We just finished our Ideas Cafe tonight with discussions of various Christmas myths and stories. It is perhaps quite involved to verified the sources but the consensus is that Jesus was not born in December and it is not accurate to link his birth to the current calendar as the date was likely fixed about four centuries later.
Various sources seems to point to the Christians replacing pagan festivals around the winter solstice with Christmas in order to make it easy for the newly converted Roman pagans to Christians without missing their winter solstice celebrations.
For one thing, the shepherds would not be tending their sheep out in the open fields in winter?
Rafi pointed out that the Roman soldiers were having sex with women wherever they went so the Jews had a decree that all girls were virgins until they were married. Jews also follow the ethnicity of their mothers as that is the only verifiable way.
Then there was the discussion of the sources of Santa Claus, how St Nicolas was originally a saint in Turkey.
The discussion was very enjoyable but more due to the seasonal atmosphere and the comradery of the group.
Of more philosophical interest is the discussion at the Port Coquitlam SFU philosopher's cafe moderated by Graham Forst on Monday.
The discussion was around whether science is really progressive.
1. Science have been good in providing the "hows" but not answering the "whys". We may have better medicine, better machines, better living standards, but we cannot really answer the question of "why is it raining?" This is different from explaining low pressure systems, storm fronts and the like which explains how rain is formed. Graham wanted to ask "why" as in "did we anger the rain gods?", or "there is a master plan somewhere that determines weather". Shula's response is that asking these "why" questions presuppose that there is a supernatural being orchestrating everything and bypass the notion that maybe things happen without intention or reasons. It is just so.
2. Science is just another religion. Science is not absolute truth in that it is observation and logic that ultimately depends on some fundamental assumptions and axioms that occasionally changes with new discoveries. To depend on science is to believe the validity of these fundamental assumptions. However, Graham gave the metaphor early in the meeting that some white settlers in Africa found it convenient to explain the steam power boats to the natives by telling them that there is a devil in that steam engine that requires fuel to keep the devil going and water to quench its thirst. This is a believe system that is close to the that of the natives and makes sense to them. Science is perhaps a lot better at predicting at what the steam engine will need and do versus the devil metaphor but is still serving the same purpose as the devil metaphor. So if science is just a believe system like the devil in the steam engine, are the establish religions just a more complicated set of devils for life instead of steam engines and the priests are the "white man" explaining things to us "the natives"?
3. Imagination is needed for science but we are force feeding information in our schools with no room for discovering and trial and error. While many famous scientists have point out the importance of imagination in the discovery of science, it is important to recognise that discovering new things in science is completely different from learning off what other scientists have discovered up till now. To think about possible explanation for our observations and look for new discoveries require imagination and lots of it. Reading about other people's discovery require a lot less imagination and even less so when at the elementary and high school level. Here, the purpose is to catch up with the knowledge that has been accumulated and coverage (quantity) and can be as important as deep understanding (quality).
4. Scientist have social responsibility for what they discover. Some argue at the meeting that scientists are curious people trying to discover things with no intention of what the discovery is going to lead to. Others think that we are letting the scientists off easy as they must know where their discovery is leading to. Here, I think we need to differentiate between basic science research and targeted product development. In fundamental research, we really do not know where things will lead and many of the discoveries are accidental. Once we want to try to cure cancer, or go to the moon, we are into targeted development with a goal in mind.
5. Should we stop researching into areas like genetic engineering? Should we stop scientific research altogether since we have so many negative fall out from scientific development? Rafi pointed out that not only have we been doing genetic engineering for thousands of years through grafting plants and breeding animals selectively, we have also engaged in genetic engineering of humans when we choose good looking, intelligent mates to produce our off spring. Science is only accelerating this process and making it better. For me, stopping scientific development due to some of the negative impact of science is definitely throwing the baby out with the bath water. I would recommend "The Rational Optimist" by Matt Ridley for those who entertain the romantic notion that our society was better before the industrial revolution, electricity, atomic discovery and computers. We take these things so much for granted we need to fully appreciate the benefits first before balancing it off with some of the problems of scientific discovery.
It was a great cafe discussion.
Hi Oliver,
ReplyDeleteI have been reading your blog in the “idea café” with interest. What I found interesting is how people can be so opinionated. First there is the claim that once you lie, you are not honest any more. Then there is the demand that “scientist must know where their discovery is leading to”!
Honesty is a “Mind Control” technique that people in position of power invented to control other people. Your well-being is threatened if you are being controlled. Your animal instinct will take over when your well-being is threatened – its call survival! The people in power knows that honesty will take a second seat, if not the last, once one’s well-being is threatened. So, they invented “Honesty” to encourage people not to lie and tell them what you are thinking. They can then deal with you a lot easier!
The counter argument is the kid (was it George Washington??) who cut down the cherry tree, famously proclaimed that he cannot tell a lie and admitted to his father that he did it. Well, he did want to tell a lie but his honesty suppressed it. So, his survival (animal) instinct did kick in. But the more important point is who taught him “honesty” and who did he tell – his father. Had his father not done so, do you think his father can figure out who cut down the tree so easily? Do you think the kid would still tell his father if he is abusive? Would honesty still win out? The point is telling lie has nothing to do with honesty!
Demanding scientist must know where their discovery is leading to is just autocratic! Image the discovery of nuclear fusion. It leads to controlled fusion that gives us nuclear power station for cheap energy. It also leads to uncontrolled fusion that gives us the nuclear bomb. So, is the scientist a saint or a devil? The point is how you use the discovery is what makes it good or evil. In science, there is something called “The Principle of uncertainty”. This principle applies equally well in real life. There is nothing absolutely right and there is nothing absolutely wrong. It all depends on from where you look at it.
Your long lost pal in Toronto aka Mad Doberman.
Thanks for the great comment! You have me guessing now as to who you are!
ReplyDeleteGreat example of George Washington with honesty as mind control. Good point.
However, does this form of mind control lead to a better more stable society and therefore more useful to our survival and existence as a species?
I agree with you that honesty can be used by those in power to control others, but does it not also control "rule breakers" or "free-loaders" that can ruin society if it is prevalent?
I do agree that there is no black and white pure right or wrong positions and real life is a blend of these extreme positions base on discretion for the individual situation and the values involved.
However, this discretion bit also leads to wide open interpretation on what is "appropriate" (another mushy word)and therefore not conducive to formulating a code of behaviour.
Clear as mud, the more we try to clarify things, the more we stir up.
Oliver.
Oliver,
ReplyDeleteWell, again the Principle of Uncertainty applies here. Even this kind of mind control does not necessarily control the “rule breakers” or “free-loaders”. Take the case of Stephen Harper proposed the law (remember it’s the law not the rule) for Federal election every four years. Right after the law is passed, he called the last Federal election which was only two some odd years from the previous election. I asked my local Conservative candidate at my door how could I support you when you break your own law. He laughed at me and said, “Because the Parliament is not working!” Well, so much for control of “rule (law) breakers”! After the election, it is still a Conservative minority government. The election costed over 400 million dollars of taxpayer money. Is it more useful to our survival and existence as a species? You tell me.
“Appropriate” is a word for convenience only. There is no such thing as “appropriate”! Take the case of, again, Stephen Harper “parole” (it is not a miss spelling. Pun is intended) the Parliament two Christmas ago to prevent his government from being defeated. It caused a public uproar at that time. But to Stephen Harper, it is absolutely “appropriate”. In fact he felt so appropriate that he did that again last Christmas (2009) with just a phone call to the GG. That is not even the “appropriate” protocol, which is going to the GG residence and asks for permission.
Mad Doberman
Good examples Mad Doberman. However, the illustration here is how difficult it is to set rules (and the exceptions that may follow) and to navigate through the different perceptions of "appropriateness".
ReplyDeleteIf we have no exceptions to rules, we are back to the person who never lies. Would you trust him with your secrets?
Would it be wise for machines to decide what is "appropriate" since machines are repeatable, predictable and do not make exceptions?
Our human social world is so complex with so many considerations that we can only make decisions within the context that we face and always subject to a different view from a different perspective.
We long for a simple world where rules are clean but in real life should we not be prepared for the unexpected?
Would it be more practical to question the circumstances under which exceptions are made rather than the fact that rules have been broken ?
Sounded like a wishy washy answer but perhaps it is more reality than the idealistic view of how things should be?
Oliver
ReplyDeleteExactly. Looks like we are converging to more or less the same idea. What I been saying is there is nothing precise in real life. Circumstance, personality and a whole bunch of other factors muddy the water to the point that you can basically interpret the whole thing as anything that you want to. And that is precisely artificial intelligence, never mind humanoid, still has a long way to go.
I think we have beaten the horse to death many times over. I am certainly grateful to have the chance to speak my mind. Usually, I got cut off as soon as I made my first argument and got labelled as anti-social, argumentative just like a mad dog barking! Ever wonder I am the Mad Doberman?
Thanks Mad Doberman. We are having another meeting of the Ideas Cafe on Wednesday so I will likely do another blog after that as we will be talking about morals and how morals have changed and how it will change looking forward.
ReplyDeleteThat should stir up some thoughts...