The Fermi Paradox is a classic puzzle proposed by Enrico Fermi. Fermi observed that if one made back of the envelope calculations of the sort for which Fermi was famous, then one would expect to see much intelligent life out in space. Moreover, it doesn't take a society much more advanced than our own before one is likely to see direct evidence of its existence. So where is everyone?
One proposal to explain this apparent paradox is Robin Hanson's explanation that there is some "Great Filter" which culls species before they can reach the degree of civilization necessary to spread out to the stars on a large scale. . Various roadblocks and events can act as filters. For example, severe asteroid impacts every few million years set life back. However, that seems to be a rare and weak filtration effect. One obvious roadblock is the arrival of life itself. Life arising may be much more difficult than we expect, and thus life may be comparatively rare. But, life arose fairly early in this planet's history, rendering this claim unlikely.
The most disturbing possibility, and the one on which both Robin Hanson and Nick Bostrom have focused, is the possibility that, for us, most of the filter lies not in our past, but in our future. This is scary. Events which result in the complete destruction of humanity are described as existential risk. If such events lie in our future, they are not likely due to natural causes such as asteroid impact and gamma ray bursts, since such events are rare. Existential risk to us is more likely the result of dangerous technologies. In a similar vein, during the Cold War, Carl Sagan worried that the apparent absence of life in the universe might be due to every advanced society having nuked itself. In a post Cold War world, that particular worry seems to be less severe. However, Hanson and others have focused on other technologies, especially those arising from nanotechnology and rogue AI.
I am not that worried by the Great Filter. I suspect that the vast majority of Great Filter is behind us. One of the most obvious filtration points are the steps from a species being smart to that species having civilization capable of making sustained technological progress. On Earth, there are many extremely smart species that are almost as smart as humans. Lots of people know that other primates are smart and will name dolphins and elephants as other very species. But there are many others as well, especially birds. Keas, African Grey Parrots, and ravens are only three of the many examples. Almost every species of corvid is extremely bright, and is capable of puzzle solving that rivals that of human children. However, the steps from there to sustained civilization are clearly large. Only a single species developed language, and even after that point, we stagnated for hundreds of thousands of years before developing writing, which is when things really started to take off. So, it seems to me that we can plausibly point to a large filtration step just before the development of civilization.
There are other points which have been proposed as filtration points in the development of life as well. One common argument is the Rare Earth Hypothesis which posits that the existence and success of life on Earth required a large variety of different conditions. For example, Earth has a large moon which helps protect the planet from asteroid strikes. For most of the features frequently cited as part of Earth's rare nature we don't seem to have enough data at this point to reasonably judge how common such features are or how necessary they are for complex life. However, even neglecting the Rare Earth filtration effects, the pre-civilization filtration still seems large.
Moreover, many of exotic anthropogenic events can be safely ruled out as major aspects of the Great Filter. The most plausible anthropogenic events are rogue AIs, false vacuum collapse, bad nanotech, and severe environmental damage with accompanying loss of natural resources.
Rogue AIs are an unlikely scenario because it is unlikely that any AI would be bad enough to wipe out the creating species and then not quickly take large scale control over much of their surrounding space.[1] Thus, if societies are being destroyed by rogue AIs we should be able to see this. Moreover, we should exect our own solar system to have long since come under sway of such AI. Thus, we can safely rule out rogue AI as a major part of the filter.
Similarly, some physicists have proposed that space as we know it is a "false vacuum". While the technical details are complicated, the essential worry is that a sufficiently advanced particle accelerator or similar device could cause space as we know it to be replaced by space that behaves fundamentally differently than what we are used to. The new space would expand at the speed of light.
We don't need to worry about civilizations probing the nature of space to cause a collapse of the false vacuum. If there were a lot of civilizations doing this, we wouldn't be here to notice. It is remotely plausible that the new vacuum would expand slower than the speed of light. If for example, the new type of vacuum expanded at a millionth of the speed of light, that would be enough to quickly destroy any single-planet civilization that triggered such an event, but would be slow enough to take a very long time to spread before it became noticed by another civilizations. However, our current understanding of the laws of physics make it hard to see how a vacuum collapse could occur at less than the speed of light. So we can rule this out as a major part of the Great Filter.
Nanotechnology is one of the most plausible options for a section of the Great Filter in front of us for the simple reason that severe nanotech events don't create results that will destroy or alter nearby stars or the like. While there are a variety of nanotech disaster scenarios, they essentially revolve around some form of out of control replicator consuming resources that humans need to survive or disrupting the ecosystem so much that we cannot survive. If a nearby solar system had a severe nanotech disaster, we wouldn't be able to tell. This situation is similar to Sagan's nuclear war scenario in that it allows civilizations to frequently wipe themselves out in a way that we can't easily observe.
Environmental damage and overconsumption of resources is another possible problem. It is possible that species exhaust their basic resources before they become technologically advanced. If, for example, humanity ran out of all fossil fuels without adequate replacements, this could prevent further expansion. However, this seems to be an unlikely explanation for Fermi's paradox. Even extreme resource consumption and environmental damage is unlikely to result in the complete destruction of an intelligent species. This possibility is the modern equivalent of the Sagan concern about nuclear war, a possibility which gets undue attention due to the current political climate.
So, it seems likely that most of the Great Filter is behind us. However, this is not a cause for complacency. First, the argument that the Great Filter is behind us is a weak one. As long as our sample of civilizations remains a single civilization, we cannot do more than make very rough estimates. Moreover, even if most of the Great Filter is behind us, that doesn't imply that we are necessarily paying enough attention to existential risk. Even back of the envelope calculations suggest that we aren't putting enough resources into dealing with existential risk threats, whether natural or caused by humans.
What needs to be done? First, we need to get a better idea where filtration steps actually exist. The most obvious way to do that is to look for life on other planets. If we don't find any life on other bodies in the solar system, then that increases the chance that a large part of the filtration is overcome by life arising and so we can breathe more easily. If however, we find life elsewhere, especially complex life, this gives us increased reason to think that the filter is ahead of us.
Second, we need to put more resources into dealing with existential risks. One excellent recent step was NASA's WISE mission which looked for asteroids likely to impact the Earth. We're now tracking a lot more of the near Earth asteroids and are probably tracking all of the asteroids that are both large and likely to intersect Earth orbit. At present, we're paying very little attention to human-caused catastrophic risk events. Catastrophic AI seems unlikely, but it is clear that little attention is being paid to the issue. Similar observations apply to nanotech and other concerns. More resources should be devoted to examining these dangers before the technologies become fully developed by which time it may be too late.
Unfortunately, there's a tendency to dismiss risks that appear in popular science fiction precisely because they appear in such works. This is just as bad as using fictional works as a reason to eschew a technology. Moreover, humans have a lot of trouble thinking about large scale problems, and the scale of a problem doesn't get much larger than the complete destruction of humanity.
So overall, the Great Filter doesn't worry me too much. But, even without the threat of the Great Filter, we still aren't doing enough to deal with the big risks to our existence. If most of the Great Filter is behind us, it would be all the more tragic if humanity were to be destroyed now, when we are but a few generations of spreading beyond our planet.
[1] I thought that this point might be original to me, but while writing this blog entry I found that it has been made before. See, e.g. Katja Grace's remarks here.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Political Affiliation and Scientific Knowledge Levels
Previously on this blog, I've talked about differing intelligence levels and knowledge levels of different political groups. I've also decried the extreme anti-science and anti-intellectual views that have been articulated by conservative spokespersons in the United States. Thus, I was interested in some recent work which suggests that by some metrics the political right is more pro-science than the left. Audacious Epigone showed that GSS data demonstrated that, on average, Republicans are more pro-science and scientifically literate than Democrats. Epigone made no effort to control for variables, such as income, education and race.
Epigone's statement prompted Razib Kahn to do a similar, more detailed analysis focusing on science knowledge and attitudes. Kahn organized the data by political self-identification along the conservative-liberal continuum rather than by an individual's party affiliation. Razib's analysis suggests shows that conservatives and liberals are almost indistinguishable in overall knowledge level. However, when one removes the questions that discuss specific pet issues of the modern right-wing (i.e. those related to evolution and the age of the Earth), conservatives arguably pull ahead slightly in terms of scientific knowledge. At the same time, the data shows that moderates are less scientifically literate and less science-friendly than both conservatives and liberals. On all of the 19 variables that Razib examined, political moderates never come out on top. That is, for each question, sometimes conservatives perform best, and sometimes liberals, but never moderates. This is consistent with other results that show that in general moderates are less intelligent and less educated than other groups. For example, moderates have lower vocabulary scores than the general population. Razib performed additional analysis to try to control for other variables and his piece is worth reading.
This data suggests that there is a significant and underappreciated disconnect between right-wing leaders and self-identifying conservatives. If the individuals on the right right aren't statistically distinguishable from the left when it comes to science issues why do so many conservative politicans go out of their way to make anti-science remarks? There are a variety of possible explanations, but none of them are satisfactory.
First, many of these anti-science comments have been directed towards biology and matters related to biology (e.g. John McCain's remarks about bear DNA and Sarah Palin's remark about fruit fly research.) It is possible that the religious right's negative attitude towards evolution is carrying over to biology as a whole. However, this doesn't explain the remarks about other scientific areas (such as Bobby Jindal's remark about volcano monitoring). Moreover, although the human evolution question is by far the one with the most extreme difference between liberals and conservatives, (The percentages that accept human evolution according to the GSS are 69% for liberals, 52% for moderates and 39% for conservatives), the other questions suggest that conservative attitudes about evolution have not spread to other areas of biology. For example, when asked if the statement "Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria" is true or false such as understanding that antibiotics cannot harm viruses 60% of liberals answered correctly while 63% of conservatives answered correctly. (The statement is false.)
Second, right-wing leaders may understand that most conservatives are not anti-science but think that the more active conservatve base is heavily anti-science. Without more data, it is hard to test if the active conservative base is substantially more anti-science than rank-and-file conservatives. Eeven if this is the case, it seems there are more effective ways of energizing the conservative base than anti-science rhetoric.
Third, right-wing politicians mayhave erroneously bought into the false stereotypes about their own constituents. Given the prevalence of such stereotypes, this seems most likely. This hypothesis is also difficult to test because politicians aren't going to admit that they've been pandering to rubes. Unfortunately, this belief among the right-wing leaders that conservatives are anti-science could easily act as a self-fulfilling prophecy if it causes pro-science conservatives to either stop being conservative, or causes some conservatives to become more anti-science to fit their tribal allegiance. However, this possibility does have a bright side: If this explanation is correct, then right-wing politicians are likely to be more pro-science in practice than they appear to be in public. Moreover, conservative politicians may act pro-science if they can be convinced that their constituents really aren't as anti-science as the politicians them to be.
