The Law of Theorising Hypotheses

Hypotheses - These are at best educated guesses based on observation. Out of a thousand glasses of water you may find they all taste the same and so you come to the conclusion that all water everywhere tastes the same. The first glass of the second thousand comes from a different source and actually tastes different from the first thousand. You may now conclude that water from different sources taste differently. A Hypothesis can be proven incorrect but not evidenced as correct.

 Theories - Through exploring one hypothesis or a number of hypotheses the weight of evidence may seem to point in one direction. Hypothesis 1 says water tastes the same. Hypothesis 2 says that water tastes differently from different sources. Hypothesis 3 says water seems to taste the same in some places and different in others. During experimentation it is determined that hypothesis 3 is closer to what is observed and therefore it is theorised that in x amount of places water tastes the same but there is a y variable that means water tastes differently in other places. A theory can be proven to be true or false through experimentation.

Laws - These are mathematical proofs that are irrefutable. An example is Joule's first law:
 
A quantitative form of Joule’s law is that the heat evolved per second, or the electric power loss, P, equals the current I squared times the resistance R, or P = I²R. The power P has units of watts, or joules per second, when the current is expressed in amperes and the resistance in ohms.                                                                
                                                                           (Explanation courtesy of Encyclopaedia Britannica)

This is how water is heated in a kettle.


Hypotheses and theories seem to be very similar. They are both sets of ideas that can be tested and proved. They differ because hypotheses are of the maybe perhaps variety, "if I do this I think this ought to happen". Theories are groups of hypotheses that have been tested and proven to be true to the best of the evidence so far collected. "I have observed this to be true so it so it should be true each time".

Science is not about being totally correct all of the time. New observations and experiments prove and disprove theories. Laws are universal truths. Hypotheses are just ideas based on observation. 

When I am asked about faith I have a very hard time explaining my standpoint. I have a scientific mind, I have ideas, I have postulations and I have fact and evidence. I am governed by the same laws as everyone else that have been proven without a doubt to be true. I can only say I believe to be true that which has been evidenced to be true to the best of my knowledge. I spend a vast majority of my time researching the things that I am interested in so that I may know the truths of those things. I do not believe the Earth is round, I know it to be so from the evidence I have had access to. I don't just take it on faith, I don't just hear 'experts' tell me this is so and take that as a given. I look at the images from cameras outside of Earth's atmosphere, I observe the curvature of the local horizon and observe the same curvature in every location I am in.

I also cannot knock faith as my scientific mind tells me that the possibility remains even if the evidence isn't yet there. Occum's Razor says "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." He also said that "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone." Most scientists live by the first, in fact
Einstein's equations for transforming spacetime are the same as Lorentz's equations for transforming rulers and clocks, but Einstein and Poincaré recognised that the ether could not be detected according to the equations of Lorentz and Maxwell. So by using Occam's razor the ether had to be eliminated. We have since performed experiments that were impossible in Einstein's time that prove the ether does not exist.

I personally don't have faith or beliefs, I observe the world around me and know what I know or that I have more to find out. The only absolutes I adhere to are unequivocally proven. There are too many variables in life fore everything to be absolute truths, my opinion is that it would be naïve of me to trust that I would get the same outcome every time I do the same thing. To an extent it is true that I would get the same result each time, but if any of the variables change then so will the outcome, and variables can change so subtly in the macroscopic world that the difference in outcome may be insignificant and go unnoticed. All in all the world we live in is variable and inconsistent, anything that asks me to take it on faith that it is unwavering falls out of favour with me. I far prefer the inconsistencies and errors that the scientific method offers.

Introvertedly Social

I am an introvert. Being around people exhausts me. I need my alone time. And yet I don't. I need to be around people but not physically. I have my social networking sites, I have my voice over internet applications, I have my communications applications on my mobile phone, I'm never far from being able to communicate with people. And yet face-to-face contact drains me. I need to be constantly surrounded by voices other than my own, people I can bounce ideas off, have a laugh with and take my mind of my self-destruction, and yet I need regular breaks.

Social media and messaging systems are ideal, I can talk to many people all at once and take a break when I need it without offending anyone. A quick 'be right back' on Teamspeak, Skype or Ventrilo and I can mute my microphone and know I can do and say what I please with no one to hear me. I can hold multiple conversations across various written and spoken applications and have a varied and active social life, without once having to see another person.

I do challenge my social anxiety, I go to my local supermarket when I know it's going to be busy, I say hello to strangers when I am walking around outside. I pick conversations with other people in line at the checkout. I invariably come away hyper vigilant and exhausted but yet proud of the accomplishment, and hopefully pleased with myself for making someone smile.

I have my family at home, my fiancé, my two youngest children and my cat. I find them tolerable to be around, it doesn't overly stress me all of the time. I can manage a friend or two in my home or theirs, but more than two and I take myself off into a corner and only interact when the overwhelming feeling of claustrophobia that clouds over me breaks for a few seconds. I can feel my body screaming to curl into a foetal ball and protect me from these dangerous numbers of stampeding people. I do manage to attend some social groups, I am a qualified peer supporter and attend a mother to mother group, I take my toddler to a parent and toddler group and I attend meetings of a common interest. I have to have an early night and perhaps a nap afterwards but I do these things.

My main worry is about being economically active. Unless I can find a job where I can be constantly supervised but with only one or two workers in close proximity to me I remain jobless. The issue reared its ugly head while I was working voluntarily for a meagre few hours a week, I just could not manage to calm myself back down after being civil with so many people for extended periods of time. I ended up forgetting things, stumbling, confusing things and eventually screamed and shouted at my fiancé over trivial matters. I quit the job and life settled back to normal. Unfortunately, being as stable as I am with the status quo means getting therapy to get me back into work is very difficult. I am no longer a priority case and my mental health team is small, understaffed and swamped by the ravages of an impoverished area. After a telephone assessment yesterday I may be able to get some mindfulness training which may give me that lift to be able to go back to work successfully. Just watch this space!

Judgemental Opinions

o·pin·ion [uh-pin-yuh-n] 

noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.

5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

judg·ment [juhj-muh-nt] 

noun

1. an act or instance of judging.

2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.

3. the demonstration or exercise of such ability or capacity: The major was decorated for the judgment he showed under fire.

4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.

5. the opinion formed: He regretted his hasty judgment.

(Definitions courtesy of http://dictionary.reference.com/ ) 

Both opinions and judgements seem to be highly personal and subjective. Opinions are based more on our feelings and judgements on weight of available evidence. So when we make a judgement call on a person are we really judging them or are we forming an opinion? We can't really form a judgement until we know about a person and can take into consideration all that has happened to that person. If I meet someone and take an instant dislike to them I cannot say I have judged them to be unlikable only that I have that opinion of them.

My fiancé and I have multiple debates in a day, I argue from a standpoint of what the facts are telling me and he argues from how they make him feel. These debates are always charged with emotion because I have an emotional disorder and become hypersensitive when feeling invalidated. If the facts are there then my point of view should be validated shouldn't they? But as his side of the debate shows, facts can be open to perspective interpretation. Judgement versus opinion, both subjective, both from perceived evidence, both just as valid. We tend to have successful relationships with people who can empathise with our opinions and who form similar judgements on the weight of evidence provided. 

Our main arguments happen over topics that I am passionate about. I research like a madman when I want to know more about something that interests me. I become obsessive and single minded. My fiancé is my earth, he dissipates my wayward charge when I'm straying from the point. I argue, I throw facts around like armour-piercing rounds, anything to make his opinion fit my judgement. I forget empathy, I only focus. I close my mind becoming blinkered to anything other than my perception. After a good round I walk away frazzled, take some time out and come back with an apology and my mind more open. From then on we can refine our understanding of the facts from different view points. Sometimes the evidence actually changes meaning after one of these debates. Off we go to our own parts of our lives together and I research further, down a new path, that now makes more sense.

Next time someone says you are being judgemental ask them if that is their opinion. Are they sure you have formed a judgement? Have you honestly had enough evidence to judge or is it just an opinion?

