Commision Agreement Template

Dialogues in the sea of \u200b\u200blove and death


a different place from the other, a story, perhaps a reflection that for sure know who to focus on: to life, who made me and makes me feel love, because in this way I'm not afraid of death :

The man was sitting in front of the mirror of water, flat glass, which reflected the purple and orange of the dawn, but that other presence, that man But clearly warned, the result of years of expert company.

- "Even today, come and see me earlier than usual, early in the morning, not at dusk as it often uses. I would think that this time you would not Thee do not let the illusion of thinking, not just to meet you one day, I do not exist. "the man said.
-" How do you know myself here at your back when your watchful eyes observed the water , deprived of my back? "
-" You forget that people live and why, before seeing you, you feel, every moment of its existence. They are not my own two eyes, but the breath of life that animates me to advise me of your presence. Even after so many years have you learned? "Replied the man.
-" But you should see me now, why I came to get you. Times as well, "was the call that gave him death.
- No upset, fearing nothing, man first inspired and then blow out the air strike, issuing a long puff, "I do not need to turn around to see you, you already know so much and too long."
- "And when was the first time, you who have known?" demanded the death, with a mocking tone, as if amused, but cheating on the true nature of the request, the innate curiosity about life.
- "For years and years and you feel that you talk to me and it still appeared to me hungry for life," said the man, smiling, without turning around "you can not help but try to understand what is not yours: life , man, the feeling that the soul and the idea and thought that you. If it were true as you say, that after so long, now, you come get me, I have to satisfy your curiosity now this, having not, then more time. I know you since I was a child in the face of the game hunted for lizards, were evils of an Innocent Child, which is believed to give the master of life and death, how you deceived, to be the lord of life, but you know that nothing you can on it, you know that the government and she is, instead your mistress, you do not exist without her "
-" What do you think, I mocked? "hissed death" is not in this so shake off the fear, the fear of having to drop everything, to have come away with me ".
-" I have no fear, because as a child you knew, too, pale in the face my grandmother's framed by flowers and light candles. We knew and understood that you had been there only a moment and then was gone, already at the moment that you left the immobile body of that old woman who, years earlier, she smiled at me and took me around the neck, back when I had four legs. There was already more after that moment, while there was a little cold body of my grandmother, but his memory will always have existed. "
-" What I want to tell the old and trivial story of eternal life, immortality of the soul? not deceive you, old man, after that you'll be all gone away, "chuckled death.
-" Do not m'illudo "the old man" but I know that you are like birth, a moment when you open that curtain that you come to close, but there is always someone who will remember the show seen on stage. When I come with you, I know it's over for me, in me there is life, but I am in life, part of me will always exist in life: I will stay in a thought, in the moment of a memory, in which each I have known and lost in the sea of \u200b\u200blife, to warn me of such a time, a distant echo.
- "What do you think you have left in life, in others, hope that you remember? What goals do you think you have achieved, you can tell you satisfied with your trip? "He said sarcastically death" live only past, memories and this is a sign that the time has come where you're coming with me, "said severe death.
- This is your anger, not passing, I remember, even after many years of occupation, you asked several men to come with you, follow you, but you saw them all the same and you never know the difference. In your eyes the sea wave that leaves the beach is the same, after a moment, regaining . And 'the water to be the same, not the wave, the beach and know why each one retains the humor and nostalgia. You compel everyone to follow but you can not get hold of his mood, the essence of all existence. "
- death was quiet, thoughtful "And what is your essence? "
-" I traveled, I have chosen a path in front of two or more different paths, and over time I learned that you can not tell you for choosing the right one or wrong one, because on this trip, you are selecting Once in front of each junction and each one is different from the previous year. I know, though, that I have accumulated more remorse and regret that this is my worry, "the man said with a whisper," I should get this some day with some regret and remorse in less than it would have been the sign of I have some choice and instead traded for the wait. So I learned to be wary of those who say they love a quiet life, why are those who are afraid to be daring call waiting and living that life chooses for them. There is no success without some scars for the defeats. "
- The death of the observed, seemed to have understood, or perhaps reflected, a flash across his shadow, it seemed that death was on and it appears as though the ' water, for a moment, reflect "what do you mean old? explain. "
-" at the time said I was a boy, but now at this age, having lived so many days, I know I was when I was a child. Likewise, her beautiful, fresh, clear dawn of a day full of hope. I fell in love. "I was not rich, I was not nice, but while still a child, she had the instinct of which only women and have saw something in me that even I knew. Perhaps he felt that I asked the tenacious resistance to the force of attraction I felt for her, the other looked like extreme shyness, but she came as a silent courtship of words measured, framed by smiles. Such different ways by arrogance of the other guys. But it was above all the ability to talk that led to increasingly seek with the desire of the whole day to tell, to speak of where we lived a few years earlier than those in which we had known, stories of trees, ran on meadows, carefree evenings under clear skies with stars and suns and nights spent in the calm and peaceful sleep quilted blankets dreams. Among all, I remember one day, apparently the same ones that now everyone else envied me, as usual, spent with her alone in the company of our country. We were lying with his face to the cobalt sky, immersed in the ears of ripe corn, side by side, hand in hand. I told her again and told me what he saw in me, and probably spent hours or possibly years, but everything seemed to last a moment, listening to her voice, smell his breath mingled with the grain. I had never kissed her and I had a great desire, but bigger, that day, was the fear, the fear of ruining everything, and destroy those eternal moments to be alone with the scar of defeat. So that day ended and I kissed her, neither then, nor ever again. A month after he left, with his family in another city. I felt and I hoped that I thought and I still feel, that I felt that I had that desire to see her again and lie down next to her on that field of wheat, lying along the side of the hill and hoped that this would be back. I learned a few years later, that was engaged and some time after that came the news that she had married. That day passed in the wheat field is my regret, I would change with the remorse of having done something that could be defeated, but that it would live. For years I kept alive in the heart of the smell of his breath mixed with that of wheat. For this reason, year after year, that same day, I sent a loaf of bread that I made with my hands and that wheat flour, in the hope that aroma that brought her the memory of that day and she came back. It was when I knew I had died I stopped to be a baker and then spend my days in front of this lake. That day, you had brought with you, but you do not remember, why not take the essence of life, master of nothing. Not until today have never heard of this story, too distressed to take the life to be able to see and discover. "
- said the death, lost in thought" and then, until he was in life you lived in hope that I've stolen and who died, when I asked the woman to follow, "said Death," and then now that you have to follow you too, of course, even more than you hope that the past returns with the garment of another woman.
- "that hope never dies, no one can know whether it will be tomorrow and the day when I will be lying with her, hand in hand, surrounded by wheat fields."
- old! I am very busy, others are waiting for me. For today I decided to leave you here again in front of your lake, in your memory, "said Death," but I shall return. " A moment later he turned, walked, and then come "There is still that field of wheat?" he asked.
- "Yes," replied the man "if you will, one day you 'll take. "
received no reply, if death had left. It was now evening, a full day had passed. The man got up to walk towards the country. He arrived in the square, by which time for his tired eyes and old was not enough the little light left. But the same saw his old childhood friend, sitting on the stairs of the church.
nodded and approached him.
- "Even today you have spent the entire day facing the lake, "asked the friend
-" yes, to study fish, insects and the apparent immobility of the water, "said the man
-" and I bet that even today, you met your old girlfriend, to talk to for a long time. "
- "I know well," said the man, "but today was a different day. My partner and I wanted that I followed had the feeling that he had now decided to push me in that water and left to sink, but then I convinced to let me sit in front of the lake. I planted in her the seed of desire, curiosity, his innate interest in life, who takes away, but that does not know "
-" did you tell that old story of the girl and the field of wheat. The same gentleman who told you that you bought the bakery then. Could you make it believe you have cheated death with even the false story! " said the friend, laughing.
- "already" replied the man, but as long as he sold bakery, a tear slid down her face, as at the time, which was drowned in the heart, resurfaced a memory, a regret.

Wear Red Lipstick Everyday

About how the genetic code supports Darwinism

Just today I found myself saying to students that the genetic code is simply one of the biggest evidence uncovered over the past fifty years (he was discovered in the 1960s) which confirms, in clear and elegant way, Darwinian evolution - especially when operated in its most fundamental level possible, ie the molecular level.

What is the genetic code?

We often use the term genetic code as an expression synonymous with "complete set of DNA from a cell", ie as a synonym for what we consider the genome of an organism. Technically speaking, however, when geneticists say genetic code they are not talking of DNA content of organisms. Indeed

the genetic code consists of a molecular code for passing the information contained in DNA to the information contained in proteins . To simplify the story, back a little on the theory of inheritance. We know that our cells contains 46 DNA molecules, which consist of large tape calls chromosomes. Each of our cells contains 46 chromosomes, 23 Heard from our father and our mother's legacy 23. It turns out that the DNA is considered today as a book kept on the shelf (or like a cake recipe), it contains a lot of information but it is considered chemically inert , ie it does not act effectively in the intracellular environment. The four chemical bases that make up: A, C, G and T teem a structure very similar and do not allow the realization of complex chemical interactions that form the cellular metabolism. (This argument has even been used many times - before Watson and Crick - to argue that DNA could not be the molecule of heredity.)

