[This is the 4th in the series Religion and Science: A Beautiful Friendship]
Man is a creature who makes pictures of himself,
and then comes to resemble the picture.
- Iris Murdock
The title of Mark Twain's What Is Man? poses a question that humans have pondered for millennia. Our species modestly calls itself Homo sapiens--Man, the wise. We've also been dubbed Man, the builder; the tool maker; the game player; and the talker. Twain himself argued that man is a machine, Homo machinus.
But no species other than ours holds the fate of the Earth in its hands. The question, then, is what is it about humans that has brought us such power?
There's one faculty that humans have developed more than other animals. It's our capacity to build ever more accurate and comprehensive models that explain the world and nature and thereby give us a measure of control over it. In this context, you can think of models as explanations and stories--explanations of how the world works; stories about how we ourselves behave.
I'm not saying that other animals don't employ models. Once again, the distinction doesn't appear to be absolute. We may never know exactly when our hominid ancestors began inventing stories and telling fortunes, making maps and myths, keeping accounts and ledgers, depicting animals, explaining disasters, and speculating about death.
What's clear, though, is that these first steps to simulate aspects of the world and our place in it were taken at a time when there was no distinction between religion and science. Though we didn't think of it as modeling, building models was what we were doing. The crowning accomplishment of proto-religion and proto-science, which were then one, was the emergence of a model featuring us as individuals in the cosmos.
It's beside the point that these early models are now dismissed as "creation myths." What's important about them is not their validity but their existence. When humans began trying to explain the world, they embarked on a path that in time would give them a power advantage not only over other animals, but also over other human groups that handicapped themselves by clinging to inferior explanations.
Explanations, theories, maps, laws--models--are the path to power. Most of them are no good, but the few good ones rule. When models compete, better ones confer advantages on those who adopt them, and, over time, these first adopters gain an advantage over people saddled with models that harness and organize less power.
A Primer on Models
The sciences ... make models. By a model is meant a ... construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.
- John von Neumann (1903-1957), Hungarian-born American mathematician, creator of game theory and computer logic
Scientists use the terms "model," "theory," "explanation," and "law" almost interchangeably. The popular idea that a theory is more tentative than a model, or even a law, is quite wrong. These terms do not indicate relative degrees of certainty, but rather have their origins in history. For example, Newton's classical dynamics are referred to as "laws of motion" whereas the relativistic dynamics that Einstein discovered go by the name of the "theory of relativity." One might think the word law would indicate greater certainty, but in this case it's just the opposite. As of this writing, Einstein's "theory" has no known exceptions, and Newton's "laws" break down in the subatomic realm and for ordinary objects moving at high speeds.
Similarly, Darwin's "theory of evolution" is not so-named to suggest flaws in it. The theory of evolution has been thoroughly tested and to date has not been found wanting. Another very accurate, comprehensive scientific theory describes the elementary particles and their interactions. It goes by the unassuming name of "the standard model."
Building better models is humankind's defining activity. For better or worse, it's made us who we are. The aforesaid "standard model" describes three of Nature's four forces, and, by enabling us to predict their effects, allows us to tap sources of energy otherwise unavailable. The flip side of taming Nature's power is that we may use it in ways that damage the planet and harm each other.
We learn modeling early, starting with Legos, dolls, and model trains. The fables we grow up with can be understood as models that show us how to behave. People fancy themselves as characters in video games, sometimes deploying an avatar, and can try out different behaviors vicariously without risking their own lives.
Scientists Francis Crick and James Watson modeled the double-stranded helical structure of the DNA molecule with Tinker Toys. There is a model of the San Francisco Bay--complete with miniature piers poking into the water, a scaled-down Golden Gate Bridge, and "tidal currents" propelled by pumps--that fills a warehouse in Sausalito, California. By studying it, scientists can anticipate the effects of proposed real-world alterations of the Bay.
Weather bureaus, using computers and mathematical models, provide weather forecasts. As everyone knows, the predictions are not always right, but they're getting more accurate as the models are improved.
Experimenting with model planes in wind tunnels enabled the Wright brothers to build the aircraft they flew at Kitty Hawk. Even more significant than the plane they built was their pioneering use of modeling in engineering. Models enabled them to anticipate problems through trial and error without paying the price of crashing a piloted plane. Today, flight can be simulated on computers by representing both the airplane and the atmosphere in a mathematical model.
Grand unifying models are the holy grail of every branch of science. In biology, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is such a model. In chemistry, it's Mendeleyev's periodic table of the elements. In geology, the theory of plate tectonics accounts for the earth's principal geological features. Physicists are searching for a "theory of everything" (often abbreviated TOE) that, as Leon Lederman, a Nobel laureate in physics, picturesquely puts it, would "explain the entire universe in a single, simple formula that you can wear on your T-shirt." One of these models is called string theory. Like all theories and models, string theory will ultimately live or die depending on whether its implications agree with observations.
Though much of science consists of building models, the use of models is hardly limited to science. Indeed, normative, prescriptive social models predate by millennia the descriptive and predictive nature models mentioned above. Beginning in the distant past, cultural codes of conduct--for example, the Ten Commandments--were used to regulate family and tribal relationships. Other examples of socio-political models include the theologies of religious institutions, organizational charts of universities, by-laws of corporations, and national constitutions.
Entrepreneurs and the venture capitalists who invest in their companies are guided by hypothetical plans--that is, models--that delineate scenarios based on various economic assumptions to chart a path to profitability. The governance models of nation-states range from the divine right of kings to fascism, communism, constitutional monarchies, and many sub-species of democracy. Sometimes users of social models actually lose sight of the difference between their models and reality. As Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, warns: "A surprising problem is that a number of economists are not able to distinguish between the models we construct and the real world."
When we see parents, heroes, public figures, and fictional characters as "role models," we're using behavioral models to shape our own character.
To sum up, models are descriptive or prescriptive representations of the world and ourselves. Their functions include providing us with an identity, shaping our behavior, maintaining social order, and guiding our use of power. Modeling has made humans what we are and our success as a species depends on learning to use them wisely.
In the next post, we face the fact that despite our preference for fixity, models evolve.
Follow Robert Fuller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robertwfuller
The Science of Success - David Dobbs - The Atlantic
welcome.
bye.
http://www.banglanatoks.com/
:-)
If you leave science's Homo Machinus vision (the Machinus also applies to any other species) untouched I don't see how you can build any meaningful support for religions or simply a religious perspective on life.
The challenge for that vision - where it has been "found wanting" - is that the underlying bedrock dynamic 'DNA created you - body and mind' is not panning out. This is the "beyond belief" Missing Heritability problem and this is where meaningful Religion and Science discussions seem best focused.
:-)
Scientists today are not even scientists, they became sharlatans... Back in the day we had tremendous minds like Tesla,Einstein and they were called madman, before that it was even worst,in the dark ages they were killed for supposed blasfimy yet todays scientists get the tittle of "savior of planet" and are considered the best of the humanity while actualy they are the worst.
Cell phones with touch screen and flat screen tv are not that much of a life changer...
The Sea Gull gets un-included (in the rather silly) "Homo Machinus" too.
Is that just a name for you, or what? :-)
The most powerful model within the human species is the mental model known as the paradigm effect. It can literally control how a person or even a nation views the world. It is hidden and can only be seen from someone that is outside that existing paradigm.
It can be seen most easily in politics and religion but it also exists in science, as science has become a mental model of scientific materialism. Combine the herd effect with the paradigm effect and it can influence millions that hold the same hidden paradigm paralysis in spite of the evidence.
Even the person that is considered an expert on the paradigm effect and wrote a book on paradigms has his own hidden paradigm of Christian beliefs. We are an amazing species very unaware but evolving (ie unfolding) to a level of consciousness and awareness we can only imagine.
Your comment is a perfect example of Creationist nonsense.
"It can be seen most easily in politics and religion but it also exists in science, as science has become a mental model of scientific materialism"
I've pointed this out before, but "scientific materialism" is a foolish tautology, Science is the study of the material world and cannot be anything BUT materialistic.
"Combine the herd effect with the paradigm effect and it can influence millions that hold the same hidden paradigm paralysis in spite of the evidence"
What your rather smug and patronising observations fail to take into account is that seeing science as being restrained by paradigms is itself a paradigm and one which is half a century old now, since the idea was first discussed by Kuhn in the 60's. Perhaps you need to update your thinking?
It takes time to grasp it." -- Zen Saying.
All are restrained by a paradigm or paradigms. no one is left behind when it comes to paradigm/s. even Kuhn.
The study of the material world is well needed but believing it to be the Absolute is confusing an effect for a cause. there lies the unawareness not the study of that which is material.
It is impossible at this time to see your own unawareness as your materialistic paradigm will cause you to view the world only as a material world.
Just as it is impossible for a fundamentalist christian to see that a sacrifice by jesus so they can get to heaven is as unaware as a materialist's belief in a material world.
Because Kuhn wrote about it does not mean anyone understood it. big difference between knowledge and understanding.
ie The christians have knowledge of the teachings of jesus but few understand his teachings.
Personally, I din't think you can even drive a tricycle, researcher.
:-)
Your words reveal your paradigm in action.
Interesting to observe but ok; for without paradigms the world would be chaos. ie life at a human consciousness level of understanding cannot exist without paradigms.
Always compassion is in order for those that have responded using personal attacks because consciousness evolves and that person is only revealing their fragile ego and their doubts. ie something to think about, yes. :o)
Homo narcissisapian
master of my domain
I don't see you being in any danger of becoming the master of your domain. Do you? Seriously?
:-)
:-)
In other words... when people still didn't understand how to do it right.
We know better now. Kind of like we know the difference between astronomy and astrology.
"Explanations, theories, maps, laws--models--are the path to power. Most of them are no good, but the few good ones rule. "
Just so!
And what MAKES a good model? Testability. Falsifiability. Predictive and explanatory power.
All things lacking from religious hypotheses.
"Scientists use the terms "model," "theory," "explanation," and "law" almost interchangeably."
Not good ones. Laws are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than theories! Laws are descriptive, theories are predictive and explanatory.
Laws are "What", Theories are "How and Why".
Thanks for pointing it out!
Some of them distinguish between phenomenological laws and fundamental theories. And some argue that even that doesn't make a lot of sense.
As far as I know, asking the "how and why" is the domain of theology. At least when you listen to those who contradict the main tenet of Fuller's article, which is that science and religion both ask that question, and are both defined by being projects that ask that question, albeit along very different routes.
"Look, Diogenes, I understand that you are in love with your straw man. It's probably the closest thing to human relations that you have... but he is still on fire.
:-) "
Look, Jonathan. The only lasting consequence that our conversation will have for me is that I will from now on refrain to use ":-)", since you've spoiled it for me.
Your posturing is immature. Your arguments are lazy. You refuse to learn. You never admit when you're clearly uninformed.
It's just not worth it. Have a nice first day of the rest of your life, in which I will no longer talk to you.
You can then say it also "predicts" that it will keep happening the same way every time we observe it, but that's a property of all laws and not really the point. It's a trivial application of the word "predictive".
Predictive in the sense of a Theory would be... "based on our examination of what we always see happen and our theory of the process at work we can extrapolate that there must exist some physical mechanism by which heritable traits are passed from generation to generation and upon which selective forces can act on variations on it" 100 years before we figured out what DNA was
Or figuring out the Higgs Boson must be there decades before it was possible to build any equipment that could possibly see any such thing.
:-)
- Steve Jobs
You're onto something significant. I've often read the Torah (in translation, I'm afraid), partly because it's filled with some great rip-roaring adventures of the sort that appeal to me, but also because it seems to me to provide the earliest sustained account of humans shaping science. Read without religious blinders, the Torah *clearly* shows people conceiving modeled explanations of the world around them, testing those models, and modifying the models or chucking them altogether based on the results of their testing.
I don't for a moment mean, of course, that nowadays we can turn to the Torah for scientific understanding. I only mean that the people who wrote the Torah appear to have been recording the results of their theoretical and practical enquiries into the nature of the universe, as they best understood the universe. Really quite a shame that later groups decided to turn this ur-document of science into the revealed word of God.
Lune
http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/Ancient-Africa/mad_ancient_egyptpapyrus.html
Stonehenge, which shows clear evidence of astronomical knowledge dates to about 2000-3000BC. Even those people knew clearly more about observational science than the Israelites... who didn't have to do much other than to ask their neighbors, who all had very well developed geometry and architectural skills.
I think your problem is that you are not reading enough other stuff except for the Torah.
Our model-makers and map-makers have helped us achieve enormous power over our landscape. We make a mistake, however, if we believe that mechnaical models also can instruct us in what we ought to do with them.
New models of subjectivity (humanness) have been appearing in philosophy since the turn of the 20th Century. As a consequence, a discussion is now underway that avoids such antique notions as "mind," "consciousness," and "infinity," to mention just a few. As was true of Galileo's discovery of our solar system, which took more than a century to be recognized, during which time most people still lived on a flat Earth, the changing model of the human being has barely begun to penetrate even educated understanding.
The reference to Twain is apt, as his was a time when anatomy and medicine made great leaps forward with their models and practices. So today we have "the ghost in the machine" as the most popular conception of humans. We are neither machines nor contain ghosts. Hence so much of our dialogue is vacuous.
Columbus discovered America in 1492. Vespucci made his voyages in 1499 and 1502, demonstrating that the new world was not Asia. Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe returned in 1525. The earliest surviving globe is from the early 1490s...
Galileo made his key observations in 1610, 118 years after Columbus and 85 years after the journey of Magellan. The question he was tackling had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, which had already been known since antiquity. His contribution was insurmountable evidence against a geocentric world view, which was to be replaced by a heliocentric one suggested by Copernicus in 1514... almost a century earlier.
"Hence so much of our dialogue is vacuous."
You mean just as vacuous as your misconceptions about science history?
:-)
1597 – letter to Kepler indicates his belief in the Copernican System
1687 – Isaac Newton publishes Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica deriving Keplers laws from the Universal Law of Gravitation and the Laws of Motion, uniting the heavens and earth under the same natural laws
So, OK--90 years, not 100. (I recalled the 100 from some reputable paper I read sometime ago.) Dunno how long it took Newton's view to penetrate to "most people who still lived on a flat Earth"? I think many of those are still alive today.
Anyone who actually thought about the shape of the earth, and who had any kind of education, would have known the earth was round at that time. As Jonathan points out below, Magellan circumnavigated the globe 85 years after Galileo made his key observations so your observations about how people perceived the shape of the earth in his time fall totally, how shall I put it?....Flat?
The complexity of a physical system is the length of the minimal algorithm than can simulate or describe it. Thus the orbits of the planets, which seemed so complex to the ancients, were shown by Newton to be algorithmically compressible into a few short equations.
http://rational-buddhism.blogspot.com/2012/01/algorithmic-compression-and-three-modes.html
So the brevity argument kind of goes out the window once you start studying real science.