Just caught in the paper the article about research which shows that attractive men are less fertile than ugly men. Following work on guppies and chickens which finds that flamboyant males who put energy into colours and displays to secure a mate have less mobile sperms than those which chose sneak matings.
Add this in the blog because it supports the thread that sexual strategies are diverse in humans which is part of me trying to work out what happened with “my muse”. It also diversifies the view of “what Life is about” which is the main thread of the blog.
Worth commenting that I notice an apparent contradiction. On one hand I am scathing about science, on the other hand I use and examine its evidence with interest. The point is not that science is by itself a failure. It is only a failure when it thinks it can answer everything. Scientific, evidential, answer are only a species of answer – they are not the essence of answer. In its crudest form one wonders what a scientist would do with the question “why is evidence so important?”.
This is why the SRH is so important. Once it’s neatly mapped it aims to show the limits of “entities” and in particular that entities cannot inform themselves about themselves. This sounds ludicrous. If we want to know what a snail is don’t we go and investigate a snail. This only works because the scientist is not a snail. If a scientist wants to know what a scientist is on the other hand they have a problem… or so the SRH suggests.. but what exactly is that problem is the investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment