I have come to realize that only a select few have the desire to contribute and discuss the topics on the Friend Group blog. With that in mind, this next post is specifically for Berg, Myers, Braxton, Evan (a Cubs fan), and myself. (But if anyone else wants to discuss the topic, feel free to comment.)
I realize that I have only been a baseball fan and a White Sox fan for a short time. And I also understand that since my interest in the team and the sport started in late summer/early fall 2005, I will often be classified as a "bandwagon" fan. But I assure you, my love and passion for the White Sox and for baseball is very real. In fact, I believe that my passion for baseball replaced my passion for professional wrestling. I only mention this because I feel it is important to clarify that I have done my homework on the Sox and all that encompasses being a Sox fan. To me, there is a very deep and personal connection to the team that is special. Several of you on here are also Sox fans, and after our team just received a beatdown and a sweep by the Chicago Cubs, I felt it necessary to bring up several important questions or issues related to the crosstown rivalry between the White Sox and the Cubs...
Why are the Cubs seen as the premiere Chicago baseball team, and why are the White Sox considered the Second City's second team? I hate idiotic Cubs fans who cheer for their team and don't even know 3/4 of the players on the team. But I can respect Cubs fans that know their team and have been fans despite the 100 year world championship drought. If you are a REAL Cubs fan then I tip my cap to you for your patience and passion. But unfortunately I have not met very many REAL Cubs fans. As my good friend Bradley Bergstrand once told me, Cubs fans tend to be drunken frat boys with polo shirts that scream "Yay! Go Cubs Go!" So far this description has been very accurate in my experiences.
I will now try to put things into perspective for you from the view of a White Sox fan. Wrigley Field, the home of the Cubs, is in the wealthier North side of Chicago. The rich and wealthy are usually not seen as "heroes". U.S. Cellular Field (or New Comiskey), is in the South side of Chicago. This is where the working and lower class of the city lives. The common man is usually seen as an underdog or hero. Yet the White Sox are usually cast as the villains. Aside from lacking the same kind of popularity that the Cubs have, the Sox are also the villain baseball team in films such as Angels In The Outfield and Major League 2. And what about the differences in the kind of success each team has had? The Chicago Cubs have two world championships, while the Chicago White Sox have three.
I know that I am VERY biased, but I have just never been able to see what is so loveable about the Cubs. I understand that as of 2008 it has been 100 years since they last won a World Series, and this should evoke some sympathy. But when the White Sox won the World Series in 2005 it had been 88 years since they had last won a world championship. That is an equally long period to wait. Being a Sox fan, I understand the reasoning behind why we hate the Cubs. But what do Cubs fans have against the White Sox? The Cubs are loved and the Sox are neglected. That is why losing to the Cubs is so painful for Sox fans. It is like David losing to Goliath.
I have developed this personification where Chicago is the parent of two children: the Cubs and the White Sox. The Cubs are the noisy, abnoxious partygoer that the whole school knows and thinks is really cool. The White Sox are the nerdy, quiet outcast that studies and does well on tests, but is always overlooked. And the parent (Chicago) clearly likes the Cubs more. To me this is sad. The White Sox are the neglected underdogs. I am not attempting to change the minds of any Cubs fans out there. I am simply stating my beliefs and observations. I want to know what fuels a Cubs fan in their rivalry against the White Sox, because I just don't see any glory from the Cubs side of things.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Do I Dare?
Greetings Friends.
I am currently alone in the office, and it is 12:12 at night. As you might know, England is my home for the next month and a half, and I am already in over my head. I'm working with a public policy research group based at the UK Defence Academy (I know, defense is spelled wrong over here), and I'm pretty much learning an entire new field as I work. However, when I can sneak a look, it's fun to read the blog between long articles on energy security. I figured I should contribute something and at the same time put some thoughts I've been thinking down on paper. This is just the first part of my manifesto, and I hope that you can find the time to sift it through your brain after reading each installment. Following the illustrious repotoire of thought-provoking essays on the last blog (aliens, dating, Bergstrand's true sexuality), consider this the first of many deep discussions on the new blog...
What is science? It can be reasonably asserted that science is the study of the physical universe using systematic observation and experiment. It is how we humans use our sense, reason, and intellect to understand the world in which we live. By methodical study, observation, and experimentation, Albert Einstein discovered a relationship between mass and energy. Future scientists would confirm this relationship by repeating his experiments, and e=mc^2 became a law. Later, this law became integral to theories about black holes, warp speed, and other universal phenomenon. Here is a general explanation I found concerning the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory:
Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.
Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.
For a theory to exist, the observations (laws) must be correct.
Next question: What is religion? Religion is a set of beliefs and/or practices relating to the divine. Religion cannot be proven through scientific means, because it relies primarily on the faith of the individual. For instance, although Jews believe that Moses spoke to God in person, they cannot support it with evidence because no Jew besides Moses had direct evidence of the encounter. Some religious followers (such as Deists, who simply believe that there is a God who directs a sort of cosmic, eternal symphony of solos) don't have to exercise much faith, while others (such as Scientologists, who believe that human stress is caused by wandering alien ghosts doomed to wander the Earth after being executed by a galactic tyrant) follow a plethora of assumptions.
