Remember you can all be good looking with money
SoupBox
simplysarah@primal.net
npub1n0pd...pfp6
SoupBox
@Pickle Dan 🥒 sent you a message
Friends & Foes,
The fourth episode is out now on Fountain! This is a special episode to me because I am interviewing one of my first Nostr friends, who over the months became "my boss" - @Seth . He put his faith in me to go run wild with his project: Zap Cooking. He has listened to me pitch ideas, contributed to my zany ideas, and remained a stable, consistent, positive energy in a time when I needed more grounding. I am truly grateful for this connection; he doesn't even understand how much he has helped me in the past year and half. We all could use more people like Seth in our lives.
SoupBox with Sarah
The Complementary Views of Aristotle and Darwin: A Unified Understanding of Function and Evolution
The study of biology has long been shaped by the ideas of two monumental figures: Aristotle and Charles Darwin. While their theories may seem at odds, a closer examination reveals that both perspectives offer valuable insights into the nature of living organisms. Aristotle's belief in the purposeful design of each part of an organism complements Darwin's theory of natural selection, creating a more comprehensive understanding of biology.
Aristotle, often regarded as the father of biology, posited that every part of an organism has a specific function or purpose. He believed that the structure of living beings was intricately designed to fulfill particular roles essential for survival and reproduction. For instance, he argued that the heart is the organ of sensation and thought, emphasizing the idea that each component of an organism contributes to its overall well-being. This teleological perspective highlights the interconnectedness of an organism's parts, suggesting that they work harmoniously to achieve a common goal: the survival of the species.
On the other hand, Charles Darwin introduced the concept of natural selection, which revolutionized our understanding of how species evolve over time. Darwin argued that variations within a species arise randomly, and those individuals with traits better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. This process leads to the gradual adaptation of species to changing conditions. Importantly, Darwin's theory acknowledges that some traits may become vestigial—meaning they were once useful but are no longer necessary due to shifts in the environment or lifestyle. For example, the hind limbs of whales are remnants of their land-dwelling ancestors, illustrating how functions can change over time.
While Aristotle's framework emphasizes the inherent purpose of each part, Darwin's theory provides a dynamic view of how those purposes can evolve. Both perspectives are correct in their own right: Aristotle's view helps us understand the functional significance of biological structures, while Darwin's insights reveal the adaptability of those structures in response to environmental changes.
Moreover, the concept of vestigial organs serves as a bridge between the two theories. While Aristotle might not have recognized the existence of such organs, modern biology acknowledges that these remnants can still provide insight into an organism's evolutionary history. They remind us that while a part may have lost its original function, it once played a crucial role in the survival of the species. This interplay between function and evolution illustrates that the purpose of biological structures is not static; it can change as organisms adapt to new challenges.
In conclusion, the ideas of Aristotle and Darwin are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. Aristotle's emphasis on purpose and function provides a foundational understanding of biology, while Darwin's theory of natural selection adds depth by explaining how those functions can evolve over time. Together, they offer a holistic view of life that acknowledges both the design and adaptability of living organisms. By integrating these perspectives, we can gain a richer understanding of the complexities of life on Earth.
"There was only one social media site that grew in popularity with teens over the past two years: WhatsApp."
Teens aren't that into X — but another social media platform is increasingly getting their attention
Story by ledmonds@businessinsider.com
The Hooke and Leeuwenhoek microscopes produced poor images with blurry edges (spherical aberration) and rainbowlike distortions (chromatic aberration). These problems had to be solved before the microscope could be widely used as biological tool.
In the nineteenth century, German inventors greatly improved the compound microscope, adding the condenser and developing superior optics. With improved microscopes, biologists began eagerly examining a wider variety of specimens.
By 1839, botanist Matthias Schleiden (1804-81) and zoologist Theodor Schwann (1810-82) concluded that all organisms were composed of cells.
Although it took another century for this idea to be generally accepted, it became the first tenet of the CELL THEORY, added to by later biologists.
The CELL THEORY was perhaps the most important breakthrough in biomedical history; all functions of the body are now interpreted as the effects of cellular activity.
Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), a Dutch textile merchant, invented a simple (single-lens) microscope, originally for the purpose of examining the weave of fabrics. His microscope was a bead-like lens mounted in a metal plate equipped with a movable specimen clip.
Although his microscope was simpler than Hooke's, they achieved much greater useful magnification (up to 200x).
OUT OF CURIOSITY, he examined a drop of lake water and was astonished to find a variety of microorganisms - "little animalcules very prettily a-swimming." (Nostr is that drop of lake water)
He went on to observe practically everything he could get his hands on, including blood cells 🩸 , blood capillaries, sperm 💧 , muscular tissue, and bacteria from tooth scrapings 🦷 .
Leeuwenhoek began submitting his observations to the Royal Society of London in 1673. He was praised at first, and his observations were eagerly read by scientists, but enthusiasm for the microscope did not last. (like a TikTok trend)
By the end of the seventeenth century, it was treated as a mere toy for the upper classes, as amusing and meaningless as a kaleidoscope.
The men who had taken biology to a cellular leve, had laid an entirely new foundation for the modern medicine to follow centuries later, had become the brunt of satire.
Who are the foolish ones here? Another lesson of history.
Robert Hooke (1635-1703), an Englishman, designed scientific instruments of various kinds, including the compound microscope. This is a tube with a lens at each end - an objective lens near the specimen, which produces an initial magnified image, and an ocular lens (eyepiece) near the observer's eye, which magnifies the first image still further.
Although crude compound microscopes had existed since 1595, Hooke improved the optics and invented several of the helpful features found in microscopes today - a stage to hold the specimen, an illuminator, and coarse and fine focus controls. His microscopes magnified only about 30 times, but with them, he was the first to see and name cells.
In 1663 🍷 he observed thin shavings of cork and observed that they "consisted of great many little boxes," which he called cellulae (little cells) after the cubicles of monastery. He later observed living cells "filled with juices". 🍇
Hooke became particularly interested in microscopic examination of such materials as insects 🐞, plant tissues 🌱, and animal parts 🍖 .
He published the first comprehensive book of microscopy, Micrographia, in 1665.
What Vesalius was to anatomy, the Englishman William Harvey (1578-1657) was to physiology. Harvey is remembered especially for his studies of blood circulation and a little book he published in 1628, known by its abbreviated title De Motu Cordis (On the Motion of the Heart). He and Michael Servetus (1511-53) were the first Western scientists to realize that blood must circulate continuously around the body, from the heart to the other organs and back to the heart again. This flew in the face of Galen's belief that the liver converted food to blood, the heart pumped blood through the veins to all other organs, and those organs consumed it.
-> Harvey's colleagues, wedded to the ideas of Galen (see my note about him, a couple back or so), ridiculed him for his theory, though we now know he was correct.
Evolution of Medical Art - 500 years apart - Persian physician Avicenna to Andreas Vesalius
Andreas Vesalius (1514-64) taught anatomy in Italy. In his time, the Catholic Church relaxed its prohibition against cadaver dissection, in part to allow autopsies in cases of suspicious death. Furthermore, the Italian Renaissance created an environment more friendly to innovative scholarship. Dissection gradually found its way into the training of medical students throughout Europe. It was an unpleasant business, however, and most professors considered it beneath their dignity. In those days before refrigeration or embalming, the odor from the decaying cadaver was unbearable. Dissections were a race against decay. Bleary medical students had to fight the urge to vomit, lest they incur the wrath of an overbearing professor. Professors typically sat in an elevated chair, the cathedra, reading dryly in Latin from Galen or Aristotle while a lower-ranking barber-surgeon removed putrefying organs from the cadaver and held them up for the students to see. Barbering and surgery were considered to be "kindred arts of the knife"; today's barber poles date from this era, their red and white stripes symbolizing blood and bandages.
Vesalius broke with tradition by coming down from the cathedra and doing the dissections himself. He was quick to point out that much of the anatomy in Galen's book was wrong, and he was the first to publish accurate illustrations for teaching anatomy.
- A LESSON - DON'T TRUST, VERIFY
When others began to plagiarize them, Vesalius published the first atlas of anatomy, De Humani Corporis Fabrica (On the Structure of the Human Body), in 1543.
This book began a rich tradition of medical illustration that has been handed down to us through such milestones as Gray's Anatomy (1856) and the vividly illustrated atlases and textbooks of today.
Imagine 1500 years ago being told to not blindly follow the herd, to look for evidence yourself, to be ignored and then used as a foundation for lessons that possible could be factually incorrect. Makes me wonder if people in 1500 years from now will be quoting the greatest of Nostr in a small textbook chapter regarding evidence-based proof, proof of work and the means to be self-sovereign individuals. Are we just a loop inside another loop inside a bigger loop?
