the evolving mind

I can’t remember where, but yesterday I encountered the old canard, “Science can only answer ‘how’ questions. The ‘why’ questions are beyond its scope.” Rather than being philosophically profound, that attitude reflects a cognitive conceit. Or maybe a cognitive “myopia.”

Consider the above photograph of the backside of a hibiscus blossom (backside to potential pollinators and those that don’t reside in the depths of the bush, as some insects do). Science can certainly better answer the question “How do we find it beautiful?” than it can “Why is it beautiful?” The reason? Subjectivity. In why questions we find lurking a subjective stance. How is it meaningful . . . to me, the subject. Because science strives for objectivity, it shuns such subjectivity. Yet it can answer the subjective question more accurately than can religion or art, etc., so long as the perspective is specified and not assumed to be absolute.

How? Once the subject of the “why” is specified, science can roll up its sleeves and determine the “how” that subject perceives the phenomenon as it does.

Back to the hibiscus blossom. Simply asking “Why is the blossom beautiful?” is an unscientific question. Unrefined. “Why is the blossom considered beautiful by humans?” or “Why is the blossom attractive to bees?” — now these are questions science can more readily go about answering.

True, science is not as good at answering the relatively vague “why” questions. But in this case, the problem is not with science, but with the question.

Technorati Links: epistemology, science

Okay, I’ve got to be fair. New research has just come out that with this finding: Abstinence-only intervention may play a role in preventing sexual involvement among teens.

Admittedly, I’m biased. Because it is overwhelmingly religious folk pushing for abstinence-only sex “education” in schools, I’m wary of it. Perhaps extra-skeptical. But because I am committed to science, I’ve got to be fair. If research shows a failure of abstinence-only programs, I’ll note it. And if research shows a success, I’ll note that too.

Here’s the science, in brief:

After two years, one-third of the abstinence-only group reported having sex, compared to one-half of the control group. . . .

While abstinence-only intervention did not eliminate sexual activity all together, this is the first randomized controlled study to demonstrate that an abstinence-only intervention reduced the percentage of adolescents who reported any sexual intercourse for a long period, in this case two years, following the intervention. [bold added]

Alright, a study found effectiveness for abstinence only. I await replication. And a footnote to the article makes that point:

“No public policy should be based on the results of one study, nor should policy makers selectively use scientific literature to formulate a policy that meets preconceived ideologies. Well-done studies, especially randomized controlled trials, are an important element of the data on which informed policy rests. They should be reviewed carefully to develop policies that promote the health of our nation.” [bold added]

Hear, hear, for the “preconceived ideologies” part. Yet even if replicated, I would not be for abstinence-only programs. Why? Because the effectiveness of a program is just one element. While a theory-based abstinence-only programs may lack any overt connection to religion, it is a moral issue, despite this passage:

The abstinence-only intervention was based on principles shown to be effective in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS, and did not use a moralistic tone or portray sex in a negative light. It encouraged abstinence as a way to eliminate the risk of pregnancy and STIs. [bold added]

Sex and morals are tightly interwoven. Look at the big issues in the major religions. Sex, sex, sex. Abstinence-only programs, in the least, have social and moral implications. The title alone, “abstinence-only” is exclusive.

Effectiveness aside, I’d opt for sex-ed programs that include not-only abstinence information. For I believe in providing education for education’s sake, with an eye out to pragmatic concerns, sure, but not limited by them. My values include honoring the freedom of all individuals and families to select their own path in a full range of alternatives.

Technorati Links: morality, sex education

While the moon landing was not a hoax, I thought I found the equivalent of a waving flag in the above photo NASA posted on its photo-of-the-day site.

Can you spot it?

Check out that shadow. Even if the light sources were bright enough to cast a shadow, with sources, plural, the shadow certainly wouldn’t be that neat and clean.

But wait. It’s no hoax. The caption to the photo called the image by photographer Larry Landolfi a “tantalizing fantasy.”

Damn. I thought I had stumbled upon fresh evidence that there was second gunman aboard Apollo 11. Or something.

Technorati Links: conspiracy, NASA

If you can measure something, I would say it’s real. Well, at least if others are capable of measuring it, too, and your definition of what it is you are actually measuring is concrete vs. vague.

With each passing month, with each passing dozens of studies, it becomes progressively more ludicrous for creationists to deny the reality of evolution. Consider these two recent pieces of research.

1) Evolution Caught in the Act: Scientists Measure How Quickly Genomes Change

[Researchers] followed all genetic changes in five lines of the mustard relative Arabidopsis thaliana that occurred during 30 generations. In the genome of the final generation they then searched for differences to the genome of the original ancestor.

The painstakingly detailed comparison of the entire genome revealed that in over the course of only a few years some 20 DNA building blocks, so called base pairs, had been mutated in each of the five lines.

Ah, yes, the slow, sure march of mutation-led evolution. Measured and documented.

Of course, the “march” doesn’t lead to some anthropocentrically-meaningful endpoint. Just to a better fit with changing environments.

2. Researchers Track Evolution and Spread of Drug-Resistant Bacteria Across Hospitals and Continents

Warning! Hard-core science ahead.

Colleagues at ITQB in Portugal and Susana Gardete, a postdoctoral fellow in the Laboratory of Microbiology and Infectious Disease at Rockefeller, prepared DNA from more than 40 of the Brazilian MRSA isolates recovered between 1982 and 2003 from a variety of sources in Europe, South America and Asia. These preparations were analyzed by colleagues at the Sanger Institute using a new, very high throughput DNA sequencing technology.

The findings reported in Science provide an unparalleled view of the evolutionary history and age of the Brazilian MRSA clone. It was possible to show that the most likely birthplace of Brazilian MRSA was actually Europe, from where it spread to South America and Asia. From there, it continued to evolve and was reintroduced to Europe at a later date.

Yah, sure. The above sounds like crazy scientists deluding themselves with their evolution dogma, doesn’t it. (Not!) Boy, they sure go to great lengths to pull the wool over their eyes and the eyes of the public. Evolution, shmevolution. What’s even more amazing is that thousands of researchers with different political leanings, religious beliefs (or none) and general philosophies of life can work in relative unison to perpetuate the hoax.

Back to reality now. The truth? The “science” of Creationism isn’t so much science as it is a means for believers to keep their heads buried in the ancient sands of a mythology.

Technorati Links: creationism, evolution

Scientia Pro Publica Blog Carnival #20 has been posted. It might be worth sniffing. Or reading.

Technorati Links: daisy

Whoa! In a previous post about Dawkins’ book, didn’t I criticize the use of “fact” to describe the Theory of Evolution? Yes I did. How then, in the title to this post, can I refer to the facts of evolution without contradiction?

Allow me to explain. The philosophical wordsmith in me believes that a theory cannot be a fact. While a theory can be be true, or valid, or empirically substantiated beyond the shadow of a doubt (as in the case of the Theory of Evolution), theories belong in different categories than facts.

So no, I don’t believe it is contradictory to refrain from referring to evolution-theory as a fact, but freely refer to the empirical measurements and observations that evolution has occurred as facts.

Dawkins himself illustrates the difference by using this metaphor throughout his book: a detective objectively examining the evidence for evolution will surely come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact.

What are detected? Facts. What is the result? A conclusion. However, I do stop short of calling a conclusion a fact. Yet there are undeniable facts supporting the conclusion. If Evolutionary Theory itself were the case of a simple fact, would you need a detective to detect it?

One of the things Dawkins’ book does extremely well is to share some of the most substantial facts that reveal evolution to us. Bits of evidence that lead to one conclusion. Evolution is true.

In Chapter 5, “Before Our Very Eyes,” of his most recent book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Dawkins presents evidence of evolution in our time. And the cases of bacterial evolution and guppy evolution are very compelling.

Evolution on a Petri Dish

Richard Lenski & co. followed not 2 nor 20, but a mind-boggling 45,000 generations of bacteria in their lab. As a selective pressure — a “fitness hurdle” that the evolution of the bacteria surmounted — they manipulated the food supply, the amount of glucose in the environment. This was a controlled experiment. A test. And evolution passed the test. Undeniably so. Read the account in his book. You’ll be impressed.

Evolution in a Stream and Lab

In another bit of slam-dunk research Dawkins shares, an experiment produced measurable phenotypical change in populations of guppies. In as little 9 months! The presence of predatory fish provided the fitness hurdle subsequent generations of offspring were “selected for” (a problematic term, for no external agent did any selecting).

What about the fish changed? The average number of male decorative spots, the overall size of the fish, and the number of offspring. In both the predator-free and predator-limited environments, the fish grew larger and had fewer offspring of larger size. This is a distinctly different reproductive strategy, at least on the spectrum of “fewer with greater chances of survival vs. or more with lesser.” Additionally, it seems sexual selection favored spots in the males. But only in the predator-free and predator-limited stream environments. This is a great example why we speak of selective pressures. Just as sexual selection is not an all-or-nothing proposition, neither is the selective pressure applied by the presence of predators. Every generation lives and dies within an environmental context replete with pressures, plural. Which are the most important? Wait a generation and the answer may change.

Very significantly, the guppy study has been replicated in a controlled lab environment. Experimenters manipulated a variable, the presence of predators, to see if it would cause change in another — the phenotype of the small fish. It did.

The Conclusion

There is only one sensible way to describe what happened to those many generations of bacteria and guppies: They evolved. It is an inescapable conclusion. No denying it.

Evolutionary theory passed those two tests described above. As it has many others. You reasonably say say that controlled experiment has confirmed the validity, the truth, of Evolutionary Theory.

What test has any other theory about the origins and development of life on Earth passed? None. And that speaks volumes.

Technorati Links: evolution, Richard Dawkins

Is high fashion evidence of big smarts? An article posted at ScienceDaily last month got me thinking about it: Use of Body Ornamentation Shows Neanderthal Mind Capable of Advanced Thought.

While I find the data in the research compelling, I’m not so sure about the inferences drawn.

The data:

Professor João Zilhão and colleagues examined pigment-stained and perforated marine shells, most certainly used as neck pendants, from two Neanderthal-associated sites in the Murcia province of south-east Spain (Cueva de los Aviones and Cueva Antón).

Couple that neck pendant with a pair of earrings and some perfume, and that Neanderthal is ready for a night on the town! (Or maybe the valley.) Assuming, of course, that the pendants were worn by females. Which is an assumption that could very well be false. Maybe the ornamentation was of the unisex variety. Or for the cavemen only.

Inference 1:

he practice of body ornamentation is widely accepted by archaeologists as conclusive evidence for modern behaviour and symbolic thinking among early modern humans but has not been recognised in Neanderthals — until now.

“Conclusive evidence” for symbolic thinking? I wonder. Is the . . . intuition (what’s in a word? a lot) “this looks attractive” evidence of symbolic thinking? If the pendants were traded as currency, I could more confidently accept the symbolic-thought conclusion.

Inference 2:

The widespread view of Neanderthals as cognitively inferior to early modern humans is challenged by new research . . . . Professor Zilhão said: “This is the first secure evidence that, some 50,000 years ago — ten millennia before modern humans are first recorded in Europe — the behaviour of Neanderthals was symbolically organised.”

Symbolically organized? Many birds decorate their nests with pretty bits of debris “intentionally” collected for the purpose. Even colorful scraps of human trash. Does this show a rudimentary form of a symbolic organization to their behavior as well? What about the bowerbird and its behavior?

Bird-brained fashion:

The most notable characteristic of bowerbirds is their extraordinarily complex courtship and mating behaviour, where males build a bower to attract mates. There are two main types of bowers. One clade of bowerbirds build so-called maypole bowers that are constructed by placing sticks around a sapling, in some species these bowers have a hut-like roof. The other major bowerbuilding clade builds an avenue type bower made of two walls of vertically placed sticks. In and around the bower the male places a variety of brightly colored objects he has collected. These objects — usually different among each species — may include hundreds of shells, leaves, flowers, feathers, stones, berries, and even discarded plastic items, coins, nails, rifle shells, or pieces of glass. The males spend hours arranging this collection [source].

From the bowerbirds behavior, would we likewise infer that it was capable of advanced thought, of having a symbolic organization to its behavior? Okay, there may be a fundamental difference between the creation of a decorated bower and that of fashioning a pendant, but I would make that distinction with caution. It seems all too easy for we humans to over-estimate the meaning of our own behavior, while under-estimating that of other species.

Technorati Links: birds, evolution, fashion

This image from the NASA site Astronomy Picture of the Day Archive brings to mind the expression uttered by human beings when viewing other human beings far below: They look like ants!

Those bright spots in the night sky, from so far away, look like the luminous equivalent of ants. And yet the closer you get — they are all different. Each and every one unique.

Technorati Links: cosmos, NASA

Humanism: heart-talk for heads screwed on more tightly? Desires for humanity based not upon delusions of supernatural mandate, but more down-to-earth concerns?

You be the judge. Check out a few varieties of humanism at the latest blog carnival dedicated to it — Beating Hearts: The Humanist Symposium.

Technorati Links: humanism

Men and women respond differently to marital infidelity. On average. Is this a learned response, something men and women acquire from their culture or from their own individual experience? The current default view argues it’s likely an innate difference (read genetic). A new study argues there is another option. [study source]

The nature perspective:

Research has documented that most men become much more jealous about sexual infidelity than they do about emotional infidelity. Women are the opposite, and this is true all over the world. The prevailing theory is that the difference has evolutionary origins: Men learned over eons to be hyper-vigilant about sex because they can never be absolutely certain they are the father of a child, while women are much more concerned about having a partner who is committed to raising a family.

But wait. Could nurture explain the differences? Have we missed something?

A nurture perspective:

But the new science suggests that the difference may be rooted more in individual differences in personality that result from one’s relationship history but that can fall along gender lines.

One’s “relationship history” influencing his/her response to cheating? How did they determine this?

The science:

Similar to earlier studies examining sex differences in jealousy, Levy and Kelly asked men and women which they would find more distressing—sexual infidelity or emotional infidelity. Participants also completed additional assessments including a standard and well validated measure of attachment style in romantic relationships.

“Attachment style?” What happened to “differences in personality that result from one’s relationship history”?

The finding:

those with a dismissing attachment style—who prize their autonomy in relationships over commitment—were much more upset about sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity. And conversely, those securely attached in relationships—including securely attached men—were much more likely to find emotional betrayal more upsetting.

The problem:

Okay. If attachment style, something that supposedly reflects an individual’s personality, is related to relationship history, how do we know that some other factor isn’t responsible for that attachment style and/or personality and/or relationship history? How do we know that the experiential element is a causal factor vs. an effect?

If you are getting the sense that with this new study there’s a whole lot of talk relative to the little science it is based upon, get a load of this:

The bologna:

Some people—men and women alike—are more secure in their attachments to others, while others tend to be more dismissive of the need for close attachment relationships. Psychologists see this compulsive self-reliance as a defensive strategy—protection against deep-seated feelings of vulnerability. Levy and Kelly hypothesized that these individuals would tend to be concerned with the sexual aspects of relationships rather than emotional intimacy.

Oh lard. The above reads as nearly perfect psychodynamic boilerplate. “Defensive strategy” . . . “deep-seated feelings of vulnerability.” That’s what it always boils down to: damaged feelings. It seems that if we search hard enough, that’s what we always find.

In my opinion, innate gender differences still better explain differences in response to infidelity. Why? First, as mentioned in the study, these gender differences are cross-culturally evident. Second, numerous studies on animals have shown that if you change, oh, say the testestosterone or oxytocin levels to an individual very early in life, you change the individual’s “relationship trajectory” and later history. To then describe the phenomenon in terms of emotional experiences is to miss the more important point. It is to grant the emotional experience undeserved primacy.

As a tangent here, one of the things I find disturbing about psychodynamic therapy is the stealth morality often contained within. Often you will here this sentiment expressed in so many words: Because of your personal history, because you were “damaged,” you are not able to function according todays’ social ideals. And so you have anger-management issues, or “unfounded fears” or damaged self-esteem, or sexual insecurity, or what have you.

In sum, to find psychodynamic reasons for the way human beings behave frequently involves a denial of human nature. Or even a denial of individual nature.

Technorati Links: gender, psychodynamic psychotherapy, psychology