Free Will? Not anymore.

Science has finally proven Aristotle wrong. While the concept of dualism between one's form and matter may be persuasive on a philosophical-spiritual level, it now holds little to no ground thanks to the research of neuroscientists at the Max Planck Institute.

Although the study is not entirely conclusive, it is now safe to assume that I have far less free will than I considered myself to possess. I am beginning to think that Weber was correct in writing that the disenchantment and demystifying of the world/ourselves would result in a deep and cavernous feeling of loss. There is no un-knowing this type of thing, and perhaps in doing this type of research we are methodically ridding the world of its inherent magic?

Does it all boil down to how some chemicals and neurons fire and sputter within my body? I would like to believe that it is not so, but this belief is becoming increasingly harder to maintain.

As if more evidence was required to show that morality and biology don't mix...

A few days ago I stumbled across this news piece on cnn.com.

I'm still not quite sure what I think of the entire issue. Watson may not have made such statements (though I honestly don't believe that a newspaper would put such words into a Nobel laureate biologist's mouth), yet that is somewhat of a moot point from my perspective; more consequential is the fact that he's been suspended for the claims in question, which strikes me as slightly uncharacteristic of the scientific community.

Although racism is understandably and rightfully a thing of turpitude in a social and political context, I personally was under the impression that the fields of science and biology were exempt from such considerations. I quite simply don't understand the relationship that has obviously been drawn between Watson's undesirable conclusions and his capabilities and expertise as a research biologist - should Watson's rascist opinions necessarily be appreciated or tolerated? No, probably not, though I don't have enough knowledge regarding the research done to really form a conclusive opinion either way. But should Watson, the discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, be suspended from a field in which he is obviously extraordinarly gifted? His employers clearly think so, but logically it just doesn't add up to me.

This may be a unusual connection to make, but in a way this debacle reminds me of Clinton's impeachment...

The 1990 Trust may try for a ban on Watson's published works all they like, I think I will be picking up 'Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science'.

As if more evidence was required to show that morality and biology don't mix...

A few days ago I stumbled across this news piece on cnn.com.

I'm still not quite sure what I think of the entire issue. Watson may not have made such statements (though I honestly don't believe that a newspaper would put such words into a Nobel laureate biologist's mouth), yet that is somewhat of a moot point from my perspective; more consequential is the fact that he's been suspended for the claims in question, which strikes me as slightly uncharacteristic of the scientific community.

Although racism is understandably and rightfully a thing of turpitude in a social and political context, I personally was under the impression that the fields of science and biology were exempt from such considerations. I quite simply don't understand the relationship that has obviously been drawn between Watson's undesirable conclusions and his capabilities and expertise as a research biologist - should Watson's rascist opinions necessarily be appreciated or tolerated? No, probably not, though I don't have enough knowledge regarding the research done to really form a conclusive opinion either way. But should Watson, the discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, be suspended from a field in which he is obviously extraordinarly gifted? His employers clearly think so, but logically it just doesn't add up to me.

This may be a unusual connection to make, but in a way this debacle reminds me of Clinton's impeachment...

The 1990 Trust may try for a ban on Watson's published works all they like, I think I will be picking up 'Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science'.

As if more evidence was required to show that morality and biology don't mix...

A few days ago I stumbled across this news piece on cnn.com.

I'm still not quite sure what I think of the entire issue. Watson may not have made such statements (though I honestly don't believe that a newspaper would put such words into a Nobel laureate biologist's mouth), yet that is somewhat of a moot point from my perspective; more consequential is the fact that he's been suspended for the claims in question, which strikes me as slightly uncharacteristic of the scientific community.

Although racism is understandably and rightfully a thing of turpitude in a social and political context, I personally was under the impression that the fields of science and biology were exempt from such considerations. I quite simply don't understand the relationship that has obviously been drawn between Watson's undesirable conclusions and his capabilities and expertise as a research biologist - should Watson's rascist opinions necessarily be appreciated or tolerated? No, probably not, though I don't have enough knowledge regarding the research done to really form a conclusive opinion either way. But should Watson, the discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, be suspended from a field in which he is obviously extraordinarly gifted? His employers clearly think so, but logically it just doesn't add up to me.

This may be a unusual connection to make, but in a way this debacle reminds me of Clinton's impeachment...

The 1990 Trust may try for a ban on Watson's published works all they like, I think I will be picking up 'Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science'.