Irv and I had an interesting conversation that danced around where science ends and philosophy begins. What I’d like to offer by including this, is the cracking open of a possible window into a way of looking at things which finds value in a more full spectrum of lenses… could be a good way to get a handle on the whole picture. Seems to me, that different perspectives don’t have to over-ride each other in an effort to rise to the top as the one most right, and so the only one to garner respect. Certainly, there are many excellent and wonderful findings which are very much due the greatest respect, but simply that those understandings which ring true to maybe even just one person, is also due respect, and could well be the one missing piece to finding a more complete understanding.
Hi Irv,
I've been wanting to ask you about something, and I'm hoping you won't take this as an affront. A few days ago, I ran across a post you made to DDW which finished off with this sentence: "Hopefully we can enjoy a new era where science is better understood and extended a greater respect." This kind-of struck me and interests me. I didn't realize that you feel science is not highly respected. Although I understand that where I'm coming from does challenge the strictly scientific perspective here and there, and the blatant disregard of science in the Bush administration, might give rise to some scientific angst, I get the impression that, in many ways, science is currently still "king of the hill", and very highly respected by the majority. How is it that you'd like to see science better understood? ...I'd like to be better educated about this. I really don't mean to be disrespectful of science. Is part of it that you're frustrated with groups like the Christian Taliban, and would like to see the manipulation of people's views and "free will" being harnessed to suit the unscientific ends of church dictators dispelled by the apparently more just and accurate dictates of science? ...just as a for instance.
I'd really like to understand your point of view here better.
Best wishes - Anne
Irv wrote:
Hello Anne, always good to hear from you.
When I wrote..
"Hopefully we can enjoy a new era where science is better understood and extended a greater respect."
I was thinking almost exclusively about posters in NPR. Even very smart people demonstrate with remarkable regularity how little they understand the methodology of science and what it has contributed to human knowledge.
Furthermore, I encountered one fellow, Paul Cook I believe his name was, who was of the opinion that it is healthy to have a skepticism of both religion and science. I think of this attitude as a "New Age" Atheism that seems very undesirable. Proposing that science created gas chambers, nuclear bombs and DDT is just "plain ign'ant" as an argument that we should be skeptical of science. But I encountered that very opinion here on the NPR website. I don't think this is an exceptional example. The new minister for the environment? the Nobel Prize winner in physics, he too, has made specific comments that most Americans plainly don't understand science.
I stand by the comment. While you may have a different perspective, I feel it is a genuine problem that many in the US don't extend science enough respect. I've seen Frankenstein used as an adjective to describe some aspects. Does that strike you as enlightened? Science has been sullied under Bush, maybe for longer. It is time to recognize the problem and change it. Obama himself has expressed this opinion.
Best regards.
Anne wrote:
Okay, I'm trying to get on the same wave-length with you here... don't mean to be daft but, if I'm one of those Americans who doesn't understand science, then how would you put it to me so I can understand? Is it just a matter of understanding that science is a particular type of tool which has very specific guidelines of use? And so, like the coarse analogy of: "it's not guns that kill, it's people", are you pointing to how "science didn't create gas chambers, nuclear bombs and DDT, people did"? That you can be an engineer without necessarily employing scientific means? Sorry if I'm just not getting the point, Irv, but I'd like to.
Thanks, Anne
Irv wrote:
Hello Anne, Yes, what you wrote here is what I'm thinking...
Is it just a matter of understanding that science is a particular type of tool which has very specific guidelines of use? And so, like the course analogy of: "it's not guns that kill, it's people", are you pointing to how "science didn't create gas chambers, nuclear bombs and DDT, people did"?<<
But there is at least one important distinction that needs to be made so that science as a 'tool' and a gun as a 'tool' are not the same thing.
Science was originally developed as a method specifically to benefit and increase human knowledge. Unless I am mistaken, guns were originally developed as a weapon of war specifically to kill people. We know science can be abused, and guns can be appropriately used. However... When you compare the relative contribution of the positive aspects of each, science is just light years ahead. Given this element and science's clear superior benefits I think your analogy is not a sufficient comparison. But it certainly would work for plenty of people, including the those I criticized in my previous post.
Anne wrote:
So Irv - about the "opinion that it is healthy to have a skepticism of both religion and science. I think of this attitude as a "New Age" Atheism that seems very undesirable." I'm very interested in what you mean by New Age Atheism, and wonder why this is undesirable? I'm just plain curious about what New Age means to people... I'm sure this varies.
