The MIRACULOUS Return of My "Darwin's Cathedral" Book

Is religion a useful biological "adaptation", as claimed by biologist David Sloan Wilson, author of the 2002 book Darwin's Cathedral - Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, or is religion a "delusion" and a "mind virus", as claimed by biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the 2006 book The God Delusion ?   Or, as I claim, is religion BOTH a delusion and an adaptation?

This posting is about these two important books, but first, I must tell you the "miraculous" story of how, against all odds, I happened to get my copy of Darwin's Cathedral in the first place, how I stupidly lost that book, and the amazing story of how I got it back.

The Gaia Hypothesis - Three Levels of Interpretation

I posted my first Gaia Topic to this Blog back on Earth Day, April 2010.

This new Topic is based on a talk I gave to the Philosophy Club here in The Villages in Central Florida, 11 June 2010. You can download a PowerPointShow of the talk with animated slides and an audio narration Part 1 and Part 2. [Click hyperlink for the Part you want, then click on Open, wait for the file to download, then click on Allow, and crank up the volume for the audio as the slide show starts!]

In the 1960's, James Lovelock was tasked by NASA to help find signs of life on Mars. As a result of his work for NASA, he came up with what he called the Earth Feedback Hypothesis. This is the idea that the Biosphere, which is the sum of all biological life on Earth, has developed, following the accepted principles of Evolution and Natural Selection, in a way that controls the gasses in the atmosphere and moderates the temperature of Earth in a way that tends to promote life. He suggested that, if Mars or any other planet has or used to have life, it would have telltale signs in the form of certain gasses and other measureable and unique characteristics.

At the suggestion of a neighbor who happened to be a novelist, he changed the name of his theory from the Earth Feedback Hypothesis to the Gaia Hypothesis, after Gaia, the Greek Goddess of Earth.

The Gaia Hypothesis may be viewed at three different levels of interpretation, (1) Pure Science, (2) Purpose-Directed Organism, and (3) Grand Unification of Science and Religion.

1 - PURE SCIENCE - EARTH FEEDBACK HYPOTHESIS

Let us stick to the basics of the Earth Feedback Hypothesis and avoid any suggestion of goal-directed behavior by the Biosphere. Let us ignore any spiritual or religious meaning. At this level we have a straightforward scientific hypothesis. Namely, that standard concepts of the Origin of Life by random mixing of molecules and subsequent Evolution and Natural Selection will tend to generate feedbacks that modify the atmosphere and temperatures of the host planet in a direction that supports continuation of life on that planet.

In my talk, I discuss the well-known "Daisyworld" thought experiment where a planet is planted with light-colored daisies that grow best in warmer temperatures and dark-hued daisies that thrive in cooler temperatures. Daisyworld reacts to a warming Sun by growing more light-colored daisies that raise the albedo (reflectiveness) of the planet in a way that moderates the heating by reflecting excess Sunlight back into space. Conversely, if the Sun cools, dark daisies will become more abundant, reducing the albedo of the planet in a way that absorbs the limited heat of the Sun and thus moderates the cooling. Thus, Daisyworld acts as if it had as its purpose the preservation of life.

I make use of Douglas Hofstadter's idea (in his 1980 Pulitzer-winning book, Godel, Escher, Bach) to argue that an anthill is a complex system that may be considered an organism. Hofstadter calls it Aunt Hillary because the anthill behaves as if it had a purpose, namely the preservation of the anthill and the long-term welfare of the ants. Aunt Hillary is in a mutually beneficial and symbiotic relationship with anteaters. She calls one Dr. Anteater and welcomes his visits because he removes deadwood ants and generally improves the health of the anthill.

The ants are "farmers" who use cut leaves to grow the fungi they eat and "herders" of smaller insects called aphids that secrete a sweet liquid ants drink. Aunt Hillary's anthill is in competition and cooperative relationships with other anthills. They continually invade each other's territory, competing for resources. Should any anthill fail, that territory and resources would be invaded and settled by ants from other anthills.

