Can one reconcile contemporary science with a belief in a humanoid "creator?" Aye, there's the rub.
My parents had me late in life — my mom was 42, and I was their only child. My dad taught me to read at an early age, and I devoured every book I could get my hands on.…
Article comments
26 - cybcode
Irreducible complexity poses no problem for evolution. The argument that irreducibly complex structures cannot evolve is based on the assumption that evolution can only add parts. Evolution can also remove and change parts, and therefore can easily and naturally create irreducibly complex structures.
For examples and a better explanation
Regarding the probability claims, I have this to say
There is certainly no need for something comparable to 17 royal flushes in a row.
Regarding Darwin: for a while now we have not been relying on Darwin any more. We have come a long way since Darwin, and evolutionary theory cannot be said to be Darwin's work. There are 150 years of research that succeeded Darwin's work and formed modern evolutionary theory.
I think a very good understanding of intelligent design can be gained by reading Michael Behe's Dover trial cross testimony. While trying to defend his theory, he uses (in my opinion) amazingly naive arguments. For example, he seems to regard "purpose" as an objective quality that a biological structure may possess, and that bespeaks design. I believe that in this testimony it becomes easily evident that there is nothing to intelligent design but the naive claim "God did it because I can't otherwise grasp it". Also, for Intelligent Design believers, it should be quite puzzling that such unoriginal claims have not been made by the many scientists who deal with mollecular biology. If purpose is an objective quality, why is Michael Behe the only scientist who sees it? The "weaknesses" of evolution that bother Behe don't seem to bother anyone else. It is also quite clear that he is not aware of the vast amount of literature published on molecular evolution. All this is discussed in the testimony. The full transcripts (Behe's cross examination is on day 11).
27 - Elvira Black
Thanks for all the great comments. Here's a few thoughts for the time being, and they may seem simplistic because I'm still on my first cup of coffee:
I do believe that we (or the species as a whole) possess extraordinary inherent/dormant abilities which we don't routinely recognize. I remember reading some of Andrew Weil's work on self-healing. He points out that if we get a cut on our finger, the body will heal it automatically--and if you stop and think about it, it's rather miraculous. The same goes for more intractable illnesses like cancer and the like, because the mind-body connection is very complex and healing depends in part on the efficacy of the immune system, which has the potential to be enhanced. For example, sometimes cancer patients will have a higher survival rate, he feels, with a combo of surgery and other holistic measures which involve more deliberate manipulation of our inherent ability to self-heal. One example I recall is that (according to Weil) if a surgeon says negative things about a patient's condition when they "go under," rather than, say, playing soothing music, it can actually affect the overall survival rate or healing time--or so he claims. Anecdotal evidence is hard to "prove" empirically, but still worth considering, in my opinion.
Anyone who has taken LSD (I haven't) would probably agree that we are using portions of our brain or evoking some interaction between synapses in ways we normally would not when we are "tripping."
Although many are skeptical of psychic "abilities" and paranormal phenomena, psychics are sometimes now used to help solve crimes. Then there's hypnosis--if it is suggested to someone that an object is cold rather than hot, they may emerge unscathed, etc. Buddhist monks are known to be able to control functions which are normally thought to be "involuntary" as well.
Yes, some of these claims may be questionable, and I'm only supplying a few examples off the top of my head. And the truth is that we still have a very incomplete knowledge of the intricacies of the brain and the mind/body connection--thus the laundry list of bizarre side effects encountered with many medications, including psych meds. This seems to indicate a vast interconnection of functions which we still don't fully understand.
Other species have extraordinary abilities that seem "magical" to us--like the chameleon's ability to change color. Some of our senses are much less developed than those of other species who needed a strong sense of smell, hearing, or sight to survive. Though our potential for possessing "extrasensory" abilities may exist, we were able to evolve successfully without benefit of some of these super-sensory qualities coming to the fore--in part because of our mastery of technology which provides us with "superhuman" abilities such as space travel, atom splitting, cyberspace, and so on. But the possibility exists that we can choose to tap into some of these mostly "unused" functions or abilities.
Western religion and science is chiefly predicated on the supremacy of human life on earth. Is there any evidence to refute the possibility that life exists elsewhere, somewhere? Just as most of our religious beliefs are anthropomorphic in nature, it could be that there is a vast "force" beyond what we have been able to discern through current scientific thought.
Scientific theory can be biased--always has been. What is commonly accepted as gospel in one era can be discarded in the next.
