Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Looking through the Oxford Dictionary of Science


Somewhere where they receive a lot more sunny weather than Greater Vancouver...

A. Looking through the Oxford Dictionary of Science

Even as this is primarily a blog that deals with theology, philosophy of religion, Biblical studies and satire, scientific issues do arise as well and are of course important. Education and academics today do require at least at times the learning of disciplines outside of one's areas of expertise. Somewhat similarly my PhD thesis was completed within a Religion and Theology Department, but the content, as was the MPhil thesis, was as much philosophy/philosophy of religion and it was theology as it primarily dealt with the topics of the problem of evil and theodicy. As well I was required to do some research into empirical theology and social research which included statistics, and also researched how empirical theology related to science. With post viva revisions I was required to research some scientific journals on the subject of consciousness. Even without completing science course work and degrees I have done at least some science research in my academic career and reason I need to keep learning about science particularly in how it relates to the main disciplines I study. The origin of humanity is a topic/subject, for one, that can cover the disciplines of Biblical studies, theology, philosophy, and of course science.

Being quite pleased with the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible which I use, I bought on discount with damaged beat up cover the Oxford Dictionary of Science. Yes, I had to ask for the discount and all sales are final, but the price was right. Interestingly, unlike the other two texts this has no author on the cover, although there is a listing with Editors, Advisers, and Contributors provided on a credits page. I have bought other science texts during my academic career and been given other texts, but this text will be particularly helpful for blogging in its dictionary form and its size in larger than the other two Oxford volumes put together.

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Interesting how the definition differs for entropy for example in the science text, compared to the philosophy text, a term and subject that would be discussed across disciplines even in theology at times:

From the Science Dictionary: Symbol (S) a measure of the unavailability of a system's energy to do work; in a closed system an increase in entropy is accomplished by a decrease in energy available. When a system undergoes change the entropy (S) changes by the amount equal the energy (Q) transferred to the system by heat divided by the thermodynamic temperature (T) at which this occurs. However, all real processes are to a certain extent irreversible changes and in any closed system, an irreversible change is accompanied by an increase in entropy. (292).

In a wider sense entropy is interpreted as a measure of disorder, the higher the entropy, the greater the disorder and it states see the Boltzmann Formula. This is the second law of thermodynamics and involves the heat death of the universe. (292).

Simon Blackburn provides a less technical definition and agrees entropy is a property of a closed thermodynamical system. Entropy is a measure of the disorder in the system. He reasons the second law of thermodynamics states entropy always increases. Basically, a useful philosophical summation is provided. Blackburn (1996: 121).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Also in the huge 889 page science volume:

Evolution: Interestingly the text theorized 3000 million (3 billion) years of evolution and explains that up until the middle of the 18th century there was the generally intellectually accepted concept that God created living species. The text then goes on to claim Darwinian natural selection which it states is supported by modern genetics, for example. But, it admits, and I find this quite interesting, that evolution as theory is quite controversial and needs to be firmly clarified in regard to relationships of groups above the species level (304).

All in all a useful text that I will be using as a tool for blogging.

Christian scientific site I am familiar with:

Reasons to Believe

Also Jeff Jenkins of Thoughts and Theology has been showing some clips from Exploration Films lately:

Exploration Films

B. Various




On the web this is noted as supposedly in India, the home of technical support for many home computer owners. Does potential electrical fire come to mind?


(Image from Amazon.com)
Thanks, Jeff

From:



The Vancouver Sun: Bert & Ernie wedding: Sesame Street says no

'Are wedding bells in the cards for Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie, roommates in the iconic children's TV show who have long been rumoured to be gay?

There's an online petition at the activism website Change.org, with more than 5,000 signatures, which is calling for such a union, or for something else to happen on the show to teach kids that having a different sexual orientation is OK.

"Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics . . . they remain puppets and do not have a sexual orientation."'

I just heard about this on Albert Mohler's Podcast.

In regard to this article I think it is okay for kids to reason that the puppets are asexual/nonsexual. I think it is okay to let children figure it for themselves minus some political/moral agenda.

