Sunday, April 30, 2006
Mind and Body
I am reading a carefully written and well considered book - Political Reasoning and Cognition - A Piagetian view. In completing the chapter where the authors describe Piaget's theories, they make the statement that his theories begin with the assumption that "The life of the mind is at one with the life of the organism." Such a simple statement, phrased elegantly. But, the statement is really a very important and profound one and is at the heart of many of the deeper intellectual, moral and spiritual conflicts of our day.
The mind and body are one. A materialist viewpoint - and one I share. There is no mind without the body. Learning, thinking and feeling are all physical processes. In fact, learning requires a physical change - neurons to be connected in a different way to other neurons. To a biologist, this may seem obvious. But non-biologists exist in many states of confusion on this very issue.
The alternative to this view is to believe that there is some magical and intangible other thing - your spirit or your soul or even your mind - that is not physcial. It was not long ago that even the greatest thinkers assumed that such a thing existed. The mind seemed far to complex and mysterious to be a physical phenomenon. It had to come from some other realm - an abstract place rather than a physcial one - the spiritual realm.
Being a computer scientist, as well as an amateur cognitive scientist, I have a good feel for the possibility of the mind being physical. I know from my experience in making little pieces of "mind" by programming, that the size of the brain and the number of neurons is enough to be responsible for our thoughts and feelings. This may still seem counterintuitive to most. To me, it seems very plausible. I can guess how it is done - it seems tantalizingly possible to understand.
There are many notions that people embrace commonly that are tied to a non-physical mind. The soul is one. The idea of the soul was conceived to explain the complexities of our thoughts, feelings and behavior, in absence of the understanding of the complexities of the brain. Ghosts and spirits - non-corporeal beings - make no sense to a materialists. These are illusions - fantasies. Dead people are gone. An afterlife seems implausible.
And, if the mind makes us human, and without it we are not, then many ethical questions arise. The potential for a future human existence of an embryo or fetus could still make abortion unethical - but it is not the same as killing a human with a functioning mind. But then - is abortion less ethical than birth control, since birth control also prevents a potential human from reaching humanity? This takes the question to an extreme that now seems less reasonable. If there is no soul, then an embryo does not have one - and abortion does not destroy a "human", just a potential human. The idea of the soul makes abortion an obvious crime. Without it, things are not so clear at all.
What about the brain-damaged, the severely retarded, and the profoundly senile? They are less human, too, by my definition. To me, if there is a reason to protect them, then it is not to prevent murder, but to exercise compassion. Society should be soft-hearted whenever it can - to create an environment that is nurturing. This generosity is best whenever it can afford to be exercised, so that people are not hardened and cruel. But, in a different situation, where resources were scarce, if I had to choose between the survival of a brain-damaged person and a normal one, I would choose the normal one. And, I suspect even people who would say that they couldn't do that, actually would do it, without a lot of hesitation. We do pull the plug, even now. I think we treat all retarded people as "human" to avoid drawing the bright line where one more IQ point makes you human and one less makes you not. This would be a hard line to draw, an uncomfortable line.
Another uncomfortable aspect of Piaget's theories is that they create a clear hierarchy of cognition. He clearly identifies one set of cognitive abilities as better than another. And he defines a metric, a test, for this superiority that I can easily agree with. If one person's cognitive abilities permit them to more accurately understand the world and predict outcomes, then they are better. This idea goes against much of our current thinking about equality. It's okay to us to say that "Joe is a better athlete than Sam" or "Ellen is prettier that Linda." But, we are somewhat squeamish at saying that "Larry has better cognitive processes than Alan."
I still am only halfway through the book to go on political reasoning, but I am already thinking about the implications. At this point in U.S. history, we are treating everyone's political beliefs as deserving equal respect - sort of. But, those that are formed using an inferior cognitive model are inferior, so this book points out. This, I suspect, is at the heart of all the venom and name calling going on right now. Simplistic thinkers, who are bad predictors and poor problem solvers, are demanding equal respect. Those with better capability put the weaker ideas down.
What a minefield this is. No wonder psychologists have avoided applying their theories to the humanities. So many cherished ideas and beliefs would be discarded. I think this is responsible for the growing gulf between scientists and non-scientists.
I am reading a carefully written and well considered book - Political Reasoning and Cognition - A Piagetian view. In completing the chapter where the authors describe Piaget's theories, they make the statement that his theories begin with the assumption that "The life of the mind is at one with the life of the organism." Such a simple statement, phrased elegantly. But, the statement is really a very important and profound one and is at the heart of many of the deeper intellectual, moral and spiritual conflicts of our day.
The mind and body are one. A materialist viewpoint - and one I share. There is no mind without the body. Learning, thinking and feeling are all physical processes. In fact, learning requires a physical change - neurons to be connected in a different way to other neurons. To a biologist, this may seem obvious. But non-biologists exist in many states of confusion on this very issue.
The alternative to this view is to believe that there is some magical and intangible other thing - your spirit or your soul or even your mind - that is not physcial. It was not long ago that even the greatest thinkers assumed that such a thing existed. The mind seemed far to complex and mysterious to be a physical phenomenon. It had to come from some other realm - an abstract place rather than a physcial one - the spiritual realm.
Being a computer scientist, as well as an amateur cognitive scientist, I have a good feel for the possibility of the mind being physical. I know from my experience in making little pieces of "mind" by programming, that the size of the brain and the number of neurons is enough to be responsible for our thoughts and feelings. This may still seem counterintuitive to most. To me, it seems very plausible. I can guess how it is done - it seems tantalizingly possible to understand.
There are many notions that people embrace commonly that are tied to a non-physical mind. The soul is one. The idea of the soul was conceived to explain the complexities of our thoughts, feelings and behavior, in absence of the understanding of the complexities of the brain. Ghosts and spirits - non-corporeal beings - make no sense to a materialists. These are illusions - fantasies. Dead people are gone. An afterlife seems implausible.
And, if the mind makes us human, and without it we are not, then many ethical questions arise. The potential for a future human existence of an embryo or fetus could still make abortion unethical - but it is not the same as killing a human with a functioning mind. But then - is abortion less ethical than birth control, since birth control also prevents a potential human from reaching humanity? This takes the question to an extreme that now seems less reasonable. If there is no soul, then an embryo does not have one - and abortion does not destroy a "human", just a potential human. The idea of the soul makes abortion an obvious crime. Without it, things are not so clear at all.
What about the brain-damaged, the severely retarded, and the profoundly senile? They are less human, too, by my definition. To me, if there is a reason to protect them, then it is not to prevent murder, but to exercise compassion. Society should be soft-hearted whenever it can - to create an environment that is nurturing. This generosity is best whenever it can afford to be exercised, so that people are not hardened and cruel. But, in a different situation, where resources were scarce, if I had to choose between the survival of a brain-damaged person and a normal one, I would choose the normal one. And, I suspect even people who would say that they couldn't do that, actually would do it, without a lot of hesitation. We do pull the plug, even now. I think we treat all retarded people as "human" to avoid drawing the bright line where one more IQ point makes you human and one less makes you not. This would be a hard line to draw, an uncomfortable line.
Another uncomfortable aspect of Piaget's theories is that they create a clear hierarchy of cognition. He clearly identifies one set of cognitive abilities as better than another. And he defines a metric, a test, for this superiority that I can easily agree with. If one person's cognitive abilities permit them to more accurately understand the world and predict outcomes, then they are better. This idea goes against much of our current thinking about equality. It's okay to us to say that "Joe is a better athlete than Sam" or "Ellen is prettier that Linda." But, we are somewhat squeamish at saying that "Larry has better cognitive processes than Alan."
I still am only halfway through the book to go on political reasoning, but I am already thinking about the implications. At this point in U.S. history, we are treating everyone's political beliefs as deserving equal respect - sort of. But, those that are formed using an inferior cognitive model are inferior, so this book points out. This, I suspect, is at the heart of all the venom and name calling going on right now. Simplistic thinkers, who are bad predictors and poor problem solvers, are demanding equal respect. Those with better capability put the weaker ideas down.
What a minefield this is. No wonder psychologists have avoided applying their theories to the humanities. So many cherished ideas and beliefs would be discarded. I think this is responsible for the growing gulf between scientists and non-scientists.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Resisting the Paradigm Shift
In thinking about scientific revolutions - and why they can be slow - you have to examine the phenomenon of change resistance. My first thought was that the more time and effort that a person has expended on building, defending and studying a particular model of the world, the less likely they are to want to let go of it and "remodel". This seems intuitive. Of course, intuitive theories can be wrong.
Thomas Kuhn's book speaks a lot of this resistance. Many other books focus on it. Pinker's The Blank Slate loudly complains about the resistance of the nurture folk to the idea that nature was a big factor after all. Same for The Bell Curve - which whines about resistance to the notion that I.Q. is inherited.
So, the question is "Why the resistance, even in the face of convincing evidence?". Shouldn't cognitive scientists take a cogsci view of this? What's going on in the human mind in this case? It seems quite difficult to study true significant paradigm shifts and the resistance to them. It violates "the prime directive" of non-interference. Who could devise an experiment that would seriously attempt to dislodge a core belief system of real human beings, measuring what's going on there, that would pass an ethics review? And you can't study this in animals easily - they don't seem to form models in the same way that we do.
Some questions that would be interesting to answer are:
Some of the answers to this puzzle are related to the understanding of belief. Psychologists who study religion - like Dennett, Atran and Damasio - know something about what it takes to people fervent and devoted believers. There are some interesting aspects of this that support my "effort thesis". The more someone sacrifices for their belief - through tithing, fasting, scorn, etc. - the firmer their belief. It is also very effective to add a "poison pill" to the belief structure - "doubting will damn you to hell". In the academic world of science, the equivalents are the sacrifices of graduate study and the fear of a ruined career.
It seems to me that some scientific disciplines are more doctrinaire than others. And disciplines seem to go through doctrinaire periods and more open periods. What's happening here? This could be studied - as a population study.
Why would you want to understand this better? Is it worthwhile trying to grease the wheels of science? It seems to me that it would be preferable to decrease the resistance to letting go of scientific models that are apparently invalid, especially if they are being propped up for reasons that are unscientific - like fear or greed. Science attempts to overcome the foibles of human nature - the emotional needs of people and logical and perceptual flaws - to develop truer and truer models of the world. This goal has no real room for supporting flawed models once their flaws are exposed.
In thinking about scientific revolutions - and why they can be slow - you have to examine the phenomenon of change resistance. My first thought was that the more time and effort that a person has expended on building, defending and studying a particular model of the world, the less likely they are to want to let go of it and "remodel". This seems intuitive. Of course, intuitive theories can be wrong.
Thomas Kuhn's book speaks a lot of this resistance. Many other books focus on it. Pinker's The Blank Slate loudly complains about the resistance of the nurture folk to the idea that nature was a big factor after all. Same for The Bell Curve - which whines about resistance to the notion that I.Q. is inherited.
So, the question is "Why the resistance, even in the face of convincing evidence?". Shouldn't cognitive scientists take a cogsci view of this? What's going on in the human mind in this case? It seems quite difficult to study true significant paradigm shifts and the resistance to them. It violates "the prime directive" of non-interference. Who could devise an experiment that would seriously attempt to dislodge a core belief system of real human beings, measuring what's going on there, that would pass an ethics review? And you can't study this in animals easily - they don't seem to form models in the same way that we do.
Some questions that would be interesting to answer are:
- Is the resistance to change proportional to the personal investment in the model? (I suspect somewhat)
- What techniques are the most effective?
- Can you detect the tipping point when the old model breaks?
- How long does it take to incorporate a new model? What are the stages?
Some of the answers to this puzzle are related to the understanding of belief. Psychologists who study religion - like Dennett, Atran and Damasio - know something about what it takes to people fervent and devoted believers. There are some interesting aspects of this that support my "effort thesis". The more someone sacrifices for their belief - through tithing, fasting, scorn, etc. - the firmer their belief. It is also very effective to add a "poison pill" to the belief structure - "doubting will damn you to hell". In the academic world of science, the equivalents are the sacrifices of graduate study and the fear of a ruined career.
It seems to me that some scientific disciplines are more doctrinaire than others. And disciplines seem to go through doctrinaire periods and more open periods. What's happening here? This could be studied - as a population study.
Why would you want to understand this better? Is it worthwhile trying to grease the wheels of science? It seems to me that it would be preferable to decrease the resistance to letting go of scientific models that are apparently invalid, especially if they are being propped up for reasons that are unscientific - like fear or greed. Science attempts to overcome the foibles of human nature - the emotional needs of people and logical and perceptual flaws - to develop truer and truer models of the world. This goal has no real room for supporting flawed models once their flaws are exposed.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Deep Versus Wide
I've always been very interested in science. I had a chemistry set and a telescope when I was 13 - and I really used them all the time. I had my own bunsen burner and a bench in the garage! I read science books when I was even younger. I did those Martin Gardner math puzzle books for fun.
I was an excellent student, winning prizes, with a very high SAT score, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a Computer Science degree, completing 4 years of undergraduate college in 2 calendar years. I have a 4.0 in my Masters degree.
You would think I was an ideal candidate for a PhD program. But, I wasn't really interested. I could see that I did not belong. I am not a "depth" person. Thus my blog's name - I am a wanderer. I am ever the multidisciplinarian. I could never devote years of my life to focusing in on some small aspect of science - my mind would wander off to other things that interested me. It's not that I lack discipline - I am a very self-disciplined person. My GPA, my career success, my always being on time, my never turning in anything late, my ability to stick to calorie restriction, my devoted blogging - they all attest to this. It's just that I am an integrator and a synthesizer by nature. I am always tying things together that other people don't see as related. It is my compulsion.
I have the deepest respect and, indeed, gratitude for the scientists all over the world who devote their lives to studying nature and figuring out how things work. We owe them much. But, I can't do what they do. I love science so much, that I have always wanted to contribute to it. But, it has always seemed to me a flaw in our system of academic and research institutions that there is no obvious place for me. Where does a very bright generalist go? My solution so far has been to spend many hours a week studying and thinking about many scientific topics on my own - and to spend my career as a supportive and facilitative manager of scientists and engineers. I understand them well, match them intellectually, and can speak all their languages enough to get by. I can help them formulate approaches and unstick them when they get stuck. I can plan and lead project teams. But, it seems like I could contribute more to science. I have lots of theories and observations that tie things together across disciplines. I see patterns and connections that others don't see.
That's why cognitive science appeals to me so much. It's a very multi-disciplinarian effort. It seems to collect all the folks who do more than one thing. Every so often, I troll around university sites, thinking there is some place there for me. The idea of study always appeals to me and I would like to publish. I've had many ideas over the years - natural language processing, linguistics, nutrition, genetics. But, it seems like their should be somewhere I can synthesize and generalize - formally. Synthesis would be a valuable thing. Science doesn't just progress by working out the details.
This issue arises at my job. We do some R&D, often internally funded, but for the most part do consulting to the government on technical and scientific things that are complicated or difficult. We have a miniculture that is like academia - a set of Fellows that are specialists in various things. Like most academics, they worry about keeping up their credentials. They publish, they focus, they know a lot about their particular topic. But, our clients rarely want to pay for their time - at least very much of it. And they don't like to work on things that are "not their area of expertise". The rest of the company tends to be mostly generalists - systems engineers, physicists turned into computer scientists, computer scientists turned into project management experts, for instance. I am one of these - a very experienced and versatile one of these. My company sometimes struggles to figure out how to make all this hang together well. How do we make the best use of the specialists? Apply their knowledge in all the places it could be used? How do we formalize the ideas and work of the generalists? It's the same problem.
One thought I have had is that I should work on this very problem. Why not try to come up with ways to formalize synthesis? Maybe this should be what Departments of Philosophy should be focused on - love of knowledge, after all. Maybe the Web is the answer. After all, it is the World Wide Web. And wide is my dimension.
I've always been very interested in science. I had a chemistry set and a telescope when I was 13 - and I really used them all the time. I had my own bunsen burner and a bench in the garage! I read science books when I was even younger. I did those Martin Gardner math puzzle books for fun.
I was an excellent student, winning prizes, with a very high SAT score, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a Computer Science degree, completing 4 years of undergraduate college in 2 calendar years. I have a 4.0 in my Masters degree.
You would think I was an ideal candidate for a PhD program. But, I wasn't really interested. I could see that I did not belong. I am not a "depth" person. Thus my blog's name - I am a wanderer. I am ever the multidisciplinarian. I could never devote years of my life to focusing in on some small aspect of science - my mind would wander off to other things that interested me. It's not that I lack discipline - I am a very self-disciplined person. My GPA, my career success, my always being on time, my never turning in anything late, my ability to stick to calorie restriction, my devoted blogging - they all attest to this. It's just that I am an integrator and a synthesizer by nature. I am always tying things together that other people don't see as related. It is my compulsion.
I have the deepest respect and, indeed, gratitude for the scientists all over the world who devote their lives to studying nature and figuring out how things work. We owe them much. But, I can't do what they do. I love science so much, that I have always wanted to contribute to it. But, it has always seemed to me a flaw in our system of academic and research institutions that there is no obvious place for me. Where does a very bright generalist go? My solution so far has been to spend many hours a week studying and thinking about many scientific topics on my own - and to spend my career as a supportive and facilitative manager of scientists and engineers. I understand them well, match them intellectually, and can speak all their languages enough to get by. I can help them formulate approaches and unstick them when they get stuck. I can plan and lead project teams. But, it seems like I could contribute more to science. I have lots of theories and observations that tie things together across disciplines. I see patterns and connections that others don't see.
That's why cognitive science appeals to me so much. It's a very multi-disciplinarian effort. It seems to collect all the folks who do more than one thing. Every so often, I troll around university sites, thinking there is some place there for me. The idea of study always appeals to me and I would like to publish. I've had many ideas over the years - natural language processing, linguistics, nutrition, genetics. But, it seems like their should be somewhere I can synthesize and generalize - formally. Synthesis would be a valuable thing. Science doesn't just progress by working out the details.
This issue arises at my job. We do some R&D, often internally funded, but for the most part do consulting to the government on technical and scientific things that are complicated or difficult. We have a miniculture that is like academia - a set of Fellows that are specialists in various things. Like most academics, they worry about keeping up their credentials. They publish, they focus, they know a lot about their particular topic. But, our clients rarely want to pay for their time - at least very much of it. And they don't like to work on things that are "not their area of expertise". The rest of the company tends to be mostly generalists - systems engineers, physicists turned into computer scientists, computer scientists turned into project management experts, for instance. I am one of these - a very experienced and versatile one of these. My company sometimes struggles to figure out how to make all this hang together well. How do we make the best use of the specialists? Apply their knowledge in all the places it could be used? How do we formalize the ideas and work of the generalists? It's the same problem.
One thought I have had is that I should work on this very problem. Why not try to come up with ways to formalize synthesis? Maybe this should be what Departments of Philosophy should be focused on - love of knowledge, after all. Maybe the Web is the answer. After all, it is the World Wide Web. And wide is my dimension.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Stepping Up to the ID Challenge
I've been watching the impressive response of the evolutionary biologists to the intelligent design challenge. No one took ID seriously for years - and for seemingly good reason, since it's not serious science. But then, ID has lots of funding behind it and lots of political savvy. Biologists are not politically savvy - or at least they were not until now.
One of the interesting angles of the situation is the difference in the mental models between journalists and scientists. In case you are not aware of it, journalists have been trained aggressively for the last 20 or 30 years to "present both sides of the story". This is a big deal in journalism school. It is a commandment that no one dares to break. This is responsible for the atrocious reporting on politics that we see now. No matter how undeserving, both sides of each story must be presented in "a balanced way". This is all part of the dreaded political correctness thing. Conservatives hate this more than liberals - since the liberals sort of invented the idea. But, conservatives have been using this feature of journalism very well as of late. They've learned how to use it.
The ID people are masters at this. They are painting this up as a story with two equal sides. In fact, they are trying to portray themselves as legitimate underdog scientists - with a real position - that is being suppressed and trampled by the dogmatic science establishment. They are the rebels! The innovators! Pointing out the flaws in the theories and no one will listen to them. Poor downtrodden IDers.
However, this is not an accurate portayal at all. Instead, they misrepresent the status of evolutionary theory and exaggerate the problems. Yes, there are areas that need more work. But scientists have hypotheses that address these areas - that are just not yet proven. They may not be right, but people are still looking for the answers. The ID folks have no real hypotheses. Magic, aliens or God did it. In their world, science would be meaningless. If there was something that you couldn't explain - it would be God that did it. They don't even really understand or examine all the theories and evidence for evolution - it would make it harder for them to believe. And belief is the most important thing, not truth.
For people who have dedicated their lives to carefully and systematically exploring, postulating and testing theories about how the world works, looking for truth, this is pretty shocking. Just to handwave it all away - God did it. It's a level of incuriousity that astonishes biologists.
But, back to the struggle. Over the last couple of years, the scientific community has awoken to the threat. All over the science blogs and in the journals - in lectures and "debates" - you see them tackling this issue. They are taking it very seriously indeed, since it strikes at the heart of science and invalidates the whole process. They have defense teams for court cases. Arguments against ID are polished and enhanced.
What I am seeing is that it is backfiring on the religious. They shouldn't have tried to take on the science community. They shouldn't have alienated them either and drawn the line in the sand. They can't win in the long run. Science has done so much more for humanity over the last 100 years than religion. I don't care what wonderful things religion has done - science has done much more. Science is trying to model the real world and explain it - and use this understand for the advantage of people - to improve their lives. And it has succeeded wonderfully at this. This very blog is an example. Religion did not help to make this blog possible. Science did. Scientists are not out there trying to get money from little old ladies - there is no scientific equivalent to a televangelist. They are too busy trying to solve real problems. They are not motivated by greed for the most part.
When you put ID up against real science, real science shines. Whenever a real battle has been engaged between a religious proponent and a scientist - whether in court or in debate - the scientists win. The Scopes Monkey Trial experience will be replayed again and again until it once again becomes clear that a lot of religious beliefs are inconsistent, silly and meaningless. Religion will go back to being the thing it has done best for the last 200 years - a moral framework and an inspiration to do good. It will quit trying to regain the ground it lost to science as the way to explain how the world works.
Another deserving victim of this struggle will be "balanced journalism" and relativism. Social sciences, politics, and journalism are all suffering greatly from a lack of belief in objective reality at this time. This has allowed ID to creep in - as well as many other unworkable ideas. We will return to a cognitive model that assumes that the human mind is quite capable of thinking of things that are not real - and that there is reality separate from our ability to conceive of it. Trying hard to create mental models that most accurately reflect reality - and acting on them - is the best path to success. Wishful and fanciful thinking leads to disaster. Scientists are the ultimate realists. Religious folks are the ultimate fantasists. I'm betting on reality - at least in the long run.
I've been watching the impressive response of the evolutionary biologists to the intelligent design challenge. No one took ID seriously for years - and for seemingly good reason, since it's not serious science. But then, ID has lots of funding behind it and lots of political savvy. Biologists are not politically savvy - or at least they were not until now.
One of the interesting angles of the situation is the difference in the mental models between journalists and scientists. In case you are not aware of it, journalists have been trained aggressively for the last 20 or 30 years to "present both sides of the story". This is a big deal in journalism school. It is a commandment that no one dares to break. This is responsible for the atrocious reporting on politics that we see now. No matter how undeserving, both sides of each story must be presented in "a balanced way". This is all part of the dreaded political correctness thing. Conservatives hate this more than liberals - since the liberals sort of invented the idea. But, conservatives have been using this feature of journalism very well as of late. They've learned how to use it.
The ID people are masters at this. They are painting this up as a story with two equal sides. In fact, they are trying to portray themselves as legitimate underdog scientists - with a real position - that is being suppressed and trampled by the dogmatic science establishment. They are the rebels! The innovators! Pointing out the flaws in the theories and no one will listen to them. Poor downtrodden IDers.
However, this is not an accurate portayal at all. Instead, they misrepresent the status of evolutionary theory and exaggerate the problems. Yes, there are areas that need more work. But scientists have hypotheses that address these areas - that are just not yet proven. They may not be right, but people are still looking for the answers. The ID folks have no real hypotheses. Magic, aliens or God did it. In their world, science would be meaningless. If there was something that you couldn't explain - it would be God that did it. They don't even really understand or examine all the theories and evidence for evolution - it would make it harder for them to believe. And belief is the most important thing, not truth.
For people who have dedicated their lives to carefully and systematically exploring, postulating and testing theories about how the world works, looking for truth, this is pretty shocking. Just to handwave it all away - God did it. It's a level of incuriousity that astonishes biologists.
But, back to the struggle. Over the last couple of years, the scientific community has awoken to the threat. All over the science blogs and in the journals - in lectures and "debates" - you see them tackling this issue. They are taking it very seriously indeed, since it strikes at the heart of science and invalidates the whole process. They have defense teams for court cases. Arguments against ID are polished and enhanced.
What I am seeing is that it is backfiring on the religious. They shouldn't have tried to take on the science community. They shouldn't have alienated them either and drawn the line in the sand. They can't win in the long run. Science has done so much more for humanity over the last 100 years than religion. I don't care what wonderful things religion has done - science has done much more. Science is trying to model the real world and explain it - and use this understand for the advantage of people - to improve their lives. And it has succeeded wonderfully at this. This very blog is an example. Religion did not help to make this blog possible. Science did. Scientists are not out there trying to get money from little old ladies - there is no scientific equivalent to a televangelist. They are too busy trying to solve real problems. They are not motivated by greed for the most part.
When you put ID up against real science, real science shines. Whenever a real battle has been engaged between a religious proponent and a scientist - whether in court or in debate - the scientists win. The Scopes Monkey Trial experience will be replayed again and again until it once again becomes clear that a lot of religious beliefs are inconsistent, silly and meaningless. Religion will go back to being the thing it has done best for the last 200 years - a moral framework and an inspiration to do good. It will quit trying to regain the ground it lost to science as the way to explain how the world works.
Another deserving victim of this struggle will be "balanced journalism" and relativism. Social sciences, politics, and journalism are all suffering greatly from a lack of belief in objective reality at this time. This has allowed ID to creep in - as well as many other unworkable ideas. We will return to a cognitive model that assumes that the human mind is quite capable of thinking of things that are not real - and that there is reality separate from our ability to conceive of it. Trying hard to create mental models that most accurately reflect reality - and acting on them - is the best path to success. Wishful and fanciful thinking leads to disaster. Scientists are the ultimate realists. Religious folks are the ultimate fantasists. I'm betting on reality - at least in the long run.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Evolving Political Science
Thomas Kuhn's perspective on science was that of a physicist when he wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Most physicists - and other physical scientists - that I have known are fairly disdainful of social sciences. They are not certain that they are real sciences at all. I suspect political science would be close to the bottom of the list for validity. As cognitive science develops, social sciences are firming up. There is a likelihood that sometime - certainly within my lifetime - that the social sciences will be much closer to the physical sciences in scientific practice and validity.
For the most part, the social sciences follow the same general practices that the physical sciences do. They suffer from the problem that their object of study is always something that revolves around humans - a very complex system - a system of systems, really. Most of what's been done to date seems to suffer from idealism to me. Social scientists hypothesize the way they wish things were, and then set out to prove that it's true. Not enough objective observation precedes the hypothesis. Too much morality gets involved. It seems very little benefit has been gleaned from social science so far - at least as compared with the astonishing achievements of the physical sciences. This tells me that we haven't really discovered much that's real so far.
Fifteen years ago, I had this "brilliant idea". I was going to become a sociologist and bring the power of computer science to sociology. I would model things. I would collect data and data mine it. Of course, there are commercial companies that do that now and use it for business - mostly advertising. But I was going to do this to prove hypotheses. I took a college class in sociology - my first - The Theory of Society. It was in this class and from that very kind professor that I learned that academic sociologist cared mostly about arguing about what dead people meant when they wrote old books. It was very clear that I would have an uphill battle and would be mostly unwelcome.
I suspect that things have not changed much - just yet. But I suspect they will. I am reading a book right now Political Reasoning and Cognition, A Piagetian View by Rosenberg, Ward, and Chilton. I am only just starting, but already the book is clearly an example of Kuhnian revolution in action - in political science. One quote I think illustrates the experience of the authors on the front lines:
They are challenging a dominant mindset of political science - that all individuals come with more or less the same mental modeling capability - and share the same models. This makes political science the study of these models themselves - how they are acquired and interrelate, their effects, etc. Rosenberg, et al, say the evidence does not support his idea. They think it's too simplistic. If people don't have the same modeling capability, then you have to study the cognitive capabilities for political thought to understand politics. Not all people are created equal - cognitively. This is really a pretty obvious, but profound, idea. I am still digesting it. It's one of those paradigm shifts that will cause mental dislocation if you really get it.
In my opinion, all the social sciences are truly suffering from the dogma of equality at this time in history. It is not acceptable to pose any theory that includes inherent differences in mental or interpersonal skills between people. To me, this seems ludicrous - akin to saying the sun must go around the earth. It's wishful thinking. Much as we all wish it were true, it is requires much self-brainwashing to believe it. And it is a belief - not a scientific hypothesis that can stand up to rigorous testing. This idea has only taken hold in any serious way for the last fifty years or so. And very little progress has been made because of it. Cognitive science and genetics are beginning to break it down. It's going down hard, though.
So, what's the prognosis for the social sciences? They will still be a daunting challenge, since humans, human groups and cultural practices are complex, interactive, and evolve very quickly using memes - at least relative to the physical sciences. Nonetheless, I think a lot of progress will have been made fifty years from now. Genetics will lead the way. Better understanding of the brain - especially systems theory views - will also help. It's hard to imagine how this will change the world. We have so little to go by as an example. While the theory has evolved a lot over the last 50 years, and people will argue that progress has been made - we are not seeing tangible results. Crime is not lower. People are not happier. Children are not doing better in school. Marriages are not more successful. We are still blowing each other up. Arguing at each other on talk shows. Hating. Anyone that says they know the "right way" to raise children or manage is lying. Ask for the evidence.
Thomas Kuhn's perspective on science was that of a physicist when he wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Most physicists - and other physical scientists - that I have known are fairly disdainful of social sciences. They are not certain that they are real sciences at all. I suspect political science would be close to the bottom of the list for validity. As cognitive science develops, social sciences are firming up. There is a likelihood that sometime - certainly within my lifetime - that the social sciences will be much closer to the physical sciences in scientific practice and validity.
For the most part, the social sciences follow the same general practices that the physical sciences do. They suffer from the problem that their object of study is always something that revolves around humans - a very complex system - a system of systems, really. Most of what's been done to date seems to suffer from idealism to me. Social scientists hypothesize the way they wish things were, and then set out to prove that it's true. Not enough objective observation precedes the hypothesis. Too much morality gets involved. It seems very little benefit has been gleaned from social science so far - at least as compared with the astonishing achievements of the physical sciences. This tells me that we haven't really discovered much that's real so far.
Fifteen years ago, I had this "brilliant idea". I was going to become a sociologist and bring the power of computer science to sociology. I would model things. I would collect data and data mine it. Of course, there are commercial companies that do that now and use it for business - mostly advertising. But I was going to do this to prove hypotheses. I took a college class in sociology - my first - The Theory of Society. It was in this class and from that very kind professor that I learned that academic sociologist cared mostly about arguing about what dead people meant when they wrote old books. It was very clear that I would have an uphill battle and would be mostly unwelcome.
I suspect that things have not changed much - just yet. But I suspect they will. I am reading a book right now Political Reasoning and Cognition, A Piagetian View by Rosenberg, Ward, and Chilton. I am only just starting, but already the book is clearly an example of Kuhnian revolution in action - in political science. One quote I think illustrates the experience of the authors on the front lines:
“Empirical research depends on concepts and theory. No matter how careful the methods and sophisticated the statistical analysis, research can be no better than the theory which directs it.… For the most part, reviews of empirical research focus on technical issues of data collection and analysis and ignore larger questions of conceptualization. This is frequently the case even when the results of the research are confusing and the ensuing methodological critique and tinkering fail to yield a satisfactory understanding. As a result, one of the key aims of empirical research, the challenging of a prevalent theory, is blocked.”
They are challenging a dominant mindset of political science - that all individuals come with more or less the same mental modeling capability - and share the same models. This makes political science the study of these models themselves - how they are acquired and interrelate, their effects, etc. Rosenberg, et al, say the evidence does not support his idea. They think it's too simplistic. If people don't have the same modeling capability, then you have to study the cognitive capabilities for political thought to understand politics. Not all people are created equal - cognitively. This is really a pretty obvious, but profound, idea. I am still digesting it. It's one of those paradigm shifts that will cause mental dislocation if you really get it.
In my opinion, all the social sciences are truly suffering from the dogma of equality at this time in history. It is not acceptable to pose any theory that includes inherent differences in mental or interpersonal skills between people. To me, this seems ludicrous - akin to saying the sun must go around the earth. It's wishful thinking. Much as we all wish it were true, it is requires much self-brainwashing to believe it. And it is a belief - not a scientific hypothesis that can stand up to rigorous testing. This idea has only taken hold in any serious way for the last fifty years or so. And very little progress has been made because of it. Cognitive science and genetics are beginning to break it down. It's going down hard, though.
So, what's the prognosis for the social sciences? They will still be a daunting challenge, since humans, human groups and cultural practices are complex, interactive, and evolve very quickly using memes - at least relative to the physical sciences. Nonetheless, I think a lot of progress will have been made fifty years from now. Genetics will lead the way. Better understanding of the brain - especially systems theory views - will also help. It's hard to imagine how this will change the world. We have so little to go by as an example. While the theory has evolved a lot over the last 50 years, and people will argue that progress has been made - we are not seeing tangible results. Crime is not lower. People are not happier. Children are not doing better in school. Marriages are not more successful. We are still blowing each other up. Arguing at each other on talk shows. Hating. Anyone that says they know the "right way" to raise children or manage is lying. Ask for the evidence.
Friday, April 21, 2006
How Nutrition Research Fumbles
Life Extension Foundation published an aticle in their 2006 Collector's Edition about Vitamin E. They discussed a review article, published in JAMA on August 11, 2004, that "extolled the benefits of gamma tocopherol". I don't have access to this review article, but the basic message in LEF's article is that JAMA validated what LEF has been saying for 8 years. All the studies with negative results for Vitamin E have been testing the wrong form. Alpha tocopherol, especially the artificial form, is not beneficial in large amounts by itself. The gamma form is the better antioxidant. Minimally, you should be taking a mixed form - one that resembles the mix you would find in nuts.
Assuming this is true (still an assumption since the research is not conclusive) this is one illustration of how medical science fumbles. Not that LEF is beyond criticism either - more on that at the end of this post.
Vitamin E research began the way that a lot of medical science begins. Population studies are mined for difference in outcomes. Some examples are the famous "seven countries" study about cholesterol and CHD, the big longitudinal nurses studies - NHANES - for the effects of antioxidants like beta carotene and E, and the lower incidence of CHD in pre-menopausal women.
From this data, a hypothesis is formulated. In all these cases substance "a" prevents disease "b". Because good science - science that will be funded by a review committee and pass muster for publication - prefers double-blind studies that test single substances, these hypotheses often focus on single substances. The bias for single substances also relatest to the drug approval process in the FDA - and patent law. So, a medical researcher will decide to study - and will often announce the finding based on the population studies - whether "a" prevents "b". They will embark on a long series of these studies. Drug companies and food manufacturers will rush to develop products and exploit this. Press interviews and advertising will reinforce this.
Unfortunately, many times it's been found that the single substance doesn't do the advertised job. The hypothesis is apparenly false and the evidence just doesn't hold up.
So, what goes wrong? Perhaps their is no causal relationship - just a correlative one. Maybe the single substance is not responsible for the effect alone. It's part of a complex that is required to have the effect. Sometimes, more is not better. There is a dose dependency - a range of efficacy. Perhaps the testing was often the wrong amounts. And then, the body is a very complex thing, with lots of redundancy and feedback loops.
What harm is done when these hypotheses are interpreted as fact too early? Sometimes, real harm is done when doctors act on the early results, pushed by drug companies eager for profits. HRT is an example. High alpha tocopherol doses increased the incidence of stroke. High beta carotene intake increase lung cancers in smokers.
But another serious casualty is public confidence in science. It makes science look flaky and unreliable. It reinforces the notion that all problems can be cured with a "magic pill". More careful study is needed before acting on these hypotheses.
Why do we do this? Money is one reason. Drug and food companies make money from this. And researchers get funded for these overly simplistic, but conventionally framed hypotheses. And, as Nisbett explains in The Geography of Thought, Westerners prefer the single substance approach to a more Eastern wholistic approach. We tend to ignore the background, the context, the environment. We look for a main character, a hero.
It's this last problem that is the most troubling. If we are always trying to advance medical science by understanding the effects of single substances on health, we may never really understand the system.
So, what's the criticism of LEF? They are all about single substances - focusing on the value of various nutritional supplements. And they encourage you to take lots of these, based on incomplete research testing each of them separately.
Life Extension Foundation published an aticle in their 2006 Collector's Edition about Vitamin E. They discussed a review article, published in JAMA on August 11, 2004, that "extolled the benefits of gamma tocopherol". I don't have access to this review article, but the basic message in LEF's article is that JAMA validated what LEF has been saying for 8 years. All the studies with negative results for Vitamin E have been testing the wrong form. Alpha tocopherol, especially the artificial form, is not beneficial in large amounts by itself. The gamma form is the better antioxidant. Minimally, you should be taking a mixed form - one that resembles the mix you would find in nuts.
Assuming this is true (still an assumption since the research is not conclusive) this is one illustration of how medical science fumbles. Not that LEF is beyond criticism either - more on that at the end of this post.
Vitamin E research began the way that a lot of medical science begins. Population studies are mined for difference in outcomes. Some examples are the famous "seven countries" study about cholesterol and CHD, the big longitudinal nurses studies - NHANES - for the effects of antioxidants like beta carotene and E, and the lower incidence of CHD in pre-menopausal women.
From this data, a hypothesis is formulated. In all these cases substance "a" prevents disease "b". Because good science - science that will be funded by a review committee and pass muster for publication - prefers double-blind studies that test single substances, these hypotheses often focus on single substances. The bias for single substances also relatest to the drug approval process in the FDA - and patent law. So, a medical researcher will decide to study - and will often announce the finding based on the population studies - whether "a" prevents "b". They will embark on a long series of these studies. Drug companies and food manufacturers will rush to develop products and exploit this. Press interviews and advertising will reinforce this.
Unfortunately, many times it's been found that the single substance doesn't do the advertised job. The hypothesis is apparenly false and the evidence just doesn't hold up.
So, what goes wrong? Perhaps their is no causal relationship - just a correlative one. Maybe the single substance is not responsible for the effect alone. It's part of a complex that is required to have the effect. Sometimes, more is not better. There is a dose dependency - a range of efficacy. Perhaps the testing was often the wrong amounts. And then, the body is a very complex thing, with lots of redundancy and feedback loops.
What harm is done when these hypotheses are interpreted as fact too early? Sometimes, real harm is done when doctors act on the early results, pushed by drug companies eager for profits. HRT is an example. High alpha tocopherol doses increased the incidence of stroke. High beta carotene intake increase lung cancers in smokers.
But another serious casualty is public confidence in science. It makes science look flaky and unreliable. It reinforces the notion that all problems can be cured with a "magic pill". More careful study is needed before acting on these hypotheses.
Why do we do this? Money is one reason. Drug and food companies make money from this. And researchers get funded for these overly simplistic, but conventionally framed hypotheses. And, as Nisbett explains in The Geography of Thought, Westerners prefer the single substance approach to a more Eastern wholistic approach. We tend to ignore the background, the context, the environment. We look for a main character, a hero.
It's this last problem that is the most troubling. If we are always trying to advance medical science by understanding the effects of single substances on health, we may never really understand the system.
So, what's the criticism of LEF? They are all about single substances - focusing on the value of various nutritional supplements. And they encourage you to take lots of these, based on incomplete research testing each of them separately.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Gene Expression's Impact on Medicine
I don't think you can overestimate the value of microarray testing. It's going to change everything about medicine. It hasn't really begun to have an impact yet. Being given insight into the inner workings of the human cell - which genes are turned off and which are turned on - will provide the keys to understanding how things really work.
There are only something like 20,000 genes in the human cell - each gene coding for a specific protein. These 20,000 proteins are what make you alive and who you are. It's the whole recipe for you. Not just making you in the first place, but for running your body every day of your life. I don't think the simplicity and elegance of this design has really sunk in to the collective conscious of mankind just yet. We are not as mysterious as most of us still think we are. We are on the verge of really understanding what we are.
20,000 is really a small number in some ways. Genes are very understandable to a computer scientist. Each gene is like a little "if statement". Each "if statement" goes something like "if (x) is activated then produce (y)" where x is some molecule and y is a protein. In many (maybe most) cases, the y of one statement is the x of another. So, the 20,000 little programs can produce very complicated results. They are all interacting with each other. It's a system that had been tuned by evolution to stay in balance most of the time, and is very adaptable to a wide range of normal conditions. Even more of a complication, many of the 20,000 little programs are disabled at any one time - being uncopied as RNA to the mitochondria for production. Many of them are copied only during your development and growth - never to be used again. This creates a very, very large number of possible states.
Yet, 20,000 is not a big number in other ways. Each of the 20,000 things can be understood. Even the interactions between them can be mapped. This is not a difficult job with computers to assist us. The function of the genes could be simulated. We can have cell simulations that are pretty accurate in the near future - at least in the next 10-20 years.
Once you can simulate a cell, you will be able to develop and test drugs much more quickly and cheaply. Gene expression testing will let you know what's really wrong with you. We would be able to take a sample of your gene expression and know a lot about what's going on in your body. We will know why I am smart, but not athletic. We will be able to turn off and on genes to improve health and fix things. Cancer will be cured. Life extended. Current medical practices will seem primitive indeed in comparison.
But these are just the initial, obvious first effects of the technology. There will be more dramatic and surprising things that result from fully cracking the code for life. In my lifetime - I expect to live long since I practice calorie restriction and I think life extension will succeed soon enough - we should be able to manufacture life. We will be able to redesign. Perhaps we will be able to create. To make evolution happen. Perhaps I will start a second career as a "life programmer" when I'm say 110 years old, 60 years from now.
I don't think you can overestimate the value of microarray testing. It's going to change everything about medicine. It hasn't really begun to have an impact yet. Being given insight into the inner workings of the human cell - which genes are turned off and which are turned on - will provide the keys to understanding how things really work.
There are only something like 20,000 genes in the human cell - each gene coding for a specific protein. These 20,000 proteins are what make you alive and who you are. It's the whole recipe for you. Not just making you in the first place, but for running your body every day of your life. I don't think the simplicity and elegance of this design has really sunk in to the collective conscious of mankind just yet. We are not as mysterious as most of us still think we are. We are on the verge of really understanding what we are.
20,000 is really a small number in some ways. Genes are very understandable to a computer scientist. Each gene is like a little "if statement". Each "if statement" goes something like "if (x) is activated then produce (y)" where x is some molecule and y is a protein. In many (maybe most) cases, the y of one statement is the x of another. So, the 20,000 little programs can produce very complicated results. They are all interacting with each other. It's a system that had been tuned by evolution to stay in balance most of the time, and is very adaptable to a wide range of normal conditions. Even more of a complication, many of the 20,000 little programs are disabled at any one time - being uncopied as RNA to the mitochondria for production. Many of them are copied only during your development and growth - never to be used again. This creates a very, very large number of possible states.
Yet, 20,000 is not a big number in other ways. Each of the 20,000 things can be understood. Even the interactions between them can be mapped. This is not a difficult job with computers to assist us. The function of the genes could be simulated. We can have cell simulations that are pretty accurate in the near future - at least in the next 10-20 years.
Once you can simulate a cell, you will be able to develop and test drugs much more quickly and cheaply. Gene expression testing will let you know what's really wrong with you. We would be able to take a sample of your gene expression and know a lot about what's going on in your body. We will know why I am smart, but not athletic. We will be able to turn off and on genes to improve health and fix things. Cancer will be cured. Life extended. Current medical practices will seem primitive indeed in comparison.
But these are just the initial, obvious first effects of the technology. There will be more dramatic and surprising things that result from fully cracking the code for life. In my lifetime - I expect to live long since I practice calorie restriction and I think life extension will succeed soon enough - we should be able to manufacture life. We will be able to redesign. Perhaps we will be able to create. To make evolution happen. Perhaps I will start a second career as a "life programmer" when I'm say 110 years old, 60 years from now.
Global Warming and Where Not to Live
The PBS NOVA on global dimming just reinforces the notion to me that I do not want to have any of my net worth tied up in beachfront property. It's not clear where you could live and not be negatively affected by global warming of 10 or 20 degrees F. Coastlines will rise - so the beach is a no brainer. But hot and cold regions will be affected in different ways by changes in currents and weather patterns. The equator is also probably too hot.
The PBS NOVA on global dimming just reinforces the notion to me that I do not want to have any of my net worth tied up in beachfront property. It's not clear where you could live and not be negatively affected by global warming of 10 or 20 degrees F. Coastlines will rise - so the beach is a no brainer. But hot and cold regions will be affected in different ways by changes in currents and weather patterns. The equator is also probably too hot.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Dimming the Sun
This PBS Nova episode paints a very disturbing picture. Particulates generated by industry have created clouds that reflect sunlight more than normal clouds. This has resulted in a global dimming of sunlight over the last 100 years at a significant level - something like 10%. At the same time greenhouse gases have caused global warming. These two effects counteract each other - causing the temperature to rise more slowly.
The bad news is that greenhouse gases are being produced at an increasing rate. Particulate is being reduced. This will result in an excelerated rate of global warming - as much at 18 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century!
Another reason to get going on alternative energy! We need a massive Apollo-like effort, now.
While we can easily create the dimming effect to compensate, there are probably negative climate effects from reducing sunlight, too. Reducing greenhouse gases is incredibly important. If you don't believe this is a real problem, watch the show and see the part about the effect of the suspension of air traffic after 9/11. If that could have such a dramatic effect, imagine what all those power plants are doing.
This PBS Nova episode paints a very disturbing picture. Particulates generated by industry have created clouds that reflect sunlight more than normal clouds. This has resulted in a global dimming of sunlight over the last 100 years at a significant level - something like 10%. At the same time greenhouse gases have caused global warming. These two effects counteract each other - causing the temperature to rise more slowly.
The bad news is that greenhouse gases are being produced at an increasing rate. Particulate is being reduced. This will result in an excelerated rate of global warming - as much at 18 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century!
Another reason to get going on alternative energy! We need a massive Apollo-like effort, now.
While we can easily create the dimming effect to compensate, there are probably negative climate effects from reducing sunlight, too. Reducing greenhouse gases is incredibly important. If you don't believe this is a real problem, watch the show and see the part about the effect of the suspension of air traffic after 9/11. If that could have such a dramatic effect, imagine what all those power plants are doing.
Stem Cells are the Key to Cancer
This article in Time magazine provides a layman's view into a new theory of cancer. In this new theory, at the heart of each cancer is a set of stem cells gone awry. Their genome or even just their gene expression dysfunctionally proliferates - creating lots of abberant daughter cells that reproduce too quickly and additional bad stem cells. It's the stem cells that are responsible for mestasisis - the spread of cancer throughout the body.
