Inspiring talk by physicist and sometime pop star Brian Cox about why governments should spend more money on science. The amount currently contributed by the UK seems quite piffling; and the potential benefits from an increase in funding appear huge.
Another interesting TED talk, this time on the idea that our brains have a “belief engine” which makes it so easy to deceive ourselves.
Shermer gives the name “patternicity” to our tendency to find patterns whether or not there are really there, and goes on to show why the cost of creating false negatives (believing there is no pattern when in fact there is one) can cost far more than creating false positives (which is the opposite illusion). He believes this, combined with the tendency of stress to increase patternicity, explain why we (as a species) are so credulous.
I have a few doubts about his hypotheses. Firstly, although he shows that we tend to see false positives in split-second, potentially life or death situations, he does not show why we should tend to perceive false positives (e.g., the ridiculous [to me] idea that the universe has been designed, and has one designer) when we are not under such stress, or were not under such stress when the belief was first presented to us. It seems to me likely that habit-forming reinforcement of (for example) religious beliefs would play a large part in their retention, and make them so difficult to overcome (unless critically engaged with – perhaps when still quite young). Secondly, if it is generally better in evolutionary terms for us to generate false positives rather than false negatives, why do we experience the latter at all? Thirdly, he draws huge conclusions from what look like fairly limited and context-specific data – which leads me to my fourth concern, below.
My fourth worry is that it seems difficult to actually test Shermer’s hypothesis: what predictions could it make that might be tested or disproved? If it can’t be disproved in principle, then we should treat it with the same suspicion due astrology, psychoanalysis or any other self-contained belief system that doesn’t make testable predictions – on the face of it, we would have no more reason to believe Shermer’s view here than to believe any of these other self-contained systems, which are often incompatible with each other (The philosopher Simon Blackburn raises worries about evolutionary psychology in general here, in the second part of his review of psychologist Steven Pinker’s book, The Blank Slate).
Nonetheless, Shermer gives an interesting, thought-provoking and entertaining talk. I hope you enjoy watching it.
Fascinating TED talk below on how we can create a richer democratic debate by engaging people with the Aristotelean ideas of an activity’s essential qualities, and debating which of those qualities deserve to be honoured and respected.
Sandel also talks briefly at the end, to much whooping, about his vision of a “global classroom” of many people from across the globe debating their ideas with each other. It is an exciting idea.
Enjoy!
Terrific (in both senses) story by Xiaoda Xiao, here (published in Guernica magazine).
Following on from the debate here, philosopher Russell Blackford gives an impressive talk on why secularists need to take on monotheistic religiosity whenever it becomes politically powerful. Using Christianity as an example, his central thesis is that, as monotheisms gain political power, so they persecute others (and he gives many examples of this intolerance); and secularism is the best way to prevent this through the separation of church and state, wherein the state never acts for the church, and the church is never allowed to interfere in the affairs of the state.
Russell Blackford at Embiggen Books, from Embiggen Books on Vimeo.