And one little observation about the contribution of science being light years ahead of that of the gun... if held side by side today, this is hard to argue with. But if you put each of these things in the context of the time they were introduced to man in a prominent way, you might be able to argue that, what the gun was able to accomplish for man in terms of putting food on the table, as well as through war and self defense, might just be comparable to what science has allowed us to accomplish in this day. It's certainly a quantum leap from one to the other, but maybe there's some other development on the rise which will actually dwarf the basis of scientific practice as we know it now.
If I have the time in a bit, I'll present something I've thought about for some years, but haven't had any science friends to pass it by for feed-back.
Thanks for tossing these things around with me.
- Anne
Irv wrote:
Anne, thanks for your post. Interestingly both the gun and science are relatively new on the scene compared the total history of modern humans. Both appeared less than 1000 years ago. But I've heard that theory that 'guns and steel' is what propelled civilization to where it is now. I think that may be idolizing the gun a little. Go to wiki and look up 'gun' and you will see a message saying there needs to be clean up and the article doesn't meet wikipedia's standards. That suggests to me people don't care too much about the history of the gun. If you compare that gun entry with any scientific topic, I think you will see a huge difference. (But I'm only assuming.)
Anne wrote:
I completely agree with you, Irv. The gun side of the analogy is almost stone-age (on a feeling scale, not a time scale) compared with science. And I know that, in terms of time, the gun is but a blink of an eye before our current experience with science. I didn't mean to dispute what you were saying as much as just try to look at these two within their relative environments. The very coarse, or base environment the gun belongs in, is certainly different than the particular degree of refinement which science dictates/requires.
And in terms of the context of these things within the total history of modern humans - if you were to make a chart that showed the evolution of human development and use of tools, all the way up to what we're capable of now, due to scientific means, I can't help but think it might look a lot like Al Gore's charted data on global warming. There's some point on both charts where the scale, once it starts gaining ground, quickly gets to a point which escalates so dramatically that it's a bit mind-boggling in terms of ramifications.
Irv wrote:
The "New Age Atheism" is a term I'm using to describe a phenomenon I believe I see forming. It probably isn't original. It is a convenient term. Historically, atheists have been inherent skeptics. I get a sense, and I think others are getting a similar sense, that there is a modern group of atheists that are only selectively skeptical. That is, they are only skeptical about what they want to be skeptical about. I find this selective skepticism troublesome. That is what I'm trying to say. For me, it is just another form of religion wrapped up in a new package. I was in a book store and saw a book that appeared to address this issue, going by the title anyway. I didn't look at it closely, but I think the author may have been making a case for regular religion.
Nevertheless, I have my radar up as well.
Anne wrote:
Well, I managed to get all my end-of the-day chores done. So now I'll try to get at my take on the "New Age Atheism" angle. Thanks for clarifying this for me. I've been thinking about this too, but from a somewhat different perspective. (What's new, ay?) So I'm getting that the scientific, or thoroughly reasoned, point of view wants the historically skeptical atheist to assess all things with equal skepticism instead of only those things that strike the individual as worthy of skepticism. I see the fairness of this even-handed approach and it's effort at objectivity. But I've been looking at what the value might be of assessing carefully specifically those things that strike the individual as somehow wrong, or out of place. I think there's real insight to be gained by grasping what it is about a thing which doesn't resonate as real or true (whether it is or not) and penetrating this to the point of finding a personal solution for what does appear to be more right for them, as a way to further their unique position on and understanding of things, and how they fit into the picture. It seems to me that, the more a person levels the playing field (so to speak) by unplugging the charge things hold for them, systematically, then they might be that much more able to truly see things for what they are without the personal distortions of bias, one way or the other. It's complicated, potentially messy and problematic, as you say, and certainly a more organic process than the deliberately sterile scientific environment, but I think still a viable one. I'm thinking this might look like a bunch of absurd gobbldy-gook to the science-mind purist... but oh-well... just observations.
There's something about this which parallels the other question I'd like to look at (which isn't quite so complicated), but no time for that today. Later then... thanks Irv, - Anne
Anne wrote:
So Irv, if you can bear with me a bit longer... I think I have a grasp on the point and basic aim of science as it applies cause and effect, through a series of tests, in a very measured and consistent way in order to gather accurate information, which is free from bias and the idiosyncratic nature of the human perspective. And I can see that trying to line this up with the possible value and even viable outcome of "New Age Atheism" in some way, or trying to compare this clean scientific approach with the completely organic and deliberately biased approach observed (awkwardly) in my last post, probably seems completely absurd. Like, "what were you thinking!?" putting these two next to each other, as if they can even be compared??? And maybe these two approaches don't have anything to offer each other, but if I lay out this one example, they might both have a part to play...
