If you've read my previous similarly-titled posts, then you probably have a good idea where this is going - once again, the short answer to the question is, "Because the world needs it." But why, though? As with pop science, my meaning of action wisdom will take a little explaining.
I am officially a student of philosophy, and the question I most often hear when telling people about my major is, "What can you do with philosophy?" My immediate response has historically been to ask right back, "What can't you do with philosophy?" When I'm feeling particularly frisky, I sometimes say that I'm a student of applied philosophy, which reliably causes even more confusion. This is usually funny at the time, but it also points out the problem I have with the cultural position of philosophy as a field of study.
The fact of the matter is that philosophy can be applied to anything. Such applications can occasionally lead us down some rather silly rabbit holes of inquiry if we're not careful, and it is these rabbit holes which I suspect drive most people away from philosophy. A favorite joke of mine goes, "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered; religion is answers that may never be questioned." But so long as we remain aware of these rabbit holes and try not to fall into them during emergencies, philosophy can be usefully applied to just about anything. Like science, I want to see philosophy popularized - I want trolley problems and Russell's paradox to be discussed over a pint in a bar. And not just by my friends and me.
Philosophy certainly spends a lot of time in the ivory tower, especially in academic papers, but it must not spend all its time up there. After all, thought with no action is just as bad as action with no thought. Business ethics and bioethics are two excellent examples of applied philosophy (even if they aren't applied well in the real world, they're still clear opportunities to apply philosophy). Philosophy of science is another obvious one, and can be applied to help one pick up new material more easily by having a better idea of what will be the most useful questions to ask. A little bit of decision theory can help one in dealing with others, and even a semi-functional utility calculus can help one to organize busy days.
There's nothing particularly fancy about any of this, but that's kind of my point: philosophy is no fancier than any other field of study. All subjects have their esoterica, every field has specialists, and philosophy is no different. My guess is that most people who find philosophy to be more esoteric than other subjects are unable to recognize its mundane applications in everday life. This is the action wisdom I'm talking about: practical applications of philosophical principles, living out one's values, attempting to act wisely in day-to-day situations. As for those who think of it as a willy-nilly, anything-goes sort of enterprise (some nihilists, serious solipsists, and their silly ilk), this is no different in kind from the misunderstandings of legitimate science perpetrated by the purveyors of pseudoscience. A more obvious application of action wisdom is the legitimate sound-byte department. Tell me if you've heard any of these before: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," " 'Is' does not imply 'ought,' " "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Each one of these phrases has practical application in modern life, and what's more, they're catchy! So why is philosophy not more popular than it is? Why is there no introduction to formal logic in high school? Why don't people seem to recognize just how often they do philosophy? Why should "action wisdom" appear to be paradoxical at all?
Every single person has a philosophy of some sort, some set of principles that plays a part in determining their thougths and behavior, whether these principles are well-organized or not (and whether the person is aware of them or not). The study of philosophy will help one determine those principles - both to discover and to decide. Just about everyone thinks of themselves as a rational agent who does the right thing most of the time, and philosophy can help make that a reality. In Crito, the titular character asks, “But do you see, Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion?” Socrates replies, "I only wish, Crito, that they could; for then they could also do the greatest good, and that would be well. But the truth is that they can do neither good nor evil: they cannot make a man wise or make him foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance.” It was true in ancient Greece, it is true today, and it has been true at every point in between. If it's ever going to change, then the world will need a healthy dose of practical philosophy in order to do so.
Showing posts with label why oh why. Show all posts
Showing posts with label why oh why. Show all posts
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Why Pop Science?
Continuing in the same vein as my earlier post on evangelical humanism, today I want to talk about the importance of pop science. Let's get right to it: why pop science? As before, the short answer is, "Because the world needs it." The long answer is a bit more complex.
First, I want to clarify what I mean by "pop science." I do mean that science should be popular, but I most emphatically do not mean that this popularity should come at the expense of content. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the wildly irresponsible speculations of pseudoscience are no fundamentally different for being based on a tiny bit of actual science rather than pure imagination. I mean that there should be a solid understanding, in the public mind, of the difference between good science, bad science, and non-science. I mean that the principles of the scientific method should be openly discussed in public, discussions which should be accessible to everyone. I mean, in short, that good & proper science should be popular.
This is, admittedly, a lofty and far-off goal. I am hoping for no less than a scientifically-minded society, which probably won't happen any time soon. Hell, it may never happen at all - but that's not for lack of need, and certainly no reason to stop trying. Lots of people are trying, in fact, and their labors have borne fruit already:
First, I want to clarify what I mean by "pop science." I do mean that science should be popular, but I most emphatically do not mean that this popularity should come at the expense of content. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the wildly irresponsible speculations of pseudoscience are no fundamentally different for being based on a tiny bit of actual science rather than pure imagination. I mean that there should be a solid understanding, in the public mind, of the difference between good science, bad science, and non-science. I mean that the principles of the scientific method should be openly discussed in public, discussions which should be accessible to everyone. I mean, in short, that good & proper science should be popular.
This is, admittedly, a lofty and far-off goal. I am hoping for no less than a scientifically-minded society, which probably won't happen any time soon. Hell, it may never happen at all - but that's not for lack of need, and certainly no reason to stop trying. Lots of people are trying, in fact, and their labors have borne fruit already:
- Richard Dawkins occupies a position created for just such a purpose, the Professor for Public Understanding of Science - he is also a prolific author, having written on all scales, from small essays and articles to the epic tome that is The Ancestor's Tale (a brilliant and very accessible read).
- Brian Greene, a professor of physics at Columbia and theoretical physicist, has written The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos, both good books for popularizing some of the most exciting bits of physics.
- Stephen Hawking, perhaps the best example of the benefits of science I can think of, has popularized physics with A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell. Both of these books are small in size, but great in stature.
- Professor PZ Myers of the University of Minnesota, Morris is the author of Pharyngula, an extraordinarily popular blog on the admirable scienceblogs.com. Professor Myers regularly blogs on current scientific research, explaining such things as the mapping of the platypus genome in layman's terms (well, perhaps a bright high school layman, or a layman with some college).
- Ebonmuse's Evolution Pages present a clear and thorough look at several aspects of the struggle between legitimate science and fashionable idiocy. These short-to-medium-length essays (depending on how long an "essay" is in your mind - for me, it's "more than a newspaper article, less than a novel") are well-organized and written almost entirely in everyday language. The author's main site, Ebon Musings, also links to his writings on atheism and his blog, Daylight Atheism, which often bring scientific principles to bear on the more general conflict between reason and nonsense.
- Penn & Teller have created a Showtime series, appropriately entitled Bullshit!, in which they popularize science with a technique similar to the via negativa, showcasing popular bullshit and exposing it for what it is.
- Even House, MD touches on good, solid science - if you know what to look for. The show routinely touches on epistemology, parsimony, and ethics as applied to the medical field. The show is popular, and it's got science, so I call it a win.
- Other TV shows, for reasons more obvious, also bear mentioning: Mythbusters, Planet Earth, and Blue Planet spring immediately to mind. Also, I may watch a bit too much Discovery Channel. Also also, I may try to argue whether that's possible.
- Wikipedia also bears mentioning, not only for its status as a repository for knowledge, but also for its source-finding capacity.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Why Evangelical Humanism?
I have some snappy little phrases up at the top of my blog. At first blush, these pairings may seem paradoxical: evangelism and humanism are not commonly thought of together; neither are action and wisdom; neither are pop and science. And, like all good paradoxes, there is something deeper beneath these surface appearances. That's what I want to talk about today.
This entry is not meant to convince anyone of the virtues of humanism itself, or to argue that this or that religion is not the case; these points are taken for granted here. I am instead trying to make the case to humanists, who agree with me on the aforementioned already, that there is something to be gained by an evangelical approach. With the scope of my intentions established, let us begin in earnest.
So, why evangelical humanism? In short, because the world needs it. At length, I believe that humanism is the best system of belief for the future of humanity, and must replace supernaturalistic religion as the dominant cultural meme in the near geological future if we are to survive as a species and make lasting social improvements.
Evangelism is, put simply, a charismatic approach to espousing an idea. There's nothing wrong with evangelizing in and of itself - what is being evangelized (and why) is more important by far. For example, when global warming threatens the vast majority of life on Earth, an evangelical approach may be called for, in order to spread the word and encourage constructive change in those habits of ours which affect the climate, all in the name of good solid science and the long-term interest of life in general. As Penn Jillette says in the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on the Bible, "The fact is, we are two evangelical assholes. Bullshit is an evangelical show. TV preachers are doing exactly the same thing we are doing - they are telling the truth as they see it." In other words, there is nothing wrong in principle with putting one's point of view out into the marketplace of ideas, for all to see, with the intention of convincing others of that point of view.
Contrary to the popular association of evangelism with Christianity, evangelism has nothing to do with Christianity, neither by necessity, nor by rights. Jesus Christ himself explicitly directed his followers to eschew public prayer and pious displays, and instead to keep their faith to themselves as a private matter between them and their god (Matthew 6:5-7). This is good advice, and I am rather disappointed that so many appear not to have taken it to heart. Supernatural claims are categorically unknowable, in that they are unverifiable and unfalsifiable matters of faith. Leaving aside the fact that empirical study can render them superfluous, there simply is no way to settle such matters (especially not between competing supernatural claims, as they're all equally ridiculous).
Humanism, on the other hand, is a philosophy centered around human life on Earth. It is concerned with the improvement of people, at both the individual and social level, and lacks the focus on the hereafter which is typical of religions. This focus has given religion tremendous memetic survival value in the past, by trading people hope for a better life after death, in exchange for patiently enduring misery in this life. But, lacking any possibility of verification, claims about a life after death are unactionable wishful thinking which lull their adherents into complacency, and in modern times these claims at best serve only to distract us from those issues which truly do deserve our attention. At worst, they actively encourage us to look forward happily to the destruction of the world, an event which we have only recently gained the capability to cause.
The belief that there is a second, eternal life is a distraction from this one for reasons of pragmatic mathematics alone: compared to eternity, a century or less vanishes to nothingness. What importance can this life have, aside from the question of picking the right religion to ensure one's eternal bliss after death? Even taking into account the actual suffering that happens on Earth, which we know to occur, the belief in an afterlife can only dismiss Earthly matters as ultimately unimportant, and this is perhaps the most terrible mistake we can make: to not care about the real and important concerns facing us here and now, in favor of a hope for things unseen (Buddhism is a rather remarkable exception to this rule, but that is a subject for another day and I shall leave it for now with but a mention). Humanism is the antithesis of this position, dismissing those matters about which no knowledge may be gained in order to place our focus properly upon those matters on which we can gain knowledge and make improvements. And because there is actionable content and purpose in the belief system, evangelizing for it is not an empty exercise as it is for religion, but instead a legitimately useful activity.
Evangelizing for the humanist worldview, far from being the pointless exercise of spreading ancient myths, is perhaps one of the most culturally impacting actions that can be taken by any everyday citizen at this point in history. Looking at the data, we see that the least religious nations tend to be the best nations for their citizens - and every citizen plays a role in shaping that trend. Living by example, we can show that a secular humanist lifestyle is a better way than that of superstitious piety. We can spread the word of science, embody the virtues of empathy and inclusion, preach the good news of secular democracy. We do this not to save souls, but to improve standards of living by encouraging others to work for a better life here, rather than preparing in vain for another life we cannot justifiably expect. Living our lives according to these values, and encouraging them in others, is an investment in long-term cultural change which we would be wise to make.
This entry is not meant to convince anyone of the virtues of humanism itself, or to argue that this or that religion is not the case; these points are taken for granted here. I am instead trying to make the case to humanists, who agree with me on the aforementioned already, that there is something to be gained by an evangelical approach. With the scope of my intentions established, let us begin in earnest.
So, why evangelical humanism? In short, because the world needs it. At length, I believe that humanism is the best system of belief for the future of humanity, and must replace supernaturalistic religion as the dominant cultural meme in the near geological future if we are to survive as a species and make lasting social improvements.
Evangelism is, put simply, a charismatic approach to espousing an idea. There's nothing wrong with evangelizing in and of itself - what is being evangelized (and why) is more important by far. For example, when global warming threatens the vast majority of life on Earth, an evangelical approach may be called for, in order to spread the word and encourage constructive change in those habits of ours which affect the climate, all in the name of good solid science and the long-term interest of life in general. As Penn Jillette says in the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on the Bible, "The fact is, we are two evangelical assholes. Bullshit is an evangelical show. TV preachers are doing exactly the same thing we are doing - they are telling the truth as they see it." In other words, there is nothing wrong in principle with putting one's point of view out into the marketplace of ideas, for all to see, with the intention of convincing others of that point of view.
Contrary to the popular association of evangelism with Christianity, evangelism has nothing to do with Christianity, neither by necessity, nor by rights. Jesus Christ himself explicitly directed his followers to eschew public prayer and pious displays, and instead to keep their faith to themselves as a private matter between them and their god (Matthew 6:5-7). This is good advice, and I am rather disappointed that so many appear not to have taken it to heart. Supernatural claims are categorically unknowable, in that they are unverifiable and unfalsifiable matters of faith. Leaving aside the fact that empirical study can render them superfluous, there simply is no way to settle such matters (especially not between competing supernatural claims, as they're all equally ridiculous).
Humanism, on the other hand, is a philosophy centered around human life on Earth. It is concerned with the improvement of people, at both the individual and social level, and lacks the focus on the hereafter which is typical of religions. This focus has given religion tremendous memetic survival value in the past, by trading people hope for a better life after death, in exchange for patiently enduring misery in this life. But, lacking any possibility of verification, claims about a life after death are unactionable wishful thinking which lull their adherents into complacency, and in modern times these claims at best serve only to distract us from those issues which truly do deserve our attention. At worst, they actively encourage us to look forward happily to the destruction of the world, an event which we have only recently gained the capability to cause.
The belief that there is a second, eternal life is a distraction from this one for reasons of pragmatic mathematics alone: compared to eternity, a century or less vanishes to nothingness. What importance can this life have, aside from the question of picking the right religion to ensure one's eternal bliss after death? Even taking into account the actual suffering that happens on Earth, which we know to occur, the belief in an afterlife can only dismiss Earthly matters as ultimately unimportant, and this is perhaps the most terrible mistake we can make: to not care about the real and important concerns facing us here and now, in favor of a hope for things unseen (Buddhism is a rather remarkable exception to this rule, but that is a subject for another day and I shall leave it for now with but a mention). Humanism is the antithesis of this position, dismissing those matters about which no knowledge may be gained in order to place our focus properly upon those matters on which we can gain knowledge and make improvements. And because there is actionable content and purpose in the belief system, evangelizing for it is not an empty exercise as it is for religion, but instead a legitimately useful activity.
Evangelizing for the humanist worldview, far from being the pointless exercise of spreading ancient myths, is perhaps one of the most culturally impacting actions that can be taken by any everyday citizen at this point in history. Looking at the data, we see that the least religious nations tend to be the best nations for their citizens - and every citizen plays a role in shaping that trend. Living by example, we can show that a secular humanist lifestyle is a better way than that of superstitious piety. We can spread the word of science, embody the virtues of empathy and inclusion, preach the good news of secular democracy. We do this not to save souls, but to improve standards of living by encouraging others to work for a better life here, rather than preparing in vain for another life we cannot justifiably expect. Living our lives according to these values, and encouraging them in others, is an investment in long-term cultural change which we would be wise to make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)