On Saturday, week 46, my taekwondo club had it’s 30. anniversary. There was a celebration and performing, I got asked to be present and I said yes. What I had to do was hold a wood board for our instructor to break. There was also a training session with a older instructor. I went home around 16:30, and the sun was setting. I had most of my photographing gear with me, so I stopped by the river and took some pictures.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.


On week 45, I started reading a book called Darlah 172 timer på månen by Johan Harstad, it was recommended by a friend and it was nice to use the free time I could get on reading. The book is written in Norwegian, usually I don’t read books in Norwegian but it was good to learn new words and expressions.

Darlah is a horror novel, and quite exciting when it reaches its climax. Though, everything before it was a bit boring for me. The ending is amazing but I felt it left some things out in the open. There is just the right amount of graphics, mostly moon pictures, but the rest helps with visualization. And the front cover is cool. The whole book got me really inspired about doing some artwork, but I haven’t really put much thought into actually doing it.IMG_8319



Bare kom deg gjennom dette, så skal du få gjøre alt du vil.”

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a psychological experiment on how prisoners and prison guards react to being put into an evil place. The experiment was conducted in the basement of Stanford University in 1971. The prisoners were college students, and they were picked, surprisingly, at their own houses by the police.

The participants of the experiment, played their role well, the guards were acted powerful and authoritarian; and some of them even abused the power they had. And the prisoners obeyed the guards until they started to break. Some wanted to leave before the experiment was finished, and they eventually did.

The experiment was interrupted before it got completed. A lot of variables played a part in this unexpected stop. The prisoners that quit, the superintendent not having an impartial supervisor, and the guards stepping over boundaries.

“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”

I think what Isaac Asimov tries to say with this quote is how science is always a step in front of ethics and moral reasoning. We have all this technology, but we still have to figure out if it is morally acceptable to make use of it or a ethical way of using it. For example, stem cells are a great resource but the ethical way of getting them is not on the same level as how much it is needed.

Also, how some people make use of the technology (science) in an unethical way, i.e. atomic weapons.

The thing is that people, having different opinions and thoughts on what is “good” and “bad”, make the process of scientific progress slower. Scientist can, mostly, agree on a scientific theory or on scientific knowledge; but when non-scientists (“normal people”? whatever) want to make use of the scientific knowledge acquired it takes time and a lot of discussion about whether it is “right” or “wrong”.

KQ: In what way does disagreement promote scientific progress?

I think disagreement is a key element in scientific progress. It helps scientists to reach further and look at things differently. But when the disagreement happens between scientists and “civilians” things might get a little tricky. There’s ethics involved, and that on one side can stop progress or slow it down. Although on the other side, again, it can make scientists look at things differently and hopefully find better ways of making progress.

My original costume wasn’t ready so I had to go as something else. Gratefully I read a comment on Youtube about a very original idea; so of course I borrowed it, making a small change though.

File 01-11-15 10 24 38

It being original made me put my art skills into it, but it wasn’t difficult at all.

DSC_0402DSC_0403DSC_0405DSC_0407DSC_0413DSC_0416File 01-11-15 10 25 30

I changed the bag with ice for the “chill” into a bucket with candy. I wasn’t very keen on the idea of carrying ice the whole school day. A lot of people got the reference, and some loved it. They also liked the candy.

On Saturday, actual Halloween, I went to a friend’s house and had a small gathering. We spent the evening playing games, listening to music, eating candy and getting to know each other better. At night we tried to get into the only two existing night clubs in this town, without success. Nevertheless, it was still fun. Around 02:00, we were back at the house and then we watched some Netflix. I don’t remember falling asleep, but I remember waking up a few times during the night. At 8 something am I decided to come home.

One thing I missed from previous Halloween celebrations was the decorations. I guess I’ll have to compensate next year then.

DSC_0435DSC_0425DSC_0428DSC_0467DSC_0455DSC_0457DSC_0460DSC_0461DSC_0462File 01-11-15 10 27 00File 01-11-15 10 44 23File 01-11-15 10 44 41

Till’ next Halloween.

KQ: What is it about theories in the human and natural sciences that makes them convincing?

In natural sciences there this thing called the scientific method, that I just learned about. And I think of myself as a rational person, and natural science seems to be more rational because there’s a way to prove all the theories.

This is not how this is supposed to go.

There was a time when I believed in a god, the Christian god in my case, the primary reason was because I was told to. Anyway, I stopped believing in it/him/her. But I understand why a lot of people do.

The thing with human, natural and pseudo sciences is that they are all different forms of beliefs. Human and pseudo sciences go somehow together, because they are both about people and groups of people and how the human mind works and behaves. And even though, most pseudo sciences, if not all, were based on or have some natural science in it, they don’t really relate much. Because (some) pseudo sciences lack the scientific method.

I’m missing the point.

I’m not sure about human sciences, but in natural sciences there’s the scientific method. Where you observe, then develop a hypothesis and then experiment on it, and mostly likely get results and then make a theory. What makes these theories convincing is that there is a way to test it, and not just right there and then but over a longer period of time. Also, if the theory in the future turns out to be wrong or not quite right, scientist change it and learn from it.

What makes theories convincing is more about what people choose to believe in than the theory itself, I guess. Because even though, theories in natural sciences are provable and ‘real’, there are still some people who don’t believe in it.

15 minutes’ up.