Anyway, today it is known that DNA, although chemically inert, contains necessary and sufficient information to direct the synthesis of other chemically active molecules, especially proteins. So that has a cell metabolism and is capable of transforming chemicals is necessary that the information contained in their DNA - and formed by chromosomal tapes containing millions of base pairs A, C, G and T arranged in a row - is converted into protein molecules. DNA, therefore, has two main functions, namely: (i) have the code of heredity and (ii) contain the information for making proteins. function (i) has to do with evolution and the fact that children resemble their parents, it is studied mainly by discipline of genetic . Since the function (ii) is related to how DNA controls the metabolism of a cell, and is academically studied mainly in the disciplines of molecular biology and biochemistry. Environmental cues to stimulate DNA transcription perform certain pieces of its molecule. Transcription is the process where the DNA form what is called messenger RNA (for details, click here ). This mRNA contains the information of the gene, which now leaves the nucleus (safe dwelling DNA) and to the cytoplasm will be translated into proteins. Information flow DNA to proteins is known as the central dogma of molecular biology , and was proposed by Watson and Crick some time after the discovery of the structure of DNA double helix (1953).

The central dogma of molecular biology indicates how the DNA information, which is chemically inert, information is transformed into protein. The protein molecules are mainly responsible for the control of cellular metabolism and, therefore, of life at its molecular level. [1]

Proteins are polymeric molecules made up of 20 different types of monomers, called amino acids. A polymer can be considered as a string of pearls, where each pearl is the monomer of the polymer paste. DNA is a polymer whose monomers (beads) are the nucleotides A, C, G and T. A small "necklace of DNA" could be formed by the following set of nucleotides: ACTCGGACATTTTACAGACACACGGAC. Since the protein is a polymer whose monomers are 20 amino acids, namely: (i) Alanine, (ii) cysteine, (iii) Aspartic acid, (iv) Glutamic Acid (v) Phenylalanine, (vi) Glycine, (vii ) Histina, (viii) isoleucine, (ix) Lysine, (x) Leucine, (xi) methionine (Xii) Asparagine (xii) Proline, (xiv) glutamine, (xv) Arginine, (xvi) serine, (xvii) Threonine, (xviii) Valine, (xix) Tyrosine, (xx) Tryptophan. Unlike nucleotides, which are chemically inert, each amino acid has different chemical properties differ, and some are positively charged, while others are negatively charged, while others are hydrophobic. The chemical diversity of amino acids is what allows the proteins have different roles in cellular metabolism, being responsible for some molecules bind in aqueous media, other functioning as pores for passage through the plasma membrane, other traveling the blood to other tissues and function as hormones. Finally, the combination of these 20 "pearl" necklaces aminoacidic to form protein allows proteins to have an incredible diversity and chemistry that can link different molecules that interact with our bodies. And to top it off the chemical diversity, these collars proteins are also able to curl up in space and form three-dimensional structures are highly complex, which greatly influence the shape of the operation of our cell metabolism.

Chemical formulas of the 20 amino acids that make proteins. Divided into chemical classes, amino acids can be charged positively or negatively, may still be polar or nonpolar without charge. This diversity makes the protein chemistry (polymers containing between 30 to 1000 amino acids, typically) highly reactive molecules. Besides the chemical diversity, the proteins also have structural diversity, given by three-dimensional conformation of amino acids in space. Figure obtained this site.

Although other molecules such as nucleic acids, lipids (fats) and sugars (carbohydrates) are highly important for cell metabolism, biologists molecular believe the key molecules that control and command the operation of a cell are the same proteins. E is the DNA that has the code for the formation of these proteins. Therefore, DNA and acts indirectly controls cell metabolism.

Finally the genetic code was perhaps the major discovery made after Watson & Crick had discovered the double helix structure of DNA, the understanding of this code allows us to understand how a code of four letters (nucleotides) of DNA is able to produce a code of 20 letters (amino acids) of proteins. The comparison of DNA and protein with letters and words made here is not merely a way of simplifying or analogy; teem DNA and proteins, as well as languages, syntax and semantics that can be learned from his observation and analysis. Interestingly, the story of the discovery of the genetic code is a very interesting topic that promise to be back here to tell. What matters here is that, when we speak of genetic code, we're on the mechanisms of transformation of a molecule of nucleic acid in a protein molecule . The origin of the highly complex mechanism of translation is still a mystery (that's right, the process is called translation and works similarly to the translation between languages), but experimentally the researchers were able to discover that for every three adjacent letters found in the coding region of a gene, the cell is able to produce a specific amino acid. See the table design of the genetic code below:

The table of the genetic code. Although the genetic code word is often confused with the gene content or genome of an organism or species for geneticists is the genetic code in this table, ie the code by which a triplet of nucleotides in DNA is converted into an amino acid that will be part of a protein.

The table above has been demonstrated experimentally in a variety of organisms, and it represents the translation between the encoded language of DNA chemistry and chemical language of proteins. The manufacture of proteins often begins with the crack (codon) ATG (or AUG), which encodes the amino acid methionine (Met). And so, the letters of the DNA (processed in the intermediate messenger RNA) below enabling us to translate the information in a language-of-information in DNA to a language-of-proteins. A sequence such as ATG-CCT-CCA-GGT-CAG-GGA-GTC-TGA in the DNA in the cell will be transformed - by the mechanism known as translation - in a protein with the amino acids Methionine-Proline-Proline-Glutamine-Glycine-Glycine -valine (which can be also described as Met-Pro-Pro-Gly-Gln-Gly-Val, or, more briefly, as MPPGQPV). The last codon TGA (or UGA) is the signal for the end of protein synthesis where DNA signals to the cell that it should not continue translating it and that code for proteins that ends there.

How and why the genetic code is consistent with Darwinism?

Given the enormous diversity organisms on Earth, would can think of each different organism could use a different genetic code to produce its protein. It is theoretically possible to think of alternative genetic codes, where the assignment was different crack-amino acid shown in this figure. (Francis Crick himself has even proposed a different genetic code that would make such an allocation between DNA nucleotides and amino acids in proteins. And although the code non-punctuated Crick was beautiful and elegant, it was not observed in any organism. And the development science always requires experimental confirmation to prove that if you wish.) Meanwhile, molecular biologists have investigated hundreds of thousands of living organisms, from the most ancient bacteria, through animals in the sea, in fresh water under the earth, the mountains, we investigated the fish, amphibians , reptiles, plants, algae, fungi, primates, marsupials, cyanobacteria, the archaebacteria and, finally, all known organisms. In none of these organisms the genetic code was very different and we know that this is represented in the table above. Only a few bodies teem either codon (triplet of nucleotides), which makes a different assignment, and these consist of just the exception that proves the rule. [2]

The fact that all living organisms have the same genetic code - or at least a very similar genetic code - is considered by scientists is evidence of two facts: (i) all living organisms few are descended from organisms that lived in the past and (ii) the emergence of the genetic code and translation engine brought a huge evolutionary advantage for organisms that were able to use it . The fact that (i) is the main sub-theories of Darwin, which is called common ancestry. Charles Darwin was the first person to say that all organisms on Earth have a common ancestor that lived in the past and was being distinguished in living species. Darwin did not live long enough to see the molecular corroboration of his ideas, but it certainly would have found it brilliant to see how all life on our planet that we know has the same basic code for making proteins. If organisms are not descended from a common ancestor, they could have completely different codes and their proteins could make a totally different and creative. They could even have some kind of metabolism that was not based primarily on the interaction of proteins and metabolites from each other. But such a body ever seen and we believe that there is at least on Earth. So the fact that all living organisms have the same genetic code is one of the strongest evidence of common ancestry among them and was a key corroboration of Darwinism made in the second half of the twentieth century, little more than a century after the publication original work "The Origin of Species" in 1859.

we focus now on the point (ii) presented above, which says that the first organism in which the genetic code appeared (and therefore the translation engine) has had an enormous adaptive advantage relative to other organisms that lived in his time . No I want here to extend the discussion of how the bodies were in a world where the genetic code did not exist. If I did, would be returning to the subject of the origin of life, highly controversial topic that can generate an entire work just heated discussions about very interesting details. I wish here only to show that by the time the genetic code emerged, there should be several types of proto-cells that were able to produce proteins from DNA in a highly inefficient. While the emergence of the complex mechanism of translation (and the genetic code) has been a rather large "evolutionary leap" still unexplained, since this mechanism has emerged (from quite similar to that which exists today), the bodies were able to use this code evolutionary won the war against other organisms that can coexist in the same season. And the proof is the same as that used in (i) there is no other body that is able to do differently this protein that uses the translation engine and where broken DNA are translated into amino acids according to the genetic code the figure. If there was another efficient way of producing proteins by living organisms would be able to see any animal or plant or fungus that would use any alternative mechanism, which does not happen. So the first guy who was able to make proteins according to a proto-code like this that we have today, he subdued all its competitors in the evolutionary race and what we see today in all the diversity of life on our planet, are the descendants of ancient organism that was able to use sequences of code- three chemical letters of nucleic acids to produce a letter of protein chemistry.

The human genome is the set of all genes that humans possess, and also non-genic regions. Although only 1% of our genome is responsible for doing what we call the genes encoding-de-proteins, these regions are now considered as the most important of our genome. Recent estimates speak that human beings have something around 30 000 protein-coding genes and are mainly those interactions between these proteins within our cells that make our body work coordinated in a highly complex and wonderful. The same goes for most other living organisms, also possessing tens of thousands of genes in their genomes, are able to turn those genes into proteins through translation engine that performs the reading of the genetic code and allows the existence of cellular metabolism . This amazing and wonderful code that when present, almost unchanged in all living organisms, consists one of the greatest tests that Darwinism really is not just theory or supposition: it is fact.

==


[1] Another important and necessary predisposition "theory of the central dogma" is that once the DNA information is written in the form of proteins, it no longer returns - ever - to be DNA. This fact was also interpreted as the definitive refutation of the Lamarckian theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics. If that ever happens to the proteins back to DNA, then there is nothing like that happens in the life of an organism to cause impressions in their genetic material, material that is passed to this your child. It is worth noting that today there is evidence that some more subtle features can be re-printed in the DNA in the form of changes in the bases C, which may be methylated, or structure of the proteins that surround the DNA (chromatin) - see posting on epigenetic .
[2] Notes to the author, when you want to actually publish this text in the book: to give examples of alternative genetic codes, such as the mitochondrion, explaining the differences. Also explain how the roles have evolved codon-amino acid according to the theory of Savio / Romeo .

Pilote Windows 7 Frdell Optiplex 620

daughters and stepdaughters, chickens and chicks ...

not interested in the question of the bung, bung. Ruby Do not want to talk about the issue and treat it like what has been done in recent months in relation to various issues such as that of Austrian politicians in Italian villas that guests show off their passions nudist, or escort "escorted" in different places for reasons little institutional. I do not want to do to not fall into the trap of false moralism, because the issue is moral that is of another type. Of course it remains to ask why so many cases they see young and beautiful girls are the light of day and always see the most active and engaged or not the figure of Silvio Berlusconi.
But I will not address the issue as many have done. To do so would only expose himself to the defensive countermeasures such as "are questions concerning the privacy of the rest .... aera Kennedy also talked about but he is remembered as a great politician ....." I do not want to do because then maybe look like the man who Rosica why can not it do the same and subirei the objection of those supporters who say that Prime Minister Berlusconi as well as great entrepreneur, we face a great figaccione, Chiappino, etc.. etc..
But the substance remains, I will not do why do not wish to be accused of false moralism, as the issue is moral and what I mean.
Ruby does not present the question, because those who do not know it yet it means that little information. Offered for the few who still ignore a link all (corriere.it). In short, according to press reports, Silvio Berlusconi's chief of staff calls the police headquarters in Milan and called back an hour later the Prime Minister caposcorta recalling the police officer. He wanted to be informed on the evolution of the story, asking for further clarification. Corriere.it writes that both demonstrated in the report submitted by the service Quaestor Vincenzo Indolfi at the Interior Ministry. On the evening of May 27, 2010, while Ruby was subjected to photo-, there were then two calls by the head of government. At 2 of the night the young Moroccan left the police station together with the Regional Councillor Nicole Minetti, just as he had requested the Prime Minister and how he had authorized the magistrate on duty Anna Maria Fiorillo. For those who do not know Ruby instead offer another link, the source certainly not party to the Premier ( TGcom ) that does not tell, but let it be the same to tell Ruby alone. You have seen if you read the link or know if you were informed, it is a (at this point seems different) girls who attended the homes of the Premier. Without wishing to tell and write about these meetings, parties, entertainment of various kinds (let to tell here is Ruby and read the link because if there were crying would also be fun) I want to dwell on various aspects.
First : Berlusconi said in recent days among other things, that the declarations of Ruby would do understand the inconsistency of the gossip. I do not think it is true to a report in the press (even TGcom ) about such statements. Ruby says, in essence, that night of S. Valentino in Berlusconi's villa in Arcore, the premier front of invited "teasing left-wing politicians, like Bersani. So far nothing but the usual story that Berlusconi satire just like when the he does not when the others are doing on it (example of democratic spirit)
Always remember Ruby in his interview with "Today." "She showed us a marble statue with his face and body of Superman." Here too little news (the usual delusions of grandeur typical of many people especially when they arrive at a certain age). Then
Ruby adds, "... I said I was all dressed up and I have long legs. We were ten girls. Then he dedicated a song, because I was new. I sang If you were not you of Apicella. Here, too, nothing new, besides the usual script approach to women, even the usual classical repertoire and worn in fact singing.
But then Ruby appears in all his shyness and says " I said I was all dressed up and I have long legs. I would just say thank you. I did not want to give too much confidence, not knowing what kind it was." Poor thing, being Italian is not accustomed to certain traditions and customs.
Forget the usual story of a new and a little joke (that of Bunga Bunga ) made by Berlusconi, also for lack of novelty. We thus arrive at a first point, that has the comic. Tells Ruby that he wanted to leave because "... I was uncomfortable because everyone was familiar with him and not me." She was not poor, the usual immigrant discrimination.
always says that Ruby did not go away just because "but first he took me upstairs to his office" (which she did not have the confidence of the other we went upstairs, poor fawn inexperienced confidence not because he does not know what kind she would like Berlusconi says, but follows him on why the door to the office and she thinks that maybe the reason is to discuss the issue of immigrants and poverty in the Maghreb.
later confessed that there Berlusconi shows why his powers as a clairvoyant (no know how he did it because she new and not in confidence) "knew of my problems and wanted to help" so that would give her an envelope with € 7 000, saying they do not want anything in return, adding: "I do not I'm a bad man, do not stand on your own. "That's the politician, a statesman, is offered in time of need. Maybe it would be nice if we say at least 7 000 € multiplied by ten, Berlusconi had given to them some research institute (research need it in this country) and the Italians would have better understood knowing that the money gave them to him to get something in return or some progress in science. What I do not understand is, however, when you give to a 7 000 € person "without asking anything in return" and maybe this time just multiplied by ten (the girls as Ruby says there were ten and more confidence in her. Truly, Ruby reveals that "Silvio has given us a Damiani necklace with a heart because Valentine's Day was "sentimentalist!).
Let then the statements that come to ridicule like this: " I could eat better " " The taxi approached a side entrance. Priscilla (his Brazilian friend, Ed) called at the villa and the police have left us through. When I saw that villone I asked my friend where we were. And she said 'the President'. Street Mission had a stroke. Until a few months before I slept on a bench in Catania.''
clearly the first question, just as Berlusconi said (the words of Ruby will clarify everything and I hope that you too will have a better idea) we pass to the second point today Berlusconi motorcycle at the show, I do not know if after speaking also of the problems of two-wheelers,''said better to be passionate about beautiful girls gay.'' what is the problem here: even Giovambattista Adornato (the indifferent pissed of the blog) would be able to say something even more in the worst sports bar now feels more. We complain if in Belgrade during the gay pride, nationalist groups are trying to crack some heads. Censor and condemn certain behavior if, as happened in Rome, someone tries to take out some homosexual. While in Europe, member states seek to implement policies and promote the anti homophobia, our Premier makes this great statement, Such "pork 'I've got the world under your feet, if I discover that my son is gay .... I do" remember Drive and Faletti.
last question perhaps the most serious moral and not moral. In short, you'll see that Ruby, born Moroccan Karim El Marhug is, well, at the material time, is a minor leak "under observation" by the police on charges of theft, which then leads a life in Italy a little special ( as she says "I slept on benches in Catania"). Today Maroni (Northern League interior minister) is pleased , because Milan prosecutor's office says that there is nothing in the facts of the call to the police station. But what Welcomes? The League has made it a matter of policy agenda: the immigrants who live off their wits in Italy, return to their country. This time what they say to a Moroccan aid that does not seem "very regularized" in Italy, or at least much less than many poor people or carers looking for a paid job with a loaf of bread so as not to go back to hell. Who meets this need: the envelope, without wanting anything in return, I will not say with 7 000 €, but only those with 700 € from the daughters. The league does he say this time? how much is federalism? here is the moral question and the moralist: the politician who represents us should at least be consistent to be credible? I would not find out, as they say that in Italy there are sons and daughters, and even chickens (we hope not to be us) and pullets.

Best Expert Advisor Metastock

From genesis to the acceptance of a scientific theory in epistemology

INTRODUCTION


A scientific theory is generated when you start thinking deeply about a subject and then it warps logical, conceptual and historical conditions under which it was developed. You normally have a somewhat superficial view of all knowledge and, more than that, do not stop to think about any particular problem. The failures of our theories, we are able to quickly create ad hoc devices to explain to them: "But it should not be so if the theory was correct? Should, but in this particular case ..." and so we invent an excuse to explain that we shall not dwell on the issue seriously uncomfortable. So the effect of chance, persistence, and / or insolence of some souls, and also for his brilliant intellectuals, some scholars end up strongly interested in any subject, being able to question him with honesty, seeking its flaws and its limits conceptual look into the literature to try to understand it correctly, deeply, sincerely. So the first thing to do is (1) define a problem or area of \u200b\u200bexpertise, from (2) to know the current status of knowledge in the field, so (3) define their problems and shortcomings, find out what can be improved and how.

