Here are two recent headlines that made the front page of major news outlets:
– The Week
– Daily Mail
Wow! Amazing! What wonderful news!
Maybe not. This “great” news reveals a fundamental problem with the state of medical research: we’re treating symptoms instead of the problem.
An Automobile Analogy
Let’s say your car is making weird noises — whirrs, clicks, bangs, and wheezes that just don’t sound normal. You’re not a “car guy,” so you take it to a mechanic. You explain what the symptoms are (with sound effects) as best you can. He opens the hood, takes a few minutes to look it over and then asks, “When’s the last time the oil was changed?”
You try to recall the last visit to the local lube shop, but come up blank. “I don’t know,” you reply, “It’s been awhile. Why do you ask?”
After checking the odometer and the sticker on the windshield, the mechanic calmly explains, “Well, it looks like your last oil change was about 15,000 miles ago. The manufacturer suggests changing the oil every 3 to 5 thousand miles. I think we’re probably looking at rebuilding the engine, which is gonna take some time. That’s not going to be cheap.”
Not willing to admit to a tragic mistake, nor pay a huge bill, you shoot back, “Look, I’m not here to be told how to maintain my vehicle, I just want you to make the funny noises go away!”
“But… you see… I can’t just…” he stammers.
“Make the sounds go away!” you demand.
The mechanic, needing to feed his family, devises a devious plan. “OK. We can do that,” he promises. “We have a new product that will make it so you never hear another funny noise again!” Instead of rebuilding the engine, he installs special acoustic insulation that blocks all outside noise to the inside of the car. He claims, “With this new fix, you won’t hear a thing!”
Satisfied with his solution, you drive away happy, but deceived that your broken car is fixed. A month later your engine completely seizes up and dies. Bringing an end to your car and this analogy.
What’s the bare minimum to get it running again? (Image source: stock.xchng)
How This Relates to Medicine & Health
Sadly, this is how we often approach our bodies. We expect medicine to quickly fix what we’ve been breaking over a lifetime. We don’t want to be told that our methods of living are wrong. We want to take a pill and continue uninterrupted on the course we’ve been heading. We want a magic Band-aid instead of a real cure.
So, medical research and treatments often focus on alleviating symptoms rather than curing fundamental problems, because that’s what we want. We may use drug regimens, liposuction, and cosmetic cover-ups to make the symptoms go away, but we have ignored why those symptoms are happening in the first place.
This is foolish.
Attack the root
Symptoms are indicators that something bigger (and probably worse) is going on. Acne and obesity are merely warning signs. We can take down the warning signs, but that doesn’t get rid of the danger. No matter how many coats of paint we put on the outside, the inside is still rotting away. I hope that we eventually wake up and learn to recognize what is really happening. Let’s start attacking the root of the problems we experience, not just the symptoms.
The heart, the heart,— there was the little yet boundless sphere wherein existed the original wrong of which the crime and misery of this outward world were merely types. Purify that inward sphere, and the many shapes of evil that haunt the outward, and which now seem almost our only realities, will turn to shadowy phantoms and vanish of their own accord…
– Nathaniel Hawthorne, “Earth’s Holocaust,” Mosses from an Old Manse
After returning from the supermarket with a load of super foods late one night (which is the perfect time to go grocery shopping), my appetite was… “heightened.” So, I decided to make a little snack using the ingredients I had just purchased. I quickly chopped up some stuff and threw it in a bowl. Honestly, I wasn’t expecting much because I didn’t give this concoction much thought, but I knew I had discovered something after that first bite. This recipe kind of feels like a home run – or maybe even a grand slam. It’s easy, fast, delicious, and healthy. You can’t ask for much more than that.
Ingredients
6-8 campari tomatoes – quartered
1 (12 oz.) jar marinated artichoke hearts – quartered
1/2 C. flat leaf parsley – roughly chopped
3 cloves garlic – crushed or finely minced
1 T. dry or fresh oregano
1 lemon – zested and juiced
1 T. olive oil
sea salt & fresh cracked black pepper (to taste)
Directions
In a large bowl, zest and juice the lemon over the garlic and oregano to kick start the marinating process. Pour the liquid from the artichokes in the bowl. Quarter the tomatoes and artichokes into similar size pieces and chop the parsley. Dress with some good olive oil and a little salt & pepper. Stir to combine. Allow the magic to marinate for as long as you can stand. Usually I can only wait about 10 minutes, but if you have patience you can prepare this recipe day ahead of time.
‘Bout how big would ya say that is? (Image via stock.xchg)
There doesn’t seem to be definitive consensus on the matter of the proper way to use the terms height (H), width (W), depth (D), and length (L) when describing the dimensions of things. Usually we are left to sort out which dimension each term is describing on a per object basis. This is stupid.
A Real World Problem
I need cases for my studio monitors. Touring is not very friendly to delicate reference speakers, so proper cases are kind of important. Since the manufacturer of these particular monitors does not make cases, I had to look to other manufacturers for appropriately sized cases. In the specifications for the monitors the manufacturer lists their product in H x W X D dimensions. That’s fine, but one case manufacturer lists their product in H x L x W. Another manufacturer lists their cases in H x L x D. That makes immediate identification of a properly sized case a bit difficult. The fact that some manufacturers list their products in imperial measures while others use the metric system complicates things too, but I’ll save that for another day.
Isn’t it funny that we don’t have standardized language for something as common as measuring the size of things? To be clear, this isn’t necessarily a science problem, but a linguistic problem. Science has created a variety of coordinate systems to make sure we send rockets in the right direction, but for every day use we don’t have a standard system of common words. I love the English language, but it is rife with deficiencies. Don’t get me started on the lack of a “grammatically correct” gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. Grammarians, if you’re reading this, stop complaining about the misuse of “they” and SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
Back to dimensions.
A Plan of Action
In most cases, an object’s dimensions can be described using Cartesian, cylindrical, or spherical coordinate systems with words we already know and love. If an object is roughly box–shaped, orient the object so you’re looking directly at it’s forward-facing orientation and describe it as if you’re looking at it from the “front.” This means you’ll have to determine which side is the front. Most things have one. If your object doesn’t, then it’s probably not useful and should be recycled. (Kidding.) For example, studio monitors are useful because their front side houses speakers which emit sound.
H x W x D
Using Height, Width, and Depth (in that order), make your measurements. Roughly 3 out of 4 objects in this world can be described this way.
Width = X-axis (left to right) derived from wide
Height* = Y-axis (bottom to top) derived from high
Depth = Z-axis (front to back) derived from deep
H x W x L
If an object is really long in one dimension but still boxy (e.g. lumber, french fries), use Length (L) instead of Depth. The word “length” comes from the word “long.”
Length = the long side of an object
D/R/C x L
If an object is long but round instead of boxy (e.g. guitar cable, baseball bat, spaghetti), use Diameter (D), Radius (R), or Circumference (C) (usually in that order of preference) and Length. If it’s something like a drinking glass or flag pole, use H x D/R/C.
Diameter = the width of the widest distance across a circle
Radius = distance from the center to the edge of a circle
Circumference = the length of the edge of a circle if it was stretched out into a straight line
The Ball Method
If an object doesn’t have any boxy sides and is mostly round like a ball, use the Ball Method. Describe your object by choose a ball that’s roughly the same size. Hail and cancer are the most common things to be measured this way, but it’s used for all sorts of things. They are good because they are self-explanatory. Here are some of the most common sizes. Pick one.
The tip of a ballpoint pen
A pencil eraser
No bigger than the tip of your pinky finger
A golf ball
A baseball
A softball
A basketball
A watermelon
A medicine ball
One of those cages they do motorcycle stunts in
The shiny silver thing in Chicago that looks like the ship from Flight of the Navigator
That space ball ride at Epcot
The Moon
Your mom
Now for the sake of progress, can we all agree on this and get back to doing whatever it was we were doing before we had to sort this out? Good. Glad we worked through it.
* The Word Nazis tell us that the word ‘height’ doesn’t have a -th on the end of it, but it should, if we follow logical convention. Can we at least downgrade it from grammatical sin? From now on, if you say, “heighth,” I say, “How high?”
It’s an interesting concept. The wars between analog and digital rage on because they are systems separated by technologies that both have pros and cons. As technology progresses, what new pros and cons will we have to debate against older systems? Initially I answered with the following:
Realizing there’s much more to this debate than just a tweet, I thought I’d talk more about it here.
We Need Better Words to Describe How We’ll Make Music in the Future
In my original tweet, I used the phrase “Cerebral vs. Digital” to describe the future debate I imagine will happen. Maybe my choice of opposites wasn’t perfect. Better words can probably be found. This concept of diametrics I have in mind could be expressed in a variety of ways.
Cerebral vs. Physical
Solitary vs. Collaborative
Internal vs. External
Each of those word combinations is describing the same contrast of ideas. But how to best describe it?
In the (maybe not so distant) future, musicians will have the ability to directly output music from their heads. Technology will be developed that will allow artists to simply think/imagine/hear the music in his/her head and output this as audio and/or notation. This cerebrally generated “audio feed” could be routed (maybe even wirelessly) to a recording device to be documented, distributed, and sold. Theoretically, this process could happen as a live performance. The signal could be routed to a sound system for a concert, to an internet connection for worldwide streaming, or even directly injected (almost telepathically) into the head of a “listener” outfitted with the proper “receiver” device.
The possibilities are fantastic. Composers could direct an entire imaginary orchestra as they hear it in their minds. Dancers could dance to their own music in real time. Musicians could play exactly what they intend to play. Singers could sing in whatever voices they can imagine. Handicapped artists suddenly would be unrestricted by their handicaps.
This technological breakthrough in music will follow a path familiar to video games. With the Wii, Nintendo brought wireless motion-sensing accelerometer action to everyday people. The developers of Guitar Hero and Rock Band banked a lot of cash by making it really easy to “play” popular music without having to learn an instrument. Microsoft’s Kinect for Xbox removed the need for a controller, allowing the person to become the controller. I don’t know who will create the first mind-controlled music technology, but somebody’s going to do it.
Brace Yourselves
Cool meant something totally different back then. Don’t judge.
As with any change, it’s going to get worse before it gets better. Unfortunately, music will experience yet another Regrettable Period in which we have to learn how to use this new technology properly. I predict some gross and unsavory abuse of the technology, much like the ubiquity of terrible synthesizers in the 1980s or prevalence of auto-tuned vocals since Cher started believing in life after love. But some lucky artist is going to enjoy the honor of being known as the one that mastered this wonderful new system, thus becoming the “Grand Master Flash of whatever-this-thing-may-become-known-as.” Someone will figure out how to use it right, but it might take some time. In the meantime, wear earplugs.
Why We’ll Argue About This
At first, this newfangled gadgetry will be heralded as the end of “real” music and musicianship. The critics will say it’s too easy and not authentic music. Traditional composers and invested players will complain that no one has to learn how to write or play anymore. And much in the same way that digital was derided as a poor substitute for analog, purists will say that this cerebral form loses something in the process. Those arguments all might be right, but there may be a bigger issue lurking.
When the process of making music becomes entirely internalized it will be really great because of it’s purity and singularity of thought, but will it simultaneously suffer from lack of external influences? When digital recording became popular, the question was often asked by one artist or engineer to another: “Was this all done ‘in the box?’” – meaning: was the audio signal created, mixed, and mastered on the same computer? Early on, music created entirely in this fashion lacked the beneficial effects that analog systems inherently imparted upon the audio signal. Today, the line has been blurred by better technology, so it’s harder to tell if something was recorded analog or digital. Only engineers with “golden ears” can hear the difference (even then I suspect shenanigans). At any rate, the question still remains: What benefits will be lost due to the signal remaining “in the box” of your head?
Potential Musical Influences
People – The comradery, inspiration, ideas, criticism, differing views, and friction found when people work together often makes for better music. Being alone can lead to dead ends and boring or bad music. Collaboration can make beautiful things.
Hardware – Though they are inanimate objects, the instruments and devices used to make music come with their own inspirations, challenges, rewards, frustrations to overcome, and occasional good glitches. Sometimes a piece of gear has to be conquered and relinquishes its magic upon defeat.
Criticism – The critic is the archenemy of the artist, but every good story needs a villain. Without judgement, no work is ever as best as it can be. Words are often revealed for their folly only after they’ve left the head.
Movement – Music and movement are very strongly related. When making music, movement is both part of the instigation of sound, but also a reaction to the sound being created. Performance and dance are like cousins. So if movement is not necessary for the creation of music, what effect will that have on the final product?
Good Things Will Happen
A lot of things can go wrong in this new system, but a lot of things can go right too. Eventually we’ll work out the kinks. We’ll figure out the typical pitfalls. We’ll master this medium like we have with all the others. One day amazing music will be generated using nothing but musicians’ brains. I’m hedging a bet it will be the direct output of some ridiculously young Mozart’s mind that will blow us all away. Perhaps this new interface will teach us something about how our brains work. Maybe it will allow us to communicate more precisely on ever deeper levels. What if it develops into a new universal language? Hmm.
This is cool. My inner nerd had to come out and dance for bit. This is video by Kyle Jones, a designer, animator and illustrator from Nashville. Check out his website here and follow him on Twitter. He decided to record himself playing guitar using his iPhone from inside the guitar. Genius. Rejoice with me, [...]
This is cool. My inner nerd had to come out and dance for bit. This is video by Kyle Jones, a designer, animator and illustrator from Nashville. Check out his website here and follow him on Twitter. He decided to record himself playing guitar using his iPhone from inside the guitar. Genius. Rejoice with me, all you audio and science loving geeks.
A couple of days ago I finished reading Jonathan Weyer’s The Faithful, a Christian horror novel dealing with faith, science, doubt, murder, the Church and the supernatural. Fiction isn’t what I usually lean towards, but I really wanted to read this one for several reasons. Weyer is the brother-in-law of my good friend and talented [...]
A couple of days ago I finished reading Jonathan Weyer’s The Faithful, a Christian horror novel dealing with faith, science, doubt, murder, the Church and the supernatural. Fiction isn’t what I usually lean towards, but I really wanted to read this one for several reasons.
Weyer is the brother-in-law of my good friend and talented illustrator Eric Wieringa.
Weyer founded The Thomas Society, a discussion group at Ohio State University. The group focused on opening up honest dialog between Christians and atheists and their blog was often an interesting read for skeptics and believers alike.
Apparently, The Faithful is now a screenplay and has been getting some attention from some film producers. Since I rarely pick up fiction novels and everyone always says, “…yeah, but the book was sooooo much better than the movie,” I rarely get to read the book before I see the movie. So here was my opportunity to read it before it hits the big screen.
The Kindle edition is only $8.99. Since I’m a touring musician, paperless and more affordable e-books are super attractive to me. Plus delivery is immediate. My inner consumerist couldn’t be happier.
At just under 400 pages, The Faithful is an easy read (I finished it in just a few nights), especially on these dark Midwest winter nights. Though horror as a theme has become fairly common in Christian music (see: Underoath, Demon Hunter, As I Lay Dying, Norma Jean, or my friends Grave Robber), it is still a rarer breed in novel form. Genre classification aside, I think this book is a good contemporary fit for our times and it will appeal to most people. This may be why it could make a good film.
Conflicted with his faith in God and the hypocrisy of the church, Aidan, an assistant pastor, is already a spiritual battleground. When he learns that his ex-fiancee was murdered in a possibly demonic ritual, he finds himself catapulted into an even deeper fight. Tormented by demonic threats and haunted spirits in the afterlife, Aidan becomes a medium that will hold the key to solving this murder mystery. As Catholic priests, paranormal investigators and rogue law enforcement seek Aidan out, readers both secular and religious will find that the Faithful tears at the emotions and doubts of humankind.
— Amazon.com Editoral Review
Through protagonist Pastor Aidan Schaeffer, Weyer quotes scripture and references Dawkins, gives sermons and curses, and challenges both the faithful and faithless to continue exploring their doubts as they pursue the truth. His irreverent, but honest treatment of the Church may be upsetting to some sheltered and defensive churchgoers, but will be seen as welcome and necessary concessions of the American Church’s failures in the eyes of critics and skeptics. I think the book will resonate with well-read believers, those with paranormal interests, murder mystery enthusiasts, church insiders and even some skeptics.
There has been some talk surrounding the latest book from Stephen Hawking called The Grand Design, because he and co-author Leonard Mlodinow believe that we can finally prove there is no need for a god to explain the origins of the universe. I borrowed the book from a friend and made my way through it [...]
There has been some talk surrounding the latest book from Stephen Hawking called The Grand Design, because he and co-author Leonard Mlodinow believe that we can finally prove there is no need for a god to explain the origins of the universe.
I borrowed the book from a friend and made my way through it in two nights. It was an easy read. The authors speak in clear layman’s terms defining and explaining essential scientific theories, laws, and models while giving a brief history of physics from Thales of Miletus (ca. 600 BC) to modern day.
I enjoyed reading this concise walk through of modern physics and feel I have a better grasp of the main tenets of the prevailing model for the theory of everything. Indeed, the answer given is not an easy 42, but the authors explain this network of theories that form M-theory in terms that are definitely more accessible to the common man than the research papers from which the theories have formed. As usual, I really liked hearing about the mystical and mysterious nature of quantum particles and how these challenging concepts have far-reaching implications upon the macro-sized world. The explanation of model-dependent realism is certainly a fun mental exercise exploring our concept of what we know as reality and how we can be sure of such things.
While I did enjoy the book, there were subtle problems that bothered me – biases towards certain presuppositions, unscientific leaps of faith, models lacking “good model” criteria, vital theories built upon other as-of-yet-unproven but widely accepted theories, and “well that’s close enough” solutions. These nagging bits give me doubt about the final conclusion being made. (Also, a recent article in The New Yorker raises some questions about how reliable our scientific method really is.)
Another troubling pattern is that the authors seem to be on a crusade to invalidate many fields of study and make science the supreme field over all others. On the first page of chapter one, the authors declare philosophy dead and throughout the rest of the book they continue their abasement of various fields including philosophy, psychology, and religion, as well as belittling numerous respected historical figures, cultures, and heritages from around the world. In general, the book has lingering odors of Richard Feynman fanboyism and scientific elitism.
[SPOILER ALERT] When reading a book titled The Grand Design, one would expect a fantastic finale, but the underwhelming final chapter (a mere 12 pages) concludes that because gravity exists the universe naturally and spontaneously created itself.
Seriously? I felt let down. I was hoping for something far more grand. At least, I was expecting something scientifically elegant, something that met the criteria for a good model, something that didn’t leave some large doors of logic standing wide open. Instead, this grand crescendo ended with the wave of the magician’s wand and a sputter, not a bang. I was reminded of one of my favorite books from my childhood, The Monster At The End Of This Book. I don’t want to spoil that story for you, so you’ll have to read this classic children’s book for yourself.
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Dr. Francis Collins should be a prerequisite read for anyone wanting to discuss religion and science. Collins systematically addresses many of the arguments often presented by the binarily-opposed camps of atheism and theism. In rational, but earnest, straight-forward speak, Collins discusses how he traveled [...]
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Dr. Francis Collins should be a prerequisite read for anyone wanting to discuss religion and science.
Collins systematically addresses many of the arguments often presented by the binarily-opposed camps of atheism and theism. In rational, but earnest, straight-forward speak, Collins discusses how he traveled a path through ambivalence, agnosticism, and atheism to arrive at a belief system he describes as theistic evolution and labels BioLogos.
Through his experience as the head of the Human Genome Project he describes how he sees science and religion as partners instead of enemies. He shows how a synergistic relationship between science and theology is possible and can lead us to understand who we are, where we came from, and where we could potentially go in the future.
Collins now serves as the Director of the National Institutes of Health and in January of 2010 published another book called The Language of Life.
UPDATE: After posting this, a friend wrote to me the following message via Facebook:
Hey Scott,
I’d really appreciate your take on this. It’s something I’ve struggled to reconcile with my own faith. Since I’ve only been saved for 7 years I’m still learning about a lot of things.