I do not completely reject the possibility that there is some "intelligent" force in the universe, but we might have to think outside the box to imagine it--or even redefine what "intelligent" really means. How can we fully understand the vastness of the universe, or presume that our role is more central than peripheral in the grand scheme of things?
It is commonly accepted, for example, that the moon not only controls the tides, but affects us as well, since we are primarily composed of water. Who's to say that the planets don't hold more of a sway over us than we can prove scientifically at this point? Part of our skepticism, I suspect, has to do with our very human capacity for hubris.
Long story short, nothing has to be "proven" by us to exist in order to exist. Much of our perception of reality is shaped by our current--albeit still limited--scientific/empirical knowlege. The ephemeral can be difficult--perhaps impossible--to measure, as it were, under a microscope. But as humans, we tend to believe that what we can measure, see, or prove is all there is. I think we have only scratched the surface.
28 - duane
First, thanks for the links cybcode. I'm in the process of reading Behe's testimony.
Second, great post, Elvira (#27). You're always a pleasure to read. I have a few "first-cup" comments.
...we still have a very incomplete knowledge of the intricacies of the brain and the mind/body connection -- thus the laundry list of bizarre side effects encountered with many medications, including psych meds.
You've presumed that mind and body are distinct. But aren't the bizarre effects of psych meds simply a physiological response, a neurochemical response? If anti-depressants dampen the effect of depression, it is through a change in the production rate of chemicals normally produced by the body. It's all chemistry, part of the physical world.
Though our potential for possessing "extrasensory" abilities may exist, we were able to evolve successfully without benefit of some of these super-sensory qualities coming to the fore...
Which, more likely, means that we don't have extrasensory adaptations.
Western religion and science is chiefly predicated on the supremacy of human life on earth.
That's true of western religion, but is not a scientific axiom.
Just as most of our religious beliefs are anthropomorphic in nature, it could be that there is a vast "force" beyond what we have been able to discern through current scientific thought.
Non sequitur?
Scientific theory can be biased--always has been. What is commonly accepted as gospel in one era can be discarded in the next.
Your choice of the word "gospel" is telling. Beginning with the Enlightenment, science has dispensed with its reliance on "authority." The fact that scientific "gospel" is episodically discarded simply demonstrates a lack of bias and a willingness to adjust to new knowledge. That's progress, and it's healthy. If you could read Newton's comments on his Law of Gravitation, for example, you will find that, while scientists as individuals can be an arrogant lot, scientists as a community are humble before Nature. The awareness that scientific theories are provisional is part and parcel of modern scientific thinking.
I believe that you are implying that science rejects extrasensory adaptations, and that you believe science will be proven wrong. Maybe. There is work being done in this area.
How can we fully understand the vastness of the universe, or presume that our role is more central than peripheral in the grand scheme of things?
But modern science is responsible for introducing the notion that Man is not central in the grand scheme of things. This is at the core of the science vs. religion debate.
It is commonly accepted, for example, that the moon not only controls the tides, but affects us as well, since we are primarily composed of water.
The Moon affects the oceans not because the oceans are composed of water but because gravity affects all matter. If the oceans were made of tetrachloroethylene, there would still be tides. The water in the ocean is unbounded. The water in your body is bounded. The force of gravity owing to the moon is much, much less that the gravitational force of that guy standing on the other side of the subway car. It is a common "lunar myth" that the Moon has any kind of effect on our behavior or on our physiology.
Part of our skepticism, I suspect, has to do with our very human capacity for hubris.
Nah, it's our very human capacity to use reason.
But as humans, we tend to believe that what we can measure, see, or prove is all there is.
This seems not to be the case, since the great majority of Americans, to take an example, believe in God.
29 - Elvira Black
Duane, you are too kind--I think I was basically babbling on there in all sorts of different directions. I'll blame it on lack of caffeine (lol)...
In any case, I am so thankful for your terrific comments. I will try to gather my thoughts and start fresh after I've had some rest.
30 - Dan
duane, I recognize and applaud your superior mathematical abilities. Well done.
The point of the royal flush analogy is to illustrate how some things that are possible, even inevitable, can still be highly implausable.
In Douglas Theobold's "The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a part, make it necessary", he sneers that Michael Behe's irreducably complex term is "silly" then goes on to demonstrate some silliness himself.
In his "stone bridge" analogy he attempts to show Behe's IC argument false by adding a flat stone spanning the three existing ones, then removing the middle stone.
But Theobold's analogy pre-supposes an existing, functional system! There is no new function created. The top stone is simply an improvement. Like an insurance policy. If half the existing pre-cursor bridges were vulnerable to losing the middle stone, then eventually all bridges with vulnerable middle stones would be gone. The improvement of the top stone would become unnecessary and wouldn't give a bridge an advantage in function.
31 - duane
Dan, I understand that events that appear unlikely can be compared to being dealt a series of royal flushes. But the royal flush analogy is not necessarily a good one in this case.
By the way, to be fair, I have seen counter-arguments by evolutionists that are also flawed and misleading. It's a very difficult subject, and I'm no expert.
To make your point, it's much easier to use dice. Card decks are more complicated because the population from which you draw the second card is different from the population from which you draw the first card, etc.
(Oh, by the way, thanks for the compliment, but it's really quite easy.)
Anyway, say you have five dice. You roll them all at the same time. How many rolls would you need to roll five 6's?
The probability of rolling a 6 is 1/6, so the probability of rolling five at a time is 1/6^5 = 1/7776. So, very roughly, if you roll the dice 7 or 8 thousand times, you might expect to roll five 6's one time. This is in line with your analogy.
But suppose I change the rules. Suppose you roll one die at a time: roll the first until you get a 6, leave it, roll the second until you get a 6, etc. Since you would expect to roll a 6 about one out of six times, you would expect that about 30 to 40 rolls are required to get your five 6's. That's a lot different from 7 or 8 thousand.
The question is: what are the "rules" of combination at the molecular level? That's the problem with the royal flush analogy, where the rules are elementary, and well understood. I don't think the rules at the molecular level are all that well understood.
32 - Dan
duane, again, very astute observation.
I think I can see the application relationship. If you consider the first 6 as a dormant chance mutation, then it exponentially shortens the time of waiting around for the subsequent mutation's that complete the interdependent multi-part function.
The card analogy might still hold though if you changed the rules and instead held only the royal cards, discarding each individually dealt non-royal card until you had your royal.
I don't know either how things work at the molecular level, nor do I understand to what degree of certainty those who make the calculations understand it. I'd imagine nature's deck of mutations to be near infinite.
Perhaps the human appendix organ is a collection of chance mutations waiting dormant for a card or two to activate a function that will save some of us from the comming global warming crisis.
Or maybe the appendix will become our ESP organ.
33 - duane
Dan says,
The card analogy might still hold though if you changed the rules and instead held only the royal cards, discarding each individually dealt non-royal card until you had your royal.
Yes.
I don't know either how things work at the molecular level, nor do I understand to what degree of certainty those who make the calculations understand it.
Right, same here. The problem is exacerbated by
(1) the environment is important, but unknown (maybe the dealer is clumsy and accidentally tosses cards onto the floor)
(2) biology at the time of life origin could differ from biology in the 21st century (maybe they used decks with six suits)
Also, you could change the question to "How long would it take for a living organism to evolve?" rather than, "What is the probability ...?" using a set of assumed "rules." So, by analogy, how long would you have to sit at the table before you were dealt 17 consecutive royals?" Of course, that would depend on how fast the cards are dealt. How fast are chemicals give the chance to form life-necessary compounds? That depends on the environment and the role of catalysts.
Or maybe the appendix will become our ESP organ.
Uh oh, I better get an appendix transplant ... just in case.
34 - Elvira Black
Duane #4: I'll do you one better (maybe):
Don't other planets have moons too?
35 - duane
Elvira: Don't other planets have moons too?
Yes.
36 - Elvira Black
Duane:
What do Jews think about the afterlife? Generally, they don't seem to think about it as overtly as Christians do.
I am somewhat familiar with Catholicism due to two of my long term relationships being with nice Catholic altar boys. My impression? Death and the afterlife are major upfront components of the faith. The central symbol of the crucifix--or the crucified Christ for Catholics--keeps this concept front and center at all times. Heaven and hell are much more defined (at least as the nuns and priests interpret it). The focus, after all, is on the death/sacrifice and "afterlife" of Christ--who died for our sins and will rise a second time to redeem/judge mankind.
For Jews, of course, the Messiah has yet to arrive, so as Ruvy (or Avis) might put it, "we try harder." What strikes me as particularly cogent is what I think of as the "get out of jail free card" loophole esp in born-again Christian denominations. All you have to do is repent, accept Jesus as your personal savior, and even the worst criminal is "forgiven" and has a place in heaven rather than hell. One quote I've heard (which I guess is attributed to Jesus) has to do with good works not being sufficient to get you into heaven--which gave me considerable pause.
