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.
Etti-Cat was a Sixties LOLCat who appeared in New York subways and in his own book, giving people etiquette tips. Think of him as a feline Ann Landers. You can see a collection of Etti-Cat advice here, but this one is my favorite. It’s SO true!
However, the cone looks suspicious: it seems to contain kibbles rather than ice cream. . .
There’s also a book, but good luck getting it, because I just snagged the last one on the internet.
I’ve written about scientism for several years, and have highlighted the many people, including Philip Kitcher, Massimo Pigliucci, Uncle Eric MacDonald, Steve Gould (in Rocks of Ages), and the flock of theologians who use the term “scientism” as a cudgel: an example of science overstepping its boundaries. The faithful also use it to say, ironically, “See? Science is just as harmful as faith.”
One of the problems has been the definition of “scientism,” which varies from commenter to commenter but is always pejorative. I take it to mean “science overstepping its boundaries” in the sense of Gould’s Non-Overlapping Magisteria: scientists misusing science or technology to bad ends (racism or eugenics), claiming they will take over the humanities (as in E. O. Wilson’s notion of “consilience”), or making moral and political pronouncements that exceed scientific expertise or ambit.
The problem is that these accusations always exceed the crimes, and that’s evidenced by the failure of “scientism” critics to give examples of the sin. My responses would be that few scientists now misuse the field to support racism or other odious views, that in many ways humanities can truly benefit from using the methods of science—with science conceived broadly as “the use of evidence and reason (and often statistics) to support its claims”—and that almost no scientist thinks that our endeavors will engulf art, music, and literature.
Nevertheless, the criticisms burgeon, and Steve Pinker finally got fed up. His response appears today in the New Republic, in a four-page essay called “Science is not your enemy: an impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians”. This is a wonderful piece, written with Pinker’s characteristic logic and panache, and, since it’s free online, you have no reason not to read it. I implore my readers to go through this four-page piece. In fact, I’ll say it’s required reading for this website. You’ll also like the encomiums given to science and the denigrations of faith.
I won’t discuss the piece in detail since you must read it, but I’ll give a few excerpts to show where Pinker’s going. His main message is that scientism is largely a canard, but that people in the humanities and other areas outside “hard science” should welcome rather than fear the incursion of science into their fields.
One would think that writers in the humanities would be delighted and energized by the efflorescence of new ideas from the sciences. But one would be wrong. Though everyone endorses science when it can cure disease, monitor the environment, or bash political opponents, the intrusion of science into the territories of the humanities has been deeply resented. Just as reviled is the application of scientific reasoning to religion; many writers without a trace of a belief in God maintain that there is something unseemly about scientists weighing in on the biggest questions. In the major journals of opinion, scientific carpetbaggers are regularly accused of determinism, reductionism, essentialism, positivism, and worst of all, something called “scientism.” The past couple years have seen four denunciations of scientism in this magazine alone, together with attacks in Bookforum, The Claremont Review of Books, The Huffington Post, The Nation, National Review Online, The New Atlantis, The New York Times, and Standpoint.
. . . In this conception, science is of a piece with philosophy, reason, and Enlightenment humanism. It is distinguished by an explicit commitment to two ideals, and it is these that scientism seeks to export to the rest of intellectual life. The first is that the world is intelligible. The phenomena we experience may be explained by principles that are more general than the phenomena themselves.
. . . The second ideal is that the acquisition of knowledge is hard. The world does not go out of its way to reveal its workings, and even if it did, our minds are prone to illusions, fallacies, and superstitions. Most of the traditional causes of belief—faith, revelation, dogma, authority, charisma, conventional wisdom, the invigorating glow of subjective certainty—are generators of error and should be dismissed as sources of knowledge. To understand the world, we must cultivate work-arounds for our cognitive limitations, including skepticism, open debate, formal precision, and empirical tests, often requiring feats of ingenuity. Any movement that calls itself “scientific” but fails to nurture opportunities for the falsification of its own beliefs (most obviously when it murders or imprisons the people who disagree with it) is not a scientific movement.
That, of course, is the besetting sin of religion, and why it’s incompatible with science as a “way of knowing.” It has no way to determine whether its assertions are wrong. While the caravan of science moves on, the dogs of theology bark but don’t tag along.
In other words, the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science. Though the scientific facts do not by themselves dictate values, they certainly hem in the possibilities.
Pinker goes on to list the contributions of science to not only human welfare, but to the understanding of the universe—a litany of achievements that theology can’t hope to match, since it’s revealed nothing convincing about the cosmos. His list of what science has done will give you immense pride in what one highly cerebralized primate has been able to wrest from that cosmos. Theology, on the hand, brings me only a sense of shame that so many people have wasted their time on a nonexistent being when they could have been contributing to human progress. Pinker then proceeds to debunk the idea that science is responsible for dystopian social movements,
Finally, he lays out the variety of ways science can contribute to the humanities: by giving us a better take on human nature, by the use of statistics and data analysis to settle questions of social and political science, and by providing fertile new ground: the study of how the workings of the human brain, as revealed by science, provide more depth to the social sciences, literary analysis, and even studies of music. (He uses archaeology, linguistics and the philosophy of mind as successes in applying science to other areas.)
Read it now! I am not often a fanboy, but really, I find nothing to critique in this piece, though I’m sure some readers will. I see it as the definitive refutation of the scientism canard, converting it into a pressed duck. The final dorsoventral compression is achieved in the last paragraph:
And the critics should be careful with the adjectives. If anything is naïve and simplistic, it is the conviction that the legacy siloes of academia should be fortified and that we should be forever content with current ways of making sense of the world. Surely our conceptions of politics, culture, and morality have much to learn from our best understanding of the physical universe and of our makeup as a species.
This won’t be the end of the debate, of course. I’m sure that outraged theologians and humanities professors will try go get their licks in, so stay tuned.
As lagniappe, today’s Jesus and Mo was inspired by Pinker’s piece:
“The Water is Wide” is an ineffably beautiful song that began as a 17th-century English folk ballad, “O Waly, Waly”. To my mind it’s the most beautiful of all English songs of its genre, and it’s held up perfectly over the past four centuries. It’s revival is largely attributed to Pete Seeger (his version here), who recorded it on an early album.
Since then there have been innumerable modern versions and covers, but I find the most plaintive to be that of James Taylor, which involves a couple of key changes:
Here’s a 1979 recorded version by Karla Bonoff, with Kenny Edwards on bass, Bonoff and James Taylor on acoustic guitars, Taylor and J. D. Souther on background vocals, and, of all things, Garth Hudson on accordian.
Finally, Israeli singer Esther OFarim sings the original melody and lyrics (in modern English). As you see, the tune hasn’t changed.
Speaking of the perfidy of zoos, this was spotted at orange news by reader ladyatheist, who put the link in the comments. It’s a nice story, although I don’t think it implicates altruism. Still, I like the fact that they let the “hero” mouse go. (If it was an albino, though, it’s still probably a goner.)
Mighty mouse attacks snake to save pal
A mouse has been given its freedom after it tackled a poisonous snake in a bid to save a fellow rodent at a zoo in China.
The two mice were served up as a live dinner for the snake at Hangzhou Zoo in Zhejiang province, eastern China.
Keeper Wen Shao said: “We always give the snakes live food and we put the two mice into the snake enclosure, but instead of trying to hide like they usually do one of the mice attacked the snake when it saw it trying to eat the other mouse.
“I have never seen anything like that before, usually the mice keep as far away from the snake as possible but this one caused a lot of damage.
“It was biting the snake on the head as the snake was trying to eat the first mouse.”
He added that the mouse had deserved its freedom after putting up such a brave fight.
“In any case it didn’t do the snake any good either, it was expensive and the mouse did a lot of damage by biting it on the head,” he added.
Sadly the mouse did not succeed in its bid to free its pal. It died and was later eaten even if mighty mouse was no longer around to witness it.
I’d prefer, of course, that the mice be euthanized humanely before being fed to snakes, but perhaps some snakes won’t eat dead mice.
Readers here will know that I’m not a big fan of putting animals, especially big ones, in captivity for people to gawk at. All too often the real reasons are at odds with the professed reasons, and the suffering of large, sentient animals in confined quarters does not, to me, justify the meager research results that come from most zoos and aquaria. By all means have facilities to breed endangered species for release, and it’s possible, I suppose, to keep animals like small reptiles or amphibians in captivity without their suffering. But I’ve seen too many animals driven neurotic by captivity to retain much enthusiasm for zoos, or any enthusiasm for places like Sea World. (It’s worse when the animals are large-free roaming sea mammals that have to do tricks to bring in the cash.)
So I’m encouraged by several recent developments on the zoo-and-aquarium front.
First, according to the Environmental News Service, on May 17 India banned the captivity of dolphins for public entertainment everywhere in the country:
The statement issued by B.S. Bonal, the member secretary of the Central Zoo Authority of India, acknowledges that cetaceans in general do not survive well in captivity, saying, “Confinement in captivity can seriously compromise the welfare and survival of all types of cetaceans by altering their behaviour and causing extreme distress.”
