the autistic-spectrum brain is different (incidently - interesting report here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10929032 ) and if the brain is different then it raises the question on how much of the rest of the autistic physiology is different. Yes, I may be of use to someone specificaly researching ASDs, but I'd be a little worried that any results gained from studying my corpse would skew the results on otherwise 'normal' sample of the population. Plus I doubt my liver is a particularly brilliant specimin. I'm not so bad now but I did really abuse it when I was younger.

On the other hand, a regular brain/body could be considered a control and could be compared to yours, to maybe better understand the differences between those with ASD (like me) and "normal" people.

 

I don't think people with disorders and diseases are going to be shunned away (they probably won't be used for student doctors to practice on though), if anything, I think they may be MORE desired than ordinary people.

 

-K-

Edited August 28, 2010 by Kamak

[LadyNightshade]

Why would it do that? "Philosophists" and priests are no more qualified.

Because science is defined in the terms of physically testable questions and problems.

 

Anything metaphysics is beyond what science can test.

 

Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural

 

(No that doesn't mean all scientists are atheists, it just means we can't test it because there is no way to test it, so we leave it to other people to theorize on it)

[Kai]

Because science is defined in the terms of physically testable questions and problems.

 

Anything metaphysics is beyond what science can test.

 

Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural

 

(No that doesn't mean all scientists are atheists, it just means we can't test it because there is no way to test it, so we leave it to other people to theorize on it)

If there's no way to test something, it effectively has no impact on anything, and can be ignored.

[dragonryaman]

Go science! Awesome vid!

[Kamak]

Because science is defined in the terms of physically testable questions and problems.

 

Anything metaphysics is beyond what science can test.

 

Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural

 

(No that doesn't mean all scientists are atheists, it just means we can't test it because there is no way to test it, so we leave it to other people to theorize on it)

Which is perhaps why I take issue with String Theory. It makes too many untestable assumptions and the end result they're looking for is an inch long equation that tells us how the universe works and will explain EVERYTHING. It seems a bit too much like science fiction or a physics based belief system rather than science. Especially with assumptions like this:

 

String theories also require the existence of several extra, unobservable, dimensions to the universe, in addition to the usual three spatial dimensions (height, width, and length) and the fourth dimension of time. M theory, for example, requires that spacetime have eleven dimensions.

 

Plus, strings themselves are one dimensional, and this can't be observed because they have no width (even hair has width, and the width is the only reason you can see hair).

 

If there's no way to test something, it effectively has no impact on anything, and can be ignored.

 

So what happens after death can be ignored, and it has absolutely no impact on us?

 

-K-

[Kaynight]

Which is perhaps why I take issue with String Theory. It makes too many untestable assumptions and the end result they're looking for is an inch long equation that tells us how the universe works and will explain EVERYTHING. It seems a bit too much like science fiction or a physics based belief system rather than science. Especially with assumptions like this:

 

 

 

Plus, strings themselves are one dimensional, and this can't be observed because they have no width (even hair has width, and the width is the only reason you can see hair).

I HATE string theory, from what I've read and seen about it on TV it just seems like a lot of nonsense to me. For me it’s just as though they couldn't think of anything else and came up with that (though obviously I’m no physicist lol so that’s only my opinion based on what I’ve seen/heard). However my friend who is studying astrophysics’ loves string theory he explains stuff to me about it sometimes and I'm like He's hoping to get into that area of research after he finishes his PhD, he totally thinks he'll be the guy who'll discover all about it, lol he's to cute ^^

Edited August 28, 2010 by Kaynight

[Kamak]

Unfortunately String Theory keeps getting funding for people to sit around all day thinking of how to express it through an equation. I'd much rather our funding go to things like cancer research and polymer research than to studying a theory based on assuming that unobservable forces are at work.

 

-K-

[TikindiDragon]

On the other hand, a regular brain/body could be considered a control and could be compared to yours, to maybe better understand the differences between those with ASD (like me) and "normal" people.

 

I don't think people with disorders and diseases are going to be shunned away (they probably won't be used for student doctors to practice on though), if anything, I think they may be MORE desired than ordinary people.

 

-K-

And if I thought that would be being taken into account then I'd be quite happy with it. Sadly there's not currently any post-mortem research into the differences between ASD people and NT people being carried out (at least none that I know of).

 

Physical disorders/diseases *yes*, 'mental' ones I'm not so sure. (Note - I had to put that in the quotation marks because it reads very wrong and offensively otherwise. I'm not sure I've worded the sentance correctly at all, but it was the best I could come up with to get my mental picture translated into words. I'm aspie and I know I haven't got a mental problem, I'd also be very offended if someone told me I did. Hope this doesn't come across that way.)

