Musings: Normal vs. Abnormal

What is normal? It is too easy to just say normal is what we see to often. That really doesn't answer the question. At least not from a philosophical, let's base our morality/philosophy on this definition point of view. Do we define normal by what we know to be abnormal or abnormal by what we know to be normal? Or a mixture of the two, I guess? What are our expectations of something once we have determined if it's abnormal or normal? Do we say everything abnormal is bad and normal is good? If we don't then how do we treat it? In Generosity, a girl with 'abnormal' characteristics is first heralded then torn down for these genes which she did not choose and cannot control. Is it actually important to judge based on normal versus abnormal? If we're only talking about genetically based characteristics, then what does it matter? If Thassa is like that because of her genes, then how can she share anything for the good of humanity? If it's because of her and some choice she made or makes, then why would defining it as normal or abnormal even be a useful distinction? Perhaps the inherent-ness of normal and abnormal do not need to be fully genetically connected, which would leave the ability to find what makes a person one way or the other in their early life--a nurture related determinism instead of a nature related one. But it still doesn't seem the most helpful distinction. Even if at that level it can be helpful, in many cases the label of abnormal (or mental illness, or diseased) has a very detrimental effect on a person's life (whether because of their own response, or society's response to them, or both). This effect often seems bigger than the benefit of being able to put people into categories. Especially, if all we do as a society is go trigger-happy with the drugs, without actually teaching anyone how to manage their own lives without dependence on some pill, then how do these labels really help. Our whole society seems set up to help people fail, even as we have higher and higher incidences of 'mental illnesses.' Maybe the more important thing is to invest in finding how to help people help themselves--therapy, I'm saying--rather than in more drugs which take away symptoms. And then actually training people. But also, it seems like it is necessary to have a revolution in how we think about normal and abnormal. If we as a society can't get past the idea that someone with bipolar is disadvantaged, and ill, then we will never be able to use non-pill means of dealing with these diseases--because there are huge benefits to being somewhat bipolar, to being somewhat autistic, in what one can offer society. Many of the most influential and world-changing people in our history have been suggested to have had mental illnesses of one sort or another--and it allowed them to reach a much higher potential (perhaps even pushed them to) than the 'normal' human beings of the time.

Musings: the Pursuit of science

Is explaining things by science to the public actually ever helpful or even true? Without a very strong basis in science (and I mean one of multi-discipline multi-year study, really) it is very easy to make mistakes in the interpretation of science, and even in the pursuit of science. This happens pretty much every time scientific information is presented by the media to the public, with some sort of scientific background. This background is often paid for by the companies that benefit from it--unsurprisingly, since they're the only ones who have enough reason for the financial investment. However, many times the research does not even live up to the standards of peer-reviewed, pseudo-scientific method science that the academic world requires. But, when something is told to the public, if it's convincing at the first, it will live on long past the science. Therefore, should science even be used as a basis for media-mediated advice? Does this not just tear down the credibility of science every time the opinions go back and forth? On the other hand, what's the point of science if it is not used to change people's lives (or at least animal's lives, the environment, etc)? If the problem is the system, not the goals or the science, then is there another system that would work better? (other than the level of democracy/capitalism we use today)

Is striving for unbiased science actually worthwhile? Does it not need there to be an absolute truth to reach? To what extent should we try to be unbiased, and how far can we actually go? Since everything we 'know' is through our own senses, so is automatically biased. But which is more worth knowing: What we can perceive through our senses or some absolute that we cannot?

Musings: Homo Evolitus

How should evolution and purposeful evolution be thought of in today's human world? We are not under the same evolutionary pressures as when we developed, but we also will not evolve at any reasonable speed (even for evolutionary change), because of our ability to help people live, and even reproduce, who would not have been able to before. We have eradicated so many diseases, that the only ones left are the kind that are very good at adapting, or allow reproduction before becoming fatal (if they ever get fatal). Many health problems (which I personally hesitate to call diseases, by my own definitions at least) actually result from what were historically adaptations. Should we then begin to change ourselves? Not just behaviorally, but at the genetic level? Homo Evolitus. And if we should, how do we tell if a trait has any benefit today? Ex. in Generosity, the 'happiness gene.' We know why the pattern of normal anxiety/stress and occasional peaks of happiness/ecstasy were useful historically, but are they still necessary today? And how can we tell without trying (and causing some humans, or at least animals, to take genetic risks?

Musings: Getting out of our paradigm

So I'm going to post some things I've been thinking about, in relation to my classes and other things that have been going on in my life. I just sat down and wrote out what I've been thinking about/struggling with, so they not very well formed. A lot of the writing is in the form of questions, as well, because I don't have the answers yet (and may never, of course). I'm just going to post them though, and will hopefully come back at some point and edit/add to them. Some of the topics may be used for papers this semester, too...so that might lend a more concise form to them :) Also, there are a few book references from my class, that will be a bit incomprehensible if you haven't read the book--but ask me if you want to know more!

Getting out of our paradigm. Is it possible to do so? Does it come down to a forced change every time, or can we in some way choose to change? How do we judge how much our views are affected by our own paradigm. Is it possible to broaden our paradigm? Or is it only possible to change it? For example, in Avatar the main character and the scientists seemed to mostly just switch sides, rather than encompass both. This often seems to be the case (perhaps because I/We most easily see the polarizations) in people who have gotten out of their own cultural prejudices (most easily, indigenous peoples advocates in the US/Western culture). As a listener, I often get the feeling that I should be ashamed of everything Western and just convert to the indigenous viewpoint.