Slashdot Mirror
Heart Surgeon Takes Notes from da Vinci
vivekg writes "Leonardo da Vinci probably never thought he had the proverbial Holy Grail to a revolution in heart surgery. Almost 500 years after da Vinci's death, intricate diagrams of the human heart made by him have inspired a British surgeon to pioneer a new way to repair damaged hearts."
Old science is not necessarily bad science. In fact, the hallmark of good science is how well is holds up over time and continued testing. Granted, Leonardo de Vinci was not "practicing" modern science. Rather, he was using the oldest form of science which is observational science. However, this approach is still valid and tends to be the most robust type of science which, like Leonardo discovered can also lead to the most controversial reactions from people who have investments in the current understanding of certain topics........... *cough* *cough*, like evolution.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Stop eating McDonalds you fatasses!
Reality test... am I dreaming?
But we do know he had the literal Holy Grail, hidden as part of the Priory of Sion. Or at least, he would have had, if it hadn't been made up by a delusional Frenchman in the 1950s
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
It's funny how much you can get done once you blow bureaucracy out of the way. Exhuming corpses for study probably broke a billion laws back then as well, but so much has come from his approach.
Then again, I might be confusing the Da Vinci Code with reality. Damned fiction based on facts. It's probably safest to just say that I HEARD that he exhumed corpses. I didn't know him personally.
Well, there's only one way to perform surgery on a heart........ verrrrrrrrry carefully.
We always knew that Da Vinci was ahead of his time. Now we know just how far. :-)
Ignore Alien Orders
Disclaimer: this post is philosophical drivel...
I wonder how many insights from the past we as a "civilization" may be whistling past. In our smug (seemingly) mastery of technology I often feel a sense of something missing, or just not quite in the right place. Today we can instantaneously retrieve and play on our mp3 players any song that tickles our fancy, but to what end? When sales of Britney outstrip sales of the Emperor Concerto something is out of whack.
Base and rank commercialism has overtaken sensibility. Our choices are far less choices and far more subtle (and sometimes otherwise) manipulation of our choices by mass market driven money making machines.
For example, the food industry: did you know that one of the most healthy foods you can eat is tuna? And if you're trying to lose weight it can be a keystone in that goal. Did you know that some brands of tuna have artificially introduced certain appetite inducing chemicals? No intrinsic added value to the food, just a manipulation of you to buy more food (hopefully, their tuna).
Now, to relate all of this back to the original article. What percentage of medical breakthroughs and research have anything to do with cumulative knowledge? What percentage is just purely money driven?
It's only my opinion, but "we" as a civilization will show true evolution when we take use of true knowledge and think less about everything as "business". Business is an artifact. Truth and knowledge serve more faithfully.
Does anyone else here get the feeling from this that doctors have a sort of "well, that's how it's always been done" approach to medicine? I mean, you'd think that at some point, somebody would have stopped and said "is there a better way to do this?" I guess, in some ways, this guy is that "revolutionary" thinker...
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Am I missing something or does the article say nothing about what the new technique was? And why only the Da Vinchi drawings were the only ones that could have lead to this discovery.
Mitral valve prolapse, fortunately, is not deadly. But the usual treatment always has the potential danger of valve infection. I hope the new technique will help prevent that problem.
You have got to be kidding me! This passes for news? Some doctor says 'whoaaaa mannnn, Da Vinci made some nice drawings' and then invents a new way to repair the heart, and the media links the two together. There is NO mention of what the new procedure consists of or why Da Vinci's drawings helped him invent it. I find it very hard to believe the Da Vinci really had some understanding of heart physiology that we don't and when the article makes no effort to convince me otherwise...well, color me skeptical.
/.
Go read http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/ backstories and learn why you should never listen to the mass media when it comes to scientific discoveries. I'm really surprised this got posted to
has this guy not shared his new technique with anyone? I've only read this particular article about it, so I only know what it states about it. Which is nothing, it just says that this guy knows a better way to repair it now. Not that the medical community now knows. But that *he* knows. Well, he actually says 'we' but the rest of what's said is stated in a fairly cloaked manner, as if to say he knows and he ain't sharin'. You want it done, pay me 9 zillion dollars, or go get it done the old fashioned way by any of the other multitudes of surgeons that know that old technique. I'm probably just reading too much into the words used, I don't follow the medical community much. Don't they usually share everything?
When Leonardo was alive, 500 years ago,there was no monopoly; barbers and other people with dubious trainng were involved in medicine.
