The D word

There is considerable debate about the use of "design" when discussing adaptations. See this blog for discussion. The debate has been intensified in recent years in part because of the so called intelligent design movement. But is intelligent design a redundant phrase, since design implies intent and predetermined conception? In the first five definitions offered by the OED, intelligence or preconception are implied in the meaning of design. By this standard, it seems that design is not appropriate to describe an adaptation that was formed in reaction to, and not anticipation of current selection pressures.

Dawkins advocates the use of "design" in the Blind Watchmaker and provides detailed accounts of natural selection designing fabulously intricate mechanisms. Both he and Daniel Dennet are careful to explain how a mindless algorithm such as natural selection can produce a well-designed trait. However, in light of widespread misconceptions about the nature of scientific theories in general and evolution by natural selection in particular, I advocate that the use of the term design be either limited or used only when qualified with the idea that the illusion of intent is just that, an illusion.

Thanks to Chris for sending a picture of of the most well-designed canine in Europe, Gabby!

I find it hard to comprehend...

So the Vatican has revised it's criteria for beatification. What completely baffles my mind is that, even if you are a faithful and religious person, how could you possibly imagine that the rules a bunch of old white men pull out of their rear ends affect the will of an omnipotent and omniscient being? I seriously sounds like a bunch of five year olds playing make believe. Do they believe what they are saying? I don't think that they are actually stupid, but what kind of bs goes through their minds when they make this up?


I am riled up. Please, explain this to me.

Hostility to knowledge?

A funny and scary article in today's Times highlights the decline in value of intellectual pursuits. The gist of the article's message is: "Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, she said, but they also don’t think it matters."

In the artcile Susan Jocoby blames the educational system, religious fundamentalism that emphasizes feelings, faith, and a few basic moral precepts over learning and introspection (See Religious Literacy for more on that topic), the decline of universities' prestige in the 1960s and some popular culture issues as well. Maybe I should read her book, but from the article, she doesn't seem to offer many ideas for change. It's relatively easy to measure this decline, it's harder to figure out why it's occurring and how to reverse the trend.

What confirms your beliefs?

I can think of no other areas of science where millions of people spend considerable mental energy trying to argue with experts than with global warming or evolution. The scientific method of objectively evaluating evidence has changed our lives in so many ways that go unquestioned every day, but when the same process presents us with evidence that we should release fewer greenhouse gases or that we are just one of millions of species with common ancestry dating back billions of years, suddenly it makes more sense to look for holes.

I am glad that something in this world isn't taken with absolute faith in experts, but why not be more skeptical about quantum theory, internal combustion, television broadcasts, or the ways an ideal gas works? What is it about these two topics that some conservatives think is so dangerous? It seems like a stupid question at first, but really, what in your life would change if you accepted, without reservation, that you belong to one of 13 species of apes? If you accepted, without reservation, that global warming were a real threat, you would support a gradual change to a more carbon-neutral lifestyle that would not change your quality of life at all. In fact, you would probably be healthier.

In order to hold these feelings against evolution and global warming, one has to actively disagree with available evidence. Why do people do this? Why is evidence such a dirty standard? Why, when facing two mutually-exclusive possibilities, would one ever assume that the one not supported by available facts is the correct choice? I think that belief in God is a similar phenomenon. Ultimately, one cannot use evidence alone to believe that God exists, faith is required. When faced with two mutually exclusive possibilities, many people choose the alternative hypothesis over the null.

This may be due to a cognitive system that is advanced enough to look for and require explanations of unknown phenomenon. Ten thousand years ago, when weather patterns were as mysterious as the origins of the universe, people thought that prayer and dances affected the weather. (Correction: humanity has not advanced) Today, there are far fewer mysteries, but the origin of the universe is still unknown. Based on our previous track record of the advancement of knowledge, I do not think that that mystery is unknowable. If the answer is revealed, will anyone listen?

Can we?

I promise not to talk only about politics between now and November, but I've been ruminating about Obama and Clinton since Tuesday's primaries. I've become more set in my decision that Obama would make a better leader. On both an emotional and cognitive level, Obama is the right choice to be the Democratic nominee. Why choose a candidate who is despised by half the country? What is the basis of Clinton's superior experience?

Electability, a criterion I swore I would never after Kerry, is, thankfully, a wash: though Clinton does a bit better in polls against McCain, prevailing wisdom suggests that the only thing that could motivate large numbers of conservatives to the polls is a Clinton candidacy. Both polls and prevailing wisdom are horrible predictors of anything, but in this case they cancel out and are only being mentioned for the benefit of those who would like to incorporate "electability" into their decision-making algorithm.

In terms of policy, I think its a tie between the two. I like Clinton's mandates, but as demonstrated by Obama's below-the-belt "Harry and Louise" style mailer, I think it will not stand be able to pass. Neither candidate can provide the single payer, universal coverage that is the standard in modern societies, and if we as a nation don't want that, then as long as more health care is available in the future than is available now, I will have to accept it.

As for Iraq and foreign policy, Clinton is more of a hawk than Obama. She may be trying to counter any perceived inherent weakness as a female, which is unfortunate, but the fact remains that she has generally sided on the side of militarism on difficult decisions. If elected, both candidates would immediately improve U.S. foreign relations. McCain, on the other hand, who has openly joked about bombing Iran, would make the world that much more fearful of our intentions. Think about it, how did it feel when Hamas won the Palestinian elections, or Akmadinajad became president of Iran? If you were a little bit uneasy, join the club.

I know many of you have seen this before, and it is obviously not a logical way to make an informed decision, but could you imagine anyone every making a comparable tribute to Clinton?

Ok, I promise I won't talk about politics next time. Please be aware, I am not a great promise keeper.

Was my vote wise?

I voted this morning for Obama. I agonized for weeks. I feel tremendous loyalty to Clinton and think she would make a great president. Furthermore, I do like her foreign policy credentials, experience, and health care plan with mandated coverage. Obama, on the other hand, is a far less polarizing figure. I'm not just using the hackneyed "electability" criteria that gave us Kerry in '04, I think that he is a more likeable person that will have an easier time passing legislation since people won't be so hung up on who he is.

This is unfair to Clinton, I'll admit. I do regret not voting for her. But I think that the country will be a better place in 5 years if Obama were president than if Clinton were elected. In terms of their ability to beat McCain, I think that McCain will be a far less popular figure when people start to learn more about his hawkish nature. I could be wrong, but I think that either Democrat will win in November. If anybody can lose an easy election, however, it is the Democrats.