Is the world really made up of totally chaotic, totally random events and situations, etc.? Yes, indeed, the natural sciences examine natural phenomena, that is evolving, while the social sciences in turn grapple with human behavior, societies, and their institutions, that are examining their evolving state. Some though, rather than adhering to the scientific method for offering explanation for these ever-changing phenomena; rendering hypotheses and objectively testing them, in the quest to refine theoretical perspectives within the context of certain phenomena, others turn for example to religion in order to attempt in making sense of what you allude to as being just merely, chaos. There are others that just go with the flow, seeking entertainment and/or pharmacological intervention to cope with a world that seemingly is far` too overwhelming without use of such coping mechanisms.
The truth about all scientific disciplines. All scientific knowledge is evolving, so to speak, soft (malleable). EXAMPLE: Why is Mars red color?
According to a new hypothesis (sic theory), wind erosion, not water, to give mars its ruddy color in the relatively recent past. Credit: NASA/ESA/Hubble Team
How Mars Turned Red: Surprising New Theory Clara Moskowitz Staff Writer SPACE.com 9/21/2009 …
Until recently, Mars' color was thought to be a product of liquid water, which scientists think flowed over the planet's surface billions of years ago, rusting rocks. But after the Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity landed on the planet in 2004, they found evidence of certain minerals that would have been destroyed by water, suggesting that the red dust on Mars never came into contact with flowing water. "That was a surprise to everybody," said Jonathan Merrison of the Aarhus Mars Simulation Laboratory in Denmark. Now new research has found a possible mechanism to explain Mars' rusty color without liquid water. In fact, the study implies that the red tones on the planet are a relatively recent development. A simple grinding down of rocks from erosion could produce a red mineral that stains the dust on Mars, the new thinking goes.
IN THE LAB: To test the idea, Merrison and colleagues sealed samples of quartz sand in glass flasks and used a machine to tumble them over and over. They found that the gentle process, which approximates the mild wind flowing over the Martian surface , is enough to cause erosion, reducing about 10 percent of the sand grains to fine dust particles over seven months. The scientists then added powdered magnetite, an iron oxide present on Mars, to the flasks. As the researchers continued to tumble the samples, they observed the sand getting redder and redder. "We think we have a process that explains how the dust became red without liquid water , which doesn't seem to fit in with the data," Merrison told SPACE.com. As the sand grains turned over in the flasks and hit each other, they fractured, breaking apart some chemical bonds at the newly-exposed surfaces. When these surfaces came into contact with the magnetite, an oxygen atom could be transferred from quartz to magnetite, forming a new mineral, hematite. Hematite is an iron oxide that is deep red in color. It only takes a little hematite, Merrison said, to stain all the dust a reddish hue. "When we finished we could see red stuff on the side of the bottle," he said.
Same on Mars? Though they can't yet prove that this is what happened on Mars, it seems like a plausible explanation, and doesn't require water for the reddening process. In fact, since the process can occur relatively quickly, it could be that the thin red layer of dust on Mars is somewhat new. "I think it means that Mars wasn't always red," Merrison said. "Before this work, I think most people in the field kind of thought the Martian surface was billions of years old and had always been red. This work seems to imply that it could be quite recent – millions of years instead of billions of years.“ Merrison presented the results last week at the European Planetary Science Congress in Germany.
APA Research Paper (Mirano) Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006). This paper follows the style guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th ed. (2001), and the APA Style Guide to Electronic References (2007). Obesity in Children i Can Medication Cure Obesity in Children? A Review of the Literature Luisa Mirano Psychology 107, Section B Professor Kang October 31, 2004 XXXX Marginal annotations indicate APA-style formatting and effective writing. Source: Diana
Headings, centered, help readers follow the organization. In a signal phrase, the word “and” links the names of two authors; the date is given in parentheses. Because the author (Carmona) is not named in the signal phrase, his name and the date appear in parentheses, along with the paragraph number of the electronic source.
Social interaction is the process by which people act toward or respond to other people.
Social structure is the framework of societal institutions (economy, politics, and religion) and social practices (rules and social roles) that make up a society and organize and limit people’s behavior.
The buses that rolled into the U.S. capital over the weekend, carrying protesters steamed up about government spending and decrying the advent of "socialism," may appear to represent a rich new vein in American politics. In fact, though, these Tea Party Patriots and like-minded brethren represent the latest resurfacing of a vein that has always been there and that simply goes below ground from time to time. This vein is populist and antiestablishment; it alternates between suspicion of government in general, and anger at the idea that government seems to be doing more to help fat cats or the other guy.
In some fashion or another, it has been around since the time George Washington quelled the Whiskey Rebellion. protesters have much in common with the Ross Perot foot soldiers of the 1990s, says WSJ's Executive Washington Editor Gerald Seib. The last big appearance came when Ross Perot tapped into it in the 1990s. Mr. Perot, who ran for the presidency in 1992, when he got 19% of the vote, and in 1996, didn't create the movement then, any more than Fox News broadcaster Glenn Beck has created it now. He simply gave voice to it.