Before Leonardo, in the early Middle Ages, say, when the Decameron was written (13++) physicians were not called "Doctors" because they did not have doctoral degrees. Only Theologians and Lawyers were Doctors. The best eaxample is Toma De Aquino, "Doctor Universalis" who had all the doctorates of the time, but was no physician.
From the article:
His anatomical knowledge came from his post-mortem dissection work, which the Church forbade.
Great minds of the past shouldn't just be honored for their great contributions to art and science. In fact, it may almost be more important that they defied the religiously dictated laws of their times. Even Isaac Newton, who may the most important scientist in our history, dabbled in occult beliefs that some feel led to his gravitational theory.
I tip my hat to Leonardo, Galileo, Newton, and others for having the guts to stand up to the religion to advance humans forward.
Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.
Uh. What's that? Are you advocating that schools should stop teaching science altogether or that just public school should stop teaching science? If you think the problem is with the public schools, then the obvious strategy is to increase the funding so that they can do their job right. If you're saying that teaching science in schools should be dropped altogether, then I don't know what to say.
Not teaching science in schools is not an option.
The owls are not what they seem
As far as Britney outpacing Concerto sales, far more people hear classical music (on a ratio basis) in the modern world than they did in the 1700s or even 1800s. They simply choose other things because they like them better because of their friends, who like it because of the radio play, who play it because record companies pay them to, because they have a lot "invested" in crap artists like Britney.
.5% at the top get at the expense of killing their own culture.
The problem isn't commercialism, it's the value placed on wealth above all other things. This is a cultural problem, exacerbated by the fact that fools and their money are soon parted, and the more fools we make as a society the richer the
America needs leadership, but most of that seemed to disappear in the 60s. JFK, RFK, MLK, where art thou? I've got hopes for Mbarak Obama and John McCain, but they're both writhing in the bureaucracy of their own political parties.
This is one of those inventions that comes along every now and then, of which you think: why didn't they think of this earlier? Some things stare humanity in the face for years and years before someone finally sees the light. This one took remarkably long...
-- Cheers!
A mechanic was removing a cylinder head from the motor of a Harley, when he spotted a world-famous heart surgeon in his shop. The heart surgeon was waiting for the service manager to come take a look at his bike. The mechanic shouted across the garage, "Hey Doc can I ask you a question?"
The famous surgeon, a bit surprised, walked over to the mechanic working on the motorcycle.
The mechanic straightened up, wiped his hands on a rag and asked, "So Doc, look at this engine. I also can open hearts, take valves out, fix'em, put in new parts and when I finish this will work just like a new one. So how come I get a pittance and you get the really big money, when you and I are doing basically the same work?"
The surgeon paused, smiled and leaned over, and whispered to the mechanic..... "Try doing it with the engine running!
... of malpractice suits. If you do something differently, and something goes wrong, the lawyers come out and sue because you were doing something non standard. I find it a bit spooky that a doctor would even need to look at old drawings to know how heart valves work. Isn't this why they are made to work on cadavers, so they know the body inside and out? Doesn't the real thing trump some old drawings?
Not teaching science in schools is not an option.
Sure it is. It is preferable to teaching it incorrectly, or worse, using the position of authority the teacher has to indoctrinate vulnerable children.
The public schools have repeatedly demonstrated that they are incapable of teaching science. By their nature they are incapable of teaching anything about which there is a contraversy, because teaching such a subject necessarily entails forcing at least some taxpayers to violate their convictions by providing funds for the dissemination of ideas which they consider to be false and possibly vicious.
As stupid and ignorant as the people supporting all the anti-science BS are, they have a right not to have their tax money spent on things they consider sinful and immoral. As much as I would like to be able to teach them real science and convince them that they were wrong, I don't have the right to do it with their money.
The public schools should focus on providing a basic education for those who have no other option. That is: reading, writting, and arithmetic should be the initial focus. Bright students could learn Greek, Latin, Algebra, Geometry, the laws of physics, and the periodic table. But the public schools are incapable of teaching no only religion but also history, economics, civics, and biology without becomming machines of indoctrination.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Leonardo was a genius and good drawsman BUT it has nothing to do with modern heart surgery.
Nowdays U have movies of heart in action taken by cameras traveling through it - so every medicine student or engineer can spend hours watching how heart and its subelements work.
Old drawings have no chance to stand up to this. Thats all - unless this "doctor" spend most of the time sleeping instead of learning and his only knowledge comes from exhibitions hes visiting with family from time to time
C'mon, that was actually pretty funny. :)
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
Am I the only one who expected the actual newly-discovered method to be described, but didn't find it in this fluff article?
I feel... cheated. RTFAing doesn't pay.
It may have come from a bit of a sensationalist reporter, Donal MacIntyre, but I have no reason to doubt his footage.
In India it is not unheard of that doctors will take organs from persons or bodies, such as valves in the case of bodies, for transplantation to 'customers' who need them.
The deceased may never have signed a donor form, and the family is not informed.
Neither is the recipient - they simply aren't told what type of valve they're getting (artificial being the common assumption).
To paraphrase a statement from one hospital CEO/doctor : "We open them up, take out the valves, sow them back up, and no harm is done. The body gets cremated and nobody will ever know."
So, yes... blow bureaucracy out of the way, and a lot of good can be done. But at what cost?
Didn't get it.
I think the article is improperly attributing Leonardo's role in the discovery. Leonardo made accurate anatomical drawings of the heart from which the heart surgeon took inspiration. In this sense, I see da Vinci as having provided artistic inspiration for this medical discovery, much as artists throughout the ages have provided inspiration for countless scientists. It is likely that the heart surgeon could have made his discovery based on any other accurate drawing or illustration of the human heart, but da Vinci's beautifully drawn anatomical sketches provided the inspiration. Admitedly da Vinci often blurred the line between art and science, but in this case it seems to me his role is that of an artist and inspiration, not of a scientist.
Uh. No they don't. Where you live, they have the right to take their kid out of the class and homeschool them. Over here, there is not even the homeschool option.
I pay taxes and my money is used on stuff that I don't approve of. Do I have a problem with it? Of course not. That's the way how a society works! Sharing and making compromises. "My tax money should not be used on stuff that I don't like" is nothing but self-centered Ayn Rand inspired whining.
The owls are not what they seem
Personally I believe that the problem is the increasing centralization of control over the schools. This includes all Federal interference and all state interference.
Schools should be funded locally, and have local control. Unfortunately, the various levels of government have stolen the sources which were traditionally used to fund schools, so local funding is a problem which needs solution. This doesn't make it any less necessary. If the local students are to be taught lies, it should be because the local citizens have decided that that's what they want their children taught. (They will suffer the appropriate consequences...but their folly should not be forced on everyone else.)
This has been my position for over 2 decades, and everything I've seen during that period of time has only reinforced the opinion. Only at the college or university level should the state (e.g., Idaho or Pennsylvannia) have any involvement. The states should run the colleges, because specialized education needs to draw from too large an area of population for local funding to be reasonable. They should be tuition free, but have appropriately difficult admissions requirements, and may limit the number of open spots for admission. (The state can decide how many English majors it needs to educate, and how many BioChemists, and fund that many classes of the appropriate type.)
At all levels, private schools should continue to be an option.
Some will argue that this will unfairly penalize the children of poor cities. In my experience in those cities the federal government alone extracts more funds nominally for education than are expended on schooling by all levels of government combined. This may not be true everywhere, but it's certainly largely true. Also, the most important parts of schooling don't require much in the way of funding, though they do require the cooperation of the parents. Thus if the parents will not cooperate with the local school, the school should have the right to refuse to allow the student to attend lessons. Disruptive students are not something that should be tolerated...but when schools are used in the way in which they are currently, that's what you get.
That said, not all students are academically inclined. There needs to be a flexible "tracking" system, which allows those mechanically inclined to develop their skills as well as a track which allows the academic students to develop THEIR skills. I envision one hour per day during elementary school (after third grade) where students experience are instructed in "enrichment specialties", which should include things like band, set theory (arithmetic should be mainstream...by rote, and sorry), wood/metal/plastic shop, etc.
OTOH, this requires a fairly large elementary school. Other benefits would accrue if elementary schools were local enough that all students could walk to them. That way the neighborhood kids would study together. This would probably mean that, e.g., grades K-3 would all be taught in the same room by the same teacher. (If you have enough students to split this in two, perhaps you could split them by distance rather than by age.) This WOULD be an acknowledged combination school and babysitting service, and play areas would be an important part of the situation. Teachers in this class would be expected to LIVE in the school, and keep it open. Provisions for substitutes would be necessary. Etc. Class sizes would be small, but the salaries would be enough to live on given the free rent. (I envision that most of these teachers would start out as mothers raising their kids. So room would need to be sufficient to handle not only the teacher, but also a husband or other partner and their children. With a safe fenced area around it which is the school yard.)
N.B.: A lot of what I'm proposing is just my idea spinning of how it might ideally work out. The important parts are:
1) No central control.
