Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-30-2010, 02:06 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-30-2010, 08:44 AM
cosmic_electrons_dancing cosmic_electrons_dancing is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism

"Is nature a battlefield? It depends on where you look."

Dr's Murray Bowen and Michael Kerr have long suggested that in reciprocal social systems, it is not so much "where" you look, but "how" you look, i.e. through what power of lens does one look.

http://www.amazon.com/Family-Evaluat...der_0393700569
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-30-2010, 09:26 AM
dwu dwu is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism

Wow, just wanted to say this bloggingheads was incredible. Educational, fascinating, a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon.
__________________
Culture Glutton
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-30-2010, 09:55 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism

Thanks for your excellent presentation! What I learned:

1) Within the group it makes sense to be an individual and act independently but when competing it makes sense to cooperate with members of your group.

2) In a harsh environment, organisms are more likely to cooperate than those from abundant environments do.

3) This bit sounds like a page from Edmund Burke's writings. (nice way they streamlined the digalink process)

4) We all have ideological commitments and look at science and nature through those lenses. Yep, I thought so. For example, some look at nature and see the hand of God along with the attendant interest God has in humans' welfare. Others look at nature and realize how unremarkable any individual really is.

5) My own opinion is that the scientist's political predilections may not poison the results of his research but that doesn't mean the politics don't influence the interpretation of the results.

6)a) Group selection isn't stable because an egoist can infiltrate the group and overtake the gene pool. b) kin selection may make the case for evolving group selection or altruism.

7) IMO, Trivers' 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' is a shorter version of Adam Smith's invisible hand.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 10-30-2010 at 10:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-30-2010, 11:18 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism

Very good. Most talks over evolution bore me but this one managed to capture my attention throughout the entire diavlog.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-30-2010, 01:08 PM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

The discussion about the more recent history of science was interesting, butthe discussion about the philosophical question of altruism at the beginning was really disappointingly bad from the point of view of philosophy. The discussion seemingly willfully ignores the distinction between two quite different questions, which our diavloggers state as though they were the same.
The philosophers' question is primarily, "how is it RATIONAL to be altruistic?" (where what the diavloggers later distinguish as "psychological altruism" is the intended meaning).
The scientific question is "given natural selection, how could biological altruism (and psychological altruism as a fairly reliable special case of the former) have arisen.
They run these two questions together at one point, restating the question "where did altruism come from?" (the second question) as "how does it make sense?" (potentially a version of the first).

Then at the end, they return to the distinction they've glossed over, but in a ridiculously touchy-feely, poetical way, maundering about the "feeling of heartache", vs. the release of oxytocin (a reference to a much different issue regarding whether the mental can be fully reduced to the physical).

The question that remains at the end is not how altruism feels, or something mysteriously unsayable, but rather the question of whether it is rational to act, not just altruistically, but morally (i.e., restricting one's pursuit of one's own or even one's group's interests with an eye to an impartial point of view), when, on a given occasion, one could do better for oneself or one's group by acting immorally but hypocritically (so as not to draw reprisals).
This is the philosophers' question that goes back in one form or another to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and which has received fairly clear statements since that time. It isn't in the mystical realm whereof one cannot speak, and it's quite different from the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness that they seem to be conflating it with in the end. (This problem too can receive a fairly clear statement -- one really can speak of it -- see Thomas Nagel's delightful paper "What is it like to be a bat?", for a start.)

Last edited by Bloggin' Noggin; 10-30-2010 at 02:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-30-2010, 02:23 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Good discussion. Oren and Mark added some more information to the topic of group selection, altruism and self sacrifice. They gave nice examples in amoebas and insects of specialization, cooperation and self sacrifice.