Of course anthills and anteaters do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of the ecological system of a lake or river valley made up of a balanced set of bacteria, plants, insects, and animals that, over evolutionary time, have settled into a web-of-life and food-chain. I call this ecology Valerie. The valley ecology is complex enough to be considered an organism made up of thousands of species that are in competitive and cooperative relationships with each other and with neighboring valleys. Ecologies are continually invading each other's territory, competing for resources. Should any valley ecology fail, that territory and resources would be invaded by bacteria, insects, plants and animals from other valleys.

2 - PURPOSE-DIRECTED ORGANISM - THE GAIA (AS A GODDESS) HYPOTHESS

Once we agree that an anthill (Aunt Hillary) and a balanced ecology (Valerie) behave as if they are purpose-driven and goal-directed, we are tempted to ask if they are or may become sentient. Is Aunt Hillary the sentient Gaia of the anthill? Is Valerie the sentient Gaia of the lake valley?

The talk examines what we really mean by sentience, and what is required for a complex system to become sentient.

The only certain example of a sentient organism we can all agree on is you (and me and all the other human readers of this Blog). What makes us sentient? Well, it is the complex system of billions of neurons, biological cells that make up our brains and central nervous systems. If billions of cells, each of which is descended from single-cell bacterial life that lived independently eons ago, can be sentient by exchanging chemicals (neuro-transmitters and neuro-inhibitors to and from nearby cells) and electrical signals (pulses transmitted to and received from thousands of other cells near and far), what other complex system could be sentient?

How about billions of humans and other animals in the web-of-life? Humans have been trading ideas, food and other useful items with each other since tribal times. Thousands of years ago trade caravans transported ideas and products far and wide. We now have telephone and computer networks that interconnect nearly all humans on Earth. Could that complex system be sentient? Have we created a Gaia that is a sentient organism?

3 - GRAND UNIFICATION OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

The figure below traces the development of religion and science and indicates how the Gaia Hypothesis may unite them.

What we call primitive religion begins with the idea that every tree and river and tribe has a god within it. We must supplicate ourselves before the god of the tree and thank it for granting us its fruits, and the god of the river for its water, and so on. If our tribe battles yours, and we win, it is because our tribal god is stronger than yours! This evolves into the Egyptian or Greek or Roman pantheon of gods. In the Greek system, the chief god Zeus, and the various gods of the seas, the wind, war, and so on live on Mt. Olympus and cooperate and compete as they rule over us. This evolves into the great Monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, where a Universal God in Heaven is separate from His creation.

Science develops as we study the natural world. First with telescopes to bring far planets and stars closer and with microscopes to peer into the smallest corners of things. This develops into Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and the theories of Evolution, Atoms, Quantum Mechanics, and so on.

It would seem that Religion and Science are incompatible - but, there is hope!

On the RELIGION side, several hundred years ago we see the development of Unitarianism - the belief in one God AT MOST. Some of the founders of the American experiment were "Nature's God" Deists who believed that God Created the Universe and the Laws of Nature and then let it all play out on its own, with no miracles beyond that Original Creation. We also have Pantheists, such as Spinoza and Einstein (and me, your humble Blog administrator) who believe the Universe is God.

On the SCIENCE side we have James Lovelock and his Earth Feedback Hypothesis.

Put them all together and put them into a neat box and they point to the Gaia, the Goddess of the Earth!

Scientists can think of Gaia as a complex interactive system that may or may not be sentient, but who, at least, behaves as if She is sentient. Folks who are seeking a more spiritual solution can think of Gaia as a sentient, purpose-driven organism who came into being through the totally natural processes of Evolution and Natural Selection. Literal believers in Judaism, Christianity, Islam or any other established religion can snicker a bit and thank their God for gifting at least a small bit of Faith to their benighted brothers.

Ira Glickstein

Ancient Physics - Plato and Aristotle

Does ancient physics, dating from ~400 bc, have anything to tell modern science?

All we have from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are writings, but they must have used diagrams of some sort. What would they have done given access to modern computer graphics?

The images [click on them for larger versions] are from a presentation I gave at the Philosophy Club here in The Villages, FL today. You can download the narrated PowerPoint slide show, click on: Part 1 and Part 2.



Here is a brief summary:

Plato's Analogy of the Divided Line

In The Republic, Book VI, Plato divides a line unequally. The first section is analogized to the Physical World and the second to the Intelligible World. Then, by the same proportions, he sub-divides each section. He analogizes the first segment, AB, to Shadows and Reflections of physical things; BC to the Physical Things themselves, CD to Mathematical Resoning, and DE to Philosophical Reasoning. Although Plato does not mention it, later commentators noticed that, by the given construction, it turns out that segment BC (Physical Things) is exactly the same length as CD (Mathematical Reasoning). What could that imply? I go into greater detail in the PowerPoint presentation.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave

Plato, in The Republic, Book VII, see first image above, imagines prisoners who spend their entire lives in a cave, looking at two-dimensional shadows on a wall. The prisoners give names to the shadows, learn to predict sequences, and speculate on their origin and meanings. They come up with the equivalent of religions, sciences and philosophies. Then, one prisoner is released into the real three-dimensional world and learns about physical reality. She returns to the cave but is unable to convince the prisoners of the reality she knows as truth. They make fun of her as a crazy philosopher.

Putting the Analogy of the Divided Line and the Allegory of the Cave together, the prisoners represent a low level of knowledge and understanding, represented as line segment AB. The prisoner released from the cave is at level BC, like ourselves. Those of us who have learned mathematical reasoning are not only out of the cave, but are at a higher level, CD. Finally, the philosophers among us, who understand the Idea of Forms and the Good and so on, are at level DE.

My question is, "Are WE really out of the cave yet?" Perhaps, if, as string theory postulates, there are actually 10 or 11 dimensions, those of us who perceive 3D + time are only about 10% better off than the prisoners in the cave, limited to 2D + time! In the PowerPoint presentation, I speculate on the possible equivalence of time and space.



Aristotle's Five Elements

Aristotle, like most of the ancients, believed there were only five elements: Aether, Fire, Air, Water, and Earth. Indeed, according to him, (see his Meteorology, Book I and his Physics, Book I) there is really only the Aether, the quintessence, the All. Fire, Air, Earth, and Water exist potentially in each other, and all can be resolved into the Aether. This is not far from Spinoza's belief that there is only the Universal Substance, and all things that seem as different as material and spirit are merely different aspects of that Universal.

How ridiculous is this? Well, not so ridiculous as the PowerPoint Show explains.

The names of Fire, Air, Water, and Earth in the image are ambigrams, which read the same right-side-up and upside-down. They are featured in the famous book and movie, Angels and Demons.

Read more detail about Aristotle's Five Elements at my Google Knol.

Ira Glickstein

Fond Memories of Popular Science Magazine

Thanks to Google, the Popular Science magazine archives are available free! (Hat tip to WattsUpWithThat for the alert.)

The cover of the July 1977 issue is shown because it includes a wonderful piece. Click here to see it!

What makes this item so great? Well, I wrote it and it shows our three daughters, Rena, Lisa, and Sara, with their stuffed animals, on a bed/bench I designed and built for our van when we did some camping.

It also includes a photo of me when I was about half my current age and a nice do-it-yourself construction diagram. (The piece includes some other photos, not shown here.)

[For larger images, either hold CTRL and press + or click on image.]









You can page through any issue and see not only the stories but also the adverts, which are often more interesting.

Ira Glickstein

Explaining Away Climategate - 4

See the detailed timeline for Climategate, posted at ClimateAudit yesterday, and my previous postings on Climategate: Original posting, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.


