the evolving mind

A major quibble? Clearly I am confused. But that is where I must start, though in future posts I will be sharing the many admirable things about Richard Dawkins’ latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. I feel forced into placing my single significant criticism up front, for that is where he, somewhat puzzlingly, places what I consider to be the most contentious point. Up front.

In the preface Dawkins writes:

“This book is my personal summary of the evidence that the ‘theory’ of evolution is actually a fact — as incontrovertible a fact as any in science.”

Wow. Incontrovertible means “absolutely certain and cannot be shown to be wrong.” As any in science. I’m jumping ahead of myself here, but it seems the argument — by those who should really know better — that evolution is indeed a fact is a rhetorical tactic. Evolution is a fact, case closed. If you can’t see the fact, you’re blind. I feel this kind of argument miseducates as much as it might, might, make a valid point. How does it miseducate? Two ways. 1) It stretches the definition of fact too far. 2) It places the emphasis on a conclusion and not on the essential and supremely solid scientific reasoning that gets us there.

Dawkins’ very first chapter is titled, “Only a Theory?” In it he argues that evolution should be considered a fact. Why not present the overwhelming evidence first, thus making the acceptance of the “fact” status more sensible? This ordering seemed illogical to me.

As for the meat to my major quibble, on page 8 Dawkins writes,

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact.”

I, for one, am sane and informed but would disagree. And it all hinges upon the definition of fact.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: critical thinking, evolution

The behaviors we acquire through enculturation feel right, they feel natural. To shake someone’s hand upon meeting him or her feels natural. At least for people in most cultures. Waving goodbye . . . eating with a fork while seated at a table . . . waiting in line . . . wearing pants . . . and on and on the list could go. Interrupt and disrupt these behaviors or travel to a place where they aren’t the norm . . . and your emotions will tell you “something is off.”

Culture is so deeply ingrained in us it feels natural. Call it second nature.

What is culture? Here’s one way of looking at it:

“Culture” in this sense refers to a population-specific set of behaviors acquired through social learning, such as imitation.

That from the ScienceDaily post, New Evidence Of Culture In Wild Chimpanzees.

Yes, chimpanzee populations have their own, distinct cultures. Okay, maybe those cultures a very rudimentary — relative to ours — and they lack the startling array of accoutrements and fashion accessories our own culture colors and clutters our lives with.

While chimpanzees use neither a fork nor a set of chopsticks to eat, there are differences in what individual chimps from different populations will do when honey is on the menu.

Kibale Forest chimpanzees use sticks to get at the honey, whereas Budongo Forest chimpanzees rely on leaf sponges — absorbent wedges that they make out of chewed leaves.

That’s culture all right. I imagine that were you to take a honey-eating chimpanzee’s stick away and place a leaf sponge in its hand instead, the chimp would respond, “Huh?” Just as I image that were you to visit a very foreign culture and attend a ritual of some sort and, at the door, discover that “oh no, we don’t wear clothes during the ceremony — you’ll have to take yours off,” your response would likewise be “Huh?” What, no clothes in public? Why that’s not . . . natural?

Technorati Links: anthropology, chimpanzee, culture

Step right up! See the bearded blogger. Ride the post of death! Snack on buttered kernels of thought.

Skeptics Circle #128

Carnival of the Godless #133

Scientia Pro Publica: The Blogodiversity Edition

Enjoy.

Technorati Links: blogs

The above NASA photo, Eclipse over the Temple of Poseidon, strikes me as awesome.

Could that “awe” be described as a religious experience? Some might take the linguistic liberty to do so. I wouldn’t.

Sure, in the case of my awe and in that of “religious” experiences there is an element of feeling slack-jawed. In one case, however, the beauty and wonder leads to thoughts of Gawd and other supernatural notions. In my own case they lead to thoughts of what we know of planets and ancient civilizations and . . . .

Equipped with science, my awe is undiminished. You might say it is further fortified and enriched with reliable information. And the awe of the “religious” experience?

Technorati Links: cosmos, freethought

Both my post title and title to a recent news-release strike me as a tad oxymoronic.

Self-control is contagious, study finds

But yes, it is so: the self is a largely social phenomenon, in terms of its development and function.

In a just-published series of studies involving hundreds of volunteers, researchers have found that watching or even thinking about someone with good self-control makes others more likely exert self-control.

I guess one could say that self-control here refers to the control of the self, vs. the self in control. So maybe it isn’t oxymoronic. Still, the point is the same. The self doesn’t exist and function in isolation.

As to the study results, the lead author speculates about the mechanisms involved.

VanDellen said this finding suggests that self-control is contagious because being exposed to people with either good or bad self-control influences how accessible thoughts about self-control are.

“Contagious” . . . I don’t know about that. Anyway, might a person say, then, that being exposed to controlled others “primes” the parts of our brains that help us practice restraint? Might a person further say that the self is a dynamic thing, that both acts on and influences the world (particularly social environments), just as the world acts on and influences it?

Back to the title — In a universe of perfect linguistics, I wouldn’t use “thing” to describe the self. But then, what is it? Damn the limits of vocabulary!

Technorati Links: social psychology

Many people have argued that religion provides comfort to people (so back off with the criticism, you insensitive brute!). Part of that comfort is likely the illusion of control and the thought of having done something. Today I prayed and lived as my supernatural guide has instructed me to. So I can relax a little.

But even if religion does provide comfort (I don’t assume that it does simply because so many people claim it does), does that comfort come at a cost? I’m sure it can. The cost of doing something ineffective can include wasted time and wasted energy.