Jews do take death seriously, and the afterlife is of course presumed to exist--or to exist more concretely at some future time (after the Messiah arrives?)--which kind of puts us in the same "waiting" situation as Christians. But again, the focus is more on the duties of the living to honor the dead...to mourn a parent or spouse for a full year; the obligation to say the Mourner's Kaddish; unveiling the gravestone of the departed after a year; visiting the cemetery around the High Holy Days; and so on. It is also customary to give to charity (or the shul) in honor of departed loved ones.
During the High Holy days (the Jewish New Year and the Day of Atonement), it is believed that each individual is either inscribed in the Book of Life for another year, or they are not. Jews also atone and fast for their sins, large and small on the Day of Atonement--wiping the slate clean, as it were, for the new year ahead. We have no Messiah as yet who has died for our sins, so we are responsible in full for them. (I also think the role of the Messiah for Jews is somewhat different in any event).
In Jesus' time, there were many false prophets and Messiahs, just as Jesus himself cautioned. I imagine it might have been a bit like being bombarded by the televangelists of today--how would you pick the "real" one from all the phonies and charlatans?
Another element of Judaism is that prosletizing to other faiths is not done. One of the things that annoys me about Christianity is also one of its central tenets--namely, Jesus' command to spread the word to others. Thus the faithful feel compelled to do their duty in this way so that more souls are saved in the hereafter. For an observant Jew, there are many requirements and duties that must be observed daily by the individual--a one on one pact between themselves and their creator. The focus is thus more on the here and now, and an individual's personal obligations, rather than an obligation to convert those from other faiths in order to save their souls. The details of the afterlife are less well defined, and the concept of hell is not really addressed--at least as far as I could gather after living with my Orthodox aunt and uncle for several years.
37 - Elvira Black
Gonzo #6:
There are other, older cultures where the shaman/healer was thought to possess special, somewhat G-dlike powers which could be considered "supernatural" in realm. My guess is that Western religions basically frown upon this, so culturally speaking it would not be honored or recognized.
Perhaps individuals with psychic abilities represent a recessive mutation at this point.
38 - Elvira Black
Doug #9:
Both Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism are "designed" to produce the maximum number of offspring. I think that many of the "shortcomings" you perceive amongst the "breeders" are primarily sociological in nature rather than innate.
I believe that intermarriage between different races/ethnicities is probably a good evolutionary move--since for starters excessive inbreeding can increase the chance of inheriting and replicating undesirable conditions (Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell, etc).
39 - Elvira Black
For Doug (and others) who find comfort in the idea of some sort of "force" beyond ourselves which doesn't seem to jive with current scientific thought:
I think Eastern philosophies may provide more acceptable spiritual answers for some. There seems to be less of a focus on "morality" as we perceive it--focusing instead on developing individual enlightenment in order to attain a connection rendering one more "at one" with the universal scheme of things. More metaphysical, less anthropomorphic than most Western beliefs, I gather. Ideally, one strives to achieve the maximum state/stage of personal enlightenment, which slso involves a certain level of detachment--thus less focus on "sin," "evil," "judgment," and the "ego." The force may not be G-d per se, but rather connecting with some sort of G-d-like force within that we share with all life forms. Thus the vastness of the universe only means that we are an integral part of this vastness, rather than merely a tiny "insignificant" speck. At least that's my take, based on scant knowlege of Buddhism, etc.
40 - cybcode
I think the evolution vs. intelligent design debate comes down to whether we are willing to use God to explain things. Evolution offers a natural explanation. It doesn't say that it's impossible that a god/intelligent designer did it. Likewise, Intelligent Design offers a godly ("intelligent") explanation. It doesn't say that it couldn't have occurred by chance (it can only say that it's unlikely). Scientists choose to stick to natural explanations.
But if we think about what "God" or "intelligent designer" means, we may realize the reason for this choice. There is no useful information in the definition of a god/designer. A god/designer is simply something that has the ability to design whatever we're struggling to explain. So using a god/designer to explain something is equivalent to stating "we can't explain this". That's a legitimate statement, but only when an explanation is not available.