August 20, 2011

C. Age of the universe the Oxford Dictionary of Science

Having received a reasonable number of comments this month I return to the main topic. The text under this entry states that the age of the universe is the reciprocal value of the Hubble constant ( which is the rate at which the velocity of recession of galaxies increases with distance... Hubble time is a measure of age of universe assuming that expansion rate has remained constant, and it is assumed the expansion of the universe is accelerating. p 400). The Hubble constant according to the Oxford text is assumed to be 13.7 billion years old. p 18. But, it is admitted that the calculation of the Hubble constant and the age of the universe will depend of what theory of cosmology is used. They state that it is usually tied to calculations concerning the expansion of the universe arising from a big-bang theory. p. 18.

I deduce from this entry there is room for some debate in regard to the age of the universe, even from a secular scientific perspective in regard to cosmology which does overlap with the field of philosophy which of course overlaps with the field of theology.

37 comments:

  1. My comment re B: Various
    Not being very clued in re the
    workings of the mind re Crazy Laughing Guru, it may be the impression of a reader that this guru is actually 'strange' or 'weird' in his actions, but there are some truths in it. There are ways in which one can use stress management or control emotions by doing different things, like the shaking or clapping of hands, or circular motions of the various parts of the body (arms or legs), maybe even jumping up and down on the spot. As an example, say you are under heavy stress due to lack of time or lack of finding proper material sources, or if somebody has just put you into an improper frame of mind (these do happen). Just take a step back from it and tell yourself that the situation will not control you. You will be able to overcome the situation but need a bit of a change. So maybe try jumping up and down, try dancing around the room, try clapping hands over head, or anything you may think is 'kooky' because this may just work to release the stress from the body/mind and one will then be able to think more clearly again. Put say a quick prayer at the beginning of a list and then do anything you feel will get rid of stress. Then go ahead and do anything you feel is funny, out of the ordinary, is laughable, etc., as long as it is working for you (and not illegal of course) go ahead and do it. Have some fun getting control.
    I believe that is what the Crazy Laughing Guru is trying to demonstrate. Yes, maybe he is somewhat 'kooky' but possibly it does work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you, Dear Moth...I mean Anonymous.

    I found his website.

    Universal Yoga

    Home page states:

    'Universal Temple of Yoga is a nonprofit organization. It is founded by Himalayan master Guru Yogi Ramesh in Los Angeles, California in 1997. The purpose of this organization is to educate the public towards a spiritual awareness of Yoga for the modern society. To open a center, teaching how to prevent diseases including obesity, diabetes, heart disease & cancer. We teach Yoga of breath and Laughter for a stress free ,happy and healthy life. It is time to awaken the world of knowledge of yoga as a medicine for a healthy and happy divine life. We need your support to help children, adults and seniors. We are now located in Palm Springs, and would like to open a healing center in the desert.'

    End

    'So maybe try jumping up and down, try dancing around the room, try clapping hands over head, or anything you may think is 'kooky' because this may just work to release the stress from the body/mind and one will then be able to think more clearly again.'

    Go right ahead.;)

    I think I will stick to lifting my 30-50 pound weights while watching television.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That cat and owl video is pretty amazing.

    Now, if you could just find a video with a jaguar and a condor playing, that would be REALLY awesome! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes a cat and owl together outside of DC and/or Marvel, I would not expect it. Nature is full of surprises.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i loved the cat and owl video of them playing together.. That was amazing!

    Tammy :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Agreed. Cool to see. A wonder of science and of God's creation. Cheers, Tammy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Russ & I had a discussion about the relative size of dictionaries of philosophy versus science. Russ was surprised that the science dictionary was so much bigger. My thinking is that, although philosophy as a discipline has been around much longer than science, science involves much more variety of terminology in that it is attempting to describe the world in a bottom-up fashion - the world as we experience it. Philosophy describes the world in terms of broad concepts. So I would expect the Philosophy dictionary entries to be fewer but longer in length.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'Possible future destination?'

    Applied in the area on Friday. Will see. Thanks, Uncle Chuckins.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'chucky said...

