The role professional scientists should play in countering the utterly harmful, unscientific trends in society is brought out in
this article. Some India-specific suggestions are also made for strengthening
the fight against superstition and excessive irrationality.
Introduction
It appears that
so far as the average professional scientist is concerned, there is not much
correlation between having had a career in science and the possession of
scientific temper by the scientist. There are many scientists, even good and
successful ones, who lack scientific temper when it comes to day-to-day actions
and thinking.
The public
expression or exhibition of lack of scientific temper by any eminent scientist
has a far more serious effect on society than that by other intellectuals.
Therefore the reasons behind this behaviour of many scientists need to be
investigated and discussed. This article does that by engaging such scientists at
their own turf. The situation in India is also discussed briefly, and some
proposals are made which can go a long way in promoting the cause of scientific
temper in our society.
The Scientific Method
Science is
about investigating natural phenomena by following the so-called 'scientific
method'. In the Wikipedia this method is described as follows: 'The scientific
method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new
knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed
scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence
subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary
describes the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has
characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic
observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and
modification of hypotheses"'.
The basic scientific
approach is as follows. Suppose there is a set of observations about a natural
phenomenon which we wish to explain. The scientific method for doing this is the
following 8-fold way:
1. A minimum necessary set of axioms. There is an agreed, minimum necessary, set of axioms,
which are taken as givens (their validity is either a matter of assumption, or
has been established already).
2. Logic. There is an agreed set of rules
for logical reasoning.
3. Hypothesis. The logical rules for reasoning,
as well as the axioms, are used along with a hypothesis (or model) for
describing and interpreting the observations we humans have made about the
natural phenomenon under investigation. It
is not important how the hypothesis is arrived at, because it is always going to be tested thoroughly and repeatedly. And there can even be more
than one competing hypotheses for explaining the same set of observations or
material evidence.
4. Agreed
meaning of each word. Every word
used for making any statement in science should have the same agreed meaning for
everybody. This requirement becomes particularly important when concepts like
'consciousness' are discussed or investigated. In the scientific method, a useful trick often employed wittingly or unwittingly is to define concepts in terms of things that are observable or, better still, measurable.
5. Verification by objective and reproducible observation. A hypothesis
must be able to explain the observations in a logically consistent way, and it
must successfully stand the test of repeated experimental verification.
If its success is only partial, we try to modify and improve it, and then check
against the observations again. That is how we arrive at the best, i.e. the
most successful, hypothesis at a given point of time in our history.
6. Predictive
capability of the hypothesis. A validated hypothesis is an example of 'induction', i.e. inference of a general or universal conclusion from a number of singular or individual observations. Our confidence in its validity grows if it not only explains what is already observed, but also enables us to 'deduce' correctly some
predictions about what more can be expected to be observed about the natural
phenomenon under investigation. Thus both induction and deduction are parts of the scientific method.
7. Elevation of a hypothesis to
the status of a theory. A hypothesis (or a (mutually consistent) set of hypotheses) that has repeatedly stood the
test of experiment, and that can successfully predict and explain a whole range of
experimental observations, gradually acquires the status of a theory.
8. The falsifiability
requirement. During the
entire process of: (i) statement of the research problem, (ii) use of logical
reasoning, and (iii) drawing of conclusions from the data and the reasoning, the
most important constraint usually put in by the scientific method is that only falsifiable
statements can be made. The term 'falsifiable statement' was introduced by Karl
Popper (2005). I explain its meaning with the help of an example.
Consider the
following statement S1 (Wudka 1998):
S1: 'The moon
is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever
anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee sufficiently quickly into deep space whenever a
spacecraft comes near '. This statement is so worded that no one can ever
observe the postulated green men and demonstrate that the statement is false; so the
statement is unfalsifiable (and therefore not permitted in scientific discourse).
Next, consider
the following statement:
S2: 'There are
no little green men on the moon '. This is a falsifiable statement. All you
have to do to prove it false is to show material evidence for the existence of even
one green man. Berry (2010) attributes the following famous statement to
Einstein: 'Many experiments may prove me
right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong'.
Only
falsifiable statements are permitted in the scientific method. Therefore S1 is
an unscientific statement or theory, and S2 is a scientific statement or
theory.
In work
beginning in the 1930s, Popper gave falsifiability a renewed emphasis as a
criterion for acceptable statements in science. He also pointed out that not all
unfalsifiable claims are fallacious; they are just unfalsifiable. As long
as proper skepticism is retained and proper evidence is given, even an
unfalsifiable claim can be a legitimate form of reasoning (but not of what
finally becomes a part of science). We should never assume that we must
be right simply because we cannot be proved wrong.
Why did Popper emphasize the falsifiability requirement. It was an effort to tackle what he called 'the problem of induction'. As stated above, the process of doing science involves generalization from individual observations, and this is always fraught with uncertainty. How many observations or measurements should we make so as to be able to generalize correctly? Generally, all we can say is: the larger the number, the better. But there is always the possibility that the next observation (which we did not make) may go against the generalization. So we can only have low or high probabilities, but not certainties, in the induction process. The larger the number of observations which agree with the generalization, the more likely it is that the generalization is valid.
Similarly, the greater the variety of conditions in which the observations and measurements are made, the greater the probability that the inductive generalization is true. The question arises: Which variations in the conditions of observation and measurement are considered significant and relevant, and which ones are not. This is decided by the theory we believe in for the domain of investigation. If the theory is wrong, we are likely to be led astray, till somebody comes up with a better theory.
Thus, because of 'the problem of induction', strong or weak likelihood, rather than complete certainty, is what the inferred laws of science are all about. Popper emphasized the falsifiability requirement in an effort to minimize the chances of inductivism going wrong. At the centre of the scientific method is the act of making statements based on existing theories. By restricting ourselves strictly to making only falsifiable statements, we are ensuring that even a single observation or measurement that disagrees with the pre-supposed hypothesis or theory is enough to dismiss the generalization, namely the theory, we inferred by the process of induction.
Notice the intellectual humility of the scientist. Scientific spirit means an ever-present willingness to give up even our pet theories and opinions if the evidence demands so. Contrast this with what is said in most of the organized religions. In them, certain statements cannot be questioned, and there are statements or beliefs in them which are unfalsifiable.
Why did Popper emphasize the falsifiability requirement. It was an effort to tackle what he called 'the problem of induction'. As stated above, the process of doing science involves generalization from individual observations, and this is always fraught with uncertainty. How many observations or measurements should we make so as to be able to generalize correctly? Generally, all we can say is: the larger the number, the better. But there is always the possibility that the next observation (which we did not make) may go against the generalization. So we can only have low or high probabilities, but not certainties, in the induction process. The larger the number of observations which agree with the generalization, the more likely it is that the generalization is valid.
Similarly, the greater the variety of conditions in which the observations and measurements are made, the greater the probability that the inductive generalization is true. The question arises: Which variations in the conditions of observation and measurement are considered significant and relevant, and which ones are not. This is decided by the theory we believe in for the domain of investigation. If the theory is wrong, we are likely to be led astray, till somebody comes up with a better theory.
Thus, because of 'the problem of induction', strong or weak likelihood, rather than complete certainty, is what the inferred laws of science are all about. Popper emphasized the falsifiability requirement in an effort to minimize the chances of inductivism going wrong. At the centre of the scientific method is the act of making statements based on existing theories. By restricting ourselves strictly to making only falsifiable statements, we are ensuring that even a single observation or measurement that disagrees with the pre-supposed hypothesis or theory is enough to dismiss the generalization, namely the theory, we inferred by the process of induction.
Notice the intellectual humility of the scientist. Scientific spirit means an ever-present willingness to give up even our pet theories and opinions if the evidence demands so. Contrast this with what is said in most of the organized religions. In them, certain statements cannot be questioned, and there are statements or beliefs in them which are unfalsifiable.
Votaries of
faith may be quick to point out that the choice for axioms, mentioned in the 8-fold way above, is also a matter of faith. No, it is not. To understand why, let us
consider the example of quantum theory.
All natural phenomena
are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. Why the laws of Nature are what
they are is something I have discussed elsewhere (Wadhawan 2012a). Another
article of mine on the anthropic principle is also relevant in this context
(Wadhawan 2012b). The laws of quantum mechanics are highly counter-intuitive
for us humans. The quantum theory is based on certain assumed axioms, like any
theory is. But the most important thing here is that the quantum theory is the
most repeatedly and the most thoroughly tested theory ever. It is the best
theory we have at present for understanding the world around us. If anybody
does not agree, he/she is most welcome to come up with another theory, with its
own set of axioms and logical structure. If the new
theory is better supported by experimental evidence than the present quantum
theory, science and scientists will have no compunctions whatsoever in
abandoning the existing theory, and accepting the new one. This is not faith
and reverence; it is, in fact, the negation of all that.
The Nature of Reality
Does the ongoing and cumulative activity of scientists lead to an
unraveling of reality? Before answering this question it is important to be clear
about the meaning of the word 'reality'.
The term 'reality' used in the question above normally stands for 'absolute reality'. There
is often the assumption that all quest for truth really aims at unraveling
and understanding absolute reality. But the fact is that there is no such thing
as absolute reality. If you do not agree, just try defining it, using words
that mean the same thing to everybody. I think you cannot.
As argued convincingly by Hawking and Mlodinow (2010), all that we can have is 'model-dependent
reality' (MDR); any wider or deeper notion of reality is a baseless myth, if not worse. I
explain.
Does something
or somebody exist when we are not viewing it? There are two opposite models for
answering this question, the subjective model (idealism) and the objective model
(materialism). Which model of 'reality' is correct? Naturally the one that is
self-consistent and most successful in terms of its predicted
consequences. In my opinion, this is where materialism wins hands down. The materialistic model is that the entity exists even
when nobody is observing it. This model is far more successful in explaining
'reality' than the opposite model. And we can do no better than build models of
whatever there is to observe, understand, and explain.
