Life's greatest lessons
will often show up at your door unexpected. Be sure
to let them in. – Biobuddha
A First Lesson in Science
by BioBuddha, September 23, 2015Great wisdom sometimes comes at an abrupt moment in time when you least expect it. The stage surrounding such moments seem to be intelligently set in place and orchestrated so that they lead to a punchline that is meant to be fathomed individually, a lot like when one is told a joke. Sometimes we get the joke right away, but other times comprehending these wisdom experiences can take a while. They can creep upon us and abruptly attack from behind, or not. Afterwards is when we laugh.
I am going to relate one of my first experiences with 'getting it'. Yes, I am talking about some wisdom that surprise-attacked me early in my career. Before that happened, I was a nervous and naïve young student. Afterwards, I was a lot calmer, a little bit wiser, and more at peace with my new career. It was one of those defining moments in a career that, for better or worse, turns you into what you've become.
Here's what happened. I had labored for three years of lab research as a graduate student when it was time to write my first research manuscript. Prior to submitting the research for publication (1), I was heading out to my first scientific symposium to present my results to colleagues. But, there was a problem: My research director couldn't go with me, so I was going alone. That might be described as akin to being thrown into a lake for the first time as a test of what you can do. You either sink or swim.
The research symposium was one of those large annual meetings where thousands of scientists would arrive from around the world to present their newest results and to see what everyone else was doing. As preparation, my research director would take me into his office to simulate what I might face at the meeting. I was scheduled to present a poster presentation. So, I laid out my poster presentation on the floor of his office, then he would brutally practice grill me until I could take no more (2).
“They are going to pick your brain!!” he would yell at me. “Be especially careful of our competitors. They are hungry to scoop all you've worked hard on and publish it first!” After hearing that over and over, I became schizophrenic. One side of me was as paranoid as a lunatic under a sky with no moon. It got so bad that I couldn't put two sensible words together in these practice sessions. But perhaps as a coping mechanism, there was another side of me that secretly imagined pleasant scenarios.
I secretly imagined the upcoming event like a presidential news conference or perhaps like a public interview of the Dali Lama. I imagined standing in front of a large crowd responding to questions in a way that was amazing to everyone there. I would use my finger to point to someone in a confusing mess of waving hands to ask me a question about my laboriously acquired research results. All eyes were on me. My response to each question would be delivered calmly and with the wisdom of a Buddha. My answers would be tantalizing, so as to not reveal details that I was protecting, yet at the same time, each response would fill listeners with profound wisdom like Buddhas do with their enlightened aphorisms. After each response was made, the crowd would swoon and look at each other in a mixture of satisfaction and admiration.
I didn't notice until now, but perhaps that's when BioBuddha was first conceived. If so, there would be several decades pass before a BioBuddha claimant would emerge into the world from the fantastic imaginings of an incorrigible dreamer.
To shorten what is becoming a long narrative, I traveled across the country to the scientific symposium and then showed up at the appointed place and time to present the poster of my research results. In most respects, the environment I found myself in was similar to what I expected. There were not only thousands of people there, but hundreds, perhaps more, of posters and talks being given, all describing the newest findings of the so-called research cognizente.
My poster was scheduled during one afternoon of the four-day conference, along with hundreds of others, all lined up in rows in an enormous convention hall. In this sea of posters, I stood in front of mine for the entire scheduled four hour block.
But during that time, something I didn't expect happened: Nobody came.
I looked down at other posters being presented on either side of me. All had small groups of individuals chatting vigorously about the research results. All of them, that is, except mine. I alone seemed invisible to all activity or interest (3).
After a few hours of that, I became desperate. By that time, if anyone would have shown sufficient interest, I would have spilled my guts. I would have loudly proclaimed every secret I ever knew, everything I did in my life, and then some. After all, this research had cost three years of my life, and someone needed to hear about it!
By the end of my poster session, I was pacing back and forth, glancing over my shoulder, and muttering to myself, as is stereotypical of someone who is insane (4).
I saw one fellow meandering down the long line of posters gazing at the titles, but when he got to mine, he must have seen the look on my face, because he then hurried past like the devil was after him. Before hurrying off, he pointed briefly at the top of my poster which showed where I was from and exclaimed “My sister lives in that town!!”
Needless to say, I left that conference a very different person from the one who came. Wisdom, in a disguise of an unexpected experience had presented itself at my door. Fortunately for me, all was not completely lost in the shuffle. Somehow, I left that meeting more grown up, wiser, and better grounded in the world about me. I felt calmer, I walked taller, and I was more in touch with this business that I was about.
I started to comprehend my purpose, what I was doing, and why I was in this business in the first place. It was not because I felt that anything I discovered had any impact on the world, but it was because I was the first benefactor, perhaps the only one, of the scholarship that I was undertaking. My newfound perspective about science was much clearer and more satisfying.
Thirty years later, I sometimes recall the wisdom I got from that experience and feel sad that many of my colleagues in science appear to have never had a similar experience, nor benefited from the perspective it bestows.
Endnotes:
1. Here is the manuscript that came out of that research: Shortridge, R. D., Pirtle, I. L. and Pirtle, R. M. (1985) Nucleotide sequence and transcription of a gene encoding human tRNAGly/CCC. Gene, 33, 269-277.
2. Thank you Bob and Irma. You were great mentors who helped find what I needed most.
3. In truth, several people looked at my poster and spoke briefly with me, but none that knew my research specialty.
4. Some things don't change much because I still act the stereotype of insane. I am prone to a lot of laughter and irreverence in conversations about science with colleagues. I see that my laughter unnerves them, which in turn elicits more laughter. Professional scientists tend to look on science as a very serious business, but I no longer believe that.
Is the Scientific Method Self-Validating?
By BioBuddha, September 25, 2015If there is such thing as a chief cornerstone of science, it would be the scientific method. It comprises the sum and substance of what might be called 'acceptable method' in terms of science research. But what if the scientific method had a flaw that no one ever talked about? What if it was even worse than that because asking such a question is treated as heresy?
