Welp. I slept about two hours. Apparently drinking too much and being stressed out and constantly calculating how little sleep you’re going to get are not parts of proper sleep technique.
Tipsy pec-flexing. This turned out more disturbing than I expected…
Not having a great day, but this Lenten seafood stew (shrimp, squid, scallops) I made is the highlight.
No matter what, I’m going to be up very late grading papers today. I’m stressed out. And I still have to do the dishes, do grocery shopping, and make dinner. And yet I am having a hard time just sitting down and getting to work…
Also, found out I’m going to be TA-ing a course next quarter on the philosophy of friendship. Which sounds pretty cool. And a little depressing. Since I don’t really have real friends……..
Unfortunately, I have to retract my earlier statement about the new Cosmos. I just watched it and, while I loved the scientific bits of it (and eagerly look forward to watching the rest), the story of Giordano Bruno was a bit deceptive in what I think is an objectionable way.
I don’t want to rant too much, so I’ll just state some of the facts very briefly, and hope that you can see how someone might find the segment misleading:
More could be said, but in light of all that, the main question is “Why?” What was the main point of the segment? Bruno did not possess or try to spread any of the “scientific virtues” that Tyson mentions at the beginning of the show (except, perhaps “question authority”). There are other examples of people, even Catholics, who believed the same thing and were better scholars and scientists (cf. Nicholas of Cusa mentioned above). Why not focus on them? It seems a little bit too much to me like the reason was that they wanted a story that they could use to depict organized religion in a negative light, as an enemy of science.
It may be that the point of the story was just a general warning about freedom of thought or something. In that case, what bothers me most is just how much of a wasted opportunity it was. Whatever the intention, the effect was to set up “scientific thought” against “religion”. Except that, as I tried to show, Bruno’s thought was religious and not scientific, so it can’t even demonstrate that. (And, of course, there is no real contradiction between these two.) Why not, instead, focus on one of the many, many actual scientists who worked within (and saw no problems in working within) a religious intellectual context? Other commentators actually saw the segment as an attempt to show that religious thought and scientific thought need not be in conflict. If so, it was rather poorly done.
3/11/14 - Squat Volume
Weight: 204.6 lbs
Leg Extension: 100x10x2
Notes: Short and sweet. Have a marathon grading session to get to (ugh). Bodyweight not coming down as quick as I’d like, but belt is definitely getting looser.
I haven’t seen this… where can I watch?
You didn’t hear it from me, but I hear that couch tuner is a good place for all your TV watching needs.
Haven’t seen it yet, but I’ll let you know. I’m not Roman Catholic, but I know there are a lot of myths out there about it’s relationship with science, and it’d be a shame if Neil deGrasse Tyson perpetuates any of them. But so far, I’ve only heard good things about it, including from Catholics.