Epigone's statement prompted Razib Kahn to do a similar, more detailed analysis focusing on science knowledge and attitudes. Kahn organized the data by political self-identification along the conservative-liberal continuum rather than by an individual's party affiliation. Razib's analysis suggests shows that conservatives and liberals are almost indistinguishable in overall knowledge level. However, when one removes the questions that discuss specific pet issues of the modern right-wing (i.e. those related to evolution and the age of the Earth), conservatives arguably pull ahead slightly in terms of scientific knowledge. At the same time, the data shows that moderates are less scientifically literate and less science-friendly than both conservatives and liberals. On all of the 19 variables that Razib examined, political moderates never come out on top. That is, for each question, sometimes conservatives perform best, and sometimes liberals, but never moderates. This is consistent with other results that show that in general moderates are less intelligent and less educated than other groups. For example, moderates have lower vocabulary scores than the general population. Razib performed additional analysis to try to control for other variables and his piece is worth reading.
This data suggests that there is a significant and underappreciated disconnect between right-wing leaders and self-identifying conservatives. If the individuals on the right right aren't statistically distinguishable from the left when it comes to science issues why do so many conservative politicans go out of their way to make anti-science remarks? There are a variety of possible explanations, but none of them are satisfactory.
First, many of these anti-science comments have been directed towards biology and matters related to biology (e.g. John McCain's remarks about bear DNA and Sarah Palin's remark about fruit fly research.) It is possible that the religious right's negative attitude towards evolution is carrying over to biology as a whole. However, this doesn't explain the remarks about other scientific areas (such as Bobby Jindal's remark about volcano monitoring). Moreover, although the human evolution question is by far the one with the most extreme difference between liberals and conservatives, (The percentages that accept human evolution according to the GSS are 69% for liberals, 52% for moderates and 39% for conservatives), the other questions suggest that conservative attitudes about evolution have not spread to other areas of biology. For example, when asked if the statement "Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria" is true or false such as understanding that antibiotics cannot harm viruses 60% of liberals answered correctly while 63% of conservatives answered correctly. (The statement is false.)
Second, right-wing leaders may understand that most conservatives are not anti-science but think that the more active conservatve base is heavily anti-science. Without more data, it is hard to test if the active conservative base is substantially more anti-science than rank-and-file conservatives. Eeven if this is the case, it seems there are more effective ways of energizing the conservative base than anti-science rhetoric.
Third, right-wing politicians mayhave erroneously bought into the false stereotypes about their own constituents. Given the prevalence of such stereotypes, this seems most likely. This hypothesis is also difficult to test because politicians aren't going to admit that they've been pandering to rubes. Unfortunately, this belief among the right-wing leaders that conservatives are anti-science could easily act as a self-fulfilling prophecy if it causes pro-science conservatives to either stop being conservative, or causes some conservatives to become more anti-science to fit their tribal allegiance. However, this possibility does have a bright side: If this explanation is correct, then right-wing politicians are likely to be more pro-science in practice than they appear to be in public. Moreover, conservative politicians may act pro-science if they can be convinced that their constituents really aren't as anti-science as the politicians them to be.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Space Shuttle Discovery launch
I'm currently in Florida with friends watching the launch of Discovery. This will be the second to last shuttle launch (there's a small chance that this will be the third to last launch if they get enough funding for a final launch). I and Tyrol5 wrote an article for Wikinews about the launch which includes a picture taken by me of the launch. There are additional photos on my Facebook page.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Insane Clown Posse and Science: Deliberate Ignorance
Insance Clown Posse is a rap group known for dressing up like clowns and demonstrating proficiency with using the word "fuck" as an adjective or adverb. Their fans, called Juggalos, often border on the fanatical. Recently the group released a song called "Miracles" in which they assert that all sorts of everyday things are miracles. This list includes eclipses, giraffes, magnets, rainbows, butterflies and how children look like their parents.
Warning: the following video is painful. The pain comes not just from the stupidity of the lyrics but the fact that the music just sucks. Watch at your own risk.
By itself, this song might be dismissed as silly. However, the song contains the lyrics "And I don't wanna talk to a scientist/Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed." When this song came out, there was a fair bit of uproar. Although science is abused by people everywhere in the political spectrum, it is rare for such a direct attack to occur. Taken together with the fact that every single thing listed in the song was some bit of science that is normally explained before people are in 9th grade, the reaction was predictable and humorous. They included Learn Your Motherf#@kin’ Science: A Textbook for Juggalos(amusing but for the fact that they explain rainbows incorrectly) and Rebecca Watson's imagining of how the song lyrics were devised.
This could have ended there. But Insane Clown Posse managed to dig themselves in into an even deeper hole. In one interview, the interviewer asked them if they knew yet how magnets worked and they replied that they were proud that they did not. They also wrote an official response to criticism of the song in which they made it clear that not only don't like learning but "We feel like these haters are the big dumb, popular jocks ganging up on the little class clown scrub." It isn't clear to me in what universe Insane Clown Posse operates if they think that the people who like science were the "big dumb, popular jocks." I'm also a bit confused by the notion that the people who know things like how a rainbow works are "dumb" but it may just be that I'm too stupid to understand. Similarly, it may be due to my stupidity that I'm wondering how they would be sure to put a comma between "dumb" and "popular" but not between "big" and "dumb." Is big actually an adverb modifying dumb? Is "big dumb" some sort of compound adjective? If only scientists were popular; I suspect that such a world would be a much better place.
This could have ended there but then Insane Clown Posse made another mistake: They had a concert in San Francisco, a city full of nerds. Noisebridge, a volunteer group devoted to science education around San Francisco decided to use the Posse's visit to their fair city as an opportunity to educate the Juggalos. They made a series of posters explaining how various things work, with titles like "Fuckin' butterflies, how do they work?" They then dressed up with Juggalo-style clown facepaint as well as labcoats, and went to the concert. They videotaped the result:
As you can see in the video, the Insane Clown Posse roadcrew had seen the Noisebridge website in advance where they had planned the event. Apparently, the Insane Clown Posse was not happy with these scientists, forced them to leave, and tried to take away their video camera. Now, one might think that this was just the work of an overzealous roadcrew claiming to have authority from the people in charge, but there's the not so tiny detail that one of the Insane Clown Posse members bragged on his Twitter account that they "ran those scientist haters off." I wish I were making that up. If I had seen the phrase "scientist haters" in any other context I would have guessed that it meant people who hate scientists. What we have here are people who are so proud of their ignorance that they actually interfere with other people engaging in a humorous attempt to educate.
Now, what could possibly make this situation worse? If you guessed "Insane Clown Posse claims to be religious" then you win a gold star. The exact nature of the band's religious status is not clear. Although songs include lyrics about murder, cannibalism, and necrophilia, the individuals who commit these actions always suffer at the end. They have a series of songs centering around a Carnival which punishes people, and the last such song contains the lyrics "Truth is we follow GOD, we’ve always been behind Him. The carnival is God and may all juggalos find him! He’s out there!” And did I mention they hate gays? So the Insane Clown Posse apparently, hates science, hates gays, and believes in a deity whose chief job is to punish people. If you're wondering if they self-identify as Christian then you win another gold star.
Still, the level of anti-science attitudes here is shocking. It resembles nothing more than a caricature of what is wrong with contemporary Christianity. I don't think that band's Christianity has anything deeply to do with their anti-science attitude. For example, they haven't come out strongly against evolution. The correlation in this case is to some extent probably incidental. But there is a real lesson here and it is contained in their strange idea that scientists are the "big, dumb jocks." That idea is very divorced from reality. How can someone be so wrong about the world around them? Let me suggest that it is because science is the best method we have of finding out about the nature of reality. It isn't the only one, but it is the most reliable and the one that has given us the most fruit. So, when you take an attitude that is so anti-science and against the minimal knowledge of how basic genetics works, or any of a hundred other subjects, you are going to not have good methods for telling whether your beliefs about reality map accurately to reality. And the more effort you make to deny science, the further divorced from reality you will become, to the point where you believe the nerdy guys who work in the labs and like to understand how things work are actually "big dumb, popular jocks."
Warning: the following video is painful. The pain comes not just from the stupidity of the lyrics but the fact that the music just sucks. Watch at your own risk.
By itself, this song might be dismissed as silly. However, the song contains the lyrics "And I don't wanna talk to a scientist/Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed." When this song came out, there was a fair bit of uproar. Although science is abused by people everywhere in the political spectrum, it is rare for such a direct attack to occur. Taken together with the fact that every single thing listed in the song was some bit of science that is normally explained before people are in 9th grade, the reaction was predictable and humorous. They included Learn Your Motherf#@kin’ Science: A Textbook for Juggalos(amusing but for the fact that they explain rainbows incorrectly) and Rebecca Watson's imagining of how the song lyrics were devised.
This could have ended there. But Insane Clown Posse managed to dig themselves in into an even deeper hole. In one interview, the interviewer asked them if they knew yet how magnets worked and they replied that they were proud that they did not. They also wrote an official response to criticism of the song in which they made it clear that not only don't like learning but "We feel like these haters are the big dumb, popular jocks ganging up on the little class clown scrub." It isn't clear to me in what universe Insane Clown Posse operates if they think that the people who like science were the "big dumb, popular jocks." I'm also a bit confused by the notion that the people who know things like how a rainbow works are "dumb" but it may just be that I'm too stupid to understand. Similarly, it may be due to my stupidity that I'm wondering how they would be sure to put a comma between "dumb" and "popular" but not between "big" and "dumb." Is big actually an adverb modifying dumb? Is "big dumb" some sort of compound adjective? If only scientists were popular; I suspect that such a world would be a much better place.
This could have ended there but then Insane Clown Posse made another mistake: They had a concert in San Francisco, a city full of nerds. Noisebridge, a volunteer group devoted to science education around San Francisco decided to use the Posse's visit to their fair city as an opportunity to educate the Juggalos. They made a series of posters explaining how various things work, with titles like "Fuckin' butterflies, how do they work?" They then dressed up with Juggalo-style clown facepaint as well as labcoats, and went to the concert. They videotaped the result:
As you can see in the video, the Insane Clown Posse roadcrew had seen the Noisebridge website in advance where they had planned the event. Apparently, the Insane Clown Posse was not happy with these scientists, forced them to leave, and tried to take away their video camera. Now, one might think that this was just the work of an overzealous roadcrew claiming to have authority from the people in charge, but there's the not so tiny detail that one of the Insane Clown Posse members bragged on his Twitter account that they "ran those scientist haters off." I wish I were making that up. If I had seen the phrase "scientist haters" in any other context I would have guessed that it meant people who hate scientists. What we have here are people who are so proud of their ignorance that they actually interfere with other people engaging in a humorous attempt to educate.
Now, what could possibly make this situation worse? If you guessed "Insane Clown Posse claims to be religious" then you win a gold star. The exact nature of the band's religious status is not clear. Although songs include lyrics about murder, cannibalism, and necrophilia, the individuals who commit these actions always suffer at the end. They have a series of songs centering around a Carnival which punishes people, and the last such song contains the lyrics "Truth is we follow GOD, we’ve always been behind Him. The carnival is God and may all juggalos find him! He’s out there!” And did I mention they hate gays? So the Insane Clown Posse apparently, hates science, hates gays, and believes in a deity whose chief job is to punish people. If you're wondering if they self-identify as Christian then you win another gold star.
Still, the level of anti-science attitudes here is shocking. It resembles nothing more than a caricature of what is wrong with contemporary Christianity. I don't think that band's Christianity has anything deeply to do with their anti-science attitude. For example, they haven't come out strongly against evolution. The correlation in this case is to some extent probably incidental. But there is a real lesson here and it is contained in their strange idea that scientists are the "big, dumb jocks." That idea is very divorced from reality. How can someone be so wrong about the world around them? Let me suggest that it is because science is the best method we have of finding out about the nature of reality. It isn't the only one, but it is the most reliable and the one that has given us the most fruit. So, when you take an attitude that is so anti-science and against the minimal knowledge of how basic genetics works, or any of a hundred other subjects, you are going to not have good methods for telling whether your beliefs about reality map accurately to reality. And the more effort you make to deny science, the further divorced from reality you will become, to the point where you believe the nerdy guys who work in the labs and like to understand how things work are actually "big dumb, popular jocks."
Monday, April 19, 2010
On the Coming Singularity
Much has been said in the last few years about an approaching technological Singularity, beyond which humans or humans' descendants will be so far beyond anything we understand today that comparisons would be meaningless. I do not believe that the Singularity is imminent.
What do people mean when they speak of the Singularity? There are a variety of such notions, but most versions of the Singularity focus on self-improving artificial intelligences. The central idea is that humans will not only construct functioning artificial intelligences, but that such AIs will be smarter than humans. Given such entities, technological progress will increase rapidly as the AIs make discoveries and inventions that humans would not. This effect will be self-reinforcing as each successive improvement makes the AIs smarter. There are variations of this idea: Other Singularity proponents, generally described as Transhumanists emphasize genetic engineering of humans or emphasize direct interfaces between the human brain and computers. I am skeptical of a Singularity occurring in the near future.
Certainly Singularitarism is seductive. Variations of it make for great science fiction (Charlie Stross' Eschaton is an excellent example) and some version of the Singularity, especially those that involve humans being downloaded into immortal computers or the like, are appealing. Singularitarism may sometimes border on a religion, but it has the virtue of a minimally plausible eschatology, one that doesn't require the intervention of tribal deities, just optimistic estimates for technological and scientific progress. And to be sure, there are some very smart people such as Eliezer Yudkowsky who take the Singularity very seriously.
The most common criticism of Singularitarism is that we will not develop effective AIs. This argument is unpersuasive. There's no intrinsic physical law against developing AIs; we are making slow but steady progress; and we know that intelligences are already possible under the laws of the universe.We're an example.
While I reject most of the common criticisms of a coming Singularity, I am nevertheless skeptical of the idea for two reasons. First, while human understanding of science and technology has been improving over the last few hundred years, the level of resources it takes today to produce the same increase in understanding has increased dramatically. For example, in the mid 19th century a few scientists could work out major theories about nature, such as the basics of evolution and electromagnetism. Now, however, most major scientific fields have thousands of people working in them, and yet the progress is slow and incremental. There seems to be a meta-pattern that as we learn more we require correspondingly more resources to make corresponding levels of progress. Thus, even if we develop smart AIs, they may not lead to sudden technological progress.
Second, we may simply be close to optimizing our understanding of the laws of physics for technological purposes. Many of the technologies we hope to develop may be intrinsically impractical or outright impossible. There may be no room-temperature superconductors. There may be no way to make a practical fusion reactor. As Matt Springer suggested (here and here), we might activate our supersmart AI, and then it may say "You guys seem to have thought things through pretty well. I don't have much to add." This seems to be a common problem with Singularity proponents. It is a common argument by Singularitarians that essentially all challenges can be solved by sufficient intelligence. I've personally seen this argument made multiple times by Singularitarians discussing faster-than-light travel. But if it isn't allowed by the laws of physics than there's nothing we can do. If in a chess game white can force a checkmate in 3 moves, it doesn't matter how smart black is. They'll still lose. No matter how smart we are, if the laws of physics don’t allow something then we won’t be able to do that thing, any more than black will be able to prevent a checkmate by white.
There's a third problem with Singularitarism beyond issues of plausibility: It doesn't tell us what to do today. Even if no one had ever come with the Singularity, we'd still be investigating AI, brain-computer interfaces, and genetic engineering. They are all interesting technologies with potentially have major applications to help us answer fundamental questions about human nature. So in that regard, the Singularity as a concept is unhelpful: It might happen. It might not happen. But it tells us very little about what we should do now.
What do people mean when they speak of the Singularity? There are a variety of such notions, but most versions of the Singularity focus on self-improving artificial intelligences. The central idea is that humans will not only construct functioning artificial intelligences, but that such AIs will be smarter than humans. Given such entities, technological progress will increase rapidly as the AIs make discoveries and inventions that humans would not. This effect will be self-reinforcing as each successive improvement makes the AIs smarter. There are variations of this idea: Other Singularity proponents, generally described as Transhumanists emphasize genetic engineering of humans or emphasize direct interfaces between the human brain and computers. I am skeptical of a Singularity occurring in the near future.
Certainly Singularitarism is seductive. Variations of it make for great science fiction (Charlie Stross' Eschaton is an excellent example) and some version of the Singularity, especially those that involve humans being downloaded into immortal computers or the like, are appealing. Singularitarism may sometimes border on a religion, but it has the virtue of a minimally plausible eschatology, one that doesn't require the intervention of tribal deities, just optimistic estimates for technological and scientific progress. And to be sure, there are some very smart people such as Eliezer Yudkowsky who take the Singularity very seriously.
The most common criticism of Singularitarism is that we will not develop effective AIs. This argument is unpersuasive. There's no intrinsic physical law against developing AIs; we are making slow but steady progress; and we know that intelligences are already possible under the laws of the universe.We're an example.
While I reject most of the common criticisms of a coming Singularity, I am nevertheless skeptical of the idea for two reasons. First, while human understanding of science and technology has been improving over the last few hundred years, the level of resources it takes today to produce the same increase in understanding has increased dramatically. For example, in the mid 19th century a few scientists could work out major theories about nature, such as the basics of evolution and electromagnetism. Now, however, most major scientific fields have thousands of people working in them, and yet the progress is slow and incremental. There seems to be a meta-pattern that as we learn more we require correspondingly more resources to make corresponding levels of progress. Thus, even if we develop smart AIs, they may not lead to sudden technological progress.
Second, we may simply be close to optimizing our understanding of the laws of physics for technological purposes. Many of the technologies we hope to develop may be intrinsically impractical or outright impossible. There may be no room-temperature superconductors. There may be no way to make a practical fusion reactor. As Matt Springer suggested (here and here), we might activate our supersmart AI, and then it may say "You guys seem to have thought things through pretty well. I don't have much to add." This seems to be a common problem with Singularity proponents. It is a common argument by Singularitarians that essentially all challenges can be solved by sufficient intelligence. I've personally seen this argument made multiple times by Singularitarians discussing faster-than-light travel. But if it isn't allowed by the laws of physics than there's nothing we can do. If in a chess game white can force a checkmate in 3 moves, it doesn't matter how smart black is. They'll still lose. No matter how smart we are, if the laws of physics don’t allow something then we won’t be able to do that thing, any more than black will be able to prevent a checkmate by white.
There's a third problem with Singularitarism beyond issues of plausibility: It doesn't tell us what to do today. Even if no one had ever come with the Singularity, we'd still be investigating AI, brain-computer interfaces, and genetic engineering. They are all interesting technologies with potentially have major applications to help us answer fundamental questions about human nature. So in that regard, the Singularity as a concept is unhelpful: It might happen. It might not happen. But it tells us very little about what we should do now.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Skeptical Movement, Science and Naïve Popperism
Members of the modern skeptical movement frequently emphasize their use of the scientific method. Moreover, when discussing the scientific method and whether a given claim is scientific, members of the skeptical movement frequently emphasize falsifiability and experimentation. Both of these tendencies are problematic.
The organized skeptical movement has done a very good job over the last 30 years promoting skepticism and critical thinking. The movement has helped people understand the deep problems with many superstitions and pseudosciences. However, the skeptical movement’s characterizations both of how the movement functions in regard to science and how science functions are inaccurate. Moreover, the movement tends to exaggerate the degree to which falsifiability matters in science.
Let us first examine the claim that the skeptical movement uses the scientific method. No matter how one characterizes science and the scientific method, a central part of the method is experimentation and observation. However, the vast majority of skeptics will not engage in direct experimentation or observation of data nor in fact should they. For example, in an earlier blog post, I discussed why claims of ghostly interference with electronics were extremely implausible. I didn’t need to engage in any experiments to reach that conclusion. I and the commentators in the thread discussed the matter based on what we reliably knew about the universe (especially how electronics work) and then made logical conclusions based on those results. No part of that process required any use of the scientific method.
If we wanted to investigate the claim in more detail, we might try to do actual experiments. But I can dismiss the claim of ghostly interference with electronics with a high degree of probability without experiments. Similarly, I can dismiss homeopathy without doing experiments or without such experiments having been done by anyone since the theory of homeopathy contradicts basic understanding of how the universe functions. The vast majority of skeptics will never actually use the scientific method, but rather rely on small bits of science and a lot of critical thinking. That’s fine. The movement is doing good work that way. But we need not pretend when talking to people that we’re engaging in science when we aren’t. This is all the more a concern because the emphasis on science distracts from the most important part of skepticism- careful critical thinking.
Skeptics often characterize science poorly. Skeptics frequently emphasize the need for claims to be falsifiable in order for them to be scientific. The philosopher Karl Popper first proposed that the demarcation between science and non-science is falsifiability- the ability to falsify a claim. Thus, in a classical Popperian framework, claiming that there is an invisible, intangible dragon living in my bathroom is not scientific because the claim is not falsifiable.
However, naïve Popperism is not a good description of science as a whole. While falsifiability is a useful approximation of what is often scientific, there are many problems with it as a description of all forms of science. For example, as pointed out by Quine, people can add defensive hypotheses to defend an underlying hypothesis; it is far from clear when such defensive hypotheses are acceptable and when they are not. In Quine’s formulation, a defensive hypothesis is a hypothesis that is added to prevent the falsification of another hypothesis. Thus, for example, to return to the case of an invisible dragon in my bathroom, you could try to test for its presence by searching on spectra other than visible light (such as looking at infrared light). When no evidence is found using that method, I might add the defensive hypothesis that the dragon also doesn’t interact with infrared light. As I add more and more hypotheses to counter each experiment, I prevent my claim from being falsified, but, at any given point, the claim that a dragon is in my bathroom remains falsifiable – in theory at least. In portraying a scientific method which relies completely on falsifiability the skeptical movement ignores issues such as those raised by defensive hypotheses.
