BBC News wants to talk to you on the day of the event. Please go here for more information!
Blag Hag
Atheism, feminism, geekery
BBC News wants to talk to you on the day of the event. Please go here for more information!
Holy crap.
So what started as a joke and somewhat sarcastic reply to the ludicrous notion that women’s immodesty causes earthquakes has now exploded. Seriously, internet, you scare and amaze me sometimes. The Facebook event already has almost 14,000 attendees (and 60,000 invited) in just over 24 hours. The wall is getting comments so quickly that I had to disable Facebook email notifications because my inbox was getting flooded. The twitter stream for #boobquake is updating so quickly that I can’t keep up. To top that off, I just got interviewed by the largest newspaper in Canada and some radio station in Ireland wants to interview me.
Because I made a boob joke.
Since this is probably only going to get crazier in the next couple of days, I want to make a quick clarification. This post is going to be far shorter than it should be since I am a student and I’m trying to finish homework and such, but I wanted to at least acknowledge what people are saying.
I just want to apologize if this comes off as demeaning toward women. To be honest, it started as silly joke that I hurriedly fired off since I was about to miss the beginning of House. I never thought it would get the attention it did. If I would have known, I would have spent more time being careful about my wording.
That being said, I don’t think the event is completely contrary to feminist ideals. I’m asking women to wear their most “immodest” outfit that they already would wear, but to coordinate it all on the same day for the sake of the experiment. Heck, just showing an ankle would be considered immodest by some people. I don’t want to force people out of their comfort zones, because I believe women have the right to choose how they want to dress. Please don’t pressure women to participate if they don’t want to. If men ogle, that’s the fault of the men, not me for dressing how I like. If I want to a show a little cleavage or joke about my boobs, that’s my prerogative.
I also hate the ideal of “big boobs are always better!” The cleavage joke was just a result of me personally having cleavage, and that being my choice of immodesty. And I thought “boobquake” just sounded funny. Really, it’s not supposed to be serious activism that is going to revolutionize women’s rights, but just a bit of fun juvenile humor. I’m a firm believer that when someone says something so stupid and hateful, serious discourse isn’t going to accomplish anything – sometimes light-hearted mockery is worthwhile.
Anyway, I’m not forcing anyone to agree with me. Maybe I am failing at Feminism 101, or maybe I’m just taking a different approach.
And to the scientists who are concerned with my methods – don’t worry, I fully plan on doing some statistics after the event. I know many earthquakes happen on a daily basis, so we’re looking to see if Boobquake significantly increases the number or severity of earthquakes. Or if an earthquake strikes West Lafayette, IN and only kills me, that may be good evidence of God’s wrath as well (I’m not too concerned). And yes, I know I need a larger sample size to make this good science. Maybe I’ll include Mardi gras in my calculations.
Remember the wishy washy religious reply I got to my column on atheism yesterday? Well, after much persuasion from a friend, I decided to play Good Cop. I had a horrendously hard time writing that letter, since…well, I’m not good at being the diplomat. Like my friend said, I’m a firebrand who wrote a diplomatic column and is stuck playing diplomat for a while.
Him: All I’m saying is that you need to use judo instead of boxing
Me: But I like using flamethrowers!
But since I’m temporarily representing all atheists at Purdue, I probably shouldn’t come off as a jackass. Here’s the short reply sent in, with the goal of getting across “O hai thare, you’re kind of a pompous jerk, and you’re not worth my time for a longer letter. kthxbai“
Great science comes from theists and non-theists
Josiah Maas (“Claims already have extraordinary proof,” Monday), I agree, the universe is full of extraordinary evidence – evidence that natural processes shape everything from the formation of stars to the diversity of life on earth. Religious people can certainly be great scientists. Don’t insinuate that atheists can’t.
Jennifer McCreight
Senior in the College of Science
But needless to worry. Many other students decided not to play defense:
Don’t assume the weird stuff is God’s work
This letter is in response to Josiah Mass’ letter printed on Monday, “Claims already have extraordinary proof.”
