comics for September 21, 2006 – 09/21/2006
well what do you expect? She’s a WOMAN!!!!!!
I should KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I thought women were more acceptive to their feelings than cold logic
Its a scientist thing, not a gender thing :P. Scientists like to think they know everything, and reject anything that doesn’t fit into their preconcieved notions. Which is ironic, because that thinking hinders the whole purpose of scientists. Just look at scientists who refuse to believe aliens could possibly exist, no matter how plausible or how little of the universe we’ve even looked at.
…wow, I’m on a friggin’ soapbox lately. Someone duct tape my mouth shut, break apart my soapbox, and burn the pieces please.
Your soapbox is a good one, made of logic rather than caps lock. Please continue good sir/madam.
Don’t stop now; you might be changing the world!
What you’re describing there are religious folk.
Scientists, on the contrary, believe what has been most consistently observed and adapt their understanding accordingly with each introduction of new evidence. The only reason a scientist would reject something outright is if its existence would be contradictory to observed conditions… or of course if its existence necessitates a logical fallacy (e.g. the christian god).
As someone who is both a Christian and a scientist (though not a Christian Scientist), I have encountered numerous people on both sides of the science/religion debate who “like to think they know everything, and reject anything that doesn’t fit into their preconceived notions.” Don’t think that one side has a monopoly on closed-mindedness.
On the other hand, there are also many people on both sides who can hold their opinions or beliefs, and still retain an open mind.
Painting an entire group with one broad brush-stroke does a disservice to both them and you.
Every time you say “both sides” you dismiss everyone who doesn’t particularly belong to either. Nothing about this is boolean.
And while nobody has a monopoly on closed-mindedness, for religious folk it is pretty much a requirement.
That lady gets on my nerves. It’s because of people like her that imaginitive people like me have such a hard time. T.T
Don’t flatter yourself darling.
Scientists are boring, so uncreative.
Your avatar makes it impossible to take you seriously… lol.
Creativity betrays a dissatisfaction with reality as is…
Scientists appreciate the universe as it is. Only an artist will look at the universe and believe they can do better.
It’s Ironic that Psychology has historically gotten a bad rap from the other disciplines for being a “soft science”, while here it seems misrepresented as the epitome of “close-mindedness”
Btw, the most famous scientists, such as Nicolai Tesla and Einstein himself, were great not only because of their grasp of the world around them, but because of their powerful and ever active IMAGINATIONS. The theory of relativity came about because Mr. Einstein was daydreaming about trains and clocks.
There are reasons why the field has gotten a rap as soft science. For one thing, there are reports of corruption in psychiatry. And I’m sure the controversial field of parapsychology does nothing to help this soft science reputation either.
Incidentally, Nikola Tesla was THE most prolific inventor in history, responsible for much of the modern technology we take for granted. He also happened to be one of the most eccentric and open-minded. In fact, he not only invented the radio but claimed he built a Teslascope which enabled him to communicate with beings on Mars. There are also claims of other far-fetch inventions (such as Free Energy) and he had an interest in the occult. Some other very significant scientists were similarly eccentric. Sir Isaac Newton practiced Alchemy and was very proud of the fact he remained a virgin his whole life. Also, there seems to be a misconception that most scientists are aethists when, in fact, a suprising number of them hold religious beliefs.
Scientists don’t have to be so close-minded as to view the world through tunnel vision. But I have to agree that it seems a lot of scientists today appear to behave that way. It’s only human to be biased. But in modern conventional science there tends to be a rigid framework of what is and is not scientifically possible. Much of this framework comes from what’s been drilled into students. Even Eintein said that “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.” Also, “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”
“Its a scientist thing, not a gender thing . Scientists like to think they know everything, and reject anything that doesn’t fit into their preconcieved notions. Which is ironic, because that thinking hinders the whole purpose of scientists.”
I don’t know of any scientist outside of fiction who thinks like that. Most scientists become scientist because they know they don’t know a whole lot and want to discover more.
“Just look at scientists who refuse to believe aliens could possibly exist, no matter how plausible or how little of the universe we’ve even looked at.”
No scientist worth his or her salt would refuse to believe something could possibly exist unless it conflicted with reality. They do, however, dismiss claims that have no empirical evidence to support them. Again, I don’t know any scientist who actively deny the existence of aliens, but I do know there are many who believe that it is improbable that humans are the only life in the universe.
“Scientists are boring, so uncreative.”
Have you met any recently?
Sorry, I’ll get off my soapbox now.
Thank you! Exactly what I was thinking!
“No scientist worth his or her salt would refuse to believe something could possibly exist unless it conflicted with reality.”
Ah, but the crux of the matter is “…unless it conflicted with reality.” Another words, unless it appeared to conflict with their educated (i.e., taught) understanding of how the Universe should work. This means that if evidence seems to conflict with their “reality”, there is a strong tendency to disbelieve the validity of the evidence without trying to prove or disprove it for themselves. Similarly, there is a tendency to dismiss proposed theories (again, without investigation) as an explanation if they conflict with this world view.
Nicole’s outright dismissal of their suggestion that his “imaginary” Dreamland could somehow impinge on our reality in the form of a cut is a good example. That’s a very scientific reaction. Most scientists would never even consider that, much less dare investigate such a proposal with an experiment or study. But to be a true follower of the Scientific Method, without bias, one would HAVE to test such proposals.
In this case it would be a simple matter to ask Alex to make a small cut on his leg or foot while dreaming to try to recreate the effect. Such a cut would be almost impossible to make with his pendant. Even better, they could wrap his pendant in padding to prevent it from cutting him.
Finally, let’s not forget the Observer Effect and how it applies to Quantum Mechanics. (See Schrödinger’s cat…) Logically, that means one will always influence the results of an experiment or event just from observation alone. I have to suspect that, just maybe, sometimes scientists find the evidence to support their view of how the universe works simply because they EXPECTED to find said evidence. There are reasons to believe that our thoughts & beliefs can & does impact physical reality. See the film ‘What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?’ (2004) for some examples.
Nicole is working on her medical degree. She has had to adopt and maintain a certain attitude to survive her professors. If she even displayed a hint of non-objective behavior, she might not even be allowed in this lab. Her attitudes here are not from being a scientist, but rather from having to prove that she’s uber-objective.
Wait… If an adult female human could enter dreamland and conceived a child there… where would it be born? Would it be in her belly when she woke up? Would that child be able to bring magic to the real world (if it born from some magical creature on the other side)?
What if it was conceived in the real world and born in dreamland? Would it be stuck there?!?!
I’m not criticizing I just feel like I’ve hit some amazing discovery.
Did Nicole leave the room?
840414 231305Some genuinely wonderful weblog posts on this internet internet site , regards for contribution. 655856
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
*EMAIL — Get a Gravatar
NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
©2005-2014 The Dreamland Chronicles | Powered by WordPress with Easel
| Subscribe: RSS
| Back to Top ↑