Perhaps 'flaw' isn't the proper word to use in terms of what I am talking about. The title points to something quite different, a question of validation. Some of my scientific colleagues, presuming they entertained a question of validity in the first place, might even argue that the idea I am presenting comprises a highly desirable characteristic and therefore elevates the scientific method to a higher state than we know about now.
My entire argument rests on an essential and integral component of scientific method. It's something that science, at least up until post modern times, has presumed to be a non-variable in the equation: The observer.
However, several modern lines of evidence suggest that an observer is not separate from an experiment as has been universally presumed by orthodox science, but rather is an integral part of it. Otherwise stated, perhaps in a more oblique way, is: “An observer might be the most important variable in the equation of scientific method.”
Before moving on to supporting evidence, there is something else that needs mentioning. We shouldn't forget that we are talking about basic premises. Over thirty years ago, I heard something said in passing about basic premises that somehow stuck with me. I remember who said it too, but his personal identity isn't important, nor is it important whether or not he remembers saying it. His words were simple and direct: “If your basic premises are wrong, it doesn't matter how good your reasoning is because you will always arrive at a wrong conclusion” (1).
I've often ponder why it is that scientists rarely examine their basic premises. It's really odd, but maybe the answer has a lot to do with the culture in which we operate. My own experience tells me that one reason is that the pay for questioning existing dogma is very low, perhaps even negative pay.
With that said, lets move on to supporting evidence.
Observer Effect (physics)
Physicists have shown that quantum phenomena exhibit different behavior depending on when an observer inserts into the equation (ie. when the observer observes)(2, 3). Phrases like 'quantum weirdness' or 'spooky action at a distance' were invented by physicists who study such things. Spooky action at a distance (quantum entanglement) also seems to defy a divine commandment of physics that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
I marvel with admiration how quantum theorists themselves have emerged a variety of theories to explain these phenomena, many of which are as highly controversial as they are unorthodox. Quantum theorists might even occupy the point of the spear of a whole new philosophy in science about what comprises the universe and how it operates.
But, it doesn't end there. That is, quantum phenomena don't seem to be confined to the quantum universe of the infinitesimally small. It's popularly held that the quantum world has rules that do not extend into the macro world where we observe such things as trees and construct our machines. However, recent studies show that macro particles (substituted in the two-slit experiment) behave similarly to what is observed in the quantum universe. But the story always seems to get better as time passes. Newer results emerge a whole new line of quantum weirdness that has to do with changing the past (re. quantum eraser).
Here, it might be worthwhile to notice history as a teacher. History tells of a prevailing priesthood that promulgated an earth-centric model of the universe, a model that has now been abandoned and replaced by one where the earth revolves around the sun. However, it's important to notice that it didn't end there. Einstein's work on relativity and the warping of linear space by gravity also upset prevailing views of the universe in terms of Cartesian law and Newtonian physics. Today, we witness deja-vu where quantum phenomena and its unconstrained spillage into the macro universe is upsetting widely-held models (4).
Generally speaking, emergence of these science models into the community appears to be a lot like many birth events of humans: Full of pain, bright flashes of light where nothing is really seen, priest and physician in attendance (5), and travel through a dark tunnel, followed by a long period of growth with subsequent amnesia of what happened.
Placebo
There is an interesting macro-universe phenomenon, though not without controversy, that also supports observer as a significant variable in the mathematics of method. It's something that occupies a modest home in medicine but is certainly not limited to that. It's a mind-body phenomenon that most of us know as Placebo Effect.
Having typed for a long time already, I am not really feeling like undertaking a dissertation about the merits and demerits underlying placebo and what it all means. It might be sufficient to point out two things: (i) Governmental regulatory agencies generally require (though I don't think it's written down in some book of scripture) double-blind studies (including placebo studies) to be carried out prior to approving drugs or medical therapies (6).; and (ii) Some public universities have entire faculty research groups that study placebo responses.
These examples should be sufficient to make a case that placebo is considered real, at least by the government. Otherwise there is a lot of public money being spent on nothing.
Oh wait. I might have worded that last sentence incorrectly.
No. It's okay.
It might be worthwhile mentioning that in 2011 Germany suggested that their doctors increase prescriptions of placebo therapies (7). The rationale is that many new and expensive drug therapies show efficacy levels barely above placebo thresholds, yet at the same time, elicit serious and undesirable side effects. Placebo treatments promise almost the same efficacy as the drugs, but without side effects.
Also important is the idea that placebo might not be just a mind-body phenomenon. The idea of a mind universe is increasingly being discussed by professional scientists today as a way to explain newer scientific data that don't seem to fit well with prevailing models (8).
Flaw or Validation?
There is an ancillary question to this whole conversation that might be worth our attention: If the proposal being discussed here is correct, is it a flaw or, alternatively, a wonderful validation of scientific method?
It might be worth repeating that question in different words. There is little question that the scientific method has been extremely successful in model-making of the universe and the increasingly rapid emergence of technology. Ergo, we've benefited enormously from using the scientific method, so isn't that something we want to continue?
Well, yes, but that's wide of the point.
Validation is a word I used in the title of this piece because it has a dual meaning. Here, we've arrived at what can only be examined philosophically.
In an attempt to avoid a mustering of troops into opposing philosophical camps, let me pose a different question: What if our failure to see the scientific method in clear way, led to a failure to understand something else in a clear way? That is, how do we know we aren't missing something else that's really important?
As a parting shot, perhaps I might respond directly to a question that is now-pregnant: Okay Doctor BioBuddha, do you have an idea of what we might be missing by not fully understanding the scientific method?
No. If I was successful in taking you this far, you are now on your own.
Endnotes:
1. Thank you Harvey. However, I am not sure about the 'always' part. Accidents happen.
2. The observer effect in physics includes more than quantum phenomena and my use of the term is rather loose. It might be better to combine 'observer effect' with 'uncertainty principle' for a more useful definition, notwithstanding a danger of mutual annihilation when they meet.
3. I really don't feel like locating numerous citations and metastasizing this endnote list into a long document according to prevailing custom of science writing. For one, this is an opinion piece. Also, I am confident that most readers possess some sort of internet-capable device that allows them to google subjects to determine whether or not my claims are credible.
4. It's not just quantum mechanics, said to be science of the very very small, that is upsetting current models of the universe. Going the other direction to what is very very big, astrophysics recently experienced a big fruit-basket-upset in their observations of an accelerating universe. I am electing to keep this narrative brief by not once mentioning an accelerating universe, even in these endnotes.
5. My wife commented that a priest is never in attendance at a birth, though may be present thereafter. I was trying to make a jab at physician and priest being one and the same. These things aren't as much fun if you have to explain.
6. If the required use of placebo studies prior to government approval is neither written as commandment in scripture nor written in some authoritative drug handbook, it's certainly part of prevailing custom.
7. Here's an exception to what I said under endnote 3, above: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134747/
8. See for examples: 'The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality' by Michael Talbot and 'Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe' by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman.
If someone asked me where life begins and ends, I'd say nowhere. – BioBuddha
What is the Definition of Life?
By BioBuddha, October 13, 2015It's pathetic (1). It
really is. It's like specializing in political
science, yet not knowing the name of the president.
I am a biologist by profession. Biologists study living organisms. Yet biologists don't have a good definition of life.
The official definition of life has changed over the years, but the newer ones still don't work well because you can always find exceptions to the rules. The problem isn't in the middle; it's at the edges (2).
When lecturing, I sometimes tell my students that we had a better definition of life when I was a student in the 1980's (3). Allow me to translate what that means. In the 1980's, we didn't know as much as we do today. That's why our definition in the 1980's worked better. It's because the definition of life that we had back then was more satisfying than it is now.
A better definition of life is something none of my colleagues seem to want to talk about (4). In my thirty years as a career biologist, I've rarely had a conversation about this topic with close colleagues. It's like a dirty little secret one never mentions. “Ssssssshhhhhhh!! (now whispering) Quiet down.... don't talk about that..... it's embarrassing.”
It's really interesting to observe history and notice how our definition of life has changed over the years. When I was a student in the 1980's, viruses were considered to be living things. Today, they're not. Poor things.
Please don't start thinking I will propose a better definition of life in writing this narrative. No, it's the opposite. I intend to make it more muddled than it is now, but maybe it's one of those events that need to happen. It needs to get worse before it can get better.
I will propose a hypothesis in this narrative and it's a whopper. Here it is: Biology might own more fields of academics than it thinks it does. If you are the least bit curious about what that means and seeing my evidence for such an unusual claim, then read on.
In 1943, a series of lectures about “What is Life?” were given at Trinity College in Dublin by Nobel Laureate Erin Shrodinger (a physicist). A year later, these lectures were published in book form (5). That might still be one of the classiest books ever written on the subject. Being a physicist by profession, Shrodinger approached the subject from a physicist's point of view.
In 1993, a gaggle of famous scientists met together at Trinity College to celebrate the lectures Shrodinger gave there fifty years earlier. They even published a book of articles that came out of that meeting (6). The first article was by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould titled “'What is Life?' As a Problem in History” (7). Please allow me to sum up in four words the overall sentiment that came out of that meeting in regard to a better definition of what is life: “We don't have one.”
Despite the failure of scientists in coming up with a one-size-fits-all definition of life, there are some characteristics of living organisms generally accepted as true. These are such things as: (i) Reproduction; (ii) Growth; (iii) Energy transduction; and (iv) Adaptation.
Biologists generally consider humans as occupying the pinnacle of the pyramid of life. Humans are not only considered to be the most highly advanced (evolved) form of life on this planet, but also occupy a position at the top of the food chain.
But for grins, let's see if we can go a bit higher. Let's ask this: Are such things as governments living things? (8) Here is a list of characteristics worth noticing:
1. Governments are born, grow, evolve, and die.
2. Governments can reproduce (eg. spawn other governments)
3. Governments consume energy and use it (note common term used by Personnel Departments: “Human Resources”)
4. Governments react to the environment (eg. they will respond when threatened).
5. Governments can be predatory (watch today's news).
6. Governments exhibit complex behavior (okay, this idea may be controversial).
However, it's not just governments that possess these characteristics. A lot of other things do as well, such as ecosystems, cultures, universities, science publishing, professional societies, and biology departments.
Having already proposed a hypothesis that such things as governments, universities, and biology departments are 'living things', I will now propose the next hypothesis of mine that I earlier called a whopper. However, I will state it differently this time.
Here it is:
Since biology is a study of living things, then many other fields of study like politics, economics, sociology, and even art, are all subdivisions of biology.
Ergo, biology is the mother of all studies.
Biology has been underrated for way too long (9).
It's alive! Alliiiiivvve! (10).
(1) I went with the word 'pathetic'', but I almost used 'embarrassing'. Pathetic seemed to work in better with a paragraph I wrote later.
(2) Are viruses living things?; Are humans the most evolved life form? Undertake a google search on definition of life and see what you get. I'm warning you, it'll be a mess.
(3). My wife asked for clarification what the official definition of life was in the 1980's. Generally speaking, viruses and humans were included at demarcations of the edges.
(4) Colleagues of mine tend to look upon finding a precise definition of life as difficult to achieve. The topic is also viewed as something that belongs to science philosophy rather than biology, so it's a topic of study we don't own.
(5) Shrodinger's book is found at a variety of sites on the internet you can locate using google.
(6) What is Life? The Next Fifty Years, Michael P. Murphy and Luke A.J. O'Neill (editors), 1995, Cambridge University Press, 191pp.
(7) Stephen Gould began the article with Louis Armstrong's famous retort about what is jazz: “Man, if you gotta ask, you'll never know.” Gould seems to be saying that one has to go by a gut feeling in defining life. That's amazing. I rarely hear scientists say such a thing. Science is normally confined to the use of deductive logic and experimental demonstration.
(8) I'm not the first to propose an idea of social life forms. 'Social organism' is an old term, but maybe it's an understatement of what is observed.
(9) Since I am pointing out to my fellow biologists what might be 'keys-to-the-kingdom”, maybe the hypothesis I propose will inhibit my biology colleagues from persecuting me for my tendency towards unorthodoxy and irreverence.
(10) What Dr. Frankenstein is reputed to have exclaimed after lightening struck the monster.
I am a biologist by profession. Biologists study living organisms. Yet biologists don't have a good definition of life.
The official definition of life has changed over the years, but the newer ones still don't work well because you can always find exceptions to the rules. The problem isn't in the middle; it's at the edges (2).
When lecturing, I sometimes tell my students that we had a better definition of life when I was a student in the 1980's (3). Allow me to translate what that means. In the 1980's, we didn't know as much as we do today. That's why our definition in the 1980's worked better. It's because the definition of life that we had back then was more satisfying than it is now.
A better definition of life is something none of my colleagues seem to want to talk about (4). In my thirty years as a career biologist, I've rarely had a conversation about this topic with close colleagues. It's like a dirty little secret one never mentions. “Ssssssshhhhhhh!! (now whispering) Quiet down.... don't talk about that..... it's embarrassing.”
It's really interesting to observe history and notice how our definition of life has changed over the years. When I was a student in the 1980's, viruses were considered to be living things. Today, they're not. Poor things.
Please don't start thinking I will propose a better definition of life in writing this narrative. No, it's the opposite. I intend to make it more muddled than it is now, but maybe it's one of those events that need to happen. It needs to get worse before it can get better.
I will propose a hypothesis in this narrative and it's a whopper. Here it is: Biology might own more fields of academics than it thinks it does. If you are the least bit curious about what that means and seeing my evidence for such an unusual claim, then read on.
What is life?
In 1943, a series of lectures about “What is Life?” were given at Trinity College in Dublin by Nobel Laureate Erin Shrodinger (a physicist). A year later, these lectures were published in book form (5). That might still be one of the classiest books ever written on the subject. Being a physicist by profession, Shrodinger approached the subject from a physicist's point of view.
In 1993, a gaggle of famous scientists met together at Trinity College to celebrate the lectures Shrodinger gave there fifty years earlier. They even published a book of articles that came out of that meeting (6). The first article was by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould titled “'What is Life?' As a Problem in History” (7). Please allow me to sum up in four words the overall sentiment that came out of that meeting in regard to a better definition of what is life: “We don't have one.”
Despite the failure of scientists in coming up with a one-size-fits-all definition of life, there are some characteristics of living organisms generally accepted as true. These are such things as: (i) Reproduction; (ii) Growth; (iii) Energy transduction; and (iv) Adaptation.
Is Government a Living Thing?
Biologists generally consider humans as occupying the pinnacle of the pyramid of life. Humans are not only considered to be the most highly advanced (evolved) form of life on this planet, but also occupy a position at the top of the food chain.
But for grins, let's see if we can go a bit higher. Let's ask this: Are such things as governments living things? (8) Here is a list of characteristics worth noticing:
1. Governments are born, grow, evolve, and die.
2. Governments can reproduce (eg. spawn other governments)
3. Governments consume energy and use it (note common term used by Personnel Departments: “Human Resources”)
4. Governments react to the environment (eg. they will respond when threatened).
5. Governments can be predatory (watch today's news).
6. Governments exhibit complex behavior (okay, this idea may be controversial).
However, it's not just governments that possess these characteristics. A lot of other things do as well, such as ecosystems, cultures, universities, science publishing, professional societies, and biology departments.
Biology: The Mother of All Studies
Having already proposed a hypothesis that such things as governments, universities, and biology departments are 'living things', I will now propose the next hypothesis of mine that I earlier called a whopper. However, I will state it differently this time.
Here it is:
Since biology is a study of living things, then many other fields of study like politics, economics, sociology, and even art, are all subdivisions of biology.
Ergo, biology is the mother of all studies.
Biology has been underrated for way too long (9).
It's alive! Alliiiiivvve! (10).
Endnotes:
(1) I went with the word 'pathetic'', but I almost used 'embarrassing'. Pathetic seemed to work in better with a paragraph I wrote later.
(2) Are viruses living things?; Are humans the most evolved life form? Undertake a google search on definition of life and see what you get. I'm warning you, it'll be a mess.
(3). My wife asked for clarification what the official definition of life was in the 1980's. Generally speaking, viruses and humans were included at demarcations of the edges.
(4) Colleagues of mine tend to look upon finding a precise definition of life as difficult to achieve. The topic is also viewed as something that belongs to science philosophy rather than biology, so it's a topic of study we don't own.
(5) Shrodinger's book is found at a variety of sites on the internet you can locate using google.
(6) What is Life? The Next Fifty Years, Michael P. Murphy and Luke A.J. O'Neill (editors), 1995, Cambridge University Press, 191pp.
(7) Stephen Gould began the article with Louis Armstrong's famous retort about what is jazz: “Man, if you gotta ask, you'll never know.” Gould seems to be saying that one has to go by a gut feeling in defining life. That's amazing. I rarely hear scientists say such a thing. Science is normally confined to the use of deductive logic and experimental demonstration.
(8) I'm not the first to propose an idea of social life forms. 'Social organism' is an old term, but maybe it's an understatement of what is observed.
(9) Since I am pointing out to my fellow biologists what might be 'keys-to-the-kingdom”, maybe the hypothesis I propose will inhibit my biology colleagues from persecuting me for my tendency towards unorthodoxy and irreverence.
(10) What Dr. Frankenstein is reputed to have exclaimed after lightening struck the monster.
A Ph.D. doesn't mean you're smart. Typically, it means you've been well trained. – BioBuddha
Striving for a Bh.D. (1)
by BioBuddha, October 19, 2015.There has to be a rule that
you follow when you become Buddha. It's that if you
can't say something smart in less than fifteen words, you
should remain silent. Scientists certainly don't
live by that rule. We scientists write long
dissertations on everything.
Maybe certain rules of conduct are written in some unknown handbook for us scientists too. If so, one of them goes like this: When using endless words describing something, make sure it's about the smallest and most inconsequential of things.
The practice of scientists to talk long on little things elevates the phrase 'straining at gnats' to a whole new level. So much so that it's evolved into a high form of art.
By now a reader might be asking 'What's this narrative about anyway? What's a Bh.D?!”
