OCCAM'S RAZOR

In a biology lab at Harvard University, a few years back, students performed a ground–breaking experiment.  After securing government funding and all of the proper clearances to experiment on animals, the undergraduate students rolled up their sleeves and got to work.

The would-be scientists set a frog on the work surface of a lab table, and when one of them said, “Jump frog, jump!” The frog jumped.

Now the experiment begins.  The biologists then cut the frog’s right front leg off and cauterized the wound to prolong the frog’s life.  The same researcher again said, “Jump frog, jump!”  The frog jumped again.

After recording those results the biologists removed the frog’s left front leg in the same humane manner and again urged, “Jump frog, jump!”  Guess what?  The frog jumped.

The researchers, excited with the raw data they were accumulating, then removed the frog’s right rear leg, and with some nervousness again said, “Jump frog, jump!”  After a few seconds delay, and with much effort on his behalf, the frog eventually jumped.  The science students cheered momentarily and then returned to their notebooks jotting notes, data, and observations.

In the experiment’s final stage they humanely removed the frog’s left rear leg and again one of them said, “Jump frog, jump!”  But the frog didn’t jump.  They repeated the request, this time louder and more urgently, “JUMP FROG, JUMP!”  The frog didn’t move at all.  So in unison the scientists all shouted, “JUMP FROG, JUMP!”   Still no movement by the frog, but a lot of note taking and head scratching by the scientists.

A week later, after many discussions, some of them heated others more civil, the researchers revealed their results to their professor and the rest of the class.  Their conclusion?

FROGS THAT HAVE NO LEGS ARE DEAF, UNABLE TO HEAR.

What?
I suppose that could be one conclusion, but probably not the one I would have arrived at. I would have gone with the far simpler, and more obvious, explanation that frogs without legs CAN’T jump whether they are deaf or not.

In my biology course at the University of Minnesota I was taught about Occam’s Razor; the principle that states, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

To be fair, the Harvard students did their experiment at the beginning of the semester.  They probably were introduced to Occam’s Razor shortly AFTER they presented their questionable conclusion.  I learned about Occam’s Razor after the midterm of my biology course and it is probably the best lesson I learned in that class.  I’ve used a modified form of it quite often in the real world outside of the biology lab.

When faced with multiples answers to a situation, the simpler one is better.

 Driving down an unfamiliar street with every car heading directly towards me with horns blaring and people yelling? 

Possible answer: Some of these people are driving on the wrong side of the street, obviously don't know what they're doing, and should be ticketed for those offenses. 

Simple answer: I’m heading the wrong way down a one-way street.

When faced with multiples answers to a situation, the simpler one is better.

Staying up late on a Friday night surfing the web and blogging leaves me needing a nap on Saturday afternoon.

Possible answer:  The electron-field created by excessive contact with a computer in massive doses (i.e. five day work-week/8 hours/day plus 4 hours Friday night) effects my thyroid causing hypothyroidism making me tired on Saturday afternoon.

Simple answer:  Staying up too late one night makes me tired the next day.

When faced with multiples answers to a situation, the simpler one is better.

A faction of Minnesotans are attempting to decree that discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens of our state will be the law of the land by introducing a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Possible answer: Homosexuals being able to legally marry in the state of Minnesota is immoral, unnatural, and against God’s wishes.  Allowing same-sex marriage threatens all marriages that consist of a man and a woman, and will tear at the very fabric of the traditional family.

Simple answer:  My God enjoys and rewards love.  My God believes in fairness for ALL.  If two people are committed to each other and in love, they deserve the right to be married, with all of the honors and privileges that status affords.  Marriage should be for all.

It’s just that simple.  Please keep that in mind when you enter the voting booth in Minnesota next November.

When faced with multiples answers to a situation, the simpler one is better.

WHO KNEW?