Noting that India’s national aquatic animal, the Ganges River dolphin, as well as the snubfin dolphin are listed in Schedule-I and all cetacean species are listed in Schedule II part I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the ministry said it is important to protect these endangered species from captivity and exploitation.
“Whereas cetaceans in general are highly intelligent and sensitive, and various scientists who have researched dolphin behavior have suggested that the unusually high intelligence; as compared to other animals means that dolphin should be seen as ‘non-human persons’ and as such should have their own specific rights and is morally unacceptable to keep them captive for entertainment purpose,” the ministry said.
From the land of “spiritual” enlightenment, this is true moral and biological enlightenment. Can you imagine Sea World saying something like this? But now India needs to recognize that sentience and intelligence in animals occurs a sliding scale, and is not disjunct at primates and cetaceans. We need to recognize that other species have the capacity to suffer as well. India’s zoos (I’ve been to a few, and will never go again) are some of the cruelest and saddest places in the world, and if India’s government is serious about morality, stress, and suffering, they should ban those as well.
The people of Italy have weighed in on this issue, too, with an announcement yesterday that the overwhelming majority of Italians oppose captivity for dolphins. From Born Free:
An IPSOS survey has revealed that 96% of Italians want to see an end to the keeping of dolphins in captivity, with 81% admitting that they believe dolphins to be ‘happier’ in the wild.
On 4th July, recognised as the ‘World Day opposing the captivity of dolphins’, the Born Free Foundation and likeminded animal protection organisations, FAADA (Spain) and LAV and Marevivo (Italy) launched a campaign to end the exploitation of dolphins in captivity in Italy.
“In Italy, the dolphins in captivity provide no benefit to public education or species conservation, the key requirements of the Italian and European zoo law, instead they are forced to perform demeaning tricks to music and are housed in unnatural, cramped conditions to provide ‘entertainment’,” said LAV and Marevivo. “This exploitation of these highly intelligent animals must end.”
LAV and Marevivo have presented their investigation of Italian dolphinaria to the Minister of the Environment, Andrea Orlando, asking him to investigate the identified violations with Italian law.
LAV and Marevivo have recently joined a growing number of European NGOs to call for an end to the keeping of dolphins and whales (collectively known as cetaceans) in captivity in Europe. Focusing on the effects that captivity imposes on the welfare and survival of the dolphins, the consortium of NGOs has launched the public-focus campaign film, SOS DOLPHINS, to raise greater awareness and call for a phasing-out of the industry.
In the European Union there are a total of 33 dolphinaria, displaying a reported 290 cetaceans of six different species. Spain has the largest number, with 11 dolphinaria, whilst Italy has a total of 5 dolphinaria keeping 24 bottlenose dolphins and one Risso’s dolphin.
This follows a survey in Spain in which more than 90% of its citizens opposed captivity for cetaceans, and 87% thought these animals were happier in the wild. You can read about the campaign in that country here.
Finally, as reported by lots of venues and the Mother Nature Network, Costa Rica—one of the most environmentally conscious countries on Earth—is poised to close its two government-run zoos.
The Costa Rican government has announced a plan to close the country’s two public zoos next year and release some of the resident animals back into the wild, although the foundation that runs the two facilities disagrees with the plan. Affected would be Simon Bolivar Zoo in San Jose and the nearby Santa Ana Conservation Center.The country’s Environment and Energy Minister Rene Castro said at a press conference last week that the decision to close the zoos came from “a change of environmental conscience among Costa Ricans.” The country recently banned sport hunting (although illegal poaching remains a problem), and it banned animals in circuses back in 2002.At the press conference, Deputy Environment Minister Ana Lorena Guevara said the animals that cannot be returned to the wild will be handed over to animal rescue organizations. If that doesn’t work out, she said the government will find a place for some of them in other conservation zones.. . . A spokesperson for Fundazoo, the foundation that runs the two zoos, told the Associated Press that it has asked a court to block the planned closure and says its contract to run the facilities runs through the year 2024.
This trend is, I hope, part of the arc of increasing morality described in Steve Pinker’s book The Better Angels of our Nature. It’s time we stopped putting animals in prison for our entertainment. And yes, it’s largely entertainment, not education. A zoo official once told me that despite their efforts to put up signs describing the animals and their biology, visitors spent about two second looking at each sign, just trying to verify what the animal was. The rest was gawking. And yes, maybe a few people have become biologists, or supported conservation, by going to zoos, but we have to balance that against the immense suffering that capture and captivity produces in wild beasts. If we really want to balance “well being,” we have to take into account the well being of our evolutionary cousins.