Suppose 100
persons are asked to describe an object, including its colour, and all of them
say that it is a chair. Further, suppose 98 of them say that it is a red
chair, but the other two disagree about the colour seen by the majority. If
further investigation shows that these two persons have a colour-blindness
problem, the model of reality we humans build is that the object is a red
chair.
But suppose it
turns out that these two persons are not colour-blind, and no matter
what tests we carry out, we are unable to explain why they do not see or
describe the chair as red. We then go (tentatively) by the majority view, or consensus.
Of course, any model of reality must change in the light of new data and insights.
This is the approach we adopt in science for building up our knowledge. We
build models and theories of reality, and we accept those which are most
successful in explaining what we humans observe collectively.
A scientific model is a
good model if:
it is elegant
and self-consistent;
it contains no
or only a few arbitrary or adjustable parameters;
it explains
most or all of the existing observations; and
it makes
detailed and falsifiable predictions.
That brings me
to the M-theory (see Wadhawan 2012c) and the cosmic-inflation model in
cosmology (see Wadhawan 2012d). Are they good models of reality? There are
eminent scientists who vehemently attack both of them, and have even proposed
alternative models. Nothing unusual about that. At the cutting edge of science
the edge is blunt or nebulous, rather than sharp: Experts disagree on many
issues, and fight it out. But out of this informed debate consensus emerges
gradually, usually when additional ('issue clincher') data become available, or
when some genius formulates a great new model. M-theory and the multiverse idea
are the most accepted formulations we humans have at present, even though there
are many arbitrary-looking parameters, and loose ends. In due course the models
would get either established or rejected, but they are the best (i.e., most
accepted, even beautiful) models of reality at present.
The
cosmic-inflation model ties up so many loose ends in cosmology, and explains so
many observations, that some form of it is likely to survive in any
scientific version of cosmology. Reality is
nothing deeper than the best available scientific model for it. Often a phenomenon or entity is so complex that no sensible model has
been formulated yet. In such a case, we have to wait till science makes more
progress and there is general agreement among experts.
Ockham's Razor
and Information Theory
In the 8-fold
way of the scientific method, the axioms play a basic role. The important
question is: How many axioms should we have? I shall take up a case study for
answering this question.
There is the so-called ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ (CI) of quantum
mechanics, formulated by the great scientist Neils Bohr in 1927, jointly with
Heisenberg (another venerated scientist) (see Faye 2008). According to the CI, humans
and the equipment they use exist in a classical world which is different
from the quantum world. A quantum state is a superposition of two or
more states, but when it interfaces with the classical world (at the moment of
measurement), there is a 'collapse' of the wave function (randomly) to one of the
alternatives, and the other alternative states disappear. It should be noted that the
CI was put in ‘by hand’ as an additional axiom or postulate of quantum mechanics. Was one more
axiom justifiable? No.
The CI has been superseded by better interpretations, some of them without the need for introducing an additional axiom. Among the earliest
scientists to challenge the CI was Hugh Everett III, who put forward his
‘many worlds’ idea as an alternative explanation. A good account of the latest
position on this has been given by Hawking and Mlodinow (2010). But the
influence of Bohr on quantum mechanics has been so strong and persistent that
even today many scientists subscribe to the CI. The fact is that the 'many
worlds' theory, or rather its modern version, namely the 'multiple universe' or
'multiverse' theory, has gained ascendance in science. The introduction of one
more axiom in quantum theory by Bohr was unnecessary, and therefore
undesirable, if not wrong. Let us see why.
The philosopher
Ockham advocated the use of simplest possible explanations for natural
phenomena: ‘Plurality should not be
posited without necessity’. The proverbial Ockham’s razor cuts away
complicated and long explanations (see Wadhawan 2010). Ockham declared that
simple explanations are the most plausible.
But is it just a matter of philosophy? Not really; there is more to it. A rationalization is available now. Leibniz (1675) (cf. Chaitin 2001) was among the earliest known investigators of the question of how many axioms should be chosen in a theory. He argued that a worthwhile theory of anything has to be ‘simpler than’ the data it explains. Otherwise, either the theory is useless, or the data are ‘lawless’. The criterion ‘simpler than’ is best understood in terms of information theory, or rather its more recently developed offshoot, namely algorithmic information theory (AIT) (Chaitin 1987).
But is it just a matter of philosophy? Not really; there is more to it. A rationalization is available now. Leibniz (1675) (cf. Chaitin 2001) was among the earliest known investigators of the question of how many axioms should be chosen in a theory. He argued that a worthwhile theory of anything has to be ‘simpler than’ the data it explains. Otherwise, either the theory is useless, or the data are ‘lawless’. The criterion ‘simpler than’ is best understood in terms of information theory, or rather its more recently developed offshoot, namely algorithmic information theory (AIT) (Chaitin 1987).
Following
Chaitin (1987), let consider an example. Take the set of all positive integers,
and ask the question: How many bits of information are needed to specify all
these integers? The answer is an absurdly large number. But the fact is that
this set of data has very little information content. It has a structure
which we can exploit to write an algorithm which can generate all the integers,
and the number of bits of information needed to write the algorithm is indeed
not large. So the 'algorithmic information content' in this example is small.
One can
generalize and say that, in terms of computer algorithms, the best theory is
that which requires the smallest computer program for calculating (and hence
explaining) the observations. The more compact the theory is, the
smaller is the length of this computer program. Chaitin’s work has shown that
Ockham's razor is not just a matter of philosophy, but has deep
algorithmic-information underpinnings. If there are competing descriptions or
theories of reality, the more compact one has a higher probability of
being correct. Let us see why.
In AIT, an
important concept is that of algorithmic
probability (AP). It is the probability that a random program of a given
length fed into a computer will give correctly a desired output, say the first
million digits of Ï€. Following Bennett and Chaitin’s pioneering work done in
the 1970s (see Chaitin 1987), let us assume that the random program has been
produced by an unintelligent monkey. The AP in this case is the same as the
probability that the monkey would type out the same bit string, i.e. the same
computer program as, say, a Java program suitable for generating the first
million digits of π. The probability that the monkey presses the first key on
the keyboard correctly is 0.5. The probability that the first two keys would be
pressed correctly is (0.5)2 or 0.25. And so on. Thus the probability
gets smaller and smaller very rapidly as the required number of correctly sequenced bits
increases. The longer the program, the less likely it is that the monkey will
crank it out correctly. We can generalize and say that the AP is the highest
for the shortest programs or the most compact theories. The best theory is
likely to have the smallest number of axioms.
In the present
context, suppose we are having a bit-string representing a set of data, and we
want to understand the mechanism responsible for the creation of that set of
data. In other words, we want to discover the
computer program (or the best
theory), among many we could generate randomly, which is responsible for that
set of data. The information-theoretic validation of Ockham’s philosophy comes
from the fact that the shortest such program is the most plausible guess,
because it has the highest AP.
The
Ockham-razor idea has two parts: The principle of plurality, and the principle
of parsimony, economy or succinctness. The former says that plurality should
not be posited without necessity. And the latter says that it is pointless to
do with more what can be done with less.
It is
conceivable that the simplest theory is inadequate in certain aspects. The idea of
Ockham's razor is that one should proceed to
simpler and simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power.
The God
Hypothesis
Apart from
axioms, another key component of the 8-fold way of the scientific method is the
hypothesis put forward for explaining any natural phenomenon. Implicit in this application
of the conventional scientific method is the validity of the causality principle: Every
effect has a cause which precedes it, and this cause is the effect of another
cause, and so on.
A fundamental
question all of us ask is: What is the cause for the existence of the universe
we live in? Suppose we put forward the hypothesis that our universe was created
by God. Naturally, the next question is: What is the cause, of which God is the
effect? In other words, who or what created God? The stock answer generally is:
The cause-effect chain cannot go on indefinitely and we must stop somewhere, so
we stop at the God hypothesis and say that God is the 'uncaused cause'.
Does that
really help? If we are willing to accept that there can be an uncaused cause,
we may as well say that the universe is an uncaused cause. So the God
hypothesis is an unnecessary (or unwarranted) hypothesis. Ockham's razor
cuts it off.
Many other
arguments have been given which show that the God hypothesis is unwarranted (see
Stenger 2008; Paulos 2008). This hypothesis explains away everything, and we
end up learning nothing. It is almost like having a theory in which everything
is axiomatically true and nothing needs to be proved or disproved.
Answering the
Difficult Questions We Ask about Ourselves and about Our Universe
God or no God, some
fundamental questions must be answered. Here are just three of them:
(i) How can our
universe emerge out of 'nothing' without violating the principle of
conservation of energy/mass?
(ii) How can
life emerge out of nonlife?
(iii) How can
intelligence emerge from non-intelligent beginnings?
I find that it
is still not widely known that science has progressed so dramatically during
the last few decades that it now has credible answers to these questions, as
also to many other such 'difficult' questions.
The recent
books by Hawking & Mlodinow (2010) and Krauss (2012) explain in a fairly
accessible language how our universe emerged out of 'nothing'. The vacuum state
in quantum field theory is not at all a state of 'nothingness'. It has a
'virtual' energy of its own. Our universe emerged out of vacuum as a quantum
fluctuation, without violating the principle of conservation of energy/mass. The
M-theory and the cosmic-inflation theory are powerful explanations for why our
universe has the laws it has (cf. Wadhawan 2012e). Our universe got created without
the help of a Creator. It has been found that Euclidean geometry holds true in our universe; i.e.,
ours is a flat-geometry universe. As explained by Krauss (2012), a
flat-geometry universe can satisfy the requirement that the sum total of
positive and negative contributions to the overall energy of the universe add
up to zero. [The gravitational force is an attractive force, so it makes a negative
contribution to the total energy of the universe. This matches (cancels out)
the positive-energy term coming from all the matter and energy we see around
us, so the total energy was and is zero.]
The question
about the emergence of life out of nonlife is, in fact, the easiest of the
three questions posed above. It is answered by a somewhat new branch of science called complexity
science (Gell-Mann 1994; Wadhawan 2010). Real-life situations are usually
so complex that it is not enough to have knowledge of the 'complete set of
fundamental natural laws' for explaining them. It is often found necessary to
formulate additional (empirical) laws as 'effective theories' (Hawking
& Mlodinow 2010). An example is the gravitational force experienced by a
macroscopic object on the surface of the Earth. The gravitational interaction
is present between any two atoms, but we cannot formulate and solve the
equations governing the gravitational interaction between every atom in the
macroscopic object and every atom in the Earth. Instead, an effective theory is
formulated in terms of the mass of the object and a few other numbers like the
value of the gravity constant (g) at the surface of the Earth. Similarly,
in chemistry we cannot hope to formulate and solve the totality of equations
describing the interactions among all the positive and negative charges in a
system. Instead, an effective theory involving concepts like valence deals with
how chemical reactions occur.
This approach
continues as we go up the ladder of increasing complexity. Details at one
hierarchical level of complexity are 'summarized' or 'integrated over' to
generate some effective parameters which are used for describing the details
of the next higher level: from particle physics to macroscopic physics and
chemistry; from chemistry to biology; and so on. An effective theory is
essentially a framework we create for modelling certain observed phenomena,
without describing in detail all the underlying processes.
Complexity
science has thrown up some additional key concepts. One of them is that of 'emergence'
(cf. Wadhawan 2012f). As the 'degree of complexity' of a system increases,
sometimes new, unexpected, properties can emerge. An example is that of the
second law of thermodynamics. Each molecule of a gas in a box obeys Newtonian
dynamics, and its equations of motion have time-reversal symmetry. And yet, for
the macroscopic system as a whole, the law of increasing entropy emerges,
which implies a unidirectional flow of time: The entropy increases only in the
direction of increasing time. The natural world abounds in such examples of
emergence.
Another
important feature of complexity science is that it compels us to take a fresh
look at the causality principle. Consider a beehive. It is a complex system. It
has 'swarm intelligence' (Wadhawan 2011a). No one is in
command, not even the queen bee. Each bee follows some very simple 'local
rules', and interacts with other bees in the hive. The final effect here is the
emergent property of swarm intelligence: The beehive functions as a
whole as a superorganism, with intelligence far in excess of that of any
individual bee. What is the cause of this intelligence? Not the action of any
one bee. The intelligence comes from the (ever-changing) interaction
patterns among the bees.
In fact, the
beehive is the archetypal example of a system in which it is meaningless to
talk about causes and effects, or actions and reactions. Instead it is interactions,
through and through. And it is not an isolated example. Complex systems are
generally like that.
But the
causality idea is well-entrenched in the human psyche. There is no need to
abandon it altogether, of course. In fact, much of our conventional science is
based on it. Logical reasoning in conventional science is one big chain of
cause-effect-cause-effect-cause- . . . . interpretations. But conventional
science is often quite unfit for tackling complexity-related, highly nonlinear,
problems. Radically new thinking is needed for researching those systems for
which any simplifying assumption can destroy the very essence of the system
being investigated, or when it is impossible to model the system in terms of a
manageable number of differential equations. We should be prepared to think in
terms of interactions and correlations when necessary, rather than actions and
reactions all the time. Such an approach helps us better understand the
properties of complex systems, and keeps us away from philosophical absurdities
like 'downward causality'.
Appearance of
life out of nonlife is no big deal; it is just one more example of spontaneous
emergence of order out of disorder in a thermodynamically open system, namely
the cosmos in general and our ecosphere in particular (Wadhawan 2011b). Atoms,
simple molecules, and then biomolecules evolved through the slow processes of
chemical evolution. In due course, self-replicating molecules emerged, followed
by the gradual appearance of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. At some stage in this era of
chemical evolution of complexity, the era of biological (Darwinian) evolution also started,
which is still operative and will remain so always.
Living systems
are an example of an important class of complex systems, called complex
adaptive systems (CASs) (see Wadhawan 2012g). These are systems that not
only evolve like any other dynamical system, but also learn by making
use of the information they have acquired. This learning requires, among other
things, the evolution of an ability to distinguish between the random
and the regular. CASs can undergo processes like biological evolution
(or biological-like evolution). They do not just operate in an environment
created for them initially, but have the capability to change the environment.
For example, species, ant colonies, corporations, and industries evolve to
improve their chances of survival in a changing environment. Similarly, the
marketplace adapts to factors like immigration, technological developments,
prices, extent of availability of raw materials, and changes in tastes and
lifestyles etc. Some more examples of CASs are: A baby learning to walk; a
strain of bacteria evolving resistance to an antibiotic; a beehive or ant
colony adjusting to the decimation of a part of it; etc.
That leads us
to an answer to the question of how intelligence has emerged out of
nonintelligence. It is due to the emergence of swarm intelligence, plus
the feature of adaptation to changing situations, typical of what any CAS would
do. A recent book by Kurzweil (2012) has a daring title: How to Create a
Mind. Within the present century itself we humans would have created
artificial minds far superior to our own. Such is the power of the scientific
method we have invented.
Scientists
All professional scientists are exposed to the logical rigour and discipline of the
scientific method outlined above. One may think that this makes them far more
rational in their thinking than the average non-scientist. This
is not the case, in general. As the cynic said, 'science is what scientists do'.
And scientists have their own share of prejudices, conditioning,
and hidden agendas. Why is this so?
This question needs to be examined from several vantage points. I consider just a few here.
The present level of acceptance of Darwinian evolution by the American
society is not too bad, but way back in 1994 this is how Dennett (1995)
described it: 'A recent Gallup poll (June 1993) discovered that 47 percent of
adult Americans believe that Homo sapiens is a species created by God
less than ten thousand years ago'. He went on to make the point that the person
most directly responsible for this misconception in the public mind was the
eminent palaeontologist (and much else) Stephen Jay Gould, a scientist who did
so much to make important corrections to classical Darwinism and neo-Darwinism.
Gould was a scientist of great standing, but deep inside he just could
not get reconciled to the fact that life can come into existence without the
hand of a benign Creator. As Dennett wrote in 1995: 'Gould's ultimate target is
Darwin's dangerous idea itself; he is opposed to the very idea that evolution
is, in the end, just an algorithmic process'. This was not just an expression of
opinion by Dennett. He gave elaborate reasons and evidence to prove his
assertion.
Incidentally, Dennett's (1995) book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, is the greatest book I have read on Darwinism. Reading it was an uplifting experience (I almost said 'spiritual experience' (!), except that I do not have a proper idea of what 'spiritual' really means).
Incidentally, Dennett's (1995) book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, is the greatest book I have read on Darwinism. Reading it was an uplifting experience (I almost said 'spiritual experience' (!), except that I do not have a proper idea of what 'spiritual' really means).
As I outlined above, modern cosmology, high-energy
physics, and complexity science have credible answers to the creation
questions. Complexity science, as we know it today, did not exist before the
1990s, and it is remarkable that Dennett (1995), a philosopher, had such an
innate understanding of the crux of what complexity science is all
about.
The need of the hour is to take complexity science to people, particularly
all those scientists who have been exposed only to conventional,
reductionistic, science so far. However, lack of adequate understanding of
complexity science is not the only reason why many scientists are unwilling to
let go of the God idea. There is an emotional need as well, similar to that of
a child, namely the need for a sense of security. The God concept fulfills that.
But desirability and emotional needs cannot be a substitute for the
realities of cold, honest, logic.
The Question of Morality and Ethics
A stock argument of organized religions is that a belief in God is
necessary for ensuring the prevalence of morality and ethics in society. A
corollary of this is that a 'Godless' person is unlikely or less likely to be
moral and ethical. There is no evidence for this presumption.
A belief in God also generally implies a belief in the existence of
certain 'supernatural' phenomena. Brights International (http://www.the-brights.net/action/activities/organized/arenas/1/readings.html) is an organization that promotes 'naturalism', as opposed to
'supernaturalism'. Its research project 'Reality about Human Morality' has
been running for several years, the overall thrust being to investigate the presumption
that ethical systems and morals are imparted to humankind by some form of
divine being or power. The present research findings of the
project are summarized in the following carefully worded Statements
(http://www.the-brights.net/action/activities/organized/arenas/1/area_b/studies.html):
(http://www.the-brights.net/action/activities/organized/arenas/1/area_b/studies.html):
Statement A: Morality is an evolved
repertoire of cognitive and emotional mechanisms with distinct biological
underpinnings, as modified by experience acquired throughout the human
lifespan.
Statement
B: Morality is not the exclusive domain of Homo sapiens; there is
significant cross-species evidence in the scientific literature that animals
exhibit 'pre-morality' or basic moral behaviours (i.e. those patterns of
behaviour that parallel central elements of human moral behaviour).
Statement
C: Morality is a 'human universal' (i.e. exists across all cultures
worldwide), a part of human nature acquired during evolution.
Statement
D: Young children and infants demonstrate some aspects of moral cognition
and behaviour (which precede specific learning experiences and worldview development).
Each Statement is supported by extensive references to scientific studies.
Spirituality
and 'Inner' Life
I have come across many scientists who say: 'I do not subscribe to any
religion, but I am a spiritual person'. What exactly is spirituality? Here are a
couple of definitions:
'The term "spirituality"
lacks a definitive definition, although social scientists have defined
spirituality as the search for "the sacred," where "the
sacred" is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary
and worthy of veneration. The use of the term "spirituality" has
changed throughout the ages. In modern times, spirituality is often separated
from Abrahamic religions, and connotes a blend of humanistic psychology with
mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal
well-being and personal development. The notion of "spiritual
experience" plays an important role in modern spirituality, but has a
relatively recent origin' (Wikipedia).
'Spirituality
means something different to everyone. For some, it's about participating in
organized religion: going to church, synagogue, a mosque, etc. For others, it's
more personal: Some people get in touch with their spiritual side through
private prayer, yoga, meditation, quiet reflection, or even long
walks. Research shows that even skeptics can't stifle the sense that there
is something greater than the concrete world we see. As the brain processes
sensory experiences, we naturally look for patterns, and then seek out meaning
in those patterns. And the phenomenon known as "cognitive dissonance"
shows that once we believe in something, we will try to explain away anything
that conflicts with it. Humans can't help but ask big questions - the
instinct seems wired in our minds'
(http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/spirituality).
(http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/spirituality).
Shorn of the
superfluous and logically untenable God concept (or the 'some higher power'
concept), spirituality is mainly about the so-perceived 'enhancement' of the
so-called 'inner life'. Each person has his inner life, pertaining to what
his mind perceives, or imagines, or aspires for, but so what? I think it is no different from idle reverie. My inner life is different from yours, and all that really matters is the outer-life expression or manifestation of the 'inner life', and this outer-life manifestation is a natural phenomenon like any other, amenable to scrutiny by science.
Our brain is a physical organ, subject to the laws of physics. And our mind is what our brain does. I subscribe to the view that there is nothing wrong or unscientific about any efforts to make one's thinking more productive and innovative and original by meditation etc.; and there is nothing mystical about that. It is perfectly fine for a person to do meditation if that helps him achieve better mental health, and greater intuitive capabilities or originality.
One of the
most innovative minds I know of is Ray Kurzweil (2012). Here is
what he does for getting new, problem-solving ideas: 'Relaxing professional
taboos turns out to be useful for creative problem solving. I use a mental
technique each night in which I think about a particular problem before I go to
sleep. This triggers sequences of thoughts that will continue into my dreams.
Once I am dreaming, I can think - dream
- about solutions to the problem
without the burden of the professional restraints I carry during the day. I can
then access these dream thoughts in the morning while in an in-between state of
dreaming and being awake, sometimes referred to as "lucid dreaming"'. Fine. And very impressive.
The mind-body relationship is a subject of great importance. There are so many unexplored examples of what the mind can make the body do or endure. Scientific researchers should be duly skeptical on one hand, and open-minded on the other, when it comes to accepting or rejecting outlandish-looking claims. Reproducible verification has to be the final arbiter, always.
The mind-body relationship is a subject of great importance. There are so many unexplored examples of what the mind can make the body do or endure. Scientific researchers should be duly skeptical on one hand, and open-minded on the other, when it comes to accepting or rejecting outlandish-looking claims. Reproducible verification has to be the final arbiter, always.
Scientific Temper in Society
Scientific
temper is all about applying the scientific method, not only when doing science
in the laboratory, but in everything we do anywhere. Scientists can play
a major role here by striving to be role models of rationality for society.
But even if all
the scientists did this conscientiously, there would still be a major hurdle in
the way of promoting scientific temper in society. Natural phenomena are governed
by the highly counter-intuitive laws of quantum mechanics, and we cannot expect
everybody to master quantum field theory for appreciating how, for example, our
universe arose out of 'nothing', i.e. without the intervention of a God or a
Creator. Similarly, it is not easy to explain complexity science to one and
all. But such problems can be tackled by proper parenting and education of
children, as I explain next.
Good Parenting
Minds of young
children are strongly influenced by what they learn from their parents (and
teachers). Parents should aim at creating conditions in the family in which the
child can grow to become an independent thinker. Every child has a right to get
exposure to all streams of thought before making a choice.
If a child
learns to have full confidence in science and the scientific method, he will
not waste energy and time fighting what science has to say. Instead, he will
take even the counter-intuitive quantum mechanics for granted, all the time
fully assured of the fact that there is nothing dogmatic about the concepts and
theories of science, and that even the most cherished ideas can be abandoned if
the new evidence so demands.
What right do the
parents have to impose their views on a child? The child should be able to make
a choice after learning about the various streams of thought. Needless to say,
parents often believe that a religious upbringing will instil moral values
in the child. But the fact is that there is overwhelming evidence that there is no correlation
between religion (or irreligion) and morality.
How moral is it
to stifle the intellectual growth of a child in the name of religion? If you
teach your child that something is true simply because the 'holy book' says so,
you are destroying something very valuable, namely the urge to go on
questioning things till a rational and sensible answer has been obtained.
Imagine a
situation in which a child has imbibed the spirit of the scientific method, and
has blossomed into a rational, mature person who realizes that there is no God
up there to intervene and help us in case we mess up our affairs on this
planet. And that Mother Earth is our collective responsibility, for which we should
cooperate with one another, rather than waste our energy and resources in
mindless conflicts in the name of religion.
Imagine a world
in which human beings, after they grow up from childhood, are no longer children
in their emotional get-up, but are mature, responsible, and mentally strong
persons, who hold nobody but themselves accountable for all their actions. They
do not need a father figure (God) to whom to go crying for help like a child
does. They are noble and moral because it feels good to be so, rather than
because they believe that God would punish them if they are not good.
Education of
Children
Children learn
not only from parents, but also from their school teachers. It is imperative
that teachers should be role models of scientific temper. That calls for a very
strict process of selection of teachers. And that, in turn, can happen only if
even the selectors of teachers are selected carefully.
School teaching
is a vitally important activity. Conditions have to be created so that the
finest available brains are attracted to this profession. Why is it that a
university teacher has a higher prestige and salary than a school teacher? We
have to set our priorities right.
A major
component of the scientific method is the insistence on strictly logical
reasoning. A fun thing for school children can be the teaching of the existence of logical
fallacies (see, e.g., Gula 2007). Here is an example of the so-called ad
hominem (circumstantial) logical fallacy (cf. Bennett 2012):
Person 1 is
claiming Y.
Person 1 has a
vested interest in Y being true.
Therefore Y is
false.
Another common
example of a logical fallacy is the so-called argument from prestige:
C. V. Raman was
a great, prestigious, scientist.
He asserted
that there is a God.
Therefore God
exists.
The logical
fallacy here is that for every C. V. Raman who was a believer, one can point
out a Stephen Hawking who is not a believer. Opinions of a few scientists or others cannot
prove or disprove any argument.
Familiarity
with, and caution against, the huge repertoire of logical fallacies can fire the
imagination of children, and can make them instinctively look for any lack of
logic, not only in the reasoning of others, but also their own. A society in
which even children are adept at pointing out logical fallacies in whatever
they hear or read would hardly need any additional measures for spreading the
culture of scientific temper.Needless to
say, scientific temper and felicity with logic must be supplemented with a
humanistic outlook, as also a deep concern and love for Mother Earth.
The Need to Prevent Misuse of Freedom of Speech
In India a
peculiar situation prevails at present. An enormous amount of superstitious and
other irrational sermonizing is occurring on television. This has a
disastrous effect on young impressionable minds, and there is hardly any legal remedy
available for tackling it.
We as a nation
are very fond of saying that truth prevails ultimately (satyamev jayate).
But very often, by the time truth prevails, a lot of irreversible damage has
occurred already. In any case, in real-life situations, truth is seldom
relevant, and what really matters generally is the perception of truth
by the various interacting individuals. It hardly requires any intelligence to
have faith in something, whereas understanding of scientific facts can often be
a daunting task for the public at large. Therefore it is necessary to curtail
superstition propaganda occurring in the name of freedom of speech and freedom
of religion.
Under the
Indian Constitution, promotion of scientific temper is a duty (a
fundamental duty), whereas the freedom to carry out (and even promote)
religious practices is a matter of right (fundamental right). This is an
unequal fight between what is logical and rational and what may be illogical and
irrational. We should amend the Constitution so that irreligion (which
is the absence or antithesis of religion), backed by the scientific method, gets
the same status and rights as the organized religions. If this is done,
citizens would have the right to legally and successfully object to any public propaganda or
sermons that make it difficult for them to promote scientific temper in society.
Religious practices should be largely confined to the privacy of one's home, and
should under no circumstances trample upon the rights of others who want to give
their children the freedom to grow as freethinkers.
References
Bennett B
(2012) Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical
Fallacies, eBookIt.com, Boston. ISBN -10: 1456607529; ISBN-13: 978-1456607524.
Byrne P (2007) The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett, Scientific American, December
issue, p. 98.
Chaitin G (1987) Algorithmic Information Theory, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Chaitin G (2001) Exploring Randomness, Springer, Berlin.
Dennett D
(1995) Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Penguin
Books, London.
Faye J (2008) Copenhagen
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen.
Gell-Mann M
(1994) The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex, W.
H. Freeman, New York.
Gula R J
(2007) Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in
Our Everyday Language, Axios Press, New York.
Hawking S and
Mlodinow L (2010) The Grand Design: New Answers to the Ultimate Questions of
Life, Bantam Press, London.
Krauss L M
(2012) A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something rather than Nothing,
Free Press, New York.
Kurzweil R
(2012) How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed, Penguin
Books, New York.
Nehru J (1946)
The Discovery of India, Penguin Books India, Delhi (the 2004 edition).
Paulos J A
(2008) Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just
Don't Add Up, Hill & Wang, New York.
Popper K (2005)
The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Taylor & Francis
e-Library edition, London and New York: Routledge / Taylor & Francis
e-Library.
Stenger V J
(2008) God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God
Does Not Exist, Prometheus edition, London.
Wadhawan, V K
(2010) Complexity Science: Tackling the Difficult Questions We Ask about
Ourselves and about Our Universe, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken.
Wadhawan V K
(2011a) Swarm Intelligence,
Wadhawan V K
(2011b) The Ultimate Causes of Cosmic Order and Structure,
Wadhawan V K
(2012a) Why are the Laws of Nature what They are,
Wadhawan V K
(2012b) The Anthropic Principle,
Wadhawan V K
(2012c) Supersymmetry, String Theories, M-theory,
Wadhawan V K
(2012d) The
All-Important Cosmic Inflation Interlude,
Wadhawan V K (2012e) Why Are the Laws of Nature What They Are?
Wadhawan V K
(2012f) Emergence,
Wadhawan V K
(2012g) Complex Adaptive Systems,
Wudka J (1998) What is the 'scientific method'?
REFERENCE ADDED ON 08 APRIL 2015:
