Norml's advice: Endorphins should be used in moderation. Try to have some days when you don't have any at all. Overdoses are very rare, it is much more common to pass out before a fatal dose can be reached, but combining endorphins with other substances may increase the effect. Do not drive or operate heavy machinery whilst under the influence. Try to use them in company you know and trust. If it's not fun any more, stop.
Those endorphins must be good shit to put up with all that.
science in general is pretty damned hot at being right
Best thing we've ever come up with for discovering truths about the world.
Meh, not really. For a good few hundred years now each "wrong" has been more accurately described as "incomplete".
So before Darwin, Western ideas about the Creation were just "incomplete"? I suggest they were both completely different and a lot more wrong.
I'm sure refinement of error is probably the most common scientific process. But every now and then there is a revolution, in which most of the ideas we had before about something are turned right upside down. When two opposing ideas are contrary, then they can't both be right, so at least one must be wrong. Since these revolutions continue to happen, I favor the view that they are probably both wrong, but one is 'less wrong', than another. By that I mean it may have more explanatory power or more accuracy, and there are other criteria that could apply. Even if a scientific theory is completely and totally true, we could never really be sure of that.
This might seem like splitting hairs, but it isn't. There is a very dangerous tendency when you think you are right about something, or only out by some error margin that you think you can predict. That tendency is to close out new ideas, and if anything is anathema to science, that is. It is particularly dangerous if you are talking about science you don't really understand, where you are merely reporting on the authority of others. Which is actually most science, since it is a vast field, and most people are not scientists (in the sense of calling science their job).
I should probably temper that statement by saying that an explanation that can't be tested also gives no way forward. Which, in a funny way, is exactly the case for most evolutionary explanations.
It's pretty rational really. An explanation is better than no explanation. Even a wrong explanation. You can move forward from a wrong explanation to a less wrong one, because an explanation can be tested. A failure or refusal to explain can't, and gives no way forward.
Of course in moving forward, a lot of damage can be caused using the wrong explanation as if it were certainly true. All of our explanations are hypotheses at best (except perhaps in maths and logic).
That's why we act as though our scientists really understand the universe, when history suggests on past performance that they are only less wrong about it.
I'm more curious about an evolutionary explanation of fake orgasms. It's something I've only done once, but I was wearing a condom so we're in an evolution free zone there.
Why do women orgasm less than men? Someone has to stay up and watch for tigers.
I spent a lot of time writing genetic algorithms to solve optimization problems a few years ago. One of the most frustrating things about that was that people always wanted me to explain the results. "But why didn't it find this particular result?". It's pretty much impossible to be specific - the evolution algorithm is very mysterious, and if the space you are optimizing in is the least bit complex (and just about every useful space is highly complex, or you wouldn't bother using such a complicated algorithm), then the answer to every question of that kind is on par with speculation as to why the dinosaurs died out. No-one really knows for sure, but there's lots of possibilities.
What I did learn from it is that humans really don't like mysterious results. They would instantly latch on to any possible explanation I gave as the 'truth' of the matter. Which would lead to future frustrations when that particular 'truth' failed to explain something. Humans want explanations they can understand.
I'm with the idea that you can over-egg explanations of just about any human behavior by trying to understand it 'scientifically', particularly when you use evolutionary examples (since they can lend support to pretty much ANY idea). But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with trying to seek such explanations. What's usually wrong is maintaining you actually found the real one.
No thank you very much, you can keep your national health nonsense and I and the 70 or 80% of Americans who are happy with their healthcare will have healthcare when we need it.
NZers can get private care too. They just don't have to. Your Godmother, if she is not fictitious, could have paid to see a specialist. How old was she, btw?
Heh... I don't know about that -- aim it at the kids, and you'd be surprised what you can get under the radar.
So true. This is the first time I've seen the Count with adult eyes, and he's already brimming over with subtexts. At the time I thought he was just a clown (but a funny one).