You never know with science. You can find complexity in simple things (chaos theory/butterfly effect, quantum mechanics) or simplicity in complex things, you just never know. It turns out there is a grid or scaffold of simplicity underlying the arrangement of the brain. This is a wonderful thing to find, like Maxwell's equations relating electricity to magnetism or the gas laws of chemistry; more accurately, it's like a simple coordinate system (or map/address book?) that can be used for future studies of the brain. I'm sure when we dig a little deeper that there will be some maddening complexity that confounds us again, but today let's revel in the simplicity given to us!
Simple 3-D grid structure underlying complexity of primate brain
Friday, March 30, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Diane Ackerman on Love
All* of the more prominent Op-Eds in the New York Times today (Sunday, actually) are disappointing, simplistic and/or maddeningly one-sided, but this blog post by Diane Ackerman really hits the mark in scope as well as content. Although she's a science writer, I could imagine extending this into a theology of relationship that leads to the Trinity, or a nice re-affirmation of the importance of the body as well as the mind to faith, or any number of other areas. All of the other posts close off thought*; this one extends it.
* Ok, I admit, I rather enjoyed Russ Douthat's piece about Tebow, but they also put him down into the netherword of less-important links rather than at the top with the big names!
* Ok, I admit, I rather enjoyed Russ Douthat's piece about Tebow, but they also put him down into the netherword of less-important links rather than at the top with the big names!
Friday, March 23, 2012
Today's Academic Takedown
Lawrence Krauss published a book titled A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing, which argues that the laws of quantum mechanics are sufficient to justify existence. Not just necessary, but sufficient. All the reviews I've scanned of it so far have been accepting (one thing I've noticed is that book reviews of popular science books in science magazines will criticize the science but will rarely criticize the philosophy so long as it hews to the party line). Richard Dawkins said this will do for the origin of the universe what the Origin of Species did for, well, the origin of species. But then in the New York Times a philosophy professor familiar with quantum mechanics reviewed it and, in short, he took it down. I have a feeling this review is more fun than the book is. Personally, I'm getting a little tired of the automatic acceptance of shoddy philosophy by the science magazines in their reviews, and this is a step in the other direction -- in the right direction, that is.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Book Review: Blackout
I am about as ambivalent about this book as I have been about any. It didn't help that nowhere on the materials did it mention that it is part 1 of a 2-part series, and it ends frustratingly abruptly with what some people call a cliffhanger but to me just seems confusing. I also didn't know that the author Connie Willis has set other time-travel stories in this same "universe", and I probably would have read some of the other ones first.
For most of the book it just seemed like a sub-par Doctor Who episode about time travelers observing the Blitz. I appreciated learning some of the extra historical detail but much of the plot action was solving a problem that turned out not to be a problem in the first place, or arranging train schedules or something. It didn't help that I wasn't convinced by the beginning of the story, which takes place in Oxford in 2060 as the time travelers depart, especially because the academics don't act like academics at all. The grad students aren't particularly smart, and there was nothing specifically Oxfordian about anything going on. Michael Crichton's grad students are much more convincing. Also, I'm not convinced by Willis's portraits of the children, who all seem to be either demonic or incredibly whiny.
Once stuff starts to go wrong (or does it?) the plot gets going and there's an efficiently exciting climax as a raid approaches. I enjoyed some cool historical stuff like inflatable tanks, but ultimately I was disappointed to find there's another whole book left. My first thought was that I had somehow missed the last audiodisk! We'll see. If trajectory is any guide I may end up enjoying this yet.
For most of the book it just seemed like a sub-par Doctor Who episode about time travelers observing the Blitz. I appreciated learning some of the extra historical detail but much of the plot action was solving a problem that turned out not to be a problem in the first place, or arranging train schedules or something. It didn't help that I wasn't convinced by the beginning of the story, which takes place in Oxford in 2060 as the time travelers depart, especially because the academics don't act like academics at all. The grad students aren't particularly smart, and there was nothing specifically Oxfordian about anything going on. Michael Crichton's grad students are much more convincing. Also, I'm not convinced by Willis's portraits of the children, who all seem to be either demonic or incredibly whiny.
Once stuff starts to go wrong (or does it?) the plot gets going and there's an efficiently exciting climax as a raid approaches. I enjoyed some cool historical stuff like inflatable tanks, but ultimately I was disappointed to find there's another whole book left. My first thought was that I had somehow missed the last audiodisk! We'll see. If trajectory is any guide I may end up enjoying this yet.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Soloveitchik Online: "Majesty and Humility"
For a brief taste of Soloveitchik's remarkable writing, see his essay "Majesty and Humility" here.
And, lo and behold, a PDF of "The Lonely Man of Faith" is also available. At a glance it looks like some of the footnotes are a little messed up but definitely most of it is there, rather than having to wait for it from interlibrary loan like I did!
And, lo and behold, a PDF of "The Lonely Man of Faith" is also available. At a glance it looks like some of the footnotes are a little messed up but definitely most of it is there, rather than having to wait for it from interlibrary loan like I did!
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Book Review: The Lonely Man of Faith
Oh me of little faith ... I was mildly embarrassed to be checking this book out (never mind that I had no idea who the person at the desk even was!) because it was kind of like saying "I'm lonely." When in a way that's exactly what the author, Joseph Soloveitchik, intended. He writes about the two different creation stories in Genesis, how they describe the creation of two different Adams: the first Adam and the second Adam, both of which are contained in each of us. Deftly moving from the Scripture through philosophy and history and back again, with a tantalizing smidgen of science thrown in, Soloveitchik makes the case that we are too focused on the first, "majestic" Adam and have neglected the important role of the second, "convenantal" Adam. He's right, to the point that a certain person can have a pang of shame at even checking out a book with "lonely" in the title.
Soloveitchik does not argue that the first Adam should be ignored or done away with, any more than he would argue that the first account of creation in Genesis should be done away with. Rather, he argues that there is a movement (a dialectical one) between the two Adams in each of our lives. As someone who works in science, you could say that I very easily lose sight of the second Adam and focus on the first. My own Weter lecture was primarily about the first Adam, in fact.
Reading this book reminded me more than anything of stepping into the world of Chaim Potok's communities, and it proved as spiritually refreshing. As a Christian, I see Christ as the second Adam personified, humble and completely God's, and lonely, then, after the ordeal of ordeals, raised to newness of life as the first Adam. I see the seeds of most everything I believe in the vibrant words of this book and its own faithfulness to the words of Genesis and the prophets. Highly recommended.
Soloveitchik does not argue that the first Adam should be ignored or done away with, any more than he would argue that the first account of creation in Genesis should be done away with. Rather, he argues that there is a movement (a dialectical one) between the two Adams in each of our lives. As someone who works in science, you could say that I very easily lose sight of the second Adam and focus on the first. My own Weter lecture was primarily about the first Adam, in fact.
Reading this book reminded me more than anything of stepping into the world of Chaim Potok's communities, and it proved as spiritually refreshing. As a Christian, I see Christ as the second Adam personified, humble and completely God's, and lonely, then, after the ordeal of ordeals, raised to newness of life as the first Adam. I see the seeds of most everything I believe in the vibrant words of this book and its own faithfulness to the words of Genesis and the prophets. Highly recommended.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Robinson and Malick and ???
Nice post on Slate noting that Marilynne Robinson and Terrence Malick are kindred spirits. My only addition: that's the tip of the iceberg. There's a LOT of artists and writers who look at the world that way. Maybe we have a movement going on under our noses and we're missing it?
Jeffrey Overstreet suggests we add Annie Dillard to that list. I suggest Owen Barfield and the author I'm reading right now, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. The movement needs a name ...
Jeffrey Overstreet suggests we add Annie Dillard to that list. I suggest Owen Barfield and the author I'm reading right now, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. The movement needs a name ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
