I know that the New York Times isn't particularly well-known as a publication of philosophical rigor, but this article in yesterday's issue just really irritated me with its pseudo-philosophical babble trying to tie together philosophical theories of mind, theological theories of soul, and evolutionary science in a neat little pop-science package:
The result is perhaps the strongest challenge yet to the worldview summed up by Descartes, the 17th-century philosopher who divided the creatures of the world between humanity and everything else. As biologists turn up evidence that animals can exhibit emotions and patterns of cognition once thought of as strictly human, Descartes's dictum, "I think, therefore I am," loses its force.
The big issue, of course, is that this completely misses Descartes' point.
Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, is the same as: I think therefore I
exist. It simply means that if i were in a world where I couldn't believe a single thing that I perceived with any certainty (suppose I'm in
the Matrix), I could still have access to one bit of knowledge: by virtue of the fact that I can think
I must exist.
It's true enough that Descartes separated humans (as soul-owners) from other animals. But this particular quotation, apart from being sound bite–worthy, has nothing to do with Descartes' separation of humans from animals. Furthermore, the view that humans are unique has been universal in western thought since western thought has existed. I don't mean to sound pedantic, but the Times can surely do better than this fluff.
Labels: evolution, philosophy, religion, sham
Yesterday I was talking to an old friend - a thoughtful, intelligent, well-educated, successful, and religious man. I told him that I was concerned that my sister was growing up in an environment that was leading her to believe in a religious account of life and to reject evolution. Since, like my sister, he is also a Muslim, I asked him about his own stance on evolution. His response was interesting - if not disheartening. He said that it wasn't an issue he thought about much, but he accepted the general Islamic account that rejects evolution. We talked about it briefly, but it was clear that we weren't going to get anywhere. The interesting part, however, was his claim that those who argue for evolution are just as "fundamentalist" as those they claim to reject.
This claim underscores the very real danger of breaking every issue down into a dichotomy. It is similar to the "intelligent design" tactic of "teaching the controversy." And luckily, on this small point, I managed to convince my friend that passion does not equal fundamentalism. I tend to argue by example - and here is the example I drew: suppose two people are arguing. One of them believes that (1 + 1 = 10) whereas the other believes that (1 + 1 = 2). Even if we suppose that both of them are arguing just as loudly, the fact is that only one point of view is defensible. The sheer
volume of the right arguer does not make him a fundamentalist. And one can only hope that there is no "controversy" to teach in this case.
The underlying assumption of my analogy was that the defender of (1 + 1 = 2) had arrived at his conclusion by reason. So if circumstances had been different - suppose they had been talking about a
binary numeral system - he would have been perfectly willing to accept that in such a system (1 + 1) does indeed equal 10. In other words, when he is confronted with a
good reason to change his views, he will. The fundamentalist, on the other hand, is committed to his belief regardless of evidence. By a funny coincidence, I happened to read
Richard Dawkins' take on being called a fundamentalist because of his passionate defense of evolution today. (This is my second Dawkins link this week. Go figure.)
Labels: evolution, intelligent design, islam, religion
(1) The bait:
Suppose you find a watch in a field.
(2) The hook:
Surely, it is too complex to have been created by natural processes.
(3a) The sinker?
Therefore, you assume it must have been created by a watchmaker (or, perhaps, by more than one watchmaker).
(3b) And just in case you missed "the sinker:"
How then, when we see the infinitely more complex processes of the universe, can we not come to the conclusion that the universe, too, must have been designed by an intelligent being (or perhaps by more than one)? So the universe must have been created by one or more designers.
(-1) Out of the frying pan, over the fire, and back into the lake:
Let's try this again. Suppose you find a watch in a field. It is too complex to have been created by natural processes. Therefore, you assume it must have been created by an intelligent designer. Right? Ok, sure. So you look closely, and sure enough the watch has an inscription, which reads: "I was made by Afshin. He is intelligent. He is a designer. And in case you were wondering, he is not God." So then you see Afshin. He's
much more complex than the watch. So you think, "Gee, Afshin sure is complex. He must have been designed by an intelligent designer or two." So even though you don't see Afshin's intelligent designer(s), you're pretty sure about the designer(s)' existence.
(0) Do you see the problem, yet?
So you've reasoned your way into believing that the complex watch was designed by more-complex Afshin. Then you've reasoned your way into believing that the more-complex Afshin was designed by an even-more-complex designer. Now, why isn't that even-more-complex designer (whose complexity
surely implies an intelligent designer - or a whole team of them) an indication of even-more-than-even-more-complex designer(s)? In other words: for all
x, with complexity
C(x),
x must have been designed by a designer,
y, with a complexity
C(y) greater than
C(x), which leads to an infinite regress.
Labels: evolution, intelligent design, logic, philosophy, religion
. . . (particularly when it involves medicine)
I've been watching PBS's "
Evolution" series, and even though most of you already know this, I want to use this quotation to reiterate one of my reasons for shying away from doctors. It comes from the fourth episode, "The Evolutionary Arms Race:"
TB is just the tip of the iceberg. The microbes that cause malaria, pneumonia, gonorrhea, and scores of other infectious diseases are also evolving drug resistance. Misuse of antibiotics is one cause. Overuse is another. In the United States, nearly half of all prescriptions are unnecessary or inappropriate.
"We've created this problem: multi-drug resistance is a man-made problem. And we do that by putting antibiotics in animal feeds, we have antibiotics running rampantly through hospitals, we have antibiotics in the environment. By developing as many antibiotics as we have over the last fifty years, we've essentially accelerated an evolutionary process. The outcome is that we're going to have more drug-resistant microbes to the point where some of the most dangerous bacteria will not be treatable. We're racing against the microbes every day and, unfortunately, we're losing."
(Barry N. Kreiswirth - Public Health Research Institute)
It's an arms race without end. The more drugs we launch at microbes, the more resistance they evolve. Maybe it's time to change our strategy.
I know that people like to have drugs on hand for any occasion. Everybody has a doctor or nurse in the family, or a friend who has some drugs left over from a prescription, et cetera . . . and all of these casual usages of antibiotics (and other drugs) only compound the problem created by the over-prescription which has led to such a saturated environment. And let's not forget all of the evil "antibacterial" cleaning supplies, lotions and soaps we find everywhere. So please, when I try to recover from the supermicrobes you and your overuse of these products and medicines have created, at least don't patronize me and insist I see a doctor who will most likely prescribe drugs I do not need and should not use. And please stop creating the superbugs who are trying to kill me!
Labels: antibiotic resistance, evolution
While
Eshan continues to have great faith in the American ability to remain innovative, I have long maintained a much more pessimistic outlook. We are regressing: the engines of our innovation are faltering under a severe burden of ideology. In a nation where 42% of the population believes that "
life has existed on Earth in its present form since the beginning of time," and another 18% believes that evolution is guided by an intelligent being, we are compelled, then, to put our hopes in the 26% who believes in evolution via natural selection (leaving 10% who simply do not know and another 4% who believe in evolution of some sort, but are not sure what the mechanism of evolution might be). It can be argued that 26% of the population is a large enough proportion to sustain our position as a leader in scientific innovation, but the proposal seems unlikely to me. The only reason we have not yet stumbled is because we import so much brainpower from the rest of the world, but as America becomes more hostile towards science, that stream will dry up, too. Throughout much of history, science and religion have not been mutually exclusive, but as we find ourselves reaching a point in science where it demands to be divorced from religion, more and more Americans are taking the wrong side. Since nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans are "open to" the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in our schools (and 38% want creationism taught
instead of evolution), it's pretty clear that our children won't have a chance in the global market against children who are taught, I don't know,
science.
Labels: 'merica, creationism, evolution, sham
It often takes a philosopher to tell it like it is. And
this is what it's like.
Labels: 'merica, education, evolution, philosophy, sham
