The Ethical Thinker

"It is the task of the ethical thinker to sustain and strengthen the voice of human conscience, to recognize what is good or what is bad for man, regardless of whether it is good or bad for society at a special period of its evolution... [O]nly if this voice remains alive and uncompromising will the wilderness change into fertile land."

Yes, I'm still thinking about this, and wondering why a science education doesn't better prepare a person to deal with larger ethical dilemmas. Why are we scientists left on our own when it comes to foraging through the wisdom of our ancestors for guidance? How and when in the history of science did it become acceptable (even expected) that a scientist simply does the investigative work, without worrying about what may come of it?

To be sure, a scientist that got too caught up in his larger responsibilities to mankind might not get very much work done. But when so many fields of science now take a person to the very limits of what we think it means to be human, how can a scientist justify maintaining ignorance of or detachment from the larger impact of his or her work? To whom should we leave those concerns? To what extent must a scientist concern himself with how his work will be framed, if not by him, then certainly by those who will talk about it?

Perhaps the best that we can do is to try to take our journey with others of high integrity, to keep questioning ourselves and our motivations, to never assume that our wisdom is superior to that of those around us or who came before us, and to be hopeful but not naive in the face of a realistic awareness of the positive and negative aspects of human potential...

The Pursuit of Happiness

"There are days I wish I didn't pay attention to it all. But I'm built to ask these questions."

I'm still doing what makes me happy (research), but this interesting and thought-provoking piece of writing showed up in my inbox today, so I'm passing it on.

Here's a brief synopsis - Psychologist Kasser studies (among other things) happiness. "Kasser is among the loudest in a growing chorus of academics who are boldly — and, some say, prematurely — asking governments to transform the conclusions of the maturing body of happiness science into real-world public policies."

You probably had one of two responses to that last statement...

1) Excellent! We should do more to help those who are less fortunate/who don't have all our advantages/who can't help themselves!

or

2) What?!? You want to turn bureaucracy loose on happiness? Are you nuts? What about individual responsibility?

So many thoughts while reading this article...

I'm a huge believer in individual responsibility. I get annoyed when someone else thinks that they have to worry about my happiness.

I have a background in psychology. I get annoyed when someone (particularly a psychologist) confuses some correlates of happiness with the ultimate causes of happiness.

I'm looking at To Have or To Be? by Erich Fromm, and wondering how you can legislate self-awareness and a detachment of identification of self from material possessions. And now I'm wondering what kind of government would be motivated to decrease the degree to which its citizenry care about monetary wealth and the opportunities it affords...

This statement reminds me of my previous posting...

• "As a scientist, I'm trained to be objective and hand over policy options to the policymakers. I'm trained not to get into this kind of stuff," Kasser says.

... and yet Kasser chose to 'violate the unspoken rule of his field' and engage in active protesting and campaigning in support of his position.

Many of the things that I'm doing with my economic stimulus money are making me happy in the transient sense of the word, so the paragraphs on the economics of happiness caught my attention. The recasting of psychological research into economic terms...

• "Economists, on the other hand, offer hard data on what people do — known as "revealed preferences" — and are more often welcome in the halls of power."

... may aid the push towards 'happy-policy', but may also result in that 'happy-policy' targeting a diluted 'correlations equal causation' definition of happiness.

"What Kasser is hoping for, eventually, is a revolution of values about what is important in life..." Great! I'm all for that! But making anything mandatory, obligatory, or 'policy' is not the way to do it.

Open Notebook Science

"Some scientists think that their work consists entirely of exploring and discovering, and that they aren't responsible for the use their results are put to. Such a position is a mere illusion, willful blindness, or, at worst, just plain dishonesty. Knowledge gives power, and power requires a sense of responsibility and an idea that we are accountable for the direct or indirect consequences of our actions." - from a scientist-turned-Buddhist-monk

The hacker/'let's all work together for our mutual benefit' part of me loves the idea of Open Notebook Science, as discussed recently in the blogosphere. I can even appreciate the novelty of the idea of writing a dissertation online in real-time. ;)

But the part of me that has seen the darker side of human nature always balks at the thought of putting too much information out there. What is 'too much' information? Good question, and one that I've been thinking about for awhile.

Sharing is great, and putting science on the fast track to someplace better is great, but what about the possible detours or derailments that might stand between us and 'someplace better'? Can we universally say that knowledge is better than ignorance, therefore 'full-speed ahead'? Has the acquisition of knowledge always led to a better state of affairs? Can our collective morality be challenged by science that gives us too much too fast, and are those moral challenges 1) inevitable, regardless of the pace of the science, and 2) worth it in the end because they may eventually make us better?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

4 Minutes

I'm going to start a conference wish list... A list of conferences I might go to if I had an infinite amount of time and money. Here is today's addition to the list.

The Battle to Create

It is, I think, a part of the human condition to want to grow and challenge oneself. We are driven to see how we measure up to our peers, and what we can master in the world around us. Some of us will actively seek out those who can challenge us. As we stare into the eyes of our opponent, we must answer the question that has been put to us... Scrabble, or Chess?

I choose Scrabble.

The genius of Scrabble is this... You win by creating, rather than by attacking or destroying, and your success is tied to the success of your opponent. You can choose to create a masterful combination of letters, knowing that you may also be creating a wealth of opportunities for your opponent to do the same, or you can hoard your letters and hope that your opponent does not.

Scrabble is most enjoyable when all parties are playing to maximize their own creativity. Enjoyable experiences are more likely to be repeated. The desire to challenge oneself is satisfied, but negative feelings associated with loss are defused somewhat by the afterglow of the creative process.

Don't get me wrong - I can play a mean game of Chess. But I'm a whole lot more fun when we are playing Scrabble. ;)

Game On!

Thanks to the overwhelming enthusiasm yours truly received yesterday, I now present to you the official rules of the Economic Stimulus Game...

The game starts when you get your check. If you don't have it yet, too bad, but you'll have plenty of time to catch up.

The game ends August 15th. This allows for summer travel/tourism uses for the money.

The date for the Economic Stimulus Party is still being worked out. Be prepared to make your case to your fellow players at the party. Points are awarded and a winner is declared by consensus of the players. Yours truly will see about creating a trophy or title belt for the winner.

As mentioned earlier, the objective of the game is to stimulate our economy. Points will be awarded based on how well your purchases/use of the money met that objective. You have to spend the entire check. Keep track of your receipts.

Here are some examples of you might maximize your points.

Purchasing a product that is made in the USA will get you more points than will purchasing a product made in another country. Purchasing a product that was made/grown locally will get you the most points.

Purchasing a product sold in a locally-owned shop will get you more points than will purchasing the same product at Wal-Mart. (Who's gonna fold first in a bad economy?)

Goods, services, and tourism dollars are all equally valid ways to spend the money. However, points are awarded based on how well you justify your decisions about how you spent the money.

Points can also be awarded for secondary factors...

Complexity points - The economy is a complex machine, so you will get more points if you spread the money around, as opposed to spending it all in one place.

Spread the meme/Multiply the effect points - Ex: You will get more points if you eat at a local restaurant while wearing a button that says 'I'm playing the Economic Stimulus Game.'

Cool points - Anything we collectively deem to be a 'cool' purchase or use of the money is eligible to receive bonus cool points.

There is no maximum or minimum number of points. Your ability to acquire the winning number of points depends on your ability to convince your fellow players that your use of the money best met the objective.

Good luck!

Atheism, or Humanism?

It's almost summer reading program time! (What? You want to give me cool things for reading books?! I'm there!) I spent a couple summers post-graduate school catching up on all the good fiction I had missed during my academic seclusion. Then I was ready for topic-oriented reading again.

Now I'm torn as to how I want to spend this summer. For awhile I thought I'd take it easy and spend the summer upping my percentage on the cult fiction list. But recently I've had another thought... Humanist philosophy. I don't call myself a 'humanist' simply because I'm not well-versed in writings in humanism. But it seems to me that what I have read resonates with what I believe.

"Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests."

Perhaps why I can like humanism so much is that it is not defined at the expense of something else. Atheism, by definition, is simply the denial of something else. If you say you are an atheist, you are essentially only saying that you are not part of a group that believes in a god. You are defining yourself in relation to another belief system that you disagree with. In effect, you are still defined by that thing which you reject. If that is all that defines you, then affirming yourself involves attacking someone else. I am right only if you are wrong. Attacking someone else only perpetuates hostility and anger (and rarely results in a change of beliefs). This aspect of atheism may appeal to certain personalities, but I would like to think (perhaps naively) that most people would prefer to define themselves positively, that is, not simply in terms of what they don't believe, but in terms of what they do believe.

So why isn't 'humanist' a title that people claim for themselves instead of 'atheist'? The two belief systems seem to be compatible in regard to belief in deities...

Hmmm. Perhaps this question will resolve itself I spend the summer brushing up on my humanist philosophy.

A Stimulating Game

As I was grocery shopping this week, I got to thinking about the economic stimulus checks that we'll all be getting soon. I hadn't really made plans for that money yet. Many people have said 'Save it' and/or 'Pay down debt'. I'm not an economist, but I'm thinking... 'Wait a minute - isn't the idea to stimulate the economy? Aren't we supposed to do that by spending this money?' Am I right? Wasn't that the idea?

Don't get me wrong; I'm very tempted to save it or pay bills with it. But if that was not what was intended (and I've seen no great public relations campaign that explains exactly what was intended, but you should keep in mind that I don't own a TV either), then perhaps what I need to do is to treat this like a game. (I love games!)

Game: Stimulate the Economy!
Objective: Spend this money in a way that best stimulates our economy.

I got quite a bit of joy out of planning how I might accomplish that objective. I'm building a list of things that I could do, and I'll probably keep adding to the list until I actually get the check, or until someone convinces me that it's acceptable not to spend the money on goods or services.

1) Eat out at local restaurants. (I noticed this morning that my bagel shop had gone out of business.)

This led to 2) Declare 'Economic Stimulus Week' - Eat out at local restaurants every day for a week.

3) Purchase wine made locally.

4) Investigate the local farmer's market. Buy locally grown produce and those yummy baked goods.

5) Get more plants for the patio from local greenhouse.

6) Extensive shopping in local used bookstore.

7) Massage. (This list is fairly hedonistic. ;)

8) Raid local second-hand stores for cute decorating items.

9) Buy food and donate it to local food pantry.

10) Have an Economic Stimulus Party where friends compare their strategies for meeting the objective. Award points. Develop special drink to commemorate party. Vow to make annual tradition of 'stimulating the economy'.

An Instance of the Fingerpost

I have a penchant for historical fiction, especially when it involves historical science. Right now I am rereading An Instance of the Fingerpost by Iain Pears (1997), which I thoroughly enjoyed for the first time several years ago. Every so often though I have to stop and process the mental equivalent of 'Gaaah!!'. The story takes place in the mid-17th century and involves quite a bit of 'scientific' discussion and exploration. That would be 'scientific' in the very nascent stages of the word.

I think that at some point we all succumb to the perception that those who went before us and believed a great many things that we now consider to be superstitious bunk were somehow less intelligent than we are. This book, however, does an excellent job of showing how intelligent people lived and reasoned in a world ruled by now-antiquated ideas. It's actually rather scary at times.

I recently observed a 'cult-book meme' making its way through the blogosphere. If there were a list of 'cult fiction for scientists', I would nominate An Instance of the Fingerpost. And as I'm always interested in a good book, I'll now shamelessly solicit your nominations - What work of fiction captured something about science that left an impression on you?

Post-script (about 14 hours after original post) - Ask and ye shall receive. Here's what I would add to that list...

An Instance of the Fingerpost, by Iain Pears (1997)
The Time Machine, by H.G. Wells (1895)
The Origin, by Irving Stone (1980)

(I warned you... science in the days of yore.)

Blocking the Transmission of Violence

Well, let's jump right in, shall we?

Reading this recent article in the NYTimes didn't provoke much of a response in me. I've never lived in an area where street violence was prevalent, and I don't feel qualified to judge any efforts to curb that problem. (The analogy of street violence to infectious disease did provoke some thought, as I have a background in microbiology.) What prompted me to write was not the article itself, but some rather 'pollyanna-ish' commentary on the article.

Here's a rather brash statement... You cannot rid the world of violence - be it war, street crime, or domestic violence - until you understand and acknowledge those same forces that drive lethal acts of violence within yourself. I would never do that, you say. The problem is them. They could just decide not to do it. Perhaps... So why does it persist?

One can choose to study the problem at several levels...

Why does the individual make the decision to kill, and how can his behavior be changed? What behavior could replace killing, and how would that behavior deal with the threat (or perceived threat) that drove him to choose lethal action in the first place? Is merely substituting one behavior for another at the individual level an adequate solution for the problem of violence? Or will a permanent solution to the problem of violence require something more?

Why do larger groups sanction lethal action against other groups? How does this sanction contribute to the actual committing of lethal acts by an individual? Does such sanction result in the absolving of personal responsibility for individual acts of lethality, or is that an arbitrary judgment whose validity rests solely in the 'authority' of various social structures?

Intrinsic to the problem of lethal violence is the issue of survival. Most acts of lethal violence are perpetrated in response to a perceived threat. Assuming for a moment that killing is simply the most morally wrong response to a perceived threat, we can shift our focus to the issues that underly most of the acts of lethal violence that are committed by individuals and/or sanctioned by group/societies - survival, and threat assessment.

Perhaps we can eliminate lethal violence by ensuring that everyone has plenty of food/clothing/necessary resources, you say. No one's physical survival would be in danger, so there would be no need to kill others. But what you fail to recognize is that what is necessary for survival in the moment is rarely deemed sufficient by those who would kill to have more. 'I may be okay today, but what about tomorrow?' Maslow points out that when the basic physiological needs are met, the next need to be addressed are needs concerning long-term safety - "These needs have to do with man's yearning for a predictable, orderly world in which injustice and inconsistency are under control, the familiar frequent, and the unfamiliar rare." One could argue that it is these needs that drive the majority of the acts of the lethal violence we see in our world today.

So perhaps the problem lies in the manner in which these types of threats are assessed...