timber wrote-
Quote:spendius wrote:
It entertains people thinking that they understand things.I think it boosts their egos or something.It gives them a warm glow of self satisfaction.
I suppose it would seem that way to folks incapable of, or at least disinterested in, actually thinking about and understanding things.
Are you suggesting there timber that readers of the article do understand it in any meaningful way and that it is remiss of me to think otherwise.
In this-
Quote:. They focused on a gene that makes a protein involved in memory and perception. Although the protein is exactly the same in human and chimpanzee brains, the team found that humans have evolved minute genetic changes that cause brain cells to make, or "express," more of the crucial protein, perhaps helping the human brain to work better.
I rather incline to the view that 99.9% of the population could not be satisfactorily examined on the meaning of "gene","protein","memory","perception", or even of "focussed".
The text speaks of the protein as being "exactly the same" and then goes on to point to a "crucial"difference in humans which "perhaps" (i.e. might not) helps the human brain to work better.Whatever "work better" might mean.
What you have is "pop" science as you also often see on certain types of programmes on television.One last night I saw snatches of talked about a "big bang" taking place from nothing and in nothing 13.7 billion years ago and a whole mish-mash of other such incredibly over-simplified nonsense involving multiple universes etc,time going backwards at different rates and so on and so forth.
Are you trying to say timber that this type of thing is anything other than entertainment.It obviously is just that and those who are interested in focussing on understanding things will justifiably speculate on why it is entertaining and the idea that it is because it flatters the viewers or readers self perceptions will obviously be one of the first things to come under consideration on the basis of the Pavlovian and Freudian concept of the "pleasure principle" and the mythological idea of "narcissism".
It does not bode well for science that an "Essdeeoid" finds my statement objectionable.
If the article in question does have a purpose I would guess it is to soften up the public to accept and fund research into areas which some people find potentially fearsome by talking up the benefits,which are fundamentally inexplicable from an evolutionary point of view,whilst remaining silent about the potential dangers.
Whatever-it was meaningless from a scientifically focussed person's position in 2006.
