Consider Humanism

The American Humanist Association has launched a huge ad campaign today, which "will include a spot on NBC Dateline on Friday, November 12, as well as other television ads." Fund raising for the campaign is ongoing, and is up to $200K as of today.

The Stiefel Freethought Foundation was the primary sponsor of the Consider Humanism campaign with a $150,000 donation. Another $50,000 was raised from supporters of the American Humanist Association for the launch of this campaign, bringing the total ad buy to $200,000 so far.

You can read more in the press release, watch the AHA's videos on vimeo, by visiting http://www.considerhumanism.org and by clicking the images below for higher resolution PDFs.

In which a family cheers at the suffering and death of an animal...

Science is cold, emotionless.  It takes no moral positions, it has no fears, it's just a method for rooting out incorrect ideas by challenging those ideas with logic and data.  This is a good thing: it's what makes science so successful at giving us relatively objective descriptions of reality and how it works.

But scientists aren't science.  They do hold moral position, and sometimes they give a damn about something. That means the things they care about - be it puppies, women's rights, great music, historical buildings, or hot shoes - these things evoke emotion, and dictate action. Personally, I'm rather partial to snakes, which is why my blood boils when I watch this video of a family cheering as passing traffic repeatedly hits and eventually kills an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake...

Interestingly, I don't hate these people - I don't even dislike them (which I'll admit feels a bit odd - I feel like I should). Certainly, if I were in their shoes, I would have jumped out of the car and tried to saved the snake. But that's me - I know a fair bit about rattlesnakes, and through that knowledge I've developed a great deal of appreciation for them.

That's important, so I'll reiterate: my knowledge of snakes has brought me to appreciate them. Science may be cold and emotionless, but the factual details it provides can significantly shape our morality - our sense of good and bad, right and wrong - and I think this is generally true for nearly everyone.  I'll let Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris elaborate (although see Massimo Piggliucci's commentary for a critique of Harris's talk)...




So when I see videos like the first one above, I don't see an evil family of ruthless sadists raising sociopathic  children.  In fact, I'd be surprised if they weren't actually a rather likable and otherwise decent family.

What I do see is a family that doesn't live near a good nature center. That doesn't spend much time at high quality zoos. That lives where the schools have ineffective biology teachers. A family with no pet reptiles, maybe no pets at all. Mom and dad are almost certainly not biologists, probably don't get out into nature much, and the kids probably don't want to become doctors or social workers or biologists (yet!).

What I see is the target audience of every science and nature educator ever to speak to the public.

Ignorance is the problem, education the solution.  

Embryonic Stem Cell Injunction (Part II)

More of my thoughts (part I is here) on the recent ruling by judge Royce Lamberth halting embryonic stem cell research in the U.S. Here are my thoughts on the judges decision to go forward with the injunction.  In his ruling he lays out the criteria for the decision and why he thinks the plaintiffs case was sufficient to pull federal research funding.   

Part II: Did the judge meet the criteria for an injunction?

In his ruling, the judge lays out criteria for issuing an injunction by quoting from another case which asserts that (emphasis mine)...

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Halted... AGAIN

If you haven't heard, there's plenty in the news here, here and here.  I recommend reading judge Royce C. Lamberth's 15 page ruling for yourself, as it clarifies much of what the media are glossing over at the moment.

Below are my thoughts on the ruling.  I take issue with some of the judges arguments, and not because I have zero legal expertise - I think it's because he's gotten some things wrong.  I also think the judge didn't live up to his own standards, which I'll discuss in part two of this post which you can find here.

Part I: Does "Embryonic Stem Cell Research = Killing Embryos"?

The crucial legal language in this case is known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (also, see here). It's notable for (1) limiting how federal dollars are spent on embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, and (2) it includes an attempt at defining "human embryo." The definition seems overly broad in my opinion (e.g. if I culture some of my skin cells, they seem to fit this definition), but take a look and decide for yourself.

The language can be seen in H.R. 3010 (see pg 48 in this PDF) section 509(a)(2) which reads...

(photo)

If you regularly read The Friendly Atheist, you could imagine what Hemant was really thinking when he put up a baby picture, and asked for a caption and some photoshopping...

"Look at this pot, now look at me. Now look at the shoe, now back to me…"

(Caption by Carolina) 

"The most important step in preparing your infant is to brine it for 6-10 hours, 

depending on size. Give it some toys to play with, and it’ll hardly make a noise."

(Caption by Richard)

Secular Student Alliance 2010 Annual Conference

A few thoughts from the 2010 Secular Student Alliance (SSA) annual conference that took place this weekend in Columbus, OH.  All in all, a great conference from a top notch organization - one you should definitely have on your radar!

I first found out about the SSA last summer, when my wife and I joined 300+ attendees of the 2009 annual conference (including PZ Myers) on a tour of the Creation "Museum" in Kentucky (photos and commentary from that trip are in this series of posts).  Though I couldn't make the actual conference last year,  I was impressed with the organization and the work they do to meet the needs of Freethought, Rational Inquiry, Atheist, and Humanist student groups nationwide. This year, I decided to give up a few hours of thesis work and head to the conference -- here's a quick overview.

First, they had a great line up of speakers including well known bloggers like keynote speaker Greta Christina and the Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta.  Also on the program were various student leaders from across the U.S. sharing lessons learned from successfully starting and growing their organizations.  You can learn more about the speakers from the conference website (plus a few minutes chasing down names on the web). You can read more about the SSA, what they do, and check out their resources for students and for educators through the SSA website. Also, check out the SSA's  Facebook Page, and look for videos of the talks and other conference events on the SSA's YouTube channel.

What is the Secular Student Alliance (SSA)?

According to the "About" page on their website the purpose of the SSA is

BP Climbs Higher On My Shit List

BP seems to be up to some really sleazy stuff.  I have zero respect for any organization that tries to pay away an entire community of scientists, just to cover it's ass when the shit hits the fan. Really, really bad form BP.  So scientists, please keep your wits about you and help your colleagues in kind.  As for BP, I decided to channel my disgust into something a bit less caustic than might actually be appropriate...

ScienceBlogs Losing Bloggers Over Questionable Pepsi Deal

Update:  According to this post by PZ Myers, the Pepsi blog is gone. Science writer Carl Zimmer also chimes in.

If you don't follow the blog "Good Math, Bad Math" you should check it out - well, you should check it out once it finds a more permanent home. It looks like blogger Mark Chu-Carroll is done with ScienceBlogs, and headed elsewhere. He explains why here.

ScienceBlogs recently decided to host a blog on nutrition called "Food Frontiers," but it's run by the Pepsi company -- basically, opening up the potential for corporate pseudoscience or spin to appear along side blog posts from dedicated individuals without such conflicts of interest.

Basically, ScienceBlogs is selling their bloggers' science-cred to a corporation (i.e. a for-profit entity), with huge potential for some serious conflicts of interest. Not cool.

That said, some effort went to address these concerns before the blog went public (snippets from their first post, basically a welcome page):

PepsiCo’s R&D Leadership Team discusses the science behind the food industry’s role in addressing global public health challenges. This is an extension of PepsiCo’s own Food Frontiers blog.

This blog is sponsored by PepsiCo. All editorial content is written by PepsiCo's scientists or scientists invited by PepsiCo and/or ScienceBlogs. All posts carry a byline above the fold indicating the scientist's affiliation and conflicts of interest.

... As part of this partnership, we'll hear from a wide range of experts on how the company is developing products rooted in rigorous, science-based nutrition standards to offer consumers more wholesome and enjoyable foods and beverages. The focus will be on innovations in science, nutrition and health policy. In addition to learning more about the transformation of PepsiCo's product portfolio, we'll be seeing some of the innovative ways it is planning to reduce its use of energy, water and packaging.

You can read more about ScienceBlogs deciding to host a Pepsi blog alongside their other blog posts in the news here and here. To hear more from other sciencebloggers, you've got plenty of options including The Thoughtful Animal, Common Knowledge, Laelaps, GrrlScientist, Adventures in Ethics and Science, and some of those who have left ScienceBlogs over the Pepsi debacle: Neurotopia, Neuron Culture, and Science After Sunclipse.

You can glean more from the listing of the past 24 hours of ScienceBlogs posts, here.

Craig Venter on the "synthetic cell"

I received an email a few weeks back from a reader suggesting I do a post or two on Craig Venter's recent accomplishment taking a bacterial cell and swapping in a fully synthetic genome, essentially making a new bacterial species.  It's a great suggestion, as I think what Venter and his colleagues have done qualifies as some smokin' hot, kick-ass science.  Unfortunately, I've not had much time to read up on the details, as I've been a bit busy with a conference and some pressing thesis work I need to get done (like yesterday).

As it happens, I just now stumbled across an opportunity to (at least briefly) touch on the subject. Check out  this gem of an interview with Craig Venter.

If you'd first like a sampler of what's in the video, below are a few selections that caught my attention (though I strongly recommend you watch it in it's entirety at least twice... maybe more!).

When I was first asked whether I found all this amazing, scary or both, I went with both, leaning more towards amazing than scary.  Now that I've looked into it further, I'm squarely at amazing and so far from scary it's almost scary! Venter and his colleagues seem to have put a great deal of effort into subjecting their research plans to serious ethical considerations, as mentioned briefly below, making sure their synthetic cell was too crippled and dependent on specialized media to thrive outside of the lab. Not at all surprising, but worth mentioning.

So what's the big deal here? I mean, yes it sounds cool - but what's the point? How will this impact my daily life in the coming years?  To answer that question we first need to be clear about what exactly they've done: very briefly, they've slapped together a genome sequence in a computer (yup, just a string of ...AGATCCACTAC... only it received a bit more forethought than my sequence) using the genome of a real organism as a starting point.  Then, they made the DNA using some advanced biochemistry and custom instrumentation (think of the expensive instruments used to read DNA sequences, but working in reverse). Next, they took that genome and used it to replace the genome of a bacterial cell. After that, they let their little unicellular Frankenstein go about doing it's own thing, happily reproducing itself in a lab somewhere.

While most of the media focus is on little Frankenstein, the real gem here are the techniques and technology that made it all possible.  As far as making a new cell goes, they didn't quite go there. They tweaked the genome a bit on the computer, made the genome (which really is an impressive accomplishment) and handed it off to an existing cell.  To use Venter's computer analogy, what they did was something like the cellular version of reformatting a computer running Debian linux, and replacing the operating system with a copy of Damn Small Linux.  Not a big change to say, Windows, and definitely not rebuilding a new computer from scratch.

Still, there are many reasons why their accomplishment is darn cool.  First, here's Venter with the big picture....

Interviewer: What do you ultimately hope to do with a method like this?

Venter: Well, this is an important step we think both scientifically and philosophically. It's certainly changed my views of definitions of life, and how life works. It's pretty stunning when you just replace the DNA software in a cell and the cell instantly starts reading that new software -- starts making a whole different set of proteins -- and within a short while all the characteristics of the first species disappear and a new species emerges from this software that controls that cell going forward. When we look at lifeforms we see them as sort of fixed entities. But this shows in fact how dynamic they are, that they change from second to second. And, that life is basically a result of an information process -- a software process -- our genetic code is our software. Our cells are dynamically, constantly reading that genetic code making new proteins, the proteins make the other cellular components, and that's what we see.

From a more practical perspective, our own success as a species has been in large part due to our ability to mix and match the DNA of different organisms for our benefit.  We've advanced from simple selective breeding of livestock and crops, interspecific hybridization, and basic artificial selection up through the relatively recent discovery of DNA and the ability to alter genetic material directly.  Venter et al's new techniques are another big step in that same direction.  This may have many implications, such as this example mentioned by Venter:

Perhaps the most important, immediate application is ... we're already working at the Venter Institute and working with Novartis to try and make new vaccines very quickly. We think we can shorten the process by 99% for making the flu vaccine each year by using these new synthetic techniques.

For flu and other pathogens with relatively high rates of evolution, and for some newly emerging infectious disease, we're limited in how quickly we can mass produce vaccines. This is perhaps common knowledge following last years swine flu pandemic, but increasing our response time to vaccinate against emerging infectious disease by an order of magnitude or two could literally save millions of human lives.

Finally, they've also done some pretty cool things that have little to do with the frontiers of science and technology.  Nothing wrong with having a little fun while you work, right?

We've developed a new code for writing english language, other languages, with punctuation and numbers into the genetic code. In the first watermark [in the new genome] we actually have this code that needs to be decoded for people to read the rest. We even have a website built into the genetic code that if people solve it they can let us know that they've been able to read it.

Monday Mammal #8: Bill Nye the Science Guy?

Oh, come on - he won the 2010 Humanist of the Year award!  I say that totally earns him some spotlight time as a noteworthy mammal (...plus I've been a bit busy lately).

Video of his acceptance speech are up over at Hemant's Blog.

D. J. Grothe on Skepticism, Humanism

You should find time to watch, or at least listen to the talk below. It's the keynote from the recent Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NECSS) given by the president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, DJ Grothe. The talk, entitled Skepticism is a Humanism, can be viewed in full here or on vimeo.

Previously on this blog, I've talked about what skepticism is and is not, but it's worth pointing out that much of the skepticism movement is driven by humanist principles. In his talk, Grothe defined humanism as...

Humanism 
       A naturalistic (as opposed to a supernatural) ethics focused on human well being.

While this is really a definition of secular humanism, it gets the point across: humanism is a set of morals and ethics based primarily (or solely) on human welfare.  You can read more about humanism from the American Humanist Association (AHA), or on Wikipedia here, here, here and here.

Grothe also takes pains points out that he's not saying "Skepticism = Atheism" nor that "Skepticism = Secular Humanism". Instead, he asserts that skepticism is both a method of inquiry, and a social movement to apply that method of inquiry towards humanistic goals (more from Grothe on skepticism starting around 11:30, and around 22:30).  Good stuff, though I wish he would have gone further to draw distinctions between these and related terms like rational inquiry, which in my mind is the "method" part of skepticism separate from the social movement (although I'm not sure that is the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase).

Thoughts?

[Hat tip to Phil Plait via Bad Astronomy]

American Evangelical Christians Fomenting Hatred Abroad?

Some stunningly bad arguments used to rationalize legislation (further) criminalizing homosexuality in Uganda.

All that bad logic aside, I find pastor Scott Lively's actions repulsive and negligent. Should he be blamed for fueling the fires of hate in Uganda?  I think so, and here's why.

Suppose I entered a crowded theater with one small exit, first yelling "Fire! The building is burning! We're all going to die!" but then saying calmly "But, please, remain seated and stay calm" once the crowd began to panic.  If someone was then trampled to death - should I be held accountable for having helped rouse the mob? I think so.

Scott Lively's relatively benign suggestions about what to do with homosexuals in no way absolves him of fueling the hatred of homosexuals in Uganda.

What Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini Got Wrong

There's been a bit of a stir the past few weeks over a book that recently came out titled What Darwin Got Wrong (which I haven't read... and probably won't).  In short, the book is written by a philosopher and cognitive scientist with apparently no expertise in evolutionary biology.  From what others have written, the book appears to assert that the theory of evolution is deeply flawed because the concept of natural selection is philosophically bogus.  Not surprisingly, a lot of biologists (and philosophers) take issue with that conclusion, and some are calling them out on their errors.

If you haven't heard of the book and how much the intelligent design (creationism) crowd is loving it, I'd encourage you to read up on the fracas here and here.  After that, there's a nice critique I'd urge you to read through titled "Misunderstanding Darwin: Natural selection’s secular critics get it wrong" by Ned Block and Philip Kitcher.

 - - - - Updated (2 March)

I neglected to mention that you can read more from Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini here at The New Scientist. I'm not sure they really understand the theory of evolution by natural selection, especially when I read things like...

... it is not self-evident why species that have a recent common ancestor - as opposed, say, to species that share an ecology - are generally phenotypically similar. Darwin's theory of natural selection is intended to answer this question. Darwinists often say that natural selection provides the mechanism of evolution by offering an account of the transmission of phenotypic traits from generation to generation which, if correct, explains the connection between phenotypic similarity and common ancestry.


Moreover, it is perfectly general: it applies to any species, independent of what its phenotype may happen to be. And it is remarkably simple. In effect, the mechanism of trait transmission it postulates consists of a random generator of genotypic variants that produce the corresponding random phenotypic variations, and an environmental filter that selects among the latter according to their relative fitness. And that's all. Remarkable if true.

- - - -

After providing a biological perspective of the book's core argument, Block and Kitcher get into the philosophical argument -- and why it's irrelevant.  This requires some background (which they provide) on key concepts: intensional and extensional properties of a statement or claim.

You should really read their explanation, but as I (mis?)understand it, the gist of what F&PP got wrong was in asserting that natural-selection-in-action can't distinguish between a trait with fitness advantages and a tightly linked/correlated neutral trait that's just along for the ride. Who survives and reproduces is the same no matter which trait is advantageous.  Therefore, they seem to claim, natural selection is inadequate to provide an explanation for observed patterns of the diversity of life. Block and Kitcher rephrase F&PP's main contention as follows:

Here, then, is the problem restated: the causal processes at work in evolution cannot distinguish between coextensive properties, but selection-for requires that they be distinguished.

This (in my mind) points out their confusion about how natural selection works.  It isn't some sort of external force acting on populations of organisms, as they seem to present it. Instead it's merely a consequence of heritable traits resulting in differential reproduction and survival of individuals.  The causal mechanisms, as we understand them, work whether or not additional neutral traits are carried along for the ride.

After describing the problem with F&PP's argument against natural selection (which apparently has been criticized before) Block and Kitcher end their critique quite nicely...

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini take the role of philosophy to consist in part in minding other people’s business. We agree with the spirit behind this self-conception. Philosophy can sometimes help other areas of inquiry. Yet those who wish to help their neighbors are well advised to spend a little time discovering just what it is that those neighbors do, and those who wish to illuminate should be sensitive to charges that they are kicking up dust and spreading confusion. What Darwin Got Wrong shows no detailed engagement with the practice of evolutionary biology, nor does it respond to the many criticisms that have been leveled against earlier versions of its central ideas. In this latter respect, the authors resemble the creationist debaters who assert that evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics, hear detailed refutations of their charge, and repeat their patter in the next forum.

We admire the work that both Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini have produced over many decades. We regret that two such distinguished authors have decided to publish a book so cavalier in its treatment of a serious science, so full of apparently scholarly discussions that rest on mistakes and confusions—and so predictably ripe for making mischief.

So what do you think?  Do Kitcher and Block have it right?

Homeopathy gets throat-punched then drop-kicked by British Parliment

Over in the UK, a big report was released today by the Parlimentary Committee on Science and Technology. In it, homeopathy is basically called out as being ineffective pseudoscience, and bad medicine.  Reading a few of the points made in the report totally made my morning while I was waiting for some computer simulations (and some laundry) to finish!

There's a nice commentary and list of highlights over at Gimpy's Blog:

The Evidence Check on Homeopathy – a merciless punch to its vitalist organs (despite attempts to water down report).

You can also check out the short press release from the Science and Technology Committee

MPS URGE GOVERNMENT TO WITHDRAW NHS FUNDING AND MHRA LICENSING OF HOMEOPATHY.

which also includes a link to the full report.

A "Dietary Antioxidant" for kids, or an environmental chelator?

I had made a few posts related to autism a while back, and today came across this article (via Orac's post over at Respectful Insolence).  It's a nice example of bullshit truth in advertising by Kentucky company CTI Science, Inc. ran by Boyd Haley.

I first wondered if the product would be equally marketable were it more appropriately named "Chelator, with Titanium and Iron Rust" or maybe "N¹, N³-bis(2-mercaptoethyl)isophthalamide", instead of "OSR#1", and in the end I decided the answer was probably no.  Why?  So far it looks like a large portion of the intended consumers are parents and caretakers of autistic children...

Haley Autism One 2007 Powerpoint, p. 63 [Source]

More important than the name, I wondered about the truthfulness of the claims on the product website, particularly the scant evidence that the stuff is really safe for children, and of course the story behind this blurb on their FAQ page (as of 19 January 2010):

There is an internet rumor that OSR#1® is an Industrial Chelator. Is this true?

No. OSR#1® as produced by CTI Science is not now and has never been marketed or tested as an environmental or industrial chelator. Nor has OSR#1® been tested in humans as a chelator by CTI Science, and no claims of chelation treatment use are made by CTI Science.

Now, here it's worth noting that CTI Science website also states that OSR#1 was developed in conjunction with...

the University of Kentucky in Lexington which licenses the underlying patent rights to the Company.

(By the way, is it just me, or wouldn't you really like to know what that patent number is?)

According to the articles above, it seems that statement is indeed highly questionable, and the source of that mean ol' "internet rumor" appears to be (gasp!) a University of Kentucky patent -- presumably the very same one mentioned by the CTI Science website?

Reading into this great report and in particular this post (both from 2008), we find...

Prof. Boyd Haley’s new chelator N,N’-bis (2-mercaptoethyl)isophthalamide, or “CT-01” — represented to the FDA as a “new dietary ingredient,” and now marketed as an antioxidant for consumption by autistic children under the trade name “Oxidative Stress Relief” (OSR) — is substantially similar if not identical in its chemical structure to one member of a family of industrial chelators developed by his colleagues at the University of Kentucky, and for which U.S. and international patents were awarded in 2003.

U.S. Patent No. 6,586,600, Multidentate Sulfur-Containing Ligands (issued July 2, 2003) (.pdf) names as its inventors chemists David A. Atwood, Brock S. Howerton and Matthew Matlock of Lexington, Kentucky. David Atwood is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Kentucky, and Mr. Howerton and Mr. Matlock are graduate students. The rights to the patent are assigned to the University of Kentucky Research Foundation.

More details on the patent issue were posted later here, but it's pretty clear from patent #6586600 mentioned above (presumable the patent licensed to CTI Science, Inc.) that these compounds were intended to be used as environmental chelators.

Looking back at the claim from the website, we see the beauty of good advertising: so far, it looks like CTI Science hasn't technically lied to their consumers here.  You see, while these chemicals were initially patented as environmental chelators, it's technically true that (bold added for emphasis)...

OSR#1® as produced by CTI Science is not now and has never been marketed or tested as an environmental or industrial chelator.

So what do you think? Are they being maybe just a little bit misleading as they try and dodge the association of their product with it's intended role as an environmental chelation agent?

Conspiracy Revealed: Climate Change & Hacked Emails

Here's a great video on the apparently not-so-news-worthy details of those stolen emails that prove that climate change (or global warming, or whatever you prefer to call it) is really just a big international hoax (cough, cough). 

One of the big "Gotcha!" emails seems to be this one, which was widely quoted for these two gems of easily misinterpreted science lingo:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

and

We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

So what's it all boil down to??

Why use animals for scientific research?

[Hat tip to Dr. Isis]

The American Physiological Society has a new FAQ up on using animals in scientific research (big emphasis on medical research).  If you've ever wondered...

• Why do researchers study animals?
• Why can’t they use computers instead?
• What types of animals are needed?
• Who makes sure that research animals are treated well?
• Why do some people say that animal research is wrong?
• Why do companies test cosmetics and other products on animals?
• Why do some new drugs that are tested in animals still have serious side effects?
• Is research painful?

... then hop on over to their website and have a look.

The self-correcting nature of science: a recent example

Science has a built in mechanism by which it can root out false or baseless assertions put forth by - well by anyone - but especially by members of the scientific community.

At it's core, science demands that ideas be challenged with empirical evidence and logical reasoning.  For practitioners (whether career scientists or otherwise) there is then an assumed responsibility to ensure those core demands are properly put into practice. This results in a kind of social norm among scientists that they are critical of one another, and that they hold themselves and their peers to the highest standards of scientific inquiry.  The result?  If it doesn't pass muster, it won't get past too many people before someone cries foul.

Over at the blog Why Evolution is True there's a nice, recent example where you can see this process in action.

Free Harvard course anyone? (or "Justice" on YouTube)

Ever since taking our only class on the topic in high school, philosophy has always been my most neglected of interests. During my teenage years, the internet was a relatively new and rapidly growing wealth of information. Even then it seemed to provide access to more ideas and data and history than one could digest in a single lifetime. I read a few random essays here and there, and recall finding  some of John Stuart Mill's works quite agreeable.  Of them all, I remember having relished reading through his essays on Liberty and Utilitarianism.

Busy with science and math classes as an undergraduate, I managed to squeezed in a class or two. Sadly, however I still lack much experience soaking my brain in the major philosophical works of the past and present, including those most applicable to my more scientific interests.

Once again, the internet provides an opportunity just too good to refuse! 

Over on Jerry Coyne's blog, he posted a link to the Harvard course Justice.   A fantastic opportunity to hear a top notch lecturer and learn about some really practical and interesting topics all for just one hour of your time each week. 

The lectures for each week are available free online via Harvard's YouTube page and I fully intend on devoting an hour each week for the next few months to watch them all.

If you'd like to follow along as well, you can get caught up with what's below (just two episodes as of September 27, 2009):

Episode 01

Episode 02

So what's the course about?? Lecturer Michael Sandel explains in the first video above, but here's the gist of it. In the course, the students will be reading the classic works by folks you've likely heard of (Lock, Kant, Mill, etc..).  The video we'll see looks like it will be a lot of debate and reflection back to the big ideas coming out of that reading.  In addition to those classics, they'll also

...take up contemporary political and legal controversies that raise philosophical questions. [The class] will debate equality and inequality, affirmative action, free speech versus hate speech, same sex marriage, military conscription - a range of practical questions. Why? Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books, but to make clear - to bring out - what's at stake in our every day lives including our political lives, for philosophy.

The first lecture begins with a couple hypotheticals - the first of which I had heard before and I clearly remember being quite frustrated with as I found myself caught justifying my hypothetical "moral actions" with logic and moral presuppositions that just didn't seem work as well as I had thought.

The examples basically work as follows [spoiler alert!].  You're faced with a life or death decision: your holding a steering wheel of an unstoppable trolly car facing one of two options: whether to take the tracks to the left and kill 5 people or take a right and kill 1 person.  The decision is easy - right. Right? Right... or is it. After all, we should clearly aim to prevent as much death as possible! Right?

Next, consider a similar but slightly different scenario.  There's a single rail with 5 people down the track (say, in a tunnel) each facing certain death by an approaching runaway, unmanned trolley car. You and one rather large stranger are on a bridge above the tracks when you notice the gravity of the situation.  You know for certain that (don't worry about how, just assume you do) that pushing the bulky stranger towards the edge, down onto the tracks ahead of the car, will derail it saving the lives of the 5 people that would otherwise certainly perish.  So now - fighting that urge to make excuses here - what do you do?  Still just as simple as 1 life versus 5 lives?? Do you push, or let the 5 workers die?  Seems like the same question, right, so why isn't the decision so easy this time?

In the first episode Sandel presents these and a couple other hypotheticals to highlight and compare two of many kinds of moral reasoning - that is, ways of basing our decisions on some moral foundation, some basis for establishing what is right or wrong, good or bad, etc. - that we each use to make decisions on a daily basis.  In this case, these are

1. Consequentialist moral reasoning, which "Locates morality in the consequences of an act."
2. Categorical moral reasoning which "Locates morality in certain duties and rights."

The classic question of whether we look to the "ends" or the "means" (or both? or something else?) in establishing the moral value of our potential decisions.

While I'm looking forward to the rest of the lectures (and hope some of you are too), I should mention Michael Sandel's warning to students about the risks of taking his course:

To read these books, in this way, as an exercise in self knowledge. To read them in this way can carry certain risks. Risks that are both personal and political. Risks that every student of political philosophy has known. These risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us - and unsettles us - by confronting us with what we already know.

There's an irony - the difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you already know it. It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings and making it strange. That's how those examples worked. Those hypotheticals with which we began, with their mix of playfulness and sobriety. It's also how these philosophical books work. Philosophy estranges us from the familiar - not by supplying new information, but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing.

But, and here's the risk, once the familiar turns strange it's never quite the same again. Self knowledge is like lost innocence - however unsettling you find it, it can never be un-thought or un-known.

What makes this enterprise difficult - but also riveting - is that moral and political philosophy is a story, and you don't know where the story will lead. But what you do know is that the story is about you.

Those are the personal risks. Now what of the political risks? One way to introduce a course like this would be to promise you that by reading these books and by debating these issues you will become a better more responsible citizen. You will examine the presuppositions of public policy, you will hone your political judgment, you will become a more effective participant in public affairs. This would be a partial and misleading promise.

Political philosophy for the most part hasn't worked that way. You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen rather than a better one. Or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one. And that's because philosophy is a distancing (even debilitating) activity.

...philosophy distances us from conventions, from established assumptions, and from settled beliefs.

In short, one could justify not taking such risks by something like the following: If the greatest philosophers of the past centuries couldn't resolve these issues - who are we to think we can do it?! As Sandel puts it, "Maybe it's just a matter of each person having his or her own principles, and there's nothing more to be said about it?"

This might seems like a reasonable objection, but to this he offers the following reply:

... the very fact [these questions] have recurred and persisted may suggest that though they are impossible in one sense, they're unavoidable in another. And the reason they're unavoidable, the reason they're inescapable, is that we live some answer to these questions every day... just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection is no solution.

Hope to see you in class ;)

More on Alternative Medicine at the NIH

I just wanted to pass along this piece by Orac over at Respectful Insolence, on what appears to be some pretty sketchy studies looking at Chelation Therapy being done through the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (which I've mentioned previously).

The full article and some of the links are well worth the read... as a teaser, Orac closes with these remarks (I made some minor corrections and emphasized some text in bold):

If you want to know why NCCAM should be defunded, dismantled, and whatever bits of it that have any value distributed to other Institutes in the NIH, look no further than the offense to science and medical ethics that is TACT [Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy] and the tepid reaction of the OHRP [the NIH's Office for Human Research Protections] to its endangerment of patients. In no other area of human subjects research other than CAM research would a study with so little basis in science and so much evidence against its hypothesis be approved, much less to the tune of $30 million. Too bad powerful supporters of quackery in the legislature (Dan Burton is especially guilty in this case) care far more about proving that their woo works, no matter what, than they care about science or, more importantly, protecting the human subjects who are recruited for CAM studies like TACT from undisclosed risks, harm, or even accurate information about the science (or, more commonly, the lack thereof) behind the treatments being tested.