The Mighty Titans

As some of you know, I'm a big Titans fan. I have no real reason to cheer for them, I've never lived in Tennessee. I liked them when they were the Oilers and the league underdogs, so I just stuck with them (who else am I going to cheer for? The Chargers?). I was reading an article about Vince Young, the Titan's quarterback, where he talked about how he almost quit the NFL after his first year. He had a lot of off-field problems, but, as he says,

"I really thought long and hard about it. There was so much going on with my family. It was crazy being an NFL quarterback. It wasn't fun anymore. All of the fun was out of it. All of the excitement was gone. All I was doing was worrying about things. . . My teammates helped lift me out of it. I prayed really hard. And I began to focus on God's calling for me. Play football. Be a role model."

I guess now would be the wrong time to link to these photos. Hey, he's my role model. He can handle his Jack.

rEVOLution

I happened to catch the Libertarian Party Convention on CSPAN today. The candidate I was pulling for, Dr. Mary Ruwart, finished second behind former Congressman Bob Barr. Of the possible candidates, I liked Barr the least. He's a fairly recent ex-Republican who voted for the Patriot Act and also voted to uphold the ban on gay marriage, though he says he has switched his position on both issues. Dr. Ruwart is a scientist who worked as a pharmaceutical researcher for almost twenty years, and has a fairly strong stance against the war on drugs. She has been in the party longer, but hasn't held a major office like former Congressman Barr. He kind of strikes me as a douchebag (or at best, a politician), but at least I agree with him in some aspects. He's better than McCain or Obama, and Clinton was never an option to begin with.

Some highlights from the convention include Penn Jillette receiving three votes in the first round and Steven Colbert receiving votes into the second round. I also liked when the Utah delegate introduced his state as "the place where separation of church and state is three city blocks." But I have to say my favorite part was seeing delegates form Arizona wearing Guy Fawkes masks. Awesome.

There, I Fixed It

I couldn't post a Weezer music video without posting a metal video.



Order has been restored to the universe. Bonus points if you can name the band/song without cheating.

Even If They Did Rip It Off South Park...

Weezer sucks. Or I should say, their music sucks. The band went up a couple notches with their new music video. I still reccommend muting it...

Don't Forget Your Grain of Salt

A link from Pharyngula. PZ Meyers organizes a lot of poll crashing (scroll through his blog, you'll see a lot of them). This one is a site dedicated to the question "Do you believe in God?" Honestly, I don't see the point in crashing the poll. Polls by nature are fallible. Half of polls are biased in the wording of the question (i.e. "Do you believe God plays an active role in our lives?"). Every poll I've seen shows the U.S. as around 10% atheist, but this website shows it as 52%, largely thanks to PZ's cult-like following, I'm sure. I could care less if it says that 0.001% of the country is atheist. Anyone who gets their beliefs from a poll isn't smart enough to vote anyways. By the way, Canada is listed as 67% atheist. Now, I'm no fan of Canada (or Socialism in general), but high five, eh?

This Is What Hanging Around With Dead People Does To You

I called the Medical Examiner this morning (see previous posts) to see if I could shadow him on an autopsy. He said there were no good cases today, but that Tuesday would be better (after Memorial Day weekend). I talked to him for awhile about studying for boards, and he offered up this gem: "Studying for boards is like being raped. You can fight all you want, but it's going to happen, so you might as well sit back and try to enjoy it." I laughed, and that makes me a bad person.

We're Number 2! We're Number 2!

You've probably seen polls showing atheists as the "most despised group" in America. They usually ask questions like "Would you allow your daughter to marry a ____?" or "Would you vote for an otherwise qualified presidential candidate if he were a ____?" Most polls show atheist below 50%, behind African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, and even homosexuals. But a new poll specific to religion seems to show that atheists are no longer the most hated people in America. Any guesses who is?

::Sigh::

I got my Pharmacology final back today. Let's just say this sound was playing in my head.

You Want More? I've Got 'Em

Indiana Jones hits wide-release today, so I thought it would be appropriate to post about it. Here's a list of reasons I will NOT see this movie.

