Science

Tom Gilson has posted some thoughts on the “self-undermining” arguments about rationality and naturalism that have been made by C.S. Lewis, Victor Reppert, J.R. Lucas, Richard Taylor, Alvin Plantinga, and others. The basic argument is that if our thoughts are the product of natural causes, then we have no reason to trust that the inferences we make are rational. There are many variations on the argument, and I think this basic line of argument goes back to ancient arguments about determinism. I offered my thoughts in the comments on Vic Reppert’s blog, and repeat them here: The conclusion that rationality is undermined doesn’t follow–at best the conclusion is that the connection between the physical causes and the rational inferences is at best a contingent one that is in need of explanation, which I think is a valid conclusion. But it’s one that is in the process of being answered as we learn about how the brain and perceptual systems work, how language develops, and how the mind evolved. If the fact that the brain operates in accordance with physical law undermined rationality, then the fact that computers operate in accordance with physical law would undermine their ability to perform logical inferences and computations. The real question is how brains came to be able to engage in rational inferences in virtue of the way that they physically operate, not whether they do. Gilson (and Victor) argue that they could only have this ability by being divinely designed to do so–a thesis that doesn’t seem to be particularly fruitful for scientific exploration.Naturalists and supernaturalists agree that we do engage in rational inferences. The supernaturalists think we do so using magical non-physical properties; many of them think that our minds are completely independent of our brains, though I think this is a position that is untenable in the face of empirical evidence from neuroscience (evidence which I have yet to see a substance dualist even attempt to address). In the face of arguments about the fact that computers are physical devices which engage in computation and inference, they respond that this is not real computation and inference, but only a derived computation and inference that is fully dependent upon human computation and inference. Naturalists, by contrast, think that our abilities to engage in rational inference and language have evolved, and that they are both dependent on natural causes and productive in generating additional natural causes of reasoning and action. They are far from perfect–we can identify systematic failures of reasoning that occur (e.g., examples of the sort in Kahneman & Tversky’s classic Judgment Under Uncertainty). And our understanding of our own abilities is far from complete–but is growing rapidly. Scientific examination of our cognitive capabilities has been extremely productive, while the supernatural thesis has been moribund. ...

Over at Multipolarity Memes there’s a post about a short (though large), 3D-rendered, animation of a hypothetical nanofactory. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m no expert at this stuff, but I did take some intermediate chemistry and physics classes in college, so the animation immediately raises a number of questions in my mind; viz.: At that size, can they realistically assume that the envisioned structures will be as rigid as they make them out to be? What about Brownian motion? What about transfer of heat—especially given that there are, presumably, chemical reactions taking place, and these reactions will involve energy transfers? What type of bonding is happening at the transfer points? Chemical reactions don’t happen magically—and they don’t happen without some energy input or energy release—neither of which are being obviously represented in the video. It’s a pretty fantasy, but how realistic is it, really? ...

Carl Zimmer’s blog, The Loom, features this image with better resolution. It comes from biologists at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, who have published in Science the most thorough tree of life based on sequencing 31 universal genes selected from 191 species of animals, plants, fungi, protozoans, bacteria, and archaea. Zimmer explains the diagram: ...

I’ve posted a commentary on the exchange between Richard Carrier and Tom Wanchick about this particular argument from Carrier. The post is at the Secular Outpost.

Today would be Darwin’s 197th birthday… as part of the Darwin week events at Arizona State University, tomorrow is a public lecture on “Creationism and Evolution in America: World Views in Conflict” by Regents Professor Geoffrey A. Clark of the ASU School of Human Evolution and Social Change. The event will take place from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Murdock Hall, room 101 (I remember that room well from my undergraduate days in computer science). The event is sponsored by the Secular Freethought Society (the “Secular Devils”), which has a 2006 event calendar online.

George Deutsch is a 24-year-old Texas A&M University graduate in journalism (class of 2003) who was appointed by the White House to the press office of NASA headquarters after his stint as an intern working in the “war room” of the Bush 2004 reelection campaign. He has gotten some well-deserved press lately for the fact that, despite having no science background, he apparently has had the authority to tell senior scientists at NASA such as Dr. James Hansen what they can and cannot say to the press. In October 2005, he told a NASA contractor working on an educational website about Einstein for middle-school students that he must add the word “theory” after every occurrence of the phrase “Big Bang,” because the Big Bang “is not proven fact; it is opinion. […] It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator. […] This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.” As others have noted, Deutsch not only doesn’t understand what the word “theory” means, his knowledge of theology seems pretty weak–the Big Bang is commonly used as an argument for the existence of God (e.g., William Lane Craig’s version of the kalam cosmological argument, which has as a premise that the universe has a finite past). World O’Crap has dug up some of Mr. Deutsch’s past work at the Texas A&M Battalion, which includes this comment on the Laci Peterson murder: Still, the defense’s main theory – that a Satanic cult killed Laci – is actually quite credible. Several impartial witnesses have reported seeing a van adorned with satanic symbols and a man with “666” tattooed on his arm in front of the Peterson home in late December. ...

