Shunya's Notes

The Pale Blue Dot

Carl Sagan on the only home we have ever known (thoughts and images from Cosmos; 3:31 min):

Breaking the Galilean Spell

The scientific mind holds it as self-evident that all natural phenomena are bound by the laws of nature. We study such laws in physics and express them in the language of mathematics. The idea that all natural phenomena are also reducible to a sum of their parts, that micro components (iteratively down to sub-atomic particles) both describe and predict macro behavior, is called reductionism. Introduced by Descartes, its current proponents include Dennett, Dawkins, and Pinker.

The idea that reductionism has limits, particularly for highly complex systems like the biosphere and human culture (a wholly natural phenomenon), has also been around since at least Aristotle ("the whole is more than a sum of its parts"). Emergentism, as this hypothesis is called (or holism), claims that the fundamental laws of nature eventually run out of descriptive and predictive steam—not due to the inadequacy of our science but due to irreducible and unpredictable properties inherent in complex systems. Both reductionism and emergentism remain epistemological (as opposed to scientific) claims, though reductionism can boast of some inductive success on the verification front.

Stuart Kauffman, a scientist at the forefront of the idea of emergence, has written a new book, Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion, where he fleshes out this concept in more detail. Here is a brief excerpt:

Emergence is therefore a major part of the new scientific worldview. Emergence says that, while no laws of physics are violated, life in the biosphere, the evolution of the biosphere, the fullness of our human historicity, and our practical everyday worlds are also real, are not reducible to physics nor explicable from it, and are central to our lives. Emergence, already both contentious and transformative, is but one part of the new scientific worldview I embrace.

Even deeper than emergence and its challenge to reductionism in this new scientific worldview is what I call breaking the Galilean spell. Galileo rolled balls down incline planes and showed that the distance traveled varied as the square of the time elapsed. From this he obtained a universal law of motion. Newton followed with his Principia, setting the stage for all of modern science. With these triumphs, the Western world came to the view that all that happens in the universe is governed by natural law. Indeed, this is the heart of reductionism. Another Nobel laureate physicist, Murray Gell-Mann, has defined a natural law as a compressed description, available beforehand, of the regularities of a phenomenon. The Galilean spell that has driven so much science is the faith that all aspects of the natural world can be described by such laws. Perhaps my most radical scientific claim is that we can and must break the Galilean spell. Evolution of the biosphere, human economic life, and human history are partially indescribable by natural law. This claim flies in the face of our settled convictions since Galileo, Newton, and the Enlightenment.

More here.

When Languages Die

I have previously argued the importance of human diversity, including in the context of languages. Over half of the 7,000 languages in the world today are poised to die in a few decades, an event without parallel in human history. In a recent book, When Languages Die, author K. David Harrison asks: "What is lost when a language dies? What forms of knowledge are embedded in a language's structure and vocabulary? And how harmful is it to humanity that such knowledge is lost forever?" Here is a review by David Perlman:

A tiny community of reindeer herders in Siberia holds intimate knowledge of the lives, the foraging and the rutting season of their priceless animals, and it's the kind of information that is vital to anyone concerned by the loss of human cultures -- and to biologists worried about the loss of species diversity anywhere in the world.

Of the 426 members of Siberia's isolated Chulym people, only 35 still speak Tuvan, their ancient language, fluently, and they're all older than 50. Everyone else speaks only Russian, according to K. David Harrison, an adventuresome linguist at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania. Harrison has lived with the Chulym and hopes to preserve their vanishing language.

The Chulym can fully describe a "2-year-old male castrated rideable reindeer" with only the single word chary, and to Harrison, that not only shows how ancient languages differ from their modern counterparts, but is symbolic of a worldwide loss in important cultural diversity.

More here. 

Additional reviews here and here, an interview with the author, and Colbert's take on the topic. Also check out the ambitious Rosetta Project, "a global collaboration of language specialists and native speakers building a publicly accessible online archive of ALL documented human languages."

Is India a Science Superpower?

Not quite, says Meera Nanda, philosopher of science, in this 2005 article in Frontline, which ends with these words:

If India wants to become a genuine "science superpower", Indian scientists will have to do much more than just get integrated into the global pecking order of corporate research and development. They will have to develop a genuine culture of open, fearless questioning and experimentation within their laboratories and in the larger culture outside the walls of the laboratory.

This will require an overhaul of science education so that science is not treated as merely a matter of rote learning of technical formulas, but is integrated into a new secular understanding of nature and life. It is not enough for the institutions of higher learning in India to produce doctors and engineers who can perform well in the West, or in the IT/BT jobs imported from the West. They must produce critical thinkers who are engaged with larger issues that affect the cultural climate of their societies.

Until then, India will remain the "pseudo-science superpower" of the world.

I haven't read much by Nanda. While this article seems reasonable, other bits I've read—like the opening pages of Prophets Facing Backwards—seem to me rather shrill and simplistic, and her analysis of modern India too reliant on caricatures of both "postmodern intellectuals" (ascribing them too much influence in India) and the religious. It was no surprise when I noticed Dennett's endorsement of her book, which her publisher has paired with Dawkins' on Amazon. To her credit, she has sharply distanced herself from Harris. If I can motivate myself to read her forthcoming, God and Globalization in India, I'll attempt a proper review.

The Truth About Autism

As with many disorders of the brain, the gap between the reality and perception of autism can be large. Amanda Baggs is at the forefront of a movement that’s forcing researchers to rethink autism. Do watch the video referenced in the article below.

The YouTube clip opens with a woman facing away from the camera, rocking back and forth, flapping her hands awkwardly, and emitting an eerie hum. She then performs strange repetitive behaviors: slapping a piece of paper against a window, running a hand lengthwise over a computer keyboard, twisting the knob of a drawer. She bats a necklace with her hand and nuzzles her face against the pages of a book. And you find yourself thinking: Who's shooting this footage of the handicapped lady, and why do I always get sucked into watching the latest viral video?

But then the words "A Translation" appear on a black screen, and for the next five minutes, 27-year-old Amanda Baggs — who is autistic and doesn't speak — describes in vivid and articulate terms what's going on inside her head as she carries out these seemingly bizarre actions. In a synthesized voice generated by a software application, she explains that touching, tasting, and smelling allow her to have a "constant conversation" with her surroundings. These forms of nonverbal stimuli constitute her "native language," Baggs explains, and are no better or worse than spoken language. Yet her failure to speak is seen as a deficit, she says, while other people's failure to learn her language is seen as natural and acceptable.

And you find yourself thinking: She might have a point.

More here. Amanda also keeps a blog.

Hedges on the New Atheists

Chris Hedges, journalist and war correspondent, on why New Atheists like Hitchens and Harris are as dangerous as Christian fundamentalists:

I think a lot of their popularity stems from a legitimate anger on the part of a lot of Americans toward the intolerance and chauvinism of the radical religious right in this country. Unfortunately, what they've done is offer a Utopian belief system that is as self-delusional as that offered by Christian fundamentalists. They adopt many of the foundational belief systems of fundamentalists. For example, they believe that the human species is marching forward, that there is an advancement toward some kind of collective moral progress -- that we are moving towards, if not a Utopian, certainly a better, more perfected human society. That's fundamental to the Christian right, and it's also fundamental to the New Atheists.

You know, there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. I mean, industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. So I think that I find the faith that these people place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels.

In other words, material progress without moral progress—the two have no obvious correlation—only raises the stakes for humanity. The New Atheists conflate the two, thus creating a justification for a neo-con imperial agenda. Read the transcript of the full interview here.

On Nuclear Energy

A compelling presentation on why nuclear energy must be a significant part of a clean energy solution (Gwyneth Cravens and Rip Anderson). What's needed next is a slick production -- "An Inconvenient Truth, Part II" -- to tie it all together using more charismatic presenters.

How Terrorism Works

Experts on Islamic terrorism are now everywhere, spouting wisdom on countless media outlets and blogs. Most of them—including scholars, novelists, scientists—reflexively summon their gut to explain what turns Muslims into terrorists, marshaling anecdotes and selective data as evidence. The Qur'an is the underlying cause to some, sociopolitical inequities to others; virgins in paradise explain much to some, follies of US foreign policy to others; hatred of "freedom-loving" West suffices for some, dislocations of modernity to others. Rare is the attempt to understand terrorists themselves as social and moral beings (as, for instance, in the movie Paradise Now).

An insightful analyst of modern terrorism is Scott Atran (see my previous post on Sacred Conflicts). He has done pioneering field research on suicide bombers and the social dynamics of terrorist networks. Watch this remarkable lecture he gave at the Beyond Belief conference in Nov 2007 (attached below). The same material is summarized in this slideshow for the US State Department (I'm surprised they invited him and wonder how he was received). Here are ten conclusions I've selected from it:

Global Al-Qaeda is now a viral, social movement and political ideology, not a well organized operation with command and control. Young men self-radicalize in their social groups as soccer and camp buddies, neighbors and schoolmates, etc.
 

The new wave of terrorism is about "youth culture", not the Koran. It cannot be checked by military means or elders spouting niceties from the Koran, but with ideas and proposals for action that address their sense of injustice and moral outrage.
 

Prison radicalization in the USA vs. Europe differs significantly: Foreign-born Muslims, like Jews, are underrepresented in US prisons. But Muslims in European prisons are wildly over-represented (for many of the same reasons that Blacks in US prisons are over-represented). Nevertheless, prior religious education is a negative predictor of radicalization.

The Last Empire

August afternoons in Shanghai, ambling down Nanjing Road with posh boutiques blasting chilled air through open doors into the sultry street, one might imagine that energy is free in China. At less than 5c per KWH, it is certainly cheap (10c in India and the US). But the real costs are hidden, though, increasingly, not very well. Most visitors to China are struck by its urban air pollution. A pall of sulphrous smoke hangs over towns and cities and even wafts through the countryside into neighboring countries. One new coal-fired power plant opens each week. Respiratory illnesses are common. In 2006, China surpassed the US to become the leading producer of green house emissions in the world.

This is not breaking news. Much has been written about China's environmental crisis in recent years: vanishing forests, encroaching desert, depleting ground water, acid rain, toxic chemicals in polluted rivers, etc. China has clearly prioritized economic growth over environmental health. But a part of the problem is inherent in the drivers of its economic growth -- China has become the industrial heartland of the world. The developed countries have, in effect, shifted their factories and pollution to China (this is one outsourcing no politician in the US complains about). As a result, as consumers, all of us are now a party to China's environmental crisis. Each time we buy a plastic toy, a blender, or an iPod, we send a puff of sulphrous smoke into China's air. And some of it is coming back to haunt us in our own backyards!

A decent survey of China's environmental malaise by Jacques Leslie recently appeared in Mother Jones:

Pinker, the Storyteller

Many evolutionary psychologists, including Steven Pinker, professor at Harvard, claim that our minds at birth are not a blank slate, and further, that evolution has endowed humans with a "moral instinct". In other words, we have evolved an instinct to act often from motives beyond narrow self-interest, and to make value judgments like right/wrong, just/unjust, etc.

This seems reasonable to me. We appear to be a complex mix of nature and nurture. But what is the relationship between our evolutionary programming and our everyday morality? Can a science of the moral instinct explain human morality? Or does the realm of culture and experience muddy up the waters too much?

First of all, it is worth noting that the moral instinct, like other instincts, is only a driving force; it is amoral by itself—just as our instinct for power is distinct from power itself, instinct for storytelling distinct from stories, instinct for sex distinct from sex. Morality comes into play when value is assigned to an act or idea, for e.g., robbing a rich landlord and calling it just, or declaring torture wrong. Our moral instinct, quite unbidden, simply drives us to weigh the impact of an act on others and assign to it a value. (Anthropological data suggests that, in addition to this moral instinct, certain aspects of our morality may also be universal and could be innate.)

Let's compare the moral instinct with another human instinct, say, hunger. When hunger kicks in, it wants to be assuaged. How it is assuaged generally varies by taste—snakes and strawberries could both satisfy, since both are nutritious, chewable, etc. Likewise, the moral instinct can be "assuaged" in multiple ways, a fact evident across space and time in the range of human moralities, which nevertheless share some common ground and bounds. The idea that a science of the moral instinct (or "moral sense") can explain human morality—perhaps even become the basis of a "scientific morality"—seems to me about as persuasive as the idea that a science of hunger can explain "taste". We can learn many facts about hunger, but can they explain the many "tastes" around the world (likewise for the musical instinct)? This simple distinction is often ignored, including, it seems to me, by Pinker, who believes that "much of what makes you you resides in your genome." *