I hear a chorus of other voices too. Voices from somewhere I've yet to identify. They rumble among the noise of the cosmic background radiation of the moment. Here's something that might be part of that rumble: “Doctor BioBuddha, you know that you've already broken the fifteen-word-maximum rule for Buddha's, right?”
NSS!
Some of you will know that NSS is an acronym for a common colloquialism “No Sh_t, Sherlock!” (2).
Please remember that I am a self-described 'recovering scientist'. The title of this piece might imply there's something I have yet to obtain, a Bh.D. Also, I ask tolerance for using common colloquialisms spattered with a how scientists talk when they are being respectful (3).
As far as I can tell, there's a place that recovering scientists go to wait before taking the next step on an evolutionary path. This waiting place also seems to include a period of probation of uncertain length. One might call it purgatory for recovering scientists. Hey, I'm there.
So, that might explain why I am using way more than fifteen words to discuss something of questionable impact on the post-modern world. I've yet to scrub off the old scientist, preparatory to moving forward.
With that said, let's move on to striving for a Bh.D.
Bh.D., Doctor of Buddhahood.
I wonder if Bh.D. is a certificate that one gets upon reaching Buddhahood, but only those who have achieved such status know about it. Maybe Buddhas also have a secret way of shaking hands to recognize fellow Buddhas. Of course, that presumes that the usual practice of dressing up in bed sheets fails to credibly indicate Buddha status.
In this post-modern world of ours, all of our certificates seem to have a real function, don't they? They differentiate impostors from the real thing.
Now I feel safe. Don't you?
I sometimes marvel at what happened to the scarecrow in the movie version of Frank Baum's book, The Wizard of Oz. The scarecrow had straw filling his head, yet oddly enough, he somehow had enough sense to realize that he lacked brains.
Many of us find ourselves in a similar situation, except a lot of people don't have the same baseline sense that the scarecrow had. Too many fail to realize that having a brain in a cranium can be about the same as having straw.
Near the end of the Wizard of Oz drama, something really odd happens (4). The scarecrow is thrilled when he is given something from the Wizard, a piece of paper awarding him a Th.D., Doctor of Thinkology.
You see, at that point in the story, the scarecrow seems to come to a perspective where the straw in his head no longer bothers him. The scarecrow's new perspective seems to have formed as a result of coming into possession of an important piece of paper certifying that the straw filling his head has thinking potential. That's exactly what that Th.D. paper certifies to anyone who has the temerity to question the scarecrow's straw-for-brains.
I stand amazed at watching that entire drama. Here is an important question that comes to mind: Does the scarecrow undertake a downward spiral to where he is worse off than before all this happened?
You see, he used to worry about having straw where brains should be. Afterwards, he is of an opinion that straw works fine. So, which of these is the best way to live?
I am going to skip a lot of talk and cut to the chase here (5).
I've learned that you don't have to get a Bh.D. to progress to the next step in evolution. Getting a Bh.D. is totally unnecessary, so the striving part isn't required either.
I'll also offer some wisdom that came to me as a result of researching into these questions. Here it is: One does not have to gradually work up in through the ranks like one had to do in school.
Otherwise stated: At any time, it's possible to jump ahead to where you need to be.
Now that we've dispensed with a need for certificates and a requirement of climbing the ladder of progress in the usual fashion, maybe we can move directly to aspirations and expectations.
I've always admired the wisdom of Mark Twain. For one thing, Twain had an uncanny ability to capture great wisdom using the practice of fifteen-word-maximum that I suggested earlier as a rule that Buddhas live by and scientists abhor.
But, there's more. Mark Twain was a lot like Buddha, but with an attitude and an advanced sense of humor. So, I began to consider a possibility that Buddha status isn't an evolutionary terminus. I speculate that when Buddhas are finished with evolution and ready to move on, they reincarnate back into the world at a much higher level into people like Mark Twain.
That gives me some real hope (6, 7).
1. If you haven't yet started reading this narrative, be forewarned that it's light-hearted and extremely irreverent commentary about certificates and the culture of science.
2. The type of irreverence I use in this article, at best, might elevate it to what advertisers say about light beer: “Less filling; Tastes great!” Inasmuch as that isn't really a good thing, I had mixed feelings about publishing this narrative at all. As you can see, I went with publishing it.
3. Having sat in on a lot of private conferences, I bear witness that many scientists are capable of speaking very disrespectfully, including frequent use of short colorful descriptives from the common vernacular.
4. Later, I might devote an entire narrative to what went on in the Emerald City. The sheer brilliance of Frank Baum in telling the story seems to have resulted in a profound message that is widely overlooked.
5. I am hoping that this is a sign I'm getting better. This narrative is __1218__ total words.
6. When I get out of this purgatory for recovering scientists, I want to apprentice under Mark Twain.
7. When I mentioned to my wife that I wanted to apprentice under Mark Twain in heaven, she responded with a question: “How do you know Mark Twain is in heaven?” Yeah, good point. But, if where Twain is turns out not to be heaven, then it should be. I'll go there.
It wasn't clear to me how this narrative should be titled. An appropriate title could be 'How Scientists Became Stupider' (1). Others could be 'How the Ordinary Universe Got Smaller', or 'The Post-Modern Big Bang that Nobody Seems to Have Heard.'
What I think is fun about science are the surprises that pop up in front of you and exclaim 'BOO!!' I find it thrilling. But a lot of my science colleagues hate surprises. After all, the universe is supposed to be predictable. And we scientists are supposed to be able to predict things. So, surprises aren't needed or wanted.
It's really funny. That is, if you're paying attention to what goes on.
Every once in a while, science seems to go through a crisis that shakes up orthodoxy. But, oftentimes these shakeups are non-events. They sneak in under the cover of darkness and take a place amongst familiar friends without much notice of how they got there or when they entered.
There are a variety of examples of this, but what's popularly perceived is that scientists get most things right most of the time. What might lead to such a perception as that? Look around you. A lot of dead people are running around under the impression of not only being alive, but they are also the highest state of human evolution.
