A recent article in Newsweek titled "Invasion of the Web Amateurs" brought up the reliability of material on the internet - blogs, Wikipedia , YouTube, etc. Good article, worth reading. And then there is the Wikipedia furor (see 26 February, 2007 entry).

Teaching chemistry and physics was my occupation (VES, Trinity, HHP), tutoring (tutor.com) them still is. Scientists are experimentors, information acquirers. There is no bad information - unless it is not honest, like ads and politicians and........ - but lots of it is not useful. The Anna Nicole trash does not interest me in the least.

And experimentors know that a lot of what you get is of doubtful accuracy. Some decades ago, a Russian scientist published a paper on polywater, water that was solid at room temperature. Could have been earth-shaking. Turns out his sample was impure and the experiment could not be reproduced. It was interesting, of some value, and certainly not dishonest. But you take it for what it's worth.

Even the major news channels are of some doubtful accuracy. We think of their purpose to be telling us the truth. Balderdash, I say, balderdash. Their purpose is to sell advertising, to increase their readership (watchership?). There is always some bias, that is just being human. You take it for what it's worth.

Surfing the blogs, YouTube, Jibjab, etc., is fun. Of course it is of doubtful accuracy. That is what makes it fun. The surfer should know exactly what he is getting. It is entertainment, venting, extremeism, etc. These are not honest news sources. They are largely enjoyable and an effort to find like minds. But you take it for what it's worth.

One of the major values of the internet is its universality. My blog entries get rare and widely-spaced comments. Some blogs (not the popular professional ones) get hundreds of views and comments each. That is not the point. The point is that blogging is fun either way. It is open to all of us wierdos. Of course, my blog is of doubtful accuracy - even though I know, deep in my heart, that my views are the absolute truth. That also is not the point. They are fun. But you take it for what it's worth.

What is the big deal?

On a morning news program recently, the quality of a cup of coffee was discussed. Nationally, MacDonald's beat Starbuck's (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16951509/). In a blind taste test on the show, Starbuck's was chosen by three out of the four anchorpersons. You can go to the MSNBC article and vote for your favorite. MacDonald's is still ahead.

The cost of the coffee was also discussed. With the overhead of the Starbuck's ambience and equipment, MacDonald's dollar a cup made more profit than a cup of Starbuck's joe. I roughly calculated the cost of coffee at home and got about a nickel a cup for my Mr. Coffee brewer. Those pod thingys run about twenty cents a cup.

And, now what I think. Someone ask me if I am about to pay five bucks for a cup of coffee, please ask me. MacDonald's senior coffee cost thirty-eight cents at one on the way up to Northern Virginia a few months ago. Starbuck's makes good coffee and ambience has its value, as does all that the expensive coffee shoppes have to offer. But it is not ten times the value of that good MacDonald's senior cup. And Mickey D's has its own enjoyable ambience.

The best coffee and the best value is to go to Costco, get a full three pounds of Kirkland coffee for about seven dollars, and brew it in your own kitchen in your ten year old, well seasoned coffee maker. After many years of looking for the best coffee grounds, Kirklands is by far the best. It takes me almost exactly two minutes to fill and start our ten cup maker and it is ready before the ads are finished on Good Morning America. And our kitchen, thanks to my wife's sense of color and style, has a million times the warmth and ambience of any jazzy coffee shoppe. You can guess how I voted for the best coffee.

A couple of recent news events caught my attention. One was about a group (cousins) of chimpanzees (pan troglodyte, http://www.chimphaven.org/about-chimpfacts.cfm), called the bonobo (pan paniscus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo). One difference is that the bonobo are matriarchal while chimps are patriarchal. One other difference is that chimps are aggressive toward other chimp groups while bonobo coexist easily. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Gimbutas for hints of human similarity. Lots of other animals go each way. Baboons are patriarchal while lions are matriarchal, for example.

That brings up the question about which way us human beans go. Not an easy decision. The variables are too complex and the history leans toward “patriarchy” but is not decisive. The Wikipedia articles are very interesting, indeed absolutely fascinating. The one on “patriarchal”(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy) is labelled as of questionable neutrality, needing cleanup, needing expansion. Matriarchal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchal) - the article - is much better. Both scream to be studied in depth and thought about.

