Things I've Learned This Year: Part II

More things I learned this year:
  • Fermentation -- I have been reading Cooking for Geeks, which has taken me down a long road of learning about food.  One of the things that fascinates me is fermentation, which I was long aware of as a source of alcohol, of course, but which is also used in a number of other aspects of food preparation.
  • Fungi -- fermentation can be accomplished by bacteria or yeast, and I was amazed to learn that yeast are a type of fungi.  This led me into something I have long wanted to know more about, namely the various types of unicellular organisms.
  • Onychomycosis -- My other encounter with fungi was not so theoretical:  I learned that I have toe fungus, which sounds so much better when you use the scientific name.  It's one of those common ailments that medicine has somehow not devised a simple cure for, so I have been soaking my toes for 10 months now.
  • Fermentation also led me into learning about the many products that can be made from milk.  I think I have a little better grasp of them now, but this chart will give you an idea of how complicated it all is.  Even the simplest aspects of our lives involve incredible complexity, most of which is hidden from us.
  • Stretching works to relieve back pain, if you do the right kinds.  I have had terrible back pain for about 15 years now, and the kind of stretching that I had done until now -- lying flat and pulling my knees, one at a time, to my chest -- was not effective beyond a certain point.  There are so many back stretches that it is intimidating to consider them all, but I felt I needed to try something.  I found that sitting with my legs stretched out in front of me and reaching for my toes was the one stretch that I really needed to add.  I can't express how much better I feel now.
  • I have a wonderful family.  That isn't really something new, but I keep rediscovering it all the time.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Three stages in liberal denial of media bias

I was 15 years old in 1984, and an avid follower of politics and the news. When Reagan was making his decision whether to run for re-election, I was opposed to it. It wasn't that I didn't like Reagan; I loved him. But I was convinced that he wouldn't stand a chance in the election, and I didn't want to see him lose. Of course, he went on to win one of the most lopsided elections in history. Why was I so wrong? Because I had been watching network news (the only kind, back then) and the coverage was overwhelmingly negative. Since that time, I have watched with disbelief as liberals have criticized Fox News as unbalanced, culminating in the amazing spectacle of the president himself declaring that Fox is not a legitimate source of journalism. Meanwhile, these same liberals refuse to acknowledge that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. (ad nauseum) have any bias of their own. What makes this all the more incredible is that a number of studies have been produced demonstr
Read more