tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post6882742440227954031..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Is tribalism genetic?Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-43599398622578232592018-01-13T11:10:45.318-05:002018-01-13T11:10:45.318-05:00Interesting article, thx. Whether cultural or gene...Interesting article, thx. Whether cultural or genetic, fave long suspected I'm missing the 'Tribal gene' and have always had zero affinity for 'group activities' or any sorta 'teams', and I could care less about Sports, Religion or Nationalism. Both parents were also very similar 'loner' types, despite coming from large families and traditionally 'tribal' cultures themselves, and neither of my siblings seems to be much of a 'joiner'. <br /><br />So as powerful as 'culture' is, would personally tend to go with the genetic explanation for our Tribal instincts. Although if so, it would suggest that we're basically 'hard-wired', one way or the other, which isn't particularly promising for the prospect of overcoming its negative effects that seem to be sweeping the world these days... ironically following, or perhaps even precipitated by the dissolution of worldwide cultural, aka 'tribal' boundaries via the interwebs.mathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814130089305273702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-39074795118315948692009-10-28T15:46:00.447-04:002009-10-28T15:46:00.447-04:00I happen, personally, to be convinced that global ...I happen, personally, to be convinced that global climate is really changing and that a lot of it is anthropogenic. I want us to do something to stem the changes. But why? I don't look at the evidence with a professionally skilled eye. Do you? If so, then your view may be more solidly grounded than mine. Otherwise, we're accepting the word of people whose word we choose to respect. Often that fits our personal preferences.<br /><br />People testifying before Congress, journalists, and even scientific papers are colored to favor their authors' views. 'Colored' does not mean falsified, but we all come to the table with our own agendas, and usually with preconceptions as well.<br /><br />There are articles, even by respected non-flat-earth geoclimatologists that question the nature or at least the magnitude of effects, their source, and the degree to which they are part of natural geo-episodes or are anthropogenic. The net conclusion one comes to has a subjective element as to how each part of evidence is weighed.<br /><br />There are even, of course, those (mainly Republicans and Libertarians?) who say quite truthfully that the earth will survive whatever we do to it. Let's eat, drink, and be merry and cash in our stock coupons while we can. What the hell--we may not survive, and New York or the Maldives may not survive (I'd rue the Maldives, but New York? It depends on who wins the World Series). But as a species we'll adjust, our economies will adjust, and even humans will manage. Yes, there may be wars, starvation, dislocation, and even pestilence. But they have always been with us. <br /><br />Or,even if it's curtains for Homo sapiens, it's part of evolution and is natural. Many other species will say it's about time we had our commupance.<br /><br />I'm not of that ilk, but it is a lgegitimate way to assess the nature of the evidence and what to do about it. I find that view selfish and objectionable, and perhaps you do, too. But that doesn't make us right no matter how convinced we are that we are right.<br /><br />Anyway, if you don't agree in this instance, there are many other examples of things in science that everybody knew to be true, but that were later shown not to be. And many times that is because theories are underdetermined.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-66323376499258084592009-10-28T11:12:12.501-04:002009-10-28T11:12:12.501-04:00Dear Ken Weiss: What do you think about the testim...Dear Ken Weiss: What do you think about the testimony in the Senate re GW. You can read it at the WAPO. Oct. 28. Google, "A Senator in a Hostile Climate," by Dana Milbank.Fixed Carbonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06321707907871138659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-18132420779356453882009-10-27T15:22:53.562-04:002009-10-27T15:22:53.562-04:00Arjun, as you suggest, much of this can just be le...Arjun, as you suggest, much of this can just be left to academic tinkering/tinkerers, but to me there are interesting epistemological and sociological questions, too. E.g., how do we determine cause and effect? How do we decide when a theory is 'done'? Why do people choose one competing theory over another? So much of how a theory gains heft and a following is beyond what we all learn about how to do science, and the scientific method, and yet an integral part of science, too.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-58523966686680840792009-10-27T14:54:26.876-04:002009-10-27T14:54:26.876-04:00Academics have the luxury of tinkering, but many d...Academics have the luxury of tinkering, but many don't. Also, money is distributed for research and application based, essentially, on advocacy resting in part on the interpretation of data. Vested interests arise from that.<br /><br />In some things, perhaps like the wave/particle duality, we know we are using the version of the presumed unitary truth that suits our needs. We don't claim that light is just a wave phenomenon. <br /><br />Different kinds of evidence can be brought to bear to defend various points of view. The real problem arises when there truly are multiple (often infintely many) theories that may fit the data.<br /><br />Evolution is one such area, often. Different relative contributions of population size, multiple functions, natural selection, organismal selection, etc. may give comparable fit to limited data. Those who see selection under every bed will create selective Just-So stories. Those who think life is more complex and chancy will construct drift-centered explanations.<br /><br />So long as we acknowledge the level of speculation, things are OK, and perhaps will lead to further investigation to find out more, rather than just to support one's own view.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-76822350123177524882009-10-27T14:34:38.880-04:002009-10-27T14:34:38.880-04:00This problem seems to arise most conspicuously whe...This problem seems to arise most conspicuously when we try to APPLY what we know, whether it be in the political or technological arena.<br /><br />Can't we just let academia tinker away at its curios?Arjunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388786712611397453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-39590643092786896162009-10-27T14:29:41.733-04:002009-10-27T14:29:41.733-04:00I like how you frame "Are we tribal for genet...I like how you frame "Are we tribal for genetic reasons, or is it cultural?" as a meta-question in regard to the examples of points of scientific contention preceding it.<br /><br />However, the question implies that the hypothetical causes are mutually exclusive.<br /><br />Although we are apt to consider two theories that describe a single phenomenon 'in competition' with one another, I can think of at least one case in which two theories describing the same phenomenon persist and in which they are seen to complement each other: the Valence Bond Theory (VBT) and the Molecular Orbital Theory (MOT) for describing how atoms bond to form molecules.<br /><br />In short, VBT states that given 2 atoms participating in a chemical bond, each atom donates one electron, and the resulting pair tends to stay in the vicinity of the bond.<br /><br />MOT describes the electrons of bonded atoms as more or less 'spread out' across the molecule.<br /><br />While both models share the same predictive power, VBT requires messier math, thus restricting its application to smaller molecules as compared to MOT. However, we can draw on concepts from VBT to give us a better idea of cerain aspects of chemical bonding, reactivity and structure (don't want to drown in detail here).<br /><br />Although we use both VBT and MOT to model bonding, it doesn't seem that they have been subsumed under an over-arching theory and hence they retain their epistemic autonomy while complementing each other.<br /><br />Regardless of this example I ask "Why should we care about underdetermination?" I suppose it provides a means of triage, an idea as to which garden path we should follow. <br /><br />But if one school of thought better describes a phenomenon than another and vice versa, why not allow both to develop, to each scale their own peaks and improve their respective vantages?Arjunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388786712611397453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-7026869027198882532009-10-27T12:30:49.529-04:002009-10-27T12:30:49.529-04:00I am a former meteorologist, but not a geologist n...I am a former meteorologist, but not a geologist nor climatologist, so can't claim to be an expert in the details. I also have no _personal_ doubts that (a) climate is in a warming period globally, (b) what humans do is chemically related to greenhouse and other effects that should lead to climate change, and (c) it is convincing enough that human activities are responsible that urgent remedial action is justified -- the safer bet even if there were some doubts.<br /><br />But underdetermined areas are those in which the information is incomplete enough that alternative explanations, either existing or imaginable, might equally well account for the data. So two points on an x-y plot of, say time vs some value, can always be fitted by a straight line, but that doesn't imply that they can't also be fitted by a curved line. If you have 4 variables but only 3 data points, you can fit many different 'theories'.<br /><br />In that sense, some legitimate scientists (not just flat-earthers) question how rigorously or how much we can attribute observed climate change data to the anthropogenic theory (since, for example, geologically climate has warmed and chilled countless times over the past many billions of years).<br /><br />Ours is not a denier's statement about climate change! As usual in our blog, we try to step back and observe more neutrally, and often comment on the degree and nature of commitment to a particular theory, or 'tribalism' as we refer to it, that is so common in science as well as other areas.<br /><br />There are many factors that affect any indivdiual's commitment to a particular worldview. Data themselves are not the whole story.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-45091425231205019142009-10-27T09:14:50.501-04:002009-10-27T09:14:50.501-04:00Sorry, not to be clear about this. To you or to m...Sorry, not to be clear about this. To you or to me, the causes of global warming may be determined, but our point is that different people can interpret the same body of evidence in different ways. This is as true with global warming as it is with evolution. Most Americans disavow both, in spite of piles of evidence. Why?Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-6720521817531017482009-10-27T08:56:14.175-04:002009-10-27T08:56:14.175-04:00Should you not justify your assertion that the cau...Should you not justify your assertion that the causes present global warming is "underdetermined"? What is the evidence in this case, and what would you accept as evidence for "determined"?Fixed Carbonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06321707907871138659noreply@blogger.com