A few years ago (maybe 5), I heard a spot on NPR that focused on Jane Goodall and her work. I know that Jane has done fantastic work with chimps/apes for many years, and is very highly respected, and I've always enjoyed any program heard or seen about her good work. I get the impression she is very careful to make sure she follows scientific guidelines very closely in order to assure accuracy and maintain the integrity of the work. I was struck by one example she gave of just how hard it is to maintain that scientific objective. It went something like this:
She was observing some small chimps (I don't remember whether they were a smaller species, or just young), and she was right there close, since she'd already been accepted by them as a regular in those parts. They were just doing their peaceful foraging thing when some other larger chimps (or maybe another primate, don't remember) entered the scene. There was a worrisome scuffle which lead to one smaller chimp being more-less caught by the intruders, while the others ran off. This one chimp, in Jane's view, was clearly being harassed and tormented by these others, and a number of times tried to get Jane to come help save her/him... but being the true scientist that she was/is, Jane did not intervene. Jane went on to say that this was the first of a growing trend that she hadn't seen previously, but which did grow to be a disturbing reality in the forest.
It struck me right away, that Jane's adherence to scientific protocol, in her attempt to not have any effect on the subject of her study, had in fact done the opposite. At that point, she had already been accepted into their community. She might have been a very passive member, but still a part of the community more than if she were truly out of the picture in a way that the chimps had no awareness of Jane being present at all. So in this instance, Jane herself may have been (unwittingly) the first example of a larger, more capable member of the community just sitting and watching this torment, and deliberately not doing what would have been the norm within members of the community. It may actually have been Jane herself that set this new president, which then took hold, and grew.
Now, of course this could be wrong. But if it were right, this would be an example where looking at things scientifically from within the experiment itself, by actually deliberately becoming a completely natural and integrated part of the experiment rather than maintaining a more disembodied position outside of the studied environment, would actually offer a more truly disaffected reality, and greater understanding. Jane wanted to help the chimp in trouble. It was very hard for her to not intervene. If she had gone with that natural instinct to do what any other larger member of that community would have done in that situation, I wonder how this would have effected the way aggressive acts like these played out from that point on.
So Irv, I'm just trying to understand better the different angles of scientific application. If this is all just hog-wash in your opinion, I'd love to know that. I want to hear the different arguments that these observations might bring up. Can you offer any?
Thanks very much - Anne
Irv wrote:
Hello Anne, a very interesting story about Jane Goodall. I too respect her work greatly. Obviously she has contributed a lot to our knowledge of our closest relatives. Something like 98% of our DNA is compatible with chimps, so I've read. Going by that information, if you were to untwist the double-helix strand, pull it apart down the rungs for both chimp and human and re-splice the corresponding strands between the two species, most of the rungs on the ladder would match. Something like that.
Back to methodology; just because someone is very careful to observe scientific method, doesn't mean the experiment/observation/research is perfect. It was conducted by a human and it is possible things got tainted in an unforeseen or extraordinary way. So, what Goodall has done is wonderful, but it may not be perfect as you've implied may be the case (I think) You're point that she may have essentially been part of the group is possible. I assume, if this was the case, she was not considered a dominant member. Moreover, we must remind ourselves that even if she was considered a member, it was not her place to apply what would be considered appropriate human behaviour in this context. One of the criticism you frequently encounter, particularly from those who don't have an understanding of science at all, is that we humans are trying to force our ideas/perspective/psychology/etc. on animals. There is a lot of knee-jerk reaction against any research that involves them. I think a lot of the discomfort comes from the fact that the research often reveal how closely we are connected to other species. Hence an often scornful and derisive dismissal of such research.
The thing I really like about science is a total willingness to accept the possibility of imperfection in research and be constantly seeking greater knowledge and understanding, no matter how well we think we already understand something. There is peer review. A breakthrough can mean entire bodies of data and research are discarded. There are other scientists that may see a flaw in how something was done and set about doing the research in a better way, motivated by the possibility of flawed data. It is likely Goodall's work will be updated and improved upon and that we might find a better explanation of the situation you described.
To hammer the point home, other, non-scientific systems seem much less open to criticism, or improvement. They are more interested in proving they are right and less interested in learning new things and attaining a greater understanding. I hope all that makes sense. I composed this in this tiny little wall box and it is very easy to make big mistakes.
Warmest regards.
Anne wrote:
Thanks very much for your long thoughtful response, Irv. Yes, it all makes sense to me.
One thing about the Goodall example, I'd just like you to know that I wasn't judging Jane for any possible negative outcome resulting from her great scientific efforts, even if this look at the given scenario were to hold water. As you say, human fallibility and imperfection are inevitably part of the whole picture. And I just love the idea that most scientists are truly open to understand if and just how their hypotheses can be disproved... and even better, *seek* examples of how a cherished finding can be proven inadequate. What I was trying to look at, through the Goodall example, was how, by actually being an integral part of the experiment, rather than purely passive observer, one might be able to assess things in a way that the clinical scientist (if that's the right term) is not able to penetrate. Given that both methods are subject to some degree of human fallibility, I'm thinking that this might add some weight to the possibility of Jane going ahead, given the wealth of knowledge she has about apes, as well as our genetic similarities, to learn that much more by stepping into that world of primates as carefully and fully as she can. This being a credible way of assessing and understanding them, in a way that disassociated science can't quite fathom.
About the protective nature of those who are trying to prove themselves, and their alternative approaches, to science... I guess that's understandable given that I think current scientific methodology really is king, and others might be trying to demand some rightful place in that kingdom... but certainly not to the extent that this compromises the integrity of their work or establishes unwillingness to just be open. I can't help but think that the need for recognition passed down from on high might be more the issue here than how truly viable the new findings are. It seems perfectly fine to me to come across really valuable understandings, and not *have* to be acknowledged by those in the current high echelons of scientific respectability. There is something to be said though, for the rightful place of speaking truth to power.
Thanks so much for this exchange, Irv... it's been very helpful. - Anne
Irv wrote:
Anne, you wrote...>>What I was trying to look at, through the Goodall example, was how, by actually being an integral part of the experiment, rather than purely passive observer, one might be able to assess things in a way that the clinical scientist (if that's the right term) is not able to penetrate. Given that both methods are subject to some degree of human fallibility, I'm thinking that this might add some weight to the possibility of Jane going ahead, given the wealth of knowledge she has about apes, as well as our genetic similarities, to learn that much more by stepping into that world of primates as carefully and fully as she can. This being a credible way of assessing and understanding them, in a way that disassociated science can't quite fathom.<<
I suspected that's where you were going :-) And you know what? I don't think it is such a ridiculous idea. But it isn't conventional science. Perhaps a new branch of science can be created? A sort of intuitive/psychological/philosophical branch that readily acknowledges its inferiority to the established method, but is there to provide possible insights the regular m
ethod simply can't given its essential and impartial nature.
One of the reasons I go along with this is I feel I, myself, have some of those intuitive and philosophical qualities. I think it was Richard Dawkins, in his "The God Delusion" made the observation that scientists make terrible philosophers - or words to that effect-. Dawkins even went on to admire the perspective of an early 20th century philosopher whose name escapes me. When discussing how the sun appears to go around the earth despite the reverse being true, the philosopher in question asked; How should it be perceived then? Something like that.
Philosophers can provide a different perspective and insight. I like to entertain the thought, perhaps it is a delusion, that I have some of those qualities.
'BestM.
Anne wrote:
"I suspected that's where you were going :-)" I think you give me a tad too much credit here, Irv. I suspected we were headed this way too, but only because I know how to follow the scent of a thing. Being one of those people who's path, however deliberate, is often "unencumbered by the thought process", as click & clack would say, I can't say that there was anything planned, or contrived about having gotten to this place, where we find a way to meet, in the end. There's a grace and beauty to this natural, not forced, progression which could be a good example for those who can't fathom how two disparate parties CAN actually find their way to some common ground, despite the tendency to represent polar realities.
This is a portrait of my older son, Gabe, when he was 4 yrs. old. We created this together - a collaborative effort. Gabe, especially as a young’n, was very naturally full of his own bigness. And having a big heart to match made this outgoing enthusiasm, and happy engagement with life and people, a real pleasure more than anything. But no matter how beautiful his vibrant being is, this still needs to be appropriately contained at times… and then there’s that pesky personal space reality getting in the way when it comes to friends and “strangers“. So he and I decided to paint him in the context of these boundary issues.
