*blink blink*

this book blink, and its contrasting of rational thought vs. adaptive unconscious reminds me of the whole science vs. religion thing. although i haven't read the whole book yet, if the introduction can be believed frequently "thinking without thinking" can produce more accurate results than thinking.

huh?

yeah!

in one of his initial examples he talks about how the Getty Museum spent $10MM on a statue after having fourteen months of extensive expert and scientific testing done to determine its authenticity. except when they showed it to art historians, they took one look at it and instantly said: fake.

how did they know it was fake? they couldn't say. they just knew. it felt wrong.

so does/can intuitive thought trump rational thought? it sure seems like gladwell is proposing "sometimes" as an answer. if that's the case, then what does that do to our whole religion vs. science debate? especially when taken with Townes' assertion in his paper that both scientific thought and religious thought will converge despite apparant paradox.

for as quantum mechanics allows light to be paradoxically both a particle and a wave, perhaps a deeper level of understanding will allow us to integrate science and religion.

*blink blink*

(please pause for a chicken-dance interlude)

still with me?

there are the things we think about and prove true. there are the things we do not think about and know to be true. can they both be true at once?

i think so.

it seems to me that where it breaks down is when people become intractable. not just the faithful, but scientists as well. if gladwell is correct and we need to give more credence to what we feel, then perhaps scientists must also admit that the unproven and even the unprovable are also due credence.

now, is there a difference between the unprovable and faith? i think definitely so. i think there is a clear and important difference in between believing something to be so because your adaptive unconscious suggests so and in believing in something because you were raised to believe, or indoctrinated.

this is why i believe in god, but not in the "word of god." this is why i think those of you who believe strongly in the power of science should also accept the limitations of science. and those of you who hold a strong faith should be strong enough to break it open and suck out the marrow.

boy. it sure is hot in here.

i'm thinking about quitting my job sometime this summer. because i don't like working. my adaptive unconscious suggests i'd be happier eating ice cream by a pool.

this has been a philosophy-heavy blog lately, huh?

who'd rather hear about the time i shit my pants?

unless we do have some Nobel Prize winners reading. in which case i'll talk about the time i soiled my dungarees.