On Wed., Dr Tom Glass asked a good question: What is POPULATION?

I like this question. As a science focusing on population health, "population" should be the object of investigation in this field. However, is epidemiology (esp. when using those "epi methods") on the "right" track of doing "populational sciences" so far? Do we really know what we mean when speaking of "population"?

I have a further question today. Is epidemiology non-human? Since it is "the study among/beyond population (epi-demo-logo)", does it already gave up from treating every single person as a holistic being, but rather as a cluster of charateristics (or variables)? There may be no doubt that why some public health studies in the past violated human right protection, as human "being" is no longer under examination in this way of knowledge exploration.

This pain may be destined thanks to the adoption of prominent epistemiologic and scientific thinkings after the early 20th century. Is it possible for us to jump out from that old and somewhat leaking box?

很多人在追求的，不就是露西那句: "You are a good man, Charlie Brown"....
這首兒童版Happiness聽完之後真的會有滿滿的幸福感!!  Al Jarreau的輕熟版也很讚~~

一直到上禮拜四我才知道，原來哈伯望遠鏡的研究中心就在Homewood(JHU)啊...
厲害厲害，加分