...it's a cold day in hell when a scientist finds himself with funding for the pursuit of whimsical what-ifs.
I am yet another practicing scientist and most assuredly find the philosophy of science interesting. I realize a single profession of interest does not make for a good opposing argument and if my kind is really such a minority, perhaps we should question our scientific integrity. However, I do wonder about where you draw the line between useful and pointless inquiry. While direct observation is the only means of validating theory, theorizing before means of observation are available is not a useless endeavor. I doubt anyone would elect to construct a gravitational wave detector or particle accelerator just for shits and giggles.
... between precision and humanity would be feasible.
An analogous study comes to mind. To estimate to what degree sexuality is determined by nature as opposed to nurture, Simon LeVay identified through experiment a segment of the primate brain that influences sexual behaviour (to read about monkeys with intimacy issues and find a rather arbitrary image of Homer Simpson's head, go to http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~kripston/homosexual ity/Biological.html. The page on the genetic study of homosexuality found at the bottom may also be of interest).
Various studies found the size of the anterior hypothalamus in male homosexuals and female heterosexuals to be smaller than that of male heterosexuals'. The conditions of upbringing prove significant as well. If one identical twin is homosexual, there is roughly a 52% chance the other is also gay, a far cry from a 1 to 1 correlation, even after allowing a generous amount of room for error due to other factors.
Did I have a point? Oh yes, I remember. By analyzing the similarities of boy and girl scientists' gray matter, we might hope to find some common ground that differs from the shared characteristics of boy and girl hairdressers'. If we could then track down a good number of identical twins with respectively unique academic interests and upbringings, we could begin to make assumptions about the effect the latter (nurture) has on the former (aptitude and interest in various topics).
"...Uh... but how does that help? That's the same experiment Rich0 just described, except yours will be far less precise as you are relying on the subjects' subjective descriptions of their childhoods whereas the subjects in the first study are 'prepared' and documented in a laboratory setting,"
This is true! I have quite unabashedly wasted time, both yours and mine, for the modest qualifications I made to the previous comment, but such qualifications ought to reduce the total number of psychopaths and/or lawsuits resulting from the study, and I could think of no more entertaining thing to occupy myself with past 4 AM. We will also be able to walk away knowing a little bit more about biology, assuming we were in fact able to isolate the regions of the brain that are responsible for this development. If not.. well.. we may proceed with the forced breeding. For science!
Slashdot Mirror
...it's a cold day in hell when a scientist finds himself with funding for the pursuit of whimsical what-ifs.
I am yet another practicing scientist and most assuredly find the philosophy of science interesting. I realize a single profession of interest does not make for a good opposing argument and if my kind is really such a minority, perhaps we should question our scientific integrity. However, I do wonder about where you draw the line between useful and pointless inquiry. While direct observation is the only means of validating theory, theorizing before means of observation are available is not a useless endeavor. I doubt anyone would elect to construct a gravitational wave detector or particle accelerator just for shits and giggles.
... between precision and humanity would be feasible.
l ity/Biological.html. The page on the genetic study of homosexuality found at the bottom may also be of interest).
An analogous study comes to mind. To estimate to what degree sexuality is determined by nature as opposed to nurture, Simon LeVay identified through experiment a segment of the primate brain that influences sexual behaviour (to read about monkeys with intimacy issues and find a rather arbitrary image of Homer Simpson's head, go to http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~kripston/homosexua
Various studies found the size of the anterior hypothalamus in male homosexuals and female heterosexuals to be smaller than that of male heterosexuals'. The conditions of upbringing prove significant as well. If one identical twin is homosexual, there is roughly a 52% chance the other is also gay, a far cry from a 1 to 1 correlation, even after allowing a generous amount of room for error due to other factors.
Did I have a point?
Oh yes, I remember. By analyzing the similarities of boy and girl scientists' gray matter, we might hope to find some common ground that differs from the shared characteristics of boy and girl hairdressers'. If we could then track down a good number of identical twins with respectively unique academic interests and upbringings, we could begin to make assumptions about the effect the latter (nurture) has on the former (aptitude and interest in various topics).
"...Uh... but how does that help? That's the same experiment Rich0 just described, except yours will be far less precise as you are relying on the subjects' subjective descriptions of their childhoods whereas the subjects in the first study are 'prepared' and documented in a laboratory setting,"
This is true! I have quite unabashedly wasted time, both yours and mine, for the modest qualifications I made to the previous comment, but such qualifications ought to reduce the total number of psychopaths and/or lawsuits resulting from the study, and I could think of no more entertaining thing to occupy myself with past 4 AM. We will also be able to walk away knowing a little bit more about biology, assuming we were in fact able to isolate the regions of the brain that are responsible for this development. If not.. well.. we may proceed with the forced breeding. For science!