A dialog with full orchestration

(orange for Reginald, the anti-science stalwart and eloquent wordsmith, and mauve for Pelham, the clunkier science proponent and, as it seems, scientist himself.)

Reginald: I wanted to say our conversation about the validity of science was very interesting. More than anything in life, I enjoy hearing opinions that differ greatly with my own, and I rarely get to hear them from someone with as much background in their own field to call me on my shit.

But it got me thinkin’, and I realized I had little to no knowledge about what you actually do and study. So, I guess that’s my question. What do you study Pelham?

Also, I’m working on an interesting research project, I was hoping you could put some input or ideas into. I’m trying to link the biological functions of the human mind to the technological functions of reproduction technologies, like computers or cassette tapes. More specifically, how the brain is able to transfer information and create physical impressions on the environment — bad example, but think ghosts — and how information is transcribed on an analog or digital medium.

Anyway, on my way home, I thought a lot about this, and thought of you. What do you think?

Pelham: I’m glad you want to talk about it. I enjoy the intersection of science and all the other important shit that makes us human.

Anyway, the things that you said in that one note were of course inconsequential, but they did seem a bit uninformed so let me try to give you an idea of my impression of science. It’s pretty simple. It’s record keeping. Humans, as is our nature, observe phenomena with our various senses. Scientists take these observations and look at them and try to use them to make predictions. People think that scientists want to write the history books or influence policy or whatever, and some of that may be true when people let their ideals get in the way, but at heart we’re just record keepers. A little more complicated, because there’s so much data everywhere nowadays, but record keepers.

Then we get to the one real problem with this: objectivity. Every expensive instrument that science uses is nothing more than a machine to amplify our senses, but who’s to say we can trust our senses? Questions like that have gone unanswered since ancient Greece and Zeno (well technically not Zeno, all his paradoxes got almost entirely disproven, aside from some quantum ambiguities but there’s no way he could have foreseen that). Well obviously we are not all simply hallucinating things: Everyone tends, for the most part, to agree on the observations of the world around us. Another option is that we are in the Matrix. Or I guess we are all a part of a dream that You’re having. Whatever. For all the bickering between one another, philosophical issues are not really something scientists can measure, so it’s not really in the scope of science. The same with God. But if we figure out a way, get fucking ready.

Ok, so that’s my description/defense of science. What I do is far more mundane. I’m a chemist. My focus is on the physical world, atoms n’ protons n’ shit. There’s an interesting little hierarchy about science. All its disciplines go from the abstract to the real in this manner: (Abstract) Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology (Real, or observable). Math is all about these abstract numbers and operations, physics is about how the universe uses those numbers, chemistry is the physical laws that we observe as dictated by physics, and so on. So chemistry is sort of right in this perfect mix of abstract and practical. More specifically I do analytical chemistry, which focuses on techniques of isolating and identifying chemicals and their concentrations in various matrices. I basically figure out how much stuff is in stuff. It’s pretty interesting and I understand it pretty well, but honestly, I’m kind of fed up with the scientific community these days and am in a state of searching, possibly one of the most transitory phases of my life. But enough about me, life is too short for the prattling of my existential dilemmas.

Now let’s think about this research thingy. Mostly I just have questions about what you mean, so perhaps let us keep a dialog open here? The interesting thing about the brain is how little we actually know about it in comparison to the rest of the body. I mean, we record and store information ourselves in a process that is sort of similar to the way a computer works, but if you are thinking of like downloading your consciousness sometime soon I wouldn’t hold out.

Reginald: Well said sir. I agree firmly and fully with all you have said, notably your views as a recorder. But it is here I also find my problems with science.

I remember one of my earliest science classes, where we had to categorize different animals based on their likeness. A simple exercise, I think we can both agree. I put the pigs with the whales, because they are both mammals, and the snakes with the turtles, because they are both reptiles. It wasn’t until some years latter that I realized and came to believe that most problems humans have come from an innate need to categorize the world around us. Categories in science, above all other disciplines, are used for simple and practical reasons. It makes sense. But it also has problems.

Categories are walls that hide the ‘true’ relationships of those within. Something is this, then it shouldn’t be this, but it sometimes is. To remedy this, we add complexity to already problematic system. We add order, species, family, and so on. More categories.

Trust me when I say I understand and respect the idea of a simple recorder. I am, after all, a trained journalist. Not to mention a human, which I believe to be the single greatest recorder this planet has ever known. Except for, you know, the fossil record. But the difference between, say, the fossil record and a journalist, is one thing – a human. A symbolic god with an ever dying body; fallible till the end. We have the capacity to create, use, and transfer symbols, now with the greatest of ease and speed. But at the same time, we are victims of our own animal tendencies. Symbols and categories are a way of fighting this, but we both know who wins. Nature, specifically death.

I bring up death if only because it is one of the few truths of this life. It is also a constant reminder that we are gods trapped in failing bodies. Thinking pieces of decaying biological waste. Which brings me the inherent bias of the human condition. Our bodies are flawed, as is our minds, and finally, our perception. Using these sorry tools to perceive the world and yearning for truth creates problems.

The world was once flat. It isn’t anymore. This is just the first example that springs to mind. I know it’s unfair, but at the same time is very telling. Science is a fluid discipline often given to the same base trends as culture. This is not always a bad thing, as a rigid structures will surely fall if given enough time. What was once true, no longer is. What is true, may not be so for very long. What is considered ‘modern science’ has occupied so little of our actual existence, that despite our efforts to attain an actual pattern to explain the world, it is still quite young.

This brings me to reproducibility and patterns.

We can agree that to create a pattern it takes at least two objects to signify reproduction. A pattern is not one object, but two. The scientific method obtains truth, or at least approval or disapproval, through the ability to reproduce the results of an experiment. It takes two baby, yet there is only one earth, and currently only one race of beings utilizing science to explain the universe. Statisticians have created equations predicting the probability of life on other planets. I’m sure you’ve seen the equation. It says the probability is very high, given the number of planets, suns, universes, etc. Yet this is no pattern. We have no other planet with life in order to base these predictions. No pattern can be created. We are but one.

In a similar vain, we can only verify, or at least try to verify, the principles which dictate life on Earth, life in this universe, or elsewhere, if we test them elsewhere. The laws seem to work here, but how do they fair in places we haven’t even seen yet? As a journalist, I believe it is a very easy job to record. Write what I see. But “I” is not “you” or “them.” Symbolic meaning never ever ever transfers 100 percent. It’s impossible to control meaning, and thereby perception.

Science as is stands today is a truly wonderful thing, and has brought many benefits to my life. Not because it is perfect, it’s not.

It just happens to be the best thing we have right now.

What more could a thinking pile of decaying biological tissue hope for?

Pelham: What exactly do you mean by ‘true’ relationships? You are suggesting some unearthly bond that snakes and pigs share that science will never be able to describe? I mean, more categories are needed to deal with the sheer number of data out there, making it cumbersome, complicated, and in many ways unattractive, but I don’t think science is willingly ignoring a thing unless there’s no measurable relationship to begin with. Can you help me out here with a more specific example?

Obviously we cannot perceive the world perfectly, just as us decaying hunks of meat as you say. But what we have on our side is the brilliance of the record keeping and the numbers game. Just as you said we have the ability to keep symbols and preserve our collective intelligence forever. Or you know till we wreck everything. But what we also have to complement that is a numbers game. We have a constant stream of new minds, fresh minds, minds that are imperfect but nonetheless add to the whole. New perspectives can be brought out. New ideas can be hashed. Old ideas make way for new ones and so on and so forth, course correcting and guiding our way. We learn from our mistakes. And it will not lead to perfection, which is by definition unattainable, but it will lead to things getting better and better, so long as we keep our humanity priority.

We once thought the earth was flat and frogs sprang up from the muddy bottoms of rivers. Now we know better. Do we know everything? No. Will we? probably not. Should we stop looking? Hell no.

Yes I am familiar with the Drake Formula (as I believe it is called, i’m not going to look it up) that designates a probability of advanced life similar to our own located elsewhere in the universe. First of all, if the universe is infinite, or expanding infinitely, then all probabilities go to one. In say a given region of space, there are a finite number of particles, and so given an infinite stretch of those regions, you’d eventually find any number of possible configurations of particles, including a lot where there is nothing, but a few where there’s life, and even one where life is exactly the same as life here (an infinite number of them, really if we are playing that game). So it’s not so much the issue here, there is certainly life in other places in the universe, as long as it’s as big as we think it is. Whatever that means.

So reproducibility and patterns: what constitutes a pattern? You say two objects. What does that even mean? Do they have to match somehow? What if we find life on another planet, and they are green skinned? Does that fulfill your requirement? What if we find a primordial soup that isn’t life yet? What if we find something that almost constitutes life? What is life? What if life isn’t what we think it is after all? How would you develop a pattern? Science is more prepared than your sketchy idea of what needs to be present in order for a pattern to occur. And what if life, through some magic joke in the cosmos, isn’t a pattern? We’re alone in the universe, some fluke. Does that mean we aren’t important?

Sadly, it takes more than two. Two objects in a sea of randomness does not constitute a pattern. Seeing two 5’s right next to each other in pi does not mean 5 is a pattern. A pattern would require an element, and a correct prediction. So we could stab in the dark and find another planet with life, and it would be not a pattern. Seeing a certain element and being able to predict a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. would a pattern. And as unlikely as that is, we would forever be reanalyzing what constitutes this pattern. However, it existing and us finding it are two very different things.

Nobody thinks science is perfect. It will not lead us to the perfect truth about the universe. It is imperfect. Or rather, it is a tool in imperfect hands. Which is, I think, a pretty beautiful thing to have.

You said it man, it is the best we can do with what we have. I agree totally.

Reginald: I knew as soon as I was typing ‘true’ I was making a misstep, so let me explain. I spent a majority of last summer reading Richard Dawkins “The Ancestors Tale” which is a backwards taxonomy of evolution from us to cells. What struck me, as Dawkins comically notes time and time again, is the seemingly arbitrary nature some creatures inhabit on the family tree. This isn’t a big problem when it comes to snakes and pigs, but it is a rather glaring error when it comes to the classification of our nearest relatives. Often a simple prefix can change how we see ourselves in relationship to Lucy. Or how Lucy interacted with her contemporaries. Or if her contemporaries were actually family — or if they’re not. This is fine, if it was for the often silly explanations is to why one bipedal ape isn’t the same as the next. Like you said one response back, it is simple politics, arrogance, and a yearning to be first (I suspect) that create these problems. The evidence is there, the data is sound. It is the interpretation in the hands of man that is the problem. The observer.

Editor’s Note: (link to lecture these two gentlemen are discussing)

Anyway. I did find the lecture very interesting for sure. What I had trouble grappling with is the death of free will. I don’t believe I’m ready cede that just yet. What first occurred to me when I heard that was my religion class, where I was first told I had no free will. You said if God exists he is an equation. Which variable represents his divine plan?

So, I suppose in an infinite universe that could have infinite Reginald’s doing infinite iterations of actions, could have infinite predictability. Sure, ok. But does that mean no free will? Perhaps I’m showing my inherent human bias (arrogance?) toward this issue. Does predictability translate into the absence of sentience? Choice? We might be able to predict a rat’s eventual path in a maze, but at some point it must first choose right or left. What do you think?

Faith is defined by believing in something without evidence. Science, as we culturally define it, is a theory in context to evidence. Or observation. Where faith and science meet for me is skepticism. What I thought immediately after listening to the lecture is how it reinforces skepticism. Shouldn’t all theories elicit such a response?

I bet we can agree there. The best scientist is a continually skeptical one. As is the best journalist.

As an aside, I’m was hoping if you could point to some good resources on how our brain sends and receives information? Or how our body interacts with the electro-magnetic spectrum? What are your thoughts on the matter?

Pelham:Free will is important, but it is only important because we believe we have it. The truth is indeterminable, as usual. But I still love sunsets and oceans and new experiences, and being sentient. What does it matter if there’s a book no one can read that has all my future actions in it? It’s presence isn’t really relevant to me unless I can see it. And I stand by that analogy. God=deity we can’t fully understand=equation we can’t fully describe. Prove me otherwise.

Don’t confuse the english idea for theory with the scientific definition of theory. I mean, you aren’t going to question (the theory of) gravity every time you use it, are you? And proposed theories like string theory and that multiverse theory help muddy the issue, but don’t take them too seriously; there’s no real evidence here and it’s all supposition. Skepticism is what science has that religion cannot.

And finally, this. Not that you haven’t seen this yet, but here we have pretty solid evidence that the brain can emit signals to the world around it. I suspect that this particular situation is a bit more staged than you would want it to be. Obviously a computer took a great deal of training and effort to learn and decode a simple command from the brain waves of the chimp. But it’s progress.

Regarding Lucy: It certainly is a tough thing to do. It’s a tired old cliche to bring out, but the mental picture of trying to complete a 500 piece puzzle with 30 or so pieces is pretty telling. There’s just so much we don’t know that everyone takes a guess at the truth of it all. Which leads to the arrogance, and the bias, because the loudest voice in the room is the one that gets attention.. Some of the grossest hoaxes in scientific history occur in paleontology, simply because it’s so easy to fake it. Cosmology is sort of the same way. It’s harder to fabricate, but just as easy to come up with weird shit sometimes.

The self correcting path is not for the impatient, and you have to be prepared to be wrong. People could do well to remember that.

And I clevery avoided answering your question about free will. You want to believe there is a difference between predictability and free will. There was another New York lecture that exhibited a somewhat intricate experiment. They attached an electrode to a man’s brain and the man made a simple choice- to raise his finger. He would choose the appropriate moment to do it. But the electrogram showed his brain sparking up his motor cortex a full several seconds before his mind made the decision to raise the finger. His brain had already made the decision before his mind did. So apparently our minds, that part of the brain which we consult to make a decision, is not the full authority in the matter, which begs the question what is?

(At this point in the dialog the writing becomes hard to read.  If I can decipher more I will post it.)