It also brings up the thought about us. If “us” is us US of A Americans, I would say the term is “egalitarian” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarian). Lots of room for discussion. We watched “The DaVinci Code” a few evenings ago, thanks to Netflix, and it brings up the church (not religion) and its leanings. And the question as to “Was Jesus patriarchal or matriarchal?”. Or “Was Muhammed patriarchal or matriarchal?”. I am not an expert but it seems from recent news that in the case of Muhammed, there is a definite leaning toward patriarchy. That is the other recent news articles. I would like to think that Jesus would be “egalitarian”.

Does being “egalitarian” indicate a stronger security in our masculinity – or feminity? Which way is giving in to fear instead of being selfconfident? The ability to coexist and prosper without an externally imposed scaffolding just seems more “human”, more socially advanced. And “patriarchy” or “matriarchy” archaic, like the cavemen or the Dark Ages. What would Jesus or Muhammed say if they were here today?

And what would Darwin say? Deep down in our lizard brains, our deepest subconscious, animal self, which way do we go?

I think that my family is pretty much “egalitarian” and I am proud of that.

In a recent National Geographic (thanks to Donna and Dan for the subscription), there is a fascinating article about a University of California at Sant Cruz astonomer named Stan Woolsey. Woolsey studies “The Cataclysmic Death of Stars”, supernovae and black holes. He obviously is fascinated by what he sees and discovers. The article ends with the quote form Woolsey, “It's like God built the universe just for me.”

Another one of those statements that stirs the thought processes. What other scientists might have thought the same thing? Copernicus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus), Galileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo), Kepler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler) would have. Hawking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking) and Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein) might very well. Darwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin) and Mendel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel) almost definitely thought God had made all of His creations just for them. All the wonders and miracles.

In fact, when I look at my family, I think the same thing.

Today, 28 February, is the birthday of one of my very favorite chemists, Linus Pauling. He wrote the very first chemistry text I really became interested in “The Nature of the Chemical Bond”

Pauling's contributions are legend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling) He is the recipient of two unshared Nobel Prizes (in chemistry and a Nobel Peace Prize), the only person to have done this. He came close to discovering the double-helical structure of DNA before Watson and Crick. As a peace activist, he was denied a passport to a meeting in England where new xray photos were displayed which disclosed important data Pauling needed. Pauling had earlier unlocked the helical structure of proteins. “Pauling is noted as a versatile scholar for his expertise in inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, metallurgy, immunology, anesthesiology, psychology, debate, radioactive decay, and the aftermath of nuclear warfare in addition to quantum mechanics and molecular biology.” (Wikipedia) He worked on the structure of the nucleus, the function of enzymes and the molecular causes of disease. The peace Prize was his work toward the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Paulng developed an electric automoblile and advocated a scientific approach to alternative medicine.

Wikipedia states: “Pauling's contribution to science is held by many in the utmost regard. He was included in a list of the 20 greatest scientists of all time by the British magazine 'New Scientist' with Albert Einstein being the only other scientist from the twentieth century ... one of the greatest thinkers and visionaries of the millennium, along with Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. Pauling is also notable for the diversity of his interests: quantum mechanics, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, protein structure, molecular biology, and medicine. In all these fields, and especially on the boundaries between them, he made decisive contributions. His work on chemical bonding marks the beginning of modern quantum chemistry, and many of his contributions like hybridization and electronegativity have become part of standard chemistry textbooks. Pauling's work on crystal structure contributed significantly to the prediction and elucidation of the structures of complex minerals and compounds. His discovery of the alpha helix and beta sheet is a fundamental foundation for the study of protein structure.
In his time, Pauling was frequently honored with the sobriquet 'Father of molecular biology'. His discovery o f sickle cell anemia as a 'molecular disease' opened the way toward examining genetically acquired mutations at a molecular level.”

A great scientist. A great man. Lift a glass to Linus Pauling.