    Russ & I had a discussion about the relative size of dictionaries of philosophy versus science. Russ was surprised that the science dictionary was so much bigger. My thinking is that, although philosophy as a discipline has been around much longer than science, science involves much more variety of terminology in that it is attempting to describe the world in a bottom-up fashion - the world as we experience it. Philosophy describes the world in terms of broad concepts. So I would expect the Philosophy dictionary entries to be fewer but longer in length.'

    Looking at the texts the science dictionary tends to be more technical although granted philosophy and theology (theology when not so practically focused) can be quite technical as well. So, a more technical approach is also a reason why the text is larger. The philosophical text tends to summarize more than provide technical details.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Given that thermodynamics is required skill for my profession ...

    "Simon Blackburn provides a less technical definition and agrees entropy is a property of a closed thermodynamical system."

    Now if someone would ever bother to pick up a thermodynamics textbook, this will be immediately shown to be in error. There is a volume integral for the entropy accompanied by a surface integral for the flux. Taking a sphere and letting its radius increase, the volume portion dominates and the surface portion becomes negligible.

    Thermodynamics is for open systems, and entropy is a key part of the science.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks, Looney.

    Both the science and philosophy Oxford Dictionaries assume a closed system. I am aware than in science and philosophy there are some that assume an open system.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In most of the physics disciplines we study, we begin by looking at closed systems and later add in the effects of the surroundings. In this sense Newton's laws of motion also assume a closed system - at least in the early stages. All of my electrical circuits work was based on closed system theories, even though this is just an approximation. Thus, we could argue that V=IR assumes a closed system, which is correct but misleading.

    Much of this derives from mathematics and the notion of a "conservative field". It allows us to look at systems in isolation, thus, it becomes feasible for us to talk of a "closed system" so that we can introduce novices - or actually solve a practical problem.

    Evolution and astrophysics are different in that they are non-conservative and cannot be decoupled. Survival of the fittest involves unlimited coupling of the entire biosphere and all physics laws simultaneously, thus, it is only tractable to a deity. Dark matter, dark energy and dark physics are some of the fully coupled intractables that ReasonsToBelieve claim to have mastered. If I only had 1% of that intelligence, I would be the world's smartest engineer!

    Anyway, the issue isn't whether the theory is for open or closed systems. The key issue is whether the theory is humanly tractable (at least with a computer) because it can be decoupled/decomposed into things which are closed with boundary conditions or theories which aren't humanly tractable because they can't be decoupled/decomposed - like economics.

    A theory which is only valid for an open system can't be solved!

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'Anyway, the issue isn't whether the theory is for open or closed systems.'

    Interesting take which again appears different than the text, but I realize of course in academia there are differences in opinion, even in text books. Thanks for your professional opinion. I sent out an email on this for some possible feedback.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nice to see you reading empirical science as well, makes you well rounded, well read, and displays a great depth of intelligence!
    -Academic Admirer-

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nice videos on cat and owl and guru relaxation, this makes your blog not only educational but fun to watch too!
    -Red Reader-

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'Anonymous said...
    Nice to see you reading empirical science as well, makes you well rounded, well read, and displays a great depth of intelligence!
    -Academic Admirer-'

    I am trying...

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Anonymous said...
    Nice videos on cat and owl and guru relaxation, this makes your blog not only educational but fun to watch too!
    -Red Reader-'

    Blogging is entertainment as well...

    Cheers.;)

    ReplyDelete
  18. That crazy laughing guru sometimes makes me laugh (the 'telephone yoga' portion, for example, just make me crack up), sometimes just seems totally silly and ridiculous, and sometimes makes me just want to shoot him. Because of my daily sinus problems, I actually tried doing the 'sinus cleanse' portion, but the whole thing is so ridiculous that it is very hard to take it seriously.

    Evolution: Interestingly the text theorized 3000 million (3 billion) years of evolution and explains that up until the middle of the 18th century there was the generally intellectually accepted concept that God created living species.

    "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." (Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher)

    ReplyDelete
  19. The text then goes on to claim Darwinian natural selection which it states is supported by modern genetics, for example.

