- A little ear-scope with a micro-camera where you could put the scope in your ear and get an image on-screen on your computer, see what you're dealing with there.
- A little microscope with a computer hook-up where you could put in a drop of blood, have it analyze all the images that it finds at the cellular level, match it with images of known germs in a database, and tell you what exactly you've got -- a real diagnosis instead of a best-guess from the symptoms.
- Ok, I really want a home-computer compatible little medical diagnostic lab. Then you could get decent recommendations for treatment from a home computer for non-serious things. Who wants to be around a lot of other sick people in a medical office when your computer can make house calls?
- Moving away from the medical end, how about a forensic application: give the computer a DNA sample from a suspect or unidentified person, have it create an image of the person's face. Maybe it could also give probable ranges for height and weight.
Showing posts with label science and technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science and technology. Show all posts
Monday, September 12, 2011
Technology: Innovation Wishlist 2011
It has been awhile since I've posted a wishlist for new inventions. So here's a short list of technological advances that I would welcome. I've been sick lately (just a cold), so a lot of these are health-related:
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Seven Wonders of the Modern World
Some people say the modern world has no wonders to compare to those of the ancient world. We have no Hanging Gardens, no Pyramids, no Colossus, and so forth. People have charged that our modern world is, in some ways, inferior to the ancient past.
While there is some kind of truth to that, I'd like to suggest some wonders of our own age.
We probably under-appreciate the ancient past; but we risk under-appreciating the present as well.
So -- any favorites that I left out?
While there is some kind of truth to that, I'd like to suggest some wonders of our own age.
- Taming electricity - All of the electromagnetic discoveries, really, have been a great advance. Radio, television, cable, cell phones, lighting, air conditioning, microwaves -- our advances have put more power and quality of life in the hands of more people than previous ages.
- Atomics - All of the discoveries of atomic and sub-atomic theory, along with the sciences of radiation, are an advance. Yes, atomic weapons must be included here also; not quite all of our advances are benevolent. Still, we include here X-rays, radiation therapy, and other types of medical diagnostics and treatment that were out of reach in previous ages.
- Vaccinations - Most of the terrors of childhood illnesses have been removed; unlike my parent's generation, I never had to worry about getting polio, or that my children might.
- Antibiotics - Many formerly life-threatening conditions are now minor inconveniences.
- Air travel - Not so long ago it was the stuff of fantasy -- only barely possible -- that someone might go around the world in 80 days. Air travel has made around-the-world trips so mundane that we're more likely to be annoyed by the crowds and delays than amazed that we can go around the world. Here we can also include our halting first attempts at space flight, whether the unmanned interplanetary ships we have launched or the close-range manned operations.
- The Internet - It would be tempting to make "computing" an entry by itself, with all the power and potential computers have brought to everyday tasks. But that has been left far behind by what we have done with the collected power of millions of computers and the ways they are connected The Internet allows us to get nearly any piece of information in the world instantly. A large percentage of all the recordings or videos ever made, or famous photos ever taken, or works of art ever known are now accessible to us in a few minutes. If a book is in another language, it's not really a problem: there are instant translators. And where the efforts of thousands of scholars might have never found their way to niche audiences affordably, now it happens every day.
- Wikipedia - Wikipedia is an example of the new type of wonder that is now possible with the new tools we have available. It is probably one of the largest cooperative efforts in the history of mankind. I do not see it as the crowning achievement of our age; instead, I would compare it to the early manned space flights: it is a vital early step towards realizing what is possible.
We probably under-appreciate the ancient past; but we risk under-appreciating the present as well.
So -- any favorites that I left out?
Saturday, January 03, 2009
New solar cell developed: Solar becomes viable?
I don't often say so here, but I am a huge fan of both the school science fairs and of solar energy. It is assumed, in my home, that both children will be doing science fair projects every year. (This year my son is working on a mathematics project related to computer chess playing, and my daughter is working on a solar energy project which is unrelated to the big breakthrough in this post.)
I was happy to see that a 12-year old boy, with a photo of him standing next to what sure looks like a science fair project board, has taken solar to the next level: his new design for solar cells is roughly 500x as efficient as current solar cells. It has a few innovations in it, but one of the more encouraging is this: it absorbs UV rays also: i.e. it works on cloudy days. Which is to say, solar should shortly become a viable energy source. I wish I could sign up to be a beta tester for the prototype ...
I was happy to see that a 12-year old boy, with a photo of him standing next to what sure looks like a science fair project board, has taken solar to the next level: his new design for solar cells is roughly 500x as efficient as current solar cells. It has a few innovations in it, but one of the more encouraging is this: it absorbs UV rays also: i.e. it works on cloudy days. Which is to say, solar should shortly become a viable energy source. I wish I could sign up to be a beta tester for the prototype ...
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Galileo and Socrates
The other day I met two people who wanted to claim that Christianity has a thing against science, trying to make a general case out of Galileo. I think that's historically ludicrous, given that all the modern sciences and the most advanced mathematics were first developed in Christian lands. That started me thinking how to get them to see past their prejudices and look at the bigger picture. Next time the topic comes up, I think I might see what they make of this; it should be a decent conversation-starter.
Would you say, in the death of Socrates, that Greece had shown its true colors as being against philosophy?
I'd expect not; Greece is the birthplace of many branches of philosophy. The death of Socrates can be understood various ways, but the record as a whole shows there is not a general Greek reaction against or opposition to philosophy; in fairness, few cultures have supported philosophy more.
But that is exactly the same variety of argument that anti-Christians make about Christianity's supposed opposition to science based on the imprisonment of Galileo. It does not matter to them that Christendom is the birthplace of many branches of science. The record as a whole shows there is not a general Christian reaction against or opposition to science, and in fairness few cultures have supported science more than Christian cultures. The modern sciences grew up in Christian cultures.
I'd contend that the Greeks made real but isolated mistakes, and taken as a whole few cultures have ever done more to develop philosophy. On the same ground I'd also contend that the Christians made real but isolated mistakes, and no culture has ever done more to develop the sciences.
Would you say, in the death of Socrates, that Greece had shown its true colors as being against philosophy?
I'd expect not; Greece is the birthplace of many branches of philosophy. The death of Socrates can be understood various ways, but the record as a whole shows there is not a general Greek reaction against or opposition to philosophy; in fairness, few cultures have supported philosophy more.
But that is exactly the same variety of argument that anti-Christians make about Christianity's supposed opposition to science based on the imprisonment of Galileo. It does not matter to them that Christendom is the birthplace of many branches of science. The record as a whole shows there is not a general Christian reaction against or opposition to science, and in fairness few cultures have supported science more than Christian cultures. The modern sciences grew up in Christian cultures.
I'd contend that the Greeks made real but isolated mistakes, and taken as a whole few cultures have ever done more to develop philosophy. On the same ground I'd also contend that the Christians made real but isolated mistakes, and no culture has ever done more to develop the sciences.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Science's Debt to Paradise, Imagination, and Love
Bede the Venerable Blogger (not to be confused with the Venerable Bede) has made somewhat of a specialty of examining the progress of science in the Middle Ages, particularly noting that science flourished in Christian lands, and that Christianity's view of an orderly and stable creation was among Christianity's helpful contributions to the rise of science. I suppose it's easier to develop science when believing the world is orderly and stable, as opposed to believing it is an illusion, or is subject to capricious whims. But I think a few more things can be added to the list of things Christianity has contributed towards the rise of science, namely: the encouragement of a creative imagination and the benevolent or loving direction of human endeavor.
The field of theoretical science does not advance in large steps solely by collecting or processing data. The earliest steps of the scientific process -- theorizing, speculating, hypothesizing -- are the ground of the human imagination. In the case of theory, we try to form a model in our mind of what is true. When reality proves to be different from previous concepts, forming a new working model requires a substantial amount of imaginative thinking. The scientific method does not generate new thoughts or models, but asks that these be brought to it from the outside as a starting point for testing. The formation of a hypothesis or the steady building of a theory depends on the imagination. Science, as naturalistic and observational methodology, is not capable of the intuitive leaps that its development has depended on for its reputation.
The field of applied science -- that is, technology -- is even more indebted to the creative imagination. The body of knowledge accumulated by science can make some small advances with simple observation, even in a complete absence of imaginative new theories. But the application of science to the real world is a different matter. Without imagination there would be no inventions. While some naturalists have been quick to claim all of technology as the realm of pure naturalism, still technological advances depend heavily on the creative and imaginative aspects of humanity, and on a choice of how to apply the advances made. Science, as a method, is not capable of desiring to be good and beneficial to people, despite that is one of its major boasts. Science, in isolation, pursues knowledge and is not particular about its uses. The benevolent, useful applications that have made science a blessing more often than a curse owe themselves to people applying themselves with their own personal or cultural, religious-steeped agendas of being blessings to other people, to act in love and service for humanity rather than for power or self-gratification.
Christian culture has taken criticism from various fronts for its love of imagination and fantasy. Christianity, however, sees the imaginative and creative spirit as part of humanity's role in creation, part of the image of God. To be creative, it is necessary to first imagine what you create. The Christian lands first excelled in imagination, which in turn led to the more outwardly noticeable excellences not only in visual art, drama, and music, but also in science and technology. Without imagination, there would have been no airplane, no telephone, no radio, no television, no lightbulb. Without imagination there would have been few advances in medicine or in mechanical and electrical technology.
Without "moral imagination" -- I wonder if it would be close to say "without pondering how to act on love" -- would the human mind direct itself to benevolent ends?
Certain outspoken scientists have decried religion for its supposed separation from reality. But it is only a certain separation from our current reality that allows any progress to be made towards another reality. The Christian embrace of the vision of paradise -- and of the potential for paradise within creation -- is one thing that enables progress towards something more closely resembling paradise. Christ's teaching of the primacy of love has given us the direction that drives us to find technologies that are widely, benevolently useful. Without imagination and love, science has no method of achieving progress and no reason to pursue benevolent advances that are a blessing to the world as a whole.
If naturalists wish a steady supply of creative minds that find useful rather than selfish applications for our knowledge, it would be worthwhile to consider the extent to which creative minds are generated through a culture that is fertile ground for imagination, is well-directed towards paradise, and expresses itself benevolently in love. It would be worthwhile to recognize the debt to religion in creating minds of a certain outlook and habit, and cultures that embrace imagination, creativity, benevolence, and progress towards paradise. If naturalism completely overtakes culture with a reductionist point of view, it will find it has reduced the reserves of cultural creativity needed for science to hypothesize, theorize, and flourish. In an excessively naturalistic culture, science may find itself with a shortage of creative minds directed towards useful pursuits.
I do not consider this to be an argument for Christianity's mere usefulness as much as for Christianity's firmer grasp of reality -- ultimate reality -- towards which progress can be made, however imperfectly.
Note on religions in general: Parallel arguments can be made on some level for any benevolent teaching and any paradise-oriented teaching to provide a fertile cultural background for science and technology. In this respect, most religions have some teaching of benevolence, though Christianity has a far stronger emphasis on the primacy of love than the other religions, emphasizing benevolent actions even above self-improvement, self-actualization, self-purification, or a goal of pursuing one's own personal enlightenment. Christiantiy sees those other things as only attainable through the pursuit of love, not as things attainable in themselves. Likewise, a number of other religions have some recognition of paradise, though Christianity has a far stronger teaching and vision of paradise than many other religions which acknowledge some form of paradise. More could also be said of Christianity's insistence that all poor people deserve compassion and help (it is never the fact that they were evil in a previous life that makes them somehow deserve a lower status in this life) and that sickness is best viewed as an occasion for compassion rather than a judgment from God. Christ's own actions were driven by love and focused on healing, feeding, teaching, forgiving, restoring dignity, restoring love, and restoring peace; therefore Christ's followers see these as the main aims of useful human action.
