No subscription or hidden extras
Read through the most famous quotes by topic #science
If there are still honest-smart men and women within those old and noble traditions, they should think carefully, observe and diagnose the illness. They should face the contradiction. Discuss the conflation. And then do as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and many others have done. Choose the miracle of creative competition over an idolatry of cash. They should stand up.. ↗
In the statistical gargon used in psychology, p refers to the probability that the difference you see between two groups (of introverts and extroverts, say, or males and females) could have occurred by chance. As a general rule, psychologists report a difference between two groups as 'significant' if the probability that it could have occurred by chance is 1 in 20, or less. The possibility of getting significant results by chance is a problem in any area of research, but it's particularly acute for sex differences research. Supppose, for example, you're a neuroscientist interested in what parts of the brain are involved in mind reading. You get fifteen participants into a scanner and ask them to guess the emotion of people in photographs. Since you have both males and females in your group, you rin a quick check to ensure that the two groups' brains respond in the same way. They do. What do you do next? Most likely, you publish your results without mentioning gender at all in your report (except to note the number of male and female participants). What you don't do is publish your findings with the title "No Sex Differences in Neural Circuitry Involved in Understanding Others' Minds." This is perfectly reasonable. After all, you weren't looking for gender difference and there were only small numbers of each sex in your study. But remember that even if males and females, overall, respond the same way on a task, five percent of studies investigating this question will throw up a "significant" difference between the sexes by chance. As Hines has explained, sex is "easily assessed, routinely evaluated, and not always reported. Because it is more interesting to find a difference than to find no difference, the 19 failures to observe a difference between men and women go unreported, whereas the 1 in 20 finding of a difference is likely to be published." This contributes to the so-called file-drawer phenomenon, whereby studies that do find sex differences get published, but those that don't languish unpublished and unseen in a researcher's file drawer. ↗
When asked whether or not we are Marxists, our position is the same as that of a physicist, when asked if he is a “Newtonian” or of a biologist when asked if he is a “Pasteurian.” There are truths so evident, so much a part of the peoples’ knowledge, that it is now useless to debate them. One should be a “Marxist” with the same naturalness with which one is a “Newtonian” in physics or a “Pasteurian.” If new facts bring about new concepts, the latter will never take away that portion of truth possessed by those that have come before. Such is the case, for example, of “Einsteinian” relativity or of Planck’s quantum theory in relation to Newton’s discoveries. They take absolutely nothing away from the greatness of the learned Englishman. Thanks to Newton, physics was able to advance until it achieved new concepts of space. The learned Englishman was the necessary stepping-stone for that. Obviously, one can point to certain mistakes of Marx, as a thinker and as an investigator of the social doctrines and of the capitalist system in which he lived. We Latin Americans, for example, cannot agree with his interpretation of Bolivar, or with his and Engels’ analysis of the Mexicans, which accepted as fact certain theories of race or nationality that are unacceptable today. But the great men who discover brilliant truths live on despite their small faults and these faults serve only to show us they were human. That is to say, they were human beings who could make mistakes, even given the high level of consciousness achieved by these giants of human thought. This is why we recognize the essential truths of Marxism as part of humanity’s body of cultural and scientific knowledge. We accept it with the naturalness of something that requires no further argument. ↗
The world of things entered your infant mind To populate that crystal cabinet. Within its walls the strangest partners met, And things turned thoughts did propagate their kind. For, once within, corporeal fact could find A spirit. Fact and you in mutual debt Built there your little microcosm - which yet Had hugest tasks to its small self assigned. Dead men can live there, and converse with stars: Equator speaks with pole, and night with day; Spirit dissolves the world's material bars - A million isolations burn away. The Universe can live and work and plan, At last made God within the mind of man. ↗
#men
الإيمان مصدر لسعادة لا ينضب في حياة كثير من البشر. أما المشتغلون بالعلوم الذين يرجون الله فلديهم متعة كبرى يحصلون عليها كلما وصلوا إلى كشف جديد في ميدان من الميادين، إذ أن كل كشف جديد يدعم إيمانهم بالله، ويزيد من إدراكهم وإبصارهم لأيادي الله في هذا الكون. "بل هو آيات بينات في صدور الذين أوتوا العلم وما يجحد بآياتنا إلا الظالمون" العنكبوت٤٩ ↗
Now from science we have a new creation story, which is very alluring and very exciting. It's not about deposing all the other wisdom stories about creation that humanity has gathered, but it certainly supplements it. It offers a real universal view because it's beyond any particular religion, ethnicity, nation and so forth. As we're struggling as a species to come together as a tribe, it provides us our basic framework, because it's from creation stories that ethics derive. Today's creation story from science is that we come from 14 billion years of an organic unfolding of the universe and are connected physiologically with every being in the universe. We all share the same atoms and the same molecules. That's truly significant and important at this time in history. We're all kin, we're all interdependent. And that's the basis of compassion, which was Jesus's ultimate teaching. ↗
هناك علاقة طردية بين تصور بعينه للدين وبين حجم القوة التي يوفرها للقائمين علي توظيفه سياسياً؛ وأعني أنه كلما كان الدين حرفياً وقطعياً يكون مقدار القوة التي يقدمها لهؤلاء الساعين إلي التخفي وراءه أكبر- بما لا يقاس- من تلك التي يوفرها لهم حين يكون موضوعاً لتفكير مفتوح. ويرتبط ذلك بحقيقة أن قطعية الدين وحرفيته تكون هي الأكثر مثالية في إخضاع الجمهور وقهره؛ وأعني من حيث لا يكون متاحاً له، في إطارها، إلا محض التسليم والامتثال من دون جدل أو سؤال. وإذ يقوم دعاة الإسلام السياسي بتثبيت هذا التصور القطعي للدين علي أحد المفاهيم الشائعة المستقرة في وعي الجمهور؛ وهو مفهوم القطعي الثبوت والدلالة، فإنه يلزم التنويه بما يقوم عليه هذا المفهوم من مراوغة تسوية قطعية الثبوت مع قطعية الدلالة، وذلك فيما ينتمي الثبوت إلي مجال التاريخ الذي يغاير بالكلية مجال المعني الذي تنتمي إليه الدلالة. وبالطبع فإنه لا يمكن التسوية أبداً بين ما ينتمي إلي مجال الثبوت التاريخي، وبين ما ينتمي إلي مجال المعني الدلالي؛ وبمعني أنه في حين أن أحدا لا يجادل في يقينية ثبوت القرآن؛ وبما يعنيه ذلك من إمكان- بل وجوب- التأكيد علي قطعية ثبوته، فإنه لا يمكن القول بقطعية دلالته ومعناه، لأن ذلك يعني وجوب القول بأحادية الدلالة والمعني؛ وهو ما لا يمكن لمسلم أن يقبله بخصوص القرآن. ↗
أسرت النسبية العامة معظم من درسوها برشاقتها الجميلة. فقد قام آينشتاين بإحلال وجهة نظر نيوتن الميكانيكية الجافة عن الفضاء والزمان والجاذبية بوصف هندسي ديناميكي يتضمن الزمان المحدب. وقد غزل آينشتاين الجاذبية في النسيج الأساسي للعالم، وبدلا من فرض الجاذبية كبنية إضافية، فقد أصبحت جزءا من العالم في أكثر مستوياته الأساسية، وقد نتج من بعث الحياة في الفضاء والزمان أن سمحنا لهما بأن يتحدبا ويعوجا ويتموجا، ما أصبحنا نشير إليه بصورة عامة باسم الجاذبية ↗
Pick up a pinecone and count the spiral rows of scales. You may find eight spirals winding up to the left and 13 spirals winding up to the right, or 13 left and 21 right spirals, or other pairs of numbers. The striking fact is that these pairs of numbers are adjacent numbers in the famous Fibonacci series: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21... Here, each term is the sum of the previous two terms. The phenomenon is well known and called phyllotaxis. Many are the efforts of biologists to understand why pinecones, sunflowers, and many other plants exhibit this remarkable pattern. Organisms do the strangest things, but all these odd things need not reflect selection or historical accident. Some of the best efforts to understand phyllotaxis appeal to a form of self-organization. Paul Green, at Stanford, has argued persuasively that the Fibonacci series is just what one would expects as the simplest self-repeating pattern that can be generated by the particular growth processes in the growing tips of the tissues that form sunflowers, pinecones, and so forth. Like a snowflake and its sixfold symmetry, the pinecone and its phyllotaxis may be part of order for free ↗