Once the antecedents of altruism have been shown at even very primitive levels of life, the question of altruism in our species remains partially solved. Our own sentience brings mechanisms to enhance or trump biological tendencies. A second level, psychological altruism, is added, and is probably more malleable and dependent on cultural norms and variables that are not present in less developed species. How much of our altruism is driven by those biological tendencies and how much is driven by our capacity to reason about concepts such as right and wrong, solidarity, what we are as individuals in relationship to the group or the species as a whole, still remains unexplored by these authors. Obviously understanding our biological tendencies is a good place to use as a baseline reference. From there, we can see what we have developed as a product of our intellectual abilities interacting with the underlying biology.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-30-2010, 05:16 PM
jeffpeterson jeffpeterson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 63
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Very interesting dialogue. Altruistic note to Prof. Borrello for future on-camera discussions: Don't interrupt your dialogue partner so often (esp. "Right" every three seconds); the viewer can tell you're plenty smart without it, and it quickly becomes annoying.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-30-2010, 05:56 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Would rather listen to discussion of the evolution of intelligence

I am still looking to understand how it is that animals evolve intelligence. Why, in all cases other than humans, does the intelligence of a species hit a ceiling and stop increasing despite the relentless application of the survival of the fitest facts of life.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-30-2010, 06:18 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffpeterson View Post
Very interesting dialogue. Altruistic note to Prof. Borrello for future on-camera discussions: Don't interrupt your dialogue partner so often (esp. "Right" every three seconds); the viewer can tell you're plenty smart without it, and it quickly becomes annoying.
Its unfair to imply that Prof. Borrello's habit comes from a desire to impress viewers with his intelligence. Its more likely the habit comes from the pleasure of intellectual intercourse. Something similar to the endearing habit of some people to repeat..'yes', 'yes', 'yes' during sexual intercourse. Cut an enthusiastic intellectual a break why don't you?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-30-2010, 06:23 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Would rather listen to discussion of the evolution of intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
I am still looking to understand how it is that animals evolve intelligence. Why, in all cases other than humans, does the intelligence of a species hit a ceiling and stop increasing despite the relentless application of the survival of the fitest facts of life.
Why do you say the intelligence of humans has not hit a ceiling? Do you really think humans are more biologically intelligent today then the first homo sapiens were? Isn't there a difference between cultural capital and biological intelligence?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-30-2010, 06:39 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post

The question that remains at the end is not how altruism feels, or something mysteriously unsayable, but rather the question of whether it is rational to act, not just altruistically, but morally (i.e., restricting one's pursuit of one's own or even one's group's interests with an eye to an impartial point of view), when, on a given occasion, one could do better for oneself or one's group by acting immorally but hypocritically (so as not to draw reprisals).
This is the philosophers' question that goes back in one form or another to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and which has received fairly clear statements since that time. It isn't in the mystical realm whereof one cannot speak,
Many seemingly 'clear statements' in the history of philosophy has turned out to be highly contestable. I think the Bh'ers were quoting Ludwig Wittgenstein who was a philosopher. I think they were attributing to him the philosophical position that we don't have the conceptual apparatus to answer some questions we are able to ask. While, if this was his position, it was a philosophical one, the Bh'ers seem to be extrapolating that to include the idea that science, as a rational enterprise, also has these limitations when it comes to certain human issues.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-30-2010, 07:09 PM
jeffpeterson jeffpeterson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 63
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Its unfair to imply that Prof. Borrello's habit comes from a desire to impress viewers with his intelligence. Its more likely the habit comes from the pleasure of intellectual intercourse. Something similar to the endearing habit of some people to repeat..'yes', 'yes', 'yes' during sexual intercourse. Cut an enthusiastic intellectual a break why don't you?
Fair enough on the attribution of motive, but the comment (however badly phrased) was in fact meant to help; I have to fight a similar habit, and I realized it was a problem my third year of teaching when it was lampooned by students in a Christmas party skit, to hilarious but mortifying effect. (My tendency to interrupt is a combination of enthusiasm and insecurity, which I wouldn't think uncommon in intellectuals.) Apologies for any offense given.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-30-2010, 07:36 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Will there always be heartache?