The ANOMALY that triggers COMES THE GENESIS OF MASKED Misunderstanding

If we do a critical reading of this literature in a particular area of \u200b\u200bresearch, with some chance encounter some point we can not quite understand . The first fact in the construction of knowledge is true that a researcher can never accept any part in the misunderstanding of what it does, read or work. He needs to understand everything you read ... but if the same background, he does not understand. And so, this lack of a correct understanding of certain theoretical detail will first be viewed as a failure of their own cognitive system of the reader - even foolish - to understand that particular question. (In most cases, even believe this is even the case.) So, this student will be required to read or reread peripheral literatures as many times as necessary on the subject that caused this misunderstanding until it becomes somewhat more clear and understandable. The failure of the reader's understanding, however, may be directly related to a problem that Thomas Kuhn called incommensurability (Kuhn, 1962). The lack of understanding that we can have on a particular issue may be related to the fact that the means by which constitute our conceptual system to understand that problem is conceptually different from normal accepted by the science paradigm. Thus, the manner in which this problem is now understood by experts in the field (a) conflicts with (b) what we learned in our general intellectual training, there is a mismatch at first sight incomprehensible assumptions or concepts of (a ) and (b).

Gaston Bachelard (1884-1962) was a French philosopher of science. In his work "The formation of the scientific spirit," Bachelard conducts what it calls a psychoanalysis of knowledge, identifying some of the pillars on which was based on the formation of knowledge in pre-scientific eras and scientific. He thus tries to find patterns and generalize the "scientific explanations" for a given time. Is adept of the idea of \u200b\u200bepistemological rupture, where theories are replaced over time, an idea which culminated in the concept of Kuhnian paradigms.

is worth noting that the knowledge of books was certainly produced in earlier times, in former times. In modern days, science has evolved, its methods have evolved, the intellectual paradigms are different. And therein may lie the germ of the conflict between (a) and (b). And so the sciences and the bodies of knowledge (memeplexes) need to be modernized, and the researcher's task perform this critical update. Gaston Bachelard, for example, shows in his work "The formation of scientific spirit" (1938) several of the intellectual paradigms of science in so-called pre-scientific age . He begins what he calls psychoanalysis of knowledge and identifies recurring patterns used by the intellectuals of the pre-scientific to explain the world, such as unity, substantial or animism. In the scientific age the intellectual paradigms that should be used as a source of explanation have been modified, although certainly keep up the legacy of the originals. In the scientific age they are more related to mechanism, rationalism, reductionism, cybernetics. Maybe we could predict that a post-science will be more concerned with an understanding of the process broadly, where the slogan would be concepts, relations, complexity and, again, unity. Thus, the same issues are dealt with in other ways and the answers are sought in new guises.

The misunderstanding, therefore, is often caused by differences paradigmatic of the intelligentsia of the times when a certain statement was accepted as true, times were different and science must then update the knowledge given new epistemological paradigms. The misunderstanding may arise undoubtedly disguised under the cloak of these differences than today if you value and what happened in the past. The scholar who wants to build a new scientific theory must therefore try to understand all the concepts generated in the past and was made to reach them when you want to make new contributions to a particular scientific subject, (2) it must strive to understand all the concepts with which it works intellectually. He must also understand (3) which were based on the previous generation of researchers to consider them correct. Will be precisely these flaws understanding, given the incommensurability between the researcher modern thinking right and what is actually accepted into the community to be correct, given a historical tradition epistemological where are stored the seeds of "scientific revolutions" . A careful and critical reading (close reading), so it is extremely relevant to understanding and critique of the conceptual system from which we wish to explore while know. The definition of the exact point of incomprehension allows researchers to identify the point of questioning, and from him, from this anomaly, the researcher must now explain it in the new epistemological paradigms and intellectuals of his time and get right there, a recast in the form of conceptual understanding that knowledge. This reformulation may be puntual or may generate reflections around the point of misunderstanding that will roam the redesign, in large measures, the entire conceptual system established.

For efficient modification of human knowledge on a particular subject must first thinker (1) understand perfectly what you think about a subject in the epistemological tradition from which he comes, (2) be able to discern a better answer based on conceptual grounds rather different. To the extent that the thinker comprises (1) and its alternative (2) perfectly, it can be considered bilingual, as defined by Thomas Kuhn. The third stage of scientific development is the (3) put face-to-face theories and showing the best adaptation of a new idea with respect to the old idea. This new adaptation can be based on measurable criteria or completely subjective.

the bilingual: SCIENCE AS A LANGUAGE

Identified then a place to share - (3) place where our understanding of this problem differs from the traditional understanding - the savant (philosopher-scientist) looks on one issue of incommensurability "own X consensus "to clarify the issue.

is noteworthy that is to investigate more on the fact that judges have little knowledge or have misunderstood is that the scientist becomes finally able to understand what the current paradigm means when he says what it says. So I am convinced that from the beginning, the scientist already sees the world differently from the theory. However, to advance the knowledge of his time, he will explain exactly what his criticism and present it in a clearly, simply and directly. Since it is expected that the scientist already knows what he thinks and knows in order to put their arguments to explain why you think so, he needs to learn what science is about the classic academic subject, at which point it becomes (4) bilingual (Kuhn, 1983). This is the main moment the genesis of a scientific theory, when it is finally understood to be three important facts: (a) what is normally accepted by the academy, (b) what the savant really think about the problem; and (c) the explicit differences between (a) and (b).

Science can be regarded as a language, or rather as a set of languages. Each specialty has a set of concepts and words used as jargon for the search. Just as anyone familiar with an area of \u200b\u200bjargon, reads information about another is that much of this misunderstanding comes from knowledge. There's another area in the text does not know the words and it uses them so different from ours. It takes a while to get used to, it is necessary that our brains fill certain gaps of misunderstanding that form - something that is not where we read our texts more specific area. To learn that particular language, we need to know certain words and know the rules that bind them to allow the efficient representation of the physical world. A mathematician, however, has a vision and tries to explain the world in a different form of a sociologist, a biologist, an anthropologist. The first questions that you do some work in trying to understand a system are highly dependent on science which he learned before the university indoctrination; or her own personal life. The languages \u200b\u200bare different from scientists and scientific innovation often comes from trying to synthesis and integration of languages \u200b\u200bbetween different fields of knowledge. This summary just part of incomprehension before the reading area distinct and honest attempt to understand it as knowledge.

Moreover, the manner in which words and concepts submissions are also dependent on the intellectual paradigms of an era. Although we can understand the Greeks or Renaissance philosophers, some of their buildings or logical rules followed to arrive at certain conclusions are not seen as valid for us today. When the pre-Socratic philosopher Thales of Miletus says that the essence of the universe is water, we can not see it as correct, although in his day there were people who really took it seriously and followed him because they believe it. Likewise, when Descartes reflects on the bloodstream or conclude on the existence of God, we know the flaws their arguments and no longer accept that argument in a definitive and / or categorical. The intellectual paradigms change from time to time and the sciences need to conform to new zeitgeists of times when they are formulated. This idea is originally contained in the Spirit of Hegel's philosophy. Bachelard talks extensively about the influence of these intellectual fashions in scientific work, followed by a more specific way by Kuhn.

Well, I've been talking so far that to occur the genesis of a new theory, it is necessary that (i) an understanding of the theory "fashion" and (ii) will lead to creation of a new conceptual framework for the modern scientist, and finally (iii) there is the clash between intellectual (i) and (ii) to generate new knowledge, modern, updated at the time is described. I must admit, however, that too often, new knowledge is proposed without knowing exactly his relationship with the ancient knowledge, paradigmatic. Newtonian physics and Einsteinian , for example, could never be fully integrated for many applications and is used today either, and not a synthetic integration between the two. Einstein seems to have followed the pattern provided herein. He just found a point of criticism of the Newtonian theory - especially in regard to the speed of light - and so developed his theories. Neither Albert nor many who came after him seem to have managed (or bothered) to make this clear contrast between old and new theory. Nevertheless, both theories have now used differently in our society. Clearly, at many points they have been incorporated in others not. While physicists Einstein and still works with those who followed him in the grounds of quantum mechanics and its sub-divisions, the engineer still has his column in Newton theory.

Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922-1996) was one of the greatest twentieth-century epistemologists. He created the concept of incommensurability of scientific theories - where no one can ever tell if a theory is truly better than another. Accused of relativism, Kuhn suggests that theories are incommensurable because they use different vocabulary, he suggests that the concepts of mass and strength, for example, have been applied differently by Newton and Einstein. The two theories could only be confronted, he said, by an individual bi-lingual, ie able to understand both theories (despite the syntactic similarity under which lurks semantic difference) and check, for a special case, which one would apply more appropriately. In this post I use the incommensurability in a context in which it presents itself as a linguistic and conceptual pit which must be crossed by a bridge that rationale for the genesis of new scientific theories is reached.

LINGUISTIC CONFLICT BETWEEN OLD AND NEW SCIENTIFIC THEORIES

After so bilingual that can understand the theory proposed in accordance with the prevailing thought in its deepest foundations, he also goes directly to understand what is supported, conceptually, their own new theory. Having understood the thinking of its alternative - and imagines that their own knowledge has been long understood - (5) the philosopher can compare the conflicting visions of a more direct way, trying to remain impartial and to verify both the adequacy of one or other theory with respect to empirical evidence and the their suitability for a conceptual model that perceives more broadly, adequate or beautiful human knowledge acquired within an epistemological tradition.