This discovery is likely to lead, finally, to the cure. It's the stem cells that need to be killed or reformed. The daughter cells are annoying, but not the real problem. It's become apparent that removing the daughter cells - for instance, by shrinking them with radiation - is not enough to cure the cancer. You have to get the stem cells. The Time article predicts a real cure for cancer in 10 years. I would agree with that assessment.
My prediction would be that all cancers are stem cell disorders. Our bodies are sprinkled with stem cells. They are more key to life than people still realize. For instance, until recently, it was believed that all the eggs in a woman's ovaries were there when you were born. They would ripen or die until they ran out and women would go into menopause. Instead, stem cells continually produce eggs throughout a woman's fertile years. They last less than a year. At menopause, the stem cells quit making them and the supply runs out. Do the stem cells die - or just turn off? I don't know. If hormone therapy can cause menopausal women to become fertile again, it would seem that they are just turned off.
Here's a case where medicine has struggled for 30 years, spending billions of dollars in a "War on Cancer". Very little progress was made - really - using conventional disease treatment. Now, this new paradigm will revolutionize treatment. At first, they will be looking for conventional therapy methods that more effectively target the stem cells. But, given a better understanding of gene expression, I predict that they will be able to "turn off" cancer by sending it signals or using gene therapy - a gentler approach. Look for the day when cancer is a thing of the past - a wonderful day for medicine.
This article in Time magazine provides a layman's view into a new theory of cancer. In this new theory, at the heart of each cancer is a set of stem cells gone awry. Their genome or even just their gene expression dysfunctionally proliferates - creating lots of abberant daughter cells that reproduce too quickly and additional bad stem cells. It's the stem cells that are responsible for mestasisis - the spread of cancer throughout the body.
This discovery is likely to lead, finally, to the cure. It's the stem cells that need to be killed or reformed. The daughter cells are annoying, but not the real problem. It's become apparent that removing the daughter cells - for instance, by shrinking them with radiation - is not enough to cure the cancer. You have to get the stem cells. The Time article predicts a real cure for cancer in 10 years. I would agree with that assessment.
My prediction would be that all cancers are stem cell disorders. Our bodies are sprinkled with stem cells. They are more key to life than people still realize. For instance, until recently, it was believed that all the eggs in a woman's ovaries were there when you were born. They would ripen or die until they ran out and women would go into menopause. Instead, stem cells continually produce eggs throughout a woman's fertile years. They last less than a year. At menopause, the stem cells quit making them and the supply runs out. Do the stem cells die - or just turn off? I don't know. If hormone therapy can cause menopausal women to become fertile again, it would seem that they are just turned off.
Here's a case where medicine has struggled for 30 years, spending billions of dollars in a "War on Cancer". Very little progress was made - really - using conventional disease treatment. Now, this new paradigm will revolutionize treatment. At first, they will be looking for conventional therapy methods that more effectively target the stem cells. But, given a better understanding of gene expression, I predict that they will be able to "turn off" cancer by sending it signals or using gene therapy - a gentler approach. Look for the day when cancer is a thing of the past - a wonderful day for medicine.
Monday, April 17, 2006
What If Parents Don't Matter THAT Much?
Judith Rich Harris - in her two books The Nurture Assumption and No Two Alike - makes the strong case for a minimized role for parents to play in personality development. In her model, genes shape 40% or so of the personality. Most of the rest is shaped by the social environment outside the family. Parents hardly matter at all - as long as they provide you reasonable food, shelter, clothing, and affection. This is adaptive - designed to make sure we survive in the world, not just our nuclear families. It's a natural product of the evolutionary process.
This is a very large paradigm shift for academic psychology. This scientific community has been focused for the last many decades on the overwhelming importance of parents in shaping children. Harris says this is all wishful thinking - yet another example of scientists making a moral judgement and then looking for evidence to support it. One simple thought experiment would be this - if it made such a difference, wouldn't today's children be terribly different from their parents and grandparents. Wouldn't we be different? We're really not, are we - not in the ways that psychologists would have you expect.
So, assuming Harris is right, what does this mean to parents? The nurture proponents are in a panic - thinking that child abuse will become rampant. But here are a few predictions I would make about the real effects.
First of all, people may be more comfortable having children - they may actually have more of them. Now, they really don't need to spend many thousands of dollars "shaping" them with lessons and enrichment. Just letting them play is just as good? So much cheaper. The heavy responsibility for shaping removed from their shoulders, it will become apparent that nature designed parenting for amateurs, not experts. Of course, it must have - or how else could we have survived the eons!
Second, parents will be able to concentrate on providing children a pleasant childhood. Why not enjoy your children? If you relax and realize that your children are part of your life - not the awesome responsibility, requiring a PhD in child development - then you can just enjoy.
Third, since so much of your child's personality is shaped by their social environment and their status in the groups they belong to, you can instead focus on controlling their social milleu and make sure they are put into social contexts that allow them to achieve reasonable status.
Perhaps we would return a little to the parenting style of the past. Parents would live their adult lives and let children be children. They could just play instead of running off to classes, team sports and clubs.
Judith Rich Harris - in her two books The Nurture Assumption and No Two Alike - makes the strong case for a minimized role for parents to play in personality development. In her model, genes shape 40% or so of the personality. Most of the rest is shaped by the social environment outside the family. Parents hardly matter at all - as long as they provide you reasonable food, shelter, clothing, and affection. This is adaptive - designed to make sure we survive in the world, not just our nuclear families. It's a natural product of the evolutionary process.
This is a very large paradigm shift for academic psychology. This scientific community has been focused for the last many decades on the overwhelming importance of parents in shaping children. Harris says this is all wishful thinking - yet another example of scientists making a moral judgement and then looking for evidence to support it. One simple thought experiment would be this - if it made such a difference, wouldn't today's children be terribly different from their parents and grandparents. Wouldn't we be different? We're really not, are we - not in the ways that psychologists would have you expect.
So, assuming Harris is right, what does this mean to parents? The nurture proponents are in a panic - thinking that child abuse will become rampant. But here are a few predictions I would make about the real effects.
First of all, people may be more comfortable having children - they may actually have more of them. Now, they really don't need to spend many thousands of dollars "shaping" them with lessons and enrichment. Just letting them play is just as good? So much cheaper. The heavy responsibility for shaping removed from their shoulders, it will become apparent that nature designed parenting for amateurs, not experts. Of course, it must have - or how else could we have survived the eons!
Second, parents will be able to concentrate on providing children a pleasant childhood. Why not enjoy your children? If you relax and realize that your children are part of your life - not the awesome responsibility, requiring a PhD in child development - then you can just enjoy.
Third, since so much of your child's personality is shaped by their social environment and their status in the groups they belong to, you can instead focus on controlling their social milleu and make sure they are put into social contexts that allow them to achieve reasonable status.
Perhaps we would return a little to the parenting style of the past. Parents would live their adult lives and let children be children. They could just play instead of running off to classes, team sports and clubs.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]