There are differences, of course, between the Perot foot soldiers and the protesters who now show up at town-hall meetings and marched on the Capitol on Saturday. The Perot phenomenon arose out of anger at a Republican president, George H.W. Bush, while today's movement bores in on a Democratic one, Barack Obama. The Perot movement tended to focus on the dangers of deficits, while today's more generally is focused on government spending -- and there's a subtle but important difference. But the movements of then and now have a lot more in common, and there are some lessons to be learned about today's politics by looking back at what transpired in the '90s. During the flowering of the Perot movement, I spent some time chronicling the comings and goings of a group of Perotistas in Pennsylvania. They jumped on the Texas billionaire's bandwagon early, later moved out to form their own political party (called, in a precursor of today's movement, the Patriot Party), then joined forces again with Mr. Perot when he formed his own national third party, the Reform Party.
But the movements of then and now have a lot more in common, and there are some lessons to be learned about today's politics by looking back at what transpired in the '90s. During the flowering of the Perot movement, I spent some time chronicling the comings and goings of a group of Perotistas in Pennsylvania. They jumped on the Texas billionaire's bandwagon early, later moved out to form their own political party (called, in a precursor of today's movement, the Patriot Party), then joined forces again with Mr. Perot when he formed his own national third party, the Reform Party.
It would be hard to find political activists whose motives were more pure, almost innocently so. Yet like most insurgents, the Pennsylvania folks also spent a fair amount of time arguing with one another -- often over whether they loved Mr. Perot or were being controlled by him and his organization -- and occasionally lapsed into internal squabbles with roots in local battles of days gone by. But they knew they were angry, felt they had little say within the two existing parties and were worried most of all about how their tax dollars were being spent -- all the same hallmarks of today's movement. It's highly likely, in fact, that some folks who were Perotistas then are Tea Party Patriots now.
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images Ross Perot speaks outside the Capitol in Washington in 1993. And that suggests a few lessons to remember: These aren't partisan movements. The Perot followers were first angry at the first President Bush, then later easily transferred some of that anger to a Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Mostly they were mad at the establishment. Eventually, in fact, many ultimately focused their anger on Mr. Perot himself, after they came to believe he was trying to manipulate them. Which leads to lesson No. 2:
Movements like these aren't easy to control. If a citizen is motivated by anger that the government is trying to control his life, he isn't likely to easily accept the idea that some other person or institution is trying to control him, either. Some of today's insurgents are angry at bank bailouts, some at the government takeover of auto companies, some at the prospect of a bigger government role in health care -- but the unifying characteristic is that they are angry at any kind of central control at all. Republicans who think they can harness Tea Party Patriots and their anger may be in for a rude surprise of their own. It isn't really ideological. Perot followers were often thought to be conservatives, but one of their most powerful motivating forces was antipathy to free trade -- a classically conservative idea. Similarly, it's doubtful now that many of those senior citizens on the buses want their Medicare coverage turned into a voucher program, as some conservatives suggest, or share the view of many economic conservatives that the country benefits overall from immigration.
The movement is very much about how the government spends money. The Perot army and today's share that much in common -- but this also is an area where they diverge in an important way. What agitated Mr. Perot, and by extension his followers, was the idea that the government was spending money it didn't have, borrowing to finance the practice, and driving up the federal deficit in the process. It was shoddy management almost as much as spending that angered them. To rectify that, Mr. Perot advocated not just spending cuts but tax increases, including a hefty gasoline tax. Today's protesters are more vocal about the level of spending, less about the way it's being financed. Thus, the protesters don't rally around a cry of "lower deficits," but rather "less government." It's more than a semantic difference -- and also a natural, perhaps even predictable, reaction to a period of intense government effort to rescue financial markets and the economy. Write to Gerald F. Seib at [email_address]
WILL POPULISM SERVE AS AN IMPETUS FOR RESTRUCTURING OUR POLTICAL INSTITUTION?
Technoeconomic Bases Of Society Change from Prior Society Economic Characteristics Control of Surplus Hunting and Gathering — Hunting game, gathering roots and berries None Horticultural And Pastoral Use of hand tools Planting crops, domestication of animals Men begin to control societies Agrarian Use of animal drawn plows Labor-intensive farming Men who own land or herds
Technoeconomic Bases Of Society Inheritance Control over procreation Women’s Status Industrial Bilateral Men - but less so in later stages Low Post Industrial Bilateral Mixed Varies by class, race and age
Technoeconomic Bases Of Society Inheritance Control over procreation Women’s Status Hunting and Gathering None None Relative equality Horticultural And Pastoral Shared patrilineal nod matrilineal Increasingly by men Decreasing in move to pastoralism Agrarian patrilineal Men-to ensure legitimacy of heirs Low
Technoeconomic Bases Of Society Change from Prior Society Economic Characteristics Control of Surplus Industrial Invention of steam engine Mechanized production of goods. Men who own means of production. Post Industrial Invention of computer and development of “high tech” society Information and service economy Corporate shareholders And high-tech entrepreneurs