As a fellow science major, I applaud your awe of the universe, but deride your methods. You say there is extraordinary evidence all around us, but if you insist that these claims are proven, you are failing in your task as a scientist. The purpose of science is to discover and learn about the unknown. To take a phenomenon that is presently unexplainable and throw your hands up in defeat and invoke “God” as the answer, you have simply admitted defeat.
Mark Webster
Senior in the College of ScienceHow is the universe proof of God but not others?
Josiah Maas (letter to the editor, “Claims already have extraordinary proof,” Monday), could you be a little bit more specific about exactly what the evidence for God is? Also, could you explain how it is evidence for God, but not for Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Alex Strinka
Senior in the College of ScienceSubjectivity is the essence of understanding
In response to Josiah Maas’s letter, I would, at the outset, like to point out that proof and evidence are not the same thing. Furthermore, the qualifier “extraordinary” is subjective. What evidence you find compelling, someone else might not.
That it makes for an entertaining debate, that much I will agree. But alas! Your letter does in no way contribute to it. The only specific fact you give is what your opinion is regarding certain unmentioned evidence. In a place where ideas are exchanged (like this “Letters” section) specific facts an enriching discussion make, just stating your opinion belongs to opinion polls. And “look around the world” can never be substitute specific facts – it is too vague from the start. Try using that sentence for the next term paper in your science class, and sit back to enjoy the grades.
I read Ms. McCreight’s column. She was not debating whether any religion serves any purpose, or whether God of any kind exists. Her position is certainly implied in the article, but it was not about that. The article was talking about the motivation for a particular society, the kinds of programs they do, etc., a list of specific facts of some sort. The article also gave facts that were not related to the Society of Non-Theists in particular, but were relevant to the topic in general.
Now whether you found these facts interesting or not is subjective, but they certainly brought to the table much to discuss about.
What is there to discuss about your opinion? And what purpose will it serve to exclaim: OMG! You are a sophomore in the College of Science, Josiah.
Pinaki Bhattacharya
Graduate student
Ah, fulfilling to know that my last couple weeks at Purdue will likely be filled with an atheism flame war in the Exponent. Hey, the theist started it!
Today’s Exponent contains a response to my column about being an atheist at Purdue. I think it’s attempting to refute what I said, but…uh, yeah:
Claims already have extraordinary proof
Jennifer McCreight (Guest commentary, “Non-theists, you are not alone on this campus,” Wednesday), You quoted Carl Sagan in the last line of your article about the Society of Non-Theists, stating that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” You’re a science major, Jennifer. Take a look at the universe you live in. I’d say there’s some pretty extraordinary evidence all around you.
Josiah Maas
Sophomore in the College of Science
I really wish I could write in a reply without seeming like a total jackass, but I probably can’t. I’ll let some other non-theist defend me. But since this is my blog and I have the right to be as snarky as I want, here we go:
I find it amusing that you’ve failed to provide a single piece of this “proof”
Josiah Maas (Letter to the Editor, “Claims already have extraordinary proof,” Monday), You say that the universe I live in is extraordinary evidence. You’re a science major, Josiah. You should have learned that science is based on repeatedly testing hypotheses and gathering data, not letting emotional reactions or arguments from ignorance overwhelm rationality. In fact, what we’ve seen when investigating the universe is an overwhelming amount of data showing that natural processes shape everything from the formation of stars to the diversity of life on earth. The supernatural has zero evidence (though if you claim to have so much, would you please let me in on this little secret?). Maybe if you start paying more attention in your science classes, you’ll understand this concept. It’s okay, you have a couple more years until graduation.
Jennifer McCreight
Senior in the College of Science
Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day. On Friday our newspaper ran a piece about the upcoming Greater Lafayette Holocaust Remembrance Conference, which featured the story of one of my former professors here at Purdue. As a former student, her story was especially touching to me, but I thought all of you would enjoy it. I’ve added some more information in sparse parts, taken from here.
Anna Berkovitz had a normal childhood until 1944. Now, years later, she still has nightmares of her family being taken from their home by the Nazis.
