Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Peter Singer’s new book on ethics, a series of short essays about real-world ethical issues, came out September 13 (Princeton University Press), and already it’s Amazon’s #1 release in “Philosophy of Ethics and Morality”. I’ll be reading it for sure, as Singer is one philosopher who has something to say about how real people live their lives. He’s a clear writer, and tries personally to adhere to his ethical conclusions. Here’s the Amazon blurb; click on the book’s screenshot to go to the Amazon order page:
Now, in Ethics in the Real World, Singer shows that he is also a master at dissecting important current events in a few hundred words.
In this book of brief essays, he applies his controversial ways of thinking to issues like climate change, extreme poverty, animals, abortion, euthanasia, human genetic selection, sports doping, the sale of kidneys, the ethics of high-priced art, and ways of increasing happiness. Singer asks whether chimpanzees are people, smoking should be outlawed, or consensual sex between adult siblings should be decriminalized, and he reiterates his case against the idea that all human life is sacred, applying his arguments to some recent cases in the news. In addition, he explores, in an easily accessible form, some of the deepest philosophical questions, such as whether anything really matters and what is the value of the pale blue dot that is our planet. The collection also includes some more personal reflections, like Singer’s thoughts on one of his favorite activities, surfing, and an unusual suggestion for starting a family conversation over a holiday feast.
Provocative and original, these essays will challenge–and possibly change–your beliefs about a wide range of real-world ethical questions.
And you might consider this book as well, which came out last year (again, click on screenshot for ordering and details). It has a Wikipedia entry which sums up the reviews (mixed):
I don’t know what’s going on with Science and Nature—perhaps the two most prestigious science journals in the world—but both are increasingly catering, if not pandering, to religion. Science and its sponsoring organization the AAAS have a program, funded by Templeton, to increase dialogue between science and religion, and the AAAS has faith-themed events at its annual meeting. Nature publishges editorials and pieces speaking positively about religion, claiming that science and religion both depend on “faith”, and arguing that science and religion are compatible (see here and here, for example).
Now Nature has jumped the shark even farther with a new article by Kathryn Prichard, who works for the Church of England, called “Religion and science can have a true dialogue.” This short piece is still too long, for Prichard simply claims that science and religion can have a fruitful dialogue because religious people are avid followers of—indeed, are hungering for—science. This, she argues, should lead to useful discourse between the two areas, discourse too often stymied by popular misconceptions that science and religion are in conflict.
But her article is one of those well-meaning bowls of mush that hasn’t been properly digested, and Prichard tries to veil the very profound conflict between religion and science with a rain of sweet words.
My counterarguments to her pap are these:
Science and religion are in conflict. I lay out the reasons in Faith Versus Fact. Suffice it to say here that both areas endeavor to find truths about the Universe, but only science has a way of verifying its truths. The “truths” of religion—about the existence of God, the afterlife, saviors and prophets, the nature of God, His moral code and so on—differ among faiths, and none can be verified empirically. In other words, scientific claims are made on the basis of observational and experimental evidence that is widely agreed on (and makes testable predictions), while religious claims are made on the basis of revelation, dogma, scripture, and authority. Only one of these epistemological methods is reliable.
Prichard claims that the conflict simply doesn’t exist, it’s a misleading “popular narrative of science-faith conflict that pervades contemporary culture.” She also argues that this false argument is used to dismiss the ethical concerns of religious scientists:
Too often, this simplistic claimed tension is used in the media, for instance, to pigeonhole ethical arguments from (even highly scientifically literate) religious figures as being relevant only to those ‘of faith’, rather than expressing a broader concern for human welfare. This biases the way that their engagement filters into public consciousness.
Her unwillingness to give examples of anything (and her tedious prose) makes this a bit hard to parse, but I’m not aware of secular ethical arguments being dismissed simply because a scientist is religious. Plenty of religious scientists are pro-conservation and anti-global warming, and I’ve never seen anybody say, “Well, we can dismiss her arguments because she’s a faithhead.” On the other hand, when some religious scientists argue, as does Francis Collins, that human morality, lacking an evolutionary explanation, much have been vouchsafed us by God (shades of C. S. Lewis!), we can dismiss their arguments out of hand because they involve a deity for which there’s no evidence.
Finally, Prichard hints that the historical conflicts between churches and science are overblown. This is a common theme of accommodationist historians like Ronald Numbers, who say that the Galileo affair, as well as creationism, have nothing to do with religion. In fact, in this way the accommodationists are of a piece with those who claim that terrorism has nothing to do with religion. It’s always politics, personal frustration, colonization, and so on. To argue that creationism is not a huge instantiation of the different “ways of knowing” of science versus faith is to brand yourself as an ideologically blinkered zealot. And the motivation of both groups is the same: to show that religion can’t inspire anything bad.
A “constructive” dialogue between science and religion can go only one way: science tells religion what’s true, and religion has to deal with it. Although Prichard claims that fruitful two-way dialogue is possible (“Our projects express the conviction that science and theology — at the church, cathedral and local-community level — can illuminate one another to the benefit of all. We will report on the results”), she only gives us ways that science can help theology. For example:
Science and faith, we are constantly told, are in conflict and have little in common. Yet in this enjoyable, high-energy context [a meeting of the Archbishops’ Council of the CoE related to science], there was much to tease out together in terms of big questions about human origins, purpose and destiny. What would it mean for belief in God and the story and themes of Christian faith if there were multiverses? Where is the Universe heading, and what does that tell us about human purpose and destiny? The event was transformative in ways that none of us — the cosmologists included — could fully articulate.
Well let the faithful masticate these metaphysical questions until their teeth are worn down, for they won’t find any answers. But scientists have even less to gain—in fact nothing—from theology. Ours is an atheistic, naturalistic discipline, one that needs no input from religion. As Laplace is supposed to have said about God, “We have no need of that hypothesis.”
At the end, Prichard describes some projects intended to educate the faithful about science, like a “Scientists in Congregations” project that brings science and its practitioners into Christian churches to educate believers. That’s fine with me: the more science the better, and maybe a few people might even give up their superstitions. But, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis, “Let us not come with any patronizing nonsense that science has something to gain when believers discuss their faith with scientists. Science has not left that open to us. That is not the way it works.”
The asymmetry between science and religion—science can force religion to change its theology, while religion can have no effect on science—is, I think, known to most believers. And it infuriates them. It shows the epistemological inferiority of religion and the vapidity of religious belief. To deal with this cognitive dissonance, people like Prichard pretend that their faith has something to contribute to science, so that the areas are not only not in conflict, but mutually supportive.
That, of course, is hogwash. But it pains me to see the hog being bathed in the pages of Nature.
“The external employment of an unattached or manipulable attached environmental object to alter more efficiently the form, position, or condition of another object, another organism, or the user itself, when the user holds and directly manipulates the tool during or prior to use and is responsible for the proper and effective orientation of the tool.”
And, according to the Wiki article, tools use is seen in 33 families of birds, including these (I have a video for each example):
There are many more examples, although the authors of the paper we’re discussing today say that “only a handful of bird species are known to use foraging tools in the wild.” It is true that some bird “tool use” has been described only in captive birds, but the Wikipedia article suggests that tool use in nature is seen in more than a “handful” of birds.
Now I’m not sure how important the distinction between “use in the wild” and “use in nature” is: in both cases, animals can either be hard-wired to use tools, or learn it from other individuals who have figured it out themselves. And regardless of whether it’s seen in captivity or the wild, it tells us something about the creativity and intelligence of animals. I suppose biologists are more interested in “natural” behavior rather than behavior in captivity, perhaps because of the possibility that humans rather than other animals could teach it. But biologists are far more fascinated by what goes on in the wild rather than what happens in zoos. For things like mating behavior that’s important, but not so much for tool use.
Regardless, any example of tool use by animals gets attention, like that described in a new paper in Nature by Christian Rutz et al. (free link and download below). Sadly, not only is the behavior seen only in captivity, but it can only be seen in captivity because the species that uses tools is extinct in the wild. Yes, it’s the Hawaiian crow, the ‘Alalā (Corvus hawaiiensis), once endemic to the Big Island but driven to extinction in the wild by the depredations of mongeese (is that the right plural?), rats, and feral cats. The birds now live only in captivity, and are being bred for eventual release. There are 109 of them in three Hawaiian facilities, and one lonely individual off exhibit at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park.
Here’s an ‘Alalā; they’re handsome birds and, being corvids, are very smart:
The authors examined 104 of the existing 109 individuals, and found that 78% of them spontaneously used tools (mostly twigs) to probe for, spear and dislodge food items lodged in an experimental log riddled with holes and crevices. Here’s what the behavior looks like, and you can see it in the movie right below the figure:
(From paper): a, Captive birds using stick tools to extract bait from experimental logs
The New Caledonian crow, Corvusmoneduloides, was already known to not only use tools, but solve all kinds of puzzles (see my previous posts here, here, and here); and they may even have a “theory of mind.” C. moneduloides is known to use tools in the wild, but it’s not possible at present to determine whether this is the case for the ‘Alalā.
The observation of tool use raises five questions:
How many times did this behavior originate among those 108 captive crows? Since they’re caged and kept together (with historical records) as part of the breeding program, the authors determined that, if the behavior was learned and copied, it could have originated between 1 and 8 times. The authors favor the “more than one” number, saying that “it’s unlikely that a single ‘innovation’ event can explain the observed species-wide distribution of tool competence.” Well, to each their own, but those data themselves don’t militate in favor of multiple origins. The next point, however, does:
Is the behavior learned from others, or can it develop in single individuals? Clearly, the behavior, even if learned from others, had to start with at least one individual, so the question is a bit of a red herring. Nevertheless, it bears on how many times it can “originate” in both captivity and the wild. (A more important question, which can’t be answered in any way I can see, is whether there is a genetic propensity to use tools per se, or whether the birds are just fast learners for everything, and hit on tools as handy ways to get food.)
At any rate, the authors examined seven naive crows reared in two groups without ever having seen tool-using adults. All seven birds eventually started probing the holes and crevices with sticks, though only five were ultimately successful. But again, this is only two independent origins, not five.
Did this behavior occur in the wild? We don’t know, of course, but the authors make a case that when the ‘Alalā did live freely, they probably used tools. This is based on two observations: that juveniles spontaneously hit on using sticks to get food (fairly convincing), and that tool-using can be found throughout the whole species in captivity (not so convincing). They do note that before the species became extinct in the wild in 2002, there were no observations of tool-using by wild individuals, though they did forage on branches and trunks for insects. As I said, though, I find the observation of tool use fascinating regardless of whether it’s seen in nature.
Did tool use in Caledonian and Hawaiian crows arise independently? Almost certainly, for the ‘Alalā and New Caledonian crows are distantly related, and no species in between shows the behavior. It’s thus unlikely that it was inherited in the two tool-users, either genetically or culturally, from a common ancestor. Here’s the phylogeny shown in the paper, along with a map and some other tool-users.
Finally, why did this behavior appear only in those two species of crow? Well, crows are smart, so they’re already prone to develop behaviors like this, especially given their even more remarkable ability to solve complex puzzles. The authors suggest this explanation for tool use in these two species:
As for possible ecological drivers, both species—as well as the stick-tool-using Galápagos woodpecker finch—evolved on remote tropical islands (Fig. 1e ABOVE) where competition for embedded prey is likely to be reduced and predation risk low. These conditions, which have previously been predicted to facilitate tool behaviour, may vary across island environments, but are presumably less common on adjacent mainland habitats, providing a possible explanation for the striking rarity of avian tool use.
Predation doesn’t seem that important to me, and it’s not clear what the authors mean: does using sticks make you more susceptible to being eaten? What seems more important is the lack of competition, especially woodpeckers, which are absent on the Galápagos, New Caledonia, and Hawaii. Woodpeckers are more efficient at getting prey than these crows (woodpeckers don’t, for instance, have to find a tool), and could very well outcompete the crows in foraging for insects in and on trees.
This could of course be tested if other crow species are found on islands lacking woodpeckers and other birds who can extract food from trees without tools, but it would require a large sample of unrelated crows, and I don’t know if we have that. What we have is yet another example of tool use in birds, the second in crows, and an observation that young crows can pick it up spontaneously. I don’t know if that merits a Nature paper, though it’s certainly worth reporting. Underlying all the publicity is the fact that tool use is fascinating to humans because we’re an anthropomorphic species.
h/t: Nicole Reggia, Trevor Price
________
Rutz, C., B. C. Klump, L. Komarczyk, R. Leighton, J. Kramer, S. Wischnewski, S. Sugasawa, M. B. Morrissey, R. James, J. J. H. St Clair, R. A. Switzer, and B. M. Masuda. 2016. Discovery of species-wide tool use in the Hawaiian crow. Nature 537:403-407.
Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “torah”, brings back “Moe” (my name for Moses) in a witty sketch about Regressive Leftism. I love Mo’s comment in the second panel.
We have some diverse photos today. First are photos of moose and pronghorn taken by Stephen Barnard in Idaho. His notes are indented:
I had some visitors this morning [Sept. 12]. Moose (Alces alces) — a tautonym:
An apparently very healthy young male moose (Alces alces) in my yard this afternoon [Sept. 20], with his mom (second photo).
A herd of pronghorns (Antilocapra americana) encountered on my way to Stanley, Idaho.
From Montreal, Anne-Marie Cournoyer sent two photos of the “cross spider“, Araneus diadematus, with different prey items:
Reader jsp sent a photo of a praying mantis hanging out near his friend’s hummingbird feeder, apparently to snag the bees that feed there. He notes that “The PM is getting fat (‘is getting’???) on honey bees at the feeder. Others mentioned that the hummingbirds themselves are in danger. WTF?”
It’s Wednesday, September 21, and the “food day” holidays have reached their nadir with National Pecan Cookie Day. I doubt that any reader here will eat one. Getting to the larger events on this day in history, in 1897 the New York Sun published its famous “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” letter, helping inspire, I’m sure, dozens of Christian apologists. The Sun‘s response, evoked by an inquiry from an 8-year-old girl, is given below. It could have been written by someone like C. S. Lewis, but substituting the word “God” for “Santa Claus” and leaving out the chimney bit. It even extols faith and says the world would be meaningless without Santa! Have a look:
Speaking of fantasy, on this day in 1937 J. R. R. Tolkien’s book The Hobbit was published.
Notables born on this day include the great mountaineer Hermann Buhl (1924), killed by falling through a cornice on Chogolisa in Pakistan in 1957. He’d made the first ascent of Nanga Parbat, finishing it solo and bivouacking overnight at atltitude because he was caught out late. Leonard Cohen was born on this day in 1934, Stephen King in 1947, and Bill Murray in 1950. Those who died on this day include Walter Brennan (1974) and Florence Griffith Joyner (1998, epileptic seizure). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili has taken to sleeping upstairs on the guest bed.
A: You have become very fond of this place lately.
Hili: The guests come and go but bedding stays.
In Polish:
Ja: Bardzo polubiłaś ostatnio to miejsce.
Hili: Goście przyjeżdżają i wyjeżdżają, a pościel zostaje.
Lagniappe: from Dangerous Minds, via reader T. Fife, we have the face of Charles Darwin seen in a patient’s eye scan. Pity the person can’t charge others to come see it!