2) Local choice on funding & curricula & environment.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
...and fails to actually say anything more than "Doc finds Da Vinci drawings helpful". Bunch of twunts. -Rikki
They have a right not to have their tax money spent on things they consider sinful and immoral.
I'm glad to hear it! Please let me know when I can opt not to have my tax money go toward the war in Iraq.
What's that you say? I can't opt out of the payment because I can't opt out of the benefits? How is that different from universal education? Or is there a way to opt out of a strong economy and an educated workforce that I'm unaware of?
Shine on you crazy diamond!
Because we now prop up the weak and infirm with better medical trechnology, survival of the fittest is being thwarted. Where in the past unhealthy humans would have died, they are now being kept alive, and then they are reproducing and passing on their imfirmities to their children. Eventually there will be a time when EVERYONE is born with some major infirmity, healthy babies will be a rare exception.
Good medicine is killing the human species.
That's the way how a society works!
Instead of each spending our own money on what we want, we take someone else's money and spend it for them then let them turn around and do the same to us? That doesn't seem very sensible. Under your arguement there is as much justification for teaching creationism and banning modern synthesis if that's what the majority believes is right. What if religious conservatives want to teach their particular brand of religion as the "truth"?
self-centered Ayn Rand inspired whining
It was actually the traditional arguement for separation of Church and State applied to a broader swath of knowledge. Incidentally this brings up my problem with Rand. She copied many ideas from the British Whigs and the Old Liberals (see especially from von Mises's Socialism), but she never mentions any of them in her writings. She even claims that many of the ideas were her own. Atlus is a decent work of literature, but there are far better arguements in favor of liberty out there.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
He wants to make $$ off of his "secret Da Vinci heart procedure", whether it's real or not.
Teaching science is almost as critical to a strong economy and solid work force as Iraq is to the security of the US...
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
this doesn't mean that I propose immediatly pulling out of Iraq any more then I propose immediatly stopping public education; unfortunatly we are stuck with the choices we've made in the past and any change would take time to avoid even greater evil.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Interesting proposal; it would solve most of the problems I've mentioned.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
The problem is that they try to teach concepts that have emerged from scientific practice without teaching the processes the practices use.
If they are in the majority then that's what that particular country is going to do. Science cannot and should not overule the democratic process.
The owls are not what they seem
surgeon to pioneer a new way to repair damaged hearts."
Cool, so I could goto him when my girlfriend breaks my heart by running away with Joe Sixpack!!!
Oh wait, she already did!!!
I find chocolate works for me.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
The public schools should focus on providing a basic education for those who have no other option. That is: reading, writting, and arithmetic should be the initial focus.
You're on the right track, but I think you're not going far enough. If it was up to me, I'd institute mandatory flogging for everyone going to school. That way, the only people (or kids) being educated would be the ones that really wanted to, and this system would produce only first-rate geniuses!
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
So science, reson and logic should not overrule the democratic process, if the majority decides to declare itselfthe master race and to kill everyone else living in the country? Absolute democracy is nothing but a tyranny of the masses. The purpose of democratic government allow a majority to dispose of an unpopular government peacfully, not to allow the majority to do as it pleases. Under such an arrangement there can be no freedom.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Scientists and other logically thinking people must work within the system to guarantee that logical decisions are made. I don't quite understand why you are so hell-bent on emphasizing the undemocratic ways of influencing the society.
The owls are not what they seem
Nope it's not funny. It's redundant - we all know it, but we prefer to ignor it.
Uh, he said "[...] science, reson and logic [...]". The reason and logic parts would be the US constitution, which prevents the majority from doing just anything at all that they feel like, even if they managed to take a majority in the legislature and/or the presidency.
Direct, uninhibited democracy is insane on any large scale.
much credit. If you go looking in a hospital for gunk, you're sure to find some. They'd be better to apply probiotics, but somewhere they picked up "biotic is bad"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo
By the same point, why should a majority have the authority to do as it pleases? Because it controls the guns? What if I have a nuclear weapon? Does that give me the authority to do what I want? If a majority can do anything it pleases, why are there such things as laws and rights?
The reason you see me as undemocratic is because I believe in limited government, something required by my ethics, eudaemonism (which I guess you could consider a peculiar from of Utilitarianism). I follow Hume and Locke over Descartes and Rousseau.
Within the correct sphere of government, democracy in the only acceptable process, because it will prevent revolution. It does not follow that because the government is democratically controlled, it is capable of undertaking any task.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
HiThere, you and morgawr are not from Texas are y'all.