We have plenty of proof of high evolution by having cell phones, automobiles, and all kinds of gadgetry that our forbears didn't have. Never mind the fact that few among the masses could replicate any of it on their own or could survive in the wilderness like our forebears did. It suffices that we have it, we have it!
Surprises occur in science. Some of these are big enough to be called 'fruit-basket upset events'. I am talking about things that would amount to a score of fifteen on the Richter scale if it was an earthquake or maybe an asteroid the size of Pluto hitting the earth. These are extinction-level events or, rather, you'd think so (2). However, most of the public don't even know about them (3, 4).
I'll offer two words that describe a recent extinction event in terms of how we have viewed our world up until now: accelerating universe.
But, before I start talking about these two little words that are at the center of a one of the biggest ruckuses in science that didn't really happen, it might be worthwhile to recap where we've been.
The orthodox model of how the universe began is via 'the Big Bang.' It's a model that is still very much alive when it should be dead. Not every scientist views the Big Bang as a valid model (5), but at least the science cabal does, so the theory marches freely around on the street without fear of molestation.
Sometimes I wonder if the Big Bang isn't part of a collective chip on the shoulder of the science community. It seems to derive from a bad memory passed down since medieval times. If you want to punk a bunch of scientists, just mention 'pope', or 'religion' in a non-disparaging way, then calmly observe the sneering and gnashing of teeth. Nice religious talk has an affect of pissing scientists off or, if not that, toggling their power switch to the off position (6).
One of my favorite beyond-the-fence scholars is Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, formerly of Cambridge University (7). Sheldrake happens to be one of two scholars reputed to have had a presentation banned for viewing at a TED conference (8).
One of the blasphemies Sheldrake makes is disparaging the Big Bang. When speaking about the Big Bang, Sheldrake likes to quote Terrence Mckenna, saying “that modern science is based on the principal of 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.'"
Science is religion? Oh, that hurts.
Up until recent times, scientists have generally agreed that the Big Bang resulted in a rapid outward expansion of the material universe, but gravity would eventually slow down this expansion and eventually pull it all back together into a 'Big Collapse'.
But, did you hear the part in the previous sentence about 'up until recent times'?
Enter fruit-basket upset, stage left.
Modern science is undergoing a crisis. Very few people know what crises are at play or how they are being dealt with.
Two sets of observations in astrophysics have dealt severe blows to the orthodox model of the universe. One is the fact that gravity cannot account for what holds planets or star systems (in galaxies) in their respective positions. A second is that the rate of universe expansion is increasing rather than slowing down (9).
These two observations have led to proposals that there must be hidden mass (dark matter) accounting for lost gravity and there must be hidden energy (dark energy) that drives expansion of the universe at faster and faster rates. Inasmuch as virtually nothing is known about dark matter or dark energy, one might even question their very existence. To a skeptic, these two might comprise X and Y, fanciful unknown values that are used to balance an erroneous mathematical equation that doesn't appear to balance like it should (10).
Let's come back to the meaning of the title of this narrative as well as an assertion I made that science is undergoing a crisis that is relatively invisible.
According to the prevailing model, the Big Bang is still considered to be the 'big event' that birthed the material universe of ordinary matter and energy into existence. However, there are now two newer faces posing alongside this familiar friend of ours and acting like they belong.
In order to account for lost gravity and an accelerating universe, astrophysicists are now saying that our old friend, the material universe of ordinary matter and energy, is only about 5% of what really exists. The rest is dark matter (27%) and dark energy (68%), new arrivals.
This is how the atom got smaller. You see, not long ago, ordinary matter and energy were 100% of what exists. But, now it's only 5%. So, divide what it used to be by twenty. That would be exactly how much smaller the atom got.
In the same manner of reasoning, one can claim that scientists got stupider. You see, we scientists didn't know much about 100% of things. Today that 100% is 5%, much less.
Likewise, one could claim that there was a post-modern Big Bang (new model of the universe) that nobody seems to have heard (re. Only a very few seem aware of).
Given that the ordinary universe is now 5% rather than 100% like it used to be, the Big Bang isn't as big as we once thought it was. Maybe we can call it the Small Bang (11).
BOO!
2. No, I don't mean the 'end of life' as an extinction event so much as 'the end of the prevailing science model'. Strangely enough, nothing changes. Orthodox models can be as hard to kill as vampires.
3. The fact that few people are aware of extinction level events in science is a complex matter. I'd say two primary reasons are (i) pedagogical inertia and (ii) cultural dominance.
4. When scientific evidence is obtained that supports orthodox models, a cry of 'PROOF!' is loudly proclaimed far and wide. However, whenever evidence goes against orthodoxy, a mixture of three things is observed: (i) A hush of silence; (ii) Cries of skepticism; and (iii) A hue and cry of “MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY.... TO STUDY!!!” Number three always happens no matter what way evidence falls.
5. Like me.
6. Scientists claim to be objective.
7. Sheldrake's book 'The Science Delusion' (UK) is worth reading. The same book was retitled 'Science Set Free' when it was published in the US.
8. Google 'Sheldrake TED talk banned' to find a video of the relevant presentation. It's worth watching, followed by reflection on the question of why the TED-talk culture-makers found it so objectionable. Sheldrake's TED presentation is also found at http://setsciencefree.org/
9. Perimutter, Schmidt, and Riess shared the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for discovery of the accelerating universe.
10. For those who wanting to explore further, consider a possibility that gravity may not be the primary force in the universe holding things together, but rather it's electromagnetism. Google 'Electric Universe Thunderbolts' for more information.
11. Well, okay. Considering a newer perspective of the 5% universe of ordinary matter and energy, the Big Bang is still relatively big, so maybe 'Smaller Bang' will work. I can think of a lot of vulgar comparisons that go along with that, but I'll spare you the experience of hearing them.
Maybe certain rules of conduct are written in some unknown handbook for us scientists too. If so, one of them goes like this: When using endless words describing something, make sure it's about the smallest and most inconsequential of things.
The practice of scientists to talk long on little things elevates the phrase 'straining at gnats' to a whole new level. So much so that it's evolved into a high form of art.
By now a reader might be asking 'What's this narrative about anyway? What's a Bh.D?!”
I hear a chorus of other voices too. Voices from somewhere I've yet to identify. They rumble among the noise of the cosmic background radiation of the moment. Here's something that might be part of that rumble: “Doctor BioBuddha, you know that you've already broken the fifteen-word-maximum rule for Buddha's, right?”
NSS!
Some of you will know that NSS is an acronym for a common colloquialism “No Sh_t, Sherlock!” (2).
Please remember that I am a self-described 'recovering scientist'. The title of this piece might imply there's something I have yet to obtain, a Bh.D. Also, I ask tolerance for using common colloquialisms spattered with a how scientists talk when they are being respectful (3).
As far as I can tell, there's a place that recovering scientists go to wait before taking the next step on an evolutionary path. This waiting place also seems to include a period of probation of uncertain length. One might call it purgatory for recovering scientists. Hey, I'm there.
So, that might explain why I am using way more than fifteen words to discuss something of questionable impact on the post-modern world. I've yet to scrub off the old scientist, preparatory to moving forward.
With that said, let's move on to striving for a Bh.D.
What
is a Bh.D?
Bh.D., Doctor of Buddhahood.
I wonder if Bh.D. is a certificate that one gets upon reaching Buddhahood, but only those who have achieved such status know about it. Maybe Buddhas also have a secret way of shaking hands to recognize fellow Buddhas. Of course, that presumes that the usual practice of dressing up in bed sheets fails to credibly indicate Buddha status.
In this post-modern world of ours, all of our certificates seem to have a real function, don't they? They differentiate impostors from the real thing.
Now I feel safe. Don't you?
I sometimes marvel at what happened to the scarecrow in the movie version of Frank Baum's book, The Wizard of Oz. The scarecrow had straw filling his head, yet oddly enough, he somehow had enough sense to realize that he lacked brains.
Many of us find ourselves in a similar situation, except a lot of people don't have the same baseline sense that the scarecrow had. Too many fail to realize that having a brain in a cranium can be about the same as having straw.
Near the end of the Wizard of Oz drama, something really odd happens (4). The scarecrow is thrilled when he is given something from the Wizard, a piece of paper awarding him a Th.D., Doctor of Thinkology.
You see, at that point in the story, the scarecrow seems to come to a perspective where the straw in his head no longer bothers him. The scarecrow's new perspective seems to have formed as a result of coming into possession of an important piece of paper certifying that the straw filling his head has thinking potential. That's exactly what that Th.D. paper certifies to anyone who has the temerity to question the scarecrow's straw-for-brains.
I stand amazed at watching that entire drama. Here is an important question that comes to mind: Does the scarecrow undertake a downward spiral to where he is worse off than before all this happened?
You see, he used to worry about having straw where brains should be. Afterwards, he is of an opinion that straw works fine. So, which of these is the best way to live?
The Striving Part
I am going to skip a lot of talk and cut to the chase here (5).
I've learned that you don't have to get a Bh.D. to progress to the next step in evolution. Getting a Bh.D. is totally unnecessary, so the striving part isn't required either.
I'll also offer some wisdom that came to me as a result of researching into these questions. Here it is: One does not have to gradually work up in through the ranks like one had to do in school.
Otherwise stated: At any time, it's possible to jump ahead to where you need to be.
Mark Twain: Evolved Buddha
Now that we've dispensed with a need for certificates and a requirement of climbing the ladder of progress in the usual fashion, maybe we can move directly to aspirations and expectations.
I've always admired the wisdom of Mark Twain. For one thing, Twain had an uncanny ability to capture great wisdom using the practice of fifteen-word-maximum that I suggested earlier as a rule that Buddhas live by and scientists abhor.
But, there's more. Mark Twain was a lot like Buddha, but with an attitude and an advanced sense of humor. So, I began to consider a possibility that Buddha status isn't an evolutionary terminus. I speculate that when Buddhas are finished with evolution and ready to move on, they reincarnate back into the world at a much higher level into people like Mark Twain.
That gives me some real hope (6, 7).
Endnotes:
1. If you haven't yet started reading this narrative, be forewarned that it's light-hearted and extremely irreverent commentary about certificates and the culture of science.
2. The type of irreverence I use in this article, at best, might elevate it to what advertisers say about light beer: “Less filling; Tastes great!” Inasmuch as that isn't really a good thing, I had mixed feelings about publishing this narrative at all. As you can see, I went with publishing it.
3. Having sat in on a lot of private conferences, I bear witness that many scientists are capable of speaking very disrespectfully, including frequent use of short colorful descriptives from the common vernacular.
4. Later, I might devote an entire narrative to what went on in the Emerald City. The sheer brilliance of Frank Baum in telling the story seems to have resulted in a profound message that is widely overlooked.
5. I am hoping that this is a sign I'm getting better. This narrative is __1218__ total words.
6. When I get out of this purgatory for recovering scientists, I want to apprentice under Mark Twain.
7. When I mentioned to my wife that I wanted to apprentice under Mark Twain in heaven, she responded with a question: “How do you know Mark Twain is in heaven?” Yeah, good point. But, if where Twain is turns out not to be heaven, then it should be. I'll go there.
I am not
sure if the universe really changes as much as our
perspective of it ought to change.” –
BioBuddha
How the Atom got Smaller
by BioBuddha, October 25, 2015It wasn't clear to me how this narrative should be titled. An appropriate title could be 'How Scientists Became Stupider' (1). Others could be 'How the Ordinary Universe Got Smaller', or 'The Post-Modern Big Bang that Nobody Seems to Have Heard.'
What I think is fun about science are the surprises that pop up in front of you and exclaim 'BOO!!' I find it thrilling. But a lot of my science colleagues hate surprises. After all, the universe is supposed to be predictable. And we scientists are supposed to be able to predict things. So, surprises aren't needed or wanted.
It's really funny. That is, if you're paying attention to what goes on.
Every once in a while, science seems to go through a crisis that shakes up orthodoxy. But, oftentimes these shakeups are non-events. They sneak in under the cover of darkness and take a place amongst familiar friends without much notice of how they got there or when they entered.
There are a variety of examples of this, but what's popularly perceived is that scientists get most things right most of the time. What might lead to such a perception as that? Look around you. A lot of dead people are running around under the impression of not only being alive, but they are also the highest state of human evolution.
We have plenty of proof of high evolution by having cell phones, automobiles, and all kinds of gadgetry that our forbears didn't have. Never mind the fact that few among the masses could replicate any of it on their own or could survive in the wilderness like our forebears did. It suffices that we have it, we have it!
Surprises occur in science. Some of these are big enough to be called 'fruit-basket upset events'. I am talking about things that would amount to a score of fifteen on the Richter scale if it was an earthquake or maybe an asteroid the size of Pluto hitting the earth. These are extinction-level events or, rather, you'd think so (2). However, most of the public don't even know about them (3, 4).
I'll offer two words that describe a recent extinction event in terms of how we have viewed our world up until now: accelerating universe.
But, before I start talking about these two little words that are at the center of a one of the biggest ruckuses in science that didn't really happen, it might be worthwhile to recap where we've been.
The Big Bang
The orthodox model of how the universe began is via 'the Big Bang.' It's a model that is still very much alive when it should be dead. Not every scientist views the Big Bang as a valid model (5), but at least the science cabal does, so the theory marches freely around on the street without fear of molestation.
Sometimes I wonder if the Big Bang isn't part of a collective chip on the shoulder of the science community. It seems to derive from a bad memory passed down since medieval times. If you want to punk a bunch of scientists, just mention 'pope', or 'religion' in a non-disparaging way, then calmly observe the sneering and gnashing of teeth. Nice religious talk has an affect of pissing scientists off or, if not that, toggling their power switch to the off position (6).
One of my favorite beyond-the-fence scholars is Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, formerly of Cambridge University (7). Sheldrake happens to be one of two scholars reputed to have had a presentation banned for viewing at a TED conference (8).
One of the blasphemies Sheldrake makes is disparaging the Big Bang. When speaking about the Big Bang, Sheldrake likes to quote Terrence Mckenna, saying “that modern science is based on the principal of 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.'"
Science is religion? Oh, that hurts.
Up until recent times, scientists have generally agreed that the Big Bang resulted in a rapid outward expansion of the material universe, but gravity would eventually slow down this expansion and eventually pull it all back together into a 'Big Collapse'.
But, did you hear the part in the previous sentence about 'up until recent times'?
Enter fruit-basket upset, stage left.
Gravity and the Accelerating Universe
Modern science is undergoing a crisis. Very few people know what crises are at play or how they are being dealt with.
Two sets of observations in astrophysics have dealt severe blows to the orthodox model of the universe. One is the fact that gravity cannot account for what holds planets or star systems (in galaxies) in their respective positions. A second is that the rate of universe expansion is increasing rather than slowing down (9).
These two observations have led to proposals that there must be hidden mass (dark matter) accounting for lost gravity and there must be hidden energy (dark energy) that drives expansion of the universe at faster and faster rates. Inasmuch as virtually nothing is known about dark matter or dark energy, one might even question their very existence. To a skeptic, these two might comprise X and Y, fanciful unknown values that are used to balance an erroneous mathematical equation that doesn't appear to balance like it should (10).
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and You
Let's come back to the meaning of the title of this narrative as well as an assertion I made that science is undergoing a crisis that is relatively invisible.
According to the prevailing model, the Big Bang is still considered to be the 'big event' that birthed the material universe of ordinary matter and energy into existence. However, there are now two newer faces posing alongside this familiar friend of ours and acting like they belong.
In order to account for lost gravity and an accelerating universe, astrophysicists are now saying that our old friend, the material universe of ordinary matter and energy, is only about 5% of what really exists. The rest is dark matter (27%) and dark energy (68%), new arrivals.
This is how the atom got smaller. You see, not long ago, ordinary matter and energy were 100% of what exists. But, now it's only 5%. So, divide what it used to be by twenty. That would be exactly how much smaller the atom got.
In the same manner of reasoning, one can claim that scientists got stupider. You see, we scientists didn't know much about 100% of things. Today that 100% is 5%, much less.
Likewise, one could claim that there was a post-modern Big Bang (new model of the universe) that nobody seems to have heard (re. Only a very few seem aware of).
Given that the ordinary universe is now 5% rather than 100% like it used to be, the Big Bang isn't as big as we once thought it was. Maybe we can call it the Small Bang (11).
BOO!
Endnotes:
1. Yeah, I know. 'Stupider' isn't even a word. But, that's what I liked about using it.2. No, I don't mean the 'end of life' as an extinction event so much as 'the end of the prevailing science model'. Strangely enough, nothing changes. Orthodox models can be as hard to kill as vampires.
3. The fact that few people are aware of extinction level events in science is a complex matter. I'd say two primary reasons are (i) pedagogical inertia and (ii) cultural dominance.
4. When scientific evidence is obtained that supports orthodox models, a cry of 'PROOF!' is loudly proclaimed far and wide. However, whenever evidence goes against orthodoxy, a mixture of three things is observed: (i) A hush of silence; (ii) Cries of skepticism; and (iii) A hue and cry of “MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY.... TO STUDY!!!” Number three always happens no matter what way evidence falls.
5. Like me.
6. Scientists claim to be objective.
7. Sheldrake's book 'The Science Delusion' (UK) is worth reading. The same book was retitled 'Science Set Free' when it was published in the US.
8. Google 'Sheldrake TED talk banned' to find a video of the relevant presentation. It's worth watching, followed by reflection on the question of why the TED-talk culture-makers found it so objectionable. Sheldrake's TED presentation is also found at http://setsciencefree.org/
9. Perimutter, Schmidt, and Riess shared the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for discovery of the accelerating universe.
10. For those who wanting to explore further, consider a possibility that gravity may not be the primary force in the universe holding things together, but rather it's electromagnetism. Google 'Electric Universe Thunderbolts' for more information.
11. Well, okay. Considering a newer perspective of the 5% universe of ordinary matter and energy, the Big Bang is still relatively big, so maybe 'Smaller Bang' will work. I can think of a lot of vulgar comparisons that go along with that, but I'll spare you the experience of hearing them.