Although VP Al Gore has had no direct part in the recent Climategate controversy, it was his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth that most activated the ALARMISTs, outraged the DENIERs, and animated the reaction by the Skeptics.

When I watched Gore's impressive movie several years ago, I was most struck by the scene in the above photo [Click it for a larger version - The base photo is from the movie, the annotations are mine.]

Explaining Away Climategate - 3

Climategate was triggered by the release of thousands of emails and computer programs from the UK Climactic Research Unit (CRU) late in 2009. See the video attempt at Explaining Away Climategate for a defence of the Warmists. This is the third of my series. See Part 1 and part 2.

Even the IPCC has admitted the truth of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). See the image above that appeared in their 1990 report, indicating that temperatures between 1100 and 1300 were higher than the most recent decades. [I added the red annotation - more about that below.]

Explaining Away Climategate - 2

Climategate was triggered by the release of thousands of emails and computer programs from the UK Climactic Research Unit (CRU) late in 2009. See the video attempt at Explaining Away Climategate for a defence of the Warmists.

This is the second of a series of new Topic postings that detail the viewpoints of the major groups involved in the controversy. See first part here.

Explaining Away Climategate - 1

Climategate was triggered by the release of thousands of emails and computer programs from the UK Climactic Research Unit (CRU) late in 2009. See Jon Stewart's hilarious and surprisingly fact-filled take and this attempt at Explaining Away Climategate.

This is the first of a series of new Topic postings that detail the viewpoints of the major groups involved in the controversy:

Wolfram Alpha - Making all systematic knowledge computable

You may have noticed something new in the right-hand column, just below the News Map. It is a live link to Wolfram Alpha. The hype for Wolfram Alpha says:

"Today's WolframAlpha is the first step in an ambitious, long-term project to make all systematic knowledge immediately computable by anyone ..."

Wolfram Alpha is not just another search engine like Google or the new Microsoft "Kumo" soon to be released. It is not Wikipedia or Google Knol. It is not Excel or any other spreadsheet. It combines aspects of all these useful tools into a grand extension of Wolfram's Mathematica. (Wolfram Alpha was released for free public use last week and I put the link on this Blog then,. It has taken a few days for it to stabilize and become reliable, so that is why I delayed this posting.)

See the Visual Gallery of Examples for how Wolfram Alpha works with Mathematics, Dates&Times, Statistics, Places&Geography, Physics, SocionomicData, Chemistry, Weather, ... and much much more!

So far I have used it a bit. Try the Wolfram Alpha window just below the News Map in the right-hand column of this Blog. You can type in a simple equation: 45.7 + 32 - 7.8 x 16 = and get the Result: -47.1. Or, try (distance earth to sun)/(distance earth to moon) = and get Result: 413.9. Or b c d e f# a = and get the musical notes and play the sound. Or, marion county fl income per capita and get Result: $17848 along with other data. Or ibm microsoft intel and get their current stock prices and other data including a comparative graph.

So far, I am a bit underwhelmed but I have confidence this will become a major Internet tool for all of us. Please share your experiences here by Commenting. advTHANKSance!

Ira Glickstein

PS: As a result of Wolfram Alpha's release, my interest in Stephen Wolfram has been piqued. I studied quite a bit of his Cellular Automata (CA) work that I used as part of my PhD studies. I also knew he made his money with a program called Mathematica. His book A New Kind of Science, which seems to be trying to prove that the Universe is a gigantic CA, is now available free online and I am up to chapter 8. I am sympathetic to the basic idea because I am a Panthiest and believe (along with Spinoza and Einstein) that the Universe is absolutely deterministic and (perhaps not along with them) that is it both finite and discrete in space, time, matter, and energy.

A rebuttal to “Who was Cain’s wife.”

[From JohnS, responding to Ira's Posting]

A rebuttal to “Who was Cain’s wife.”

