Dennett's Tools for Thinking

I find it very interesting and informative and in fact generally pleasurable to listen to philosopher, 'horseman of the apocalypse', and grand-fatherly gentleman Daniel C Dennett. 

He has a new book to sell, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking, so we might have the enjoyment of hearing a lot of interviews.  This week I heard a good one, on the podacst Point of Inquiry.

It is a wide ranging discussion with host, Indre Viskontas, (direct link here) they mull over a wide range of interesting topics, including consciousness, the 'intentional stance' (which others call 'theory of mind'), the role of philosophy in today's world, and that old favourite, free-will.  The book gets a few mentions, but not in any sense is the interview a hard-sell.

If you have 45 minutes to spare, or can load it onto your MP3 to enjoy while you are doing something that doesn't need concentration, I recommend it highly.

Will I buy the book?  That is a different question entirely.  I would love to have time to understand Dennett's writings and have read a couple of his earlier books.  However, I have also failed to reach the end of a couple of others due to my own ability to concentrate and my preference for being active.  

Maybe I should wait for the paperback - or maybe that is where I went wrong previously as the writing gets too small.

Sunny brain, rainy brain

Elaine Fox made a presentation to Oxford Skeptics in the Pub last week, in a meeting attended by an unusually large number of people.  The theme of the talk was about whether optimism is good for us.

She began by reminding us that everyone is different.  Quoting William James, she said that every baby born into the world is inundated by "the blooming buzzing confusion of sounds", and it is remarkable how quickly they are able to focus on the ones that matter and ignore the sounds and sights that form the background to life.

She went on to tell us that some things are hard-wired into us, and that fear and pleasure play a large role in the workings of our brains.  In most people, fear takes priority over pleasure and she described the signal route from the amygdala to the pre-frontal cortex - the desire to eat lunch is over-ridden by the desire to avoid being lunch.  (I didn't know that we do not have one amygdala but two.)

In order to convince us that most people have an optimistic approach to life (which seems counter-intuitive to all of us, let alone a room full of skeptics) she read a few statements out and asked us to score our level of agreement.  See below**.  The room displayed a wide range of scores, but she was successful in demonstrating what she wanted. (This was not necessarily done in a completely scientific manner.  How were those statements chosen, and what do they actually mean in detail?)

Optimism is a complex combination of states.  It is not just a matter of happily expecting the best outcomes, but people who score high on optimism scales also take positive actions and persist longer to solve difficult problems.

She also pointed out another (perhaps obvious) point that our outlooks are not shaped by nature or nurture, but by the interaction between both.  The brain remains much more malleable throughout life than was understood only a few years ago.  As an example, she described how London taxi drivers who were studying for a test called 'The Knowledge' had been shown to have experienced a growth in the size of their hippocampus. 

Studies of different gene variants have shown correlation with subtle effects on brain chemistry.  Perhaps there is good science behind these claims.  We didn't really hear enough to be able to tell, and in some ways this was a pity, because it further confirms our bias that the science of the brain is still in its infancy.  Only be the highest standard of scientific method will that change quickly. 

The final topic was about therapeutic effects of cognitive bias modification.  She claimed that various studies showed health benefits from an optimistic bent.  Let's hope that this turns out to be true.  I have a strong feeling that I have heard opposite claims from other researchers, but that is not necessarily a threat to the advance of science.

All in all, it was an interesting evening in spite of a the projector being unable to display in colour.  Obviously it must have been the projector, not the Apple Mac that was being used for the presentation as nothing ever goes wrong with a Mac does it?  Ironic comments aside, the venue was a place that has recently been renamed "The Wig and Pen".  There are rumours that it wants to start to charge for use of the room as well as gaining the benefit of bringing 50 or 100 customers in.  All I can say to that is that they would need to improve the quality of the room.  A bar with one member of staff does not cope with the number of customers.  And one might expect that the toilets would have been cleaned, and that the taps on the sinks in the gents toilets (at least) might open in a more controlled and less explosive way.  I would vote to change venue.

Thanks as usual to the organisers, Heather and Alex.


**Small note
My transcription of the 6 statements:
1/ In uncertain times I usually expect the best.
2/ I enjoy my friends a lot.
3/ I would take off on a trip with no pre-plans.
4/ I don't get upset too easily.
5/ I get restless when I spend too much time at home.
6/ I count on good things happening to me.

Decide for yourselves whether these all reflect aspects of optimism.  Not everyone understands what they mean and how much we are expected to consider the implications.  Not everyone agrees that they reflect optimism as opposed to some other quantity - but then again none of the people I have asked are experts on the topic.  However, I was VERY pleased to score slightly higher than one of my friends who I consider to be highly optimistic, albeit much lower than another.

Anthony and Cleopatra

Anthony and Cleopatra were found dead in a locked room.  A broken bowl was found on the floor next to them.  Can you explain what might have happened?

This was the riddle posed to me this afternoon over a cup of tea by a friend in Oxford.  It is a test of our mastery of Theory of Knowledge, and I think I failed predictably.

Leave your attempts at an answer in the comments below.  I'll publish the solution in a day or two.

********

Update 3rd February.  See the answer in the comments below. Well done DS and indeed AK.

Empirical confusion - a lesson about faith based claims

One day recently I was listening to a radio programme where two people were being interviewed.  The subject hardly matters, except that it serves to illustrate a point that applies equally well to the way that people think about faith in god(s).

As it happens, it was about the effects of tobacco advertising.  This is not a subject that I find particularly interesting, but it is one that others have strong feelings about, and I could summarise the two sides of the discussion as follows: 

• One of the protagonists in the debate was arguing that advertising attracts new people into smoking. Her argument was very much faith based.  It was simply obvious to her that this was true, and she found it impossible to accept any aspects of the opposing view.
• Her opponent was making the point that advertising was demonstrably unsuccessful at converting people to smoking, but that it was much more successful at redistributing the market share between different brands of tobacco.  Smokers of one brand could be converted to another brand much more easily than non-smokers.  He said that he based his claim on empirical evidence.

Now I'm not going to try to judge the merits of the two arguments.  I'm not a smoker and never have been.  The point that annoyed me was that the faith-based claim was allowed a lot more air time then the evidence-based claim.  The poor guy only had to start a sentence and the interviewer (John Humphrys I think) would immediately interrupt him with another question.  It annoyed me that we were not able to hear enough about the evidence to enable us to form our own opinions.

A little later I was expressing my opinion - my outrage - about it, as sometimes I do!  I was very surprised by the reaction that I received, although in retrospect I shouldn't have been!

I was told - believe it or not - that the guy with the empirical evidence had come across as arrogant and unyielding.  The reason for this was simply that he had used the expression "empirical evidence".

Now I think you can see the parallel that I am drawing.  Those who believe in gods take the faith-based approach and they are sometimes frightened away from even considering the opposite viewpoint because of empirical evidence.  There are at least two aspects to this.

• First, I have noticed that even intelligent and well qualified people misunderstand the term.  Empirical evidence is not just another faith claim.  It is evidence that has actually been measured, and brings you to a conclusion without having to rely on inference or deduction.  Even if it might later turn out to be wrong, it should not be ignored.  Surely it must at least be useful unless it is shown not to be true by further measurements.
• Second, if you take the attitude in life that all claims are equally valid, as many do, then the presence or absence of evidence is not of much importance.  This is why such a way of thinking is fundamentally flawed.

The net result is that those who argue with the certainty that comes from putting the effort into detailed analysis of a topic are trumped by those who just know the truth in their hearts.  This very effectively demonstrates that rationality is not the primary trait of the human mind, as mentioned last week in my review of Michael Schermer's book, The Believing Brain.

The wisest words from Bertrand Russell

The words of of one of the greatest philosophers of modern times spring to mind (as you can hear at this link)

When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only "what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out?" Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have benificent social effects if it were believed, but look only and solely at what are the facts. -- Bertrand Russell 

Shouldn't this be our crusade as rationalists?

Pretending to know things that you don't know!

During an interesting interview on the new podcast, the Malcontents Gambit (43 minutes that I highly recommend) Peter Boghossian spoke in his usual clear and convincing way.

Discussions on the subject of faith require a clear definition of the terminology, and Boghossian has proposed a solution to this problem, which appears to clarify things rather well.  If you haven't come across Boghossian (and he does suddenly seem to be coming very much to the notice of the rational thinking community now) then you should Google for some of his work or see the links in the previous post.

Peter Boghossian - knowing things that
he can know

His definition of faith is "pretending to know things that you don't know".  Just substituting these words in a sentence often makes an obscure theological or doctrinal question turn into a clearly defined problem with a simple solution.

For example, when asked whether it is possible to have a meaningful and purposeful life without faith, he suggests that the question should be re-phrased by substituting his definition of the word faith.  The question then becomes "Is it possible to have a meaningful and purposeful life without pretending to know things that you don't know".  Surely the answer is then obvious.

Boghossian claims - I think rightly - that there are almost no situations where the word 'faith' needs to be invoked in the English language.  All too often the concept of faith is confused with hope, which is an entirely different thing.  People also tend to use faith as a system of epistemology - i.e. a system for the study of knowledge.  He suggests that the faithful have no right to claim that they have anything to offer on this topic.

When challenged that relying on the scientific method is the same as relying on faith, he quoted a martial arts friend, Matt Thornton, who insists that this is 'like suggesting that abstinence is a sexual position'.

Humanity's technological progress is solely attributable to recognition of the existence of external reality - not a faith.

The 'problem of induction' is often thrown out by proponents of faith.  They suggest that you have to have faith in order to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.  Going back to the definition of faith helps with this though.  We do know why the sun appears to rise.  It is a simple matter of celestial mechanics and it would be very surprising if this changed overnight.  Faith does not come into the matter.

Truth matters because it enables us to make our lives better, improve life in our communities and promote better justice.  In fact, if you do not value objective truth, then the thing that you are valuing is arbitrary.  That is part of the problem of faith.  Indeed, even just having faith is a form of injustice to yourself.

Antagonistically, but quite sensibly, he criticises people who make claims about what will happen to them after death, and especially about what will happen to him.  He suggests that anyone who tells you that you will go to hell shouldn't be allowed to have any form of adult responsibility.  Maybe they should be allowed to write fiction, but not to do anything where rational decisions are needed.

There are four impediments to rational thought:
1/  Subjectivity and objectivity are too often confused.
2/  The definition of faith is not clear enough, and faith is too often confused with hope.
3/  Confirmation bias plays too large a role.
4/  Belief in belief - people tend to think that it is good to believe in something rather than nothing.

In feedback that he has received so far, he notes that people almost never say "Look, you're wrong and here's why" but almost always they will tell him that the bible says something different.  Almost all the e-mails he receives are an unsophisticated form of confirmation bias.


Amusingly, he also proposed that Gene Roddenberry's eponymous Mr Spock (in Star Trek, as you know) might actually have done damage to the cause of rational thinking.  By making Spock a character who has no emotions, there is a danger of people associating that quality with all rationalists.  Surely that is not something we would want, but setting that desire aside, Michael Schermer's book, The Believing Brain seems to shed light on the issue.  The hypothesis that we make our decisions and develop our beliefs emotionally, and then use our conscious powers to back them up rationally, is now very well supported.

He says that almost every moment of his waking day is spent discussing these things.  Interestingly he makes the surprising and refreshing claim that every single person in the world can be reached by rationality.  Personally he believes that the best way to reach difficult people is to be incredibly blunt and honest with them - as Richard Dawkins is.  He also suggests that you should never allow an argument to be shut down by someone claiming to offended.  As he says, "Your offence means nothing to me".

He finds that evangelical fundamentalists are easier to talk to than mushy moderates.  These are the sort of people that you can have a beer with!

Let's hope for more gems like this!



Related posts:
Introduction: Elect the fourth horseman - some candidates!
One from yesterday: Elect the fourth horseman - some candidates!
And from earlier this evening:  Boghossian leads by a mile

Cognitive Dissonance

'Cognitive dissonance' is a term that I hear surprisingly often these days.

It is sometimes described as the discomfort we feel when we hold two ideas that clash or conflict with each other.  It can also describe the difference between an attitude we hold and a behaviour that is inconsistent with the attitude.

As Lewis Black once said, "When an environmentalist buys an SUV they might as well be filling the fuel tank with cognitive dissonance."

When we are confronted with such a discrepancy we either have to admit that we were wrong or dismiss the evidence.  Tragically most people dismiss the evidence.

If we are able to see how dissonance works in our own lives we  might be able to reduce the  tendency to suffer unnecessary stress.  For example, unhappy smokers have to do one of two things - quit smoking or justify smoking. (Happy smokers can just enjoy it of course!)

Stress!  (A picture rescued from the archives here!

In my case I found that I had to quit church or find a way to justify attending even though I could see all the gaps in the arguments for a belief in God.  Ultimately, and for me personally, quitting church seemed to be the more intellectually honest of the two.  Since that time I wonder whether I can claim that I have no cognitive dissonance relating to my religious views.  I presume that I am not the right person to judge that.

It has been said that everyone can see a hypocrite in action except the hypocrite.  They do it by reducing the dissonance in some way that allows them to continue to think well of themselves.  This does not just apply to bad or evil people, but equally to good people who can fall for the fallacy of 'confirmation bias' just as easily.

In fact, we all see that people behave in surprising ways.  When a prophecy fails, such as Harold Camping's end of the world in 2011, you might assume that his followers would have given up their beliefs.  But dissonance theory predicts the opposite.  You are much more likely to dismiss the contradictory information without a thought than to change a treasured belief.

Many of Camping's followers have probably come out of 2011 with a stronger belief in him.  They would find some sort of religious explanation.  "Thanks to the belief of our little band, God has spared the world again."

I wonder how many false biases I have self-confirmed today!