I’m not a big fan of Steven Pinker’s work, but I have to agree with just about everything he says in this letter arguing against the planned “Reason and Faith” requirement at Harvard.
First, the word “faith” in this and many other contexts, is a euphemism for “religion.” An egregious example is the current administration’s “faith-based initiatives,” so-named because it is more palatable than “religion-based initiatives.” A university should not try to hide what it is studying in warm-and-fuzzy code words.
Second, the juxtaposition of the two words makes it sound like “faith” and “reason” are parallel and equivalent ways of knowing, and we have to help students navigate between them. But universities are about reason, pure and simple. Faith—believing something without good reasons to do so—has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these. Imagine if we had a requirement for “Astronomy and Astrology” or “Psychology and Parapsychology.” It may be true that more people are knowledgeable about astrology than about astronomy, and it may be true that astrology deserves study as a significant historical and sociological phenomenon. But it would be a terrible mistake to juxtapose it with astronomy, if only for the false appearance of symmetry.
There’s more, but here’s the conclusion.
Again, we have to keep in mind that the requirement will attract attention from far and wide, and for a long time. For us to magnify the significance of religion as a topic equivalent in scope to all of science, all of culture, or all of world history and current affairs, is to give it far too much prominence. It is an American anachronism, I think, in an era in which the rest of the West is moving beyond it.
One of the sad consequences of the American separation of church and state is that it has fed the notion that church is as important as state, and that it needs to be accommodated with ever-growing privileges.
It is an American anachronism, I think, in an era in which the rest of the West is moving beyond it.
Setting aside the validity of this statement, which I think can be vigorously debated, let us assume that the statement is true. The West has set aside religion, aka, “objective” truth.
This is a GOOD thing? Observe Europe, with its non-existent mores, lazy work-force and self-destructive demographics (ie. birth rates), allowing itself to finally succumb to the Islamic flood that was twice turned away at the gates of Vienna and earlier by Charles the Hammer.
Yes. Let us all embrace the Pinkerian/Pharyngulan desire to stand for nothing in the face of other, more certain cultural onslaughts.
Yet another example of why your mindset is so totally bereft, PZ.
“…religion, aka, “objective” truth.”
You are kidding, right?
Good letter, how depressing to think Harvard’s undergrads might need such cautioning.
Countdown to the first Christer showing up and claiming this is not an appropriate definition of faith.
Teenage Pregnancy
Country Birth rate*
Switzerland 5.5
Netherlands 6.2
Sweden 6.5
Italy 6.6
Spain 7.9
Denmark 8.1
France 9.3
Belgium 9.9
Greece 11.8
Germany 13.1
Czech Republic 16.4
Ireland 18.7
Poland 18.7
Portugal 21.1
Hungary 26.5
United Kingdom 30.8
vs. the U.S at 48.8 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19
Yes, I can see where we are doing so much better in the morals department.
And who wouldn’t like the vacation plan of the rest of the developed world. In the U.S. you get 2 weeks vacation with a new job. Europeans typically get a month off work or more.
The West has set aside religion, aka, “objective” truth.
I’m glad that you put scare quotes around the objective nature of religious truth, as religion must be subjective by it’s nature, while science does offer us objective truths.
After all, two people can test a scientific proposition and come to agreement based on the results of the test, while two people with different religious beliefs have no such recourse, each stuck in their subjective worlds with no recourse other than bare assertion of their rightness.
Observe Europe, with its non-existent mores, lazy work-force and self-destructive demographics (ie. birth rates)
Most European nations have far higher population densities than the US. The UK is smaller than Oregon, yet the UK has 60 million people compared to Oregon’s 3 million. The Netherlands has an order of magnitude higher population density than the US (486/km2 compared to 32/km2 for the US.) If low population densities are a problem, the US had better start worrying about the problem right now instead of worrying what will happen to Europe when it reaches population densities as low as the US in a few centuries.
I’m curious what problems people have with Pinker’s work (legitimately curious; not trying to lead anyone on and then attack). It seems that a lot of Scibloggers dislike him, but I don’t yet know exactly why.
I have always enjoyed his work: probably because How the Mind Works got me into neuroscience. Also, I particularly liked how Blank Slate deconstructs ridiculous arguments about humanity (e.g. nature v. nurture, noble savage, and tabula rasa).
I suppose he does come across a bit sure of his position on some topics which are, undoubtedly, still debatable.
The West has set aside religion, aka, “objective” truth.
I’m glad that you put scare quotes around the objective nature of religious truth, as religion must be subjective by it’s nature, while science does offer us objective truths.