What is legacy?
Claudius Galen (c. 130-c. 200), physician to the Roman gladiators, wrote the most influential medical textbook of the ancient era - a book worshipped to excess by medical professors for centuries to follow. Cadaver dissection was banned in Galen's time because of some horrid excesses that preceded him, including public dissection of living slaves and prisoners. Aside from what he could learn by treating gladiators' wounds, Galen was therefore limited to dissecting pigs, monkeys, and other animals. Because he was not permitted to dissect cadavers, he had to guess at much of human anatomy and made some incorrect deductions from animal dissections. He described the human liver, for example, as having five fingerlike lobes, somewhat like a baseball glove, because that is what he had seen in baboons. But Galen saw science as a method of discovery, not as a body of fact to be taken on faith. He warned that even his own books could be wrong and advised his followers to trust their own observations more than any book. Unfortunately, his advice was not heeded. For nearly 1,500 years, medical professors dogmatically taught what they read in Aristotle and Galen, seldom daring to question the authority of these "ancient masters".
Don't trust, verify.
The Gottman Theory, developed by Dr. John Gottman and his colleagues, is a framework for understanding relationships, particularly romantic partnerships. Dr. Gottman, a psychologist and researcher, has spent decades studying the dynamics of relationships and has identified key factors that contribute to relationship success and failure.
Here are the main components of the Gottman Theory:
1. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Dr. Gottman identified four negative communication patterns that can predict relationship breakdowns, which he refers to as the "Four Horsemen":
* Criticism: Attacking a partner's character or personality rather than addressing specific behaviors. This can lead to defensiveness and resentment.
* Contempt: Expressing disdain or disrespect towards a partner, often through sarcasm, mocking, or eye-rolling. Contempt is considered the most damaging of the four horsemen and can erode the foundation of a relationship.
* Defensiveness: Responding to criticism or perceived attacks with counter-complaints or excuses, which prevents constructive dialogue and resolution.
* Stonewalling: Withdrawing from the conversation or shutting down emotionally, which can leave issues unresolved and create distance between partners.
2. The Sound Relationship House Theory
Gottman’s Sound Relationship House Theory outlines the components that contribute to a healthy and lasting relationship. Key elements include:
* Building Love Maps: Partners should know each other’s inner worlds, including their dreams, fears, and values. This deep understanding fosters intimacy and connection.
* Sharing Fondness and Admiration: Expressing appreciation and respect for one another strengthens the emotional bond and creates a positive atmosphere in the relationship.
* Turning Toward Instead of Away: Partners should respond positively to each other’s bids for attention, affection, and support. This builds trust and emotional connection.
* The Positive Perspective: Maintaining a positive outlook on the relationship helps partners navigate conflicts more effectively and fosters resilience.
* Managing Conflict: Recognizing that conflict is a natural part of relationships, partners should learn to manage disagreements constructively rather than allowing them to escalate.
* Making Life Dreams Come True: Supporting each other’s goals and aspirations is essential for a fulfilling partnership.
* Creating Shared Meaning: Developing a shared sense of purpose and values strengthens the relationship and fosters a deeper connection.
3. The Importance of Emotional Intelligence
Gottman emphasizes the role of emotional intelligence in relationships. Partners should be able to recognize, understand, and manage their own emotions as well as empathize with their partner’s feelings. This emotional awareness helps in navigating conflicts and enhancing intimacy.
4. The Magic Ratio
Gottman’s research suggests that successful relationships have a positive-to-negative interaction ratio of approximately 5:1. This means that for every negative interaction (such as criticism or conflict), there should be at least five positive interactions (such as compliments, affection, or shared laughter) to maintain a healthy relationship dynamic.
5. The Role of Friendship
A strong friendship is the foundation of a successful romantic relationship. Partners who prioritize friendship, mutual respect, and emotional support are more likely to navigate challenges effectively and maintain a lasting bond.
Conclusion
The Gottman Theory provides valuable insights into the dynamics of relationships and offers practical tools for couples to enhance their connection and navigate challenges. By understanding the patterns of communication, fostering emotional intelligence, and prioritizing friendship, partners can build a strong, resilient relationship that stands the test of time.
I'm angry. I'm angry at you.
(No, I will not explain, but I know YOU will see this)
Grrrrrr
Yes!
A grand happy birthday to the CEO, @Derek Ross