Oren wonders whether understanding the nature of heartache will make it go away? Don't worry, pain will always hurt, emotional pain most of all. Maybe sexual selection has something to do with it? Heroes risk death on the battlefield dreaming of honor, fame, glory, and the love of beautiful women when they get back home. Others worry themselves sick about the future of liberal democracy. But these are only tiny minorities. Aren't there frequentist theories that come into play in cases like these? Maybe these two guy will come back.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-30-2010, 08:32 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
(This problem too can receive a fairly clear statement -- one really can speak of it -- see Thomas Nagel's delightful paper "What is it like to be a bat?", for a start.)
I should look before I speak but I want to astound you with my knowledge. Didn't Thomas Nagel write The View from Nowhere? I believe, in very crude and simplistic terms (mine), he argues that it is rational to be moral because at the end of the day we really mean nothing except to ourselves. If we give importance to ourselves then it is only right to give that same importance to everyone else.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-30-2010, 08:35 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Would rather listen to discussion of the evolution of intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
I am still looking to understand how it is that animals evolve intelligence. Why, in all cases other than humans, does the intelligence of a species hit a ceiling and stop increasing despite the relentless application of the survival of the fitest facts of life.
Well maybe if you're really interested, you should read a few books on the subject. You don't have to believe them, but give them a try. Steven Pinker alludes to your questions in all of his books but right off the bat, I'd recommend How the Mind Works.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-30-2010, 08:39 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Would rather listen to discussion of the evolution of intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Why do you say the intelligence of humans has not hit a ceiling? Do you really think humans are more biologically intelligent today then the first homo sapiens were? Isn't there a difference between cultural capital and biological intelligence?
I'm pretty sure the standard answer for this is that the first humans were as intelligent as we are today. Yes?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-30-2010, 09:03 PM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Thank you. I was aware that Wittgenstein was a philosopher.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-30-2010, 09:16 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
Thank you. I was aware that Wittgenstein was a philosopher.
geez, noggin, at least tell me if I'm right about Nagel. Pleez!
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-30-2010, 09:39 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

very little to add, other than my two thumbs up on this DV.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-30-2010, 10:07 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
Thank you. I was aware that Wittgenstein was a philosopher.
Were you aware of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1MgCV6uGuc
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-30-2010, 11:02 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
I drink therefore I am.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-30-2010, 11:12 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I drink therefore I am.
To the bottom!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-31-2010, 02:17 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default A conspiracy ...

... so vast ...

My favorite Haldane story:

Quote:
There is a story, possibly apocryphal, of the distinguished British biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, who found himself in the company of a group of theologians. On being asked what one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of his creation, Haldane is said to have answered, “An inordinate fondness for beetles.”
Something I wish I had dingalinked: the bit near the beginning, when discussing how two people who both described themselves as strict Darwinists came to completely different conclusions about what it mean to be a Darwinist. I would like to imagine this would squelch once and for all the notion that it's useful to argue in terms such as "leftists think" or "as a libertarian, I ..." or "but since you are a Platonist, you must ..." and so on. (I do not actually expect this wish to be fulfilled. Probably because I neglected to dingalink.)

Thanks very much to Oren and Mark for a fascinating and instructive review of this his(and hers)tory.

[Added] The Haldane page on Wikiquote is pretty great, too.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 10-31-2010 at 02:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-31-2010, 02:22 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: A conspiracy ...

Quote:
Thanks very much to Oren and Mark for a fascinating and instructive review of this his(and hers)tory.
The story of George Price would make a great movie. Too bad Oren was rushed in giving a synopsis. Just the Wikipedia version has me intrigued.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-31-2010, 02:27 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
Thank you. I was aware that Wittgenstein was a philosopher.
That seems more like something I'd say, BN. Is the new reverse solidus in your username making you crabby? I hope not -- you should take pride in being escaped!

I don't think I can put it more clearly than Oren or Mark did, but I don't think whburgess was wrong to try to point out that we might get to a point where we say we have complete scientific understanding of something, like altruism, where we still feel like that's ... not the whole story. Or that we sense there are things left to say, but do not have the words for them.

And in the latter phrasing, I think this speaks particularly to what whb was saying -- while I agree that philosophers have been talking about altruism for a long time, such that it is not completely a "mystical realm whereof one cannot speak," it is also likely that what results from summing up what philosophers have said on this topic may be less than clear to some people, even those much better read than I.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-31-2010, 02:29 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: A conspiracy ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
The story of George Price would make a great movie. Too bad Oren was rushed in giving a synopsis. Just the Wikipedia version has me intrigued.
Agreed. And I say that merely from a quick skim of it while bookmarking it during the diavlog.

Only thing I dread? The inevitable lumping together of that movie with A Beautiful Mind.

[Added] But in any case, I'd like to read Oren's book, of course.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 10-31-2010 at 02:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-31-2010, 02:46 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Would rather listen to discussion of the evolution of intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I'm pretty sure the standard answer for this is that the first humans were as intelligent as we are today. Yes?
Yes, I'm pretty sure that would be the case. I'd assume an increased brain capacity would mean we had become another species.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-31-2010, 02:48 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: A conspiracy ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
The story of George Price would make a great movie. Too bad Oren was rushed in giving a synopsis. Just the Wikipedia version has me intrigued.
You might also like this Facebook page. Me, I'm tickled just that it exists.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-31-2010, 08:33 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Would rather listen to discussion of the evolution of intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Why do you say the intelligence of humans has not hit a ceiling? Do you really think humans are more biologically intelligent today then the first homo sapiens were? Isn't there a difference between cultural capital and biological intelligence?
I assume humans are getting smarter because of the disparity in intelligence levels of the population. But yeah, there appear to be a lot of unanswered questions regarding the evolution of intelligence of animals and humans.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-31-2010, 11:08 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I should look before I speak but I want to astound you with my knowledge. Didn't Thomas Nagel write The View from Nowhere? I believe, in very crude and simplistic terms (mine), he argues that it is rational to be moral because at the end of the day we really mean nothing except to ourselves. If we give importance to ourselves then it is only right to give that same importance to everyone else.
Hi badhat (or do you prefer "harry"?),
Yes, Nagel did write The View from Nowhere and for a two-sentence summary, you are close. It's been a while since I read the book myself, but I would say that you are probably getting one thing a little backwards. You say "it's only right to give importance to everyone else" -- this seems to employ a moral explanation (fairness), where Nagel is trying to explain why we should be fair.
As you say, Nagel admits that from a purely objective point of view -- the view from nowhere -- nothing whatever has any importance. But we can't help treating our own lives as though they were important -- this is the origin of the sense that life is absurd. He doesn't think there's a complete way out of that cognitive dissonance, but he thinks we can come close. Suppose that instead of taking up the point of view of a purely passive intellectual observer, we abstract away everything but our rational agency. Any agent is going to have to treat his own ends as important just because they are his (or hers, or its). If it is to be rational for me to treat my own goals as important simpliciter (particularly where I expect others to allow me to pursue them), then I must regard it as rational for every rational agent to regard his own goals in the same way. To deny that your goals have any importance (except in the case where your goals are themselves based on the denial of the importance of rational agents and their goals) is to deny the importance of my own goals. To treat your goals as unimportant just because they are not mine, while at the same time treating my own goals as important because they are mine is, therefore irrational on Nagel's view, and this irrationality explains why unfairness is ultimately irrational.

I was invoking a quite different part of Nagel's philosophy -- also discussed in _The View from Nowhere_ -- his argument that we really are not in any position at the moment to understand what a reduction of consciousness to physical processes could look like. Attempts to show us how such reductions are possible always change the subject and try to show us how something ELSE (not conscious experiences but e.g., computer simulations of conscious experiences) is reducible to physical processes.
His attitude isn't really like the Wittgensteinian view that science says everything that can be said, but there's some unsayable, semi-mystical "beyond" that can't be said, though. He thinks that there really is something that we don't understand here and we can say what it is.

By the way, I highly recommend Nagel's early collection of essays _Mortal Questions_ to everyone with even the slightest curiosity about philosophy. They're about issues that seem immediately interesting to non-philosophers (e.g., death, the absurdity of life, sexual perversion) and yet they are wittily and lucidly written and really interesting -- and most are pretty short.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-31-2010, 11:11 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
How could I not be? I studied Monty Python before I studied philosophy.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-31-2010, 11:31 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
His attitude isn't really like the Wittgensteinian view that science says everything that can be said, but there's some unsayable, semi-mystical "beyond" that can't be said, though. He thinks that there really is something that we don't understand here and we can say what it is.
I haven't read Wittgenstein, and in a previous discussion in this forum I was strongly discouraged by other commenters to do it. I was left with the feeling that I would need to take a three year sabbatical in order to embrace that task, or that nature may not have given me the intellectual power to succeed.

But, leaving that aside, every time I hear about the general idea that you express above, I come up with my own understanding of the issue. A metaphor for that idea would be that science can find the rules that govern the objects that my eyes see, but can't say much about my hallucinations. There's a dimension that only exists in our mental realm which includes all our representations, abstractions, concepts, imaginations, questions, fears, desires, etc, that ultimately is unreachable due to its dynamic and fleeting nature. We can answer all questions and still come up with one more.

Again, this may have nothing to do with Wittgeinstein, but it is something that has always puzzled me.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-31-2010, 11:52 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
That seems more like something I'd say, BN. Is the new reverse solidus in your username making you crabby? I hope not -- you should take pride in being escaped!

I don't think I can put it more clearly than Oren or Mark did, but I don't think whburgess was wrong to try to point out that we might get to a point where we say we have complete scientific understanding of something, like altruism, where we still feel like that's ... not the whole story. Or that we sense there are things left to say, but do not have the words for them.

And in the latter phrasing, I think this speaks particularly to what whb was saying -- while I agree that philosophers have been talking about altruism for a long time, such that it is not completely a "mystical realm whereof one cannot speak," it is also likely that what results from summing up what philosophers have said on this topic may be less than clear to some people, even those much better read than I.

Well, I wasn't sure what to make of whb's response. Your clarification helps a little, but I guess I still feel puzzled how it is much of an answer to my objections.
I criticized the diavloggers for doing a hand-wavy "since the beginning of time" high schoolish introduction, where they try to show how philosophers have really always been asking the question that scientists (and our diavloggers) want to discuss without really attempting to understand what the philosophers were asking and the actual differences and similarities between the question at hand here and the questions that philosophers were asking.
And I was specific about the difference between what the philosophers were generally asking and the current question. I should say that there are many interesting commonalities between the questions and their answers, but sloppily treating them as the same thing without really understanding them just in order to get that high schoolish "since the beginning of time" opening struck me as a huge flaw in the diavlog.

Then, through not understanding what the philosophers were talking about, they end the diavlog by suggesting that what many philosophers have stated pretty clearly can't be stated at all.
I myself attempted here to explain what they were leaving out or confusing -- I didn't just say "but philosophers have been talking about this forever".

The response from whb, i didn't get at all. Your answer clarifies, I guess, that the point is that we shouldn't blame the diavloggers for not understanding philosophers. All right, I won't blame them for that, but I will still criticize the muddle-headedness of its treatment of the philosophy, and I'll still criticize them (as I did) for bullshitting their way through the philosophical stuff when they could have just started with Darwin.

My criticisms stand -- they are giving a highly misleading picture of the philosophical questions they claim to want to cover. I guess you both feel my rhetoric was too harsh. That's probably true -- I do get irritated that so many of those who approach altruism from the evolutionary perspective and yet hope to have something to tell philosophers about it as a result refuse to understand the philosophical conversation they are blundering into. If you've been defending Obama against the charge that his policies are extreme or bad or "socialist" and someone blunders into the middle of your conversation, and informs you in a superior voice "don't you know that the Democrats are going to lose the midterms?" as thought that were the question you were discussing -- it's annoying. And if it keeps happening over and over because people don't wait to see what you are actually talking about, then that's even more annoying and you may lash out a little to much at the most recent person to do it.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-31-2010, 12:32 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
How could I not be? I studied Monty Python before I studied philosophy.
Ah, a cosmopolitan.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-31-2010, 01:09 PM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
I haven't read Wittgenstein, and in a previous discussion in this forum I was strongly discouraged by other commenters to do it. I was left with the feeling that I would need to take a three year sabbatical in order to embrace that task, or that nature may not have given me the intellectual power to succeed.

But, leaving that aside, every time I hear about the general idea that you express above, I come up with my own understanding of the issue. A metaphor for that idea would be that science can find the rules that govern the objects that my eyes see, but can't say much about my hallucinations. There's a dimension that only exists in our mental realm which includes all our representations, abstractions, concepts, imaginations, questions, fears, desires, etc, that ultimately is unreachable due to its dynamic and fleeting nature. We can answer all questions and still come up with one more.

Again, this may have nothing to do with Wittgeinstein, but it is something that has always puzzled me.
Actually, I think Wittgenstein is in many ways quite easy to read -- at a superficial level, he writes lucidly and beautifully. It's harder to figure out exactly what he is doing. He's engaged in a conversation with other philosophers (and, in the case of the later philosophy, his own earlier self), but most of the time you are only hearing his side of the conversation as though you were overhearing him on the phone. Really understanding him is a matter of being able to reconstruct the part of the philosophical conference call that you aren't hearing.

I wouldn't at all discourage you from reading him -- I think it can be inspiring and worth chewing on. I'd just counsel against the trap that some people fall into of imagining, because you aren't hearing the other side of that conversation, that what he says is the last word and the other people on the conference call have all been left speechless. I'd just recommend supplementing the reading of Wittgenstein with the reading of a good book about Wittgenstein that attempts to put him in context. I've read Anthony Kenny's book, which I think is somewhat helpful.

As for your general issue, my own way of thinking about it is through the analogy of a landscape painter who paints an accurate videw of what he sees before him. He suddenly thinks, "but wait a second, I haven't painted the whole truth -- I've painted from a point of view, but that point of view isn't in the painting. How can I repaint my painting so that my point of view is included in the painting itself? First he tries paiting his previous picture from a few paces back and including himself (from the back painting his first picture. But, wait a minute! What he is doing now is painting his old point of view in his new picture -- the point of view of the new picture is not itself included in the new picture. He can step back yet again and paint himself painting himself painting the landscape, but the same problem keeps arising.

The scientific approach of putting our own point of view aside, stepping back from it, is very effective at many things, but it isn't going to work when it comes to understanding our subjective point of view itself.

The scientist, for example, is supposed to examine only positive facts -- what is the case, not what should be done. But if you are to understand science itself, you need to re-invoke the normative questions about whether a certain inference is rationally warranted. Without that, you end up with the sociology of science, which treats scientific endeavor as if it were just another custom, like the rain dance or a poetry slam.

If we accept that the scientist deals only with positive facts and empirical claims, and that these exclude evaluative questions like "what conclusion is warranted based on these data?" it seems that there are questions about science that cannot fall within science -- in the current example, these questions would be the philosophy of science, which cannot itself be a science. I'm inclined to believe that these questions can themselves be well-formed, and that they can themselves receive better and worse answers. To the degree that I understand Wittgenstein, he believed that these last questions -- these philosophical questions, were not genuine questions at all and that they didn't have answers in the usual sense. Philosophical problems, were, on his view, less like scientific problems and more like psychological problems -- the answer to them was not an answer, but rather a sort of therapy that could help you see the world in a way such that you no longer expected an answer of any sort.