Ira makes the same mistake Atheists, Secular Humanists and Agnostics and their ilk, do when they want to debate Religion vs. Science. He states: “…found what appears to be the official Christian answer. Adam and Eve were the first humans, Adam Created by God and Eve by God from Adam's rib. They bore many children (perhaps 33 sons and 23 daughters) over their 900-plus year lives. So, Cain married one of his sisters (or perhaps a niece).” He assumes that all Christians believe in the literal reading of the bible. Only a small minority of Christians so believe – the fundamentalist, creationists, those that purport intelligent design. The large majority of Christians interpret the bible more loosely. Even the pope has stated that evolution is an acceptable scientific view.

In my view, I believe the Bible consists of three or maybe four sources. A portion is God’s word, such as the ten commandments which I as a Christian must accept, although I don’t necessarily have to believe that God personally handed them to Moses, lore from the pre-history of the Jewish people, lore as the Jewish people moved from a belief in multiple gods to a belief in monotheism and possibly as a vehicle to bring the tribes of Israel together in a single religion.

We must also understand that the Old Testament was written at a time far different than today. That beyond providing the word of God, it provided an explanation for the creation of the universe and man’s place in language understandable to the people of the time, an explanation of the universe similar to that found in all religions. It also provided a basis for uniting the various tribes of Israel. It was not intended as a scientific text that could scientifically stand the test of time.

If we are to discuss the bible, we can do so as a religious text. We can try to determine God’s intent for man. We can also discuss it as a historical document to determine what we can learn of the early days of the Jewish people. We cannot discuss it as a scientific document pertinent today.

We can discuss Science vs. Religion from several aspects. I can say that I believe God created the universe, but can’t prove it. You can say the universe was created through some natural means but can’t prove it however, that doesn’t accomplish a lot. A more interesting discussion might be God’s place in the evolution of the universe. Did he or some natural cause simply start the universe going and then walk away or has he, as God, periodically interceded in the progress of evolution, as we believe that God created man? Is science God’s means for man understanding nature? If so, can we say that science is an expression of God’s design? That raises many interesting questions.

In the later portion of his posting, he discusses the evolution of man from apes. It is true that as a religious person I must try to reconcile God creating man with the evidence of evolution. I might argue that God as the creator of the universe created man through natural evolutionary steps. While this explanation might be acceptable, I find it a stretch rather, I would suggest that from time to time God has interceded in the flow of evolution and that He did so in the evolutionary transition from homo-erectus to homo-sapiens God interceded adding the characteristics that make us uniquely human – a giant evolutionary leap. The stories of Eden, Adam and Eve and their progeny are simply a Biblical attempt to explain the origins of man. As Ira said, most religions have similar stories.

A human secularist might argue that the leap from homo-erectus to homo sapiens even though a giant step was purely a natural event. I can’t accept that, the leap was too great and the time spans too short, a few thousand years. Evolution requires time, often long time spans and requires changing circumstances and stress which benefit a portion of a species allowing them to evolve into a new more advanced species. From my readings, I see no environmental or other natural stress occurring at the time of the transition which would justify the leap from homo-erectus to homo sapiens.

Teaching Intelligent Design

What is the basis of "Scientific Intelligent Design"?



Intelligent Design (ID) is a teleological (purpose-driven) explanation of the origin and development of biological life on Earth. In its more recent "scientific" form, ID makes use of science-based arguments, mainly "irreducible complexity", to argue that some designer must have created the first biological cells because they could not have originated on their own.

Some ID proponents are prepared to believe that, after the origin of those first cells, something like neo-Darwinian evolution and natural selection took over and resulted in the wide diversity of life forms on Earth. However, they believe the evolutionary process is not without purpose. The intelligent designer had some purpose in mind when the initial biological cells were designed. Even if the various species were not designed per se, the designer of the original biological cells knew the laws of nature and how those cells would inevitably evolve into current-day species. Mainstream science is critiqued for believing advanced life forms evolved by undirected, blind chance and for no purpose at all. If there is no purpose what is the reason for life, for ethics? Why should we continue to live? See:http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf and http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

What is the basis of Darwinian Evolution?



The basis of Darwinian evolution is that more complex life forms originate when a random mutation or crossover of genes occurs and the resultant life form happens to be both more complex and have a higher survival/reproduction rate than the less complex form. Darwinian evolution and natural selection are central to mainstream science and all standard science courses

What is the basis of "Irreducible Complexity"?



"Irreducible complexity" argues there is no viable life form below that of the most basic biological cell. Therefore, there is no way that that first biological cell could have evolved from something simpler. Thus, there must be some "intelligent cause" rather than the "undirected process" of evolution, at least for the origin of the most basic biological cells. ID proponents demand scientific study of what they call "origins science". The want ID to be included in science classes.

Why not teach both Darwinian and ID explanations in science classes?



ID rejects any purposeless explanation, at least for the initial origin of the most basic biological cells. ID concludes there must have been some "intelligent designer" and the clear implication is an intelligent supernatural being (e.g., "God"). Mainstream scientists reject ID as a religious belief that has no place in a science class.

I accept mainstream science ...

I totally accept the mainstream scientific explantion of both the origin and evolution of life on Earth. Although no scientific experiment has completely duplicated the process of origin of life, I accept the current explation that traces origins from random mixing and chemical reactions in self-reproducing autocatylitic cycles that happened to be confined in porous rock or clay or lipid (fat) molecules. Autocatylitic cycles have been demonstrated in the laboratory.

As a result of the autocatylitic cycle process, some primitive type of self-reproducing RNA originated and that lead to the origin of RNA's first cousin, self-reproducing DNA. Given RNA and DNA, even in their primitive forms, it is possible for a life form that is not yet a biological cell to survive and reproduce in porous rock or clay or lipid molecules. RNA codes for the production of proteins and this must have lead to the first biological cells that produced their own membranes and were thus freed of dependence upon porous materials. At that point, standard Darwinian evolution and natural selection took over.

but ... I favor mention of ID in science classes

Although you might expect me to oppose teaching ID in science class, I think it deserves some mention. Why ???

1) According to Gallup polls, over 40% of our fellow Americans believe God created human beings pretty much in their current form as recently as 10,000 years ago. An additional nearly 40% believe God guided evolution over a longer period. That means four out of five Americans accept God as Creator, Designer, and/or Guider. Fewer than one in seven accept the mainstream scientific explantion that God had no part in the process. Hard as this is to believe, it is a fact to be contended with. "Head in the sand" won't work!

2) What better place than a science class to demonstrate use of the scientific method to evaluate ID vs Darwin? Give the best possible arguments for ID, using examples directly from their textbooks. Do the same for Darwin and then ask the hard questions. For example:

• If ID is true, the first biological cells on Earth were designed and brought here by alien space travelers or by God.

1. If the former, how did the alien space travelers originate? Perhaps they evolved through a Darwinian process on some other planet? If so, Darwin got the process right but the planet wrong! Perhaps meteors harboring live biological cells were flying through space and seeding life on various planets including Earth? How did life originate on the meteors? If not by some Darwinian process, life always existed on those meteors! Does that make any sense?


2. If the latter, how did God come into existence? Did God design and create Himself or was it a Super-God who created Him, and so on with Super-Duper-Gods all the way up? You say God always existed? Does that make any sense?

3) Even though flogiston was a discredited idea, I learned about it in science class! It was a great lesson in the scientific method! Early scientists weighed a piece of wood, burned it, and then weighed the ashes. Sure enough, the ashes weighed less than the original wood, which proved that the fire and heat was due to the flogiston leaving the wood. QED. Then, some smarter scientist repeated the experiment in a closed chamber. The results were just the opposite. Oxygen from the air combined with the carbon from the wood producing energy and carbon dioxide, which is why the ashes plus the smoke weighed more than the original wood.
4) Same story about the discredited idea the Sun and stars rotated about the Earth or that maggots were generated spontaneously on dead meat or that alchemists could change lead into gold and all those other early science myths. The best way to demonstrate the scientific method is to ... uh ... demonstrate the scientfic method!
5) Given the Gallup poll results, it is highly likely a student will be exposed to "scientific" ID by his or her family, friends, neighbors, religious leaders, and even some politicos running for president of the USA. Shouldn't they understand what is behind the ID concept and know the pros and cons? We push sex education in the schools to counteract information students are bound to pick up on the streets. Isn't understanding Darwinism as important?
6) Any responsible social sciences curriculum should include information about alternatives to democracy, including discredited forms of government such as monarchies, theocracies, fascism, communism, and so on. In each case, a fair presentation should be made of the arguments for that form of government, historical examples of widespread prevalence of that form, and examples of problems.
7) Darwinism has nothing to fear from ID! The arguments for a naturalistic chemical origin of life (autocatalytic cycles, RNA, DNA, ...) and neo-Darwinian evolution and natural selection are very strong. Scientists have been studying the laws of nature and properties of energy and matter for quite some time and are always discovering new things about them. We believe the laws of nature are Universal, the same in every corner of the Universe. We believe those laws and material properties guarantee that, over billions of years and with billions of stars and planets, life was bound to come into existence without any external intelligent designer. So, it is quite natural and totally expected that life came into existence, and here we are on Earth to prove it. Where did those complex laws of nature and matter/energy come from? How did they originate? Well, they always existed! (OOPS)

Ira Glickstein

Magical Technology and the Supernatural

In an earlier thread, Howard introduced a new topic idea: " ... almost no one who uses the Internet has the faintest idea of the physics, engineering, manufacturing and programming skills that are essential for making it work. I mean, it’s a total mystery to most people. "

I agreed and quoted what turned out to be one of Arthur C. Clarke's Laws:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Howard went on: "... this feeling of mystery (or ignorance) may account for the rise the distrust of science in general and the increase in accepting occult and supernatural beliefs. In other words, if technical devices appear to have an unknown cause, then any event can have an unknown cause."

I agree with Howard that technology is a mystery to most people using it, but I am not sure if he is right about a rise in the distrust of science or an increase in occult and supernatural beliefs. In fact, I am concerned the common folks place too much trust in science and, as a result, are losing their faith in the supernatural.

My reading of history is that irrational beliefs are central to the success of any society. If they get out of hand -OR- if they are extinguished by pure reason, disaster follows. As always, the "happy medium" is the path to success.

The scientific method is a totally rational ideal that is largely responsible for modern civilization. However necessary, it is by no means sufficient. We still need belief in supernatural magic and other things not literally true to make progress work.

Another of Clarke's laws states:

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Indeed, we must creatively imagine we believe in the impossible to assure progress in extending the limits of science and technology. Howard agrees to a point: "An essential part of the scientific method is entirely rational, but another essential part is creative imagination often using irrational analogies and metaphors. Also, for physicists the natural world is super enough so that the religious supernatural appears quite dull."

We need to appreciate another of Clarke's laws:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

I, and most of the other active members of this Blog may be characterized, in the words of this law, as "distinguished but elderly scientists". We need to be wary of declaring anything impossible!

On the other hand, according to Isaac Asimov's corollary to Clarke's law:

"When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right."

Ira Glickstein

PS: The photograph is of The_Turk, a 1770's chess playing machine. It turned out to be a hoax - a skilled human chess player was hidden inside the device. Today, however, you can buy a chess program that will run on your PC and beat everyone but a chess master. Larger computers are well-matched with human chess masters and, in the forseeable future, the world chess champion will be a computer.