I recently discoverd the treasure trove that I work in, the Plant Systematics Laboratory library. It is no wonder Alex loves this spot. Nestled in shelves are many many books of all sorts, from all ages. You could just feel the rich heritage sitting here. :)
I picked this book off the shelf. And only read the preface and introduction (which is perhaps the only parts in which I have the time to read) and noticed how polite the author, D. D. Johnson was.
".... Many others have helped with comments on the original version. Such help has greatly increased the value of the work. Its imperfections are my own responsibility." I just find it so beautiful, the language of many Englishmen, just like a gentlemen. :) I can imagine this kindly Professor and his gentle and polite ways just reading this sentence.
Prof. Tan mentioned in lectures a few times how Singapore's secondary forests offers a beginners course on plant species, as it is a rain forest and species rich, yet not so rich that it overwhelms an amatuer.
Another quote from D. S. Johnson:
"To the overseas visitor Singapore offers a sample of tropical wildlife which can be observed easily, in comfort, and without danger. To the serious local naturalist it provides an almost unique opportunity to study the interaction of man and wild life in an urbanized equatorial setting."
In another famous book, The Wayside Trees of Malaya, Corner in his preface to the 3rd Edition address lover of plants a "plantsman" or "one who delights in living plants." Such beautiful language once again, leaves me in awed.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Botanical Monkeys
It all started out a few hours ago when I picked a book off the Plant Systematics Laboratory's library shelf.
Gardening in the Lowlands of Malaya by R. E. Holttum
Through which, another book was introduced.
Wayside trees of Malaya by E. J. H. Corner
What really interest me at first was how the photographs of the trees in the plates stated the location where the tree was sighted and photographed. The heritage trailer in me was thrilled!
And the strange preface:
Malayan Trees Who Cares to Know,
Upon His Shoulder Sits a Berok
What strange language, reminiscent of Lewis Caroll and John Lennon kind of Jabberwocky.
And what is a Berok?
On the dust jacket of the book was a ink sketch of a tree branch with an ape-like creature, tied to a string down to the ground, reaching down and a twig and leaf falling from it. What strange imagery for a book about trees!
Reading the book, we see photographs, not only of trees and also specimens. Which made me wonder, how did he get this specimen? He was mentioned to be a tall man, but he couldn't have been able to reach that high. There probably wasn't technology to reach up there. He couldn't have climbed, being an Englishman of that period and all.
I did a google search on the word "berok" and then it all made sense.
A pig-tailed ape. Macaca nemestrina. Botanical monkeys.
A review by Joseph Ewan on Corner's (1992) book entitled "Botanical monkeys" states: Plant collectors are bipedal but Corner has made it quadrupedal. In all the history of botany there has been nothing like enlisting monkeys to harvest flowers and fruit from tall trees.
=) Thrilling? Corner seems like a really interesting kind of botanist/Professor. haha.
Gardening in the Lowlands of Malaya by R. E. Holttum
Through which, another book was introduced.
Wayside trees of Malaya by E. J. H. Corner
What really interest me at first was how the photographs of the trees in the plates stated the location where the tree was sighted and photographed. The heritage trailer in me was thrilled!
And the strange preface:
Malayan Trees Who Cares to Know,
Upon His Shoulder Sits a Berok
What strange language, reminiscent of Lewis Caroll and John Lennon kind of Jabberwocky.
And what is a Berok?
On the dust jacket of the book was a ink sketch of a tree branch with an ape-like creature, tied to a string down to the ground, reaching down and a twig and leaf falling from it. What strange imagery for a book about trees!
Reading the book, we see photographs, not only of trees and also specimens. Which made me wonder, how did he get this specimen? He was mentioned to be a tall man, but he couldn't have been able to reach that high. There probably wasn't technology to reach up there. He couldn't have climbed, being an Englishman of that period and all.
I did a google search on the word "berok" and then it all made sense.
A pig-tailed ape. Macaca nemestrina. Botanical monkeys.
A review by Joseph Ewan on Corner's (1992) book entitled "Botanical monkeys" states: Plant collectors are bipedal but Corner has made it quadrupedal. In all the history of botany there has been nothing like enlisting monkeys to harvest flowers and fruit from tall trees.
=) Thrilling? Corner seems like a really interesting kind of botanist/Professor. haha.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
15 minutes of writing a day keeps your grades increasing!
Let me write about the Fisherian runaway process. This is a process whereby sexual selection occurs when either a male has a trait that gives it advantage over another male, or when a female has a preference for a male with that trait. Which ever the reason, this would result in an increase in intensity for that preference. The females who mate with such males, would not only confer the genetic trait to her sons, but also confer the preference for that genetic trait to her daughters. This process would go on until those males not selected for become selected for, I presume this would be when there are changes in the environment; or until the females change their preference and no longer select for males with such trait.
This is my feeble attempt at 15 minutes of writing a day.
Perhaps, I should switch to writing on paper instead as suggested by Wee Foong so that I can simulate exam conditions even more.
This is my feeble attempt at 15 minutes of writing a day.
Perhaps, I should switch to writing on paper instead as suggested by Wee Foong so that I can simulate exam conditions even more.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Orang Utan Dies in Freak Accident [Straits Times 14th February]
Let me apply my Animal Behaviour knowledge here to a real life example, though incomplete it may be.
We all know that animals sometimes have a tendency to kill their young, kill their siblings, kill one another (cannibalism), whatever the reason. Whether knowing their young is diseased; whether knowing by removing a sibling, one is removing a competitor; whether knowing an animal of the same species' body would contain the nutrients the cannibal would need.
So why is it that when Atina, the baby orang utan was trapped in the hanging noose, and the zookeepers saw other orang utans tugging at her neck, and dislocating it, causing immediate death, assumed her mother, Anita, was trying to "free her" and not kill her? After all, but eliminating one fellow orang utan, one is removing a competition factor, and the orang utans might possibly think that, that means more food, more resources for me.
I think many will be shocked at my question. The ruthlessness of the animal kingdom. People might be shocked that these tamed orang utans could actually exhibit behaviour that is radically different from that of what our image of a mother should be towards her own flesh and blood. Or people might outrightly disagree with what I have said. After all, it's up to our interpretation of things and don't we often want to think the best of situations and people and animals? Talking about the anthropogenic view of things.
Or we could joke like Huanyan did that the zookeepers knew orang utan language and understood that the mother and the other orang utans were trying to save the child through their conversations over the commotion. ;) It actually didn't sound like a joke. haha :)
We all know that animals sometimes have a tendency to kill their young, kill their siblings, kill one another (cannibalism), whatever the reason. Whether knowing their young is diseased; whether knowing by removing a sibling, one is removing a competitor; whether knowing an animal of the same species' body would contain the nutrients the cannibal would need.
So why is it that when Atina, the baby orang utan was trapped in the hanging noose, and the zookeepers saw other orang utans tugging at her neck, and dislocating it, causing immediate death, assumed her mother, Anita, was trying to "free her" and not kill her? After all, but eliminating one fellow orang utan, one is removing a competition factor, and the orang utans might possibly think that, that means more food, more resources for me.
I think many will be shocked at my question. The ruthlessness of the animal kingdom. People might be shocked that these tamed orang utans could actually exhibit behaviour that is radically different from that of what our image of a mother should be towards her own flesh and blood. Or people might outrightly disagree with what I have said. After all, it's up to our interpretation of things and don't we often want to think the best of situations and people and animals? Talking about the anthropogenic view of things.
Or we could joke like Huanyan did that the zookeepers knew orang utan language and understood that the mother and the other orang utans were trying to save the child through their conversations over the commotion. ;) It actually didn't sound like a joke. haha :)
Monday, January 14, 2008
What is Science and the Scientific Method?
The latin word of Science is "to know".
Science is the systematic study of the natural world to obtain knowledge and understanding about it.
This systematic study is also known as the Scientific Method which consist of asking questions and forming possible answers to them (hypothesis) and testing them out though observation, experiment and/or modelling.
So who are Scientists? Scientists are people who ask questions about the natural world and attempt to find answers to these questions by applying the Scientific Method. Therefore, there is no standstill in Science, Scientist are constantly asking new questions, forming new hypothesis and updating whatever information we already have about the world. Scientist hold on to the most possible theories. They will not abandon a theory, unless they find a better one that can possibly explain a phenomenon. Say, the evolution theory. Unless one can find a better explanation as to why there are so many fossils that look like our ancestors around, why are our DNA so similar on so many counts etc etc, we will hold on to it. :)
Science is also a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study. (Merriam Webster) The science of theology. The science of the natural world. The science of philosophy. They have different premises. Like the science of theology is based on faith whereas the science of the natural world is not. Therefore, since their premise are different, it is unfair to use the methods of one, on another.
For example, using the methods of the Science of the Natural World on God. I have a question as to whether God exist. My hypothesis is hard if I search hard enough but cannot find him physically to identify Him, He must be extinct.
Or using the methods of the Science of Theology on the Natural World. I have a question of why the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. I hypothesize that if I pray hard enough I will be able to change God's mind to make the sun rise in the West and set in the east instead.
They don't match. Professor Tan was trying to explain to me. I don't understand it fully and am finding it difficult to express myself. May I be enlightened more and more.
Science is the systematic study of the natural world to obtain knowledge and understanding about it.
This systematic study is also known as the Scientific Method which consist of asking questions and forming possible answers to them (hypothesis) and testing them out though observation, experiment and/or modelling.
So who are Scientists? Scientists are people who ask questions about the natural world and attempt to find answers to these questions by applying the Scientific Method. Therefore, there is no standstill in Science, Scientist are constantly asking new questions, forming new hypothesis and updating whatever information we already have about the world. Scientist hold on to the most possible theories. They will not abandon a theory, unless they find a better one that can possibly explain a phenomenon. Say, the evolution theory. Unless one can find a better explanation as to why there are so many fossils that look like our ancestors around, why are our DNA so similar on so many counts etc etc, we will hold on to it. :)
Science is also a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study. (Merriam Webster) The science of theology. The science of the natural world. The science of philosophy. They have different premises. Like the science of theology is based on faith whereas the science of the natural world is not. Therefore, since their premise are different, it is unfair to use the methods of one, on another.
For example, using the methods of the Science of the Natural World on God. I have a question as to whether God exist. My hypothesis is hard if I search hard enough but cannot find him physically to identify Him, He must be extinct.
Or using the methods of the Science of Theology on the Natural World. I have a question of why the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. I hypothesize that if I pray hard enough I will be able to change God's mind to make the sun rise in the West and set in the east instead.
They don't match. Professor Tan was trying to explain to me. I don't understand it fully and am finding it difficult to express myself. May I be enlightened more and more.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Response to Janadas Devan's article
Hmmm....
I'm getting a little tired staring at the computer. Last response then, I shall get going. :)
Another article that really inspired me was Janadas Devan's "Good writing is not about sticking rigidly to fixed pattern" in the Sunday Times on the 28th of October, 2007.
The response to this article was so good, Janadas followed up on it in this online article:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_182522.html
Basically, he challenged the way students are taught to write essay in the thesis-proof-conclusion model. And questioned whether this limited the student's ability to think. I will quote from him:
That is the best way to teach writing: Encourage students to think for themselves; encourage them to use their writing as a tool for thought and expression, a tool that they can use. Why would students want to learn to write well if they see no purpose in it? Insisting on the template for every occasion, for every variety of essay - way beyond the training-wheels stage - is of no aid in giving them a purpose in their writing.
Finally, let me end with a thesis statement: The purpose of 'essays' is contained in the word's etymology. The noun 'essay' derives from the Old French essai, 'trial'. Its original 16th-century meaning in English was 'an attempt, an endeavour'. The verb 'essay', meaning 'to test the quality of', 'is an alteration of assay, by association with Old French essayer: this is based on late Latin exagium 'weighing', from the base of exigere 'ascertain, weigh',' as The Oxford Dictionary Of Word Histories explains.
Essay: to weigh facts; to attempt an argument; to ascertain and probe; to place thought on trial.
