Mens Rea

Keith on a gurney

A good patient

Keith and josh

Ambulance

Kevin "circuit"

Made a Kevin circuit at hands on museum

Faith

No this is not going to be some theological discussion (well, at least not solely on it) but I think that there is a problem with faith in our society. The greatest question I have is, in what? In a little old man in the sky? In a fat, long eared happy man? In a stern bush from a burning tree? Hmmm... I don't think so. But that is just me.

But what about in your fellow man? Surely some people will have faith in others. I know I have in the past. Unfortunatley, the jaded cynic in me has said that there is no point in having faith in someone external to yourself. After all they too are human, and thus falliblle. Would you put faith in a craps table? Of course not. So why do we put faith in our fellow humans who are just as much a game of chance? It is a uniquely human response I suppose. A yearning of wanting to trust, the metaphorical leap of faith. Unfortunately when we rely on someone or something it will only disappoint us. In essense, if we are hoping (a projected positive mind manifestation of the future) that someone will do something for us we are failing to act ourselves. To have 'faith' in them, prevents us from individually doing what we can do ourselves. It is a barrier. Does this mean we should be insulent of others? No. But if we are told we may receive something from someone or something by way of faith (or hope) in them, we should understand it for what it is, merely a random gesture of kindness. It is like predicting where an electron will be. We can only approximate it, we cannot know for certain. Therefore, we must do what is necessary ourselves... NOW. If help or assistance comes along... then wonderful, but do not hope for it. Unrealized hope does more harm than the potential benefits of hope itself. Like everything in life, everything has its opposite and with hope, its opposite is disillusionment. To eschew both means truth faith.

Technorati Tags: Faith, Hope , Religion

Environmentalism

I am anxious to see Al Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth. On my favorite blog, A VC, Fred Wilson has a post that suggests that the essence of Gore's hypothesis is valid, but that his editorializing was unnecessary and that he was a bit melodramatic. I commented that sometimes you have to use melodrama in order to get your point across. Even if some claims are slightly exaggerated, I think that the ensuing dialog that follows is a positive trait. This let another commenter to link to Michael Crichton's essay on the subject. This essay was a prelude to his book, State of Fear. Crichton's essay has been lambasted by the 'liberal' media (please note, I am not referring to mainstream media, but progressive sites like dailykos.com or Air America) as being nothing but a shill for the major Republican players. They cite his Congressional testimony and his assertion that he and Bush agree on most things. While I find that statement alone troubling, this does not negate what Crichton wrote. Crichton's essay is a purist's perspective on the modern marketing of science. With this point, I must agree with him. Science sold out a long time ago. I have long held that science should consider returning to the philosophy department and that medicine should examine the fact that for the better half of the last 150 years it was considered an 'art.' It is. Statistics are in the eye of the beholder and can be manipulated to achieve whatever end result you desire. This phenomenon has been long known, but people fail to properly challenge them. I guess I am a contrarian. Readers of this blog know that I consider myself a liberal, but I do not wear that as a religion. Rather, I believe that liberalism and skepticism are hand-in-hand. The ad hominen attacks on him underscore the goose-step orthodoxy that both political parties succomb to. While his affiliation with radical fringe politicos necessarily causes his motivation to be questioned, the simple fact is his argument that the scientific theory should control- anything else is merely transcendental. Hence, my suggestion that we should consider blending philosophy with science.

Let us examine this issue from the crude and rudimentary: we recognize as sacred the scientific tenant that matter is neither created or destroyed, it merely changes form. Additionally we know that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Lastly, Occam's razor suggestion when all things are equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. My perspective is that as a physician, Crichton is wholly irresponsible to suggest that the anti-smokine crusade was "hype." While the libertarian in mean dislikes governmental intervention and I am aghast at the restriction of smoking in private establishments, I believe its aim was true and pure. While we can disagree with the means to curtail smoking, I would submit that the time has come to definitively accept that smoking is bad for you. Inhaling tar, smoke and other assortment of chemicals is intuitively not a good idea. Those who cried to attorneys claiming that in 1960 they did not know smoking was bad for you should be ashamed of themselves. Just simple empiricism shows us that there was a strong correlation between heart and pulmonary problems and smoking. We knew this in 1920. We were just in collective denial. When the fog of denial lifted, we ran to the 'arbitors' of justice- attorneys who were more than happy to oblige by bringing the tobacco companies to task. To be sure, the tobacco companies SHOULD have been sued for despite the fact that I don't care what people do with their bodies, to purposefully mislead someone to thinking a 'low-tar' cigarette is actually better for you is misleading and false-thus I have no love loss for them.

The reason I bring up the smoking issue is it relates to environmentalism. Simple logic tells us that emitting toxic chemicals will have consequences. While we do not have perfect data to prove the extent of human's impact on the global condition, we can look around us to see that our human behavior has significant impact on our world. Look at Mexico City, look at LA, look at Manila. All polluted. On my first trip to Manila, I wore a white dress shirt. By the end of the day it was a light gray. Can Michael Crichton honestly say with a straight face that such atmospheric pollutants have no environmental impact. Over time, this will over exacerbate. It is not surprising to learn that Crichton is affiliated with a fringe group. With that said, I think that his article is useful to create a dialog and to get people to READ. We do not have all the answers- I just take the position to err on the side of caution rather than increase our total CO2 output because the "verdict is still out."

Technorati Tags: Technology