    "DNA: There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over." (Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 115, 1986.)

    "Just as the Britannica had intelligent writers to produce its information, so it is reasonable and even scientific to believe that the information in the living world likewise had an original compositor/sender. There is no known non-intelligent cause that has ever been observed to generate even a small portion of the literally encyclopedic information require for life." (Grigg, R., Information: A modern scientific design argument, Creation 22(2):52-53, 2000.)

    Also see:
    DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?

    "The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead's volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content. Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 million times more information." (Gitt, W., Dazzling design in miniature, Creation 20)2):6, 1997.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Guru is probably a nice guy, but I would not desire to train with him.

    I can respect that at least the ODS, for example, is somewhat cautious with its evolutionary theories, but of course I reason the Biblical God is the first cause/creator.

    Cheers, Jeff.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 'There is no known non-intelligent cause that has ever been observed to generate even a small portion of the literally encyclopedic information require for life." (Grigg, R., Information: A modern scientific design argument, Creation 22(2):52-53, 2000.)'

    Good quote. I take it, it is 'required for life'.

    Sorry your comment was caught up in Blogger moderation since the 9th.

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PWH745MMMY

    Scary Pranks!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Re: Ernie & Bert
    Sesame Street is not a show watched by people of an age such that they might even be questioning their sexuality in any case. There is no need to sexualize a Children's show. I agree with the producers.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ernie and Bert are classics, great characters, and very fun to watch. It shows through the years what a great relationship that best friends can have!
    -Open Sesame-

    ReplyDelete
  25. 'chucky said...

    Re: Ernie & Bert
    Sesame Street is not a show watched by people of an age such that they might even be questioning their sexuality in any case. There is no need to sexualize a Children's show. I agree with the producers.'

    Yes, it is not brought to you by the letter 'R' rated or 'X' rated.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 'Anonymous said...

    Ernie and Bert are classics, great characters, and very fun to watch. It shows through the years what a great relationship that best friends can have!
    -Open Sesame-'

    Non-human, asexual friends. How controversial. Now does that need a committee or petition? I guess for some with an agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sorry your comment was caught up in Blogger moderation since the 9th.

    No problem.

    There's an online petition at the activism website Change.org, with more than 5,000 signatures, which is calling for such a union, or for something else to happen on the show to teach kids that having a different sexual orientation is OK.

    "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22)

    "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Romans 1:26-27) [Note: I suspect that "the due penalty" could include AIDs and other STDs.]

    According to Bible.org, "In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known."

    "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

    However, homosexuals can inherit the kingdom of God if they repent of their sin and come to the Lord Jesus Christ, becoming regenerated through the power of the transforming Holy Spirit:

    "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11)

    Also from Bible.org: "However, to call a union of two persons of the same sex a "marriage" is a misnomer. In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God's order in the first of such unions (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24; Matthew 19:5). If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today. The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won't."

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thank you, Jeff, as you provided Biblical information concerning homosexuality.

    At the same time Bert and Ernie as puppets would not need to be sexualized in a heterosexual way either, even as that is Biblically natural (Genesis 1-3, Romans 1-3, 1 Corinthians 6).

    I oppose special interest groups trying to influence very young children with issues like this that should be left to parents.

    ReplyDelete
  29. thx for your comment!

    i ride since 2005 (2 times per week)
    it's beautiful (:

    -
    nice blog (;

    ReplyDelete
  30. At work, I've won things like nice jackets, t-shirts, a clock, cheap digital camera, etc., for doing a good job, but today I got Justice League #1 comic book (The New 52, Combo Pack, with a Digital Copy as well), which is the coolest gift yet!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Except for being so dark, your newest photos of yourself look good!

    ReplyDelete
  32. 'At work, I've won things like nice jackets, t-shirts, a clock, cheap digital camera, etc., for doing a good job, but today I got Justice League #1 comic book (The New 52, Combo Pack, with a Digital Copy as well), which is the coolest gift yet!'

    Cool. Well-done.

    'Except for being so dark, your newest photos of yourself look good!'

    Thanks, Mr. Jenkins.

    ReplyDelete