Unfortunately, the situation becomes even more complicated because sometimes one can add defensive hypotheses and still do good science. For example, consider the history of our understanding of the solar system. In the early 1600s, astronomers adopted Kepler’s model of the solar system in which planets orbit around the sun in ellipses. Subsequently this model was refined further by Newton whose mechanics gave orbits nearly identical to those of Kepler but slightly more accurate (essentially if there is a single planet around a star then Newtonian mechanics predicts an orbit that is a perfect ellipse. But in fact, gravitational attraction between planets makes the orbits slightly non-elliptical). However, with this very accurate, very precise model, new issues arose. The orbit of the planet Uranus seemed to be slightly off from what it should be. Thus, Alexis Bouvard posited the existence of an as yet unobserved planet, which later became discovered and named Neptune. Bouvard’s hypothetical planet was a defensive hypothesis built to defend the more cherished hypothesis of Newtonian mechanics against being falsified by experimental data. Bouvard’s defensive hypothesis was good science; the defensive hypotheses about my dragon are not. It is not clear how one can easily distinguish between the good defensive hypotheses and the bad ones.
So how do we determine when defensive hypotheses are acceptable and when they are not? Imre Lakatos suggested that we should look to whether a hypotheses is fruitful: hypotheses that lead to interesting predictions and new questions are fruitful; hypotheses that required unproductive defensive hypotheses should be rejected. While I am partial to Lakatos’s viewpoint, such an approach renders the line between science and non-science inherently subjective.
In addition to the problem of defensive hypotheses, there are many other problems with a falsifiability as the sole line between science and non-science. Naïve Popperism is insufficient to describe the borders of science. Skeptics need both a clearer understanding of the scientific method and a clearer understanding of how the skeptical approach relies on science
The organized skeptical movement has done a very good job over the last 30 years promoting skepticism and critical thinking. The movement has helped people understand the deep problems with many superstitions and pseudosciences. However, the skeptical movement’s characterizations both of how the movement functions in regard to science and how science functions are inaccurate. Moreover, the movement tends to exaggerate the degree to which falsifiability matters in science.
Let us first examine the claim that the skeptical movement uses the scientific method. No matter how one characterizes science and the scientific method, a central part of the method is experimentation and observation. However, the vast majority of skeptics will not engage in direct experimentation or observation of data nor in fact should they. For example, in an earlier blog post, I discussed why claims of ghostly interference with electronics were extremely implausible. I didn’t need to engage in any experiments to reach that conclusion. I and the commentators in the thread discussed the matter based on what we reliably knew about the universe (especially how electronics work) and then made logical conclusions based on those results. No part of that process required any use of the scientific method.
If we wanted to investigate the claim in more detail, we might try to do actual experiments. But I can dismiss the claim of ghostly interference with electronics with a high degree of probability without experiments. Similarly, I can dismiss homeopathy without doing experiments or without such experiments having been done by anyone since the theory of homeopathy contradicts basic understanding of how the universe functions. The vast majority of skeptics will never actually use the scientific method, but rather rely on small bits of science and a lot of critical thinking. That’s fine. The movement is doing good work that way. But we need not pretend when talking to people that we’re engaging in science when we aren’t. This is all the more a concern because the emphasis on science distracts from the most important part of skepticism- careful critical thinking.
Skeptics often characterize science poorly. Skeptics frequently emphasize the need for claims to be falsifiable in order for them to be scientific. The philosopher Karl Popper first proposed that the demarcation between science and non-science is falsifiability- the ability to falsify a claim. Thus, in a classical Popperian framework, claiming that there is an invisible, intangible dragon living in my bathroom is not scientific because the claim is not falsifiable.
However, naïve Popperism is not a good description of science as a whole. While falsifiability is a useful approximation of what is often scientific, there are many problems with it as a description of all forms of science. For example, as pointed out by Quine, people can add defensive hypotheses to defend an underlying hypothesis; it is far from clear when such defensive hypotheses are acceptable and when they are not. In Quine’s formulation, a defensive hypothesis is a hypothesis that is added to prevent the falsification of another hypothesis. Thus, for example, to return to the case of an invisible dragon in my bathroom, you could try to test for its presence by searching on spectra other than visible light (such as looking at infrared light). When no evidence is found using that method, I might add the defensive hypothesis that the dragon also doesn’t interact with infrared light. As I add more and more hypotheses to counter each experiment, I prevent my claim from being falsified, but, at any given point, the claim that a dragon is in my bathroom remains falsifiable – in theory at least. In portraying a scientific method which relies completely on falsifiability the skeptical movement ignores issues such as those raised by defensive hypotheses.
Unfortunately, the situation becomes even more complicated because sometimes one can add defensive hypotheses and still do good science. For example, consider the history of our understanding of the solar system. In the early 1600s, astronomers adopted Kepler’s model of the solar system in which planets orbit around the sun in ellipses. Subsequently this model was refined further by Newton whose mechanics gave orbits nearly identical to those of Kepler but slightly more accurate (essentially if there is a single planet around a star then Newtonian mechanics predicts an orbit that is a perfect ellipse. But in fact, gravitational attraction between planets makes the orbits slightly non-elliptical). However, with this very accurate, very precise model, new issues arose. The orbit of the planet Uranus seemed to be slightly off from what it should be. Thus, Alexis Bouvard posited the existence of an as yet unobserved planet, which later became discovered and named Neptune. Bouvard’s hypothetical planet was a defensive hypothesis built to defend the more cherished hypothesis of Newtonian mechanics against being falsified by experimental data. Bouvard’s defensive hypothesis was good science; the defensive hypotheses about my dragon are not. It is not clear how one can easily distinguish between the good defensive hypotheses and the bad ones.
So how do we determine when defensive hypotheses are acceptable and when they are not? Imre Lakatos suggested that we should look to whether a hypotheses is fruitful: hypotheses that lead to interesting predictions and new questions are fruitful; hypotheses that required unproductive defensive hypotheses should be rejected. While I am partial to Lakatos’s viewpoint, such an approach renders the line between science and non-science inherently subjective.
In addition to the problem of defensive hypotheses, there are many other problems with a falsifiability as the sole line between science and non-science. Naïve Popperism is insufficient to describe the borders of science. Skeptics need both a clearer understanding of the scientific method and a clearer understanding of how the skeptical approach relies on science
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Orthodox Jews, Vaccination, and Mumps
I've discussed anti-science attitudes among Orthodox Jews in previous blog posts. I've also discussed how this has resulted in low vaccination rates among Orthodox, especially charedi, Jews. Now we are seeing the consequences. Over the last three weeks, a mini-epidemic of mumps has broken out in New York among the Orthodox population. The first cases started appearing this summer in Williamsburg, but there are now over 1500 cases and the epidemic has made inroads into the general non-Orthodox population. Apparently while a majority of the Orthodox Jews are vaccinated, the level of vaccination was reduced enough that herd immunity no longer applied. Quoting from the LA Times:
The threat of sterility needs to be especially emphasized. In Orthodox Judaism, there are few things more important than having children. Mumps can induce infertility in both males and females. It is not at all unlikely that children who have gone through this epidemic will have trouble finding marriage prospects. Thus, the failure to vaccinate has produced what may become terrible, long-term problems for many children for the rest of their lives. The Orthodox unwillingness to vaccinate has become a self-inflicted wound. In this case, anti-science attitudes were far from harmless and the results may yet grow to more seriously threaten both the Orthodox population and other people as well. Failure to vaccinate children creates serious risk to your children and the people around your children. Vaccinate. For some of these children, it is already too late. They will bear the physical and social scars of their parents' decisions.
Mumps is marked by a swelling of the salivary glands, giving the victim a characteristic chipmunk-like appearance. Most victims have fever and headache, and a few suffer from hearing loss, meningitis and swollen testicles that can lead to infertility. It was once a common disease in the U.S., with an average of 186,000 cases per year before the mumps vaccine, now included in the mumps-measles-rubella, or MMR, vaccine was introduced in 1967. The mumps part of MMR is thought to be the least effective of the three vaccines, with 73% to 91% of those vaccinated obtaining proteciton after one dose and 79% to 95% after two doses.
Patient zero in the current outbreak was an 11-year-old boy who returned from England on June 17. Mumps has become more common in that country recently because of the substantial number of parents who refuse to let their children receive the MMR under the misguided belief that the vaccine can cause autism. About 7,400 cases of mumps were reported in Britain last year.
Orthodox Jews have accounted for more than 97% of cases, and the majority -- 61% - -are among 7- to 18-years-old. More than three-quarters of the patients are male. Among those for whom vaccination status is known, 88% had received one dose of MMR and 75% had received two doses.
The threat of sterility needs to be especially emphasized. In Orthodox Judaism, there are few things more important than having children. Mumps can induce infertility in both males and females. It is not at all unlikely that children who have gone through this epidemic will have trouble finding marriage prospects. Thus, the failure to vaccinate has produced what may become terrible, long-term problems for many children for the rest of their lives. The Orthodox unwillingness to vaccinate has become a self-inflicted wound. In this case, anti-science attitudes were far from harmless and the results may yet grow to more seriously threaten both the Orthodox population and other people as well. Failure to vaccinate children creates serious risk to your children and the people around your children. Vaccinate. For some of these children, it is already too late. They will bear the physical and social scars of their parents' decisions.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Unscientific America and Pluto: The problem isn't the scientists
I recently read Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum's Unscientific America. Their thesis is that anti-science attitudes and the general lack of scientific knowledge in the United States are not the fault of the public or the media, but largely of scientists failing to communicate effectively. My response to this thesis is not positive. This book has been extensively discussed elsewhere. (Of these discussions, I recommend PZ Myers take, Joshua Rosenua's, this balanced analysis by Scicurious, this positive review by Chad Orzel, and this review by Mike at Real Climate)
A major theme of the book is that scientists are out of touch with the general public and spend too much time mocking the public or denouncing journalists rather than trying to engage the public and journalists to understand science. This argument may have some merit. However, the authors offer little evidence for their claim. Simply put, Mooney and Kirshenbaum are wrong: bad science journalism is far more the fault of bad science journalists than it is the fault of disengaged scientists.
Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s primary example of scientists being out of touch with the general public is the 2006 decision to recharacterize Pluto. After the discovery of Eris in 2005 and discovery of other similar objects, it became apparent to astronomers that consistent classification standards required that either Pluto be classified as a non-planet or that many more objects would need to be labeled as planets. Thus, in 2006, the International Astronomical Union constructed a new definition of planets which reclassified Pluto to the status of “dwarf planet.” Readers will likely recall the media outcry that erupted in response to this “downgrading” which included internet petitions and resolutions by various state governments supporting Pluto’s right to continue to be a planet. Mooney and Kirshenbaum point to the popular reaction and astronomers’ failure to anticipate or understand the reaction as an example of how scientists are out of touch with the general public. (There has been some discussion over the validity of Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s point and see for example these two remarks).
However, while reading Unscientific America, serendipity struck and I had occasion to read an article in the December 26, Puerto Rico Daily Sun, from Scripps Howard News Service. This article discussed extrasolar planets and how astronomers have recently discovered smaller extrasolar planets which are closer to what life-sustaining planets would look like. From the article:
The author is apparently trying to talk about astronomy while discussing "gas giants on the order of Jupiter and Pluto." Of course, Pluto is not a gas giant. Pluto is a tiny ball of rock, so small it isn't able to keep orbital debris out of its path. That's the entire reason it got downgraded from being a planet. It is small and rocky, not a gas giant. Anyone paying any attention to the faux controversy over Pluto should remember this. Indeed, anyone who remembers anything from grade school would know that Pluto is small and rocky.