41 - cybcode
Also, it's hard to accept intelligent design when there's virtually zero scientific support for it. I haven't encountered even a single "Intelligent Design scientist", except for Behe, and I have been actively interested in this topic for a while. The people who support Intelligent Design don't do it for science - their goal is to improve society (i.e. enforce Christianity). Almost every website that argues for intelligent design uses terribly flawed scientific arguments (what does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have to do with this?) and offers whole pages of irrelevant nonsense that seem to imply that they hope to convince the readers by confusing them. For example, in one website, an entire page devoted to explaining why genetic algorithms can't support evolution says only that genetic algorithms are a really lame engineering tool. Obviously most of the people who argue for intelligent design are biased - they have to be, because their argument is very weak.
42 - Elvira Black
Cybcode, I guess it all comes down to the element of "faith" in things that can't be empirically proven. One has to believe, if one is Christian, that Jesus was the savior; that he was resurrected, etc. based on accounts of the time. Most western religions are political in the sense that they seek to impose social engineering of some kind on their followers, which would lead a "thinking person" to a cynical conclusion on matters of faith.
Conversely, Western thought in general is based on a "faith" in the scientific method. But there could be a spiritual component that is not "measurable" in this way. The spirit, by common definition, is ethereal, not corporal.
Western medicine does not normally subscribe to traditional Chinese methods of healing because they have not been empirically tested. But it seems to do the trick for many and has been in existence for centuries. In addition, the pharmaceuticals we rely on often have side effects which don't make "sense" to us--which we cannot explain. More holistic methods seem to be less likely to cause these side effects, even if their efficacy has not been tested "scientifically." In other words, the scientific method is far from fool-proof, and sometimes a matter of trial and error. Western medicine is also less likely to treat the patient as the sum of its parts--recognizing that what one does to treat one part of the body can effect other parts, including the mind. Thus our greater skepticism of any "spiritual" component in healing, which we cannot adequately explain and thus tend to dismiss. In that case, that is our Western bias--our own Achilles heel.
For instance, our understanding of mental illness and addiction and our current treatments are woefully lacking, in my opinion. AA sometimes works based on a spiritual approach, and whether or not there is a Higher Power may be moot. Some believe the Higher Power comes from the group dynamic itself. How do you quantify these kinds of "healing" scientifically?
There is also a political/moral component to Western methodology, just as there is for religious belief. Pharmaceutical companies are not likely to support the legalization of medical marijuana, despite evidence that it can prove beneficial for many conditions. Such evidence will continue to be dismissed by many in the medical community for this reason--it is an affront to our "sacred"--yet sometimes rigid, sterile, and, yes, imperfect--scientific method.
43 - Elvira Black
Dan says:
"Perhaps the human appendix organ is a collection of chance mutations waiting dormant for a card or two to activate a function that will save some of us from the comming global warming crisis.
Or maybe the appendix will become our ESP organ."
Very cool!
44 - Elvira Black
Another thought: Could we be too "smart" for our own "good?"
Our "advanced" evolution has made it possible to utilize technology which transcends our own innate abilities. Nevertheless, we are still "animals" with impulses and emotions that are far from "scientific," "rational," or even beneficial for us as individuals and as a species.
Since we have been here for a small fraction of time, but our higher brains have evolved exponentially, there is still an "eternal" conflict between our limbic system--the "primitive" part of the brain which we share with other species--and our more "rational" brain. Sometimes the "rational" brain combined with the "emotional" one gets us into serious, and very complex, trouble, since the two portions of the brain are often in direct conflict. (Think, for example, of a smoker who knows smoking may kill him or her but cannot control the impulse through "rational" thought). Humans are like children playing with matches--there is real risk involved in our dance with technology which could ultimately lead to our extinction. We could just prove to be a passing blip in the universe--or perhaps other life forms elsewhere have evolved in a complex manner but in a form or way we cannot fathom.
In the end, what is more sound in the evolutionary scheme of things--to evolve individually and yet fail as a species and become extinct due largely to our own technology combined with our "animal instincts" such as aggression, territoriality, and perhaps "precocious" level of intelligence?
The dinosaurs did not bring their extinction on themselves. We may very well do so. Which species is/was more highly "evolved" for ultimate "survival?" We are the exception to the rule of evolution, since we "control" some of our own "evolution"-- and I believe we have the potential to sink or swim based on our own actions as a species. Our individualism can spell our doom, because we may do things that are detrimental to our species as a whole. Or rather, the movers and shakers have a disproportionate role in our chance for survival.
Perhaps this is where spiritual/"moral" questions might come to the fore. If we are more likely to survive if we embrace some form of spirituality,or at the very least a more enlightened connection and respect for each other and other life forms, is this a foolish thing? I don't think so.
