Second thoughts on life
- From: PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:06:14 GMT
I find this summary of new insights from leading intellectuals very
interesting. The data has always been there. Those are permanent
facts. How we uncover them and how we interpret the data needs
constantant updating and needs people to be able to explain the real
world better. I had always been interested in the molecular origin of
life. But that will have to be discussed elsewhere. Mark Pagel's
insight into the small yet significant genetic variation among humans
threatens to give a scientific basis for racial differences. I don't
subscribe to the notion that this makes one race superior over the
other. But it does give a basis for a feeling of difference from
other races that we all instinctively feel. It does mean that I have
perfectly good reason to be who I am and no one can tell me that he
(orshe) has superior qualities that the rest of us should concede to.
================================
Second thoughts on life, the universe and everything by world's best
brains
The changes of mind that gave philosophers and scientists new insights
"
"
o James Randerson, science correspondent
o The Guardian,
o Tuesday January 1 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan/01/sciencenews.evolution
They are the intellectual elite, the brains the rest of us rely on to
make sense of the universe and answer the big questions. But in a
refreshing show of new year humility, the world's best thinkers have
admitted that from time to time even they are forced to change their
minds.
When tackling subjects as diverse as human evolution, the laws of
physics and sexual politics, scientists and philosophers, including
Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Paul Davies and Richard Wrangham, all
confessed yesterday to a change of heart.
The display of scientific modesty was brought about by the annual new
year's question posed by the website edge.org, which drew responses
from more than 120 of the world's greatest thinkers.
Edge's publisher, John Brockman, asked the intellectual cream what
they had changed their mind about and why. "Science is based on
evidence. What happens when the data change? How have scientific
findings or arguments changed your mind?" said the brief.
A common theme in the responses is that what distinguishes science
from other forms of knowledge and from faith is that new ideas can
rapidly overturn old ones as new evidence emerges. So there's nothing
to be ashamed about in admitting an intellectual switch. Some
responses, such as Dennett's change of heart on how the mind works,
resist paraphrasing in 100 words, but here is a selection of the rest.
What was the turning point in human evolution?
Richard Wrangham, British anthropologist who studied under Jane
Goodall. Now at Harvard University, his research includes primate
behaviour and human evolution.
"I used to think that human origins were explained by meat-eating.
After all, the idea that meat-eating launched humanity has been the
textbook evolutionary story for decades, mooted even before Darwin was
born.
"But in a rethinking of conventional wisdom I now think that cooking
was the major advance that turned ape into human ... Cooked food is
the signature feature of human diet. It not only makes our food safe
and easy to eat, but it also grants us large amounts of energy
compared to a raw diet, obviating the need to ingest big meals.
Cooking softens food too, thereby making eating so speedy that as
eaters of cooked food, we are granted many extra hours of free time
every day."
Why do men dominate society?
Helena Cronin, philosopher at the London School of Economics and
director of Darwin@LSE, a research group devoted to what Darwinism can
tell us about human nature.
"I used to think that patterns of sex differences resulted mainly from
average differences between men and women in innate talents, tastes
and temperaments ... Add to this some bias and barriers - a sexist
attitude here, a lack of childcare there - and the sex differences are
explained. Or so I thought ... But they alone don't fully explain the
differences ... Females are much of a muchness, clustering round the
mean. But, among males, the variance - the difference between the most
and the least, the best and the worst - can be vast.
"So males are almost bound to be over-represented both at the bottom
and at the top. I think of this as 'more dumbbells but more Nobels'...
Unfortunately, however, this is not the prevailing perspective in
current debates, particularly where policy is concerned."
Are there genetic differences between "races"?
Mark Pagel, evolutionary biologist at Reading University. His research
includes work on language and cultural evolution.
"Flawed as the old ideas about race are, modern genomic studies reveal
a surprising, compelling and different picture of human genetic
diversity. We are on average about 99.5% similar to each other
genetically. This is a new figure, down from the previous estimate of
99.9%. To put what may seem like minuscule differences in perspective,
we are somewhere around 98.5% similar, maybe more, to chimpanzees, our
nearest evolutionary relatives.
"The new figure for us, then, is significant. It derives from among
other things, many small genetic differences that have emerged from
studies that compare human populations ... Like it or not, there may
be many genetic differences among human populations - including
differences that may even correspond to old categories of "race" -
that are real differences in the sense of making one group better than
another at responding to some particular environmental problem.
"This in no way says one group is in general "superior" to another ...
But it warns us that we must be prepared to discuss genetic
differences among human populations.
Are humans still evolving?
Steven Pinker, leading psychologist and language expert at Harvard
University. Author of The Language Instinct and The Blank Slate.
"I've had to question the overall assumption that human evolution
pretty much stopped by the time of the agricultural revolution ... New
[laboratory] results have suggested that thousands of genes, perhaps
as much as 10% of the human genome, have been under strong recent
selection, and the selection may even have accelerated during the past
several thousand years ... If these results hold up, and apply to
psychologically relevant brain function ... then the field of
evolutionary psychology might have to reconsider the simplifying
assumption that biological evolution was pretty much over and done
with 10-000-50,000 years ago."
Is the universe flat?
Laurence Krauss, physicist at Case Western Reserve University and
prominent opponent of the Intelligent Design movement. His books
include The Physics of Star Trek.
"I was relatively certain that there was precisely enough matter in
the universe to make it geometrically flat ... according to general
relativity [geometrically flat] means there is a precise balance
between the positive kinetic energy associated with the expansion of
space, and the negative potential energy associated with the
gravitational attraction of matter in the universe so that the total
energy is precisely zero ... We are now pretty sure that the dominant
energy-stuff in our universe isn't normal matter, and isn't dark
matter, but rather is associated with empty space! And what is worse
(or better, depending upon your viewpoint) is that our whole picture
of the possible future of the universe has changed. An accelerating
universe will carry away almost everything we now see, so that in the
far future our galaxy will exist alone in a dark, and seemingly
endless void. And that is what I find so satisfying about science ...
that the whole community could throw out a cherished notion, and so
quickly! That is what makes science different than religion."
Should we use brain-boosting drugs?
Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of the leading scientific journal
Nature
"I've changed my mind about the use of enhancement drugs by healthy
people. A year ago, if asked, I'd have been against the idea, whereas
now I think there's much to be said for it. The ultimate test of such
a change of mind is how I'd feel if my offspring (both adults) went
down that road, and my answer is that with tolerable risks of side
effects and zero risk of addiction, then I'd feel OK if there was an
appropriate purpose to it ... Research and societal discussions are
necessary before cognitive enhancement drugs should be made legally
available for the healthy, but I now believe that that is the right
direction in which to head.
Does God exist?
Alan Alda, perhaps best-known as Hawkeye in the 70s series MASH. He
now hosts Scientific American Frontiers on US television.
"Until I was 20 I was sure there was a being who could see everything
I did and who didn't like most of it. He seemed to care about minute
aspects of my life, like on what day of the week I ate a piece of
meat. And yet, he let earthquakes and mudslides take out whole
communities, apparently ignoring the saints among them who ate their
meat on the assigned days. Eventually, I realised that I didn't
believe there was such a being ... I still don't like the word
agnostic. It's too fancy. I'm simply not a believer."
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Be grateful to capitalism
- Next by Date: Re: Be grateful to capitalism
- Previous by thread: MI5 Flooded My Newsgroup
- Next by thread: Please Help us to protect our Culture!!!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
