I’ve been considering this post for far too long now not whether or not it should be done, but the most effective approach to the topic, finally realizing that there is no one effective approach to anything. Additionally, the threat of playing pop psychologist was arising, something that already does a lot of damage, but then I realized that it couldn’t cause anywhere
Over at Universe Today there’s an article about rewriting Drake’s Equation, and after reading it some time earlier, it’s been stewing in my mind a little potential posts about it have changed several times, and resulted in this one.
Long story short: an astronomer named Frank Drake wrote out a simple equation, back in the sixties, to examine the possibility of
So in part 1, we looked at jumping to conclusions and not having any kind of solid background info, and in part 2, we looked at the protests that sprouted up because of this. Now we’ll look at the overall attitudes that have been getting far too prevalent in this country, and the
I have a small confession to make: I recorded this back in February with the intention of posting it as March’s monthly podcast, and so set it aside. And forgot about it – after a little time had passed, I largely just remembered it as having already been posted. Then the 2,000th post was coming up (“For dog’s sake, will you quit harping on about that?”)
Once again, this is continuing a theme of observing and commenting on recent cultural behavior in this country, and has nothing to do with photographic focus. It’s potentially a lot more useful than camera technique, but still, it’s not photo-oriented.
In part 1, the attention was on the
Despite this largely being a photography blog, the ‘focus’ of this topic is mental, regarding critical-thinking, and so for that I apologize. I started this some time back when some of the events were ‘current,’ (for whatever applies to the webbernets-influenced definition of that,) and then left it off because things were changing so rapidly. That, and the fact that I cannot
As we once again enter the season of baby animals (for most species, anyway,) I decided to repost something last seen seven years (and two days) ago, because it still applies – I should probably find a way to make this automatically post at this time. Anyway, let’s look into abandoned/orphaned/injured wildlife and rehabilitation.
I used to work in this field a fair amount, both in administration
I haven’t followed through on this category of posts for a while, and now is as good a time as any, so let’s delve into why science doesn’t take Bigfoot/Yeti/Skunk Ape et al seriously. And while I focused on the giant humanoid accounts here, a lot of this will be equally applicable to other cryptids such as the Loch Ness Monster and Chupacabra and so on. So let’s
This topic came to mind as I was hashing out some ideas about potential instructional activities (that may or may not come to pass, but I’ll keep you informed.) It’s amazingly simple, but I couldn’t count the number of people I’ve met that would probably benefit from taking it to heart. In short: it’s okay to be wrong.
Well, actually it’s completely unavoidable.
Various aspects and versions of this one have been tackled before, but I decided to approach this directly when reading about some of the alternate theories (other than the Big Bang) regarding the beginning of the known universe. The author said that there were two approaches to some of the traits that have been proposed as alternate scenarios:
- We can attempt to devise a theoretical mechanism to explain those phenomena, while simultaneously maintaining all the successes of the prior theory and making novel predictions that are distinct from the prior theory’s predictions.
- Or we can simply assume that there is no explanation, and the Universe was simply born with the properties necessary to give us the Universe we observe.
The second outright announces that no one’s even