Lest I give too much ammunition to those who want to be dismissive of philosophy, I should say that Wittgenstein's approach to eliminating these questions was NOT simply to dismiss the questions as bunk, but rather to make observations about the way the "problems" arise that a philosopher of my ilk might regard as illuminating materials for an answer. Even if there were no real "answers" an even if those last questions weren't really questions, he still would have found it necessary to continue to ask them and to continue to dissolve them, if not answer them.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-31-2010, 02:10 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
Actually, I think Wittgenstein is in many ways quite easy to read -- at a superficial level, he writes lucidly and beautifully. It's harder to figure out exactly what he is doing. He's engaged in a conversation with other philosophers (and, in the case of the later philosophy, his own earlier self), but most of the time you are only hearing his side of the conversation as though you were overhearing him on the phone. Really understanding him is a matter of being able to reconstruct the part of the philosophical conference call that you aren't hearing.

I wouldn't at all discourage you from reading him -- I think it can be inspiring and worth chewing on. I'd just counsel against the trap that some people fall into of imagining, because you aren't hearing the other side of that conversation, that what he says is the last word and the other people on the conference call have all been left speechless. I'd just recommend supplementing the reading of Wittgenstein with the reading of a good book about Wittgenstein that attempts to put him in context. I've read Anthony Kenny's book, which I think is somewhat helpful.
Thank you for the tips and the encouragement.

Quote:
As for your general issue, my own way of thinking about it is through the analogy of a landscape painter who paints an accurate view of what he sees before him. He suddenly thinks, "but wait a second, I haven't painted the whole truth -- I've painted from a point of view, but that point of view isn't in the painting. How can I repaint my painting so that my point of view is included in the painting itself? First he tries painting his previous picture from a few paces back and including himself (from the back painting his first picture. But, wait a minute! What he is doing now is painting his old point of view in his new picture -- the point of view of the new picture is not itself included in the new picture. He can step back yet again and paint himself painting himself painting the landscape, but the same problem keeps arising.
Yes, the artist's view is similar to what I tried to express by "hallucinations", one's own version of the view. The image of the painter painting himself and receding ad infinitum is also particularly meaningful.

Quote:
The scientific approach of putting our own point of view aside, stepping back from it, is very effective at many things, but it isn't going to work when it comes to understanding our subjective point of view itself.
Yes. After I wrote my previous comment, I walked away to do other things and I was thinking about an aspect that I didn't really define clearly. It isn't about our individual subjective states but rather about our subjective constructs (as you said, the painter's point of view). We really lack the natural ability to separate our point of view from the view itself. So, that point of view, our subjective construction of reality, is either enmeshed with objective reality, or it becomes fleeting, always escaping, moving beyond.

Quote:
The scientist, for example, is supposed to examine only positive facts -- what is the case, not what should be done. But if you are to understand science itself, you need to re-invoke the normative questions about whether a certain inference is rationally warranted. Without that, you end up with the sociology of science, which treats scientific endeavor as if it were just another custom, like the rain dance or a poetry slam.

If we accept that the scientist deals only with positive facts and empirical claims, and that these exclude evaluative questions like "what conclusion is warranted based on these data?" it seems that there are questions about science that cannot fall within science -- in the current example, these questions would be the philosophy of science, which cannot itself be a science. I'm inclined to believe that these questions can themselves be well-formed, and that they can themselves receive better and worse answers. To the degree that I understand Wittgenstein, he believed that these last questions -- these philosophical questions, were not genuine questions at all and that they didn't have answers in the usual sense. Philosophical problems, were, on his view, less like scientific problems and more like psychological problems -- the answer to them was not an answer, but rather a sort of therapy that could help you see the world in a way such that you no longer expected an answer of any sort.
The idea of frame of reference comes to mind. It seems that he is saying that there's no objective answer to philosophical problems/ questions, but rather a way of changing the perspective, the frame of reference so that the lack of an answer is no longer an obstacle.

Quote:
Lest I give too much ammunition to those who want to be dismissive of philosophy, I should say that Wittgenstein's approach to eliminating these questions was NOT simply to dismiss the questions as bunk, but rather to make observations about the way the "problems" arise that a philosopher of my ilk might regard as illuminating materials for an answer. Even if there were no real "answers" an even if those last questions weren't really questions, he still would have found it necessary to continue to ask them and to continue to dissolve them, if not answer them.
I guess this is similar to what I said above.

Thank you for giving me material to stretch my thoughts even if, there's no right answer.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-31-2010, 03:03 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
Well, I wasn't sure what to make of whb's response. Your clarification helps a little, but I guess I still feel puzzled how it is much of an answer to my objections.
I criticized the diavloggers for doing a hand-wavy "since the beginning of time" high schoolish introduction, where they try to show how philosophers have really always been asking the question that scientists (and our diavloggers) want to discuss without really attempting to understand what the philosophers were asking and the actual differences and similarities between the question at hand here and the questions that philosophers were asking. [...]
I will agree that the quick references to philosophers' takes on altruism was, even to me, a bit superficial. I guess I did not think of it as anything but an attempt to give a little context to the historical scope of the problem, a reminder that people have been thinking about this phenomenon in humans and other species since long before Darwin, and as something to get out there in the introduction so that when they got to the present, the notion of talking about the two kinds of altruism would be more easily grasped.

I can appreciate that since this is your specialty, you would be annoyed. I can also imagine that this diavlog reminded you of something that you see as a problem more broadly -- biologists, neurologists, etc., encroaching on territory previously mapped by the philosophers, and often seeming to stumble around in their clodhoppers.

Still, I think you might have done better to use their remarks as an opening hook to your comments, in the sense of "Let me elaborate on some things that were only touched on in passing," rather than demanding that people whose specialty is different from yours be as fluent as you in your field before daring to say word one about it. Or that they give the comprehensive treatment you might have liked, especially in light of the huge swath of material they hoped to cover in one hour. That's all.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-31-2010, 03:55 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
Thank you. I was aware that Wittgenstein was a philosopher.
No problem. You're welcome. Sometimes I, as well, forget relevant facts during posting, that I'm otherwise aware of..

As for the rest of my posting, think nothing of it.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-31-2010, 04:18 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Science Saturday: A History of the Science of Altruism (Oren Harman & Mark Borrello)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post



As for your general issue, my own way of thinking about it is through the analogy of a landscape painter who paints an accurate videw of what he sees before him. He suddenly thinks, "but wait a second, I haven't painted the whole truth -- I've painted from a point of view, but that point of view isn't in the painting. How can I repaint my painting so that my point of view is included in the painting itself? First he tries paiting his previous picture from a few paces back and including himself (from the back painting his first picture. But, wait a minute! What he is doing now is painting his old point of view in his new picture -- the point of view of the new picture is not itself included in the new picture. He can step back yet again and paint himself painting himself painting the landscape, but the same problem keeps arising.
This reminded me of the cover of Nagels' book "A View from Nowhere" which is brought up elsewhere in this thread--which I had read 25 years ago while a teenager and had completely forgotten about. The image just popped into my head, so I amazoned it..sure enough. http://www.amazon.com/View-Nowhere-T...8555193&sr=1-1

Quote:
Lest I give too much ammunition to those who want to be dismissive of philosophy, I should say that Wittgenstein's approach to eliminating these questions was NOT simply to dismiss the questions as bunk, but rather to make observations about the way the "problems" arise that a philosopher of my ilk might regard as illuminating materials for an answer. Even if there were no real "answers" an even if those last questions weren't really questions, he still would have found it necessary to continue to ask them and to continue to dissolve them, if not answer them.
I'm reminded of the quote (mis?) attributed to Wittgenstein "Philosophy is a disease for which only philosophy is the cure".
It would be easy to use this quote to dismiss philosophy---unless philosophy necessarily infects every attempt to understand the world.
Then the choice is stay a bad philosopher and deny it, or embrace the disease (and the cure) with gusto.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.