Archive for February, 2010
Humility Quiz: How Humble Are You?
Give what you think is the most comprehensive, least superficial answer to the following questions. (more…)
One starts off in pursuit of understanding a single issue, following a single-issue path of inquiry so to speak, and after doing this many times with many issues, the paths criss-cross, connecting here and there and what emerges is a view of the overall landscape one is covering with one’s explorations. What then stands out are ‘deeper orientations’ that were not initially apparent in the A to B single issue paths of inquiry.
For example, on one road we see a change in the shrubbery and on another, a change in the forestry; there is a slight rise in elevation on this road and a slight drop in elevation in another and when we look at all of our criss-crossing paths of inquiry in connected context, we see, with extreme clarity, the gentle ‘S’ shape of a subsurface fault making itself known in all kinds of different ways on the surface that are ‘lateral’ to our single issue pursuits. Only then when we recognize such common underlying connections can we go back to the single issue roads, scrape away some of the ‘topsoil’ of detailed particulars, and verify that there is something deeper and ‘in common’ that is simultaneously influencing what we thought were a multiplicity of independent ‘single issues’.
This ‘all-on-the-same-page’ note is an attempt to describe a major below-the-surface source of division, that brings into connection, a multitude of contentious divisions of opinion on a diverse array of particular ‘single issues’, exposing the fact the ‘division’ in these different issues derives from a deeper, below-the-surface source which is being obscured by the surficial single-issue ‘particulars’. (more…)
There is always controversy in talking about God, starting from the basic issue of whether or not ‘God Exists’. But there is general agreement that different people have different views on the topic.
Thus, there is an opportunity to review the different ‘ways of seeing things’ that influence one’s views on this matter which in turn have a major influence on the global social dynamic.
I will ‘jump in’ upfront with a simplifying hypothesis to avoid getting bogged down in a conventional review of this huge subject.
Science typically models the world in terms of LOCAL objects/organisms/systems and the actions/interactions of this diverse plurality, imputing them to have ‘their own LOCAL AGENCY’ and imputing to ‘living systems’, their own LOCALLY ORIGINATING (internal process/purpose-driven) BEHAVIOUR, … however, … scientists are more often and more seriously challenging this (their own) ‘LOCAL-FORCING’ view of dynamics with the alternative ‘SPATIAL-FORCING’ (aka ‘CELESTIAL-SOURCING‘) view of dynamics. This issue is cross-coupled with theology since ‘GOD’ has always been associated with the ‘basic sourcing power of creation (i.e. ‘GOD’ has been the answer for many as to why we and other creatures are here and why the world dynamic unfolds the way it does. So, there is a question as to whether the fundamental (first-cause) creative sourcing power is ‘LOCAL’ and lies within local objects/organisms/systems (e.g. the ‘gene’, the ‘human’, the ‘earth’) or whether it permeates the energy-charged medium we call ‘SPACE’ that science now sees as the mothering medium of all precipitate material objects, organisms and systems. While this may seem to be an ‘intra-science issue’, it is tightly coupled to ‘THE GOD ISSUE’.
One of these seemingly ‘intra-science’ issues is ‘climate change’. Scientists are split as to whether this behaviour-of-the-total-earth is ‘celestially-forced’ or ‘locally (internal-process) forced’. (more…)
Continuing inquiry into the ‘demographics’ of how people split into polarized opposition of views, is leading me to the notion (not yet a conclusion) that Russian scientists and perhaps the Russian people in general have a different ‘polarization of views’ profile than in ‘the West’.
What has led me to further explore this possibility is the remarkable difference in the proportion of scientists favouring ‘local forcing of climate change’ (CO2-forcing) versus those who favour ‘celestial forcing of climate change’, in ‘the West’ and in ‘Russia’ respectively. A rough estimate based on what is reported in the media and also through email exchanges with scientists is that, in the West, there is perhaps an 80% – 20% split in favour of ‘local [CO2} forcing of climate change’ while in Russia, the proportion seems to be inverted, with an 80% – 20% split in favour of ‘celestial [solar cycles, orbital deviation cycles] forcing of climate change’.
It seems fair to say that such differences in scientific views between Russia and the West haven’t been seen since the days of the cold war where, for example, many Americans believed that the 1959 Russian (Luna 3) pictures of the ‘dark side’ of the moon were faked.
So, what is the origin of this dramatic difference in scientific view? (more…)