1. George Lucas

Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption, The Mist) wrote a screenplay for the movie two years ago. Steven Spielberg loved the script, but George Lucas didn't. What does George Lucas know about scripts? Hey, remember that George Lucas script that everyone loved? Oh, right, that was thirty years ago. Well, he had a good run.

2. I liked the originals

I made the mistake of having The Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean ruined for me, I'm not going to do the same with Indiana Jones.

3. Harrison Ford

This reason deserves it's own subcategory...

(a) He hasn't made a movie in two years, and hasn't made a good movie in fifteen years. Everyone talks about him like he's FSM's gift to acting. He's only ever been nominated for one Oscar. One. Over twenty years ago. Pass.

(b) He refuses to make movies unless he's the star. Think about it. When was the last time he was in a supporting role? Direct quote: "I'm like a fireman. When I go out on a call, I want to put out a big fire, I don't want to put out a fire in a dumpster." Yes, allow me to crap on the faces of all the lesser-known actors out there. Douchebag.

(c) Politics. Now I know what you're thinking. He's perfectly qualified to talk about politics. I mean, he did go to college for two years before dropping out (apparently the course load at Ripon College was too rigorous for him). Forget the people who study politics for a living. They're not as qualified to talk about the Iraq War as this douchebag. I'm sure I object to the war just as much as he does. I just don't pretend to be an expert on it. If you've got an opinion on something, just get a blog like everyone else.

(d) Seriously, fuck this guy.

4. There are no new ideas in Hollywood

This movie is 100% about making profit. How do I know? They're already planning a sequel! Yeah, I'm sure they put effort into the storyline (see 1. above). All they're doing now is taking things that were popular twenty years ago and redoing them. Transformers, Batman, the upcoming G.I. Joe movie. Forget it. If Indiana Jones had a storyline that needed a sequel, it would have come out twenty years ago.

5. The title

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? WTF?


EDIT: After I posted this, I saw this post on Pharyngula. Once again, P.Z. Meyers and I are in agreement (except for the fact that he wasted his $9).

Wait, Sex Doesn't Start With...Ohhh...

One of the books I'm studying with, First Aid for Boards, has a bunch of mnemonics for things we need to know. I'm studying neuroanatomy today, and I came across this entry:

"The limbic system can be remembered as the 5 F's: Feeding, Fighting, Feeling, Fleeing, and sex."

How many twelve-year-olds do they think are studying for the Boards? Anyone who understands the fifth F probably wouldn't be offended by actually seeing the word. To quote Yahtzee, "It's okay, you can swear [. . .], your mum probably isn't going to read it. I know because she's too busy being fucked by me."

Myself Included

I thought this was pretty funny...

Here is proof that 1% of the population is composed of smart asses.

My Life, In Comic Strip Form III

This is why I haven't been updating that much...

The Sad Truth

The End, The Beginning

I've been meaning to update all day, but I had to wait until I was a little bit drunk. I got a little bit drunk, and then I had another Brooklyn Eagle and a B-52, so pardon the typos and syntactical errors.

Today was a big day for me. I took my Pathology final. It was my final final. Ever. As of right now, I am a Junior Medical Student. Which means I have to be responsible. I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, this is the end of my life as a student. Starting July 1st, I will be doing rotations in the hospital. I will be responsible for patients, taking histories, developing differential diagnoses, and administering medications. On the other hand, I will never stop being a student. In the words of Michaelangelo (the painter, not the Ninja Turtle), Ancora Imparo; I am still learning. This isn't even the end of my test-taking career. I have the boards coming up on June 14th, and I'll have shelf exams after most of my rotations. Then I take Step II of the boards, then certification boards, then recertification, et cetera.

But there's something different about today. One year of preschool, five years of elementary school, three years of middle school, four years of high school, four years of undergraduate, and two years of basic medical science. That's nineteen years of school. And it all ended today. A lot of the other medical students updated their Facebook status to say "halfway to M.D." I don't see it that way. My status says I'm 23/25ths of the way to my M.D. I didn't start becoming a doctor two years ago. I've been preparing for this my whole life. I'm ready to be Dr. Brillo.

So why am I so scared of July 1st?

I'll Be Funny On Saturday, I Promise

It's finals week, and after having my skull crushed by pharmacology, I just don't have it in me for a real post this week. So here are some news stories to fill your time.

The Pope says it's okay to believe in aliens. I didn't even know that was a problem for them.

People are protesting an Atlanta bar for selling this shirt. When asked, the bar owner said "I don't see the big deal. I really don't." Really, American South? Really?

And finally, a post from The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forum. Even if you're religious, it will insult your intelligence. Read the comments, they are quite amusing.

My Life, In Comic Strip Form II

Back by popular demand...

Damn Cats

Climbing A Slippery Slope

I hate to keep bringing up the evolution vs. ID "debate," but with the recent release of Ben Stein's movie, I feel the need to keep bringing it up. I was just arguing with a friend about the teaching of ID in school. We weren't arguing the truth or evidence of the claims, just whether or not it should be taught in schools. What he didn't expect me to say is that I believe it should be taught in schools. Just not in science class. I've talked before about the Philosophy of Science and why ID is not science. It doesn't belong in the science class, but it does belong in history or English classes. In fact, I believe the Bible should be required reading for high school English. It is a great piece of literature. It presents themes and stories that are alluded to in other literary works. In order for these stories to make sense, people need a background with the Bible. Can you imagine reading Hamlet without understanding the concept of a "Christ figure?" Or The Sound and the Fury without the knowledge of original sin? But the main reason I think the Bible should be taught is that it puts it in better context. If people read the Bible alongside Homer's Iliad and The Grapes of Wrath, they would see it more as a work of fiction. I understand that a lot of atheists disagree with me. It does open the door for religion to force itself into schools, if not by the teachers, then by the students. I just think that placing it in the fictional realm takes away the stigma of "The Good Book" and makes it more "Just another book I'll buy the Cliff Notes for." Besides, we need more atheists. And I'll tell you from personal experience, nothing will make you an atheist faster than reading the Bible cover to cover.

My Life, In Comic Strip Form

Just trying it out. We'll see if I do any more of these.

Rude Awakening

I Just Hope I Don't Go Bald

Our pathology course is nearing an end, and the last five lectures have been a review of the year-long course. The guy giving the lectures is entertaining, but check this out:

-His name is Brian Peterson (B. Peterson)
-He went to medical school at MCW (as am I)
-He's a forensic pathologist (the specialty I'm focusing on)
-He served in the Navy for eight years (as will I)
-He worked as a Medical Examiner in San Diego County (where I went to high school), Yolo County (where I went to college), and Waukesha County (near where I go to medical school)
-He's an atheist ("I've done 9,000 autopsies, and have never found a soul")
-He's a skeptic ("There is no evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer. I can tell you that everyone who has ever eaten a pickle will die, but that doesn't mean pickles kill you.")
-He has a sick sense of humor ("You know what they say about necrophilia. Any philia is better than nothing.")

I think my future is giving me lectures...

The Falsifiability of Science, Part II: The Resciencing

This problem was the subject of my final paper for my PHI 030 class. When I wrote my essay, I coincidentally touched upon a number of topics I would revisit in later courses (apparently I hadn't come up with anything new). So here's my resolution of the problem.

Adams and Leverrier were, indeed, scientists. The illusion here is that the orbit of Uranus directly contradicted Newton's theory of gravity. Instead, you could say that the orbit of Uranus was consistent with Newton's theory, but inconsistent with the hypothesis "Our solar system has seven planets." Between these two theories, Newton's theory is stronger, because it applies to every object everywhere. The seven-planet theory has a much more limited scope. But these aren't the only two hypotheses that were tested. They tested the theory of mathematics in their calculations, the theory of a functioning telescope, the theory of their eyes being capable of detecting light reflected off an undiscovered planet, etc. The idea that you can't test a single theory actually turns out to be a big problem for philosophers of science.

More importantly, at no point in their work did they violate the criterion of falsifiability. Their new hypothesis "Our solar system has eight planets" was still falsifiable. If Neptune hadn't been exactly where they said it was, their hypothesis would be thrown out.