There are some valid reasons for captivity, first among them to preserve endangered species and increase their number—but with the goal of returning them to the wild. That, of course, requires that we preserve natural habitat as well: the homes of wild animals and plants.
What right does one species of highly cerebralized primates have to destroy every other species and its habitat?
You probably know that at least two documented miracles are required for anyone to achieve sainthood in the Catholic church, and that sometimes those miracles are pretty bizarre.
But I haven’t found one wonkier than “The miracle of the pilchards” that was used to raise Aquinas to “St. Thomas” in the Catholic pantheon.
Alert reader Grania, an ex-Catholic, sent me a YouTube clip of the “QI” show hosted by Stephen Fry, which apparently specializes in esoteric knowledge. If you watch the clip at the link, you’ll see, a few minutes in, a discussion about a fish-related miracle used to canonize Thomas Aquinas.
I found this hard to believe, but, sure enough, the internet has the document used to support Thomas’s canonization in 1319, a 19-page screed (when printed out in 12-point Times font) called “The Sanctity and Miracles of St. Thomas Aquinas; From the First Canonisation Enquiry“. The examination of miracles apparently took place at the Archbishop’s Palace in Naples from July 21 to September 18, 1319.
And, sure enough, The Miracle of the Pilchards is in section IX:
IX. Asked if he knew of other miracles attributed to brother Thomas, the witness said that he had heard of many; and in particular that when Thomas lay sick in the castle of Maenza and was urged to eat something, he answered, ‘I would eat fresh herrings, if I had some.’ Now it happened that a pedlar called just then with salted fish. He was asked to open his baskets, and one was found full of fresh herrings, though it had contained only salted fish. But when the herrings were brought to Thomas, he would not eat them.The witness spoke too of a Master Reginald, a cripple, who was cured at the tomb of brother Thomas. Asked how he knew of these two miracles, he replied that that about the fish he had from brother William of Tocco, prior of the Friar Preachers at Benevento, who himself had it from several people at Maenza, where the event occurred. The other story he had from brother Octavian (mentioned above) who averred that he had seen it happen. And in the monastery these miracles were common knowledge.
Thomas didn’t even have the moxie to eat the fresh herrings that God created for him!
There you have the standard of miracles the Catholic authorities consider dispositive. Thomas apparently didn’t work or inspire many miracles in his life, so they had to use incidents from the bottom of the [fish] barrel. Note, too, that this one is documented third hand.
This is an example of what biologist J. B. S. Haldane called “Aunt Jobisca’s Theorem” (from “The Pobble who had No Toes” by Edward Lear), the theorem being: “It’s a fact the whole world knows.” Have a look at Haldane’s other theorems here.
There are many other miracles for St. Thomas, too. Here’s one more:
LX. Asked concerning miracles worked by brother Thomas, in life or after death, the witness gave the following as an example of those commonly remembered among the Friar Preachers. Once, at Paris, Thomas, on rising in the morning, found that one of his teeth had grown in a way that hindered him in his speech. He had to conclude a public disputation that morning; so there was nothing for it, he thought, but to set himself to prayer. So he went and prayed, and after a while the tooth fell into his hand. He showed it to Reginald; and afterwards he used to carry it about as a reminder of God’s goodness to him.
Let’s just say that the collation of molecules constituting the cosmos (including my neurons) has determined that I’ll post a song every day this week. That is, I have no choice about both posting music and the choice of music I post.
I could have sworn that, like the Linda Ronstadt song from yesterday, I’d posted this one before, but a quick search of the site says no. So, with a tip of the dangly-ball hat to our friends in Oz, here are The Seekers with their one huge hit, “I’ll never find another you,” written by Tom Springfield. In 1964 it reached #1 on the UK pop charts, and was #4 in the U.S. I was fourteen, and remember it well.
Maybe you’ll remember their other two hits, “Georgy Girl” and “A World of Our Own” (links go to the videos; be sure to watch the second), but neither made it as big as “Another You.”
You might also remember the small but powerful lead singer, Judith Durham, belting out the lyrics along with three geeky guys in 60s suits. She was great, and if you don’t like her, take a number, get in line, and . . .
Posting will be light today as I have writing to do. (Don’t I always say that? Yet posting is aways fairly normal).
First, from Off the Mark, courtesy of reader Diane G.
For some reason this reminds me of the story of Mohammed, his cat Muezza, and his prayer robe.
And we have this awesome T. rex felid from reader Samuel. This was almost enough to inspire me to have another contest, but response to the “cat beard competition” was too tepid.
This would have been the most fearsome of the dinos, but also the cutest:
