It is always disappointing to see agendas being rationalized by what passes for "research". A good example occurs in this article examining the
impact of smoke-free laws in rural or urban businesses.
Of course, it is never quite clear what the impact was anticipated to be, since there are clearly no alternatives to customers (given state-wide bans). In essence, the argument is simplistic by arguing that smoking is likely to be higher in rural areas, so it was anticipated to have a greater impact on business.
Two theories that have been making the biological rounds have been group selection which argued for evolution and selection operating "for the good of the group" and the "selfish gene" which argued that everything (including cooperation) was ultimately based on selfish actions. The latter being especially pronounced in giving rise to all manner of explanations that argued for genetic representation in the future as being the ultimate criteria to which an organism would act.
We now have an article that uses a similar explanation in describing "exploding bacteria".
Before embarking on this discussion it is important to try and resolve some language and definition issues that will likely occur in this post.
One of the main difficulties in addressing this problem stems from the limitations of language. Language exists for humans, so by default, many of our words convey a meaning that is primarily interpreted within a human context. As a result, when it comes to describing other living things we often find ourselves faced with terms that carry a significance that is misplaced when addressing other organisms. I want to be clear that there is nothing in the following discussion that is intended to be anthropomorphic.
In a recent set of posts there was a discussion about evolutionary psychology and how it can be used to explain various behaviors. However, one of the fundamental challenges raised is whether the references to biological phenomenon are, in fact, settled issues and whether they should serve as a basis for drawing additional conclusions. As a result, I wanted to focus on one particular paragraph from one paper to illustrate the problem.
Actually Paul died in November of 1966 due to a fatal car accident after leaving the Abbey Road recording studios.
The evidence for this claim are clues that exist throughout the songs recorded by the Beatles. However, a brief synopsis of the events indicates that Paul McCartney apparently left Abbey Road Studios after an argument, during which he crashed his car into a lamppost. The cause of the crash was due to his being distracted by a pretty meter maid. After his death, apparently MI5 (British Secret Service) was concerned that this news would result in mass suicides by Beatles fans. Accordingly they assigned a handler to the Beatles codenamed "Maxwell" who would be responsible for ensuring that the public was unaware of the event.
There has clearly been enough controversy around the risks and hazards created by the Fukushima reactor problems over the past days. Part of the controversy seems to originate with the idea that if a risk to public health is being suggested, then this is scaremongering and clearly an anti-nuclear sentiment. On the other hand, if the risk is downplayed, then this is viewed as being pro-nuclear and representative of industry favoritism.
I would suggest that when examining such risks that there are actually two perspectives that need to be considered and that we must be especially aware of the reliability of scientific data in reassuring the public.
Placebo Buttons?
The Development Of Social Monogamy In Mammals
Easy Answers To World Problems
