"The universe is expanding" and "the Sun is going to expand out past the earth" are the current teachings of our science.Cosmologists, astronomers, and scientists of all kinds have a saintly phallic predisposition that everything is expanding.
The "bubbles" in the dot com, real estate, and now bailout debt scene have all been called "expanding" at one time or another.
I watched one cosmologist on a "The Universe" show recently using a giant bubble toy in a major downtown city. He was making large bubbles while explaining and expanding these theories out to the maximum.
He was saying that there are "bubble mulitverses" of co-existing bubbles of universes expanding all over the place all of the time; and that we are going to find them soon.
I understand why the textbook publishers loose patience with these fellows from time to time, and especially physics students and professors.
I mean aren't there already countless used book stores with enough obsolete scientific textbooks in them; textbooks which have become obsolete because experimental facts come along and pop the current bubble?
The reality is that when the orgasm or "pop" comes along for these bubbles, the recession or depression universe theory becomes popular once again. At least with economists. Some textbooks then become an endangered species again.
I am not going to argue that we need more women in science to balance out this equation because that much is clear.
But I am going to argue that it seems that neither the homeland nor the world at large are paying full attention to our bubblyosophy.
The destruction of the entire planet earth is at the heart of the expanding sun theory, not just our homeland. But not enough folk seem to think that matters very much. It is just another orgasmic "pop" in the picture, just par for the "of course"?
As The Home world Turns is not a movie with global appeal any more, so one can legitimately wonder if our science is still the science of all the planet or is it for our own homeland consumption alone?
All life on this planet is doomed says our science. But we do not live our lives like that science really matters. How can we be taken seriously then?
But our homeland religion is beginning to get the blame for its doomsday ideology, so someone is paying attention to that. What gives?
Is the world just not reading or believing our scientific text? Are they all focusing instead on our religion because it is more compatible with theirs? Why is it becoming worldly to get mad about religious doomsdays, while exonerating scientific doomsdays?
Is the Bill Maher effect expanding?
Excuse me while I kiss the sky ... oooh la la ... I gotta go figure.
Expansion and growth may be synonymous or at least related enough that the post about 100 years of psychoanalysis may be an appropriate add-on to this thread.
I have a question...are you serious? Is this an attempt at satire?* You are placing way too much emphasis on the significance of literary metaphor with respect to the role of the word "expanding" in regard to gender bias in scientific theories. Just because a penis "expands" during arousal, you believe these 'expansion theories,' as you call them, are somehow the result of phallic preoccupation? I've never thought of expanding suns or universes as having a particularly masculine value. YOU are imposing these values, not the scientists. I'd say YOU were the one with the phallic preoccupation, then.
ReplyDeleteLet me ask--do you also have a problem with evolutionary theory because it emphasizes aggression and competition (two very "masculine" values)? Obviously, such theories are the result of masculine bias...right? Please try this perspective then: both male and female members of species compete in many ways. Competition is neither a feminine- nor a masculine-valued activity...it simply exists. Similarly, the behavior of hot gases and plasmas in stars like our sun simply exists, regardless of perceived "gender value."
We don't predict that the sun will expand because it is appealing to our masculine bias--the prediction follows from the observed behavior of gases and plasmas. From these observed behaviors, we induce that there are simple laws governing the behavior (we don't IMPOSE laws on nature, we simply see that there are simple laws that do happen to explain nature--this is quite fortunate). We then apply these laws to predict the behavior of the sun (I almost wrote that the observations are EXTENDED to predict the behavior of the sun, but, as you know, 'extended' is too phallic....) The prediction that we conclude, then, is that in a few billion years--when the sun runs out of certain elements that burn in its fires--the sun will be in a different phase of life in which it will expand. This will occur regardless of whether there are masculine- or feminine-biases people there to observe it.
Now...could the prediction be wrong? Yes! It's possible. One must never believe oneself to be infallible...but that isn't the point here today. The point is whether the prediction of expansion is the result of gender bias and not simply a result of the way nature actually behaves. Let's not confuse those two issues.
As for the issue of patriarchial domination of society and whether there should be more women in science...I agree with you. Even as a male scientist myself, I agree there should be more women. However, the women who are (and would be) successful in science must be very bright, interested in math, and care more about predicting the behavior of matter and energy than they are concerned with trivial observations about metaphorical gender bias in the language. The POINT of science, actually, is to predict things with systematic analysis that is FREE of as much subjective bias as possible! Subjective bias often makes good art, but is bad at producing good science or technology!
Anyway, that is all. thank you for your time.
*Yes, I know the word 'satire' derives from the greek 'satyr,' which is a mythological symbol of masculine virility...this 'find the gender bias in language' game is fun.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to tell your age because you forgot to mention that the female sex organs expand while aroused too.
It is common for young men to care more about their own organic expansion than they do about their female counterpart's satisfaction.
The article is about fair and balanced expansion, like fair and balanced voting rights that only recently expanded out to women in our country (read up on it).
And note my statement in the article:
"I am not going to argue that we need more women in science to balance out this equation because that much is clear."
That is because we need a satisfied universe that contains equal expansion for all.
Check out the reason this is so and help your lady expand her horizons, dude.