女人洞房的脱变 -网络笑话

女人入洞房那天，早早收起了自己的鞋，等男人脱鞋上炕，女人却双脚踩在男人的鞋上。男人见了，“嘿嘿”笑着说，还挺迷信。女人却认真地说，俺娘说了，踩了男人的鞋，一辈子不受男人的气。男人说，俺娘也说了，女人踩了男人的鞋，那是一辈子要跟男人吃苦受罪的。

女人开始试探着管男人，先从生活小事儿开始，支使男人拿尿盆倒尿罐，男人全干了。地里的庄稼女人说种啥，男人就种啥。左邻右舍女人说跟谁走近点跟谁走远点，男人全听女人的。男人正跟人闲侃，女人一声喊，男人像被牵了鼻子的牛，乖乖就回去了。

男人正跟人喝酒，女人上前只扯一下耳朵，就被拽进家。有人激男人，这女人三天不打，她就上房揭瓦。你也算个男人，怎能让女人管得没有一点男人的气概？若是我的女人，非扇她两鞋底不可。男人不急不慌地说：把你的女人叫来，我也舍得扇她两鞋底子。那人急了，你懂个好赖话不？上辈子老和尚托生的没见过女人！真不像你爹的种，怕老婆！　　　

村里人再有大事商量，男人一出场，人们就说，这商量大事你也做不了主，还是把你家女人请来吧。男人还真把女人叫来了。　　

女人能管住男人觉着很得意，直到有一天女人在男人耳边说起了婆婆的不是。男人红了眼，一声吼，想知道我为啥不打你吗？就因为我老娘。我娘一辈子不容易，我爹脾性暴躁，稍有不顺心，张口就骂举手就打，我爹打断过胳膊粗的棍子，打散过椅子。我娘为了我们几个孩子，竟熬了一辈子。每次见娘挨打，我都发誓，我娶了女人决不捅他一指头。不是我怕你，是我忘不了我老娘说的话，她说女人是被男人疼的，不是被男人打的。　　　　

女人惊呆了，她没想到男人的胸怀竟这样宽广。　　　　

男人在外再同人神吹海喝，女人不喊也不再拽耳朵，有时会端碗水递给男人。有人问男人，咋调教的？男人却一本正经地说：打出来的女人嘴服，疼出来的女人心服。

看完了,你从中领悟到了那个朴实的道理了吗?

祝天下所有的母亲和被爱着的女人...幸福.快乐

Values in Science

其实，我一直想写一篇关于科学价值的文章。。。但是，要谈所谓的科学价值观和科学态度其实并不容易。。。这实在是一个蛮笼统，很难有一个具体重点的议题。。。没有深入的认知和体悟，就一定没有办法写得好。。。而且丰富的阅读也很重要。。。在事件的发生，演变上去截取重要的价值判断。。。我想，这就是做社会科学、哲学、宗教和历史的难度。。。

做科学研究，本来就不只是做实验，取data，分析和做结论那么简单。。。在这里头的过程中，态度其实更为重要。。。很多时候，其实是一种本末倒置的做法：想得到某些结论，才去设计一些对结论有帮助的实验。。。往往没有再三的测试，检讨得到的数据，做出来的东西其实就只是一堆垃圾。。。但是话说回来，对自己的数据太过保守的话，往往却对自己有不利的影响。。。太过轻视自己的实验和数据，会让自己深锁在没有自信和信心的窘境里头（我有时候就有这样的问题）。。。如何去大胆假设，小心求证，其实是做科研人一生的功课。。。

在网上溜达，无意间看到了一篇关于《科学的价值观》文章。。。有些许的感触，文章好像有点长，但是其实深入浅出，很值得与大家分享，也是对自己的一种提醒。。。

其实，做任何事，都要能过自己的良心。。。而什么是良心？我想就取决于自我的价值判断。。。而个人的价值判断，是一个个体从各各方面吸收回来的养分，是一个人一生的功课，从一出生就在上课，到停止呼吸的最后一刻。。。

文章的最后一段是我特别喜欢的，也是整篇的重点所在：
“一位所谓的科学家最大的挑战，是注意到和尝试去理解研究领域背后的信念和推测，并运用这样的自我认知不断在特定的研究领域上精进。而这样的自我检测，来自于他不断从各个领域学习，吸收和检讨回来的的价值判断：从历史，哲学，社会学，文学，艺术，宗教到所谓的道德规范。如果专研在自我的特定领域中，而无法建立和发展出在科研工作上需要的价值判断，那他将在他的工作上遭受挫折。”


转载自：http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4917&page=6

VALUES IN SCIENCE

Scientists bring more than just a toolbox of techniques to their work. Scientist must also make complex decisions about the interpretation of data, about which problems to pursue, and about when to conclude an experiment. They have to decide the best ways to work with others and exchange information. Taken together, these matters of judgment contribute greatly to the craft of science, and the character of a person's individual decisions helps determine that person's scientific style (as well as, on occasion, the impact of that person's work).

Much of the knowledge and skill needed to make good decisions in science is learned through personal experience and interactions with other scientists. But some of this ability is hard to teach or even describe. Many of the intangible influences on scientific discovery—curiosity, intuition, creativity—largely defy rational analysis, yet they are among the tools that scientists bring to their work.

When judgment is recognized as a scientific tool, it is easier to see how science can be influenced by values. Consider, for example, the way people judge between competing hypotheses. In a given area of science, several different explanations may account for the available facts equally well, with each suggesting an alternate route for further research. How do researchers pick among them?

Scientists and philosophers have proposed several criteria by which promising scientific hypotheses can be distinguished from less fruitful ones. Hypotheses should be internally consistent so that they do not generate contradictory conclusions. Their ability to provide accurate experimental predictions, sometimes in areas far removed from the original domain of the hypothesis, is viewed with great favor. With disciplines in which experimentation is less straightforward, such as geology, astronomy, or many of the social sciences, good hypotheses should be able to unify disparate observations. Also highly prized are simplicity and its more refined cousin, elegance.

Other kinds of values also come into play in science. Historians, sociologists, and other students of science have shown that social and personal beliefs—including philosophical, thematic, religious, cultural, political, and economic beliefs—can shape scientific judgment in fundamental ways. For example, Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics as an irreducible description of nature—summarized in his insistence that "God does not play dice"—seems to have been based largely on an aesthetic conviction that the physical universe could not contain such an inherent component of randomness. The nineteenth-century geologist Charles Lyell, who championed the idea that geological change occurs incrementally rather than catastrophically, may have been influenced as much by his religious views as by his geological observations. He favored the notion of a God who is an unmoved mover and does not intervene in His creation. Such a God, thought Lyell, would produce a world in which the same causes and effects keep cycling eternally, producing a uniform geological history.

Does holding such values harm a person's science? In some cases the answer has to be "yes." The history of science offers a number of episodes in which social or personal beliefs distorted the work of researchers. The field of eugenics used the techniques of science to try to demonstrate the inferiority of certain races. The ideological rejection of Mendelian genetics in the Soviet Union beginning in the 1930s crippled Soviet biology for decades.

Despite such cautionary episodes, it is clear that values cannot—and should not—be separated from science. The desire to do good work is a human value. So is the conviction that standards of honesty and objectivity need to be maintained. The belief that the universe is simple and coherent has led to great advances in science. If researchers did not believe that the world can be described in terms of a relatively small number of fundamental principles, science would amount to no more than organized observation. Religious convictions about the nature of the universe have also led to important scientific insights, as in the case of Lyell discussed above.

The empirical link between scientific knowledge and the physical, biological, and social world constrains the influence of values in science. Researchers are continually testing their theories about the world against observations. If hypotheses do not accord with observations, they will eventually fall from favor (though scientists may hold on to a hypothesis even in the face of some conflicting evidence since sometimes it is the evidence rather than the hypothesis that is mistaken).

The social mechanisms of science also help eliminate distorting effects that personal values might have. They subject scientific claims to the process of collective validation, applying different perspectives to the same body of observations and hypotheses.

The challenge for individual scientists is to acknowledge and try to understand the suppositions and beliefs that lie behind their own work so that they can use that self-knowledge to advance their work. Such self-examination can be informed by study in many areas outside of science, including history, philosophy, sociology, literature, art, religion, and ethics. If narrow specialization and a single-minded focus on a single activity keep a researcher from developing the perspective and fine sense of discrimination needed to apply values in science, that person's work can suffer.

新年快乐，发大财！

刚刚发现，研究上遇到的问题其实在书本上有提到，也有可能的解决方案。。。真让我兴奋了一下。。。接下来的工作，就是要解决这一大难题。。。希望实验有新的进展与突破，至少得可以让我毕业啊～～～
这是新年的小小愿望。。。
祝来看我blog的朋友新年快乐，发大财！

我竟然也才发现，我学校出了一样的一出短片。。。虽然没有拍到我，但是这就是我“山卡拉”的学校。。。哈哈。。。

钱钱钱！

好久没有写部落了。。。我想，也已经没有朋友上来看我的部落了。。。
没有关系，写字本来就是自己的情绪的抒发而已，并和朋友分享自己的想法和感受。。。不过，当然啦，有人看，有人回应，总是觉得自己的言论有人听。。。

没有钱，但是有很多东西想买啊。。。以外是我目前的人生目标。。。
1) Wide angle lens for my D90
2) Mac Pro
3) Ipad
4) Iphone
5) HD TV
6) LCD Projector - For home theater
7) .... to be continued ...

哈哈，可惜我没有钱。。。等我毕业吧！