45 - cybcode
There is nothing spiritual in any kind of medicine. Both western and eastern medicine is purely physical. They may work in different ways, but still completely physical ways. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is anything spiritual anywhere. The effect of drugs on our minds may not be completely understood, but it is well understood (as far as I know) that it is completely physical.
Western medicine IS mostly trial and error. That's how it should be.
Western medicine DOES treat the patient as a sum of its parts. That's why medicine that may be good for your heart, but may kill your liver, is normally not used (unless there is no choice). That's why people are developing medicine with less side effects, including "mind" side effects, such as fatigue, disorientation, depression, mood swings etc.
Western medicine is not biased - it is scientific. Science is not biased either. Science simply deals with the observable. If something cannot be observed (i.e. is not supported by evidence), then science assumes it to be nonexistent. Because of scientific reasoning we now know that ghosts, demons, witches, sorcerers and goblins do not exist. In the same manner, the medical effect of "spiritual healing" is nonexistent (in the sense that it is no better than placebo). You may claim that the effect exists, but cannot be observed in any way (directly or indirectly) because it is "not physical", but that would make no sense.
More holistic methods seem to cause less side effects, possibly because they generally have less effects. Holistic methods have not been adopted by western medicine because they haven't been shown to work. If acupuncture has been shown to be as effective or more effective than its alternatives in western medicine, why isn't it a part of western medicine today?
In my opinion, many eastern medical methods rely on the patient's belief in their efficacy (placebo effect), and otherwise have no medical effect.
BTW, I'm also Jewish.
46 - duane
Elvira, wow, you've been busy. Thanks for your #36.
47 - duane
Our individualism can spell our doom, because we may do things that are detrimental to our species as a whole. Or rather, the movers and shakers have a disproportionate role in our chance for survival.
Individualism is key to our survival. Think of it this way. Humans develop into societies for their own protection against the parts of Nature that are hostile. The population grows. Organization ensues in such a way to maximize efficiency, which means specialization. From a large population comes the means by which to provide the basic necessities of life and growth (food, shelter, reproduction). An "elite" class is allowed to develop, one that is free to sit around and argue about angels on the head of a pin (philosophy), one that is free to tinker in a workshop and invent useful (or harmful) tools (engineering, science), one that is free to codify human interactions (government, religion, philosophy), one that is free to ponder our relationship to Nature (philosophy, science), one that is free to enhance (or stagnate) our intellectual experience (art, literature, music, sitcoms), one that is free to find ways to curtail the biological impositions of Nature (medicine, science), and so forth.
Out of this "elite" come geniuses. The movers and shakers -- the one who harnessed fire, the one who discovered agriculture, the inventor of the wheel, Aristotle, Archimedes, Augustine, Aquinas, Hippocrates, Galileo, Calvin, Newton, Locke, Michaelangelo, da Vinci, Beethoven, Joyce, Darwin, the one who invented air conditioning, the one who invented Coca-Cola, and so forth (please excuse my Western bias).
Yes, indeed, these people have had a disproportionate role in our culture. How could it be any other way? Without them, we would be living lives of misery-- there never was a Tolkienesque Shire world.
Which is not to say that all of humanity is tiptoeing through the tulips, but look at me, for example -- not a member of the economic elite, but I have medical care when needed, food, shelter, time to peck away at a keyboard, gainful employment, time for play, time for intellectual endeavor. Bump me back to the 1600s and I would be covered in mud most of the time, toothless, in pain, probably dead by now, actually. Bump me back 10,000 years and I would be chasing after food, or dead.
We owe most everything that contributes to our quality of life to the elite of days gone by, and the shape of the future depends on the existence and actions of the current elite. The point is that individualism is required for advancement, but the ability of a population to produce and nurture such individuals is predicated on the work and stability of the masses. The elite class is therefore, not separate from society at large, but it is very directly the product of society.
Remove that individualistic elite from history, and yes, we would have no nukes, no cruise missiles, no bio-weapons, but we would also have a miserable quality of life -- we would be serfs at best (more likely, tribal), toiling away at a subsistence level, looking out at the flat Earth and the starry dome, waiting for God to rescue us.
48 - Elvira Black
Jetsons?
49 - duane
Elvira, yeah. I submitted a novella-length response to part of your #44 -- twice, I think. Maybe it will land here later, but for now I'll just let it meander through cyberspace.
Going away for a few days. Enjoyed the exchanges.
