Chance and Necessity
A few weeks ago I wrote an article for NRO, in which I said:
[M]any educated people have invested scientists — and more often, popularizers of science — with the right to be taken seriously as they pontificate about morality and public policy. The argument tends to take this form: Scientific finding X implies liberal political or moral conclusion Y. Important contemporary examples include the assertions that evolution implies atheism, and the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas implies that we must reduce carbon emissions rapidly and aggressively.
Conservatives, for their part — especially those with access to the biggest megaphones — have recently developed the habit of responding to this by challenging scientific finding X. The standard sorry spectacle, and the resulting alienation of those who takes science seriously, ensues.
In general, it would be far wiser to accept X, but to challenge the assertion that X implies Y. Scientific findings almost never entail specific moral or political conclusions, because the scope of application of science is rarely sufficient to do so.
John G. West of the Discovery Institute has written and article for NRO defending the recent Louisiana Science Education Act. I assume that his reasoning in it is at least in part a response to my article. He says that:
Fearful of being branded “anti-science,” some conservatives are skittish about such efforts to allow challenges to the consensus view of science. They insist that conservatives should not question currently accepted “facts” of science, only the supposedly misguided application of those facts by scientists to politics, morality, and religion. Such conservatives assume that we can safely cede to scientists the authority to determine the “facts,” so long as we retain the right to challenge their application of the facts to the rest of culture.
He then immediately proceeds to say:
First, the idea that a firewall exists between scientific “facts” and their implications for society is not sustainable. Facts have implications. If it really is a “fact” that the evolution of life was an unplanned process of chance and necessity (as Neo-Darwinism asserts), then that fact has consequences for how we view life. It does not lead necessarily to Richard Dawkins’s militant atheism, but it certainly makes less plausible the idea of a God who intentionally directs the development of life toward a specific end. In a Darwinian worldview, even God himself cannot know how evolution will turn out — which is why theistic evolutionist Kenneth Miller argues that human beings are a mere “happenstance” of evolutionary history, and that if evolution played over again it might produce thinking mollusks rather than us.
But this is a perfect example (in my view) of asserting that science says something that it does not. Mr. West claims that Neo-Darwinism asserts “that the evolution of life was an unplanned process of chance and necessity.” While some scientists may say that, there is no such scientific finding. It is true that any hypothesized teleology in the development of humans would be so difficult to determine through current methods that scientists appropriately proceed as if this were true when conducting operational science; but that it is a very far cry from saying that it is scientifically proven to be true.
Here is a long excerpt from an NR article I wrote last year on exactly this topic:
Most of this debate, unfortunately, engages with evolution only at a very abstract or metaphorical level, which lends itself to a lot of gassy talk. In order to evaluate the claims of each group, we need to consider the mechanics of evolution.
To understand these mechanics, it’s very helpful to look at an analogous system. So-called Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are computer-software implementations of the same kind of mathematics that takes place in the biological process of evolution. (Dawkins, in fact, devoted about 40 pages of The Blind Watchmaker to describing a primitive GA-type program that he wrote on his PC.) Today, GAs are widely deployed in artificial-intelligence computer programming to solve such prosaic engineering problems as optimally scheduling trucks on a delivery route or identifying the best combination of process-control settings to get maximum output from a factory.
Consider the example of a chemical plant with a control panel that has 100 on/off switches used to regulate the manufacturing process. You are given the task of finding the combination of switch settings that will generate the highest total output for the plant. How would you solve the problem? One obvious approach would be to run the plant briefly with each possible combination of switch settings and select the best one. Unfortunately, even in this very simplified example there are 2^100 possible combinations. This is a surprisingly gigantic number — much larger, for instance, than the number of grains of sand on Earth. We could spend a million lifetimes trying various combinations of switches and never get to most of the possible combinations.
But there’s a trick that can help us. Once we start to try combinations, we might begin to notice patterns like “when switches 17 and 84 are set to ‘on,’ production always increases when I put switch 53 to the ‘off’ position.” Such insights could help us to narrow down our search, and get to the answer faster. This might not seem to be much help in the face of such an enormous number of possibilities, but the power of these rules is also surprising.
To illustrate this, think of a simple game: I pick a random whole number between one and a billion, and you try to guess it. If the only thing I tell you when you make each guess is whether you are right or wrong, you would have very little chance of guessing my number even if I let you guess non-stop for a year. If, however, I tell you whether each guess is high or low, there is a procedure that will get the exact answer within about 30 guesses. You should always guess 500 million first. For all subsequent guesses, you should always pick the mid-point of the remaining possibilities. If, for example, the response to your opening guess of 500 million is that you are too high, your next guess should be the mid-point of the remaining possibilities, or 250 million. If the response to this second guess is “too low,” then your next guess should be the mid-point of 250 million and 500 million, or 375 million, and so on. You can find my number within about a minute.
A Genetic Algorithm works on roughly the same principle. Let’s go back to our problem of the 2^100 possible combinations of switch settings. We can use a Genetic Algorithm as an automated procedure to sort through the vast “search space” of possibilities — and thus home in quickly on the best one. This procedure has the same three elements as our procedure for guessing the number: a starting guess, a feedback measurement that gives some indication of how good any guess is, and an iterative method that exploits this feedback to improve subsequent guesses.
In order to establish the initial guess for the GA, imagine writing a vertical column of 100 zeroes and ones on a piece of paper. If we agree to let one=“turn the switch on” and zero=“turn the switch off,” this could be used as a set of instructions for operating the chemical plant. The first of the hundred would tell us whether switch 1 should be on or off, the second would tell us what to do with switch 2, and so on all the way down to the 100th switch.
This is a pretty obvious analogy to what happens with biological organisms and their genetic codes — and therefore, in a GA, we refer to this list as a “genome.”
Our goal, then, is to find the “genome” that will lead the plant to run at maximum output. The algorithm creates an initial bunch of guesses — genomes — by randomly generating, say, 1,000 strings of 100 zeros and ones. We then do 1,000 sequential production runs at the factory, by setting the switches in the plant to the combination of settings indicated by each genome and measuring the output of the plant for each; this measured output is termed the “fitness value.” (Typically, in fact, we construct a software-based simulation of the factory that allows us to run such tests more rapidly.) Next, the program selects the 500 of the 1,000 organisms that have the lowest fitness values and eliminates them. This is the feedback measurement in our algorithm — and it is directly analogous to the competition for survival of biological entities.
Next comes the algorithmic process for generating new guesses, which has two major components: crossover and mutation. These components are directly modeled on the biological process of reproduction. First, the 500 surviving organisms are randomly paired off into 250 pairs of mates. The GA then proceeds through these pairs of organisms one at a time. For each pair it flips a coin. If the coin comes up heads, then organism A “reproduces” with organism B by simply creating one additional copy of each; this is called direct replication. If it comes up tails, then organism A reproduces with organism B via “crossover”: The program selects a random “crossover point,” say at the 34th of the 100 positions, and then creates one offspring that has the string of zeroes and ones from organism A up to the crossover point and those from organism B after the crossover point, and an additional offspring that has the string of zeroes and ones from organism B up to the crossover point and those from organism A after the crossover point. The 500 resulting offspring are added to the population of 500 surviving parents to create a new population of 1,000 organisms. Finally, a soupçon of mutation is added by randomly flipping roughly every 10,000th digit from zero to one or vice versa.
The new generation is now complete. Fitness is evaluated for each, the bottom 500 are eliminated, and the surviving 500 reproduce through the same process of direct replication, crossover, and mutation to create the subsequent generation. This cycle is repeated over and over again through many generations. The average fitness value of the population moves upward through these iterations, and the algorithm, in fits and starts, closes in on the best solution.
…
Notice … that one of the 2^100 possible combinations of switch settings will produce the highest output, and with enough time the algorithm will always converge on this one answer. The algorithm is therefore the opposite of goalless: It is, rather, a device designed to tend toward a specific needle in a haystack — the single best potential result.
Notice…[also] that though the number of possible solutions is very large, it is finite. With sufficient computational power the goal is, in principle, knowable without ever running the algorithm. The algorithm itself is just a computational convenience.
In other words, once we de-mystify this process, we can see evolution as merely an efficient method for searching a space of possible combinations. I go on in the article to explain why the complexities of actual evolution in the field don’t change this picture at all from a philosophical perspective. Evolution through natural selection might or might not be “an unplanned process of chance and necessity”, but science does not tell us this one way or another.
This may be tangential to your point, but I want to comment on your generalization that conservatives have a habit of attacking the science rather than the political implications of the science. This generalization seems to be based on the debates over evolution/ID and AGW. I believe that the attacks on science in these cases are specific to the peculiarities of these two debates rather than indicative of a generalized conservative habit of mind.
In the case of evolution versus Intelligent Design the people who are attacking the science are not political conservatives in general, but specifically religious fundamentalists who believe (perhaps mistakenly) that scientific theories of evolution present a challenge to their literalist biblical beliefs. My sense is that non-fundamentalists on the Right are as willing to accept the science on evolution as anyone else on the political spectrum.
In the case of Global Warming I believe that the well was poisoned when Al Gore emerged as the spokesman for the AGW camp. Had someone with scientific credentials, or at least someone who was was not a polarizing partisan politician, emerged to make the global warming case I believe that the right would have accepted the fact of warming much more readily, and proceeded to debate the policy implications. The confrontational way that the issue was launched by Gore almost inevitably forced the Right into a defensive crouch.
— aldo · Jul 11, 10:27 PM · #
As a scientist myself, I find your thesis on conservative criticism of scientific findings to be accurate. However, I think it’s not as reactionary to the “Y” of the equation as it is a reaction to the development of a whole new breed of scientists who are indeed not scientists.
The advent of numerical computer algorithms has lead to the development of easy-to-use analytical software that most researchers know how to implement for their own studies. Unfortunately, we are teaching a whole generation of non-scientists the most top-level meaning of inferential statistics and calculus, which is the mathematical language of experimentation. They then apply these techniques retrospectively against long held beliefs in social theory. Thus, we have thousands (if not millions) of “scientists” who publish data in order to justify a conclusion that fits a political or philosophical hypothesis…rarely a scientific one.
Conservatives, and more importantly conservative scientists, would do themselves well to focus on discipline and adherence to the scientific method (not that non-conservatives do not). The last thing that moves these issues forward is an out-of-hand rejection of the conclusion. Production of shoddy “rebuttal” studies is also a terrible move. It is important that conservatives embrace the findings of the scientific community as a) informative and b) inquisitive. Aligning with researchers in their fundamental motive – unlocking the secrets of the natural world – is a good strategic motive for people of all political persuasions. As long as it is ethical and sound, all research is good research.
— mattc · Jul 12, 12:20 AM · #
mattc:
I did a follow-up article in NRO that goes to some of this, called “Science Without Experiments”:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmU0NTA3MjM2OGY0OWQyYmZlNGRmZDZhOTkwNzIzYjA
Jim
— Jim Manzi · Jul 12, 02:54 AM · #
In the matters of genetics and intelligence, of course, the shoe is on the other foot — it is liberals who attack the science because they (rightly) fear a devastating blow to their worldview. Watson gives it 10 years (http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1488-3.html). Should be fun!
As for climate science, I suggest checking out Mcintyre’s Climate Audit. He’s the guy who got NASA to fix their erroneous temperature data (eliminating the “hottest years were in the 1990’s” factoid). Hansen and Michael Mann are con artists who refuse access to their code and data.
— alpha · Jul 12, 03:24 AM · #
The current (presumptive) Republican Presidential nominee was one of the first senators to get aboard the global warming bandwagon, and he voted twice to overturn the Bush administration policy limiting stem cell research.
In this context the “Republican War On Science” seems more like an opposition-party rallying cry from the last war than a useful description of Republican ideology.
— aldo · Jul 12, 02:12 PM · #
Jim, you write: Mr. West claims that Neo-Darwinism asserts “that the evolution of life was an unplanned process of chance and necessity.” While some scientists may say that, there is no such scientific finding. It is true that any hypothesized teleology in the development of humans would be so difficult to determine through current methods that scientists appropriately proceed as if this were true when conducting operational science; but that it is a very far cry from saying that it is scientifically proven to be true.
I think you are focusing on the wrong end. The implication of evolutionary theory — and note, I’m talking about the paradigm itself, regardless of and removed from data and detail — is this: God is not a necessary cause of human existence.
This is what Nietzsche was talking about. When God is not necessary, he’s superfluous. When God is superfluous, he’s dead.
— JA · Jul 12, 03:29 PM · #
Caveat to the above: To be precise, I should have said “tinkering God” or “historical God”; for all we know, a sufficiently-abstracted God is still a necessary cause of the universe.
As to your “hypothesized teleology in the development of humans”, it depends on how you think about it. I think Dawkins’ concept of the Selfish Gene gives evolution a teleology of sorts (i.e., immutable constraints fuse into unintended purpose), just not a meta-physical one.
— JA · Jul 12, 03:54 PM · #
(Mi dispiace, one more thing.)
This “hypothesized teleology” of the Selfish Gene is the basis for fields like evolutionary psychology, ethology and sociobiology. In those classrooms you hear reference to the “ultimate cause” of traits and behaviors, which is functionally equivalent to Aristotle’s telos or “final cause.”
— JA · Jul 12, 04:18 PM · #
As alpha reminds me, those who propagate race science always focus on whether or not it’s true (which is important, for sure), but consistently refuse to describe what they think should be done in response to it. If it is true that black people are inherently unintelligent and predisposed to criminality, what then? Hereditarians, who as a group have no lack of pride or candor, are remarkably coy about what they think should be done. I have guesses as to why that might be so, but I’m really just interested in what someone like alpha thinks we should do. Because if you are going to say that you’re merely acting descriptively, than you’re really not saying anything at all. If there’s no consequences for society, why bring it up?
— Freddie · Jul 12, 06:20 PM · #
A little off topic, but has anyone seen the “crackergate” meltdown at the remarks about the mass host being a a “cracker”? If you haven’t, the thousands of supportive remarks at PZ Meyers Pharyngula blog site and also at Richard Dawkins are quite incredible…
Apparently “Mad Dog” Donohue at the Catholic League has his panties in a twist over remarks PZ made on his private blog site and has started a campaign to get Meyers fired from his job teaching biology at the University of Minnesota. From the letters and emails printed there that will be sent to the President of UofM it looks like the whole faux outrage campaign may have backfired…check it out, it’s lots of serious and snarky fun!
— wagonjak · Jul 12, 07:46 PM · #
“In a Darwinian worldview, even God himself cannot know how evolution will turn out.”
Huh? There is nothing about the modern evolutionary theory that would in principle preclude prediction of future evolution with 100% accuracy if you have sufficient knowledge of the initial conditions (unless you assert that quantum mechanics is both inherently acausal and necessary for prediction of phenomena on the required scale). Mr. West doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
— Generalissimus · Jul 12, 07:54 PM · #
Jim, in that article you write, “Pretension and prestige aside, science is a first cousin to engineering, but a very distant relation to philosophy.” [emphasis mine]
I can’t agree.
Science is a “best method” with which to confront the problem of epistemology, and the problem of epistemology lies at the core of philosophy.
This is why Nietzsche starts The Will to Power, Book III with: “It is not the victory of science that distinguishes our nineteenth century, but the victory of scientific method over science. . . History of scientific method, considered by Auguste Comte as virtually philosophy itself. . . The most valuable insights are arrived at last; but the most valuable insights are methods.”
(Sorry for referencing Nietzsche twice in the same thread. Bad form).
— JA · Jul 12, 10:59 PM · #
Jim, after massive cogitation I finally get the whole IDT thing.
Our society values science and upper level education uber alles.
The greatest good for offspring in contemporary American culture is undeniably a college education.
But what about the 40percent, Dr. Pournelle’s machine operators and factory workers, Reihan’s heart-of-american-working-class, Jefferson’s “yeoman farmers”?
Religion is their identity, their self-esteem.
They want respect.
Thus the frenzied attempt to equivocate IDT with ToE as a peer theory.
And the frenzied attempt to force it into public highschools and secular unis.
Thus Expelled.
The meme is, “hey, we 40percentercers are just as smart as you snobby scientists and academics—we are smart in a different way, the way that really matters.
God-smart.”
You can see this all over the intertubes. At Volokh there were several threads about a study demonstrating very high dislike for evangelicals and mormans in academe.
Several evangelicals showed up to argue bible passages.
wtf???
They were demonstrating erudity, they were representing, lol.
Like I asked the Derb, how do you tell 100 million people that they just are not college material?
The thing about Science, is that while all men are equal under the law, not all men are equal under the genes. ;)
Not everyone can do science.
See Murray on the bellcurve and educational romanticism, see Richard Lynn’s new paper on intelligence and religion.
Sir Richard is wrong. Religion is not the cause of the worlds ills. The selfish genes are. Religion is simply what ppl do for self-esteem when they cant do science.
:(
— matoko_chan · Jul 13, 01:10 PM · #
JA, et al:
I agree that it is a sociological reality that evolution undermines traditional religiosity. In the article I said that:
— Jim Manzi · Jul 13, 01:39 PM · #
JA:
I accept that when I say:
“Pretension and prestige aside, science is a first cousin to engineering, but a very distant relation to philosophy.”
I am making a big statement that I do not prove in the article. I also recall that we have disagreed on this point in the past. I am working on a book right now that will incorporate my argument for this proposition (and a clarification of exactly what I mean by it).
— Jim Manzi · Jul 13, 01:41 PM · #
I also recall that we have disagreed on this point in the past.
Are we are seeing things the same, but speaking with semantic variations? Otherwise, I think you’re faced with a tremendous up-hill climb to show that science and philosophy are “very distant relations.”
You write, “Fortunately, it is possible to thread the intellectual needle: to defer to scientific explanations for non-ultimate physical processes, while still remaining within the central Judeo-Christian tradition.”
Yes, yes. But isn’t the quality of religion — for the voting majority, at least — the socially-amplified “experience” of a living, loving, active God? Is it not the feeling of an ever-present and interested Almighty that keeps the flock together; and one of the reasons we saw the consolidation of the severable animisms into the all-encompassing One of monotheism?
Yes, formal science has nothing to say about all this, as ultimate propositions are very much outside its purview, but in practice that can be quite beside the point: the scientific attitude, the positivist’s or pragmatist’s Weltanschauung, is oil to the holy water of doctrinal religion. Doctrinaire beliefs, in the main, are not robust enough to live underneath a scientific worldview — unlike, say, spirituality, which is, when discussing philosophy, much closer to the Existenzphilosophie side of the spectrum than the systematic, epistemological side that science addresses. To me, this means your quest to get the Christian right to embrace, not just scientific fact, but the value and preeminence of the scientific method in the “in-between” spaces of the universe, is a quixotic one: most people just aren’t inclined or able to hold, not the easier either/or, but much more difficult both/and of scientific materialism and doctrinaire belief.
That said, I’m very much looking forward to reading your book.
— JA · Jul 13, 05:12 PM · #
“…most people just aren’t inclined or able to hold, not the easier either/or, but much more difficult both/and of scientific materialism and doctrinaire belief….”
Inclination has nothing to do with it.
“Most people” are simply incapable. And the discriminant is IQ and g.
On the far right tail there are people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller and Stuart Hamerhoff and Roger Penrose that are BOTH thinkers and believers— but for the most part, it is intersection==null set.
— matoko_chan · Jul 13, 09:40 PM · #
also…..the xian right, socialcons, theocons, w/e you call them….need religion. Just what would you replace it with, Jim?
And IDT is pretty toothless at this point.
After Kitzmuller, IDT can never be taught in public school.
America is a litiginous society.
No matter how homogenously religious the parents of any given school district are, there will be some parent that will sue on Kitzmuller grounds, the separation of church and state.
— matoko_chan · Jul 13, 09:54 PM · #