Welcome to topic two of the Cache Club.
The topic for this week is "web 2.0".
To start out, watch this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPVWtYMpTEk
After watching the video, there is this great article. The first little bit is definitely worth reading, it is about how the internet began, and what people expected from it. However, if you feel pressured for time, midway through the fourth page is the part on what to expect in 2015, this is the essential part of the article.
The article is found at - http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/tech.html?pg=1&topic=tech&topic_set=
Keep in mind that this article was written in 2005. And according to the idea that it is doubling every year or so, remember to double or even quadruple (hard to believe with how big many of these numbers are) all the numbers in the article.
If you want more evidence, look at the amount of blogs there are online, amount of Wiki's in Wikipedia, the amount of profiles on sites like Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, Youtube, dating sites, Photobucket, Flickr, you name it, people like you and me can edit it, and become a part of it.
That's really all the information I'm going to give you. I encourage you to look over how integrated YOU are into the internet.
Joe will be emailing everyone in a few days (weeks?) to set up when the responses should be turned in, and when we will be meeting to discuss everything.
Thank you,
Adam
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
First weeks topic - Aquatic Apes
This was a topic presented by Clay on Aquatic Apes. It can be found here -
http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html
Not everyone typed up their email responses and mailed them in, however, I have compiled some of the responses that we got to this topic.
Joe -
I thought Elaine Morgan made some really interesting points in the theory's favor and I didn't come across any good explanations for them when I googled the topic and tried to find a rebuttal (e.g. biped, naked body, operant control of breathing pre-requisite for speaking, etc.). I, however, didn't look very hard.
These are some questions that I had after I watched the clip...
1. Sounds good. I'd like to know more (okay that's not a question)
2. Have we found any fossils of aquatic apes to support the theory?
3. Why doesn't the hair on our bodies count when they refer to us as having naked bodies?
4. There was one thing that Elaine Morgan said that made me cautious to accept what she was presenting as unbiased and objective (okay this isn't a question either). "Every animal that has become naked has been conditioned by water...except for the naked Somalian mall rat which never puts its nose above ground." The reason this makes me cautious is because in its context it appears to be an argument for an absolute (i.e. every). She knows it's not but says it anyways. Even though she states the exception, she does it as an aside without giving it more attention than what is required to state it. The one fact she gave about the animal (it doesn't stick its nose above the ground) seems to be used as an explanation for the exception to her rule. I'm not sure I understand why that fact is relevant and why it is an explanation. I'd like to know more.
I did google aquatic apes and read one opposing argument to the theory after I watched the clip (don't ask me for the link because I closed the tab before I realized it might be a good idea to post it. It's one of the first hits if you google aquatic apes). The author of the article I read briefly mentioned my concerns but didn't seem to be too preoccupied with what was vexing me (probably because he understands enough about the topic to understand why my concerns are trivial). The main argument against the theory in his article was that it is not a parsimonious explanation. If aquatic apes lost land animal traits and acquired water animal traits when they entered the water, why didn't they re-acquire land animal traits and lose the water animal traits when they reentered the land? We are left with the same question, "why are we different than other land apes?" Put differently, the author argued that the argument doesn't explain anything because in its explanation an explanation still needs to be made in order to answer the questions being asked in the initial inquiry. We are left with a more complicated theory and have less evidence to prove it.
Anyways, that is my (and an anonymous internet author's) initial reaction to this clip. I look forward to eating mini brownies and discussing this more tomorrow. Please feel free to hit reply all and add your own two cents. The more we can cover before we meet tomorrow, the deeper we can get by the end of the process.
Amy -
As I mentioned in an email to Joe, I have a character flaw that is best exposed when I am presented with new "scientific" information. Basically, when anyone says anything to me about any of the hard sciences, I am completely convinced, at least until someone else comes along with new "scientific" information. May I illustrate with a brief story?
Once in college, I was invited to the home of a friend with whom I had spent a semester abroad in London and her new husband in their Salt Lake City home. They were both from a small backward town in southern Utah which had provided both of them with a heavy dose of charm and excellent senses of humor. The husband, who was especially quirky and really into hunting in the most delightful way possible, had mentioned on several occasions a video he proclaimed would change my life and convince me that human beings had never landed on the moon. That evening was the moment of truth. I watched the 35 minute video and was so completely convinced that I still, eight years later, have a hard time thinking it really happened, even when my beliefs border on humiliating. I convince easy.
This is to say I wholeheartedly accept the aquatic ape theory and look forward to hearing about your more incisive discussion on the topic. While chagrined to miss the discussion, and the mini brownies, I feel assured I would have absolutely nothing to contribute. My brain don't work like that.
John -
http://www.ted.com/talks/
Not everyone typed up their email responses and mailed them in, however, I have compiled some of the responses that we got to this topic.
Joe -
I thought Elaine Morgan made some really interesting points in the theory's favor and I didn't come across any good explanations for them when I googled the topic and tried to find a rebuttal (e.g. biped, naked body, operant control of breathing pre-requisite for speaking, etc.). I, however, didn't look very hard.
These are some questions that I had after I watched the clip...
1. Sounds good. I'd like to know more (okay that's not a question)
2. Have we found any fossils of aquatic apes to support the theory?
3. Why doesn't the hair on our bodies count when they refer to us as having naked bodies?
4. There was one thing that Elaine Morgan said that made me cautious to accept what she was presenting as unbiased and objective (okay this isn't a question either). "Every animal that has become naked has been conditioned by water...except for the naked Somalian mall rat which never puts its nose above ground." The reason this makes me cautious is because in its context it appears to be an argument for an absolute (i.e. every). She knows it's not but says it anyways. Even though she states the exception, she does it as an aside without giving it more attention than what is required to state it. The one fact she gave about the animal (it doesn't stick its nose above the ground) seems to be used as an explanation for the exception to her rule. I'm not sure I understand why that fact is relevant and why it is an explanation. I'd like to know more.
I did google aquatic apes and read one opposing argument to the theory after I watched the clip (don't ask me for the link because I closed the tab before I realized it might be a good idea to post it. It's one of the first hits if you google aquatic apes). The author of the article I read briefly mentioned my concerns but didn't seem to be too preoccupied with what was vexing me (probably because he understands enough about the topic to understand why my concerns are trivial). The main argument against the theory in his article was that it is not a parsimonious explanation. If aquatic apes lost land animal traits and acquired water animal traits when they entered the water, why didn't they re-acquire land animal traits and lose the water animal traits when they reentered the land? We are left with the same question, "why are we different than other land apes?" Put differently, the author argued that the argument doesn't explain anything because in its explanation an explanation still needs to be made in order to answer the questions being asked in the initial inquiry. We are left with a more complicated theory and have less evidence to prove it.
Anyways, that is my (and an anonymous internet author's) initial reaction to this clip. I look forward to eating mini brownies and discussing this more tomorrow. Please feel free to hit reply all and add your own two cents. The more we can cover before we meet tomorrow, the deeper we can get by the end of the process.
Amy -
As I mentioned in an email to Joe, I have a character flaw that is best exposed when I am presented with new "scientific" information. Basically, when anyone says anything to me about any of the hard sciences, I am completely convinced, at least until someone else comes along with new "scientific" information. May I illustrate with a brief story?
Once in college, I was invited to the home of a friend with whom I had spent a semester abroad in London and her new husband in their Salt Lake City home. They were both from a small backward town in southern Utah which had provided both of them with a heavy dose of charm and excellent senses of humor. The husband, who was especially quirky and really into hunting in the most delightful way possible, had mentioned on several occasions a video he proclaimed would change my life and convince me that human beings had never landed on the moon. That evening was the moment of truth. I watched the 35 minute video and was so completely convinced that I still, eight years later, have a hard time thinking it really happened, even when my beliefs border on humiliating. I convince easy.
This is to say I wholeheartedly accept the aquatic ape theory and look forward to hearing about your more incisive discussion on the topic. While chagrined to miss the discussion, and the mini brownies, I feel assured I would have absolutely nothing to contribute. My brain don't work like that.
John -
Ms. Morgan makes a charming and energetic spokesperson for the Aquatic Apes Theory. Which probably accounts for why she can get away with calling it a “theory” in the first place. If I remember what science I was able to absorb from my limited public school education, the idea should be called a “hypothesis” until it can be tested and reproduced many times and many ways by many people.