50 - Elvira Black
Duane:
I hate when that happens! Thanks for the great comments.
51 - Elvira Black
Duane, looks like your comment finally got posted!
Yes, what you say is true, but I guess I was thinking about the current Admin as one example--or dictators, religious extremists/leaders etc. As with all things human, it cuts both ways, no?
And thank goodness for whoever invented air conditioning.
52 - Elvira Black
cybcode #45:
Here I must disagree with you. I believe Western science does have its biases and is also funded largely by certain special interests which will affect what is studied. The pharmaceutical industry and lobby is incredibly powerful and its funding and influence often shapes what is studied.
There is little interest in holistic medicine because drug companies cannot readily profit from it.
And of course, many who are biased do not believe that they are....
Actually acupuncture and other alternative meds are gradually finding their way into Western medicine. Some insurance plans will cover such things as acupuncture and other holistic procedures. Hey, if it cures my pain, I don't necessarily need scientific proof of why or how it does so. My relief from pain is all the "evidence" I need.
When it comes to psychiatry and psychology, I definitely believe that we are still woefully ignorant of the intricacies of the brain. Psych meds work for some people and not others; can stop working; can have horrible side effects. Some meds originally used for totally different ailments (epilepsy) are nows used for mood disorders, and there is an incomplete understanding as to exactly why and how some of these compounds (sometimes) work. Why they work is still a relative mystery. But they do not work across the board, so I don't think they can be said to be perfect cures by any means.
And the placebo effect also seems to indicate that one can "think" oneself better to a certain extent. If you feel better, is this invalid simply because it cannot be measured or explained adequately?
Treating depression often involves a combo of pharmaceutical and psychological/social methodology. If drugs alone were all it took to cure mental illness, we wouldn't still have millions of people with mental disorders. Of course, the current "bias" in psychiatry is to throw meds at the patient until something "sticks."
You say:
"Western medicine is not biased - it is scientific. Science is not biased either. Science simply deals with the observable. If something cannot be observed (i.e. is not supported by evidence), then science assumes it to be nonexistent. Because of scientific reasoning we now know that ghosts, demons, witches, sorcerers and goblins do not exist."
I believe this IS a bias--just because something is not currently measurable does not mean it does not exist. Hence the hubris of Western science. Did DNA not exist before we could observe it? I believe that your statements about Eastern medicine are biased, based on evidence I've read and the fact that it is being implemented here to some degree. The Chinese have been using it for centuries--I don't believe it is all merely a placebo simply because it hasn't been tested scientifically. And oftimes pharmceuticals are derived at least in part from natural substances.
You mentioned you are Jewish. Does this mean that you retain some religious belief despite your hard scientific stance?
53 - cybcode
OK, let me restate a few things.
Western medicine may be somewhat biased towards what is more profitable. This is not the scope of bias I was referring to. I was simply replying to your claims of bias against "spiritual" medicine.
Can you give me an example of one type of holistic medical practice so I can understand what you're talking about? Is acupuncture a good example?
Acupuncture may be effective, perhaps more than placebo, if the evidence says so. I didn't say it wasn't effective. I'm just saying that its effectiveness (or the effectiveness of other "spiritual" medical practices) is not evidence for the existence of anything spiritual. If acupuncture works, it doesn't work by unblocking Chi. It works in some strictly physical way which may or may not be known to western medicine.
Obviously DNA existed before it could be observed. What I mean to say is that we should not accept/assume/invent new unsupported theories for things we can already quite adequately explain using well supported old theories. Also, we should not accept unsupported new theories that contradict well supported old ones.
In the "spiritual medicine" case:
1. It is not necessary to accept the existence of vague spiritual mechanisms that are not supported by any observable evidence, because there are already well supported theories that explain what's going on in our bodies.
2. Moreover, vague spiritual theories contradict the well supported physical theories. For example, if you have AIDS symptoms, a spiritual healer may say there's a problem with your Chi. I see that as a contradiction.
3. The people who argue for spiritual theories do not seek support by evidence. For them belief is good enough. They don't use the scientific method which we like so much, and that's a good reason not to take them seriously.
In the DNA case:
1. It's possible that there was no well supported alternative explanation before DNA was discovered.
2. It's possible that there was, but DNA did not contradict the well supported explanation (only extended it).
3. It's possible that there was, and DNA contradicted it, but once DNA became observable it was much more well supported by evidence than the old explanation.
The fact that DNA is now well supported doesn't mean that it should have been assumed to exist before it was well supported.
Can you point me to evidence that supports the effectiveness of acupuncture? I'm asking out of curiousity.
I'm a secular Jew. I have no religious beliefs and do not practice religion, except in holidays, because I like the food involved and because it's a family thing which I can't avoid.
54 - Elvira Black
cybcode:
I reviewed a book once by a prominent expert on artificial intelligence. He decided to investigate whether or not we as humans had any components that couldn't be replicated by AI. The name of the book was: "Are we Unique?"
His conclusion: No machine, however exquisitely designed, could ever replicate the way he felt when he first met the woman he would later marry.
There's an element of the ineffable in the world: in art, literature, music, philosophy. I respect your beliefs, but I do think you're underplaying the political/bureaucratic issues within the health profession. Scientific advances are not so effective if doctors do not apply them correctly due in indifference or ineptitude.
Have you ever been in love? Yes, I know--the body produces strong feel-good hormones; blah blah. But we are too varied and complex to be explained solely in this manner. I, in some way, believe in astrology because I choose to--the proof of it is beside the point.
It just sounds too 1984-ish: like the next step is to outlaw religion altogether in the Name of Scientific Truth. As John Lydon used to say: "No fun!"
I do have a link re: the efficacy of acupunture etc which I will find and post here shortly.
55 - Elvira Black
Here's the link on Chinese medicine from the San Francisco Chronicle.
56 - cybcode
I partially agree.
The truly confusing part is: "the way he FELT when he first met ..."
The confusion revolves around something known as qualia, which is our subjective perception of things. For example, the perception/feeling/meaning of the color red. Qualia are the one subject, in my opinion, that may never be adequately explained by science. We may be able to tell exactly what group of neurons fires when we see red, but we may not be able to explain why red is perceived subjectively the way it is (i.e. why red isn't green or blue). We may not be able to tell why we seem to have Qualia, and whether machines have it too. We may not even be able to tell whether other people have it (each person will say that he/she has subjective experiences, but it's easy enough to make a machine that will say the same thing).
I realize that I represent only my own opinion, and that I'm not familiar with all the (potential) weaknesses of science, but my impression is that Qualia are the only thing that science may never be able to explain using its physical tools. Science explains just about everything in the human body very elegantly. That's why it bothers me when people talk about spirits where they really aren't necessary, in the context of purely physical diseases. Spirits may be necessary to explain the things that we have no idea how to explain.
I know I've been repeating myself. What I intended to comment on in this post is what you say about "art, literature, music, philosophy". In my opinion those things are far from ineffable or mysterious in any way. It is quite possible to explain them physically (biologically) and even replicate them in machines - I'm sure the AI expert would agree (there are even primitive music composing AI programs in existence today). All those forms of expression are simply typical human behaviors that exist to some degree in animals too. What is fundamentally different about art (including literature and music)? What sort of non-physical mechanism is required in order to produce art? I even think that in many cases art is no more than imitation with some original recombination. Most poems are similar in structure and many are similar in content. The same is true for music as well. I think those are all overestimated (in the context of evidence for the existence of spiritual mechanisms). Even if you find a poem extremely exciting it doesn't mean there's anything spiritual involved. It just means the poem provides you with exciting stimulus. It's all very possible to explain biologically. I'm not saying easy to explain because we still need to map the entire human brain and that may take us a while - but it is certainly possible.
Yes, the body produces strong feel-good hormones. We are not too varied and complex to be explained in this way. Do you believe this is the entire explanation? Science doesn't really say "the body produces feel-good hormones, therefore we fall in love". That is only what you remember of the explanation that you've read. The interaction between many different types of feel-good hormones in the many different parts of the brain at different times and contexts is quite complex; complex enough to explain all the variety and complexity that we witness. Science may not have the full explanation right now, but it's constantly making progress and it seems to be going in the right direction.
Again, the entire brain can be mapped and every sort of behavior explained physically, to the degree that will enable us, in time, to create machines that will be behaviorally indistinguishable from humans. However, we may or may not be able to explain why red appears to be red, what sonar feels like to bats, what exactly the AI expert felt when he fell in love, and whether machines and other creatures have qualia.
This is not just my opinion, but also the opinion of my brain science lecturer (if I understood him correctly), and probably the general position of the field of neuroscience (I'm not referring to the qualia part - only to the opinion that everything can be explained biologically). Nevertheless, it may all be mistaken.
Thanks for the link.