Isegoria

In Scientific Method v Fundamentalism, Umberto Eco distinguishes science from the ideology of progress (and from religious fundamentalism) — and he starts with this seemingly trivial anecdote:

Recently I read in the papers that the celebrated scientist Stephen Hawking has made a statement that is sensational, to say the least. He maintains that he made an error in his theory of black holes (published back in the 70s) and proposed the necessary corrections before an audience of fellow scientists.

For those involved in the sciences there is nothing exceptional about this, apart from Hawking’s exceptional standing, but I feel that the episode should be brought to the attention of young people in every nonfundamentalist or nonconfessional school so that they may reflect upon the principles of modern science.

Science is about falsifying hypotheses:

Modern science does not hold that what is new is always right. On the contrary, it is based on the principle of “fallibilism” (enunciated by the American philosopher Charles Peirce, elaborated upon by Popper and many other theorists, and put into practice by scientists themselves) according to which science progresses by continually correcting itself, falsifying its hypotheses by trial and error, admitting its own mistakes — and by considering that an experiment that doesn’t work out is not a failure but is worth as much as a successful one because it proves that a certain line of research was mistaken and it is necessary either to change direction or even to start over from scratch.

Fundamentalism is about received wisdom:

According to these people, all that there is to understand has already been understood by long-vanished ancient civilisations and it is only by humbly returning to that traditional and immutable treasure that we may reconcile ourselves with ourselves and with our destiny.

In the most overtly occultist versions of this school of thought, the truth was cultivated by civilisations we have lost touch with: Atlantis engulfed by the ocean, the Hyperboreans, 100% pure Aryans who lived on an eternally temperate polar icecap, the sages of ancient India and other amusing yarns that, being indemonstrable, allow third-rate philosophers and writers of potboilers to keep on churning out warmed-over versions of the same old hermetic hogwash for the amusement of summer vacationers.

Eco sees modern science as the “philosophy” that should be taught in schools.

Humans Have Been Polygamous For Most Of History, FuturePundit notes, citing Genes expose secrets of sex on the side:

Men and women differed in their participation in reproduction, the researchers report. More men than women get squeezed out of the mating game. As a result, twice as many women as men passed their genes to the next generation.

‘It is a pattern that’s built up over time. The norm through human evolution is for more women to have children than men,’ said Jason Wilder, a postdoctoral fellow in UA’s Arizona Research Laboratories and lead author on the research articles. ‘There are men around who aren’t able to have children, because they are being outcompeted by more successful males.’

Co-author Michael Hammer, a research scientist in UA’s Arizona Research Laboratories, said, ‘We may think of ourselves as a monogamous species, but we’re coming from an evolutionary history that’s probably slightly polygamous. If we’re shifting toward monogamy, it’s so recent it hasn’t left an imprint on our genome.’

Or the same reproductive behavior is continuing, but in a culturally accepted fashion, Wilder said. ‘The modern version that we generally don’t find offensive is that men tend to remarry and have more children much more often than women do.’

Since I just finished reading Under the Banner of Heaven (about early Mormon history and modern fundamentalist Mormons), and I’m currently reading about the Mongols, I find this remarkably apropos.

The famously spicy sushi condiment only makes your sinuses feel clear. From Think Wasabi Clears Your Sinuses? Think Again:

U.S. researchers found that eating wasabi appeared to increase congestion in a small group of healthy volunteers, despite the fact that participants said they thought that the spice had cleared their nasal passages.

‘Actually, wasabi is a congestant,’ study author Dr. David S. Cameron told Reuters Health. ‘It makes the space of your nasal passages smaller, but it makes you feel more open.’

Cameron explained that wasabi probably clogs up sinuses by increasing blood flow to the lining of the nose. That extra blood takes up space, he said, which constricts the nasal passageway.

Wasabi may make the nose feel more open, Cameron noted, by causing changes that increase the cooling effect of air breathed through the nose, or by stimulating flaring of the nostrils, which enables air to flow more easily though the nose.

Wasabi does have some legimate uses though:

While wasabi may not work as a decongestant, previous research has suggested that it is not without other health benefits. For instance, lab research shows that wasabi may inhibit the growth of cancer cells in test tubes, prevent platelets from forming blood clots, and may even fight asthma or cavities. And, appropriately for a condiment used to season raw fish, wasabi has antimicrobial properties.