And that’s the thing that caught my public relations person’s eye the most about Ms. Morgan’s lecture. She was able to simultaneously dismiss the standard interpretation of Darwin while substituting an interpretation of her own using precisely the kind of reasoning she said dooms her nemesis theory to the dustbin. She could just as well work for a tobacco company. Or fossil fuels.
For example: The standard interpretation of Darwin is wrong because all of the common explanations (i.e. apes had to stand up to see over the grass when they moved to the plains) are just circumstantial ideas dreamed up by scientists to justify their hypotheses. They don’t stand up under scrutiny (i.e. didn’t the plains evolve AFTER the apes stood up?). Then to support her counter-hypothesis, she offers a series of the same kinds of explanations (i.e. all apes stand up when they wade in water) without following through with the scrutiny (i.e. if they’re ‘aquatic’ apes, shouldn’t they be swimming like fish, not wading like hippos, which have, um… four legs?)
This debate tells more about the nature of science than about Darwin’s specific ideas. Despite the eloquent exploration of the gap between science and religion in the fine film “Nacho Libre,” the two branches of thought are far closer to each other than either the scientists or religionists would care to admit.
Consider these memorable quotes from Ms. Morgan’s lecture:
“Everything I’ve been telling you for the past 20 years, forget about it. Go back to square one.”
“What do scientists do when a paradigm fails? They carry on as if nothing ever happened… If they don’t have a paradigm, how can they ask questions?”
“History is strewn with occasions where they got it wrong.” And you “can’t solve it by holding a head count and say more of the heads say yes than no.” (Wait a minute – isn’t that the current explanation for the “reality” or anthropomorphic climate change – that more scientists believe it than don’t?)
Read Michael Pollan’s latest book, “In Defense of Food” for a wonderful account of how “nutrition science” rapidly evolved into “nutritionism” – an “ism” as religion-like as Catholicism or any “ism.” The central tenet of Nutritionism is that Dietary Fat is the Devil. Now, despite the fact that the fat theory is being disproved – and America’s reaction to it blamed for soaring rates of obesity-related ailments – the quickest way to get yourself ostracized from the Nutrition Science community is to question the established dogma.
And that’s the real point for any of you who might fancy entering the world of Science. Ms. Morgan’s best advice was if you believe (in a counter-conventional hypothesis,) “keep it to yourself or it will get in the way.” Ask any scientist who continues to look at cold fusion and they’ll tell you the same thing (even though those palladium rods keep periodically spitting out pesky bursts of heat that the high priests of physics can’t explain.
As for me, I’m just a PR guy. I’ll settle for Ms. Morgan’s conclusion that I’m getting fat because I want to be a fish.
Brady -
when it comes to varying theories of evolution, I would emphasize the word "theory", a category under which even the most seemingly infallible theory of relativity has been placed. And I guess this is the challenge because although the evidence is stacked high in favor of the general theory of evolution, i.e. whether E. Morgan's theory is certain or not, we have yet to piece together a number of "missing links" scattered widely throughout our constructed evolutionary tree. My question is, how does this debate help us to better understand tissue engineering? How does it better our understanding of the environment? Although, some of these questions may seem pertinent only to humans, we have to wonder why Elaine Morgan and her theory worthy of debate has been left relatively undisputed.. is it perhaps that most of the people who study these subjects end up going into medicine? I would think that would have something to do with it.
That's all the responses that I have, feel free to comment on the video here on the blog though!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Cache Club of Interdisciplinary Studies
Welcome everyone,
This is the official blog for the Cache Club of Interdisciplinary Studies.
This will be a place where everyone who is part of the club can post topics that we are discussing for the month, as well as post their responses to the topics, and post the discussion questions that they would like to cover when we meet on Tuesday nights.
So enjoy, post questions, and learn from different people's points of view, and expand all your horizons!
This is the official blog for the Cache Club of Interdisciplinary Studies.
This will be a place where everyone who is part of the club can post topics that we are discussing for the month, as well as post their responses to the topics, and post the discussion questions that they would like to cover when we meet on Tuesday nights.
So enjoy, post questions, and learn from different people's points of view, and expand all your horizons!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)