But suppose that was the case, that there was no eighth planet. Would that then disprove Newton's theory? The answer is... yes! In fact, the exact same scenario led indirectly to Einstein disproving Newton's theory! Leverrier, in addition to his observations of the orbit of Uranus, also observed inconsistencies in the orbit of Mercury. He hypothesized that there was a planet closer to the sun, which he dubbed "Vulcan" (Trekkies, don't get ahead of yourselves). Astronomers searched for decades to find Vulcan, but no one ever did. In 1915, Einstein introduced his theory of relativity, which explained the orbit of Mercury in addition to explaining everything covered by Newton. Thus, Newton's theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein's theory of relativity.

To be fair, it wasn't just Mercury's orbit which led to the downfall of Newton's theory. Among other things, Newton's theory failed to accurately predict the gravitational deflection of light. The process of abandoning a fundamental theory such as Newton's is covered in a specific realm of PoS: the Philosophy of Scientific Revolutions. But that's another topic for another time.

On a side note, to respond to what Travis said, "accomplishments shouldn't be confused with intentions," you're absolutely right (although I don't think it applies here). That school of thought was maintained by the logical positivists in the early 20th century, who argued that "discovery" is independent of science. The best example of this is the discovery of the structure of benzene. The empiric formula C6H6 was known for centuries, but no one could explain the structure. In the late 19th century, Friedrich Kekule discovered the ring shape when he had a dream about a snake eating it's own tail. Regardless of how he discovered it, his claim was still falsifiable and stood up to every test, and thus the hypothesis is considered scientific.

The Falsifiability of Science

Today I thought instead of a political rant, I'd do a more intellectual exercise. I studied Philosophy of Science as an undergraduate. In fact, I took enough classes to qualify for a minor, but didn't realize there was a minor offered until after I graduated. I was reading through one of my old texts, when I came across this question.

The basis of all science, as any high school graduate knows, is the scientific method. Form a hypothesis, obtain data, modify your hypothesis to match the data. This is counter to the pseudoscientific method: form a hypothesis, obtain data, modify the data to match your original hypothesis. That's an oversimplification, but the main difference between science and pseudoscience is falsifiability. It may sound paradoxical, but the ability to be wrong is what makes science so powerful. I've already talked about the pseudoscientific claims of creationism and intelligent design. Creationists can interpret any set of data and observations to match their hypothesis. Their hypothesis can't be falsified. For example, the fossil record runs counter to creationist claims that the Earth was created in seven days. Rather than accepting the disproof of their hypothesis, creationists can claim that the fossils were put there by God to test our faith. Modifying the data, not the hypothesis.

The problem with this definition of pseudoscience is that real scientists do this all the time. In the 19th century, it was discovered that the orbit of Uranus did not follow Newton's theory of gravity. According to the scientific method, Newton's theory should have been discarded. Instead, two scientists, Adams and Leverrier, changed the data to match the hypothesis. They concluded that Newtonian physics is a true hypothesis, but an undiscovered planet was messing with the orbit of Uranus. Lo and behold, they discovered Neptune. The question I have for you is this: were Adams and Leverrier esteemed scientists who discovered a new planet, or pseudoscientists who irrationally clung to a bad hypothesis? I'll post my interpretation in the next couple days.

References:

1. Okasha, Samir. The Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press: 2002. 13-17

Don't Blog Angry...

In our Health Policy class on Tuesday (I just listened to the lecture today), an emergency medicine doctor came in to discuss the physician's role in legislation. I disagreed with a lot of what he said, but it was an interesting lecture. Near the end, he put forth a case scenario: a Vietnam-veteran, pack-a-day smoker, who lives in a van (down by the river). He asked students for ideas about what we can do as physicians to help him. Most of the suggestions were acceptable. Offer our services for free at soup kitchens, help him get a job, use money from the cigarette tax to fund educational programs, etc.

But one student suggested, and I quote, "I know it sounds heartless, but throw him in jail. He'll get three hots and a cot, he'll get medical attention, he'll also get job training too." That student is damn lucky I don't attend lectures, because he would be a bloody spot on the wall. It's for his own good. The ends justify the means. Holy fucking horseshit. Let's ignore the burden this would put on the taxpayers, throwing him in an already overcrowded jail system. The human rights violations alone are enough to make smoke come out of my ears. So being poor is a crime now? Fuck it, let's just accuse him of being a terrorist and send him to Guantanamo Bay. Free health care! The ends justify the means! Why don't we just kill him?! It's for his own good! FUCK, why wasn't I in lecture that day?