After all, two people can test a scientific proposition and come to agreement based on the results of the test, while two people with different religious beliefs have no such recourse, each stuck in their subjective worlds with no recourse other than bare assertion of their rightness.
Observe Europe, with its non-existent mores, lazy work-force and self-destructive demographics (ie. birth rates)
Most European nations have far higher population densities than the US. The UK is smaller than Oregon, yet the UK has 60 million people compared to Oregon’s 3 million. The Netherlands has an order of magnitude higher population density than the US (486/km2 compared to 32/km2 for the US.) If low population densities are a problem, the US had better start worrying about the problem right now instead of worrying what will happen to Europe when it reaches population densities as low as the US in a few centuries.
Oh noes, teh Islam!
One of my most favorite things about Christianists is how they unfailingly equate “mores”/”morals” with “what you do with your naughty bits.” Not a peep about taking care of the poor, elderly and disabled… nary a word about living in peace with your neighbors… not so much as an eyebrow raised in the direction of rampant luxuriating greed. But two people who aren’t married and may be of the same gender messing about below each others’ belts? Release the hounds!
(And what’s really funny is that the “Muslim menace” they so resolutely fear has pretty much exactly the same views on morals=the proper employment, or lack thereof, of personal genital expression.)
Which faith?
I will just repeat what I said on the earlier post about this:
Bad idea! This will just encourage the religious nuts.
And add:
Heck, I’d be in favor of removing that big old church they stuck in the middle of Harvard Yard. And fire that Gomes guy. He’s clearly insane.
Death to all fantasy religions. Long live atheism!
I’m curious what problems people have with Pinker’s work
What gets most biologists annoyed at Pinker is is rather cartoonish understanding of evolution that dispenses with such details as genes and mutations and proceeds from observation to conclusion without any experiment in between. He’s not as far out there as those London School of Economics types, but he’s close.
One of the sad consequences of the American separation of church and state is that it has fed the notion that church is as important as state, and that it needs to be accommodated with ever-growing privileges.
This is why it’s worth repeatedly pointing out that the Constitution forbids the government from passing laws respecting religion in the First Amendment, but EXPLICITLY PROVIDES Congress with the power to pass laws “to promote the progress of science …”
That says it all about how the framers perceived the relative utility of science versus religion to the health of the country.
American Christianity is free to wither and die and Congress is FORBIDDEN to do anything to prevent that from happening. Praise the freeking gorb.
Observe Europe, with its non-existent mores, lazy work-force and self-destructive demographics (ie. birth rates), allowing itself to finally succumb to the Islamic flood that was twice turned away at the gates of Vienna and earlier by Charles the Hammer.
Europe wouldn’t be in such bad shape if it were not for 1.) the glorification of religious tolerance to accomodate irrational religious faith and 2.) taboos against criticizing religion.
Because they are envious of his luxuriant flowing hair.
Shorter hoody:
Europe has abandoned religion, so now they’re all Moslem.
Also, ignore Europe’s far better track record with affordable healthcare for the poor, giving new mothers enough maternity leave that they don’t need to choose between children and career, pensions that the elderly can live on, and general not-letting-people-starve-to-death-itude, they let gay people sleep together! Clearly, this is not a model America wants to emulate in any way whatsoever!
It would probably raise the level of commentary if we had some idea what Harvard’s proposed “Reason and Faith” requirement consisted of, or how one would fulfill it.
Sounds like you spend too much time reading Townhall.com. “non-existent mores”? Teen pregnancy rates are lower in virtually all of europe than in the US. Teen pregnancy rates are *highest* in the Bible belt – the area where “mores” should be the highest. Even rates of sexual activity are higher in the US than in europe. “lazy work-force”? Productivity measurements across nations show Western European nations right around US levels. Some nations (like the Netherlands) actually have higher workforce productivity than the US. “self-destructive demographics” the US fertility rates (births per woman) are slightly above 2.0. The only reason that’s the case is because of hispanic immigrants. (Whites in Utah also has high fertility rates.) The fertility rates of Whites in the US is around 1.85. This is similar to fertility rates in France. Additionally, the Muslim immigrants to France come largely from the countries of Tunesia and Algeria. While I don’t know the fertility rates of Muslims in France, the fertility rates of those countries are also close to 2. Europe is not going to be drowning in a flood of european-born Muslims, as much as the histerical Right-wing pundits try to convince you it’s true.
Don’t forget the incredible rate of divorce in Gawd’s Country.
Yeah, and americans are fat, stupid, fanatical, power-hungry prisoner-torturers.
Stupid prejudices galore.
I’d also like to know people have against Pinker. I just finished re-reading “How the Mind Works” and found it fascinating. He is clearly not writing for scientists, so he leaves out the details. As far as I can tell he is basically correct in what he says. His arguments make sense and I can’t spot any obvious hand-waving to make a point.
Since I get most of my science from popular writers like Dawkins, Gould, Pinker, and Sagan, it could be that they are misrepresenting the fundamentals, but as a non-scientist they make sense to me and seem to be consistent with each other on the major points. (Though they clearly disagree on the intrepation of some of the details-Gould especially seems to be a target of other popular writers.)
So can anyone tell us what specifically is wrong with their writing?
Creationists love to cite Gould.
Reason I can agree one might want to study. Faith? How about Reason or Faith or, as a more closely worded title, Reason and Nonreason.
Yes, look to Europe. Perhaps we can learn something from them. I’m not talking about your namby pamby liberal stuff like health care and teen pregnancy, I’m talking about democracy. Currently northern Europe is beating the pants off the USA in rankings of democracy, with the USA coming in 17th.
Shame.
Louis Menand, one of the architects of the new Harvard core, is not a big fan of Pinker.
http://www.hereinstead.com/sys-tmpl/bmenadonpinker/
Pinker doesn’t care much for art, though. When he does care for something–cognitive science, for example–he is all in favor of training people to do it, even though, as he admits, many of the methods and assumptions of modern science are counter-intuitive. The fact that innate mathematical ability is still in the Stone Age distresses him; he has fewer problems with Stone Age sex drives. He objects to using education “to instill desirable attitudes toward the environment, gender, sexuality, and ethnic diversity”; but he insists that “the obvious cure for the tragic shortcomings of human intuition in a high-tech world is education.” He thinks that we should be teaching economics, evolutionary biology, and probability and statistics, even if we have to stop teaching literature and the classics. It’s O.K. to rewire people’s “natural” sense of a just price or the movement of a subatomic particle, in other words, but it’s a waste of time to tinker with their untutored notions of gender difference.
Here’s a slightly better Menand quote:
The question is how much biology explains about life out here on the twenty-first-century street.
Pinker’s idea is that it explains much more than some people–he calls these people “intellectuals”–think it does, and that the failure, or refusal, to acknowledge this has led to many regrettable things, including the French Revolution, modern architecture, and the crimes of Josef Stalin. Intellectuals deny biology, according to Pinker, because it interferes with their pet theories of mind and behavior. These are the Blank Slate (the belief that the mind is wholly shaped by the environment), the Noble Savage (the notion that people are born good but are corrupted by society), and the Ghost in the Machine (the idea that there is a nonbiological agent in our heads with the power to change our nature at will). The “intellectuals” in Pinker’s book are social scientists, progressive educators, radical feminists, academic Marxists, liberal columnists, avant-garde arts types, government planners, and postmodernist relativists. The good guys are the cognitive scientists and ordinary folks, whose common sense, except when it has been damaged by listening to intellectuals, generally correlates with what cognitive science has discovered. I wish I could say that Pinker’s view of the world of ideas is more nuanced than this.
http://www.hereinstead.com/sys-tmpl/bmenadonpinker/
Oh no, hoody points out an imminent danger: the “Islamic flood”! Quick, someone build an ark!
I’m not sure that’s the reason why Pinker leaves out the details…
Whenever Pinker invokes “evolutionary psychology” he is hand waving. There’s *no* evidence to suggest (as Pinker does in “How the Mind Works”) that humans evolved disgust of feces to avoid pathogenic microbes, for example. Not that it can’t be true, but we have to have more evidence than Pinker’s words. He’s not simplifying it for the general public — his hunch is all there is to support it.
AH.
I guess I’ll have to reread both How the Mind Works and Blank Slate- I read them both before my scientific schooling, and now I might better understand the arguments against his writings.
But I’ll always give him the benefit of the doubt since his book gave me the push to leave music and enter science.
Observe Europe, with its non-existent mores, lazy work-force and self-destructive demographics (ie. birth rates)
You’ve perfectly encapsulated why I want to move there.
I don’t see the problem with Harvard adding a “Reason and Faith” section to what I assume is the Core.
To all y ‘all non-Harvardians, the Core is a series of general interest courses grouped into ten categories [my insight on this is ca. 1996 – take with a grain of salt]: Lit & Arts A,B & C (don’t ask – I don’t remember the differences), Foreign Cultures, Moral Reasoning, Science A & B, &c. Essentially, each category is an umbrella – and the individual classes can be *anything*, provided they fit into the general category. So a class about sex can coexist with Rocks for Jocks in the Science category.
Students take 8 Core classes total (avg 1 per semester) according to their interest & availability. Non-science majors are required to take courses from both Science categories, while science majors don’t get to take these Science courses to fulfill their Core requirement – they’re forced to take the Liberal arts-y type courses. It’s about breadth.
What’s the problem with studying about religions? They exist, they warp a good number of minds, they influence our culture’s art and literature. Harvard has decided that knowing a little something about some of them is now part of the University’s breadth requirements. BFD.
Anybody who assumes that that means that Harvardlings are going to start being religiously indoctrinated is quite in error. I, for one, look forward to going to my 15th reunion and attending a lecuture on “FSM, Cephalopodism and the influence of Atheism on the 2008 elections”. Can’t be any less fun than “Fairy Tales and the Culture of the Child”.
I’m hoping to land a job with German company here in the US. They give 5 weeks vacation to MDs like me. Five weeks!
Depending on how this is implemented I( speaking as an alum by the way) potentially agree with Zil. If done right it can be very much in the spirit of what Dennett and Dawkins meant about the importance of objective teaching and studying of religion as an undeniably significant human phenomenon. Of course even at Hahvahd (or Sodom on the Charles as fundamorons think of it) this could be done wrong.
Pinker’s book on language is pretty good, and he writes well. But he gets hung up on straw-man arguments about those areas of anthropology and sociology that he doesn’t like, and it’s clear he doesn’t know a damn thing about them. However, if he keeps up the kind of thing PZ cites here, I shall have to revise my opinion of him (well, a bit anyway…..)
Even shorter hoody:
Europe is religion-poor: non-existent mores, and too many Moors.
______
And given how worried social conservatives tend to be about the state of American families (and I tend to agree, if somewhat differently), you’d think they’d welcome a European-style increase in leisure. You get shorter days and workweeks, and longer vacations, that’s more time to spend together as a family, providing guidance and nurture for your kids – not to mention more time investing in one’s community, charity, etc. And you’d think they’d really like provisions that helped working mothers to stay home and care for small children.
Funny, that. Ha. Ha.
____________
But seriously, snipin’ at a Reason and Faith requirement – especially since that dichotomy (however one might frame it) has deeply shaped Western and modern thinking, and since, as already pointed out, religious beliefs have played a major role in human history and culture – seems kinda silly, at least without further details . . .
I just spotted what this guest columnist had to say last Saturday about Harvard’s “Reason and Faith” requirement.
“The committee’s recommendation (which has not yet been adopted) should not be misinterpreted as the thin edge of the wedge for the re-Christianization of Harvard. Nothing could be further from the truth. It expresses rather the hard-won recognition that being nonreligious is no excuse, if it ever was, for being religiously illiterate.”
“This is not exactly what the Puritans had in mind. They wanted Harvard students to be religious. The faculty committee simply wants them to be religiously informed.”
“Still, if Harvard adopts the recommendation (by no means a sure thing), it will send a strong signal to other institutions that religious illiteracy is a luxury our society cannot afford.”
Is it just me, or is Steinmetz missing the point?
Um… I went to a public liberal arts school and I had to take a class in religion or philosophy. We all did.
The only problem I have with this, is that it appears everyone takes the *same* class. I had about 15 classes to choose from– from general philosophy or ethics, to women in world religions or religion in Africa. If they really mean the above comment (‘It expresses rather the hard-won recognition that being nonreligious is no excuse, if it ever was, for being religiously illiterate.’) then why are they being so restrictive?
David C. Steinmetz is a professor at the Duke University Divinity School, and a 1967 Harvard graduate. This commentary was written for The Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel.
He’s missing the point.
“But universities are about reason, pure and simple.”
Uh, well, no. Unless you want to throw out the arts and humanities. Coming to an understanding of Sense and Sensibility involves a broader sense than what I believe Pinker is delimiting by “reason.” If the Menand quotes are accurate about Pinkier, he is proposing to toss the humanities. Strikes me as a very bad idea.
“After all, two people can test a scientific proposition and come to agreement based on the results of the test, while two people with different religious beliefs have no such recourse, each stuck in their subjective worlds with no recourse other than bare assertion of their rightness.”
This is wrong, in that it presupposes that the subjective worlds have nothing in common. Interfaith dialog can uncover areas of agreement and common (or disjunctive) underlying assumptions. Given the parodies of religions that pass for information, especially among the folks with guns (both sides), careful, systematic, and cooperative discussion of religion is critical, whether or not one wants to dismiss it as fantasy or superstition.
Some guys at Notre Dame (the President and Provost) think it’s a jolly good idea:
The Harvard committee rightly noted that students coming to college today struggle with an academy that is “profoundly secular.” This was not always the case, at Harvard or at many other universities. For centuries scholars, scientists and artists agreed that convictions of faith were wholly compatible with the highest levels of reasoning, inquiry and creativity. But in recent centuries this assumption had been challenged and assertions of faith marginalized in, and even banished from, academic departments and university curricula. Requiring courses in “Reason and Faith” would be a welcome step toward reintroducing faith to the academy.
http://al.nd.edu/about-arts-and-letters/news/op-ed-reason-and-faith-at-harvard/
That’s what we need. More faith.
Here’s a religious nut from Grace University:
By the 1960s, matters of faith were mocked and removed from almost all aspects of the curriculum. An antisupernaturalism pervaded the typical undergraduate education in America. Universities like Harvard were not neutral when it came to matters of faith; they were hostile to it. So, that Harvard is even considering introducing a course into its core curriculum on faith and reason is astonishing. Religion and theology are at the core of ethics, morality, life issues (e.g., abortion, euthanasia), stem cell research and the entire conflict with Islam. In fact, you cannot come to grips with these issues without some understanding of theology and religion. So, I applaud what Harvard is considering.
http://www.issuesinperspective.com/2006/November/06nov04-05_3.cfm
Looks like all the kooks are applauding this move.
Shrug. Whatever the reason for our disgust of feces, the fact of the matter is that our sense of taste is adjusted by nature to find some tastes good and other tastes bad. For humans, the fact that sugar tastes good and shit tastes like shit has to do with evolution. Do you think that the dung beatle is disgusted by shit? Do you think it goes to work and says, “I can’t take rolling around in shit anymore?” I highly doubt it. Since it’s so important in the life of the beatle, evolution has probably adjusted the taste sensation of a beatle so that shit tastes wonderful. It’s a simple rewiring of the tastebud so that taste “x” moves along a nerve which ends up in a pleasure or displeasure portion of the brain. From that standpoint, I really don’t find it so ridiculous to say that evolution might affect people’s attitudes towards feces towards better survival (i.e. being disgusted by it).
In response to my question about why people make snide remarks about Pinker, Jonathan Badger wrote, that humans evolved disgust of feces to avoid pathogenic microbes, for example. Not that it can’t be true, but we have to have more evidence than Pinker’s words. He’s not simplifying it for the general public — his hunch is all there is to support it.
If you are referring to the quote on p182, Pinker just spent four pages quoting anecdotes by several anthropologists about how people around the world have food revulsions. He also discusses some controlled studies with children. The revulsions don’t seem form before the age of two and exist despite knowing that others eat the same foods that they view with disgust. He then quotes Rozin who suggests that “Feces, carrion, and soft wet animal parts are home to harmful microorganisms…” . Presumably Rozin’s three papers in peer-reviewed journals have the details, but I don’t think Pinker needs the details to illustrate his point in this context.
He then goes on to talk some more about how variations in local plant and animal toxicity preclude revulsions to specific foods from being innate. He does state that revulsions are adaptations.
To me, he’s done a fine job of explaining how one aspect of human behavior may have evolved. If you are going to fault him for anything, it should be for relying on anecdotes and small sample sizes.
This section leads up to an even more interesting section on food taboos.
So I guess I still don’t know what specifically gets people sniping at Pinker.
George: Thanks for the links. I get that Menand really doesn’t like Pinker, but I haven’t had time to figure out why yet.
The point is that in serious evolutionary research you can’t just argue that something evolved because it seems “logical”. If you want to know how something evolved you have to get actual data. These days, this means comparative sequence data. There is absolutely *no* such evidence supporting the evolution of phobias against feces and other “disgusting” things. In fact, anyone who visits zoos knows that our closest relatives actually seem to enjoy playing with shit. But they don’t have a culture telling them that they are being disgusting.
hoody is quite a well-known Pharyngula troll. People who visit this blog regularly know him and his kind quite in depth. Therefore, early posters, don’t waste your rage, skepticism, ideas on him. It only serves to feed his trollishness further. He is incapable of saying anything that makes sense to anyone else.
I have been seeing his comments more often these days. He used to be regularly disemvowelled earlier; not any more. Is this some kind of a policy change, Prof. Myers? Are you turning more benevolent, somewhat avuncular with passage of time?
Jonathan, I am no fan of “evolutionary psychology” and I agree with your strictures on this example of it, but your criterion is far too stringent- it would prevent any sort of behavioral genetics from ever getting off the ground at all. They’ve got to identify genes before they can sequence them, after all. To see this just think of the genetic dissection of other things besides behavior. I don’t think you would have told Nusslein and Wieschaus not to bother until someday there would be a Drosophila genome project!
The li’l college down the river doesn’t seem to need faith: you don’t see MIT introducing a “reason and faith” requirement.
Sometimes, I love my alma mater.
If there’s only one course for everyone, it should probably cover the world’s classic religions: twelve classical world religions. This is the list of religions described most often in surveys of the subject, and studied in World Religion classes (some of them more for historical rather than contemporary reasons):
* Baha’i
* Buddhism
* Christianity
* Confucianism
* Hinduism
* Islam
* Jainism
* Judaism
* Shinto
* Sikhism
* Taoism
* Zoroastrianism
That should keep the students busy — about one week for each.
Another “faith and reason” advocate, this one a Sociology professor (Swarthmore and Yale) and “Ruling Elder of the Presbyterian Church”:
Harvard, whose original motto was Veritas pro Christo et ecclesia, seems to have forgotten some things about how the other 99% of humanity lives and what we value. It is refreshing to see them catch up with what is customary at most liberal arts colleges, like the one I teach in.
Seriously, Harvard is often a curriculum leader, especially for the secular research universities. I am glad that they have given up on the fantasy that religion will just go away, and are trying to bring their students “in the center of contemporary religious debates.”
Yup.
Link to quotation just posted:
http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2006/10/harvard-gets-religion.html
I went to a private school founded by the Lutheran Church, and we had a ‘religion’ requirement of 2 classes. One needed to be from the field of the history of religion (I believe at least 7 of that list of 12 were covered in this category) in some fashion – I chose to study the history of prophets and prophecy in the Bible vs. the other religions of the time and area – and the other had to come from a vague ‘ethics’-type category of debate-based classes such as medical ethics – I got to take Ethics of Sex and the Family, which focused on modern American mores, how they came to be, and what they mean.
These classes frequently offend sheltered fundies because of their critical academic looks at religion, but I think they’re excellent material. If you study literature from a culture with a strong religious tradition, you’d read its scriptures so you’d understand the inevitable illusions. To me, our requirement was the same thing. We have to live in a culture influenced by religion with a history entwined with it – it’s good to know what the deal is.
Just thought I’d put in a bit about how, when done right, these classes can be used for good and not evil ;)
Thank you Jonathan, that made my day. My amateurish analysis of why I found Pinker annoying was too vacuous to rely on – so I’m heartened when professionals find him sloppy too!
But his op-ed was well motivated and (though lacking the background material) seems well formulated.
BC:
I haven’ performed the experiment myself, but my understanding is that shit smells like shit but tastes nothing. So it would be foul smell, not disgust, that would be the driving force to avoid contact. But see Jonathan’s comment on animals.
Thank you Jonathan, that made my day. My amateurish analysis of why I found Pinker annoying was too vacuous to rely on – so I’m heartened when professionals find him sloppy too!
But his op-ed was well motivated and (though lacking the background material) seems well formulated.
BC:
I haven’ performed the experiment myself, but my understanding is that shit smells like shit but tastes nothing. So it would be foul smell, not disgust, that would be the driving force to avoid contact. But see Jonathan’s comment on animals.
Oh yes, I’m amazed by what the Drosophila people could do without a genome sequence. But then again, they had the next best thing — detailed genetic maps. But in this the era of cheap genomics it is more likely that genes are identified after, rather than before, sequencing, as most non-model organisms haven’t had nearly a century of classical genetics done on them.
I went to a Jesuit college – in addition to and separate from theology, we had to take 3 courses in Philosophy and you only got to choose the third. The first was “The Human Person” (exploration of what it means to be human), the second was “Moral Philosophy” (what, if anything, was the rational basis for moral ‘imperatives’).
Add in a requirement to take Basic Epistemology, and with those three I’m convinced that you wouldn’t need to worry about universities encouraging irrationalism.
(OT – In my case, the third philosophy course was “Visions of Utopia”, where I discovered LeGuin’s very short scifi story ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.’ Years later I still consider that far more spiritually unsettling than anything I’ve read in the Bible.)(Well, except maybe Job.)
Just for the hell of it, I want to be the first atheist to point out that defining faith as unwarranted belief, and then defining religion as faith, is not, as they say, warranted by the evidence.
SV Done Said:
I was exposed to that story in Literature of Women (as the only male in the class, yet) and found it to be the most disturbing tale I’ve ever read.
My professor stated that the worst part was those who remained and partied down, relying on the child’s suffering to make their lives wonderful.