In most cases, given that human knowledge is already in advanced level , will realize that the newly invented theory was simply wrong or failed at some point. There more ways to produce a wrong theory of what a correct. In these cases, the philosopher automatically modify their thinking to incorporate in their conceptual system theory prevailing paradigm, using it thereafter as a pillar and valid theoretical framework for solving problems related to the area in question. If this happens, the thinker will have proved your stupidity or naiveté and need to accept that the canonical knowledge was correct. However, if all individuals accept the knowledge already obtained as a valid response, human knowledge would not evolve. Thank goodness, then, that the rebels there to question them and try to collapse them into piles shards of old and rotten. It is worth quoting the famous words of Einstein: " To punish me for my disrespect for authority, fate made myself an authority. "

However, in a few instances, the body of evidence examined by the philosopher show more beautiful or appropriate given a new era, aesthetic or way of thinking of mankind [1]. It will be better and more virtuous than the ancient knowledge will prove most appropriate and explain phenomena that are still misunderstood. The new theory, therefore, will have what the philosopher Karl Popper called greater empirical content than the previously existing theory [2]. Thus, when the researcher understands both competing theories with accuracy and is able to explain why yours is better than force, he finds a fertile field of work. Thus, having once understood the difference rationally and best fit between the model and the consensus model of its era, one that seeks the development of human knowledge and feel anguish even an obligation to write something revealing and explaining in detail the advantages of a new point of view regarding the paradigmatic point of view [3].


ACCEPTANCE OF NEW SCIENTIFIC THEORIES

It is time then to write a work. And now only those devices are not worth the scientific and rational arguments to show the superiority of a new theory on an earlier one. The scientist needs to use rhetoric, something which Schopenhauer called eristic , ie the ability to convince others of a viewpoint (Schopenhauer, 1830). It's part (6) important work of the scientist and philosopher know how to write, knowing convincing, arguments and evidence pinching know the flaws of the previous model and the advantages of the new model.

is worth noting that the amount of political scientist who has influence, no doubt, in accepting his new models. Some great scientists such as Gregor Mendel, were forgotten for more than three decades before his brilliant publications were to be re-discovered to mark the origin of science Genetics. But Mendel was merely a poor monk studying at the ends of the Czech republic, far from great knowledge of the unfolding grand Darwin in Victorian England at the time. No one will notice their existence. The evolutionary theories of Lamarck - that revolutionized and criticized a biological model fixista already deteriorated and patently false, inherited from Aristotle - were overshadowed by the personality of Buffon, his mentor and great French naturalist at the time, it seemed only find interesting their theories, without giving them due weight. Others, like Albert Einstein, were able to avenge an early age. Even then, three of the great works of German physicist were published in 1905 (in his annus mirabilis when he was only 25 years) and he only came to win the Nobel in 1921, sixteen years later.

Frenchman Lamarck, the monk Gregor Mendel Czech and German Albert Einstein. Each of the three great geniuses whose works were criticized and accepted differently. Lamarck was ridiculed by the great name of French naturalism at the time, Buffon. Mendel had completely forgotten his theories for 35 years and only was recognized as a great scientist after his death. Einstein was already well recognized in his lifetime, but only came to win the Nobel Prize 16 years after the publication of some of his major theories.

SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS are attacked by OLD SCIENTISTS AND YOUNG SCIENTISTS revered by
(or MAJOR RENOVATIONS IN SCIENCE CONCEPTUAL OCCURRED MORE LIKELY IN REPLACEMENT OF GENERATIONS)


Then it's just a slow and gradual way that the community specialists in the area will be able to accept the changes in an effort responsible for evaluating the adequacy of each new vision with the standards of accepted reality in a given time. I would say, typically, the differences and advantages of a new theory on the older one will be reasonably clear to be understood by people not yet started scientific practice in the area of \u200b\u200binterest, or beginners. Moreover, much of the great names of science in a given season will already be indoctrinated in paradigmatic science and act as buffers of scientific revolutions. Thus, it seems to me that a (7) of the best ways to test the suitability of a new theory about an ancient to present arguments both for a beginner area (neophyte) and ask him to choose one as the best of them. The newcomer is certainly a rational being who must submit the most basic knowledge about an area and does not have an attachment to the tradition of current research. It is precisely this attachment to the traditional paradigm that hangs for some time to accept new ideas in science. Bachelard seems to agree with the idea while reporting on his work "The formation of the scientific spirit" that an epistemologist irreverent said that great men were useful to science in the first half of life and damaging the other half. Thomas Kuhn also says that one generation should be replaced to modify it completely invalid as a paradigmatic knowledge (Kuhn, 1962). Thus, one would assume that the development of knowledge depends somewhat on biological development and there seems to be a cognitive limitation that makes human beings cling to certain conceptual schemes in authoritarian and dogmatic. Lakatos presents a concept of intellectual honesty which is directly related to identifying the precise conditions under which an individual is willing to change his mind (Lakatos, 1978). The existence of the fundamentalists and the great strength religions reinforces the fact that we are not, in general, intellectually honest. It would be strange if scientists would flee to this type of rule over the human being.


THE WRONG INTERPRETATION OF DATA IN THE CLASSICAL THEORY AND BOYCOTT THE YOUNG SCIENTISTS SCIENTISTS FOR OLD-PARADIGMATIC


Returning to the question of comparison between two theories, we can see a problem, however, when the theory is more consistent theory and not the new paradigm. In such cases, the newly created theory suggests that a problem is observed through a different conceptual approach of that force. In these cases worth noting that even the empirical data existing at the time of confrontation of the new theory against the current theory can not be interpreted effectively, seeing that was not linked with the fashion world now is concerned that, given the new theory. There was a conceptual change! Thus, it is possible that an extremely crucial factor - given the conceptual development of the new problem - has been completely overlooked in experiments performed according to the theory paradigm! In fact, information of the utmost importance given the new theory could have been completely ignored when assessing a problem supposed to answer empirical questions of science paradigm - many of which are now perceived as irrelevant or misguided, given the new theory.

While it is clear that the characteristic of a researcher depends more on individual than his age, is more likely that young people are the most current intellectual paradigms of their times than the old, then that will act as defenders of the status quo knowledge (caps of Scientific Revolutions). Einstein himself is an example of this observation inspired by Bachelard: he was a rebel theoretical in his youth and the older, refused to accept the development of quantum mechanics, believing until the end of life that "God does not play dice", in a classic dispute with Niels Bohr. He never accepted the concepts of quantum physics probabísticos.

is why, too, that the old researchers often act as buffers of scientific revolutions. In fact, the question depends less on age than the researcher's intellectual honesty with respect to scientific research. A new theory may show that several surveys in recent decades tried find order in the wrong place, they did not attack what is now seen as central to the problem. The young scientist therefore, highlights the stupidity or incompetence of the paradigmatic scientist. The new theory apart like a house of cards the whole career of decades of research by older, which will cause a political problem for the young genius. The researcher who has worked for 30 years with a particular problem will be, at the time, and genius on the subject will be the one who will address all the social issues related to the subject. He will act politically in the scientific arena of a country and its voice will be heard. Having worked with commitment to science over decades, is expected to be right. And suddenly, just a couple come with a theory ill-fitted (as are all new theories) or to destroy decades of research prove inconsistent with government funding? The old scientist at the height of his intellectual pride , never accept the new theory now and will do everything possible to boycott all the young scientist and his alleged new ideas. The old scientist will then use arguments of authority and explicit boycott the youth to show that his group did in the past 30 years and millions of dollars of value is yes - instead of simply trying to be accepting what can not be find (second fold the new theory). This can be considered the case of Lamarck, who was ridiculed by Buffon, the great naturalist who described the time and much of the fauna and flora of his time - with absolutely nothing to talk about evolution or on the transmutation of forms over time .


MINING AND DATA reinterpretation of PROOFING THE NEW THEORY

On the other hand though following the same line of argument, although some thought irrelevant information when conducting their experiments, scientists normal prevailing paradigm of science may have checked yes information important in the context of new theory and added in their work, even in a methodologically incomplete or just as a curiosity or a general observation, data are extremely relevant given the new scientific context. This means that, given the new theory, a large number of facts have to be fished from other jobs - where there is an indirect reference to them - and reinterpreted for use in the early stages of corroboration of it, by replacing old theory of this new, according to the progression Lakatosian a series of research programs (Lakatos, 1978).

explained above this point so much as a rapidly identifies because the new theories are normally regarded as quite speculative and because there is a time lapse between the suggestion of a theory of empirical content clearly larger than its predecessor - the new theory is initially set aside for a while until more precise evidence (and younger scientists) come to corroborate it with greater efficiency and more appropriate [4]. Certainly the new theories entice the mind of researchers, to know them and observe them while performing their jobs, bringing the number to themselves the evidence for and against competing theories then. Soon, the scientist who works in a normal field in particular have an opinion about which theory he thinks fit more seamlessly into their experience on the subject.

In fact, it seems to me that a new scientific theory, as proposed, should provide a rational basis and an empirical basis likely quite large and well-grounded, so that she can at least have a chance to try to replace the theory force that has already been verified and that work quite efficiently, even if incomplete, given the presence of serious anomalies. That means a new theory, at the outset, it must satisfy at least the falsificationist methodological that - despite not need an empirical base already proven, as required by falsificationist naive (or dogmatic) - supports a new theory as valid if it (i) has a greater empirical content than the paradigmatic theory and (ii) provide the possibility to be confirmed soon by some experiments crucial (Lakatos, 1978).

While one can create ad hoc devices to save the theory if she has no success in certain crucial tests and that the Duhem-Quine thesis will haunt our own confidence in crucial experiments, empirical data can indeed provide a satisfactory agreement with theoretical predictions. And this agreement can finally confirm some extent the new theory.




CONCLUSION Finally, perhaps it is worth noting that Kuhn gives much strength to the fact that new theories arise only when one realizes the existence of anomalies in theories. Such anomalies are commonly understood as observable and repeatable flaws in current theory. It's enough to argue that these anomalies are not typically viewed by scientists as overly problematic paradigm. It is known that no theory can explain all the flaws and accepts a normally and it uses ad hoc devices to integrate it into the large body of knowledge paradigm. Only one scientist who proposes a new theory that is finally able to explain why the old theory failed to predict given. For example, the failure to predict the perihelion of Mercury by Newtonian physics was not regarded as serious flaw until Einstein's theory came to explain it with detail and precision more suitable. Thus, although theories and that these anomalies have to build up over time, such anomalies are just noticed how serious given a new way of seeing and conceptualizing the information that can better explain these events . It is this new theory that allows better now yeah understanding and study of facts characterized as flaws in the old theory. So I think here the issue of reverse fault in Kuhn. For Kuhn is the anomaly that pulls the theoretical development, and sometimes I agree that might be so. However I believe it is more common (i) the creation of a new theory that can start from any point and only then, (ii) the verification that this new theory explains more clearly something that previously was not possible to be explained and which is now seen as an anomaly resolved, showing greater empirical content of the new theory created.


POSTSCRIPT

All issues being described here reached to study critically the work of Bachelard, Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, etc., and I even have some new theories that could never accurately describe biological concepts but that question of race, species, genes and evolution in compatilibilidade sexual reproduction. In developing my theoretical studies on these subjects, I could see how the current theories are incorrect and incomplete. And to send my manuscripts or ideas to some major researchers in the field, just getting them to ostracism and contempt. Some causes of this contempt are (i) I am a young researcher coming from an underdeveloped country to throw down the decades their research, (ii) my theories are not exactly well written, (iii) current research do not provide exactly the data you want to prove and (iv) can actually be mistaken as to their relevance. I do not care, in fact, that some day or will not recognize these ideas as true or better than today. In fact I believe it will happen, even though my name is not associated with them, which does not really matter much to me. What really excites me is being able to apply the classical theories in my own studies and thus attempt to better understand how to develop the advancement of human knowledge in its sphere intellectual, political and history.

Some references

* Kuhn, TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions.
* Kuhn, TS (1983) Commensurability, Comparability, communicability in "The Road since Structure *". *
Lakatos, I (1970) Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific research programs. *
Schopenhauer, The (1830) The Art Of Controversy, translated 1896 by T. Bailey Saunders, MA London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Lim
* Bachelard, G (1938). The formation of the scientific spirit: a contribution to psychoanalytic knowledge.

First version written in 07/Julho/2007

[1] We must not forget here that the primacy of reason is also an aesthetic value that has been long considered bad or rotten in favor of acceptance of dogma - as occurred in middle age. Thus the reversal of the value of reason in favor of purely aesthetic values \u200b\u200btends to corrupt and irrational advance our epistemology. We should therefore always seek to base our epistemology paradigm in a libertarian and non-dogmatic.
[2] The fact of the theory to have even more or less empirical content matters only so far he can convince his peers that this content is truly greater. In fact, the physical Newton is best applied today mostly in technology and engineering than the almost intractable Einsteinian physics. Nevertheless, Einstein proved to everybody that was more right than Newton and officially accepted to physical einteiniana even if you use the Newtonian.
[3] It is possible that the initial proponent of a theory he has not even been able to glimpse its most explicit differences from a previously accepted theory. And indeed, this seems the most common case. In this case, other followers of the first individual will be responsible for explaining exactly what he meant and how all this new theory contradicts the old and improvement in certain aspects. The vast majority of cases these differences are never explicitly identified and the choice of one over the other rests on tariff issues and possibly even aesthetic nature, temporal, historical.
[4] reads excerpts from the most famous scientific work of all time, Newton's Principia, show how his understanding of the matter is still in many respects, superficial and incomplete. Only with time is that the assimilation of the concepts can be understood and then used appropriately by the proponents of certain scientific theory. Every new theory is therefore a challenge that only linguistic and intellectual become more appropriate over the years.
[5] The first step to take when you want to advance knowledge is to understand and fully comprehend what one thinks about it today. While reading, however, the reader will encounter incomprehension. First hypothesis: stupidity. Second hypothesis: the reader understands better the knowledge of what the theorists of his time if you write it so you can start the genesis of a new scientific theory.

Creative Extigy Sound Blaster Voor Windows 7

Big Brother and brother fool

The mirror is back.
contrary to the truth is not the mirror is back, why do not he's ever gone: he had left was my computer, or rather he had left his heart, alias "motherboard." But as with humans, even my PC is back with a small transplant to live. Yet this time I have to thank my friend, faithful reader of the blog himself, who know people who have long read my post (he had already appeared in one of these, on that occasion also the author of Survival of my PC).
As I said, the mirror has continued to show pictures, but I was not them "fit" in the network. In fact I already have a self-deprecating post and I will publish that in the end section , another with a poem of mine that I will publish this section in the . I know, for some, this sounds like a threat, a nightmare that can become a reality, for others (I hope they are in majority) will be a hope for a smile or a pleasant reading.
For now, this post is something else: say, to say nothing of politics, current affairs of Macedonia, which is useful for stimulating reflection.
Since yesterday there are no more miners in Chile imprisoned underground. On leaving, they asked not to be treated as a star, it will be difficult, given the attention it already had the media against them and it is certain that the headlights will still bet on them. Actually, it does not bother me, a good story always deserve some spotlight focused on more, given the many bad stories we propinano the news every day. I could see, last Tuesday, some images of liberation and I confess that fell a few tear, especially when the sons of miners, wept with joy desperate to see their fathers to be born again out of the womb of the earth. Well, see here get out of the house " (Real prison) was a beautiful scene on television, in other words a "big brother" positive, not as what we see on our TV. The same day, Tuesday, and you could see this worthy big brother, you could, say, admire always on TV, the idiot brother. I refer to the riots in Genoa before, during and after the match Italy-Serbia (which there was) and I refer to those praising an alleged patriotism, nationalism, or rather, he staged a show that would not deserve further comment. Specifically, then I refer to what has been identified as gang leader , or Serbian inciting violence and cut the safety net, but of course with hood provided, not to be recognized ... and the fact they caught immediately, because the fox, he kept his mask on his head, but to show the body had then removed his shirt and they later identified by tattoos (but also the shirt did not go unnoticed). In short, the head showed a sign "Bosnia is the heart of Serbia" and I do not want to judge whether this is true, but I'm just saying, admitting that that is the heart, the Serbian leader would bother to figure out where he finished his head.
However, you will understood that the Chilean miners were a pretext to talk about the Serbian leader, and also it is an excuse to treat another topic.
Behind these facts, there is a question to think about, which is the issue and the question of Serbia nationalism. Who remembers the nineties, can not remember the conflicts in Yugoslavia and even more cases of ethnic cleansing. Who looks at the actual facts, will be heard in Belgrade that there have already been incidents of violence, all linked to nationalist groups. The term nationalism provides links Wilkipedia . Without wishing to delve on the subject, it is interesting to recall that the same in the nineties there was talk of Italy Lega Nord and the League and some are afraid of the idea that the feelings of the followers of the secessionist Northern League could generate ideologies and trigger a phenomenon similar to that of Yugoslavia. Do not consider myself fit to analyze whether these views were or if they are still valid, but the issue is an excuse to write about a current events regarding the League. I refer to the school of Adro. You have certainly heard the mayor of that country who thought well decorated with bows of the new elementary school under the symbol League, played in a thousand ways, (on the benches, on mats, the litter boxes and do not know where else). The question may seem trivial, but it is not. First, because the school is a school Italian and Italian would be better constellation of symbols. Second, because the league is sensitive to the preservation and handing down traditions and values \u200b\u200bof our society, primarily in the opinion of Catholic values, and then I explain that they mean, or better than we guessed our culture with the symbols "grafted" onto school Adro. Finally, the last point, now that he was ordered to remove those symbols, those who pay for letting us put them off and then , since he used public resources to put something in school that did not have any utility for the good public. And here we come to the last topic: the economic crisis and the need to reduce wastage and expenditure. While there are a lot of head on the sacrifices we have to do in Parliament, was recently rejected a proposal for legislative change. The change had given Antonio Borghese Party MP Italy Values. What about? the abolition of the law on pension for MPs, and not in charge. From the news that appear on the network (because newspapers and TV do not talk about) the proposal was rejected massively by the government majority and opposition together (except Italy of Values): Present 525, 520 Voters, Abstain 5 , Majority 261, 22 voted yes, 498 voted no .
No wonder the annuity is convenient to all elected representatives, appointed by the parties just because the first (here is a disgrace to be appointed as the big brother), majority and opposition together and all agree time. It would save a lot of pennies, maybe just because of the enormous public debt and budget deficit, but if there is something for everyone to tighten their belts a little. Ah yes because if you do not know what the pension and benefits for Members and Senators then read the position papers listed in the official websites of Senate and House .
Happy reading ... and we still play the lottery and buy scratch cards ... some have found the true way of sightseeing forever!

Temperature Element For Body H

From a chaotic universe

PREAMBLE

I fear no man who believes in the concept of an ultimate truth and think that knowing and unequivocal manner worthy of achieving it, this man is a fundamentalist religious or scientific. The religious is worse, given that its tenets are still bigger and stronger, but also fear the fundamentalist scientific, ie, one who bases his belief in the infallibility of the scientific method . In modern times it seems that those individuals who had a tendency to be religious fanatics are starting to become scientific fanatics. He moves the ball, but it remains the position. Care is needed.

Moritz Schlick (1882-1936) and Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970) were supporters of the logical positivist philosophers and members the Vienna Circle, a group of epistemologists interested in discussing the future of science in communion with factors related to the philosophy and language. Although its goals were noble, and his ideas were beautiful and enlightening in many respects, ideal as some protocol sentences were too naive. His ideas influenced but much of the epistemology of the twentieth century and the reading of his works is very interesting, enjoyable and enlightening.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: Scientism VIENNESE

In the early twentieth century appeared in the Austrian capital a movement called logical positivism , where participants gathered in discussions and lectures to form what was called the Vienna Circle . Such individuals exaggerated scientism and preached a belief in science as last Resolver any epistemological problems. They, however, were not so pleased with the science that was in his day and suggested new ways to make the scientific enterprise even more reliable, more objective and less subject to variations and lack of objectivity derived from the intrinsic to the human subjectivity. So they now proposed and affirmed the strength of so-called protocol sentences , descriptions precise nature of that - used to describe effectively the data - should not contain any degree of subjectivity. Highly accurate, they would be responsible for a renewed way of doing science, and allow to set for more b any issue related to the physical world. He imagined himself to create near-perfect sentences that would be direct and unambiguous, fully descriptive, and to which all human beings that they could not observe them disagree. With heritage in the nineteenth century, was thought to be able to reach the final and most complete description of facts through them. The scientific method should thus proceed by creating a clear vocabulary to describe events from observations and experiments on the natural world. It proposed, again and again, the solution to all epistemological problems existing since ancient times, the final result and the last through which a new world of scientific wonders to come. Such ideas bubbled up among a group of bright extremely prolific epistemologists meeting in Vienna around 1920. His writings, beautiful and exuberant, thinking positively about the strength and scope of science, as well as on its ability to accurately describe the universe and its ability to achieve some ultimate knowledge about the orders and patterns found in nature. Rudolph Carnap and Moritz Schlick were among the big names of this troupe of philosophers who believed in eliminating any metaphysical knowledge through the logical analysis of language - this title of a work of Carnap, published in 1932 " Überwindung der Metaphysik Analyse der Sprache durch Logische in Erkenntnis. " Although his ideals and goals should be precisely defined and their intentions were the best they can, they made the mistake of thinking bitter both the universe and the language of a fairly naive and strictly simple, when in fact they both set themselves wonderfully complex. How to remove the subjectivity of human beings and of their language? Carnap argued, rightly, that the mathematics itself was a clear example of how science should proceed. The math, he said in his text Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology (1950), not about numbers or signs of addition or subtraction, mathematics should be seen as a language, where symbols define concepts and operations define ways to merge these concepts. Mathematics, for Carnap, is not exactly a science but is the definition of a logic and formal language that man has learned to manipulate and develop to better understand the world. It is therefore a purely analytical definition (in the Kantian sense) of rules and relations between rules that there had been proved efficient for describing and thinking about the physical world. For him, it would need some form mathematizing the languages \u200b\u200bof science, to transform them into precise language and analytical, and this is how science advances. Carnap is bright, but suffers in ingenuity. In fact, it was noted that the protocol sentences as free language interpretation are virtually impossible, except for experiments and descriptions quite simple, although we can not say here that the development of logical languages \u200b\u200bdo not go to advance science, if at all possible, he may (see the modern biomedical ontologies). More generally, however, any comment contains within itself the germ of the interpretation and bias with respect to the observer, from its simplest description, and from this continuous levels of interpretations are added to the description of experiments and interpretation the same second scientific paradigms existing at any time. The very words used by scientists to describe their data are imperfect, ambiguous, subject to Wittgensteinian games of symbols and concepts, which sometimes blends reach a misunderstanding. So, the big ideas of these philosophers were eventually repulsed, largely by the evidence and the observations of other deeply relevant philosophers such as Pierre Duhem and Willard Van Orman Quine who shrewdly realized that no observation is entirely free of a certain level of subjectivity. However I do not wish me to deepen further into philosophical issues or scientific conclusion that it is better to frighten me again those who claim to know some truth - written with capital letters - or supposedly means correct and accurate to achieve it. Although the science consists, without doubt, in an efficient way to investigate any fact, it is not an efficient way 100% or foolproof, and it can not be completely closed in mathematized or concepts so precise that it becomes closed and changing environments and changing bodies. And what's more, we are still beginning to understand the rules that govern the physical world and what we know today, although extremely relevant to our constitution as individuals and society, is still far below the endless avalanche of what we call knowledge.


INTERLUDE


I am a scientist, it is fact. But that does not mean I believe in science until the end, I need not defend it tooth and nail just to earn my daily bread, I need to follow before questioning her with critical foot-to-earth, whether it is that I intend to improve it. Science is simply the best and most generic method of investigation of nature created by man. That does not mean she is perfect. In fact, it does not even say that is good. [1] All science is merely an attempt by mankind to understand the regularities in the observable universe, but it can not be understood as absolute truths. [2]


ON THE ORDER IN A CHAOTIC UNIVERSE


however I believe that the universe can be understood as chaotic. Theorists in chaos, however, already showed that, even in systems completely "chaotic", it sometimes happens formation order. The order can be seen, in fact, as a characteristic of any chaotic system. Draw up a sufficiently large and random numbers between 1 and 1000, say. Why is this ready list of numbers already assigned to a human or a machine and they will be able to find some order in this set of numbers, even though the lottery process has been truly random. It is within the finitude of time and observation of a non-infinite number any comments that this is the order. In chaos theory are known ordered certain regions of space that are called chaotic, so interesting, strange attractors . Are chaotic regions of space where there seems to be some order, where the numbers drawn at random - for example - insist on falling nearby. Every system present chaotic ordered regions inside.

The Lorentz strange attractor, dynamical system where numbers chosen at random were iteratively applied to certain mathematical rules differentials and the results converge in certain observable regularities. The strange attractor, with respect to chaos theory, which shows that even in a completely chaotic universe given order can emerge. In fact, all the order observed by science can be considered by the discovery of a strange attractor in the midst of chaos.

SOME PARTICLES IN ORDER perceptible


I speak not only for rhetorical style, really believe that the universe is chaotic. All orders that men can look at this chaos, are due to the fact that our species evolved biologically in order to detect them well and know how to use them to ensure their own survival. Within the chaos that is the infinite universe is very orderly, and I am convinced that only a tiny portion of these is that we are able to observe and understand. Sensory and cognitive systems have extremely limited as human beings, insects are able to see and be guided by the light polarization, cows feel the gravitational field of the planet teem sharks and electric sensors reasonably developed. Finally, our science is based on the fact that there are strange attractors - particles of order - in chaos and universal that we have developed methodologies reasonably efficient to find them, and that luck, in order to provide them with any precision. Our own brain has evolved to be able to see more strange attractors ordered this part of the universe we live in Gaia. Science, however, is The Truth and the truth only exists as a social construction. The assumption of physics that the universe has always behaved in a certain way and always behave well should be questioned as any kind of inductive thinking must be challenged, with inheritance in Hume. We are not sure that the order of the universe can not change over time or has been the same since billions of years ago. Nevertheless, the Big Bang theory is useful for example while secular and atheist mythology to form a more solid theoretical framework with respect to metaphysical theories for the origin of the universe. She gives encouragement and explanation to those who do not wish to assign their stock to higher beings or those who do not want to accept our extreme ignorance with respect to existential issues. And anyway, the big bang theory does not give us much encouragement since it can not ask what would have been before that singularity. The weather started with the Big Bang, is not there to ask about the that have come before because the concept did not exist before. Excellent scientific idea that brilliantly allows the entry of the metaphysical God of the gaps. They will say now: "God created the Big Bang." So forget about will have to ask who created God, giving one more step in a non-thrift. Would not it be easier to accept our ignorance and refrain from trying to answer these questions? Why the man insists on thinking so powerful, capable of knowing everything?


SCIENCE AS A SOLID FOUNDATION AND CONSTRUCTION

Science, therefore, is a precise method that we created to find the different patterns in nature. And going further, scientific theories have absolutely nothing to do with a supposed reality or truth or know anyone suppose that is written in a "book of any knowledge or has been achieved by someone while Revelation - and disclosure should be understood as a phenomenon psychiatric , not as legitimate means of achieving any kind of truth. There is no book of knowledge and an accurate map of the universe in all its rules and laws is simply an outdated idea and no longer helps us understand the immensity epistemological today in which we sink. Just look at the wonder of other organisms that inhabit the world with us and his most bizarre ways of living to conclude that not all knowledge about the universe can be captured by humans, not all knowledge can be known by us. Any other animal, for example, always know something more about the world than we know, since he will have a different sensitivity to relate to the physical world (input) and a cognitive ability also differs from ours for processing and interrelatedness of information. We must accept the limitations of our sensory and cognitive systems and to understand that we can not conceive the magnitude and enormity of the universe of knowledge in which we operate. Just as Nietzsche destroyed the moral to say that there is nothing absolute inside, the same can be said now for knowledge. Nothing in our knowledge is necessary and finally, everything is contingent. We do not know even basic questions of science: there will be a particle to gravity? Moreover, scientific theories are modified over the years, Einstein replaced Newton, both theories are extremely useful to increase our knowledge about the world and to enable us to create technological novelties. Newton did not die and not die. Einstein excelled in the some detailed aspects where the two competing theories directly, but not all. Calculate the average speed of a car or build a building so you know what I mean. Even Einstein is already fairly outdated and new knowledge emerged. The knowledge add up in a large tree of knowledge [3], they do not decrease (and even help build the history of their own development).

The tree of knowledge is beautiful and complex, infinite, it has many possibilities, so there will be no book to end all questions and orders on it. need to understand that man is who builds knowledge, he creates knowledge from the search for theoretical frameworks or rational mythologies to explain the experiments and that he does - at the same time - are consistent with traditional theoretical frameworks that mankind has been building over its trajectory scientific and philosophical, epistemological . There is no book of knowledge that someone has been allowed to find or read, even for parties. There is no absolute truth, the truths are constructed and fluid. The truths are also influenced by political, economic and social. Cybernetic theories of modern influence emphatically the mythologies we create for the development of our knowledge at the beginning of the XXI century, as well as the advancement of scientific knowledge itself reinforces a mythology in a cybernetic world of computing and the Internet.

The idea that there is a book that contains all the knowledge about the universe - and that, in humans, is only given the ability to read part of this book - is flawed and should be forgotten , held only as a historical account. Human knowledge is a creation and construction made by us along our historical and social development, where we gather knowledge empirical and the epistemological tradition relate to a well-grounded in a particular sub-area of \u200b\u200bour knowledge. The acquisition of new knowledge takes the largest accumulation of facts and new interpretations and rearrangements linguistic / conceptual theories on already assembled. The universe has many more rules than we are able to understand or interpret. Science is simply mythical metanarratives that can not be categorically denied (or falsified, see Karl Popper) for empirical evidence in a season in which they are described.

THE LIMITS OF HUMAN ANIMALS AS
The
scientific theories consist of metaphysical models we use to (i) describe the regularities we find in the universe and (ii) we can talk about them in a way that is intelligible. The order, however, we can observe in the universe consists of only one part of the order in which it exists and is understandable given the cognitive and sensory system that we as individuals and species. If we saw in ultraviolet and knew what actually process this information in a natural UV in our brain, perhaps we found more regularities operating in this band. If we could "see" sounds as do bats, perhaps more understood regularities what we do because the sensory and cognitive systems we have. Experiments with monkeys made by prominent Brazilian scientists, as Miguel Nicolelis, show that our brain is extremely plastic and has more capacity than we can imagine. A monkey whose brain waves are given to move a mechanical arm away from your body and that it becomes aware quickly learn to modulate their neural frequencies to move this arm accurately. This means that probably, if we were connected to the brain a different system of sensory apprehension, would probably be able to process and use this information to better understand the physical world. It is clear that the era of cyborgs human sensory is still far from reach, but do not doubt that one day become a reality.


COMPATIBILITY OF NEW THEORIES WITH A TRADITION EPISTEMOLOGICAL


And if the order that we can see depends on our sensory and cognitive flawed system, it also depends on a factor contingent on what we have discovered in the past. Any new theory must fit the knowledge we had in the past, complex theories and advancement depends on having previously discovered some other more basic theories that may function as a foundation for the basis of a deeper knowledge and comprehensive epistemological particular niche. The comparison of genomes not exist today if Watson and Crick had not produced an efficient model to explain the observed regularities in the structures of nucleic acids (DNA), and if they had not been followed by the winner of two Nobels, Frederick Sanger, to present a method to describe the sequence of DNA units in their more modest. This allowed to erect a genomic science now working levels of complexity far beyond these descriptive standards created by scientists for over 50 years ago.

Quote from Hamlet, Act I, scene V. Hamlet suggests to Horatio that he is not knowing exactly what is happening in the aristocracy Danish. Famously quoted to illustrate the incompleteness of scientific knowledge and arrogance of the scientist.

CONCLUSION

Science, therefore, consists in formulating creative and aesthetically beautiful metarrativas that explain natural phenomena in a reasonably efficient and that intersect in agreement over the greater part of epistemological tradition of the time when are proposed. Such narratives intersect an alleged truth about the world in a region rather thin and forever unknown - distinction between Kant and nuomeno phenomenon, the interpretation and the thing in itself.

Even if we believe in a more explicit concept of truth, we must remember that scientific knowledge of any time is limited and flawed. This includes, of course, the contemporary scientific knowledge. Man's history shows us that, throughout our social evolution, many individuals in many contexts thought to have reached some kind of wisdom and Last Unequivocal. Time proved them wrong. The arrogance of scientists, however, tends to make them think they have a large body of knowledge and can understand everything. But, behold, I saw Shakespeare correctly since the seventeenth century with Hamlet to Horatio: " there are more things between heaven and earth, Horatio, than are supposed their vain philosophy" (Hamlet, Act I, Scene V). It is arrogant to think that everything we know or can know everything. In fact, what amazes me in science and what excites me as a scientist is the number of events and regularities that have not discovered yet! It is just the enormity and breadth of our misunderstanding, added to the crude methods we use to expand our knowledge and we have created on these shaky foundations is amazing, encourages and makes me want to continue to work in science. I am an anthropologist and executive scientific society, vigilant and guarded, I am very curious about what science is and how it is done inside, in its intricacies. I am interested also in relation to an idealized way as you think it is made and a real, crude and unfair, as it truly processes. I think the curious myths associated with the institution's image science and scientists, all this supposed aura of intellectuality that surrounds and involves its maker. These are some of the things that make me wake up in a good mood in the task of investigating and fierce attempt to discover more of these strange attractors present everywhere in our universe.

So if we know a lot, if you know of a way to predict certain regularities universal fact is that there will be many more regularities that have not yet been provided, and most of them, who can never. We will continue trying to get these regularities that we can even knowing that science and the scientific method is flawed and limited, albeit powerful to find some areas where strange attractors can be accurately studied and described [4]. Is the quest for these regularities and linguistic concepts and arrangements by describing them should move to the scientist, however, this would never think to seek any kind of definitive knowledge, what it you should be able to do is some kind of a adventure of imagination based on facts . Thus, the creators of the new sciences should try to extrapolate the facts, daring new theories on top of them and try to go as far as they can in the interpretation and creation of efficient metaphysical mythologies to explain the "facts" of the physical world and inter-connect them with a tradition of knowledge already built in ancient Greece, or even sooner.





NOTES [1] It is worth noting that orthodox medicine (science) has been losing ground to alternative therapies, proving that people want more than science, more than knowledge from books. Despite accusations of charlatanism and fury of the great doctors, owners of knowledge, several aspects of paramedicine see growing in recent years - perhaps in similar proportion to the faithful in Protestant churches. In centuries past, doctors were more psychologists than they are today, with their offices clean and fast and dry your queries. Reaches almost seem upset that the doctors by paying for him to look for a few minutes, he is always late. In the nineteenth century, doctors still recommend the Victorian teas, relaxation, herbal baths, dips and hikes. We now have a medicine that treats abused scientific humans as machines, not as living beings, endowed with emotion and heart. There is now an exaggerated scientism spread throughout the world, a lack of understanding of the relation of happiness with the well-being, we have security without freedom, the panacea of \u200b\u200bdrugs that cure everything, fold up a life half dead. This is a legacy of materialism and reductionism which have proved so prolific as a technique, but that now looks likely to enslave man.
[2] There are many more out there than the truth in scientific knowledge. Scientists are human, too human. And so one can expect that in their studies there are always errors they have gone unnoticed, at best. This is aside from the huge number of scams explicit, such as (i) Amendment of explicit results, (ii) decision not to show data that are against their theories, (iii) false or misleading explanation of the methodology used, avoiding repeatability, etc. . There is also the great wheel of political science, the power of the scientist, runs a power that works not much less bad than other sectors of that society we live in, such as the chamber or the federal senate. Fighting power and boycott of some over others happens all the time. There is no meritocracy, no one reads what writes. Decisions are largely political. It tends to reward the people known, not those that have no more merit or wrote the best design. Little is known about the work of others, the merit is highly subjective, there is no time to read what you wrote. It is deemed politically. And if it is deemed too politically. There is merit, but he is a very important factor, except for individuals who are situated in some of the extremes of the curve. The more a scientist feels threatened about losing their power, more he shuns his alleged political opponents. The Brazilians, so instead of helping his countrymen to be published in international journal - Or were, in fact, unbiased - what they do is hurt their classmates when the only thing they teem to gain from it is the fact that they're preventing someone else to grow. It happens more often than we like in Brazil: conflict of interest in science, hostility, lack of professionalism of the scientist, a refusal to exercise impartiality and ultimately sentimental trial designs and bunkers - regardless of scientific merit.
[3] Although memes can compete within a certain epistemological niche, they often bring new creativity and even when they are strict and opponents are about the same particular issue, one of which (Amelia) proposes something that is antithetical to what the second. All the epistemology of Hegel, for example, has this feature: there is a thesis and an antithesis, and epistemology is developed for the synthesis of opposing arguments and discovering a new truth that is not on either side and is therefore a critical both Amelia (thesis and antithesis) and the production of a new truth that brings together the very best in both arguments. Over time, also this new truth will have its antithesis, synthesis, and another will arise.
[4] Because you are showing that our bodily constitution, sensory and cognitive ability.