Thanks,
[Name Withheld]
This is what I wrote in reply:
Hi [Name Withheld],
Good to hear from you. If you’re going to struggle with a topic, this is definitely a good one. You’ll be glad to know that regardless of knowledge and experience nearly everyone has and still does struggle with these concepts. It’s been called “the human condition,” so don’t feel like you’re alone in it. The debate has raged on since time began. I think if there was a definitive answer we wouldn’t still be arguing about it. Considering the fact that the finer points and deepest understanding of both science and religion are far beyond the intelligence of most of us, there is good reason for us to feel inadequate in our ability to really know the answer. At best we’re all operating on faith in something, be it reason, religion, or a mix of both.
As for me… I consider myself merely a layman in both fields, but a curious, eager, hopeful, and self-educating layman. I read a lot and try to understand as much of it as I can. For any matter in either field I rely on the “experts” for the best information, which I then must parse for myself. I do my best to avoid the trolling, antagonism, and rhetoric that do nothing to help progress, take into account the biases, presuppositions, and worldviews that form and shift the information, and look for the positive aspects, rational thought processes, and those ideas/concepts that have the “ring of truth” to them. This is probably the best any of us can do.
That said, I respect what Dr. Francis Collins has to say. He’s a very bright scientist that led the team that mapped the human genome. He’s a skeptic that wrestled with all the questions we do and yet still became a believer. He seems like a respectable human being that is neither pandering nor aloof. In short, I like him (or what I know of him). He seems like the kind of guy that I would like to be: an intelligent mystic – someone who educates himself as best he can, but has not reduced all of life to an equation.
And so I listen to him.
We tend to seek out the people that think similarly. Maybe this is the case here, but I suppose that just exposes my biases and the mixed bag of diametrically opposed concepts I enjoy and find myself holding onto. Things like rationality and spirituality, science and poetry, evidence and blind faith, deep wisdom and child-like belief. And that mix of things doesn’t seem all that bad to me. It seems like a healthy way to live.
Towards the end of the book, Collins tells how both religious believers and scientific skeptics have issues with him and his beliefs. That’s no surprise. To believe as he does (which, I think I do), means that I will most likely find myself at odds with nearly everyone since humans like to polarize themselves into mutually exclusive groups (e.g. Democrats vs. Republicans). Middle ground people (like myself) are a threat to both sides. I like to think that I’m dangerous, but the good kind of dangerous – like Jesus.
Years ago I was told that evolution was heresy and a threat to my faith. Various religious people/groups instructed me to fight against the huge lie and conspiracy of evolution. They said if we allowed this “theory” to prevail, then our faith would be lost. We would be reduced to monkeys, heaven would dissolve, and God would no longer exist.
At times evolution did threaten my faith, but only because of how the issue was framed for me. Somewhere deep down I knew that there was good science behind evolution, but that my faith was also true. I had heard stories and experienced things that could not be accounted for. So even then (some 20 years ago) I suspected what this book now proposes. It feels like confirmation of the worldview that’s been hanging around inside of me.
The more I live, read, discover, and understand, the more I feel I have good reason to be grounded in my beliefs, but usually not for the original reasons. I go through periods of doubt and renewal as I learn new things, let go of old things, and find the true things. This book walks along that same path. It has that “ring of truth” to it that I’ve been looking for.
In the coming weeks I hope to be blogging more about faith and science. I have a bunch of ideas bouncing around in my thick old head. I suppose I’m wise enough to have some good thoughts, but foolish enough to actually say them. Maybe you’ll find my thoughts enjoyable and possibly even helpful. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
#DJChat
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Dr. Francis Collins should be a prerequisite read for anyone wanting to discuss religion and science.
The debate has raged on since time began. I think if there was a definitive answer we wouldn’t still be arguing about it. Considering the fact that the finer points and deepest understanding of both science and religion are far beyond the intelligence of most of us, there is good reason for us to feel inadequate in our ability to really know the answer. At best we’re all operating on faith in something, be it reason, religion, or a mix of both.