User:Jodon1971/Beachbox

Temporary Large Sandbox For Future Drafting of Large Edits
NOTE: Some of the material proposed here may constitute original research, as such would be excluded from article submission until found otherwise.

a take on genres HERE

On Human Error as Being Endemic to Social Ecology
The following discussion is an incomplete draft by myself and needs to incorporate sources other than wiki-links. It also needs to be re-written and categorized appropriately for eventual submission in an article, such as Human error or Human reliability.

Because human beings are inherently fallible, they have developed an evolutionary tendency to become error-tolerant. There is therefore a constant acceptance of trial and error as part of the human learning process. The difficulty with this behavior is that there is no objective standard or gauge which sets a minimum or maximum tolerance level for any human endeavor at any given time. Instead there are local or specifically controlled mechanisms in place to either reduce or eliminate human error. In academic learning, for example, teachers manage as best they can with the pupils they have and correlate their pupils' mistakes with the training and experience they possess as teachers. This is still subjective, however, as it is restricted to locality because academic learning is defined by culture and geographic region. In manufacturing, a protocol of error-tolerant design is instituted that specifically caters to that industry. This protocol forces the use of behavior-shaping constraints in order to minimize human error in the production process, however, these same constraints are not adapted and applied to human error in general on a global scale.

While there are many mechanisms in place to reduce or eliminate human errors, in a general sense most of these mechanisms are curative, rather than preventive. In other words human beings are allowed to make mistakes before either learning themselves or being taught by others, rather than instigating a measure that prevents humans from making mistakes in the first place. This is consistent with the general concept of natural human rights, which grants humans freedom of speech, and every other freedom that allows humans to overrule the mechanisms put in place to "cure" them of fallibility.

(Add more here, relating to governmental control of people, as way of behavior modification...)

Because of either over-endorsing freedom, or under-rejecting governmental control, humans are developing a tendency that settles somewhere between these 2 extremes, and the result is an encouragement of mediocrity, resulting in a mediocracy. This would be in contrast with a meritocracy, where a civilization that is becoming increasingly technological would be developed into a Technocracy. However, in our current social incarnation, the pursuit of excellence, as witnessed by the Ancient Greeks and by the Renaissance Movement, is not a normal standard for everybody, but a principle adopted only by a select few. As long as these are in a minority, their significance will be eclipsed by the majority, and the majority will be recognized as being representative of the whole. Should an alien race ever decide to visit us, they would then see us in our totality as a race of grossly fallible individuals rather than enlightened beings, and would be impressed only with our technology and resources rather than our biological self-cultivation.

Book on Human Error References for human error

DNA in the Evolution versus Creationism debate
The following discussion is an incomplete draft by myself and needs to incorporate sources other than wiki-links. It also needs to be re-written and categorized appropriately for eventual submission in an article, such as DNA, in the section on evolution.

See main articles Intelligent Design and Intelligent design and science.

The "Accident or Design" question has been the subject of much debate since the theory of Evolution was first proposed. Some scientists and theorists argue that the existence of DNA is proof of the existence of God, or an Intelligent Design. They claim through deductive reasoning that the instructions encoded in DNA are too specific and complex to have come about randomly or by statistical probability. This claim is based on the assumption that all instructions, languages, or designs must be written, or created, by something or someone which preceded them in order for the instructions to exist in the first place. Since DNA can be identified as being a set of instructions, a language, or a design, they claim this is a logical conclusion. They argue that a living organism thus fulfills the definition of a machine that can be programmed all the way down to the molecular level. Comparisons of the informational structure of DNA have been made with computer programs, suggesting that the specific codes for software do not, and could never, come about randomly in order for them to work. This is supported by the testing of mathematical formulae such as algorithms for randomising the codes and letters of DNA, in which they claim to show how random mutation, i.e. the current basis for the theory of evolution and the origin of life, cannot possibly result in the precise and correct sequence of instructions required to establish the highly specific and complex genetic blueprint for life, i.e these instructions must originate from somewhere else. They also take this idea further by suggesting the informational structure of the entire Universe is "programmed" at the quantum level.

This theory, while provocative, overlooks chaos theory which generally accounts for the determinism implied in the Intelligent Design theory.

This theory is opposed by other scientists, such as Dr. Peter Atkins...

Richard Dawkins who does not support a belief in the existence of God, does however support the idea of Intelligent Design, only in so far as it incorporates the idea that life was created artificially by ancestors from an older planet somewhere else in the Universe. However, any acknowledgement of this means that those creators too, would have to have been "created", and so on retrospectively to the point of infinite regression.

(Re-write this) The theory is inconclusive in that its calculations don't consider the cosmological time-scale it has taken for DNA to develop. Since the Universe is estimated at 13.7 billion years old, the Earth at 4.5 billion years old, and life in less time than that, this theory does not explain why life did not originate sooner than it has. Given the scale of the cosmos, the behavior of the more common occurring random cosmological non-living phenomena such as nuclear fusion in the formation of stars which supply most of the conditions for life on a planet, is not considered. The theory does not account for the (apparent, and as yet uncontested) isolation of our planet as containing the only life in the Universe, since DNA could theoretically be manufactured and mass-produced on a cosmological scale. If life is a designated event, the theory does not explain why an Intelligent Designer made the total volume of the Universe almost entirely redundant.

humorous addition from HERE

Evolutionary biology has a subfields section that summarises the conceptual issues that may arise when adopting a mutli-disciplinary and systemic approach.