Good illustration of social science moving from Newtonian to Darwinian understanding of human behavior.Read More
Intelligent design assumes that complicated things are only caused by design. It's wrong in the area of complex biological miracles like the human eye; it's equally wrong in complex systems of human interaction like the stock market. Another complex human system might be called "American Higher Education." That system effectively transmits a racial hierarchy of whites over blacks down through history and forward into the future. Where do we look for the racist who designed that system to have those racist results?Read More
That's why the media jumps to meta-stories about who is up and who is down: it's a story. It's not boring. But it's still "objective" because they don't take sides about whether what is "up" is better or worse than what is "down."
The partisan press reigned for more than a century and witnessed Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, The New Deal and zero unwinnable wars. On the flip side, it also witnessed (and did nothing to stop) Jim Crow.Read More
The Reformation included Henry VIII disolving the monasteries and commandeering their wealth. How will our modern monasteries be treated in coming years?
Poor people, rich people, where we put our money, and the absurdity we believe to justify the difference...Read More
I complain a lot about how social sciences like economics and political science march forward, oblivious to the fact that Darwin has superseded the Newtonian reasoning that they have inherited down through the generations. But the fact is, many biologists have a hard time with it.
The study of cancer has long proceeded along Newtonian lines. Doctors look for a discrete chain of causation, a gene or a toxin, that makes a normal cell become cancer. Then that cell makes more cancer. Eventually, more cancer gets big enough that it goes on the move and finds a new home as it metastasizes. By then it's far too late. The cure for cancer lies in finding the gene or finding the toxin and stopping it. In the meantime, the treatment is to kill those cells. In both cases there's a chain of causation and you try to cut it.
Turns out, not every cancer gene causes cancer. Most of the time a toxin does nothing. The cause usually doesn't cause anything. The tissue, the body, the person is a habitat and cancer usually does not survive. Would you study pandas but ignore bamboo? Would you not notice what causes bamboo forests to thrive... vs what causes them to be destroyed?
From the New Yorker, The Invasion Equation, by Siddhartha Mulherjee: