Attempted Philosophy

Space is Big

As the saying goes:

“Space is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist, but that’s just peanuts to space.”
— Douglas Adams - The Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy

[A note for North American readers, the "chemist" is a pharmacy.]

This clip from BigThink by NASA Scientist Michelle Thaller tries to put that bigness in perspective:

These numbers are hard to imagine. VERY hard to imagine. That's one of the reasons I'm such a strong proponent of math education for everyone of all ages (beyond my own personal bias as a math major shining through.) The only way to learn to cope with these kinds of numbers is through training. Otherwise you'll be caught in the paradigm of JBS Haldane:

“My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”
— JBS Haldane

Math becomes the key that allows you to do all that hitherto impossible supposing. Or, if you'd rather think of the world in terms of awe and wonder, it gives you access to entirely different domains in which to be astonished.

Difficult to believe

Somehow an article snuck its way past the editor and onto the pages of the New York Times praising the benefits of (how I wish I were making this up) ASTROLOGY. It's an opinion piece by Krista Burton from the last few days and it's difficult to make sense of. 

I'll start at the end and work my way back. The article ends with the strange quasi-disclaimer: 

“Now, I’m not stupid. I may be a woo-woo, crystal-worshiping homosexual, but I know that a polished red rock is not going to heal my tailbone. It’s not going to bring my mom back either. It may not do a thing. But none of us know anything about anything, really. So why not be open to the possibility of hope?”

[Note, the author self-identifies as homosexual, so the term isn't being used here as a pejorative. JA]

First to the subject about knowing "anything about anything": Even though in 2018 it should go without saying, it apparently needs saying that all of the subjects which this article centres around — astrology, crystal healing, tarot cards — is nonsense. It is an entirely uncontroversial scientific fact. Just to make the point, smashing a walnut with a sledgehammer, here is an excerpt from a lecture given by Professor Richard Feynman (who happened to win the Nobel Prize for work which is still widely used today) gave in 1964 explaining the state of scientific knowledge. 

That statement is naturalism in a nutshell and perhaps one of the most profound discoveries in human history. This clip is 50 years old and is even more true now than it was then. 

We're allowed to call nonsense nonsense. But that's what makes the article troubling. It seems to be a call to take these ideas seriously, but rather a plea to be politely ignored so they can believe nonsense in private. 

It's an interesting moral dilemma. At what point does the value of being polite and courteous trump the value of being factually accurate? After all, if we're really supposed to have liberty, doesn't that include the liberty to believe things that aren't true and be left alone? And the answer would be a solid maybe but for the fact that she's published in the New York Times and therefore every silly thing she says is fair game.

Deep down, this is an article written in defence of The Placebo Effect — epistemological hedonism — if it makes you feel better, believe it. But this is something that needs to be fought, fake news aside. The reason she is in this situation is because of health concerns:

“...after seeing a doctor and two chiropractors, I was referred to a massage therapist/energy worker who worked out of a chiropractor’s office.”

So it's not reasonable to make the argument that these beliefs aren't causing harm. Because even if they themselves have no effect, she's wasting time that would otherwise be spent getting actual medical care. 

So perhaps we could (politely) try and put a stop to this.

On What Can Be Known

A wonderful short article appeared yesterday on the Scientific American blog about the limits of human knowledge — "How Much Can We Know?"

What makes my job truly special is that I get to show people things they can't explain. And — assuming I do my job well enough — they have no hope of explaining. But the fact that I can do this consistently means that what I do is not un-understandable, because clearly I understand it. Still I find many people are all to eager to rope off certain areas of inquiry, declaring in advance that no understanding is possible and therefore no attempt is necessary. 

The article begins 

““What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning,” wrote German physicist Werner Heisenberg, who was the first to fathom the uncertainty inherent in quantum physics. To those who think of science as a direct path to the truth about the world, this quote must be surprising, perhaps even upsetting. Is Heisenberg saying that our scientific theories are contingent on us as observers? If he is, and we take him seriously, does this mean that what we call scientific truth is nothing but a big illusion?”

But just like Darwin's treatment of the eye in On The Origin of Species this is a set-up. There is scientific light at the end of the tunnel:

“Sometimes people take this statement about the limitation of scientific knowledge as being defeatist: “If we can’t get to the bottom of things, why bother?” This kind of response is misplaced. There is nothing defeatist in understanding the limitations of the scientific approach to knowledge. Science remains our best methodology to build consensus about the workings of nature. What should change is a sense of scientific triumphalism—the belief that no question is beyond the reach of scientific discourse.”

Decisions decisions

Good advice is always better when delivered in a British accent: 

The one bit of advice I particularly like is to seek out hidden information. That's essentially how all magic works; concealing by hook or by crook the information that would otherwise allow you to figure out what's really going on. It's not that you're not smart, it's that the information you want is actively being kept from you.

Can you bend spoons with your mind?

I have quite a few friends who bend spoons in their shows. It's an incredibly powerful feat of magic, particularly if you happen to have owned the spoon prior to its being bent. In a conversation I had years ago with famed mentalist Richard Osterlind, he mentioned that bending metal was a magic trick so strong, magicians often didn't include it in their shows. Instead it became reserved for performers who would normally specialize in mindreading. 

I came across this video on "Psychokinesis" (within the field of magic, abbreviate as PK.) If you ever wondered what was going on when you saw cutlery bend, this may be of interest. In particular, they mention scientists who were able to acquire a spoon bent by the world-renowned magician Uri Geller* and subject it to testing, which I wasn't aware of:

Add magic to your next event!