Does religion provide comfort? Maybe. Does this comfort come at a cost? Maybe. But completely besides these moot questions is the bald falsity of fundamental religious claims. And so I believe we should find and/or make better options, even if all those options bring is comfort.

[cartoon thanks to http://www.atheistcartoons.com/]

Technorati Links: belief, religion

Words are important. How often do you go a full day without using one, in thought or speech? Do you ever go a waking hour completely free of words?

Two bits of research on words and how we use them caught my attention this past week.

1. Carnegie Mellon scientists crack brain’s codes for noun meanings

Noun meanings? We have dictionaries for that, don’t we? Yes, but what the researchers we’re looking at was the neurological equivalent of the overt meaning.

By combining brain imaging and machine learning techniques, neuroscientists Marcel Just and Vladimir Cherkassky and computer scientists Tom Mitchell and Sandesh Aryal determined how the brain arranges noun representations.

A couple decades ago I studied cognition and emotion in grad school. Since then I have realized that “thoughts” can be better understood not as single elements in the brain, but as schemata, each with a number of varied elements, only some of them conscious: semantic, emotional, social, even kinesthetic (relating to movement). For example, one person’s schema for “dog” could have elements including the intellectual element of “creature with four legs and a tail”; the emotional element of a happy anticipation of interacting with it; and a kinesthetic component of “petting motion.”

When struggling to retrieve a word we know — darn, it’s on the tip of my tongue! — we will sometimes successfully access it via one part of the schema, on other times via another. Give me a synonym….Nope, still can’t remember. What about a word that rhymes with it? Maybe if I go through the motions of saying it — it begins with a “b,” I think….buh….buh…buh…? No luck.

The researchers into this brain “code” were able to discover how types of words activated disparate areas of the brain.

In the case of hammer, the motor cortex was the brain area activated to code the physical interaction. “To the brain, a key part of the meaning of hammer is how you hold it, and it is the sensory-motor cortex that represents ‘hammer holding,’” said Cherkassky, who has a background in both computer science and neuroscience. [bold mine]

Interesting.

2. Words used to describe substance-use patients can alter attitudes, contribute to stigma.

The schema elements that conventionally come along with a word are important, whether or not we intend that all of those elements be in play.

The authors of this second study mention that we refer to people with “food issues” as having an “eating disorder” and not as “food abusers.” Their study focused on people with alcohol and drug “issues,” and how the words used to label/describe them makes a difference. How? By changing the schema, different elements are activated.

Changing the words used to describe someone struggling with alcoholism or drug addiction may significantly alter the attitudes of health care professionals, even those who specialize in addiction treatment.

“We found that referring to someone with the ‘abuser’ terminology evokes more punitive attitudes than does describing that person’s situation in exactly the same words except for using ‘disorder’ terminology,” says John F. Kelly, PhD, associate director of the MGH Center for Addiction Medicine, who led the study. “Reducing the use of such stigmatizing terms could help diminish the shame, guilt and embarrassment that act as barriers, keeping people from seeking help.”

So, by using a different term than substance abuser, people with a “substance disorder” will likely think/feel/act differently themselves. As will the helping professionals think/feel/act differently about their patients.

Words are important. Word choice is important. I guess this second bit of research helps me to understand the desire people have for finding an alternative term to atheist. As easy as it is for me to focus on the purely intellectual aspects of the schema for that word, for other people the most active elements are social/emotional components that could be described as, “God abuser” and “threat to society.” So perhaps it really would be better to switch to another term altogether. One with more positive elements, maybe starting with, but not limited to “caring, reality-embracer.”  Or something.

Hmm.

Technorati Links: language, psychology

I feel for the people of Haiti. A tragedy. Can any good from this disaster? Sure, if human beings choose to do something. Will it outweigh the bad? Not by a long shot. At least in the short term and on the individual level for those who have lost loved ones.

On a much, much smaller scale, I feed a tad of sadness for the destruction in our backyard. Not brought by an earthquake, but by that recent rogue week of hard freezes. I surveyed the damage yesterday. Come spring gardening time, it’s almost going to be like starting over.

Starting over. There is hope in that. In the wake of loss, what better response is there than to roll up your sleeves and do something?

Technorati Links: loss, psychology

If you needed more convincing that human beings are 100%, naturally evolved animals, here’s a very interesting finding generated by a controlled experiment: Men who sniffed the t-shirts of women rated the shirts of ovulating women more pleasant. Not only that, they also experienced an increase in their testosterone level. [source]

Cool.

The details are so interesting I’ve included a block quote of them below the fold (“continue reading”).

The news release of the finding began with this sentence:

Women around the world spend billions of dollars each year on exotic smelling perfumes and lotions in the hopes of attracting a mate.

Now this is just one man’s recollected perceptions (fallibility alert!), but I’ve always considered the smell of perfume to be the olfactory equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard. Too loud and largely unpleasant. But maybe, as person with sensitivities to airborne allergens, my system is responding “wrong.”

What I do recall enjoying the scent of is a naked neck. Particularly my wife’s. From up close. I can’t describe the scent, and it’s almost like there is none. Yet some part of my brain like’s it and I feel the desire to stay close, even move closer, and hold on.

Then again, maybe I’ve simply been classically conditioned by a number of pleasant slow-dancing experiences. I don’t know. And so I turn to science for more objective information.

And objectively speaking, man are clearly apes. As are women.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: olfaction, sex, testosterone

In the above Polaroid [thanks NASA!] we see a closer crescent-sliver of our Moon and a distant sliver of the planet Venus. In other words, the faces of these two bodies have a nose pointing toward the Sun. And those faces are kissed straight-on by light. But because our perspective is from slightly behind, we see merely a crescent ear. Or something.

Technorati Links: cosmos, moon