THE OPPOSITE OF DEJA VU

I’m guessing that most people who read this have experienced déjà vu before. You’ve probably sensed the feeling that you’re sure you’ve witnessed or experienced a current situation at a previous time although you’re not sure if it actually happened or whether you dreamed it. Often times the “memory” is so vivid that one swears the event actually did happen at an earlier time, only to be occurring again right now. The unusual nature of déjà vu led Sigmund Freud to refer to instances of déjà vu as, “the uncanny”.

I think we’ve all been there. Déjà vu is an odd sensation. More uncanny though, in my book, was the description an old colleague of mine used to describe the sensation of “Vu Ja De”. He described vu ja de as being the opposite of déjà vu. Vu ja de could be used to describe the feeling one gets when entering a situation and experiencing ABSOLUTELY NO sense that you’ve done anything like this before. I thought vu ja de was an interesting play on words; I always found it amusing. I’ve always liked to compare and contrast opposites. (Black and white, Left and right, Stop and go)

Then came the winter of 2011/2012 when the mildest winter on record became the cruelest season of my life.

Meteorologically the past winter was the mildest on record for those of us residing at 44.88’ latitude and 93.22’ longitude. Uncommonly warm temperatures and lack of precipitation led to bicycling and rollerblading opportunities never previously available in the Twin Cities. THAT part of the vu ja de winter I enjoyed. Heck, I had NEVER swept snow before. This past winter we had so little snowfall I swept it off of the sidewalk 3 times and only had to shovel twice ALL WINTER LONG!

However, starting with the call from Dad on November 30^th, when I learned that he was diagnosed with stage 4 esophageal cancer, through tomorrow’s gathering of family and friends to celebrate Dad’s life, I have continually been experiencing more uncomfortable vu ja de occurrences .

Dad’s call at the end of November was like a punch in the gut.

Having to put our dog Sadie to sleep at the end of December left a hole in our home that can’t be filled.

Dad’s passing in early January left me rudderless, confused and sad. I’d never lost anyone that close to me. ‘Mom and Dad’, the inseparable source of strength and support for me, my siblings and all of our children, is now just MEMORIES of Dad and ACTUAL Mom (who we’d all like to support as best we can).

Hey, I’m experiencing and doing stuff here I’ve never had to do before. I‘m feeling somewhat ill equipped as I’m in uncharted (to me anyway) territory.

I don’t like to wallow in self-pity though, so I’m going to embrace these new vu ja de instances and use them as growth opportunities. I’m sure it was a vu ja de situation for Dad when the oncologist gave him his diagnosis with a prognosis of 3 to 6 months to live (Dad lived only 40 more days). One would have expected, and even accepted, a little self-pity on Dad’s behalf. He didn’t go there though.

HE DID THE OPPOSITE.

Mom relayed to us that while driving home from the doctor’s office Dad mentioned that he felt empathy for the doctor having to deliver such sad news to patients and their families. Dad told us all he’d lived a good 80 years and that, faced with the uncertainty of a cancer diagnosis, he was ready to go.

Wow. I better buck up and embrace these vu ja de situations like an adult, like a man, LIKE MY DAD.

To that end I am starting by working on a new concept. I don’t have a name for it yet, but I’ll gladly take suggestions.

WHAT I PROPOSE IS THE OPPOSITE OF AN AUTOPSY.

Everyone knows the autopsy process of determining the method of death through medical science via testing of the recently deceased. I know how Dad died. I read the oncologist’s report. I was with Dad as his mortal life ended.

The thing I’m proposing (as the opposite of the autopsy) is the process of finding out more about HOW DAD LIVED. At tomorrow’s gathering to celebrate Dad’s life I intend to ask older relatives and acquaintances questions about Dad. Then (for a change, opposite what I normally do) I intend to shut up and listen.

Dad only spent 40 plus days dying. He spent 80 plus years living a remarkable life. I think it makes little sense to dwell on the death (autopsy) than it does to explore the life (the opposite of an autopsy).

Heck, who knows? This is all vu ja de to me.