11 April 2011 pm

Workout notes
Slept in (sleep patters are still off) then lifted over lunch:
Squats (Smith machine): 10 x 45, 10 x 135, 5 x 185 (shallow), 10 x 155, 10 x 155
Curls: 3 sets of 15 x 20 lb. dumbbells.
Incline bench: 10 x 115, 8 x 130, 8 x 125
pull downs: 3 sets of 10 x 120 (shoulder friendly grip)
rows: 3 sets of 10 x 220 (Hammer machine)
sit ups (4 x 25).

Sleep: my patterns are still a bit screwed up; I might skip yoga tomorrow morning.

Posts
Many times, woos and religious people accuse scientists of being arrogant for, well, dismissing claims that lack evidence. Nothing new here. But I like what Jerry Coyne says here:

Religionists’ claim that scientists are arrogant always amuses me. Really, who are the arrogant ones? Scientists are nearly always tentative in their conclusions. Lately I’ve been reading a bunch of papers on evolution, and was struck by how often conclusions are qualified by words like “this suggests that” or “this conclusion should be regarded as provisional”. Many papers suggest additional lines of research that could support or falsify their conclusions. In the end, it is religious people who are the certain ones, the overbearing ones. How often do you hear, in religious discourse, that “my conclusion that there is god should, of course, be seen as provisional, subject to refutation by findings of unjustifiable evil,” or “maybe there’s a heaven, but maybe not; I don’t have much evidence.” If they relied at all on evidence, the faithful wouldn’t be able to say anything.

And it’s bogus to suggest that all scientific truth is ephemeral, for some truths of today will remain truths of tomorrow. A water molecule will still have two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom; AIDS will still be caused by a virus; the Earth will still go around the Sun. Although the concept of absolute and unchangeable truth is alien to science, we’ve found out a lot of things that are likely to remain “true” in that they’re unlikely to be overturned.