The template - thesis-proof-conclusion - tends to squelch the trial phase. It encourages students to jump straight to judgments without trials. It misses the point of this extraordinary invention, the essay - a trial in writing.
I really like that: essay: to weight facts; to attempt an argument; to ascertain and probe; to place thought on trial.
To place thought on trial.
It sounds so alien to me. I really hope to read the book he recommended by Susan Horton - "Thinking Through Writing" but I have some problems. It's quite an outdated, out-of-print book, published in 1982. So I doubt if the bigger bookstores here still have it. It's not in NUS library, nor in National Library bookshelves. It's found in Singapore Polytechnic library and is borrowed till 24th Dec, and that's a bit inconvenient for me to try for. It is sold through Amazon but my Mum is unhappy as that would mean pretty costly shipping fees.
Hmmmmm...
I guess, I can wait. :) And exercise my brain in some other ways till then! :)
I'm getting a little tired staring at the computer. Last response then, I shall get going. :)
Another article that really inspired me was Janadas Devan's "Good writing is not about sticking rigidly to fixed pattern" in the Sunday Times on the 28th of October, 2007.
The response to this article was so good, Janadas followed up on it in this online article:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_182522.html
Basically, he challenged the way students are taught to write essay in the thesis-proof-conclusion model. And questioned whether this limited the student's ability to think. I will quote from him:
That is the best way to teach writing: Encourage students to think for themselves; encourage them to use their writing as a tool for thought and expression, a tool that they can use. Why would students want to learn to write well if they see no purpose in it? Insisting on the template for every occasion, for every variety of essay - way beyond the training-wheels stage - is of no aid in giving them a purpose in their writing.
Finally, let me end with a thesis statement: The purpose of 'essays' is contained in the word's etymology. The noun 'essay' derives from the Old French essai, 'trial'. Its original 16th-century meaning in English was 'an attempt, an endeavour'. The verb 'essay', meaning 'to test the quality of', 'is an alteration of assay, by association with Old French essayer: this is based on late Latin exagium 'weighing', from the base of exigere 'ascertain, weigh',' as The Oxford Dictionary Of Word Histories explains.
Essay: to weigh facts; to attempt an argument; to ascertain and probe; to place thought on trial.
The template - thesis-proof-conclusion - tends to squelch the trial phase. It encourages students to jump straight to judgments without trials. It misses the point of this extraordinary invention, the essay - a trial in writing.
I really like that: essay: to weight facts; to attempt an argument; to ascertain and probe; to place thought on trial.
To place thought on trial.
It sounds so alien to me. I really hope to read the book he recommended by Susan Horton - "Thinking Through Writing" but I have some problems. It's quite an outdated, out-of-print book, published in 1982. So I doubt if the bigger bookstores here still have it. It's not in NUS library, nor in National Library bookshelves. It's found in Singapore Polytechnic library and is borrowed till 24th Dec, and that's a bit inconvenient for me to try for. It is sold through Amazon but my Mum is unhappy as that would mean pretty costly shipping fees.
Hmmmmm...
I guess, I can wait. :) And exercise my brain in some other ways till then! :)
I have not updated this blog in a long time
Hmmmm...
I recently read an article by Maryanne Wolf from the Review of Straits Times on the 28th of September called "Will kids lose ability to think"? And it was a very good read.
Articles of this nature never fail to stimulate me because I often feel like a victim of my circumstance in this area. I am someone who is unable to sieve through knowledge to gain something out of it. Rather, I'm like a sponge that keeps on absorbing and never making sense of what I absorbed.
It may be because of the information explosion? That caused me to be lost in a world where there's so much to read. Sometimes I'm afraid to buy magazines or books to read, knowing I've already have so much at home to read and afraid that I can only gain very little from the much that I read.
It may be because of my inclination not to think as much? I am not sure how I developed this habit, probably because of the lack of time that has caused me to cut short certain processes, such as thinking. The way I approach issues is "give me the solution, and I will apply it instantly" often skipping the thinking and evaluation process. It has worked well for me until recently, when I realise, I do not value add to the knowledge that I pass along, often I'm just a channel who dilutes knowledge and doesn't input much wisdom.
Whatever reason, I am rather shocked and disgusted about the lack of use of my brain. And pretty upset. :( And I would like to change this? How? God, help me manoeuver through this unfortunate circumstance. That when I slowly weaved my way through it, I might realised, it was a blessing in disguise and I actually learn much more!
Snippets from the article:
To Socrates, only the arduous process of probing, analysing, and ultimately internalising knowledge would enable the young to develop a life-long approach to thinking that would lead them ultimately to wisdom, virtue and "friendship with (their) god".
To Socrates, only the examined word and the "examined life" were worth pursuing, and literacy short-circuited both.
How many children today are becoming Socrates' nightmare, mere decoders of information who have neither the time nor the motivation to think beneath or beyond their googled universe? Will they become so accustomed to immediate access to escalating on-screen information that they will fail to probe beyond the information given to the deeper layers of insight, imagination and knowledge that have led us to this stage of human thought?
...
The act of going beyond the text to think new thoughts is a developmental, learnable approach towards knowledge.
...
Children need to have both time to think and the motivation to think for themselves, to develop an expert reading brain, before the digital mode dominates their reading.
The immediacy and volume of information should not be confused with true knowledge.Knowledge creation. A chance to break out of this trap I am stuck in. I am lost in a jungle of information. And I either stand still or scramble in all directions, getting nowhere. God, I want to move out of this predicament I am in.
I don't want to remain shallow in thinking and knowledge. I want be be able to integrate, analyse, judge, sieve, THINK.
I recently read an article by Maryanne Wolf from the Review of Straits Times on the 28th of September called "Will kids lose ability to think"? And it was a very good read.
Articles of this nature never fail to stimulate me because I often feel like a victim of my circumstance in this area. I am someone who is unable to sieve through knowledge to gain something out of it. Rather, I'm like a sponge that keeps on absorbing and never making sense of what I absorbed.
It may be because of the information explosion? That caused me to be lost in a world where there's so much to read. Sometimes I'm afraid to buy magazines or books to read, knowing I've already have so much at home to read and afraid that I can only gain very little from the much that I read.
It may be because of my inclination not to think as much? I am not sure how I developed this habit, probably because of the lack of time that has caused me to cut short certain processes, such as thinking. The way I approach issues is "give me the solution, and I will apply it instantly" often skipping the thinking and evaluation process. It has worked well for me until recently, when I realise, I do not value add to the knowledge that I pass along, often I'm just a channel who dilutes knowledge and doesn't input much wisdom.
Whatever reason, I am rather shocked and disgusted about the lack of use of my brain. And pretty upset. :( And I would like to change this? How? God, help me manoeuver through this unfortunate circumstance. That when I slowly weaved my way through it, I might realised, it was a blessing in disguise and I actually learn much more!
Snippets from the article:
To Socrates, only the arduous process of probing, analysing, and ultimately internalising knowledge would enable the young to develop a life-long approach to thinking that would lead them ultimately to wisdom, virtue and "friendship with (their) god".
To Socrates, only the examined word and the "examined life" were worth pursuing, and literacy short-circuited both.
How many children today are becoming Socrates' nightmare, mere decoders of information who have neither the time nor the motivation to think beneath or beyond their googled universe? Will they become so accustomed to immediate access to escalating on-screen information that they will fail to probe beyond the information given to the deeper layers of insight, imagination and knowledge that have led us to this stage of human thought?
...
The act of going beyond the text to think new thoughts is a developmental, learnable approach towards knowledge.
...
Children need to have both time to think and the motivation to think for themselves, to develop an expert reading brain, before the digital mode dominates their reading.
The immediacy and volume of information should not be confused with true knowledge.Knowledge creation. A chance to break out of this trap I am stuck in. I am lost in a jungle of information. And I either stand still or scramble in all directions, getting nowhere. God, I want to move out of this predicament I am in.
I don't want to remain shallow in thinking and knowledge. I want be be able to integrate, analyse, judge, sieve, THINK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)