Bio-babble and K-drama
Mar. 8th, 2006 07:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tarigwaemirLowell House, on the Feast of St. John of God
This week, we were asked to read a classic paper proposing a model of kinetic proofreading as a mechanism for maintaining the high accuracy or specificity of biological processes (like transcription, replication, etc.) that can't be explained with thermodynamics alone. Prof. Fontana began his discussion of this paper in section today with the assertion that error is only an issue you come across in biological phenomena--not really an issue for physical systems. (Quote: "If a meteorite hits a spaceship, it's not really an error; it's a result of the meteorite's trajectory.") He said that the reason why we can speak of "error" in biology is because biological processes have function; functionality in turn is determined by evolution.
It occurred to me that herein may lie one of the reasons why biologists have so much trouble debating evolution and why it's so easy for creationists and ID supporters to distort what scientists have to say on the issue. I mean, if you think about it, evolution is not a particularly radical idea, when compared to relativity or quantum mechanics. Or perhaps that's just my subjective opinion. (Also, I guess the mathematics for physical theories render them more inscrutable to the average layperson.) But biologists speak in terms of function, and as a result their language is easily misinterpreted to have teleological meaning.
But science is not teleological. We deal with mechanisms and causes, not purpose. That's why ID isn't science.
You might argue that in not dealing with "purpose" we are omitting the "why" and limiting ourselves to the "how". The "why" that science asks, though, is not the same "why" as philosophers or theologians. Science poses an inductive "why" based on observations and experiments, not a deductive "why" based on previous principles. It's a wholly different method of looking at the world.
(No, I don't really know what I'm talking about. I haven't read Kuhn or Popper yet, so I'm only babbling here.)
In other news, despite my supposed workload, I've been keeping up with 궁. I'm starting to like Shin after all, although I still think Yul looks prettier (especially since he now has black hair). On the other hand, I'm now convinced Yul is quite insane. -_- I also watched My Girl, which I think is actually better than My Name is Kim Samsoon (heresy though that is) for various reasons that may one day find outlet in another long drama summary post. I would even go so far to say that My Girl is possibly one of the best dramas I've watched in the past year, thanks to its excellent cast and thematic coherence. It seems that 이준기 is riding on a wave of popularity from his role as 서정우 (as well as his performance in 왕의 남자, the hit movie that I really have to watch as soon as it comes out on DVD). Why are the playboy characters always more popular? (I always prefer the brooding, emotionally constipated lead myself.) That being said, speaking on a purely shallow basis, both male characters were equally attractive, and I'm awfully glad that neither of them had dyed hair. (The dyed hair seems to be going out of fashion, slowly but surely. I hope Korean actors will come to their senses and realize that black hair just looks better on them. -_-)
Midterms are hitting me one after another (I had my first one today), so if you see me wasting time on LJ, tell me to stay off the computer for once and do some work. Oh, my endless to-do list! ;_;
Yours &c.
This week, we were asked to read a classic paper proposing a model of kinetic proofreading as a mechanism for maintaining the high accuracy or specificity of biological processes (like transcription, replication, etc.) that can't be explained with thermodynamics alone. Prof. Fontana began his discussion of this paper in section today with the assertion that error is only an issue you come across in biological phenomena--not really an issue for physical systems. (Quote: "If a meteorite hits a spaceship, it's not really an error; it's a result of the meteorite's trajectory.") He said that the reason why we can speak of "error" in biology is because biological processes have function; functionality in turn is determined by evolution.
It occurred to me that herein may lie one of the reasons why biologists have so much trouble debating evolution and why it's so easy for creationists and ID supporters to distort what scientists have to say on the issue. I mean, if you think about it, evolution is not a particularly radical idea, when compared to relativity or quantum mechanics. Or perhaps that's just my subjective opinion. (Also, I guess the mathematics for physical theories render them more inscrutable to the average layperson.) But biologists speak in terms of function, and as a result their language is easily misinterpreted to have teleological meaning.
But science is not teleological. We deal with mechanisms and causes, not purpose. That's why ID isn't science.
You might argue that in not dealing with "purpose" we are omitting the "why" and limiting ourselves to the "how". The "why" that science asks, though, is not the same "why" as philosophers or theologians. Science poses an inductive "why" based on observations and experiments, not a deductive "why" based on previous principles. It's a wholly different method of looking at the world.
(No, I don't really know what I'm talking about. I haven't read Kuhn or Popper yet, so I'm only babbling here.)
In other news, despite my supposed workload, I've been keeping up with 궁. I'm starting to like Shin after all, although I still think Yul looks prettier (especially since he now has black hair). On the other hand, I'm now convinced Yul is quite insane. -_- I also watched My Girl, which I think is actually better than My Name is Kim Samsoon (heresy though that is) for various reasons that may one day find outlet in another long drama summary post. I would even go so far to say that My Girl is possibly one of the best dramas I've watched in the past year, thanks to its excellent cast and thematic coherence. It seems that 이준기 is riding on a wave of popularity from his role as 서정우 (as well as his performance in 왕의 남자, the hit movie that I really have to watch as soon as it comes out on DVD). Why are the playboy characters always more popular? (I always prefer the brooding, emotionally constipated lead myself.) That being said, speaking on a purely shallow basis, both male characters were equally attractive, and I'm awfully glad that neither of them had dyed hair. (The dyed hair seems to be going out of fashion, slowly but surely. I hope Korean actors will come to their senses and realize that black hair just looks better on them. -_-)
Midterms are hitting me one after another (I had my first one today), so if you see me wasting time on LJ, tell me to stay off the computer for once and do some work. Oh, my endless to-do list! ;_;
Yours &c.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-09 02:22 am (UTC)Having grown up in California, where people have this strange idea that blonde = hawtness no matter what, I have seen a great many crimes against hair. Nothing makes me sadder that seeing all those Asian and Hispanic girls with sleek, shiney black hair that is to die for bleaching the crap out of it. That's a big no-no for me. I was relieved when I recently read an article (http://web-japan.org/trends/fashion/fas060130.html) about natural-black coming back into style in Japan. Yay!
About ID, I have to agree with you (Wetheril, another science-minded person, made a similar post like this). Besides, ID is made-up bullshit for political purposes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_document) anyway. I remember reading a quote by a scientist during one of the ID trials about how a child should not be forced to choose between science and God. That, in itself, is a good reason not to teach ID in schools. But this is a topic that really gets under my skin, so I'll stop now...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-10 02:30 am (UTC)ID is a topic that I have a hard time remaining calm about as well. >_< And yet, it gains in popularity, even among people who seem rational and well-educated. It just points out the huge PR problem on the part of the scientific community, and something needs to be done about it, although I'm not sure what. -_-;;
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-09 02:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-10 02:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-09 05:07 am (UTC)mkay, speaking of korean dramas, do you know how i could get my hands on that harvard drama...but like, subtitled? also, i think i remember you saying you'd seen it...whatcha think?
:D
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-10 02:50 am (UTC)