tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post6585569980118154591..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Unknowns, yes, but are there unknowables in biology?Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-31957953008975338692015-11-02T08:32:47.647-05:002015-11-02T08:32:47.647-05:00I really don't have the time or patience to tr...I really don't have the time or patience to try to make sense of this long article, which to me often seems rather contorted in its flow (maybe just my personal limitation). Science is part of society, a game played by people who are part of society. It is part profession, part worldview, part curiosity, part careerism, part desire to make life better, part enjoyment of tinkering, part greed, part generosity. It's part driven by fear or awe of an impersonal universe and finite life, part the attraction of that same awesomeness. Since its participants and reporters are human and fallible and so on, it has its weaknesses, and its strengths. It does good for society and can do harm.<br /><br />What is faulty or harmful deserves to be criticized, and what is good to be supported. The venality and practicalities are unavoidable, but that isn't the same as there being no value in science (or that science is 'the' value to be adopted). Overgeneralizing is risky. That we won't all agree on what is good or harmful or faulty are themselves subjective judgments. But it seems right to try to foster what's best and critique what isn't.<br /><br />This isn't much of an answer, perhaps, but I don't really see any single or clear message in the article.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-74323132916543282532015-11-02T00:14:35.088-05:002015-11-02T00:14:35.088-05:00I'd like to see what the bloggers have to say ...I'd like to see what the bloggers have to say about this article <br /><br />"Science As Radicalism"<br /><br />http://humaniterations.net/2015/08/18/science-as-radicalism/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-69071349646757284812015-10-21T13:31:03.665-04:002015-10-21T13:31:03.665-04:00We have to be careful in the semantics of this sub...We have to be careful in the semantics of this subject. For example, what does it mean to say something is 'known'? To me, the knowledge and hence the subject have to be something we're aware of and trying to ascertain. One best criterion is, I think, that we can asymptotically approach some rigorously specified fact or prediction as our study designs and equipment etc. improve. I think that is far from the general case in biology, except at a level rather far removed from the day to day experiences of individuals. But even developing a rigorous criterion for what it means to 'know' something in biology, the way that law-like facts of physical life are established, would be progress and a problem worth investigating. That is, not just by developing some different genomewide significance tests and the like.<br /><br />We do know a lot, a huge amount, in biology, of course, that has stood the test of time and extensive investigation. The fact of evolution, the nature of DNA protein coding, basic biochemistry, general principles of ecology, etc. etc.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-83257312420410024672015-10-21T13:20:55.737-04:002015-10-21T13:20:55.737-04:00"Your worst enemy is your best friend who doe..."Your worst enemy is your best friend who doesn't know that he/she doesn't know"Alcinoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18226446736913905114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-41199863629497348292015-10-20T10:11:07.241-04:002015-10-20T10:11:07.241-04:00Just today we learned of a popular science-article...Just today we learned of a popular science-article in The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/theres-a-mystery-machine-that-sculpts-the-human-genome/411199/), that discussed the problem of how DNA organizes itself in the nucleus. If the work the article reports is correct, it could help account for the chromosome conformation data. There are some fundamental questions and issues, but the point here is that these 'unknowns' seem to involve knowable mechanisms and maybe they're being discovered.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.com