It’s the science, stupid.

November 10, 2010 • 7:28 am

by Greg Mayer

Nils August Andresen, at Frum Forum, argues that the Republicans did badly in the recent elections with college educated youths, especially those from top schools (Smart Youth Voters Shunned GOP in Midterms), and asks if “intelligent people who study hard dislike Republicans.” He answers in the affirmative, and proposes a reason: the Republican war on science and knowledge (Why America’s Top Students Tune Out the GOP). Money quote:

Today’s top students are motivated less by enthusiasm for Democrats and much more by revulsion from Republicans. It’s not the students who have changed so much. It’s the Republicans. … Under Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, Republicans championed science and knowledge. But over the past 30 years, national Republicans have formed an intensifying alliance with religious conservatives more skeptical of science and knowledge. I don’t know whether discarding evolution goes against common sense; but I’m pretty sure it goes against most Ivy League-educated senses.

h/t Andrew Sullivan (“Stop Celebrating Stupidity”)

Blackford on scientism: what questions defeat science?

November 9, 2010 • 8:46 pm

Over at Metamagician, Brother Blackford discusses the diverse meanings of that term so readily and perjoratively applied to the Gnu Atheists: scientism.

The idea that science (defined narrowly in contradistinction to humanistic forms of inquiry) could answer every question would, in my view at least, be untenable. I don’t see how science, narrowly defined, can tell you how sympathetic you should be to Macbeth when he learns of his wife’s death and replies, “She should have died hereafter.” The distinctive techniques of narrowly-defined science are not going to tell a literary scholar, an actor, or a director how that line should be spoken.

. . . The thing is, if you’re going to denounce someone for “scientism” or complain that her ideas lead to “scientism”, or are somehow reliant on “scientism” – and if this is meant to be a serious criticism – you must be using the word “scientism” in a sense that denotes something horrible or foolish or otherwise worthy of denunciation. It’s no use denouncing someone for “scientism” and then, when called on it, explain that you were using the word in some other, more technical, non-pejorative sense (perhaps that the person takes a logical empiricist approach to philosophy). That’s equivocation. It’s cheating to apply the word in some non-pejorative sense that you secretly have in mind while at the very same time trying to get the pejorative connotations of other senses of the word.

A word like “scientism” lends itself too readily to this kind of argumentative cheating. So much so that I think that intellectually honest people should stop using the word; and, frankly, when I see people using it in current debates I am automatically suspicious of their intellectual honesty. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one.

I’m not sure whether I agree with Russell that there are disciplines outside of science (and I use the term “science” broadly here as “rational and empirical investigation”) that can answer meaningful questions.  He uses the example of “how sympathetic one should be to Macbeth?”, but can literature really answer that question for us? Or is it an empirical question based on psychology and sociology, sussing out what effects one’s actions have on others?  Even deciding how a line should be spoken presupposes knowledge about how an audience might psychologically react to a line of dialogue. But of course Russell adds that his brand of science is “narrowly defined.”

It’s late and I’m full of churrasco, so I want to just raise the issue of a serious lacuna in all of our discussions of scientism.  Where, exactly, is a list of questions that can be answered by methods not falling under my broad definition of science?  I’m not resistant to the idea, though I still maintain that every question about how things really are in the universe is a question that demands a science-based answer.

This is the place where readers should weigh in with the questions that science can’t answer, but other disciplines, or ways of thought, can.

New Scientist defends bad science

November 9, 2010 • 11:51 am

Last week I highlighted a pretty dreadful piece in New Scientist, “The chaos theory of evolution,” written by paleontologist Keith Bennett, which pretty much deep-sixed the modern theory of evolution in favor of a buzzword-y evolution that was all about being “fractal,” “chaotic,” and “nonlinear”.  Bennett relegated the role of natural selection to that of a bit player—if even that.

Coincidentally, the magazine asked me for my take on an unrelated issue.  I used the occasion to tell the editor that I wasn’t interested in helping a magazine that was more or less the National Enquirer of science reporting, gleefully touting every misguided objection to neo-Darwinian evolution that came down the pike. He responded by saying that Bennett’s article was after all taken from a talk at the last International Paleontological Congress, and therefore had a modicum of respectability.  The editor then suggested I write a piece for the magazine critiquing it.

I responded:

Thanks very much for your email.  I am in Colombia for two weeks and wouldn’t be able to do anything until I return.  Perhaps I should just let my blog post be my reply.

But really, is there nobody on your staff who can vet these things for content? Or is a well known scientist allowed simply to say whatever he wants?  Even if that scientist questions the power and ubiqity of natural selection? That’s like a chemist coming to your magazine and doubting the existence of atoms.

If you think my own take on Bennett’s piece is unique, simply read the comments after my post. There are many people, including myself, who think that New Scientist has lost a lot of credibility because of its penchant for “Darwin-is-wrong” kinds of sensationalism.

The editor responded, saying that the blame rested not on New Scientist, but on the field itself. If such bad ideas could past muster among respected paleontologists, well, that’s not New Scientist’s fault. And he again invited me to respond:

Thanks for getting back to me.

On the whole we're confident that we can vet content ourselves, with the
proviso that the peer review process is working. Perhaps some of your
ire should be turned on your scientific colleagues - if Bennett is so
hopelessly wrong, why was he ever invited to give that keynote
(alongside Niles Eldredge)? Why did the symposium even take place?
Bennett wasn't the only one to question the primacy of natural selection
in macroevolution. Why does the Royal Society support his work?
Similarly, if the tree of life concept is unimpeachable, why is there
such a large literature questioning its validity and a major project on
it at a leading UK biology department?

As a weekly science magazine (not journal) we can only report what we
see and hear going on around us. And we're always going to look for new,
potentially game-changing ideas (it's the news, stupid).

I was at Bennett's talk; the room was full of learned and eminent
people. He took a few questions but there were no howls of protest like
yours. What am I to make of this? I'm genuinely baffled.

Perhaps you could blog about this. It's very easy to shoot the messenger
but science itself isn't blameless. 

Also, please consider my invitation to write something to be an open
one. Perhaps when you're back we could run a piece arguing that there's
not a lot wrong with the theory of evolution as it stands and scientists
who claim there is are misguided.

I’m going to pass on this invitation. After all, I already did a long post taking apart Bennett’s views, and if I had to go after every piece of Darwin-is-wrong-ism, I’d never get anything else done.  And I’m not sure whether Bennett’s views on the vacuity of neo-Darwinism really do characterize most paleontologists. If they do, then shame on paleobiology.  But that doesn’t absolve New Scientist from a responsibility to report that views like Bennett’s are controversial, even if there’s a large slice of misguided paleobiologists who accept them.

What I won’t do is help New Scientist sell magazines by fanning the flames of controversy. I wash my hands of this rag, and I’d advise readers to do likewise until it cleans up its act.

Great literary endings, part 3

November 9, 2010 • 6:10 am

This won’t make a lot of sense unless you’ve read the book, but it’s a good one: The Sun Also Rises, by Ernest Hemingway, a tale of polymorphously perverse expats in postwar Spain and France.

Jake Barnes has received a wound in the war (WWI) that has apparently made him impotent, unable to sexually satisfy the randy Brett (Lady Brett Ashley), who has serial affairs with several people, including a bullfighter.  Jake clearly loves her, but there’s little hope for the relationship given his inability to sexually satisfy Brett.  At the end, a policeman symbolically calls a halt, pressing them up together, Jake is ironic, and the whole thing is ineffably poignant.

“Oh, Jake,” Brett said, “we could have had such a damned good time together.”
Ahead was a mounted policeman in khaki directing traffic. He raised his baton. The car slowed suddenly pressing Brett against me.
“Yes,” I said. “Isn’t it pretty to think so?”

Curiously, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, and Thomas Wolfe were all discovered and edited by the same man, the great Maxwell Perkins of Scribner’s. (See A. Scott Berg’s biography, Maxwell Perkins: Editor of Genius.)  Perkins had an unerring ear for literature.  He was also the editor for Marjorie Kinnan Rawling’s book, The Yearling, which I beg you to read.

US government opposes gene patenting

November 9, 2010 • 12:14 am

by Greg Mayer

In a move that got lost in the run up to the recent US elections, the Federal government has reversed its longstanding policy that genes are patentable. Released the Friday before the elections, and covered by the New York Times the following day, with a follow up article the day before the election, the Justice Department’s brief in the case argued that gene sequences unmodified by man are products of nature, and thus ineligible to be patented; and that isolating the sequence doesn’t change its status. Here’s a summary of the argument:

The district court [which invalidated two gene patents] correctly held, however, that genomic DNA that has merely been isolated from the human body, without further alteration or manipulation, is not patent-eligible. Unlike the genetically engineered microorganism in Chakrabarty [an earlier decision, allowing the patenting of genetically modified organisms], the unique chain of chemical base pairs that induces a human cell to express a BRCA protein is not a “human-made invention.” Nor is the fact that particular natural mutations in that unique chain increase a woman’s chance of contracting breast or ovarian cancer. Indeed, the relationship between a naturally occurring nucleotide sequence and the molecule it expresses in a human cell — that is, the relationship between genotype and phenotype — is simply a law of nature. The chemical structure of  native human genes is a product of nature, and it is no less a product of nature when that structure is “isolated” from its natural environment than are cotton fibers that have been separated from cotton seeds or coal that has been extracted from the earth.

The friend of the court brief was filed in an appeal of a case brought by a group of scientific and medical societies and individuals against Myriad Genetics, which had been granted patents on two genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer. In a surprise ruling last March, US District Court Judge Robert Sweet invalidated the patents (more on the ruling here and here), and the current brief was filed in response to Myriad’s appeal of the adverse ruling. The Feds argue that some aspects of Judge Sweet’s ruling erred, but that it’s main conclusion was correct: “…products of nature do not constitute patentable subject matter absent a change that results in a fundamentally new product. … [T]he purification of native DNA does not alter its essential characteristic– its nucleotide sequence– that is defined by nature…” (pp. 107 & 132 of the ruling, full text here).

The Federal position comes as good news to the scientists and medical groups involved, and to anyone who wants the law to make  sense. The notion that a gene is a human invention, rather than a product of nature, is absurd to any biologist (unless perhaps you were granted one of these bogus patents, which may be one of those cases where, as Upton Sinclair put it, it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it). This is one instance in which the Obama administration has followed up on his promise that “Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues”.

Russell Blackford has noticed the new anti-patent brief, and also had a nice overview of some of the issues at the time of Sweet’s ruling. NPR also noticed the new brief a few days later.

Great literary endings, part 2

November 8, 2010 • 5:06 am

I have only three of these in mind (and few will agree with me on the next one), but perhaps I’ll think of more. The ending of The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896-1940), is an obvious choice.  Fitzgerald is, to me, a strange case. He couldn’t spell worth a damn, and it’s simply not clear where his capacity for such deep feeling came from. Nevertheless, he was capable of cranking out the most gorgeous prose when he wasn’t in the bag.  No doubt his friendship with Edmund Wilson and Tom Boyd at Princeton helped.

Anyway, Gatsby is one of my choices for The Great American Novel—perhaps the first choice.  This Side of Pardise, his first novel, was a remarkable achievement for a 24-year-old; and Tender is the Night has some beautiful writing, but suffers from an annoying bifurcation of plot and a forced ending.  But Fitzgerald wrote one perfect novel, and Gatsby is it.  This is the ending, when Nick closes up Gatsby’s house after he’s been killed, and ponders the symbolic green light at the end of Daisy’s dock. The paragraph about the Dutch finding the new world is amazing.  And of course the boats beating on against the current has almost become a cliché.

On the last night, with my trunk packed and my car sold to the grocer, I went over and looked at that huge incoherent failure of a house once more. On the white steps an obscene word, scrawled by some boy with a piece of brick, stood out clearly in the moonlight, and I erased it, drawing my shoe raspingly along the stone. Then I wandered down to the beach and sprawled out on the sand.

Most of the big shore places were closed now and there were hardly any lights except the shadowy, moving glow of a ferryboat across the Sound. And as the moon rose higher the inessential houses began to melt away until gradually I became aware of the old island here that flowered once for Dutch sailors’ eyes — a fresh, green breast of the new world. Its vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby’s house, had once pandered in whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder.

And as I sat there brooding on the old, unknown world, I thought of Gatsby’s wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of Daisy’s dock. He had come a long way to this blue lawn, and his dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it. He did not know that it was already behind him, somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night.

Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter — to-morrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. . . . And one fine morning ——

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

If you ever get a chance, read Fitzgerald’s collected letters to his daughter Scottie.  You might think it boring, but it’s fantastic.  I have an old edition, but I see that it’s out of print and way pricey.  If you can get it from the library, do: it’s one of the finest collections of letters I’ve ever read, and you’ll admire Fitzgerald no end (and understand him a lot better) when you finish it.

The best endings in literature

November 7, 2010 • 3:13 pm

I’m sitting in the Miami airport, having successfully wrangled a plug from the PLUG HOGS who swarm around the electricity poles, greedily charging not just their phones or their computers, but every goddam appliance they have.

I want to highlight what I think are the best-written endings of novels written in English. I’ve chosen three, but today I’ll single out what I think is the best. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before: it’s the ending of The Dead by James Joyce (the last story in his 1914 collection Dubliners; you can read it online free here). It is what I consider the most beautiful bit of English prose ever written.  I could die happy if I could produce a few paragraphs like these.

The story: Gabriel and Gretta, a married couple in Dublin, go to his aunts’ annual Christmas party.  Gabriel thinks himself a swell, but he’s really sort of pathetic, pompous, and self-absorbed.  (This realization is pervasive in Dubliners.)  A song is sung at the party, which puts Gretta in mind of a boy who once sang that same song to her many years ago. The boy was named Michael Furey, and he loved Gretta when they were both young.  But their love was forbidden, and Michael died of tuberculosis after walking to Gretta’s house in the rain to confess his feelings.

When getting ready for bed in their hotel, Gretta breaks the story to Gabriel, and, hearing it, he has a famous Joycean epiphany, realizing that he hasn’t ever known true love and, pathetic creature that he is, will soon pass from this world.  Here’s the ending, starting with Gretta breaking down as she remembers Michael Furey:

“Yes, he went home. And when I was only a week in the convent he died and he was buried in Oughterard, where his people came from. O, the day I heard that, that he was dead!”

She stopped, choking with sobs, and, overcome by emotion, flung herself face downward on the bed, sobbing in the quilt. Gabriel held her hand for a moment longer, irresolutely, and then, shy of intruding on her grief, let it fall gently and walked quietly to the window.

She was fast asleep.

Gabriel, leaning on his elbow, looked for a few moments unresentfully on her tangled hair and half-open mouth, listening to her deep-drawn breath. So she had had that romance in her life: a man had died for her sake. It hardly pained him now to think how poor a part he, her husband, had played in her life. He watched her while she slept, as though he and she had never lived together as man and wife. His curious eyes rested long upon her face and on her hair: and, as he thought of what she must have been then, in that time of her first girlish beauty, a strange, friendly pity for her entered his soul. He did not like to say even to himself that her face was no longer beautiful, but he knew that it was no longer the face for which Michael Furey had braved death.

Perhaps she had not told him all the story. His eyes moved to the chair over which she had thrown some of her clothes. A petticoat string dangled to the floor. One boot stood upright, its limp upper fallen down: the fellow of it lay upon its side. He wondered at his riot of emotions of an hour before. From what had it proceeded? From his aunt’s supper, from his own foolish speech, from the wine and dancing, the merry-making when saying good-night in the hall, the pleasure of the walk along the river in the snow. Poor Aunt Julia! She, too, would soon be a shade with the shade of Patrick Morkan and his horse. He had caught that haggard look upon her face for a moment when she was singing Arrayed for the Bridal. Soon, perhaps, he would be sitting in that same drawing-room, dressed in black, his silk hat on his knees. The blinds would be drawn down and Aunt Kate would be sitting beside him, crying and blowing her nose and telling him how Julia had died. He would cast about in his mind for some words that might console her, and would find only lame and useless ones. Yes, yes: that would happen very soon.

The air of the room chilled his shoulders. He stretched himself cautiously along under the sheets and lay down beside his wife. One by one, they were all becoming shades. Better pass boldly into that other world, in the full glory of some passion, than fade and wither dismally with age. He thought of how she who lay beside him had locked in her heart for so many years that image of her lover’s eyes when he had told her that he did not wish to live.

Generous tears filled Gabriel’s eyes. He had never felt like that himself towards any woman, but he knew that such a feeling must be love. The tears gathered more thickly in his eyes and in the partial darkness he imagined he saw the form of a young man standing under a dripping tree. Other forms were near. His soul had approached that region where dwell the vast hosts of the dead. He was conscious of, but could not apprehend, their wayward and flickering existence. His own identity was fading out into a grey impalpable world: the solid world itself, which these dead had one time reared and lived in, was dissolving and dwindling.

A few light taps upon the pane made him turn to the window. It had begun to snow again. He watched sleepily the flakes, silver and dark, falling obliquely against the lamplight. The time had come for him to set out on his journey westward. Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling, too, upon every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.

I can’t think of anything more beautiful than that.

I’ll post the other two next week.