Swarm Theory on the Mind

As mankind stretches their understanding of the universe, both on the macroscopic and microscopic levels, a strange thing happens: people talk themselves out of religion using the theories of men.  This isn't to say that everyone does this.  I am personally very comfortable with being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and with learning science; they fit together quite nicely and science tends to confirm my faith.  So what’s the difference? Why are some people moved to agnosticism and atheism while others become firmer in their faith? Of course there can be a conscious choice there, but I want to focus on a more subtle choice; or maybe it’s more like an unconscious awareness of a specific fact about science, namely, the scientific method is based upon several fundamental philosophical assumptions.  There are three of these assumptions, any of which needs consideration on a deeper enough level that is not given a thought.  More astoun...

This is just a little disclaimer about the quality and/or content of my current posts.  I do not claim to be a great writer, which is why I'm writing.  Eventually I should be able to express the thoughts in my head clearly.  However, in the meantime my posts are written all at once and left mostly unedited meaning they may fall short of excellent wordsmithery (check MerriamWebster  for that word). Hopefully knowing this will inspire you to help me in this endeavor rather than lull you into apathy about my writing.  So, if you see something that inspires you, or something I could improve, leave comments of liberal length.  I'll read them all. Anyway, until next post, keep being wonderful!

As a chemistry major and, hopefully, an eventual teacher, I've tried to pay attention to how chemistry is taught.  One particular trend in organic chemistry confused me a little before I figured out what the truth really is. Organic chemists, or maybe just those that teach, tend to describe reactions and chemicals as if they “prefer” or “like to do” certain reactions.  This isn't particularly accurate or quantitative in the scientific sense.  I can appreciate the use of these metaphors to make reactions understandable, but it’s just not correct and, I believe, hinders true understanding of chemical systems.  Here, as in many places, honesty may be the best policy. So what’s the truth about what’s going on?  When a student asks about a potential alternate reaction and the teacher says “That doesn't really happen” what do they mean?  The truth dawned on me as I was finishing up our university’s two-semester o-chem course.  The fact of the matter...

When in need of a subject to write about it’s best to just start.  Write whatever is on your mind.  Sometimes there’s nothing specific there.  So another tactic is to keep a notepad handy throughout the day to jot down the thoughts and ideas that come your way. If you’re working on a specific story, like for a novel, much the same advice applies: just start writing.  It’s ok to draft, or even complete, specific scenes from random parts of your story.  You can wait for the narrative to catch up to them, and maybe you’ll find better ways to write the scenes or better scenes to write. Regardless, good writing takes work.  This is where I find difficulty with writing.  I’m not particularly patient with writing.  (I also have a hard time just writing and letting words flow, but that’s another problem.)  I’d like if everything in my head would just transfer to the paper and organize itself.  But that’s not the way it works.  I've f...