This foolish statement about Pluto shows what is really wrong. While scientists may not be the best communicators, putting a majority of the blame for the status quo on scientists is wrong. The problem isn't the scientists. The problem is not that the scientists mistreat journalists and the media. The problem is that the media is full of people so ignorant that we get an article from a major news service claiming that Pluto is a gas giant. Not all journalists are this clueless. But cloning Carl Zimmer simply isn't a viable option. If we're going to deal with this problem, we need to focus on the actual causes. And poor journalism is far more the fault of ignorant journalists than it is of unengaged scientists.
A major theme of the book is that scientists are out of touch with the general public and spend too much time mocking the public or denouncing journalists rather than trying to engage the public and journalists to understand science. This argument may have some merit. However, the authors offer little evidence for their claim. Simply put, Mooney and Kirshenbaum are wrong: bad science journalism is far more the fault of bad science journalists than it is the fault of disengaged scientists.
Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s primary example of scientists being out of touch with the general public is the 2006 decision to recharacterize Pluto. After the discovery of Eris in 2005 and discovery of other similar objects, it became apparent to astronomers that consistent classification standards required that either Pluto be classified as a non-planet or that many more objects would need to be labeled as planets. Thus, in 2006, the International Astronomical Union constructed a new definition of planets which reclassified Pluto to the status of “dwarf planet.” Readers will likely recall the media outcry that erupted in response to this “downgrading” which included internet petitions and resolutions by various state governments supporting Pluto’s right to continue to be a planet. Mooney and Kirshenbaum point to the popular reaction and astronomers’ failure to anticipate or understand the reaction as an example of how scientists are out of touch with the general public. (There has been some discussion over the validity of Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s point and see for example these two remarks).
However, while reading Unscientific America, serendipity struck and I had occasion to read an article in the December 26, Puerto Rico Daily Sun, from Scripps Howard News Service. This article discussed extrasolar planets and how astronomers have recently discovered smaller extrasolar planets which are closer to what life-sustaining planets would look like. From the article:
"The first extrasolar planets were discovered 15 years ago, and now more than 400 have been found and at an accelerating pace. The early discoveries were gas giants on the order of Jupiter and Pluto and they have orbited far too close to their stars. But as techniques have improved, astronomers are able to identify smaller, occasionally rocky, planets, orbiting far enough from their stars to be close to what is considered a habitable zone."
The author is apparently trying to talk about astronomy while discussing "gas giants on the order of Jupiter and Pluto." Of course, Pluto is not a gas giant. Pluto is a tiny ball of rock, so small it isn't able to keep orbital debris out of its path. That's the entire reason it got downgraded from being a planet. It is small and rocky, not a gas giant. Anyone paying any attention to the faux controversy over Pluto should remember this. Indeed, anyone who remembers anything from grade school would know that Pluto is small and rocky.
This foolish statement about Pluto shows what is really wrong. While scientists may not be the best communicators, putting a majority of the blame for the status quo on scientists is wrong. The problem isn't the scientists. The problem is not that the scientists mistreat journalists and the media. The problem is that the media is full of people so ignorant that we get an article from a major news service claiming that Pluto is a gas giant. Not all journalists are this clueless. But cloning Carl Zimmer simply isn't a viable option. If we're going to deal with this problem, we need to focus on the actual causes. And poor journalism is far more the fault of ignorant journalists than it is of unengaged scientists.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Orthodox Judaism, Science, and Natan Slifkin
Both Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox/Charedi Jews commonly reject many basic parts of the scientific understanding of the world. For example, many Orthodox Jews believe in a global Nocahian deluge some five thousand years ago and reject evolution. In the charedi world, this rejection of science is even broader. The charedi rejection of science is substantially different from that of other branches of Orthodoxy. Rather than simply reject specific theories based on their own theological predilections, charedim, including charedi leaders (called by their followers "Gedolim" which is Hebrew for "great ones") take an actively hostile view of science.
I was unaware of the depth of charedi fear of and disdain for science until I recently began examining the controversy surrounding Natan Slifkin. Slifkin is a charedi Rabbi who wrote a series of books looking at the interplay between Judaism and biology. Slifkin made three primary of arguments: First, he argued that the evidence for evolution was overwhelmimg. Second, he argued that belief in evolution was not incompatible with Judaism. Third, he argued that the Rabbis of the Talmud could be wrong about science. For the charedim, the second two points apparently caused far more concern than the first. In 2005, many of the Gedolim joined to issue a ruling in which Slifkin was labeled a heretic. Possession and reading of his books was banned.
The charedi rejection of science goes far beyond simple opposition to evolution. For example, I was recently disturbed to learn from a conversation with Slifkin that some major charedi Rabbis believe in spontaneous generation of small rodents. I had been aware that such beliefs had survived until the early 1900s, but I was shocked to find out that many prominent charedi rabbis still believe spontaneous generation of small creatures. The charedi attitude towards science is in many ways connected to a deep worry of persecution. Moshe Sternbuch, the current chief Rabbi of the Edah Charedis, a prominent organization of Israeli charedim, stated that scientists say the world is old because "they want to refute the words of our Sages and undermine the faith that exists amongst the Jewish people. Their main concern is to try to shake the faith in G-d — which has been accepted by us generation after generation."
For another example, see these videos of Rabbi Aharon Schechter in which Schechter gets actively angry at the thought of people trying to investigate evolution, the age of the earth and related questions:
This attitude, one of perceived persecution and anger, seems to stem from two sources: First the charedi worldview is very wrapped up in the history of persecution against Jews. Thus, the charedim see any modern event in that light. Second, the charedi worldview is profoundly self-centered. They assume that essentially everyone cares about what they are doing. Thus, if scientists come to a conclusion that clashes with standard charedi beliefs, the charedi infer that the scientists are trying to target them. In this regard, comparison between the charedi leaders and the leaders of fundamentalist Christianity today is not favorable to the charedim. While many evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Christians reject much science, it is rare for their leaders to claim that scientists are trying specifically to destroy their religion.
However, the anti-science beliefs discussed here are not held by just the charedim. The modern Orthodox also have serious problems with much of science. Alexander Nussbaum has examined modern Orthodox attitudes towards science (see his article in Skeptic as well as Nussbaum's article "Creationism and Geocentrism Among Orthodox Jewish Scientists." in the January-April set of Reports of the National Center for Science Education). Nussbaum found that even among orthodox Jews attending secular colleges, a large fraction reject much of biology, astronomy, geology and other branches of science. About three quarters of the respondents when asked about the age of the Earth, said that it was less than 7000 years old. The vast majority (around 90%) believed that all land animals descend from animals on Noah's ark. Possibly most disturbingly, around a quarter of the students believed that evolution was not only false, but that scientists were deliberately concealing this fact.
Nussbaum also found that undergraduates majoring in scientific areas were less likely to accept many aspects of basic science. Nussbaum proposed that:
Presumably the science majors would respond that they are more involved in science and so are more able to see the terrible problems with vast swaths of modern science.
While I had seen Nussbaum's work many years ago, I had generally assumed that something was wrong with his work. While these anti-science viewpoints were not unknown among the Orthodox students when I was an undergraduate at Yale, these views were not as popular as they appeared to be in Nussbaum's study. However, I'm now a graduate student interacting with students at Boston University. Here it seems that the profile of the Orthodox beliefs fits Nussbaum's data much better. Indeed, I recently found myself in a situation with six Orthodox students in the room and five out of the six believed in a literal global flood. When a conversation ensued, one student was unwilling to say whether he believed or not some of the more interesting claims in the Talmud such as the aforementioned spontaneous generation or the existence of the phoenix. That may have been in part due to the student not wanting to discuss the matter, but the overall reaction still agrees strongly with Nussbaum.
Why are otherwise moderate theists so willing to disregard large sections of modern understanding of the world? There are a variety of factors at play. However, one factor that is worth considering is the Orthodox attitude towards Talmudic rabbis, Talmud, and associated midrashic texts. While in some respects Jewish willingness to look at associated commentary or to interpret verses using Oral Law allows for moderation and incorporation of new knowledge. That willingness can also backfire. In particular, for many Orthodox Jews, statements made by Talmudic rabbis are by nature intrinsically infallible. Thus, instead of using the Oral Law as a way of reconciling science and religion, it is used to add additional statements that must be taken as literally true. whether they are about mice arising from mud, or birds burning themselves to regenerate for another life.
So far, this anti-scientific attitude does have some limits. I'm not aware of any Orthodox Jews (regardless of type) who believe in a flat earth. But geocentrism does certainly exist among Orthodox Jews. Most disturbingly, however, is that these anti-science views seem to be becoming more common rather than less in the Orthodox world, especially in the charedi world. The charedi world is not disconnected from the rest of the Orthodox world. If the charedi world becomes more extreme, it will likely pull the rest of the Orthodox world in the same direction.
If Modern Orthodox Judaism is to be taken seriously as a reasonable religion, able to survive in the modern world, then these trends need to be countered by responsible Orthodox leadership.
I was unaware of the depth of charedi fear of and disdain for science until I recently began examining the controversy surrounding Natan Slifkin. Slifkin is a charedi Rabbi who wrote a series of books looking at the interplay between Judaism and biology. Slifkin made three primary of arguments: First, he argued that the evidence for evolution was overwhelmimg. Second, he argued that belief in evolution was not incompatible with Judaism. Third, he argued that the Rabbis of the Talmud could be wrong about science. For the charedim, the second two points apparently caused far more concern than the first. In 2005, many of the Gedolim joined to issue a ruling in which Slifkin was labeled a heretic. Possession and reading of his books was banned.
The charedi rejection of science goes far beyond simple opposition to evolution. For example, I was recently disturbed to learn from a conversation with Slifkin that some major charedi Rabbis believe in spontaneous generation of small rodents. I had been aware that such beliefs had survived until the early 1900s, but I was shocked to find out that many prominent charedi rabbis still believe spontaneous generation of small creatures. The charedi attitude towards science is in many ways connected to a deep worry of persecution. Moshe Sternbuch, the current chief Rabbi of the Edah Charedis, a prominent organization of Israeli charedim, stated that scientists say the world is old because "they want to refute the words of our Sages and undermine the faith that exists amongst the Jewish people. Their main concern is to try to shake the faith in G-d — which has been accepted by us generation after generation."
For another example, see these videos of Rabbi Aharon Schechter in which Schechter gets actively angry at the thought of people trying to investigate evolution, the age of the earth and related questions:
This attitude, one of perceived persecution and anger, seems to stem from two sources: First the charedi worldview is very wrapped up in the history of persecution against Jews. Thus, the charedim see any modern event in that light. Second, the charedi worldview is profoundly self-centered. They assume that essentially everyone cares about what they are doing. Thus, if scientists come to a conclusion that clashes with standard charedi beliefs, the charedi infer that the scientists are trying to target them. In this regard, comparison between the charedi leaders and the leaders of fundamentalist Christianity today is not favorable to the charedim. While many evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Christians reject much science, it is rare for their leaders to claim that scientists are trying specifically to destroy their religion.