“I was 13 years old at the time when I was taken with my family to Auschwitz, just before D-Day,” said Berkovitz, Purdue Professor Emerita of biology.
At the concentration camp, Berkovitz and her family faced grim odds of survival. Six hundred thousand Hungarian Jews entered the camp between May and September of 1944. In just three months, 500,000 were killed.
“The killing machine was so effective that names were not even taken when we arrived.”
Berkovitz’s grandparents, aunts, uncle, cousin and probably her father were among the victims of the genocide conducted by the Nazis.
Her survival, as Berkovitz says, can only be accounted for by a series of miracles. …
Anna and Elizabeth were taken to Camp-C in Birkenau. To this day Anna ponders how she survived six months of brutal treatment, harsh conditions, starvation and disease there.
In November 1944, Anna and Elizabeth were transferred to a slave labor camp near Magdeburg, Germany, where they were put to work in an underground ammunition factory. Ten days prior to the end of World War II, they were liberated by the Swedish Red Cross and taken to Sweden, where they spent three months in a sanatorium recovering from malnutrition and physical and emotional traumas. …
This year, Berkovitz will be attending the conference, but participating in these events brings personal pain.
“It’s very difficult for me … to me it’s just like it happened yesterday, so I don’t need a conference to remember.”
Still, Berkovitz recognizes and even asserts the necessity of the conference and sees participating as a duty.
“I think I owe it to the people who died to be remembered.”
Berkovitz’s story does not end in Sweden; rather, her rescue from tyranny marks the start of a new journey that defies the unthinkable trauma of the Holocaust.
In Sweden, Berkovitz maintains that she suffered from no depression or bitterness and looked forward to the future.
“I could have lived my life as a victim, but I did not,” she said. …
In April 1946, Anna and Elizabeth emigrated to the United States. They arrived in Los Angeles pennyless and not speaking English. In order to resume her schooling, Anna worked as an au-pair for several years. During this time she completed four years of high school and four years of college, graduating from U.C.L.A. in January 1952 with a B.S. degree in bacteriology and with Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude honors. While working as a laboratory technician, Anna met Leonard Berkovitz, who was then a post-doctoral fellow at Caltech. They were married in June 1953, and their sons Dan and Kenneth were born in 1956 and 1960, respectively. During this period Anna worked part time in various cancer research laboratories.
In 1962 Leonard accepted a position at Purdue University, and the family moved to West Lafayette, Indiana. When Kenneth was in kindergarten, Anna decided to continue her formal education. She was accepted as a graduate student in the biology department at Purdue University. She was working on her Ph.D. thesis when, in 1967, she was asked to take a temporary teaching position to fill an unexpected vacancy in the department. This temporary position turned into a lifetime career of teaching, and while Anna never obtained her Ph.D., she earned a tenured position from which she retired in 2003 as Professor Emerita in Biology.
Anna’s efforts as a teacher, her dedication to her students and to the discipline were amply recognized by her students, colleagues and the administration. She was selected by the students as one of the Top Ten Outstanding Teachers in the School of Science 14 times, she received the Murphy Award, the top recognition of teaching excellence by the University, and was given the Chiscon Award for outstanding teaching performance by the Biology department. Anna was elected to the Teaching Academy at Purdue and her name is in the Purdue Book of Great Teachers.
In her retirement Anna has more time to travel, attend theater, to be active in her Temple, and to winter in California. But, what she most enjoys is still interacting with young people, be it her own five grandchildren or students at the University. She currently participates in the University Honors Program, where she developed a new course, “The New Genetics – New Perspectives, New Dilemmas,” which she teaches in the Fall semesters. …
Marveling at her accomplishments for the time – raising a family while entering a competitive career field as woman when it was rare – Berkovitz attributes much of her drive to a belief that humanity was good. Only a small group of evil was responsible for her painful experiences.
“Unfortunately, now I see that there are still evil groups of people in the world killing or wanting to kill innocent people just because they are different from what they are,” she said. …
Though Berkovitz’s story is one of inspiration, she still bears emotional scars.
“I have recurring nightmares that I’m told that I have to pack up and leave home … that’s part of me; that’s part of my existence.”
Preventing scars such as these in others is a duty for Berkovitz; an obligation driving her to participate in programs such as the Holocaust Remembrance Conference.
“It’s very relevant to what’s going on in the world today.”
I had Dr. Berkovitz for the Honors Genetics course (mentioned in the article) and for Human Genetics, and she was one of my favorite professors here at Purdue. You could tell she was passionate about the subject, and she did a great job of explaining genetics. In class she would encourage stimulating discussions on eugenics, genetic testing, gene patenting, and abortion.
When she overheard me telling another student about the Society of Non-Theists, she asked to be put on the mailing list and has attended all of our pro-evolution events (including my talk about the Creation Museum). From our class discussions, I could tell she shared my liberal views. She even once showed us a clip of Stephen Colbert talking about DNA, and we were the only two to giggle when he talked about Jesus burying the dinosaurs.
But in addition to being a great professor and skeptic, she was a wonderful person. She would always take time to talk to me about random articles in the news she thought I would be interested in. She encouraged me to shoot for the stars when it came to genetics. When I was still considering becoming a genetic counselor, she encouraged me to get a PhD, saying someone with my skills in genetics should be doing research or running the clinic. And when I had asked her to write me a letter of recommendation for grad school, I discovered that her husband had passed away just a week before. Seeing someone I looked up to so much distraught and crying was horrible. I quickly told her I could easily find someone else to do it, but she insisted – even when overwhelmed with grief, she wanted to help her students.
I always said that this is exactly how I want to be when I was 80 – compassionate, skeptica
l, witty, and still excited
about science. That was before I knew her history as a Holocaust survivor. To think that she became such a strong woman and wonderful scientist even through that tragedy is amazing. She’s a role model to everyone, but especially to female scientists. I can only hope to be half the woman she is when I’m 80.
Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day. On Friday our newspaper ran a piece about the upcoming Greater Lafayette Holocaust Remembrance Conference, which featured the story of one of my former professors here at Purdue. As a former student, her story was especially touching to me, but I thought all of you would enjoy it. I’ve added some more information in sparse parts, taken from here.
Anna Berkovitz had a normal childhood until 1944. Now, years later, she still has nightmares of her family being taken from their home by the Nazis.
“I was 13 years old at the time when I was taken with my family to Auschwitz, just before D-Day,” said Berkovitz, Purdue Professor Emerita of biology.
At the concentration camp, Berkovitz and her family faced grim odds of survival. Six hundred thousand Hungarian Jews entered the camp between May and September of 1944. In just three months, 500,000 were killed.
“The killing machine was so effective that names were not even taken when we arrived.”
Berkovitz’s grandparents, aunts, uncle, cousin and probably her father were among the victims of the genocide conducted by the Nazis.
Her survival, as Berkovitz says, can only be accounted for by a series of miracles. …
Anna and Elizabeth were taken to Camp-C in Birkenau. To this day Anna ponders how she survived six months of brutal treatment, harsh conditions, starvation and disease there.
In November 1944, Anna and Elizabeth were transferred to a slave labor camp near Magdeburg, Germany, where they were put to work in an underground ammunition factory. Ten days prior to the end of World War II, they were liberated by the Swedish Red Cross and taken to Sweden, where they spent three months in a sanatorium recovering from malnutrition and physical and emotional traumas. …
This year, Berkovitz will be attending the conference, but participating in these events brings personal pain.
“It’s very difficult for me … to me it’s just like it happened yesterday, so I don’t need a conference to remember.”
Still, Berkovitz recognizes and even asserts the necessity of the conference and sees participating as a duty.
“I think I owe it to the people who died to be remembered.”
Berkovitz’s story does not end in Sweden; rather, her rescue from tyranny marks the start of a new journey that defies the unthinkable trauma of the Holocaust.
In Sweden, Berkovitz maintains that she suffered from no depression or bitterness and looked forward to the future.
“I could have lived my life as a victim, but I did not,” she said. …
In April 1946, Anna and Elizabeth emigrated to the United States. They arrived in Los Angeles pennyless and not speaking English. In order to resume her schooling, Anna worked as an au-pair for several years. During this time she completed four years of high school and four years of college, graduating from U.C.L.A. in January 1952 with a B.S. degree in bacteriology and with Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude honors. While working as a laboratory technician, Anna met Leonard Berkovitz, who was then a post-doctoral fellow at Caltech. They were married in June 1953, and their sons Dan and Kenneth were born in 1956 and 1960, respectively. During this period Anna worked part time in various cancer research laboratories.
In 1962 Leonard accepted a position at Purdue University, and the family moved to West Lafayette, Indiana. When Kenneth was in kindergarten, Anna decided to continue her formal education. She was accepted as a graduate student in the biology department at Purdue University. She was working on her Ph.D. thesis when, in 1967, she was asked to take a temporary teaching position to fill an unexpected vacancy in the department. This temporary position turned into a lifetime career of teaching, and while Anna never obtained her Ph.D., she earned a tenured position from which she retired in 2003 as Professor Emerita in Biology.
Anna’s efforts as a teacher, her dedication to her students and to the discipline were amply recognized by her students, colleagues and the administration. She was selected by the students as one of the Top Ten Outstanding Teachers in the School of Science 14 times, she received the Murphy Award, the top recognition of teaching excellence by the University, and was given the Chiscon Award for outstanding teaching performance by the Biology department. Anna was elected to the Teaching Academy at Purdue and her name is in the Purdue Book of Great Teachers.
In her retirement Anna has more time to travel, attend theater, to be active in her Temple, and to winter in California. But, what she most enjoys is still interacting with young people, be it her own five grandchildren or students at the University. She currently participates in the University Honors Program, where she developed a new course, “The New Genetics – New Perspectives, New Dilemmas,” which she teaches in the Fall semesters. …
Marveling at her accomplishments for the time – raising a family while entering a competitive career field as woman when it was rare – Berkovitz attributes much of her drive to a belief that humanity was good. Only a small group of evil was responsible for her painful experiences.
“Unfortunately, now I see that there are still evil groups of people in the world killing or wanting to kill innocent people just because they are different from what they are,” she said. …
Though Berkovitz’s story is one of inspiration, she still bears emotional scars.
“I have recurring nightmares that I’m told that I have to pack up and leave home … that’s part of me; that’s part of my existence.”
Preventing scars such as these in others is a duty for Berkovitz; an obligation driving her to participate in programs such as the Holocaust Remembrance Conference.
“It’s very relevant to what’s going on in the world today.”
I had Dr. Berkovitz for the Honors Genetics course (mentioned in the article) and for Human Genetics, and she was one of my favorite professors here at Purdue. You could tell she was passionate about the subject, and she did a great job of explaining genetics. In class she would encourage stimulating discussions on eugenics, genetic testing, gene patenting, and abortion.
When she overheard me telling another student about the Society of Non-Theists, she asked to be put on the mailing list and has attended all of our pro-evolution events (including my talk about the Creation Museum). From our class discussions, I could tell she shared my liberal views. She even once showed us a clip of Stephen Colbert talking about DNA, and we were the only two to giggle when he talked about Jesus burying the dinosaurs.
But in addition to being a great professor and skeptic, she was a wonderful person. She would always take time to talk to me about random articles in the news she thought I would be interested in. She encouraged me to shoot for the stars when it came to genetics. When I was still considering becoming a genetic counselor, she encouraged me to get a PhD, saying someone with my skills in genetics should be doing research or running the clinic. And when I had asked her to write me a letter of recommendation for grad school, I discovered that her husband had passed away just a week before. Seeing someone I looked up to so much distraught and crying was horrible. I quickly told her I could easily find someone else to do it, but she insisted – even when overwhelmed with grief, she wanted to help her students.
I always said that this is exactly how I want to be when I was 80 – compassionate, skeptical, witty, and still excited
about science. That was before I knew her history as a Holocaust survivor. To think that she became such a strong woman and wonderful scientist even through that tragedy is amazing. She’s a role model to everyone, but especially to female scientists. I can only hope to be half the woman she is when I’m 80.
I don’t know enough programming to understand any of the details, but this is still pretty cool. Two Stanford students (coincidence!) made a Rap Lyric Generator for the final project for one of their CS classes. The result? Well, I had a hard time telling the difference between the man-made rap song, and the computer generated one.
Let’s play a game! Guess which of theses verses come from a real rap song, and which were generated by a computer (answers at bottom of post).
1. And I say “a yia yia yia”
Let’s get it on every time
Holler out “Your mine”
And I say “Oh oo oh oo oh oh oh oh oh
So if you willin’ you wit it then we can spend time
And I say “a yia yia yia”2. Now first let’s call for the motherfuckin indo
Pull out your crutch and put away your pistol3. you take pride in suckin’ a good dick
and after i nut bitch you better not spit ha ha ha ha
you’re a dirt dobbler a goop gobbler
you’ll fuck satan for the righteous dollar
so gimme some gimme some4. can a nigga get some to go yeah baby
she got it she got it she got it
i do my thang in the club
you can do it5. see i won’t deny it i’m a straight ridah
i got semi-autos to put holes in niggaz tryina play me
i look to my future cause my past is all behind me
yeah see the cross on my neck that just might freeze me
Of course, that’s probably because rap sounds like total nonsensical gibberish to begin with… Alright, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say their hard work probably had something to do with it too. I mean, they even included a graph of “Rap Quality” (which I’m pretty sure is an oxymoron). Bad music aside, the project is still cool!
(Answers: Human, Human, Human, Computer, Computer)
A friend of mine sent me this image with the comment “This is why I believe in an infallible God.”
Hey, but you know what? Science can bring that back! Mwahahahahahaaaaa!
…I have obviously not learned anything from Jurassic Park.
Not sleepless, though. Seriously, my hotel bed was the most comfortable thing ever. Slept like a baby. I think I’ve figure out my sleep problems: stop sleeping in beds that are older than I am.
Anyway, Seattle and the University of Washington was a lot of fun. The whole time I was there it was sunny and in the 50s, which felt balmy after coming from below freezing weather. On the downside, apparently people in Seattle are so used to their gloom and rain that they have no idea how to drive when it’s sunny out. Seriously, the traffic was absolutely horrible. The Olympics, Bon Jovi concert, and Yo-yo National Tournament may have also had an affect (you know people love their yo-yos).
But that didn’t stop me from going on an adventure. One of my readers, Jaki, picked me up so I didn’t have to battle the traffic on public transportation. She sounded sweet enough on the phone that I felt my odds were good that she wasn’t going to turn out to be an axe murderer. We made our way over to the Pacific Science Center and met up with two more of my readers, Jason and Jerry (it was a J-name party!).
I had a lot of fun. Probably way too much fun than anyone over the age of 10 is intended to have in this place. We went to the dinosaur exhibit first, which had a bunch of animatronic dinosaurs. I hate to say it, but they looked crummy compared to the quality of the brand new Creation Museum, which made me said. But then I was happy when I read all of the information and played the games that were actually teaching good science and not a bunch of make believe.
Where are the human animatronics? I’m so confused. This isn’t what I learned at the Creation Museum…
My favorite part of the museum was the big section on genetics. I love science museums like this because it’s full of hilarious silly games, like this one where you’re a European corn borer and you’re trying to destroy as much corn as possible. Hellz yes. It may be corny (ha), but it cracks me up. How many games do you get to play as a European corn borer?!
It’s also full of bad puns. What’s not to love?
They also had a new exhibit on what it would be like being an astronaut going to Mars.
Some nice subtle product placement there, Microsoft. Apparently now we don’t just have to worry about them taking over the world – now we have to worry about Mars too!
It was pretty neat. They had stuff ranging from gloves that simulated the pressure of space, a low-gravity harness simulator, genetically modified plants. They also asked “Who should go to Mars?” with the makings of a reality TV show:
I swear to god I did not do this. Some bored dad was laughing at his creation when I stumbled upon it.
The next couple of days were devoted to my UW interviews. I was with a group of 16 students, and apparently another 16 had come two weeks before. We were showed around the city, got to see some apartments, met a lot of graduate students, and interviewed with professors. I thought their program was wonderful, and I’m still amazed by the high throughput sequencing resources they had. And today I got an email from one professor that I interviewed with that I was officially accepted, yay!
It’s definitely going to be a hard decision. I like UW just as much as Harvard, but for different things. I think I’m going to have to visit Stanford next week, let everything soak in for a bit, and then try to make a decision. Because right now I have no idea what I’d do!
This is a Guest Post by Frank Bellamy, a reader and content manager for the eMpirical, the newsletter for the Secular Student Alliance. He recently wrote an interesting article on why Humanists should not deliver invocations, but today he’s going to talk a bit about philosophy. So, discuss your hearts out while I’m away!
Evils of constructive empiricism
Philosophers routinely entertain and foster ideas which are not only stupid, but also an affront to science: dualism, intelligent design, qualia, the list goes on. Another item on that list that I have only recently discovered is constructive empiricism. That phrase may sound harmless enough, after all, scientists like empirical evidence, and being constructive is good, right? It’s anything but harmless when one looks at its meaning. According to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, “the constructive empiricist holds that science aims at truth about observable aspects of the world, but that science does not aim at truth about unobservable aspects.” In other words, science gives us no reason for thinking that the unobservable constructs posited by scientific theories actually exist.
A few concrete examples may be useful here. According to the constructive empiricist, we have no good reason to think that atoms exist. After all, no one has ever seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled an atom. Atoms may be a useful computational tool for determining what will happen when we mix two substances together, but that is not a reason for attributing actual existence to them. Scientists may even believe that atoms exist, but if they do they go beyond what the evidence warrants.
Evolutionary biologists are in equal trouble. Since we can’t actually observe history, we have no reason for believing historical claims. The idea that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor more recently than humans and cats may be useful for explaining and predicting various features of the genomes, morphology, or cognitive capacities of these species, but that is not a reason for thinking that any of these species share common ancestors, or indeed that they even have ancestors at all.
To use a more every day example, I have a theory that Jen believes that the christian god does not exist. This theory may be useful in predicting what sorts of things Jen will write on her blog in the future. It allows me to predict, for example, that the next time Jen writes about some amazing new scientific discovery, she will explain it in naturalistic rather than theological terms. But according to the constructive empiricist, that is no reason for thinking that Jen actually has such a belief. Since I can’t directly observe any of Jens beliefs, I am completely unwarranted in believing that she has beliefs at all. So much for theory of mind being a positive aspect of human cognition.
Lets set aside the fact that constructive empiricism entails that scientists are liars and consider its practical implications for science. A scientist who believes in constructive empiricism doesn’t have to waste time considering such irrelevant questions as whether his pet theory is true or not, or how it relates to other theories in other parts of science. All that matters is whether his pet theory can account for the available data.
One implication of this is that it completely undermines the motivation most scientists have for doing science in the first place. Scientists don’t just want equations and models that predict data, we want to understand whatever phenomenon we have chosen to study. We want to know what’s actually going on in the world. We want to know how what we’re doing relates to other parts of science. If constructive empiricism is true, then we are deluding ourselves. Science isn’t in the business of telling us how things really are.
Another implication of constructive empiricism is that it doesn’t really matter how well theories in different domains of science match up with each other. If we explain the movement of objects on earth in terms of forces and masses, and the movement of objects in the sky in terms of Ptolemy’s spheres, so long as we can predict the data that’s ok. If we have physically, neurally, or evolutionarily implausible theories of human cognition, that’s ok, so long as we can predict the behavioral data. If scientists were to truly adopt this view, it would change the face of science forever, and not for the better.
And why would I, a grad student with many other non-philosophical demands on his time be worrying about constructive empiricists you may wonder? It’s because I’ve recently discovered that my adviser is one. Frack me.