Faith is essentially an assumption (although the religious are quick to assert that that assumption is strengthened by personal experience). Science and religion are separated by these assumptions. Once a theory relies primarily upon evidence that cannot be proven, and must be accepted through faith, it loses credence as a theory. Theories that rely upon assumptions are, in essence, religions.
So, my question to the Friend Group is this: "When does belief in a scientific theory become a religion?"
I already have my answer crafted, and it will come in Part II of my manifesto, to be written at a later date. Also, if you know where I am going with all of this, please don't discuss it in the comments; just answer debate the question positted above. Your assumption will most likely be proven correct with part duece and the bigger debate will begin.
With all that said, goodnight, and take care.
Roderick, out.
I am currently alone in the office, and it is 12:12 at night. As you might know, England is my home for the next month and a half, and I am already in over my head. I'm working with a public policy research group based at the UK Defence Academy (I know, defense is spelled wrong over here), and I'm pretty much learning an entire new field as I work. However, when I can sneak a look, it's fun to read the blog between long articles on energy security. I figured I should contribute something and at the same time put some thoughts I've been thinking down on paper. This is just the first part of my manifesto, and I hope that you can find the time to sift it through your brain after reading each installment. Following the illustrious repotoire of thought-provoking essays on the last blog (aliens, dating, Bergstrand's true sexuality), consider this the first of many deep discussions on the new blog...
What is science? It can be reasonably asserted that science is the study of the physical universe using systematic observation and experiment. It is how we humans use our sense, reason, and intellect to understand the world in which we live. By methodical study, observation, and experimentation, Albert Einstein discovered a relationship between mass and energy. Future scientists would confirm this relationship by repeating his experiments, and e=mc^2 became a law. Later, this law became integral to theories about black holes, warp speed, and other universal phenomenon. Here is a general explanation I found concerning the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory:
Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.
Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.
For a theory to exist, the observations (laws) must be correct.
Next question: What is religion? Religion is a set of beliefs and/or practices relating to the divine. Religion cannot be proven through scientific means, because it relies primarily on the faith of the individual. For instance, although Jews believe that Moses spoke to God in person, they cannot support it with evidence because no Jew besides Moses had direct evidence of the encounter. Some religious followers (such as Deists, who simply believe that there is a God who directs a sort of cosmic, eternal symphony of solos) don't have to exercise much faith, while others (such as Scientologists, who believe that human stress is caused by wandering alien ghosts doomed to wander the Earth after being executed by a galactic tyrant) follow a plethora of assumptions.
Faith is essentially an assumption (although the religious are quick to assert that that assumption is strengthened by personal experience). Science and religion are separated by these assumptions. Once a theory relies primarily upon evidence that cannot be proven, and must be accepted through faith, it loses credence as a theory. Theories that rely upon assumptions are, in essence, religions.
So, my question to the Friend Group is this: "When does belief in a scientific theory become a religion?"
I already have my answer crafted, and it will come in Part II of my manifesto, to be written at a later date. Also, if you know where I am going with all of this, please don't discuss it in the comments; just answer debate the question positted above. Your assumption will most likely be proven correct with part duece and the bigger debate will begin.
With all that said, goodnight, and take care.
Roderick, out.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Henry Jones Jr.!
What's happenin? Thought I'd pitch in with a fun topic; I think that everyone that contributes to this blog has seen the Indiana Jones films once or twice, and if you haven't, shame shame.
I've been thinking about this one since I saw the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: What is Indiana Jones' most badass moment on film? After seeing the newest one again recently, I think I've made a decision, although I'll admit that he's had several moments that Han Solo only wishes he can....err, nevermind.
In the latest installment of the franchise, Mutt and Indy go to Peru lookin' for a friend, oh, a crystal skull too. They're attacked by these wild human monkey warriors and things aren't lookin good for Mutt when he notices that he's about to be shot with a poison dart. And then, whap! Indiana, who's in his 60's at this point mind you, quickly jumps up and shoots the dart into the monkey warrior's mouth through the opposite end. After seeing that the 2nd time, I think I can say that's Indy's most badass moment. Sure, he's outran huge bolder's and defeated the Nazi's, but I can't think of one other instance where one of Indy's foes was owned that bad.
What are some of your thoughts and your Indy Badass Moments?
I've been thinking about this one since I saw the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: What is Indiana Jones' most badass moment on film? After seeing the newest one again recently, I think I've made a decision, although I'll admit that he's had several moments that Han Solo only wishes he can....err, nevermind.
In the latest installment of the franchise, Mutt and Indy go to Peru lookin' for a friend, oh, a crystal skull too. They're attacked by these wild human monkey warriors and things aren't lookin good for Mutt when he notices that he's about to be shot with a poison dart. And then, whap! Indiana, who's in his 60's at this point mind you, quickly jumps up and shoots the dart into the monkey warrior's mouth through the opposite end. After seeing that the 2nd time, I think I can say that's Indy's most badass moment. Sure, he's outran huge bolder's and defeated the Nazi's, but I can't think of one other instance where one of Indy's foes was owned that bad.
What are some of your thoughts and your Indy Badass Moments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)