However, the anti-science beliefs discussed here are not held by just the charedim. The modern Orthodox also have serious problems with much of science. Alexander Nussbaum has examined modern Orthodox attitudes towards science (see his article in Skeptic as well as Nussbaum's article "Creationism and Geocentrism Among Orthodox Jewish Scientists." in the January-April set of Reports of the National Center for Science Education). Nussbaum found that even among orthodox Jews attending secular colleges, a large fraction reject much of biology, astronomy, geology and other branches of science. About three quarters of the respondents when asked about the age of the Earth, said that it was less than 7000 years old. The vast majority (around 90%) believed that all land animals descend from animals on Noah's ark. Possibly most disturbingly, around a quarter of the students believed that evolution was not only false, but that scientists were deliberately concealing this fact.
Nussbaum also found that undergraduates majoring in scientific areas were less likely to accept many aspects of basic science. Nussbaum proposed that:
It seems that the science majors and degree holders — precisely because they were more likely to be exposed to evolution — were subject to additional community influences not to be “taken in” by the “heresy” they would hear, and were even less accepting of evolution. And individuals with a science background from that community have the added responsibility to use their knowledge and standing to promote religious doctrine in scientific matters.
Presumably the science majors would respond that they are more involved in science and so are more able to see the terrible problems with vast swaths of modern science.
While I had seen Nussbaum's work many years ago, I had generally assumed that something was wrong with his work. While these anti-science viewpoints were not unknown among the Orthodox students when I was an undergraduate at Yale, these views were not as popular as they appeared to be in Nussbaum's study. However, I'm now a graduate student interacting with students at Boston University. Here it seems that the profile of the Orthodox beliefs fits Nussbaum's data much better. Indeed, I recently found myself in a situation with six Orthodox students in the room and five out of the six believed in a literal global flood. When a conversation ensued, one student was unwilling to say whether he believed or not some of the more interesting claims in the Talmud such as the aforementioned spontaneous generation or the existence of the phoenix. That may have been in part due to the student not wanting to discuss the matter, but the overall reaction still agrees strongly with Nussbaum.
Why are otherwise moderate theists so willing to disregard large sections of modern understanding of the world? There are a variety of factors at play. However, one factor that is worth considering is the Orthodox attitude towards Talmudic rabbis, Talmud, and associated midrashic texts. While in some respects Jewish willingness to look at associated commentary or to interpret verses using Oral Law allows for moderation and incorporation of new knowledge. That willingness can also backfire. In particular, for many Orthodox Jews, statements made by Talmudic rabbis are by nature intrinsically infallible. Thus, instead of using the Oral Law as a way of reconciling science and religion, it is used to add additional statements that must be taken as literally true. whether they are about mice arising from mud, or birds burning themselves to regenerate for another life.
So far, this anti-scientific attitude does have some limits. I'm not aware of any Orthodox Jews (regardless of type) who believe in a flat earth. But geocentrism does certainly exist among Orthodox Jews. Most disturbingly, however, is that these anti-science views seem to be becoming more common rather than less in the Orthodox world, especially in the charedi world. The charedi world is not disconnected from the rest of the Orthodox world. If the charedi world becomes more extreme, it will likely pull the rest of the Orthodox world in the same direction.
If Modern Orthodox Judaism is to be taken seriously as a reasonable religion, able to survive in the modern world, then these trends need to be countered by responsible Orthodox leadership.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Are We in the Middle of a Technological Revolution?
It is a common meme that we are in the midst of a technological revolution. When I made an off-hand remark in an earlier post that I did not think we were in such a state, Etienne disagreed. This post explains why it is inaccurate to state that we are in the middle of a technological revolution.
What do we mean by a technological revolution? The term is difficult to define. Here are four possible definitions: First, a technological revolution can be defined as a period during which new technologies result in rapid alterations to societal and cultural behavior. This is a vague concept but it has more precision than that of a generic technological revolution. We shall call this the social definition of a technological revolution. This definition has the advantage that it places little emphasis on when a given technology was actually invented and instead emphasizes the impact of technology.
Second, a technological revolution can be defined as the development and improvement of technologies at a pace more rapid than has been the historic norm. We shall call this definition the historical definition of a technological revolution.
Third, a technological revolution can be defined as the rapid development of new technologies faster than has been the historic norm. We shall call this the inventor's definition of a technological revolution. This inventor’s definition differs from the historical definition in that it focuses only on technologies which are new, not improvements upon existing technologies. Unfortunately, the distinction between significant improvement of an existing technology and fundamentally new technology is not that clear.
Fourth, a technological revolution can be defined as the accelerated construction of new technologies such that much of the population are unable to cope with the rapid changes in daily life. We shall call this the old-geezer definition of a technological revolution. Given that, whenever new technologies are developed older individuals have trouble adapting to them, the fourth definition seems to be less useful than the other definitions. We shall therefore focus on the first three definitions.
We are arguably in the middle of a technological revolution by the social definition, but the argument is not as strong as one might think at first glance. When most people point to a technology today which has altered social behavior, they point to the internet. The internet has allowed people to communicate conveniently when they are continents apart. It has also produced a series of media where the barrier to entry for the common citizen is almost non-existent. This has led to the free flow of all sorts of content, whether blogs, videos or collaborative projects such as Wikipedia.
TIME Magazine went so far as to declare the Time Man of The Year last year to be "You." However, this should raise alarm bells. Any bandwagon on which TIME has jumped is almost certainly overhyped. This is no exception.
The actual social impact of the internet has been small. Even the major social-networking sites such as Myspace and Facebook have relatively few people on them. Myspace has about 100 million registered accounts, but many are simple spam or are bands and small corporations using Myspace as webhosts. This is not fundamentally different from what people were doing fifteen or twenty years ago with personal webpages on sites like geocities. The total number is simply larger.
The barrier to entry to the internet may be small, but the barrier to being substantially noticed on the internet is higher, arguable as high as it was in the age of conventional publication. Moreover, much of the content (such as silly videos on Youtube) is content that would have likely been created without the internet and the only change is that the content is publically available.
Thus, the argument that we are in the midst of a technological revolution is weak under the social definition of such a revolution.
What about by the historical definition? Here again the argument for a contemporary technological revolution is weak. Moore's Law (that computer power doubles approximately every 2 years ) is valid , but it has been valid for almost sixty years. Similar observations apply to other technologies.
Most of the time when people speak of a current technological revolution they speak of technologies related to computers. However, for this particular definition, others might point to advances in the biological sciences. However, here also they would be wrong to assert that something unique is occurring now. We have in the last few years made major strides in our understanding of genetics and related areas of biology. PCR in particular has opened new frontiers. Yet even here, there are clear limits to what has been accomplished. Our improved understanding of genetics has produced not much in the way of direct medical breakthroughs but, rather, has increased our understanding of how very complicated and non-Mendelian many diseases are (see for example this discussion by Carl Zimmer). Meanwhile, genetic tests for some simple Mendelian diseases such as Tay-Sachs have existed for about forty years. Thus, the pace we are advancing in biology is not so rapid as to justify the label “revolutionary”.
What about the inventor's definition? This is by far the one with the clearest answer. And the answer is “no”. All of the major modern technologies are old. The electronic computer itself is almost 70 years old. The internet (even if one doesn't count ARPAnet but rather the internet as a large scale network) is 30 years old. The World Wide Web is 20 years old. The cellphone is about 30 years old. The primary improvements in the contemporary world have made existing technologies faster, smaller and cheaper. But little has changed with the underlying technologies.
By the most reasonable definitions of a technological revolution, we are not living in one today. Technologies continue to improve at a rapid, but not revolutionary, pace.
What do we mean by a technological revolution? The term is difficult to define. Here are four possible definitions: First, a technological revolution can be defined as a period during which new technologies result in rapid alterations to societal and cultural behavior. This is a vague concept but it has more precision than that of a generic technological revolution. We shall call this the social definition of a technological revolution. This definition has the advantage that it places little emphasis on when a given technology was actually invented and instead emphasizes the impact of technology.
Second, a technological revolution can be defined as the development and improvement of technologies at a pace more rapid than has been the historic norm. We shall call this definition the historical definition of a technological revolution.
Third, a technological revolution can be defined as the rapid development of new technologies faster than has been the historic norm. We shall call this the inventor's definition of a technological revolution. This inventor’s definition differs from the historical definition in that it focuses only on technologies which are new, not improvements upon existing technologies. Unfortunately, the distinction between significant improvement of an existing technology and fundamentally new technology is not that clear.
Fourth, a technological revolution can be defined as the accelerated construction of new technologies such that much of the population are unable to cope with the rapid changes in daily life. We shall call this the old-geezer definition of a technological revolution. Given that, whenever new technologies are developed older individuals have trouble adapting to them, the fourth definition seems to be less useful than the other definitions. We shall therefore focus on the first three definitions.
We are arguably in the middle of a technological revolution by the social definition, but the argument is not as strong as one might think at first glance. When most people point to a technology today which has altered social behavior, they point to the internet. The internet has allowed people to communicate conveniently when they are continents apart. It has also produced a series of media where the barrier to entry for the common citizen is almost non-existent. This has led to the free flow of all sorts of content, whether blogs, videos or collaborative projects such as Wikipedia.
TIME Magazine went so far as to declare the Time Man of The Year last year to be "You." However, this should raise alarm bells. Any bandwagon on which TIME has jumped is almost certainly overhyped. This is no exception.
The actual social impact of the internet has been small. Even the major social-networking sites such as Myspace and Facebook have relatively few people on them. Myspace has about 100 million registered accounts, but many are simple spam or are bands and small corporations using Myspace as webhosts. This is not fundamentally different from what people were doing fifteen or twenty years ago with personal webpages on sites like geocities. The total number is simply larger.
The barrier to entry to the internet may be small, but the barrier to being substantially noticed on the internet is higher, arguable as high as it was in the age of conventional publication. Moreover, much of the content (such as silly videos on Youtube) is content that would have likely been created without the internet and the only change is that the content is publically available.
Thus, the argument that we are in the midst of a technological revolution is weak under the social definition of such a revolution.
What about by the historical definition? Here again the argument for a contemporary technological revolution is weak. Moore's Law (that computer power doubles approximately every 2 years ) is valid , but it has been valid for almost sixty years. Similar observations apply to other technologies.
Most of the time when people speak of a current technological revolution they speak of technologies related to computers. However, for this particular definition, others might point to advances in the biological sciences. However, here also they would be wrong to assert that something unique is occurring now. We have in the last few years made major strides in our understanding of genetics and related areas of biology. PCR in particular has opened new frontiers. Yet even here, there are clear limits to what has been accomplished. Our improved understanding of genetics has produced not much in the way of direct medical breakthroughs but, rather, has increased our understanding of how very complicated and non-Mendelian many diseases are (see for example this discussion by Carl Zimmer). Meanwhile, genetic tests for some simple Mendelian diseases such as Tay-Sachs have existed for about forty years. Thus, the pace we are advancing in biology is not so rapid as to justify the label “revolutionary”.
What about the inventor's definition? This is by far the one with the clearest answer. And the answer is “no”. All of the major modern technologies are old. The electronic computer itself is almost 70 years old. The internet (even if one doesn't count ARPAnet but rather the internet as a large scale network) is 30 years old. The World Wide Web is 20 years old. The cellphone is about 30 years old. The primary improvements in the contemporary world have made existing technologies faster, smaller and cheaper. But little has changed with the underlying technologies.
By the most reasonable definitions of a technological revolution, we are not living in one today. Technologies continue to improve at a rapid, but not revolutionary, pace.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Tweenbots:Robots Use Human Goodwill to Navigate
Tweenbots are a project by Kacie Kinzer to use crowdsourcing to help little robots navigate Manhattan. The robots are small little box shaped things about 6 inches high. The Tweenbots each have a cardboard outside with a smiley face drawn on them. Each robot has a flag attached that explains where the robot is trying to go and asks people to direct it in the right direction. The bots can only travel in straight lines and so they rely on people pointing them in the right directions. Kinzer drops the bot off in one area and then sees how long it takes the bot to get where it is supposed to go.
In the first trial run, it took the robot 42 minutes to get from one corner of Washington Square Park to the opposite corner. Kinzer concealed a video camera in her purse and tailed the bot from far away enough that people would not connect her to the robot.
Kinzer intially expected the bots to be highly disposable given normal attitudes about assisting others as well as worries about terrorism and other issues. However, so far not a single bot has been lost. This speaks surprisingly well of people. Also, these are just cool.
Kinzer's website has pictures and video. Go check it out.
In the first trial run, it took the robot 42 minutes to get from one corner of Washington Square Park to the opposite corner. Kinzer concealed a video camera in her purse and tailed the bot from far away enough that people would not connect her to the robot.
Kinzer intially expected the bots to be highly disposable given normal attitudes about assisting others as well as worries about terrorism and other issues. However, so far not a single bot has been lost. This speaks surprisingly well of people. Also, these are just cool.
Kinzer's website has pictures and video. Go check it out.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The American Family Association and Evolution
I just finished my preliminary qualifier exams. Algebra went well aside from a minor brain fart while analysis did not go very well. My brain is a bit of mush right now. Moreover, I realized afterwords that I had made a number of silly mistakes. Lucky for me, I have been saved from feeling stupid by an email I just received from the American Family Association. The AFA has apparently branched out from their usual focus on how homosexuals and Jews are destroying America. The email was primarily a link to advertise some video about animals that somehow "defy" evolution.
According to the advertisement, the movie "enters the fascinating world of animals to reveal sophisticated and complex designs that shake the traditional foundations of evolutionary theory."
According to the website, the video will answer such interesting questions as:
However, there are two entries which stand out. The entry about dogs is most interesting. First, many animals and even some people can tell if a storm is coming due to the change in air pressure. Better hearing also allows some animals to hear thunder when it is far away. I'm genuinely perplexed at what the AFA people thought was complicated about this. It seems like they think that any ability that humans lack must be extraordinairy and difficult to explain. This entry is also interesting because even most young earth creationists agree that dogs evolved from wolves. So the evolution of capabilities is supposedly a problem even when they agree that evolution occurred to give them those capabilities?
The other entry of note is the entry on fireflies. This entry manages to demonstrate even more ignorance than the entry on dogs. Whoever wrote this doesn't understand that their are many examples of phenomena which produce light and little to no heat. Moreover, the mechanism that fireflies use to produce light is very simple, relying on a protein (a type of luciferase), and ATP, the universal energy exchange found in every living cell. This is a well-understood, very simple mechanism. To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, there's not even a ghost of a homeopathic dilution of irreducible complexity here. How fireflies light themselves is understood by young children who have the minimal curosity to wonder how fireflies light themselves. Moreover, this fact is simple enough to explain in even further detail, that when I was a little kid, I had at least two separate books which explained this process in some detail. When I was 12 years old I had strong Young Earth Creationist sympathies, and if you had stated this argument then, I would have likely laughed in your face. Congratulations, AFA, you've shown that you are more ignorant than many little kids.
Thank you AFA. When I opened my email an hour ago, I felt stupid. Now, having seen an example of extreme stupidity and willful ignorance, and am relieved. I have seen the face of idiocy, and not passing an analysis qualifier is not it.
According to the advertisement, the movie "enters the fascinating world of animals to reveal sophisticated and complex designs that shake the traditional foundations of evolutionary theory."
According to the website, the video will answer such interesting questions as:
- Are there really creatures that produce fire to defend themselves?This is entire video is apparently an example of the golly-gee-wilikers-that's-so-complicated-it-must-be-made-by-God argument. Some aspects of the advertisement suggest that the video might at times become slightly more sophisticated. The comment about giraffes suggests that the video may also use the frequently rebutted creationist whinings about how the giraffe could have evolved its long neck.
- How does a giraffe get a drink without causing lethal blood pressure to his brain?
- How can Geckos walk upside down, even on glass and not fall?
- How can birds navigate over thousands of miles of ocean and never get lost?
- How do fireflies and glowworms create light that generates no heat?
- How do great whales dive to the bottom of the ocean without the pressure causing them to implode?
- What creature was the inspiration for the helicopter?
- How can some creatures be cut in half and still regenerate themselves? Some can even grow a new head!
- What kind of bird can kill a lion with a single kick?
- How can some dogs know that a storm is coming before it appears, or can sense when their masters are about to experience a seizure?
- Which creature perlexes scientists because of its amazing ability to heal itself, even when it sustains horrendous injuries?
- How do Emperor Penguins go two and a half months without eating or drinking?
However, there are two entries which stand out. The entry about dogs is most interesting. First, many animals and even some people can tell if a storm is coming due to the change in air pressure. Better hearing also allows some animals to hear thunder when it is far away. I'm genuinely perplexed at what the AFA people thought was complicated about this. It seems like they think that any ability that humans lack must be extraordinairy and difficult to explain. This entry is also interesting because even most young earth creationists agree that dogs evolved from wolves. So the evolution of capabilities is supposedly a problem even when they agree that evolution occurred to give them those capabilities?
The other entry of note is the entry on fireflies. This entry manages to demonstrate even more ignorance than the entry on dogs. Whoever wrote this doesn't understand that their are many examples of phenomena which produce light and little to no heat. Moreover, the mechanism that fireflies use to produce light is very simple, relying on a protein (a type of luciferase), and ATP, the universal energy exchange found in every living cell. This is a well-understood, very simple mechanism. To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, there's not even a ghost of a homeopathic dilution of irreducible complexity here. How fireflies light themselves is understood by young children who have the minimal curosity to wonder how fireflies light themselves. Moreover, this fact is simple enough to explain in even further detail, that when I was a little kid, I had at least two separate books which explained this process in some detail. When I was 12 years old I had strong Young Earth Creationist sympathies, and if you had stated this argument then, I would have likely laughed in your face. Congratulations, AFA, you've shown that you are more ignorant than many little kids.
Thank you AFA. When I opened my email an hour ago, I felt stupid. Now, having seen an example of extreme stupidity and willful ignorance, and am relieved. I have seen the face of idiocy, and not passing an analysis qualifier is not it.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Barack Obama and Human Cloning
Obama took a step forward in ending the restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research. This decision is correct. However, in announcing this decision, Obama declared that under no circumstances would he allow human cloning which he called “dangerous, profoundly wrong.” Obama went on to declare that cloning “has no place in our society, or any society.” On the cloning issue, Obama is both scientifically and ethically wrong.
Cloning falls into two broad categories: “therapeutic cloning” and “reproductive cloning.” Therapeutic cloning involves making a clone embryo and then extracting its stem cells for use in therapy. Reproductive cloning involves making a cloned embryo and bringing it to term.
The chief ethical issue for both cloning and stem cell research is the moral weight to assign to embryos and fetuses. Generally, people who are strongly “pro-life” assign a high moral status to embryos , at or close to the level they would assign a baby. Others assign less ethical value to embryos and fetuses.
Reproductive cloning should not be bothersome from a strong pro-life perspective. Indeed, reproductive cloning is functionally identical to the process which creates identical twins. No one can claim that reproductive cloning involves the destruction of a human life or of the potential for a human life whereas such claims can be made about certain types of stem cell research. At minimum, if one believes that embryos have the same moral rights as adult humans, then embryonic stem cell research benefits from murders. Even if one assigns some but not much value to embryos, this concern still exists. Similar concerns should apply to therapeutic cloning since such clones might potentially be able to be brought to term. (Indeed, I’m continually puzzled by studies showing far more people approving of therapeutic cloning than reproductive cloning). The serious ethical moral issues raised by embryonic stem cell research are not raised by reproductive cloning.
Reproductive cloning does raise legitimate worries. There are concerns about egotistical people trying to make copies of themselves. And we must worry that cloning on a large scale could reduce genetic diversity in the human population. Genetic diversity is necessary to protect against disease and sudden environmental shifts. And as long as mammalian cloning continues to have its high complication rate, we cannot ethically attempt it with humans. However, these are all concerns that can be addressed by further research and informed debate. None of these concerns justify President Obama’s claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with cloning.
Cloning falls into two broad categories: “therapeutic cloning” and “reproductive cloning.” Therapeutic cloning involves making a clone embryo and then extracting its stem cells for use in therapy. Reproductive cloning involves making a cloned embryo and bringing it to term.
The chief ethical issue for both cloning and stem cell research is the moral weight to assign to embryos and fetuses. Generally, people who are strongly “pro-life” assign a high moral status to embryos , at or close to the level they would assign a baby. Others assign less ethical value to embryos and fetuses.
Reproductive cloning should not be bothersome from a strong pro-life perspective. Indeed, reproductive cloning is functionally identical to the process which creates identical twins. No one can claim that reproductive cloning involves the destruction of a human life or of the potential for a human life whereas such claims can be made about certain types of stem cell research. At minimum, if one believes that embryos have the same moral rights as adult humans, then embryonic stem cell research benefits from murders. Even if one assigns some but not much value to embryos, this concern still exists. Similar concerns should apply to therapeutic cloning since such clones might potentially be able to be brought to term. (Indeed, I’m continually puzzled by studies showing far more people approving of therapeutic cloning than reproductive cloning). The serious ethical moral issues raised by embryonic stem cell research are not raised by reproductive cloning.
Reproductive cloning does raise legitimate worries. There are concerns about egotistical people trying to make copies of themselves. And we must worry that cloning on a large scale could reduce genetic diversity in the human population. Genetic diversity is necessary to protect against disease and sudden environmental shifts. And as long as mammalian cloning continues to have its high complication rate, we cannot ethically attempt it with humans. However, these are all concerns that can be addressed by further research and informed debate. None of these concerns justify President Obama’s claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with cloning.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Science appointments on hold.
Members of the US Senate are holding up the appointments of Jane Lubchenco as NOAA administrator and John Holdren as Science Advisor. Moreover, while the specific Senators causing the delay are still anonymous they are apparently Democrats using these positions as pawns in a bargaining game for unrelated political gains. This situation is unacceptable. I and many others voted for the Democrats in the last election because we were sick of poor treatment of science by the Republicans. Unfortunately, I am cynical enough that holding up critical appointments of qualified appointments for necessary science positions is change I can believe in; it is no change at all.
You can help deal with this. Mike Dunford has multiple pieces discussing the situation and what you can do about it. Mike has the details of which Senators to contact. This situation is unacceptable. The Democrats in the Senate need to understand that people who care about science care about empirical results. We won't just listen to your rhetoric if you don't follow through. Having these appointments confirmed by the Senate is vitally important. Please look at Mike's pieces and contact your Senators.
You can help deal with this. Mike Dunford has multiple pieces discussing the situation and what you can do about it. Mike has the details of which Senators to contact. This situation is unacceptable. The Democrats in the Senate need to understand that people who care about science care about empirical results. We won't just listen to your rhetoric if you don't follow through. Having these appointments confirmed by the Senate is vitally important. Please look at Mike's pieces and contact your Senators.
Monday, November 17, 2008
One step forward, one step backwards
There have been two developments connected to intelligent design in the last few days. One is heartening; the other is disappointing. William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of intelligent design, has announced that he will stop spending time running the Uncommon Descent blog and spend more time doing "technical research." This is a good thing. Whether or not there is any scientific merit to intelligent design, the desultory attempts by ID proponents to produce any scientific work about intelligent design has not helped intelligent design in the eyes of the scientific community. It is likely that the lack of scientific merit of intelligent design has forced the proponents to engage in the wastes of time that they have. However, on the off chance that there is any minimal scientific merit to their ideas, Dembski has some chance of finding it.
The second development is that Catholic philosopher Francis Beckwith, a former Fellow of the Discovery Institute and a professor at Baylor University, has forcefully come out against intelligent design. In the past, Beckwith has spoken sympathetically about ID so this comes as a surprise. Unfortunately, he now opposes intelligent design for the wrong reasons:
First, as one friend cogently asked what is an "Enlightenment view of science? Newton's? Bacon's? Hume's? Paley's? Whewell's?" One would like to think that a tenured philosophy professor such as Beckwith would be more precise with language.
Second, many if not most scientists would agree that science has no essential monopoly on on all knowledge. Moreover, many proponents of intelligent design would also agree even as proponents of ID frequently attempt to push the bounds of what science can reasonably talk about. Thus, Beckwith's objection is either to some sort of extreme strawman or Beckwith's objection is to the entire notion of science as a separate epistomological method. Indeed, Beckwith goes on to claim that "According to many scholars, the practical consequence of “Ockham’s razor”[sic] is that claims about a thing’s nature, purpose, or intrinsic dignity—universal properties it shares with other things of the same sort—are “unnecessary” for our scientific investigation of the world because they don’t add anything of explanatory importance to our direct empirical observations." It appears thus that Beckwith does object to the entire scientific method. This is the opposite of something like non-overlapping magisteria. This is aside from the fact that archaeologists engage in trying to find artifacts' "purpose" all the time. I have no idea how science would incorporate the "intrinsic dignity" of objects.
I've paid some attention to Beckwith in the past and knew he had reservations about intelligent design. For a long-time I suspected that his stated reservations were for rhetorical effect while he argued for the constitutionality of teaching ID in public schools. In my naivete I never would have thought that Beckwith's objection was to science as a whole.
Beckwith appears to be objecting to ID, not because it drags us back a few centuries, but because it does not drag us back far enough. As William Dembski takes a step to join the 19th century, Beckwith is trying his hardest to join the 10th.
The second development is that Catholic philosopher Francis Beckwith, a former Fellow of the Discovery Institute and a professor at Baylor University, has forcefully come out against intelligent design. In the past, Beckwith has spoken sympathetically about ID so this comes as a surprise. Unfortunately, he now opposes intelligent design for the wrong reasons:
Despite my interest in this subject and my sympathy for the ID movement’s goal to dismantle materialism and its deleterious implications on our understanding of what is real and what counts as knowledge, I am not, and have never been, a proponent of ID. My reasons have to do with my philosophical opposition to the ID movement’s acquiescence to the modern idea that an Enlightenment view of science is the paradigm of knowledge. By seeming to agree with their materialist foes that the mind or intellect cannot have direct knowledge of real immaterial universals, such as natures, essences, and moral properties, many in the ID movement seem to commit the same mistake as the one committed by the late medieval nominalists such as William of Ockham, who gave us what is often called “Ockham’s razor,”...I imagine some readers are sputtering a bit as they read that. The complete context of Beckwith's remarks does not cast Beckwith in a better light. Beckwith's remarks are disturbing for a great many reasons, but I will only focus briefly on two of them.
First, as one friend cogently asked what is an "Enlightenment view of science? Newton's? Bacon's? Hume's? Paley's? Whewell's?" One would like to think that a tenured philosophy professor such as Beckwith would be more precise with language.
Second, many if not most scientists would agree that science has no essential monopoly on on all knowledge. Moreover, many proponents of intelligent design would also agree even as proponents of ID frequently attempt to push the bounds of what science can reasonably talk about. Thus, Beckwith's objection is either to some sort of extreme strawman or Beckwith's objection is to the entire notion of science as a separate epistomological method. Indeed, Beckwith goes on to claim that "According to many scholars, the practical consequence of “Ockham’s razor”[sic] is that claims about a thing’s nature, purpose, or intrinsic dignity—universal properties it shares with other things of the same sort—are “unnecessary” for our scientific investigation of the world because they don’t add anything of explanatory importance to our direct empirical observations." It appears thus that Beckwith does object to the entire scientific method. This is the opposite of something like non-overlapping magisteria. This is aside from the fact that archaeologists engage in trying to find artifacts' "purpose" all the time. I have no idea how science would incorporate the "intrinsic dignity" of objects.
I've paid some attention to Beckwith in the past and knew he had reservations about intelligent design. For a long-time I suspected that his stated reservations were for rhetorical effect while he argued for the constitutionality of teaching ID in public schools. In my naivete I never would have thought that Beckwith's objection was to science as a whole.
Beckwith appears to be objecting to ID, not because it drags us back a few centuries, but because it does not drag us back far enough. As William Dembski takes a step to join the 19th century, Beckwith is trying his hardest to join the 10th.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
John McCain, Barack Obama, and ScienceDebate 2008
The answers can read found here. I’m still thinking about them in detail but here are my first thoughts about McCain answers. I have three points and a question to readers.
First, even here he feels a need to bring up his military experience, as if it were somehow relevant. In answering the very first question, McCain, says, that "I am uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this technological revolution. While in the Navy, I depended upon the technologies and information provided by our nation’s scientists and engineers with during each mission" (in fairness this is only part of his answer). The question he was answering was: “Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question
This is irritating. McCain is a war-hero by any reasonable definition of the term. That doesn’t make him at all qualified to make decisions about scientific issues. We all rely on technology every day. That doesn’t make the man on the street who uses a cell-phone and an Ipod at all qualified. Indeed, if we consider McCain’s prior admissions about his complete inability to use computers, and his past poor record of understanding science issues if anything McCain is a counterexample to the claim that prior reliance on modern science and engineering makes one qualified to lead during a technological revolution.[2]
And lest you think this is the only example of McCain harping on his military experience, in a later question about oceanic research and environmental issues he says “ As a former Navy officer I was constantly reminded of the power, wonder and complexity of our world’s oceans. “ We get the point Senator. Really.
Second, when discussing funding for scientific research McCain says that “We must also ensure that basic research money is allocated to the best science based on quality and peer review, not politics and earmarks.” This raises a series of questions: McCain has repeatedly used as his primary example of porkbarrel spending a study which by all accounts but McCain’s was useful and a good way of spending money. Is McCain able to tell what constitutes quality and peer review? Does he even care?
Third, McCain discusses how military research has helped the general public. He lists four technologies, “Internet, email, GPS, Teflon”. Now, for the internet and GPS McCain is correct. However, email originated at MIT as a civilian technology before ARPANET existed. At best, that is a sloppy mistake. And it leads in to my question to readers: It is not clear to me that the 4th technology listed, “Teflon” came from any military use. Teflon was discovered by DuPont. The only reason it is associated with the military at all is that it was used first primarily by the military although other early uses also existed. Indeed, the official DuPont history of Teflon does not even mention the military at all. So my question to readers is: Does this count as another sloppy mistake by the McCain campaign? The email mistake alone demonstrates poor research and care with the campaign’s answers to these questions. For anyone who cares about science related issues, the campaign’s lack of effort and sloppiness here should give pause.
[1] For one interesting discussion about this see this piece by Lawrence Krauss and the Presidential Debate Blog.
[2] I don’t think we are undergoing a “technological revolution.” However, the claim that we are is so widely accepted and such necessary boilerplate for any politician at this point that I don’t blame McCain for using the phrase.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Large Hadron Collider has killed a young girl.
Actually the LHC didn't kill anyone. The irresponsible media did.
According to a variety of news reports, a 16 year old girl in India named Chaya killed herself prior to the activation of the Large Hadron Collider because she did not want to witness the destruction of the world. Over the last year or so, there has been a steady stream of crackpots and cranks who have tried to claim that the new particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, could destroy the world or do other nasty things. There are many problems with this notion, including the fact that the energy levels of the particles being collided are of the same or smaller than the energy levels in normal cosmic rays which hit the Earth's atmosphere every day.
Throughout the world, this nonsense has received far more attention than it warrants. However, there has been particular hysteria in India where this idea has received much attention. Apparently, many people flocked to temples throughout India on Tuesday preparing for the end of the world.
What is the real lesson here? The Large Hadron Collider isn't dangerous. Poor reporting by dumb, lazy reporters is dangerous. Thanks to the general media's inability to report science accurately, a young lady has died. Chaya is dead and her family has lost a child. That's what happens when reporters engage in hysterical reporting. It isn't harmless. People suffer and die. In this case, bad reporting has led to the death of a child.
According to a variety of news reports, a 16 year old girl in India named Chaya killed herself prior to the activation of the Large Hadron Collider because she did not want to witness the destruction of the world. Over the last year or so, there has been a steady stream of crackpots and cranks who have tried to claim that the new particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, could destroy the world or do other nasty things. There are many problems with this notion, including the fact that the energy levels of the particles being collided are of the same or smaller than the energy levels in normal cosmic rays which hit the Earth's atmosphere every day.
Throughout the world, this nonsense has received far more attention than it warrants. However, there has been particular hysteria in India where this idea has received much attention. Apparently, many people flocked to temples throughout India on Tuesday preparing for the end of the world.
What is the real lesson here? The Large Hadron Collider isn't dangerous. Poor reporting by dumb, lazy reporters is dangerous. Thanks to the general media's inability to report science accurately, a young lady has died. Chaya is dead and her family has lost a child. That's what happens when reporters engage in hysterical reporting. It isn't harmless. People suffer and die. In this case, bad reporting has led to the death of a child.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Ur Doing it Wrong!
First let me apologize to readers. The title of this blog entry is inspired in part by having read way too many of Abbie Smith’s blog entries. I am slightly infected by Lolcatese.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