 

Education in Good Faith

What do you do if your only local catchment area Primary School is a Faith school and you don't practice that faith or denomination? The education Act 1944 states that if admission applications out number places in a faith school, places can be determined by whether the child or the child's parents practice the faith followed by the school. What happens to a child from a non-religious family who has applied to an overburdened faith school, because that's the only one their parents can take them to? That child will be forced to go to a school outside of the catchment area and a child of the correct faith following family who have the ability to get to a more distant school gets a place. Children are legally required to be attending full-time education from the age of 5 years. If a 5 year old cannot get into a faith school, cannot travel to a more distant school and their parents cannot home school as they work full time, the parents will be prosecuted for educational negligence. The rejecting school takes no responsibility and are not obliged to take the more unfortunate if they do not practice the faith of that school.

Only 7.4% adults in England go to church on an average Sunday (Religious Trends, 2002-2003) and yet a third of all schools are faith schools with a quarter of children in education in attendance. A report of the Education and Skills Select Committee in May 2003, based on evidence from numerous experts, stated: “In practice parents have found that the reality of school diversity and choice can act to limit rather than expand their options for their children’s education.” And in 2005, the Select Committee found that: ”In oversubscribed schools, the satisfaction of one person’s choice necessarily denies that of another.” A plethora of different kinds of school – specialist, trust, faith-based (some of them specialist), and academies (some of them faith-based) – will not necessarily increase choice or raise standards. In 2005 96% of New Statesman readers thought that Tony Blair should end his support for faith schools. Religious schools are specifically exempt from the equality law which says that no one should be discriminated against because of their religion – allowing them, in some circumstances, to give preference to children (and staff) from the relevant faith.

What of celebrations and holidays that have their roots in religions that differ from that of a faith school's? Hallowe'en, for example, is the chosen date where the veil between the living and the dead is deemed its weakest by Pagans. Samhain is a feast of the dead celebrated between sunset on the 31st October through to sunset on 1st November. Then follows the "Time Which is No Time" culminating in the Yule feast, also known to Christians as Christmas day. In a Christian faith school it isn't unheard of for pupils to be told not to mention Hallowe'en. This is a very publicly celebrated commercial holiday. It is in contradiction to article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 10 of the UN Human Rights Convention to do with freedom of speech and expression. Is it acceptable for a Christian child in a non-Christian faith school to mention Christian holidays? It should be acceptable for children of all ethnic backgrounds to discuss their holidays in any school, especially if the only school they are practically able to attend is a faith school that isn't of their choice.

Morally Normal

Define normal. Is my normal the same as yours? I very much doubt it. Normal is subjective, we each have our own unique perspective of what we think is normal. The word 'normal' is used to mean average far too often. 'My child is behaving normally for his age,' 'why can't I/you be more normal?' This type of 'normal' usually refers to the majority who fit at the top of a Bell curve deviation graph. You could be sat on an outer lip of the same curve and still be perfectly normal, because it is what is usual for you that is real normal.

It seems ethics are very similar to normal. There are differing ethical rights and ethical wrongs depending on who you are and what culture, tradition or religion you subscribe to. Most ethically right things are very similar as are most ethically wrong things. Taking a human life in cold blood (murder) seems to be counted as an ethical wrong across many walks of life, but there seem to be provisos that change as you journey through our differences.

Taking it to even more personal levels, what may be morally acceptable to me may not be morally acceptable to you even within the same culture, tradition or religion. The ability to empathise plays a major role in what we choose as morally right and wrong. A psychopath has an inability to empathise and so their sense of what is morally acceptable is different from a neuro-typical person. A Borderline has an immature form of empathy so is likely to moralise more like an adolescent. Empathy is dependent on our experience of empathy toward us, with everyone having a different experience in life it would be sensible to assume everyone has a different set of moral rules that guide them.

So morals seem to be as unique to each of us as normal is. Our ethical background, our personal schemas, our ideologies all come together to form our personal morals. Our ability to empathise helps us to identify if our morals work in the outside world in a positive or negative way. As we grow and mature our idea of morality changes and adapts to new information that we collect in our minds, new experiences, mixing with other cultures while on holiday, learning of new religions at school, debating with other people on the internet, reading literature and fiction, biographies and autobiographies.

Recently a friend of mine posted on Facebook an article written in one of our country's broadsheet newspapers about an author claiming children should read more contemporary literature and less modern fiction. She reasoned that moral guidance is lacking in modern fantasy like 'Twighlight' and 'The Hunger Games'. To me, reading is only part of the jigsaw of experience that guides our moral compasses. 19th century fiction is all well and good, but it happened over a century ago and ethics were different then to what we see now. Are outdated ethics really a good moral guide for the modern era? A bit like language, morals and ethics should evolve with the generations, what was considered a good moral choice back in 1880 may seem like an awful moral choice today. Choosing to marry a good looking man for his money would have seemed the morally mature choice for a poor working family's daughter back then, but a morally wrong choice today, we'd call that a meal ticket now. 

Our learning media is also changing, television and video games are replacing literature as a form of educational entertainment. More coffee mornings are held on Facebook groups than are held face-to-face. Moral dilemmas are changing constantly, our morals shouldn't be grounded in contemporary literature. Perhaps instead of charging schools with teaching contemporary literature, ethical education should become part of the curriculum. Parents should remain firmly focussed on guiding their children empathetically, encourage them to be empathic people and to form their morals based on their experiences of right and wrong. Otherwise we should be asking schools to teach our children what is normal and that would be ethically wrong.

In This Age of Misinformation Ignorance is Profitable

Infant male circumcision is apparently routine in the States. I only recently found this out. Over here in the UK the procedure is only done for medical, religious or cultural reasons. I have come across many Facebook pages dedicated to informing American parents that circumcision is not necessary that misinformation abounds. Reasons for circumcision are that an uncircumcised penis is more difficult to keep clean, that sexual pleasure is heightened, that a circumcised penis is more aesthetically pleasing, the list goes on. These aforementioned pages detail scientific evidence to the contrary, publish statistics that show more males die from circumcision than whatever the procedure is meant to prevent in later life. True stories from tragic cases adorn their pages. And still the business remains and still parents are coerced.

Artificial infant milk is another massive business piggybacking on misinformation. Only 3% of the global female population can't produce milk, it's not a much higher number that can't produce enough milk. Some babies can't physically suckle on their mother's breast, but they are not numerous. Societal and cultural issues can get in the way of a good breastfeeding relationship. Formula companies make billions touting these very real issues as something to be very afraid of. 'Breast is Best' is a formula campaign slogan to make women feel they don't have to look past the initial discomfort they may feel in the first 6 weeks, in fact if women were to see past those first 6 weeks formula companies would be in trouble! Milk supply settles down and babies get more efficient at feeding. Conversely, preparing formula correctly to minimise risks of bacteria (normally found in powdered formula) cultivating takes an age with a screaming baby in your arms. This is even more true as you stand shivering in the cold, dark kitchen at 3 o'clock in the morning! Formula companies also sell their misinformation through healthcare professionals for incentives, hire 'experts' to rubbish peer-reviewed scientific claims about breast milk and breastfeeding. No wonder there is such bad blood between the different feeding camps. Formula advocates are made to feel guilty and breast milk advocates are told there is no such thing as a mother who can't feed her child!

Millions of copies of books on how to break the will of a normal child to conform to social ideals are sold worldwide. The 'professionals' writing these books make parents feel that their children are manipulative and actively seeking to inconvenience and annoy them on purpose. Punitive measures are validated, small children with the inability to comprehend anything other than having their needs met are rejected, tantrums in toddlers are labelled misbehaviour and to be corrected. And what did we do for 3 million years before information books were available? We listened to our children's cries, we comforted overwhelming feelings, we kept them close and validated them, we empathised. We became the great race that we are through empathy and the ability to listen. Now we have developed nations full of stressed and anxious adults having breakdowns because their parents inadvertently thought it was better to leave them to scream on their own in a darkened room for hours. These parents didn't abandon or neglect their children willingly, they did what they thought was right because 'experts' told them to.

And what of the tabloid media. Where do we start? There is a story running around like wild fire here at the moment. The 'deadly' false widow spider has 'invaded' Britain, and apparently we're all going to be murdered in our beds! Police officers are paid cash incentives for dealing with dead bodies, allegedly to the tune of £500, I'm sure there are many officers out there shocked at finding this out! Mental health patience are murderously dangerous because of care in the community programmes, the incidents of murder would be significantly decreased if anyone having an off day were to be incarcerated in a mental health asylum.

All in all, misinformation sells. It's dramatic, it causes feelings of guilt and shame, it takes advantage of the uninformed and the vulnerable. Businessmen stay in business, politicians stay in power and we become sheeple.