Satan's Foreskin

Curiosity kills much more than cats

20yrs

306 Canada

alohasophh:

sixpenceee:

In high school I took a lot of social science classes. It was interesting, but all the politics and the roaring debates in classroom was a major turn off. Don’t get me wrong. I recognize it’s important. But to me, it was a whirling pool of anger and resentment.
That’s not the major reason I chose to be a science major, but it’s a contributing factor. I thought science was all factual information. People in lab coats striving to better understand our world. To me that was beautiful and I wanted to be a part of it. Burning people at stake for a different viewpoint was centuries ago… right? 
Wrong. Science is just as susceptible to that “whirlpool of anger and resentment” as anything else. Even if something has been proven with impeccable data and results, it does not guarantee acceptance with open arms.
Take Dr.Bruce Lipton for example. We now take epigenetics (study of changes due to modified gene expression) seriously. But in the 1990’s when the topic was first introduced, scientists blew up into hysterics at the thought of the concept. This is why Dr.Lipton left the academia for good in 1992, because although his experiments supported his views, he felt his message was falling onto deaf ears.
An interesting book, I’m reading called The Mind (edited by John Brockman) also highlights an example. When Darwin came back from his voyage, he displayed his Galapagos finches and reptiles, the crucial evidence of evolution. John Gould who was a great ornithologist at the time and knew a lot about birds, corrected some of Darwin’s information and gave him more crucial information in support of evolution. 
But Gould himself still remained a creationist and didn’t stand for evolution. As the book says "the man who knew more saw less and the man who knew less saw more"
I learned that great things take time. Facts and statistics don’t persuade people. Some are forever imprisoned by their own beliefs.
Here is a great article on how some people respond to scientific evidence by twisting information to fit their preexisting views (LINK)
Ofcourse science is a ever changing field and I’m sure by the time I’m 40, science textbooks will be revised and edited many times over. But many new concepts are heavily ridiculed and then gradually accepted generations later. 
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
-Max Planck

I aspire to be you.

alohasophh:

sixpenceee:

In high school I took a lot of social science classes. It was interesting, but all the politics and the roaring debates in classroom was a major turn off. Don’t get me wrong. I recognize it’s important. But to me, it was a whirling pool of anger and resentment.

That’s not the major reason I chose to be a science major, but it’s a contributing factor. I thought science was all factual information. People in lab coats striving to better understand our world. To me that was beautiful and I wanted to be a part of it. Burning people at stake for a different viewpoint was centuries ago… right? 

Wrong. Science is just as susceptible to that “whirlpool of anger and resentment” as anything else. Even if something has been proven with impeccable data and results, it does not guarantee acceptance with open arms.

Take Dr.Bruce Lipton for example. We now take epigenetics (study of changes due to modified gene expression) seriously. But in the 1990’s when the topic was first introduced, scientists blew up into hysterics at the thought of the concept. This is why Dr.Lipton left the academia for good in 1992, because although his experiments supported his views, he felt his message was falling onto deaf ears.

An interesting book, I’m reading called The Mind (edited by John Brockman) also highlights an example. When Darwin came back from his voyage, he displayed his Galapagos finches and reptiles, the crucial evidence of evolution. John Gould who was a great ornithologist at the time and knew a lot about birds, corrected some of Darwin’s information and gave him more crucial information in support of evolution. 

But Gould himself still remained a creationist and didn’t stand for evolution. As the book says "the man who knew more saw less and the man who knew less saw more"

I learned that great things take time. Facts and statistics don’t persuade people. Some are forever imprisoned by their own beliefs.

Here is a great article on how some people respond to scientific evidence by twisting information to fit their preexisting views (LINK)

Ofcourse science is a ever changing field and I’m sure by the time I’m 40, science textbooks will be revised and edited many times over. But many new concepts are heavily ridiculed and then gradually accepted generations later. 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

-Max Planck

I aspire to be you.

(via sixpenceee)

When I was 12 boys slid their hand up my thigh and slapped my butt. I smiled and took it because I didn’t know it was okay to say stop. I didn’t know that I could say no. So, when the principal calls telling me my daughter is suspended for punching a boy who wouldn’t stop touching her, I will cook her favorite meals. When she tells me how she cursed at the boy who wouldn’t move his hands off her knee even though she asked him to, I will smile and pull out her favorite movie to watch together. I will celebrate the fact that she accepts her body as her own and knows she has the right to say no. I never want my daughter to think her body belongs to men, because it is her own and my god should she be proud. I will teach her it’s more than okay to say stop, something I wish I had known when I was that age.

don’t be soft, let the world know you exist // 5-26-14 // 9:01AM (via restrictedthoughts)

OH MY GOD FUCKIN YES PREAAAACH THIS IS SO FUCKIN RIGHT

(via isvla)

(Source: restrictedthoughts, via tinyymermaidd)

clairvoyantism:

I want someone to look at me and think “wow, you mean so much to me, I don’t ever want to lose you”. I want to be shown I actually matter because fuck am I sick of chasing after people who don’t even want to be in my life in the first place.

(via tinyymermaidd)

Anonymous asked: Saggy tits. Who would spend money on that lol

sterlingsea:

What? My boobs are great.

See? Perfectly fine.

 I mean, yeah, they jiggle and wobble and don’t sit high up on my chest. But that’s normal.

Like what do you think I should do about it? I mean

Nah.

My boobs just do normal boob things. They’re A-okay normal healthy boobs.

Moral: Boobs are really diverse. Do your boobs sag? Normal. Do they have hair? Normal. Do they have stretch marks? Normal. Do you get pimples on them? Normal. Are they different sizes? Normal. Big nipples? Normal. Puffy dark areola? Normal. Not facing dead ahead? Normal. Small? Normal. Big? Normal. Normal Normal Normal. 

And they’re your boobs. If you can change any of those things and you want to, go ahead!

But don’t let people tell you that your breasts are wrong just because they’re affected by gravity. 

You’re fine. They’re fine.

inuis:

fantomeheart:

The only acceptable birthday cake

so when you blow out that candle you’ll be killing that charmander happy birthday u sick fuk

inuis:

fantomeheart:

The only acceptable birthday cake

so when you blow out that candle you’ll be killing that charmander happy birthday u sick fuk

(via tinyymermaidd)