My reaction was that the greatest pity was that the ones who walked away didn’t rescue the child. I mean, screw the rest of the city. They have no right.
The parallels between religion’s reliance on an external “enemy” who must be made to suffer eternally so everybody else can have a good time weren’t taken well by the class. Not well at all.
I hope some of them have grown up since.
Morph
I don’t suppose anyone in the class realized that our society is built on the suffering of the people who support it?
Jonathan, that’s simply not the case. Without the mutant screen, all the genome analysis in the world could not have given people much insighht into genes important in development, for the simple reason that they would not have had any idea what to look for. And those genes now first identified by sequencing are usually identified because of their homologies to genes known from Drosophila and other model organisms with a well-developed base of genetic knowledge. (Also there are now tricks like RNAi to inactivate genes without using classical mutagenesis screens, but this again is not just a matter of doing sequence crunching, it’s simply classical genetics by other means.) It’s the same with behavior genetics: simply looking at sequences gets you pretty much nowhere. There’s no substitute for the identification of genes by their effects on behavior, difficult though that can be in practice. Genomics is very valuable but it hasn’t somehow become a substitute for biology in general- it’s a tool.
Again, this is not in any way meant to excuse excruciating amateur armchair genetics like Pinker’s.
Cal Done Said:
It was quite a long time ago (well nigh twenty years now), but if memory serves, yes. To a point. After all, I support this society within limits, and I don’t exactly suffer greatly.
Besides, jobs, even poor ones, mean that people eat. Pragmatist that I am, I can’t fault that too badly. It could certainly be worlds better, but overall things do seem to be improving somewhat over the course of my lifetime, and rather extremely over the longer term.
Here I wouldn’t say that the literary correlation is perfect, although you do certainly have an excellent point.
Morph
I don’t wish this to be interpreted as an insult, but statistically speaking, your job position probably isn’t actually very important to the functioning of society.
What about the migrant workers who slave picking crops and have hugely elevated cancer rates from the pesticide exposure? Do you have a credit card? Most credit card companies support themselves by inducing foolish people to incur massive fines. Fast food workers. I could go on.
Even that suffering retarded child eats.
“I haven’ performed the experiment myself, but my understanding is that shit smells like shit but tastes nothing.?”
Wha…? This has to be one of the silliest, and unscientific, statements that I have ever read.
Cal Done Said:
Delicate sniff. (Removes gloves, strikes Cal across the face). You insult me, Sir. Dawn, with pistols or swords, your choice!
Actually, not really, and I don’t insult easily. I wouldn’t exactly say that, were I to drop dead in a hour, civilization would collapse behind me. Fortunately. Nobody has–or should have–that kind of responsibility.
Long-story-short, I maintain the patient information network for a hospital, plus program and do statistical work in my so-copious spare time. Important…reasonably. Societally critical, no.
These are bad things, certainly. I still think that, far worse, would be a non-working migrant (or not) who sits home and starves because there are no jobs. Would you have a link or links on the increased cancer rates? My cousins are farmers (of an orchard), so that would be a potential problem for them. Me, I go 100% organic where possible.
One, paid off monthly, but I am not stuff-addicted. I am, in fact, donating a lot of my stuff to the local thrift store. I have way too much stuff as it is.
In this particular instance, the word “foolish” is the operative one. If you (general, not directed directly at you, Cal) cannot control your spending, cut up your card(s) and throw them away. Learn to live on what you make. Granted, the government provides no good example for this.
On the flip side are those who simply don’t make enough and have to charge essentials. This is a great pity, but I did, many moons ago, used to teach this sort. Oddly, although the food gets charged, so does the trip to Italy (in one instance) or far too many clothes (in many).
First, cut expenses, then you may gripe about charging essentials. I have little enough tolerance of fools in this instance. Finances are simple addition and subtraction.
Quite, as could I. I didn’t make the statement that everything was groovy, however. I said it could be worlds better but that, over time and on average, it does improve.
Sometimes I think that this century’s sheer riches highlight the differences much more than previous periods ever did. We produce so many goods and services that somebody like me, who lives in a home that’s warm, has plenty of stored food, and every technological doodad (such as electric lights) one could imagine…well, we cannot imagine the lifestyle that was the average six hundred years ago.
Nor, I should think, would we want to. And I certainly don’t want to live that lifestyle. Some still do, of course, but the average has risen.
And that’s a good thing. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but good.
Morph
Ah, but we in the First World have managed to produce such wonderful lifestyles by consuming resources far faster than they can be replaced. What about the future suffering that this pattern implies?
To create Paradise, one must create Hell to provide contrast.
Cal Done Said:
Regrettably, that has been true since the Stone Age. Flint just doesn’t grow there…and using it means we would have eventually used it up.
Technological advancement not only implies faster use of resources, but increasingly superior access to more remote resources.
This must have a limit, but I’ll be durned if I know where it is. Perhaps, if the concept of snagging asteroids and using their metals is correct, there is no effective limit for a very long time. I cannot say.
Perhaps arable land is the limit, a la Tepper’s Fidipur in Beauty. Again, I don’t know, but I tend to think that the population would crash long before that, saving the vast majority of the biosphere. Not without consequences, of course, but not so bleak as she painted it.
That may be the best reason for fundies that I have ever heard. Most that I have met I don’t fear. I pity. They seem so…fearful themselves. Of themselves, in part. I do not understand it. I don’t want to. I’m quite pleased with the diversity of thought I encounter daily, and it does not frighten me.
At least in my case, a comparison to Average or Slightly Below is just fine for evaluating Paradise. Nothing need be Hell for me to be happy; I don’t require that, nor would I enjoy it. Nor need life be Paradise for me to be happy. Good enough…is good enough.
Morph
Monkeys may throw shit, but will they eat food which has it? Also, I don’t know if the feces of an omnivore would be more dangerous than those of a frugivore or leaf-eater.
Well, one area that Pinker is getting support would be microbes and smells. Here is one recent study.
http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/microbe-competition.htm
What they don’t mention there, is why the animals would have evolved to reject the food just because of a smell. Probably it’s because their study didn’t generate that data.
Let me indulge in unsupported speculation and suggest that this is like the protective colouration of wasps and monarch butterflies. Being dangerous is not as effective as being dangerous and providing an obvious warning. Microbes that produce toxins to guard their food will be more successful if they also produce warning smells.
Naturally, if Pinker is throwing out lots of stuff that isn’t or can’t easily be supported by experiment then he is going to miss some and hit some.
Where did I claim this was science? I was relating what one (usually reliable) person told of his experience with tripping in a cow pen and getting a mouthful of dung.
As I said, I haven’t tried. (There isn’ät enough money…) Off hand, I would think that most of the initial tastecontaining compounds like sweets and salts are gone. Who knows that the remains taste like after a heavy acid treatment and passing a processing plant filled with sundry bacteria?
But if you are interested you have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia .
“Gorillas eat their own feces and the feces of other gorillas.” (Ibid.) There is a link to a purported video… But again, I haven’t done that ‘experiment’ either. :-)
Where did I claim this was science? I was relating what one (usually reliable) person told of his experience with tripping in a cow pen and getting a mouthful of dung.
As I said, I haven’t tried. (There isn’ät enough money…) Off hand, I would think that most of the initial tastecontaining compounds like sweets and salts are gone. Who knows that the remains taste like after a heavy acid treatment and passing a processing plant filled with sundry bacteria?
But if you are interested you have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia .
“Gorillas eat their own feces and the feces of other gorillas.” (Ibid.) There is a link to a purported video… But again, I haven’t done that ‘experiment’ either. :-)
Having been an adventurous small child, I can confirm this for the human case. Faintly bitter but otherwise tasteless is my recollection. And yes, I was very sick for several days afterwards, though perhaps it was psychosomatic. (Since I first told her, my wife spontaneously bursts out laughing about once a month when she recalls the story. Can’t imagine why…)
I’ve seen a bonobo doing it in captivity, and the Columbus Zoo’s provides pretty good housing, so I imagine it wasn’t just prison-crazed or anything. Nor were the other bonobos edging away in horror.
Rabbits eat their own ‘dung’ because their digestive systems are too short to fully process the plant material – it seems to be simpler than chewing a cud.
I believe gorillas are herbivorous – perhaps something similar is taking place there?
Nah. A church is a private club, and has all the rights and privileges of a private club: it can include or exclude whom it will, it can pay ludicrous salaries; it can not sexually abuse members. All marriages should be by marriage licence, and if you want have your marriage blessed elesewhere, so be it. Church property should be taxed at the same rate as residences or businesses: take your pick.
Laws will have equal application. If marriage is for couples to declare their devotion and regularize their property status and so on, any two consenting adults can get married. If marriage is for procreation, only mutually fertile couples can get married. Men and women will have to be pass a fertility/virility test and, of course, no old people will be allowed to get married since that would make a mockery of the purpose of marriage. How’s that?
Rabbits produce a special “night pellet” that is fermented in the caecum(?) overnight — they eat it in the morning and that’s how they get their B vitamins. Some other animals may do similarly.