We've got a real problem here in the Lone Star State with public school funding. Our Supreme Court has declared that local funding in unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution. The reason being that due to differences in the value of the local tax bases there is inequitable funding between 'rich' and 'poor' school districts, which in turn leads to an inequitable quality of education between the 'rich' and 'poor' school districts.
For the last decade the Texas Legislature has wrestled with, and gone through all manner of contortions to resolve the funding 'problem', with no solution that even comes close to being reasonably satisfactory. The realpolitik in Texas is such that a even a workable solution, that some major segment of the Texas Body Politic won't fiercely object to, is highly unlikely.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
There's a big difference, Besides people have been indoctrinated to be obivious or at the least indifferent to expert authority.
Observations from the Andy Griffith marathon currently being shown on the TV Land channel:
Barney Fife consistently shows disrespect for Andy's formal authority as the Sherrif. By calling their combination Police office and Jail, a Jail they deempasize the police aspect of their work, and Berney Fife, expresses the notion that having prisoners looks good. They also show a disrespect for expert authority, not even have read the procedure manual revealed to have been in Andy's desk by a lawyer sent there by the district attorney to get a feel for field work. Regarding the attorney, they reveal a further disregard for expert authority, in being completly oblivious to the amount of education and ability to apply it a lawyer has.
In one episode they show no appreciation for credentials as they fail to ask for credentials of two men posing as FBI agents.
The cereal shows that take place in an executive workplace are another good example.
My high school teacher says da vinci is a blasphemer and the is code of the devil. If you don't recant you're all going to hell for worshiping satan science. Have faith the righteous path of intelligent design and the bible.
US schools are incredibly overfunded for the level of achievement they provide (on average). Increasing funding because something isn't working is nearly always the worst solution to a problem. The problem is that the funding is not being provided where it's needed. If you look at Average spending per pupil and SAT scores, there is a high correlation to the best funded with the best ranking. Ideally, the best solution would be to not make it acceptable/cool to not do well in math/science, but pragmatically, school districts across the country need to be provided with closer to the same level of funding.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Part of medicine is research. You can be sure the first patients to receive a new technique have signed appropriate waivers.
You have the soul of an HMO administrator.
He sited Leonardo's drawings as being inspirational. Inspiration tends not to be entirely rational.
If the technique he has developed works, the answer in this case would be "no".
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
I mean what he did and what most medical things do is some kind of reversed enginering.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
That read the headline and thought about the robot Da Vinci that is an improved heart surgery.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Ah, yes. The battle cry of the teacher's union in the United States, "Give us more money!". Regardless of the fact that money has not be tied to better teaching...that is their demand. Let's see:
Public school teachers refuse to be compensated for performance. Testing against standards is only for the students!
Public school teachers are against a voucher system that would mean that they have to compete for the kids.
In my day, 60%-80% of public school staff were teaching staff and the rest were non-teaching staff. Today, that ratio is reversed.
The number of useless but "socially responsible" classes in public school have dramatically risen.
I vote that remove the public school system entirely from the United States of America (Yes, I am a citizen). That every citizen of school age or desire is given a voucher for their using to fund their kids education at the school of their choice. State run education is NOT the solution.
The artist in question is "Leonardo," not "da Vinci." That really is like referring to Jesus as "of Nazareth".
The biggest problem with your idea will become evident when there are a large number of idiots running around because they weren't taught the appropriate lessons to function in modern society. When mathematics is replaced with religion, and science with superstition, what have you achieved?
It can be cynically said that "the government educates you because they want to tax you", and it's at least partially true. If people who've lived in a certain locale only teach subjects related to that locale (eg. farmers teach farming, no calculus, no languages), you lose a degree of economic mobility that's important nowadays. If the economy suffers, all people suffer. Or will you only provide welfare on an education-merit basis?
A standard education across all students is a much better option. One thing that should be open to academic debate (and careful experimentation) are the different potential curriculums. And so we have government-specified curriculums.
"She even claims that many of the ideas were her own."
Typical woman, ever hear "behind every great man is a great woman".
First, government oversight is the same as state education. Once they start overseeing, they start issuing policies in a way that is similar to feature creep in a software project. But the government is worse.
While a tax credit is a possible method, I also disapprove of them because I am also a proponent for the a much simpler government revenue system that involves removing the IRS for from existence. While I have great hopes for the typical American to budget their moneys wisely, my practical experience has not demonstrated it for too large a portion of the population. So, I typically favor-not rabidly-a voucher system that is meant for educating the kids. That gives a little nudge from the government to use it properly but hopefully does not give them enough room to start interfering too quickly. Yes, I do realize that they will eventually start meddling too much. But I have hopes that we can delay the bureaucrats.
Will there be parents and kids that abuse the vouchers? Absolutely. But how is that any different than parents currently abusing the system. The difference is that people that know better and want better will be able to do something about it regardless of their personal financial position, at least more than they currently can.
The one issue I have not seen a good solution for with the voucher system is allowing for teachers, administrators, and schools that perform better than average to get better than average reward (ie. cash) and/or better facilities. But, there is enough of a motivation with just the better pay, in my mind and to my teaching wife.
I would mod everyone talking about evolution in school and tax dollars off topic. Serioulusly this article is about a new heart repair surgery inspired by Leonardo. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Evolution v. Intillegent design debate.
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
Yeah, no shit. The article states that about 40 times. What the article fails to deliver on is exactly WHAT this fantastic insight or new technique actually is. So, yeah. One sentence summaries of the entire article:
What's missing is "Describe New Technique". There's nothing. Nowhere. Not even in 'layman's terms.' The article is total crap. How do you fill an entire page with talk of a new technique without actually describing the new technique itself? Oh, I get it now. It isn't an article about a new technique, it's an advertisement for a TV special on the BBC about a new technique. Great!! Just frickin' grand.
>>> "Such a muddle[d], confused, and illogical presentaion of science directly leads to such pseudoscience as intelligent design."
... in my opinion that's because many of those who seek the truth don't automatically dismiss non-scientific (by which I mean 'objectively empirical non-falsifiable theories') explanations.
... however one could go back in time to the alleged incident and provide objective empirical evidence to show that the story is false. Similarly with other supposed historic events.
... there I go again ...
I think you've got your chain of causation confused. Evolutionary theory (at least amongst humans) is not recorded until long after notions of intelligent design. Perhaps you meant "directly leads << to the enforcement of peoples concepts of theories in the realm of >> pseudoscience [such] as intelligent design"?
Funnily enough much of modern day science has a causative link to widespread religious belief be it amongst Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist
On another note, I'm just pondering: if a time machine has ever been invented then will any theories that are currently non-scientific become scientific. For example, currently the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith (http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml) is non-falsifiable (but highly unlikely!)
Oh damn
was heartless...
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
From the article:
His anatomical knowledge came from his post-mortem dissection work, which the Church forbade.
Great minds of the past shouldn't just be honored for their great contributions to art and science. In fact, it may almost be more important that they defied the religiously dictated laws of their times.
That is wrong. Dissection was not forbidden. You had to get special permission to do human dissection. Leonardo successfully got this permission in Florence, Milan and Rome. He actively participated in over 30 autopsies this way. Totally legit and above-board, no grave-robbing involved.
Now, he may have done some illegal autopsies in addition to those. But to say that autopsy was forbidden, or that Leonardo wasn't allowed to do it, is just wrong.
As a medical student, I can only comment on how much worthless fluff this article is. It doesn't even give any useful information in layman terms. It seems more of a "oooh, look at me, I know something you don't". I expect articles to be written not at a medical level, but I'd expect something better than junior high quality writing.
"then the obvious strategy is to increase the funding so that they can do their job right."
hahahhahaha. Thanks, I needed a laugh like that.
Are you a teacher? None of these ideas make an sense.
Federal interference and state interference - You'd hope that the state would set guidelines on what should be taught and what outcomes the student should achieve to get a passing grade. If not then children of very differing levels could get through school at the same relative level. Then, how would colleges or universities know which child was better? How will they know what prior learning the children have, and at what level? The state should set these levels so that every child learns the same subjects to the same level.
Disruptive students are not something that should be tolerated - So private school don't have disruptive children, and the disruptive children at public schools don't deserve an education? That's just fantastic. I don't even know where to begin with this. For starters, some children are disruptive because they have poor living conditions and are sexually and physically abused at home. I'd still like to try and give them a good education.
This would probably mean that, e.g., grades K-3 would all be taught in the same room by the same teacher. - Wow, what a great idea! Why didn't anyone think of mixing such a large range of age groups before! Oh, because it doesn't work and the kids end up not being educated as well as children in a single year group. It's hard enough to teach the same thing to one year group, teaching the same thing (or different things) to different year groups would be horrible for the teacher and bad for the children's' learning.
So do you have any teaching experience? Because I can't imagine a teacher saying any of what you said.
Nope it sure cant.
But it can flee the country and leave them in the dark ages if the dont get over themselves.
XML - A clever joke would be here if
I pay taxes and my money is used on stuff that I don't approve of. Do I have a problem with it? Of course not. That's the way how a society works! Sharing and making compromises. "My tax money should not be used on stuff that I don't like" is nothing but self-centered Ayn Rand inspired whining.
Someday, someone will have to explain to me why people who want to hang on to their own money are "self-centered", while people who spend other people's money are "compassionate".
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
I've got some anger built up, so I'm going to vent it. You chose to insult the doctor who developed a useful technique, so I'm going to dissect your insult. No karma bonus, since this is just a rant.
You are obviously not a scientist, at least, not a serious one. Here's why: a real scientist looks at things from multiple perspectives. I suppose you're not dumb, just unaccustomed to thinking things through. For example, in this case, you suggest that seeing moving, working hearts is sufficient to understanding them. This narrow view is a sign of someone who hasn't tried to solve problems him- or herself very often. As other people have mentioned, inspiration comes from various places. If you knew anything about the history of scientific development, you would know that the most abrupt advances in science and technology have almost universally come from looking at a situation in ways that others were not. On of the common situations occurs when a scientist notes that the majority of his or her peers view a problem in a certain way, and seeks an alternate viewpoint simply because the majority might be missing something. Examples of this are Linear B, DNA structure, and interplanetary superhighways. A serious scientist who is humble enough to doubt his or her assumptions will look for alternate viewpoints, even searching for nonsensical connections between concepts, simply because the current assumption is that no such connection exists. Da Vinci's art was meticulous, detailed, and yet stylized. It does not live; it is flat, with the sections delineated. This alternate viewpoint is a valid source of inspiration, and ignoring it merely because of the presence of others is as arrogant and stupid as you make it sound. Pardon me, as U make it sound. I like being precise.
Of course, there's another side to your idiodicy. You are criticizing a scientist for seeking inspiration from a known artist/scientist. A few geniuses stand out, such as da Vinci and Verne. Their speculative designs have been crafted into working apparati for generations. This doctor was trying to improve the lives of those he served, and he looked to a source known to inspire useful devices in the real world from the sketches left from the past. And you want to degrade him for mentioning it. You insult his license, his education, his career, and his family life.
I'm sure you wanted some STFU rebuttals or maybe a simple, "You don't know what you're talking about." You don't. You have no idea what drives someone to understand and improve the world. I won't say that you are a disgrace as a human being, because you may have other qualities. I fear, however, that your lack of insight into science will hamper your "family", when and if you have one, because you may not be able to encourage your children to think for themselves about the scientific method.
I could say that people like you make me weep for the future of our environment, arts, and science, but I know we can get along without you. The truth is that people like you, as you are at the moment, make me sad because I know so many other people who work hard to benefit you in ways that you may not appreciate. I say, "at the moment," because people change. I have faith in the chance for you to help and encourage those around you, even though you have stated that you have none in this man.
Playing pornographics games during the day is evil! Play at night!
Schools should be funded locally, and have local control
In Finland, 95% of schools, colleges & universities are state funded and governed mostly locally. State gives rough guidelines, but individual schools and teachers decide how they teach each subject. Various municipalities vary in wealth, thus ability to fund schooling varies as well. Wealthiness of a municipality does not correlate with the amount of intelligent people living in the area. Thus it makes sense to give all citizens of a nation equal possibilities to schooling, independent from the wealth of the municipality the citizens happen to live in.
This just works. Check the facts
F.A. Hayek claims it is a "Fatal Conceit". People think they are smarter then everyone else and end up under the illusion that they can and should "help" the less intellegent by controlling them. Therefore, anyone who doesn't want to "help" becomes "self-centered".
I'm more pessimistic. People are natuarally selfish, but have been taught that they should not be. Some feel particularly guilty and want to make themselves feel better by "helping" others. Since they don't want to spend their money, they just take someone else's. Deep down they know that this is theft. So, in order to not lose sleep at night, they rationalize the behavior by saying that the people they took it from were "selfish".
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
It's NOT just Texas. The feds (and the states) have an inbuilt bias in favor of THEM having control of the school system. Unfortunately, the more control they get, the worse the schools become. This is because in learning the local needs and goals ARE (not should be!) paramount, and when this is suppressed for any reason, the schools go downhill quite rapidly.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I haven't been a teacher, but I've been a student. A few disruptive students in a class mean that nobody learns much of anything, and the teacher devolves into a mere baby-sitter. (Yes, I know that some teachers only WANT to be baby sitters, but not most of them.)
Also, my wife and mother are or have been teachers, so I'm not totally ignorant of the problems. You are arguing that because this is the situation that you are used to, this is the one that one must accept. I've seen other schools where this wasn't the case. I know the difference.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Have you looked around recently? Education is NEVER equivalent to wisdom, but there are some highly educated folk who confuse the two.