The “Secular Freethought Society” at Arizona State University (also known as the “Secular Devils”) has an event calendar for 2006 on the web. Gerda de Klerk, the group’s president, sent me an email inviting me to attend any of them, and asking me to pass it on to anyone else interested. The Eugenie Scott talk I’ve already mentioned is on the list, along with some Darwin Week events for February 13-17, a film screening of “Bob Smith USA” followed by “Normal Bob Smith and his Unholy Army of Catholic School Girls invade downtown Tempe” on March 3, a talk by John Lynch of the stranger fruit blog on the development of creationism into the intelligent design movement on March 28, among others.

The latest issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education includes an article (“The Taboo Standard”) by Marni Landry of Paradise Valley High School, who reports that she proposed a study to survey life science teachers in the Phoenix Union High School District on the subject of evolution. The survey, intended to support her M.A. thesis work at the University of Phoenix, asked the recipients whether they agreed or disagreed slightly or completely with the following statements: I have helped to write the district or state science standards. I would like to contribute in the writing of the district or state science standards. I know specifically what the district standards are concerning the theory of evolution. I have avoided details about the origin of life in order to avoid conflict in my classroom. The theory of evolution goes against my religious beliefs. If I were to get into a confrontation with a student or parent concerning the theory of evolution, I feel that [the] administration would support my actions. I feel that creationism (creation science) should be taught parallel to evolution in the classroom. I am concerned over the fact that many states have removed evolution from their science standards. Students must understand the theory of evolution in order to understand the study of biology. I have experienced conflict with a student, parent, or administrator concerning my teaching of evolution.This survey and edited versions were rejected by school district administrators as “too controversial.” The irony of being unable to conduct a survey of science teachers about a subject that they are required by state science standards to teach is explicitly noted. The author was able to complete a pilot study, and her article reports the percentages for the above statements (16.5% say that evolution conflicts with their religious beliefs and that creationism should be taught). The same issue of Reports has stories from Texas and Arkansas about high school teachers being unable to teach about evolution or (in Arkansas) even mention the ages of rocks in millions of years. This, to me, is far more frightening than attempts to force the teaching of intelligent design or creation science–that teaching about evolution has already been removed from or watered down in many of the classrooms of the United States. It’s no wonder that the average American is completely ignorant on the subject. ...

Tara Smith comments on Olivia Judson’s piece in the New York Times about the wonder of living organisms and the evidence for evolution at Aetiology. Judson is the author of Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation, a book that describes some of the wide variety of sexual practices in nature, some of which make the wildest human perversions look tame by comparison. An excerpt from Judson’s op-ed: Organisms like the sea slug Elysia chlorotica. This animal not only looks like a leaf, but it also acts like one, making energy from the sun. Its secret? When it eats algae, it extracts the chloroplasts, the tiny entities that plants and algae use to manufacture energy from sunlight, and shunts them into special cells beneath its skin. The chloroplasts continue to function; the slug thus becomes able to live on a diet composed only of sunbeams. ...

The Fordham Foundation has reviewed the science standards for each state. Arizona gets an overall 72 of 100 points which rates a B–it must be graded on a curve. Evolution is not covered until high school, and gets only 2 of 3 possible points. The breakdown: A. Expectations, Purpose, Audience 7.8 out of 12 B. Organization 8.0 out of 9 C. Science Content and Approach 17.8 out of 27 D. Quality 6.0 out of 9 E. Seriousness 6.0 out of 6 Inquiry 2 out of 3 Evolution 2 out of 3 Raw Score 49.6 out of 69 Final Percentage Score 72 out of 100 GRADE B Dispatches from the Culture wars comments on Michigan’s rating. (3 out of 3 on evolution, but a D overall grade.) Pharyngula reports on Minnesota (2 out of 3 on evolution and a B, just like Arizona), and also gives a nice map showing which states have improved or gotten worse (Arizona has gotten worse).