rss

Tag: "complexity"

4
By Erich Vieth on January 13th, 2009

The body is not a machine

Pyschiatrist Randolf Nesse is a gifted writer who I have followed for many years. I first learned of Nesse’s work when I read Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine. Nesse is one of the many respondents to this year’s annual question by Edge.org: “What will change everything?”

Nesse’s answer: RECOGNIZING THAT THE BODY IS NOT A MACHINE

As we improve our knowledge of bodies, they don’t fit very well within our venerable metaphor of the body as a “machine.” One of his points is that we can describe machines, whereas a satisfying description of bodies seems so elusive. The complexity of the body is, indeed, humbling:

We have yet to acknowledge that some evolved systems may be indescribably complex. Indescribable complexity implies nothing supernatural. Bodies and their origins are purely physical. It also has nothing to do with so-called irreducible complexity, that last bastion of creationists desperate to avoid the reality of unintelligent design. Indescribable complexity does, however, confront us with the inadequacy of models built to suit our human preferences for discrete categories, specific functions, and one directional causal arrows. Worse than merely inadequate, attempts to describe the body as a machine foster inaccurate oversimplifications. Some bodily systems cannot be described in terms simple enough to be satisfying; others may not be described adequately even by the most complex models we can imagine.

[Related DI post: The Brain is not a Computer]

Human animals • Neuroscience
Full Story
1
By Erich Vieth on November 28th, 2008

The language of science is always so amazingly precise . . . except when it isn’t

The language of science is always so amazingly precise . . . except when it isn’t. Consider, for example, the word “life.” Scientists have long struggled to determine exactly what qualifies as “life.” For instance, are viruses “alive?”

In the October 23, 2008 edition of Nature (available only to subscribers online), an article titled “Disputed Definitions” considers other often-used disputed terms. The article is divided into sections written by specialists from the relevant disciplines. The subtitle of the article is “Nature goes in search of the terms that get scientists most worked up.” Consider how often you encounter the following disputed terms.

Consider “paradigm shift,” made popular by Thomas Kuhn in his often-cited 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn argued against the then-popular view that science marched incrementally toward the truth. Sometimes, “normal science” doesn’t explain all of the phenomenon, straining a prevailing scientific theory. If the strain of accommodating evidence is great enough “eventually some new science comes along and overturns the previous consensus. Voila, a ‘paradigm shift.’” The often-used term “paradigm shift” is used in at least two ways, however. In its broad sense it encompasses the “entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community.” In the narrow sense, it refers to “concrete puzzle-solutions.”

Another often-debated (and currently fashionable) term is “epigenetic.”

Science
Full Story
6
By Erich Vieth on May 07th, 2008

To deal with “arrogant” scientists we need to move beyond reductionism and break the “Galilean Spell.”

I don’t want no god on my lawn
Just a flower I can help along
‘Cause the soul of no body knows
how a flower grows… Oh how a flower grows . . .

“Longer Boats,” by Cat Stevens (now known as Yusuf Islam).

Why are so many religious people uncomfortable with so many scientists? I can think of several reasons.

According to many Believers, scientists are arrogant know-it-alls. Believers see scientists as emotionally sterile lab-dwellers who flaunt their white coats and their fancy lab equipment.

Scientists exacerbate the situation by speaking and writing using esoteric language that makes science-phobes feel ignorant. By using such difficult concepts and language, scientists have raised the bar, which excludes many folks from joining scientific discussions.

It’s not like the “good old days,” where people were generally informed enough to join many conversations regarding science (or social science). Things are different now.

American Culture • Economy • Education • Evolution • Language • Meaning of Life • Politics • Psychology Cognition • Religion • Science • Technology • ignorance • scientific method • snake oil
Full Story
4
By Erich Vieth on April 04th, 2007

Beautiful self-organized pattern: the huge hexagon at Saturn’s north pole

Take a look at this beautiful movie image of Saturn taken by NASA: 
This nighttime movie of the depths of the north pole of Saturn taken by the visual infrared mapping spectrometer onboard NASA’s Cassini Orbiter reveals a dynamic, active planet lurking underneath the ubiquitous cover of upper-level hazes. The defining feature of Saturn’s north polar [...]

Meaning of Life • Science
Full Story