A mechanic who can repair machinery is as worthy of respect, and in a decent society would be shown as much respect, as an orator. You can't be an Engineer without BOTH mechanic skills and academic skills (both math and language), but there's no real requirement that you learn them in any particular order. (Basic arithemetic, however, needs to be learned early, which is why I didn't propose making it one of the electives.)
I'm certain that there are many places where my ideas would need to be fine-tuned...and the only way for this to happen is for different places to try slightly different approaches. In other words, LOCAL CONTROL.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
There's a third explanation and you would never think of it. People are naturally selfish, and some of us are afraid of what could happen to us if we ever were in a position with no money at all, and no means to take care for ourselves.
So we stablish a system in which a part of the money earned by capable people don't belong to them but get into a common fund from which it's given to people who can't earn it. That way, if we are in that position with no money for ourselves, we can take something from the common fund. And thus, while we can earn money, we see paying some of this as just fair. (And since that money doesn't belong to anybody to begin with, it isn't theft at all).
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
First, these arguements deal with more then the earned income tax "credit", the program that does just what the arguement proposes. I find it hard to justify education, farm subsidies, and corporate welfare by that standard. I doubt that the supporters of that arguement seriously suggest that we follow that logic, because aside from said program, no government intervention would be justified. Do they seriously propose getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, HUD, etc.?
Second, there is no such thing as true poverty in the US. The poorest American is still one of the wealthiest people in the world. There wasn't poverty when the modern welfare state was created either; America had wiped it out. Go to a third world country if you want to see poverty.
Third, the "poverty" in the US is localized. The odds of a WASP born into the middle class ending up "poor" are practically nil, but if you are born in a "poor" urban family, the system fucks you. All of this is the direct result of government programs. Everything we know about standard economics predicts this result. If people honestly gave a damn, they could fix it. The truth is that most Americans don't care and are fine abusing others. We only talk about helping people, but when it comes down to taking action, we never do.
Fourth, redistribution provably doesn't work, instead it makes the situation WORSE. Why would people deliberatly frustrate their desires? I suppose "people are stupid" is a valid explaination, but then all one would have to do is show why such a system cannot work. Since there is so much writting to that effect and we still have the system, you end concluding that people are insane and deliberately trying to frustrate their desires. That conclusion doesn't make any sense.
If we wanted, we could eliminate inflation, unemployment, and "poverty". All of the economic science needed exists, but it is ignored because the political leaders and the intellectuals supporting them prefer to play pressure group warfare instead of promoting the best interest of everyone.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Sorry, I think you missed my point. I wasn't equating education to wisdom or anything like it. I was saying that a global perspective is required to manage an economy, and education should be defined by that global perspective. Local decision makers are likely to choose to teach topics that *they* think are relevant for their local economy. When their local economy dies, what happens to their students?
Basically I was objecting to "If the local students are to be taught lies, it should be because the local citizens have decided that that's what they want their children taught. (They will suffer the appropriate consequences...but their folly should not be forced on everyone else.)" by pointing out that poor decisions made on the local level will cause pain for everyone.
At least with a uniform system it is "up for criticism/review" every day by lots of people. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a carefully constructed uniformly implemented system of education. You just have to avoid knee-jerk reactions and pay close attention to teaching outcomes for fine tuning.
Ok. Then what I'm asserting is that people can't trust other people at a distance to choose what's best for their children. The people at a distance don't even *know* their children, and are probably more interested in pushing their own agenda than in doing what's best for a bunch of people they've never met. If you don't believe that, just consider the FEMA's response to the recent disaster...treating it as a "PR disaster" guaranteed that the interests of those needing assistance would not receive any priority. The spinmeister's decision to attempt shifting the blame to the victims was ... let's just say I wouldn't trust those people making decisions affecting the welfare of anyone I had ANY desire to prosper. Their actions were probably a net detriment to the welfare of the people they were supposed to be protecting. (And one token resignation doesn't fix the problem, which goes both higher and lower than the token sacrifice...but it probably will allow him to escape malfeasance charges, even though it shouldn't.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
A republic, now, with a limited government and protected rights, that's another thing. But we've gone a long way from that ideal.
"That's the way society works!"....no, that's the way your society works. There are plenty of other options. Study cultural anthropology sometime. You don't need force to maintain a harmonious society; cultural mores do it quite well, and more cheaply.
Sharing and compromising is great. But I don't get to do a lot of compromising...I vote, my side loses, and the other side does what it wants.