[Kaynight]

Unfortunately String Theory keeps getting funding for people to sit around all day thinking of how to express it through an equation. I'd much rather our funding go to things like cancer research and polymer research than to studying a theory based on assuming that unobservable forces are at work.

 

-K-

True. However on that note I'm all for funding so we can send people to Mars, however it raises the same issue because I'm sure that a lot of people would rather spend the money on other research. I think subjects like where funding should go for science is a very personal topic because everyone wants the money to be spent on something that they're interested in or that they think is important and everyone obviously has different opinions.

[Kamak]

True. However on that note I'm all for funding so we can send people to Mars, however it raises the same issue because I'm sure that a lot of people would rather spend the money on other research. I think subjects like where funding should go for science is a very personal topic because everyone wants the money to be spent on something that they're interested in or that they think is important and everyone obviously has different opinions.

I'm pro-probe. It's cheaper, it's safer, it doesn't need to find a way back home, and everything the probe "sees" is saved to a databank that can be accessed at any time in the future.

 

Frankly, the people who keep pushing "sending the first man to Mars" make it seem like we need another Apollo program to make us patriotic again and prove our dominion in space. In all honesty, I'm quite ashamed to call the Apollo program a "scientific" endeavor as it was almost entirely a way to stroke the ego of American victory over the "evil commies" and to promote political idealism. The program was ultimately scrapped because the cost wasn't effective for the publicity it got (The Apollo 13 mission wasn't even covered on TV until the accident). Yes, a lot of new technology and and information came out of this, but it wasn't the focus, and ultimately that hurt the program more.

 

The only thing I give the Apollo missions credit for is that without them NASA would have never had the clout to get funding for projects like Voyager, Hubble, the Mars Rovers, and Cassini-Huygens, all of which have expanded our knowledge of our solar system (and beyond) immensely.

 

Hell, just go look at the Hubble Deep Field Image and tell me that wasn't worth the money.

 

The people griping about how we haven't reached Mars yet were enamored with the stories politicians fed them about how the future would have hovercars, robots, and household spaceships.Unsurprisingly, many of the supporters are people who witnessed the moon landing in 69 (often as children) and are too busy trying to relive the "glory days" to think of how money could better be spent on probes.

 

-K-

Edited August 28, 2010 by Kamak

[LadyNightshade]

I HATE string theory, from what I've read and seen about it on TV it just seems like a lot of nonsense to me. For me it’s just as though they couldn't think of anything else and came up with that (though obviously I’m no physicist lol so that’s only my opinion based on what I’ve seen/heard).^

Exactly why I dislike physics (you know, the out there stuff)

 

 

that's why I'm going into biochemistry. Stuff from there is more relevant to people's lives, and new stuff can be discovered to help out people

 

(yes, I am very scientific, "Stuff" is a legit term you know..... I blame the lortab)

[Leidarendi]

I'm a PhD scientist at a hospital/university.

 

All science is important, be it experimental or theoretical.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Leidarendi

[LadyNightshade]

I just don't like physics It's the one form of science that a lot of it goes over my head.

 

I know I technically already know plenty of physics because many of the laws apply to chemistry....

 

 

(I just like organic and bio chem more..... )

 

 

 

I have to take a physics eventually anyway, part of my major's required classes...

[Kestra15]

*sigh* String theory...I'll keep with my many simpler laws and theories thanks.

[RheaZen]

 

Pure theory makes my head go round and round and round in a dizzying manner.

[Kamak]

 

Pure theory makes my head go round and round and round in a dizzying manner.

This. So much so.

 

-K-

[Kestra15]

 

Pure theory makes my head go round and round and round in a dizzying manner.

Hence why I'm an applied mathematician

[RheaZen]

 

/attempt to revive

[14darkness]

I like theoretical physics, especially when it concerns cosmology, and even more when it's about black holes. They're so interesting and complicated it makes my head spin It's nice when you have something to learn about.

 

Oh, and it's not string theory, it's membrane theory, also known as 'M' theory. It's been awhile since I looked into it, but I do remember that much.

 

And what kind of atom is that?

[Obscure_Trash]

Studying to become a geologist (not sure with focus to what). I suck at it though. D|

 

But ever since 101 anytime people say "Richter Scale" in some sort of seriousness, I just wanna 'splode. D|

 

Also taking phys II this semester. I really just didn't like phys I, didn't get it at all, but phys II seems like it will be a bit better.

I'm really not good with application, though, lol. Gimme a straightforward question and it'll be pretty easy, give me a word problem and I'll flounder and flail about. :B

[crocodile100]

SockPuppet, what do you mean when people say Richter.

 

It's fairly common knowledge that it's pronounced Rick-Ter (tor?). The people who pronounce it as Rich-Ter must be idiots.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm 14.

Edited September 3, 2010 by crocodile100