Proponents of intelligent design (ID) are notorious for trying to use the phony scientific "controversy" about evolution as a way to open public schools to teaching religion. (There is even the notorious "wedge" document). Is there any way in which they are right?
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, but that does not mean it is wrong. One of the arguments for the existence of a god is known as the teleological argument, which basically argues that the best explanation for things that appear intricately designed (like humans, for example) is that they are. In our everyday life, this tends to be true. If I find a cavern that looks suspiciously like it was shaped to the needs of people, it probably was. On the other hand, it could just be an accidental similarity. The argument offers no proof, just an appeal to (a somewhat incorrect) argument from personal experience.
It might surprise you to know that I do think that the crux of the "controversy" of intelligent design and evolution should be taught.
I do not mean, of course, that intelligent design should be taught as a scientific objection to evolution, but merely as part of the education in understanding what science is. Most high school student's don't really know much about what is science and what is not, and I am arguing that they should take a full course in the philosophy of science, just that further explanation, preferably with useful examples like intelligent design would be helpful. Even incorporating a basic discussion of the idea of falsifiability would be useful. How many students would later be duped into believe that intelligent design is a science if they discussed the nature of the intelligent designer and included possibilities like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or aliens?
Furthermore, to steer away from such a hot topic, the same idea of falsifiability could be first approached by discussing the concept of entropy before the concept evolution. The second law of thermodynamics (put simply) states that the entropy (simply defined as disorder) of the universe will increase. Since, in our daily lives, most disorder has a cause, for example a cat or younger sibling messing up a room, we can make a similar argument that something must be causing disorder. I think students should then be introduced to the Greek goddess Eris (the goddess of chaos and disorder, known to the Romans as Discordia). Would they think She is responsible for the Second Law of Thermodynamics? She certainly would seem a likely suspect. This is when you could introduce a concept like falsifiability.
I think the juxtaposition would be especially effective. Not only do you introduce students to a (supposedly) absurd concept that is similar to the argument for intelligent design, without even letting intelligent design get a foothold, but the ordered (designed) world that the intelligent design proponents describe is already in need of an explanation for the apparent lack of design and randomness. Not a hard challenge for IDers, but enough to make people think twice. Either way, approaching the problem of treating non-scientific theories as science from a different angle (and then showing where it's applicable in the current climate) would help students learn to think like a scientist should.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Facecrime?
One of the nice fringe benefits of studying philosophy is that you get to take science-fiction literature and movies far too seriously. If you study the philosophy of mind, extraterrestrials, artificial intelligence, and non-organic intelligent life are all interesting areas to contemplate. If you study political philosophy, you get to compare the merits of Randian socialist dystopias with Huxleyian totalitarian dystopias, Heinleinian fascism with Heinleinian libertarianism, and well, Heinleinian anarchocapitalism, and everything inbetween. And if you study ethics, you get to worry about it all.
Many educated people are likely to recognize the concept of thoughtcrime from George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984. Perhaps less widely remembered is the concept of facecrime, the sin of showing an inappropriate emotion in public. I imagine the concept will become a larger part of the popular parlance if the new Fox drama Lie to Me takes off.
Lie to Me is loosely based on the research of Dr. Paul Ekman, a psychologist who has spent most of his career studying facial expressions. Some of Dr. Ekman's most famous work (and the show Lie to Me) is focused on our inability to totally conceal emotions. Microexpressions, brief facial or bodily expressions lasting mere milliseconds, often show our true emotional state. For example, if you and your girlfriend have a fight before friends come over, the two of you might put on a happy show as your friends arrive. If you're pretty good at it, they probably won't realize it's a sham. However, some small number of people, called Wizards by the researchers and Naturals in the show, naturally see these microexpressions. Instead of seeing two happy people, they might (probably unconsciously) notice that you made an extremely brief expression of anger when talking about your girlfriend. Or that she very slightly and briefly turned away from you as you and your friends entered the room. These cues let those that are natural emotion readers tell if someone is lying at a much higher rate than the average person, among other things.
The research is certainly interesting, and on a cool, practical topic of everyday interest. It also makes the far-fetched possibility of something like a facecrime that much more realistic. Dr. Ekman and his colleagues have worked with law enforcement to develop training so that law enforcement officers can perform their duties at a higher level. Of course, much like the results of a polygraph (lie detector) test, misinterpretations are possible. If you are interviewing an adult suspect that is accused of murdering their parents, they may try to hide fear while overtly showing sadness when asked questions about the murder. The suspect could be hiding the fear that the may be caught, but they also could be trying to hide that, even though they are an adult, they are afraid of going through life without parental guidance.