The field of theoretical science does not advance in large steps solely by collecting or processing data. The earliest steps of the scientific process -- theorizing, speculating, hypothesizing -- are the ground of the human imagination. In the case of theory, we try to form a model in our mind of what is true. When reality proves to be different from previous concepts, forming a new working model requires a substantial amount of imaginative thinking. The scientific method does not generate new thoughts or models, but asks that these be brought to it from the outside as a starting point for testing. The formation of a hypothesis or the steady building of a theory depends on the imagination. Science, as naturalistic and observational methodology, is not capable of the intuitive leaps that its development has depended on for its reputation.
The field of applied science -- that is, technology -- is even more indebted to the creative imagination. The body of knowledge accumulated by science can make some small advances with simple observation, even in a complete absence of imaginative new theories. But the application of science to the real world is a different matter. Without imagination there would be no inventions. While some naturalists have been quick to claim all of technology as the realm of pure naturalism, still technological advances depend heavily on the creative and imaginative aspects of humanity, and on a choice of how to apply the advances made. Science, as a method, is not capable of desiring to be good and beneficial to people, despite that is one of its major boasts. Science, in isolation, pursues knowledge and is not particular about its uses. The benevolent, useful applications that have made science a blessing more often than a curse owe themselves to people applying themselves with their own personal or cultural, religious-steeped agendas of being blessings to other people, to act in love and service for humanity rather than for power or self-gratification.
Christian culture has taken criticism from various fronts for its love of imagination and fantasy. Christianity, however, sees the imaginative and creative spirit as part of humanity's role in creation, part of the image of God. To be creative, it is necessary to first imagine what you create. The Christian lands first excelled in imagination, which in turn led to the more outwardly noticeable excellences not only in visual art, drama, and music, but also in science and technology. Without imagination, there would have been no airplane, no telephone, no radio, no television, no lightbulb. Without imagination there would have been few advances in medicine or in mechanical and electrical technology.
Without "moral imagination" -- I wonder if it would be close to say "without pondering how to act on love" -- would the human mind direct itself to benevolent ends?
Certain outspoken scientists have decried religion for its supposed separation from reality. But it is only a certain separation from our current reality that allows any progress to be made towards another reality. The Christian embrace of the vision of paradise -- and of the potential for paradise within creation -- is one thing that enables progress towards something more closely resembling paradise. Christ's teaching of the primacy of love has given us the direction that drives us to find technologies that are widely, benevolently useful. Without imagination and love, science has no method of achieving progress and no reason to pursue benevolent advances that are a blessing to the world as a whole.
If naturalists wish a steady supply of creative minds that find useful rather than selfish applications for our knowledge, it would be worthwhile to consider the extent to which creative minds are generated through a culture that is fertile ground for imagination, is well-directed towards paradise, and expresses itself benevolently in love. It would be worthwhile to recognize the debt to religion in creating minds of a certain outlook and habit, and cultures that embrace imagination, creativity, benevolence, and progress towards paradise. If naturalism completely overtakes culture with a reductionist point of view, it will find it has reduced the reserves of cultural creativity needed for science to hypothesize, theorize, and flourish. In an excessively naturalistic culture, science may find itself with a shortage of creative minds directed towards useful pursuits.
I do not consider this to be an argument for Christianity's mere usefulness as much as for Christianity's firmer grasp of reality -- ultimate reality -- towards which progress can be made, however imperfectly.
Note on religions in general: Parallel arguments can be made on some level for any benevolent teaching and any paradise-oriented teaching to provide a fertile cultural background for science and technology. In this respect, most religions have some teaching of benevolence, though Christianity has a far stronger emphasis on the primacy of love than the other religions, emphasizing benevolent actions even above self-improvement, self-actualization, self-purification, or a goal of pursuing one's own personal enlightenment. Christiantiy sees those other things as only attainable through the pursuit of love, not as things attainable in themselves. Likewise, a number of other religions have some recognition of paradise, though Christianity has a far stronger teaching and vision of paradise than many other religions which acknowledge some form of paradise. More could also be said of Christianity's insistence that all poor people deserve compassion and help (it is never the fact that they were evil in a previous life that makes them somehow deserve a lower status in this life) and that sickness is best viewed as an occasion for compassion rather than a judgment from God. Christ's own actions were driven by love and focused on healing, feeding, teaching, forgiving, restoring dignity, restoring love, and restoring peace; therefore Christ's followers see these as the main aims of useful human action.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Christian Biology Professor Responds to Scientific American
Normally I do not take up bandwidth on this blog by discussing the debates over origins. However, the latest claim by one Michael Shermer in the current Scientific American makes a badly overstated claim for science. Shermer calls ideas which cannot be tested and falsified -- such as creation -- not simply wrong, but "wronger than wrong." Shermer's overstated claim -- than any knowledge not subject to independent testing is not only false but not even allowed a place at the table -- is destructive to far more things than his likely intended target of religion. Philosophy, history, literature, art, and even unique personal experience would likewise find a place in the "wronger than wrong" boat according to whether they can be empirically tested. A biology professor at a Lutheran college replies:
Professor Boehlke's letter wasreprinted with his permission.
In 'Wronger than Wrong' (November, 2006) Michael Shermer is correct in the prescriptive sense that ideas that cannot be falsified (string theory) are outside of science. Furthermore, then creation is also outside of science. Even though some think otherwise, the ultimate character of our origin, supernatural or natural, cannot be scientifically tested.
However, creation ought not be placed into a sinking reality boat labeled 'wronger than wrong.' If mathematical elegance interestingly causes some to hold on to string theory, I would suggest that the heart and the mind also cause many to seek a Creator. The truth scale needs to be expanded in the other direction. We have to remain open to ideas that lie beyond our limited science, that may be righter than right.
Paul Boehlke
Life Science Dept, WLC
Professor Boehlke's letter wasreprinted with his permission.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Technology: Innovation Wish-List
I'm taking a short break from the ethics series ... something a little lighter for the weekend. Here's a short list of technological advances that I would welcome:
- When watching a DVD, scene selection option "Play Only PG" -- right next to "Play All", but this option would allow you to watch more movies with your kids, like movies that have two or three objectionable scenes but are mostly fine.
- When watching a DVD, sound selection option "Bleep Profanity". That allows you to watch movies with your kids that are mostly ok, but the writers were more fond of spicy language than is right for the children's ages in this particular household. (First movie on my wishlist: Die Hard. My son is mature enough to handle the violence. But does everybody remember what Bruce Willis says when Alan Rickman accuses him of being a cowboy? My son would be repeating it for a week. It's far too catchy. "Eloquent profanity," to steal a line from Little Feat.)
- When writing email, privacy options on whether a new letter can be forwarded to anyone, can be forwaded in-office only (for business email systems), or cannot be forwarded. It wouldn't stop deliberate spread of sensitive information because there's always cut and paste, but it would stop the accidental ones.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Abortion, Pregnancy Transplants, and Artificial Wombs
A number of years ago I wrote some of the good folks of the American Medical Association, particularly some of them associated with the publication JAMA, regarding the feasibility of pregnancy transplants as an alternative to abortion. The replies I received made it clear that the recipients considered this to be the suggestion of a nutcase. I'm feeling an inch closer to vindicated now as we see discussions of technology heading in this direction.
Note that the pregnancy-transplant solution to unwanted pregnancies could address more than just the abortion-as-contraception scenario, but also the traditional "exceptions" for abortion such as when the life of the mother is in danger, or pregnancies due to rape where there's a chance that the pregnancy would be the tipping point in destroying the mother's ability to cope.
The author of the article linked here is a feminist, yet she is willing to admit that abortion is likely to be seen by future generations as barbaric, and that she has been disturbed by the photos showing the humanity of very young gestating children. She stops short of acknowledging that, in light of this, people are probably right when they oppose abortion-as-contraception here and now.
Note that the pregnancy-transplant solution to unwanted pregnancies could address more than just the abortion-as-contraception scenario, but also the traditional "exceptions" for abortion such as when the life of the mother is in danger, or pregnancies due to rape where there's a chance that the pregnancy would be the tipping point in destroying the mother's ability to cope.
The author of the article linked here is a feminist, yet she is willing to admit that abortion is likely to be seen by future generations as barbaric, and that she has been disturbed by the photos showing the humanity of very young gestating children. She stops short of acknowledging that, in light of this, people are probably right when they oppose abortion-as-contraception here and now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
