Turning toward science?

According to this article by M. Mitchell Waldrop, the Templeton Foundation (endowment of $2B) seems to be making an adjustment away from religion and toward traditional science:

Towards the end of Templeton's life, says Marsh, he became increasingly concerned that this reaction was getting in the way of the foundation's mission: that the word 'religion' was alienating too many good scientists. This prompted a rethink of the foundation's research programme — a change most clearly seen in the organization's new website, launched last June. Gone were old programme names such as 'science and religion' — or almost any mention of religion at all (See 'Templeton priorities: then and now'). Instead, the foundation has embraced the theme of 'science and the big questions' — an open-ended list that includes topics such as 'Does the Universe have a purpose?'

Continue ReadingTurning toward science?

Step up and solve a difficult social science question

Here are ten of the biggest unsolved social science questions:

1. How can we induce people to look after their health? 2. How do societies create effective and resilient institutions, such as governments? 3. How can humanity increase its collective wisdom? 4. How do we reduce the ‘skill gap’ between black and white people in America? 5. How can we aggregate information possessed by individuals to make the best decisions? 6. How can we understand the human capacity to create and articulate knowledge? 7. Why do so many female workers still earn less than male workers? 8. How and why does the ‘social’ become ‘biological’? 9. How can we be robust against ‘black swans’ — rare events that have extreme consequences? 10. Why do social processes, in particular civil violence, either persist over time or suddenly change?
Related article at Nature.

Continue ReadingStep up and solve a difficult social science question

Affirmative action for conservatives?

I have written several posts holding that we are all blinded by our sacred cows. Not simply those of us who are religions. This blindness occurs to almost of us, at least some of the time. Two of my more recent posts making this argument are titled "Mending Fences" and "Religion: It's almost like falling in love." In arriving at these conclusions, I've relied heavily upon the writings of other thinkers, including the writings of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Several years ago, Haidt posited four principals summing up the state-of-the-art in moral psychology: 1. Intuitive primacy (but not dictatorship) 2. Moral thinking is for social doing. 3. Morality is about more than harm and fairness. 4. Morality binds and blinds. In a recent article at Edge.org, Haidt argued that this fourth principle has proven to be particularly helpful, and it can "reveal a rut we've gotten ourselves into and it will show us a way out." You can read Haidt's talk at the annual convention for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, or listen to his reconstruction of that talk (including slides) here. This talk has been making waves lately, exemplified by John Tierney's New York Times article. Haidt begins his talk by recognizing that human animals are not simply social, but ultrasocial. How social are we? Imagine if someone offered you a brand-new laptop computer with the fastest commercially available processor, but assume that this computer was broken in such a way that it could never be connected to the Internet. In this day and age of connectivity, that computer will get very little use, if any. According to Haidt, human ultrasociality means that we "live together in very large [caption id="attachment_16630" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image by Jeremy Richards at Dreamstime.com (with permission)"][/caption] groups of hundreds or thousands, with a massive division of labor and a willingness to sacrifice for the group." Very few species are ultrasocial, and most of them do it through a breeding trick by which all members of the group are first-degree relatives and they all concentrate their efforts at breeding with regard to a common queen. Humans beings are the only animals that doesn't use this breeding trick to maintain their ultrasociality. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingAffirmative action for conservatives?

The evolution of the mechanism for evolution.

I must confess that I have something in common with Creationists: I find it difficult to understand how the earliest and simplest life forms came to exist. Unlike the creationists, however, I am not willing to suggest that the earliest life forms were created as-is by some sort of disembodied sentient Supreme Being. I can’t fathom how such a Being could get anything at all done, given that “he” is alleged to be disembodied; for instance, some sort of physical neural network is a prerequisite for cognition. Further, those who posit that life was created as-is by a supernatural Creator need to explain how that Creator got here in the first place; their creation of a Creator constitute an eternal regress. Who created “God,” and God’s God, etc. Thus, I don’t believe in a ghostly Creator, but where does this leave me?  How did the earliest life forms emerge from non-life?  Though firm answers have not yet been derived from rigorous scientific experimentation, I am intrigued by the ideas put forth by Stuart Kauffman in his 1995 book, At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self Organization and Complexity. Early in his book, Kaufman points out that the simplest free living cells (called "pleuromona") are highly simplified types of bacteria. They have a cell membrane, genes, RNA, protein synthesizing machinery and all the other necessary gear to constitute a form of life. Here's the problem: [more . . .]

Continue ReadingThe evolution of the mechanism for evolution.