An area where the research may have more useful applications is in security. Perhaps the most interesting idea is harnessing the ability to scan for microexpressions into computer vision, enabling airports and other sensitive locations to automatically detect potential threats. The current system is incredibly ineffective. The possibility of marking people who look suspicious, especially those that may be trained well enough to avoid blatantly suspicious behavior, for further attention could provide a huge increase in security without a huge increase in personnel. Even those potential terrorists that are well trained are, as far as we know, unable to consciously control their microexpressions.
There would be false positives. But that, while regrettable, is probably worthwhile as long as nobody is arrested, charged, or generally mistreated based solely on the microexpressions they generate, and as long as the microexpressions are not treated as a form of evidence. If we avoid making facecrime a reality, further insight into the who might be a potential terrorist, murderer, or just a plain old liar is likely to protect the innocent, both from the bad guys and from unnecessary attention from the authorities. Of course, we must always be vigilant to prevent exactly that scenario: people's desire to be tough on crime can often lead to being tough on the truth as well.
If you are interested in reading a good (long) introductory article to some of Dr. Ekman's work, I highly recommend the one that first introduced me to it a few years ago.
The Naked Face by Malcolm Gladwell
Many educated people are likely to recognize the concept of thoughtcrime from George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984. Perhaps less widely remembered is the concept of facecrime, the sin of showing an inappropriate emotion in public. I imagine the concept will become a larger part of the popular parlance if the new Fox drama Lie to Me takes off.
Lie to Me is loosely based on the research of Dr. Paul Ekman, a psychologist who has spent most of his career studying facial expressions. Some of Dr. Ekman's most famous work (and the show Lie to Me) is focused on our inability to totally conceal emotions. Microexpressions, brief facial or bodily expressions lasting mere milliseconds, often show our true emotional state. For example, if you and your girlfriend have a fight before friends come over, the two of you might put on a happy show as your friends arrive. If you're pretty good at it, they probably won't realize it's a sham. However, some small number of people, called Wizards by the researchers and Naturals in the show, naturally see these microexpressions. Instead of seeing two happy people, they might (probably unconsciously) notice that you made an extremely brief expression of anger when talking about your girlfriend. Or that she very slightly and briefly turned away from you as you and your friends entered the room. These cues let those that are natural emotion readers tell if someone is lying at a much higher rate than the average person, among other things.
The research is certainly interesting, and on a cool, practical topic of everyday interest. It also makes the far-fetched possibility of something like a facecrime that much more realistic. Dr. Ekman and his colleagues have worked with law enforcement to develop training so that law enforcement officers can perform their duties at a higher level. Of course, much like the results of a polygraph (lie detector) test, misinterpretations are possible. If you are interviewing an adult suspect that is accused of murdering their parents, they may try to hide fear while overtly showing sadness when asked questions about the murder. The suspect could be hiding the fear that the may be caught, but they also could be trying to hide that, even though they are an adult, they are afraid of going through life without parental guidance.
An area where the research may have more useful applications is in security. Perhaps the most interesting idea is harnessing the ability to scan for microexpressions into computer vision, enabling airports and other sensitive locations to automatically detect potential threats. The current system is incredibly ineffective. The possibility of marking people who look suspicious, especially those that may be trained well enough to avoid blatantly suspicious behavior, for further attention could provide a huge increase in security without a huge increase in personnel. Even those potential terrorists that are well trained are, as far as we know, unable to consciously control their microexpressions.
There would be false positives. But that, while regrettable, is probably worthwhile as long as nobody is arrested, charged, or generally mistreated based solely on the microexpressions they generate, and as long as the microexpressions are not treated as a form of evidence. If we avoid making facecrime a reality, further insight into the who might be a potential terrorist, murderer, or just a plain old liar is likely to protect the innocent, both from the bad guys and from unnecessary attention from the authorities. Of course, we must always be vigilant to prevent exactly that scenario: people's desire to be tough on crime can often lead to being tough on the truth as well.
If you are interested in reading a good (long) introductory article to some of Dr. Ekman's work, I highly recommend the one that first introduced me to it a few years ago.
The Naked Face by Malcolm Gladwell
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Memory holes as a medical treatment
The President's Council on Bioethics has been critical, in the past, of some ongoing research in treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with a drug known as propranolol.
PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that some people suffer after experiencing an extremely traumatic event, such as being raped or abused, witnessing the death of a friend or loved one, or surviving a natural disaster. Individuals with PTSD suffer from a variety of symptoms including a persistent upsetting and invasive memory of the event and experience physiological arousal (such as a racing pulse) when they remember that event.
The controversy of using propranolol as a potential treatment revolves around the way propranolol is expected to combat PTSD. Propranolol is theorized to weaken the traumatic memory. Although the President's Council on Bioethics has come up with quite a few dystopian scenarios, in reality, propranolol is expected to only affect the emotional character of the memory, not the narrative (the memory of the event itself). If propranolol becomes an effective treatment, it would likely only weaken how often individuals remember the traumatic event and how upsetting it is to remember it, not whether they can remember exactly what happened.
But what if there was such a drug that could weaken or erase traumatic memories? This question, which was brought up as an objection by the President's Council on Bioethics, has even been referenced in a movie (The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Would it be such a bad treatment that research into such a drug should be discouraged?
One possible objection brought up is that individuals could misuse such a drug. A soldier or terrorist could kill innocents and forget the whole thing if he found it troubling, enabling him to go do the same thing again with no remorse. Furthermore, the potential for abuse abounds in using the medication on others. Witnesses to crimes could be forced to forget the crime, people could be "poisoned" to forget important events , and dictators could surely find applications to enhance control over their unsuspecting populace.
While these are all scary propositions, I think they pale in importance to the relief this drug could possibly give people. Except for the person choosing to take it themself, such as a repentant terrorist, even worse (but similar societal) effects currently happen all the time, but instead of just losing their memory, witnesses and the like lose their lives.
The other main objection is that using this drug, as a valid treatment, could have negative societal effects. The victim of a rape, for example, might not be able to testify against their rapist if they were given the drug prior to testimony, and the rapist may be able to go free and hurt others. This is a valid concern, but more a legal and practical issue than an ethical one. The legal system might need to adjust to such a drug, for example by scheduling trials or allowing lawyers to examine witnesses early, and tape these examinations so that the victim can then take the drug. Perhaps the law might force those that wish to take such a drug to complete their portion of the trial prior to treatment. Restricting the treatment possibilities of innocent victims, however, is not an appropriate way to address these concerns.
Note: I work on projects relating to propranolol and PTSD, so some may imagine a conflict of interest. As someone who supports this sort of research (and far stronger research as well), I prefer to see it as a nice confluence of interest instead.
PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that some people suffer after experiencing an extremely traumatic event, such as being raped or abused, witnessing the death of a friend or loved one, or surviving a natural disaster. Individuals with PTSD suffer from a variety of symptoms including a persistent upsetting and invasive memory of the event and experience physiological arousal (such as a racing pulse) when they remember that event.
The controversy of using propranolol as a potential treatment revolves around the way propranolol is expected to combat PTSD. Propranolol is theorized to weaken the traumatic memory. Although the President's Council on Bioethics has come up with quite a few dystopian scenarios, in reality, propranolol is expected to only affect the emotional character of the memory, not the narrative (the memory of the event itself). If propranolol becomes an effective treatment, it would likely only weaken how often individuals remember the traumatic event and how upsetting it is to remember it, not whether they can remember exactly what happened.
But what if there was such a drug that could weaken or erase traumatic memories? This question, which was brought up as an objection by the President's Council on Bioethics, has even been referenced in a movie (The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Would it be such a bad treatment that research into such a drug should be discouraged?
One possible objection brought up is that individuals could misuse such a drug. A soldier or terrorist could kill innocents and forget the whole thing if he found it troubling, enabling him to go do the same thing again with no remorse. Furthermore, the potential for abuse abounds in using the medication on others. Witnesses to crimes could be forced to forget the crime, people could be "poisoned" to forget important events , and dictators could surely find applications to enhance control over their unsuspecting populace.
While these are all scary propositions, I think they pale in importance to the relief this drug could possibly give people. Except for the person choosing to take it themself, such as a repentant terrorist, even worse (but similar societal) effects currently happen all the time, but instead of just losing their memory, witnesses and the like lose their lives.
The other main objection is that using this drug, as a valid treatment, could have negative societal effects. The victim of a rape, for example, might not be able to testify against their rapist if they were given the drug prior to testimony, and the rapist may be able to go free and hurt others. This is a valid concern, but more a legal and practical issue than an ethical one. The legal system might need to adjust to such a drug, for example by scheduling trials or allowing lawyers to examine witnesses early, and tape these examinations so that the victim can then take the drug. Perhaps the law might force those that wish to take such a drug to complete their portion of the trial prior to treatment. Restricting the treatment possibilities of innocent victims, however, is not an appropriate way to address these concerns.
Note: I work on projects relating to propranolol and PTSD, so some may imagine a conflict of interest. As someone who supports this sort of research (and far stronger research as well), I prefer to see it as a nice confluence of interest instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)