More on Science vs. Religion

Is science just as much of a belief system as religion? It's an argument you hear a lot these days. Like from today's New York Times...

SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term “doubting Thomas” well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.

The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.

I actually like Mark Thoma's take on this, however, even though admits that his thoughts were composed hastily and might be wrong:

Very quick (and probably wrong) reaction: I guess I don't see why falsifiability isn't enough to distinguish science from faith. The argument - I think- is that a statement like "this object is blue," which appears falsifiable isn't since if the laws of the universe change the object may be red instead of blue tomorrow. So I have to take it on "faith" that blue will stay blue forever. Fine, but as I look at the object it's either blue or it isn't. If it changes from blue to red someday, then that is an indication that either the hypothesis itself or one of the maintained hypotheses (i.e. that the laws of physics are constant, at least locally) is false. So I don't see why the scientific method fails us in this particular instance. But as I said, I didn't give this the thought it deserves, so feel free to explain why I've totally missed the point. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened.

It's funny because this is something that Ben and I have actually argued about (numerous times) in the past. The fallibility of science is indeed one of the most intriguing topics of philosophical discussion, as we were taught since children to the "immutable" laws of science as basic inarguable fact. (As a note, Ben and I were educated at the same schools--middle school, high school, and college).

A long time ago, Ben made the skeptic argument to me (I believe it derived from Hume's, but don't quote me on that) that science should not be taken as laws or facts that are to be seen as depictions of absolute truth. If history has taught us anything, it's that science has been wrong before. The world being flat, the Earth being the center of the universe, and Bohr's model of the atom are just a few notable examples. Consequently, just because we think that that if we drop a pencil, gravity will pull it to the ground, does not mean that this action will, in fact, occur the next time that we drop a pencil. There is not 100% certainty. Tomorrow, it might be discovered that the universe (gravity included) operates randomly and chaotically, thus negating the "laws" of gravity that were bequeathed to us in high school physics.

Taking this argument to its next logical step would mean that there is no truth in the world, and that we should be skeptical of absolutely everything. In essence, there is no reality. I think this is true, inasmuch as we cannot be absolutely certain of anything, but the reason I take to Thoma's initial reactions to the New York Times piece is that if we adhere to the paradigm that human beings have been taught and live by, I don't think it is unreasonable to accept something with a large probability of being true as a statement of "fact." Thomas used the example of observing that "the object is blue." Indeed, the object will not necessarily be blue tomorrow, but if it had been blue for years, decades or centuries, by way of inductive reasoning, I would conclude that the object would be blue tomorrow.

These are the "facts" that human beings have known since birth. Inductive reasoning is how doctors make their diagnoses, it's how scientists form theories, and most importantly, it's how Sherlock Holmes reasoned (as opposed to deductively, as many people think). I, for one, am comfortable accepting a universe that has truth by declaring certain things as "fact" or "law," even though there is a small probability at the time that they will one day be falsified. The alternative is living in a world knowing that there are no absolutes. Call me naive, but I'm terrified of that kind of world.

I'm going to cover myself by declaring that the aforementioned are not well-researched thoughts, but much like Thoma's, initial reactions. What do you all think?

Good News For Aspiring Musicians

How much, [Gotfried] Shlaug wondered wondered, are these differences [in musicality] a reflection of innate predisposition and how much an effect of early musical training? One does not, of course, know what distinguishes the brains of musically gifted four-year-olds before they start musical training, but the effects of such training, Shlaug showed, are very great: the anatomical changes they observed with musicians' brains were strongly correlated with the age at which musical training with the age at which musical training began and with the intensity of practice and rehearsal.

That is from Oliver Sack's new book, Musicophilia. In this one, the notable neurologist dictates more of his clinical case histories, except focusing on the theme of music and the brain. I'm really digging this book so far.

Another interesting bit of information from the book:

Che Guevera was famously rhythm-deaf; he might be seen dancing a mambo while the orchestra was playing a tango.

One thing is for sure--when I have kids, I'm going to teach them music at an early age.

Assorted Links

A boot camp in Korea to "cure" web obsession

Should presidential candidates preach protectionism in Iowa (a state that ironically reaped the benefits of free market globalization)?

Cocaine use rises in Europe

Some studies on fairness and equity

Moral Neuroscience

"As we have no immediate experience of what other men feel, we can form no idea of the manner in which they are affected, but by conceiving what we ourselves should feel in the like situation," observed British philosopher and economist Adam Smith in the first chapter of his magisterial The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). "Whatever is the passion which arises from any object in the person principally concerned, an analogous emotion springs up, at the thought of his situation, in the breast of every attentive spectator." Smith's argument is that our ability to empathize with others is at the root of our morality.

Recent discoveries in neuroscience are bolstering Smith's insights about the crucial role of empathy in human sociality and morality. For example, in the 1990s, Italian scientists researching motor neurons in macaque monkeys discovered mirror neurons. As the story goes, a monkey's brain had been wired up to detect the firing of his neurons when planning and carrying out a movement such as grasping a peanut. One researcher returned from lunch licking an ice cream cone. As the monkey watched the researcher, some of his neurons fired as though he were eating the ice cream, even though he was not moving. The monkey's neurons were "mirroring" the activity that the monkey was observing.

That is from Reason Magazine's article on moral neuroscience. It highlights some interesting studies performed by recent neuroscientists and psychologists on one of my favorite topics in the field, morality and altruism. All the evidence put out by these scientists only corroborate Smith's initial hypotheses, proving again just how brilliant he was (for those of you who haven't read The Wealth of Nations, please do).

Indeed, human empathy is one of the major characteristics that distinguish us. We have the ability, now scientifically proven through the firing of 'mirror neurons,' to feel the way our fellows do. But what is most interesting about this article is the extent to which this morality applies, i.e. the conclusions on the limits of human altruism.

Case in point, Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene offers the scenario testing altruism:

Harvard University psychologist Joshua Greene offers the case in which, while driving, you see a bleeding hiker lying by the roadside. You must decide between taking the man to the hospital or refuse to do so because the injured man would bleed all over your expensive upholstery.

Greene correctly observes, "Most people say that it would be seriously wrong to abandon this man out of concern for one's car seats" But what about the case in which you receive a letter from an international charity that promises to lift a poor family in Africa out of abject misery at the cost of a $200 contribution from you? "Most people say that it would not be wrong to refrain from making a donation in this case," writes Greene. What's the difference? In both cases, you can help meet the desperate medical needs of someone else at relatively modest cost to yourself.

Greene conducted fMRI brain scans on people while they considered these personal versus impersonal moral dilemmas. He discovered the first "involved greater activity in brain areas that are associated with emotion and social cognition." Why? Greene proposes an evolutionary answer. He points out that our ancestors evolved in an environment in which they could only choose to save people that they knew personally, not total strangers living continents away.

Greene highlight's Smiths initial insights very well, suggesting that human beings have an evolutionary imperative to help and protect those that are proximate to them (family, friends, even the stranger bleeding on the road) so long as it is not costly to them. We have the same evolutionary incentive NOT to help those that are miles away. If everyone cared indiscriminately about every individual in the entire world, nothing on Earth would get accomplished.

It is a very interesting article. I suggest you all read it.

Paul Krugman vs. The Washington Post

I just love watching debates unfold day-by-day over the internet. Especially ones that involve Paul Krugman vs. the world. First came Greg Mankiw's column in the New York Times about health care and Krugman's own column (which was a not-so-subtle retort against Mankiw himself). But now, the Washington Post is berating Krugman for comments he made about Barack Obama and social security. You can find the full, ridiculous article here.

According to Krugman's recent blog post The Post attacked him by "selectively quoting" articles that he had written a decade ago. Bravo to The Post for once again knocking the media down another step on its gradual degeneration towards being a medium composed entirely of fabrications. Oh, and even if Krugman did, in fact, make the firm argument ten years ago that the social security system was in desperate need of reform, that was ten years ago. To his point, projections then were much different than they are now. It is not entirely unreasonable for one to change his opinion based on new evidence after a full decade.

This is precisely why I'm not so quick to blame Hillary Clinton or any of the other Democrats for supporting the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Not that I'm saying it was the right thing to do (I was anti-war), but if you take a look at major polls from 2001-2003, a majority (an overwhelming one at that) of people in the country truly and sincerely believed that, based on the Bush administration's evidence, Iraq was developing or had in its possession weapons of mass destruction that it was planning on using against the United States. Colin Powell's presentation in 2002 was quite convincing, and if Powell was convinced, then so were most people (yes even those that were left-of-center). Indeed, that evidence turned out to be exaggerated, but that does not mean that all the parties who supported invasion back them should be scolded and criticized for information they did not have in the past.

But, I digress. The point here is: Boo to the Washington Post and boo to disgusting media tactics. As Brad Delong writes:

As I have said before, there is something very wrong with everybody who is currently helping to put the Washington Post in newsprint on the streets of Washington these days.

That might be a tad harsh, but you get the idea.

Stem Cell Breakthrough

The prospect of using stem cells to treat tragic diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, is gradually becoming more of a reality, as the field of stem cell research has taken a dramatic leap forward this past week.

Dr. Thomson’s laboratory at the University of Wisconsin was one of two that in 1998 plucked stem cells from human embryos for the first time, destroying the embryos in the process and touching off a divisive national debate.

And on Tuesday, his laboratory was one of two that reported a new way to turn ordinary human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without ever using a human embryo.

The fact is, Dr. Thomson said in an interview, he had ethical concerns about embryonic research from the outset, even though he knew that such research offered insights into human development and the potential for powerful new treatments for disease.

“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough,” he said. “I thought long and hard about whether I would do it.”

He decided in the end to go ahead, reasoning that the work was important and that he was using embryos from fertility clinics that would have been destroyed otherwise. The couples whose sperm and eggs were used to create the embryos had said they no longer wanted them. Nonetheless, Dr. Thomson said, announcing that he had obtained human embryonic stem cells was “scary,” adding, “It was not known how it would be received.”

Indeed, Dr. Thomson did not anticipate that his experimentation with embryonic stem cells would engender the massive political debate that it did. However, now that he has made advances in extracting those cells without damaging human embryos, the debate has once again ignited and intensified rather than subsided. According to the Wall Street Journal,

The studies have already reignited a debate in Washington about funding of human embryo research, a subject sure to be an issue in the presidential contest. They are likely to bolster the cause of those who oppose embryo research, yet accelerate the pace of stem-cell research as scientists rush to build on the new approach.

While the Bush administration is saying "I told you so"-- claiming it had always known that there had to have been an alternative method of extracting stem cells that adhered to ethical and moral guidelines -- Democrats and supporters of embryonic research claim that while this is a major step towards curing diseases, we should consider all possible options.

This is likely to become a major issue in the 2008 presidential election now, in addition to Iraq, national security and health care. But all politics aside, I think this step towards curing disease is a milestone that can give us all a reason to be thankful this Thanksgiving.

An Assortment of Science/Medicine-Related Links from Today's NYTimes

Monkeys have cognitive dissonance too, so don't worry about being so indecisive.

Is this guy the Dr. House of the army?

Girl with 8 limbs undergoes surgery

Is flying business or first-class also associated with blood clots and DVTs?

The Best Sentence I Read Today

Of the Writers' Guild workers' strike:

"But instead of hard hats and work boots, the people on the pickets had arty glasses and fancy scarves."

Here is the full article.

Toilets are Serious Business

40 percent of the globe (2.6 billion people) have no access to hygienic toilets, according to an article in today's New York Times.

"The World Toilet Summit, which just took place in New Delhi, is an attempt to improve that situation by drawing attention to the problem and pushing for better sanitation technologies."

I want to be the first to say that I think it's great that a World Toilet Summit exists. Indeed, this sanitation crisis is no joke and deserves attention.

"Toilets get too little respect, Mr. Sim argues, openly wishing that someone with more celebrity than he has would take up the cause, because lack of adequate toilets threatens more children than, for example, global warming does."

I also want to point out that no one takes toilets more seriously than I do. I find them efficient, useful, and even exotic. In fact, two years ago I published a series of three articles on the history of toilets which detailed their origins, contribution to society, different models of toilet, and even toilet use in classic literature. Once I locate those articles, I will post them.

Take-away of this post: The World Health Organization is doing something very right with this summit.

Global Warming Economics

Tom Redburn posted an interesting article in the New York Times on the debate for how to prevent climate change. Indeed, global warming is one of the most controversial topics that will likely be a significant factor in deciding the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. As the battle heats up, there becomes increasing talk on different methodology for reducing carbon emissions...

The first set of theorists propose a "cap-and-trade" model, under which a limit on the amount of CO2 that can be pumped into the atmosphere is set and, ideally, is lowered over time. The second set advocate a carbon tax, of which the revenues would, ideally, "be used to offset other taxes in ways that could compensate lower-income households and minimize damage to the economy."

Both theories have their merits and their faults, as discussed in the aforementioned article. The carbon tax seems to provide a more calculated, long-term approach for reducing carbon emissions, although it will be the expense of significantly higher gas and energy prices. Arguments for the cap-and-trade model seem to be mostly political (people don't like their gas prices to be raised)--and I generally don't subscribe to political rhetoric. Though, the theory that we need a specific reduction rate strikes me as a legitimate one.

Read the article for more details.

Say It Isn't So....

NBC's Heroes might be ending prematurely due to a writers' strike. As a result, the creators are scheduled to film an alternate ending to be aired on December 3rd, which would ostensibly serve as the season finale. Note that none of this is confirmed and hopefully the strike will be resolved at the zero hour.

This is a shame for two main reasons:
1) Heroes remains the most consistently well-written drama shows on TV. Nay, one of the best shows on TV overall (I know I'm probably going to receive nasty looks from die-hard Office fans). The writers manage to add new elements to the storyline each episode, develop the wide array of characters (many continue to be introduced each week), and yet it is clear that they have always maintained a detailed and precise plan for the direction of the entire series. It is also one of the most creatively written shows on television--perhaps explaining why it's so conducive to "love it or hate it" stereotypes--as the story is told in the form of many parallel plot-lines that eventually come together (parallel lines can now intersect?). It's requires a large attention span and you cannot watch without having seen the beginning, but I guarantee that regardless of whether superheroes are your cup of tea, you will appreciate the scope of writing. The only other series that I have seen throw so many balls in the air without engendering a convoluted mess was Seinfeld.
2) There was rumored to be a spin-off of the show entitled Heroes: Origins, which had attracted big names in show-biz such as Eli Roth (Hostel, Cabin Fever), Kevin Smith, and Michael Dougherty (Superman Returns), that is now put on hold (or probably canceled entirely) due to the strike.

Let's all hope that the strike is resolved. I would hate to see this season end so early.

Putin vs. Chavez

According to the New York Times, "The National Assembly approved a constitutional overhaul on Friday that would enhance President Hugo Chávez’s authority, allowing him to be re-elected indefinitely and giving him the power to handpick rulers, to be called vice presidents, for various new regions to be created in the country."

Also, Putin gave a top state award to a Soviet spy who discovered American atomic secrets and expedited Soviet atomic bomb production.

It's almost humorous when you think about these two leaders--they are actually the most entertaining figures in international relations. With each passing news article, one keeps wondering, "Wow, what sort of shenanigans will these guys get into next?"