Is philosophy worthwhile: An opinion from a scientist.

Why I don’t think philosophy is worthwhile is that, it is basically arguing about a matter of opinion. Imagine two guys arguing about whether blondes or brunettes are better, it is fairly easy to understand that in the end it is just a matter of taste/opinion. It is unreasonable to think that one or the other will be able to “prove” that the others taste is wrong.

Now in philosophy we have whole systems of arguments, that in one way or another stand on the weak foundations of opinion. My favorite example is of course the “science debate”, that is the great question whether science really is the best way of knowing about the world, or even if it is the only way. Does one really expect that it is possible to “prove” or argue that one or the other position is right? Eventually it comes to a matter of basic opinions.

Obviously I am of the opinion that science is the best way to know about the world. But I am fully aware, that there is no way I could prove this without making some assumptions which I cannot prove. Why I think science is the best way of knowing the world is based on again my opinions about, what it means to know about the world – that is to be able to make consistent predictions. And the other assumptions/opinion is what it means to be best at something – in that case it means to be better than your competition for a long period in the past.

So based on those assumptions it becomes rather easy to argue that science is the best way of knowing about the world. Its core principle is making reliable predictions and it has been consistently better than anything else in making them for a couple centuries now. But this game seems to be fixed.

If someone were to disagree on the two assumptions, the argument falls easily. Let’s take for example my understanding what it means to be best, my “definition” is basically a generalization of the past, which in a philosophical sense is easily dismissed, since I have no way to argue that this generalization will hold in the future. So the only philosophically sound definition of best, would be best in the “cosmical” sense, so best overall no matter what, which of course is “unknowable”, since there might always be something better we don’t know.
Also the other, maybe not so easily dismissed, but still controversial is the “definition” of knowing about the world – what it means to “understand/know about” the world. For me it means making reliable predictions, but what if for someone else, it means, to “feel good inside”, or to “feel that the world makes sense”, etc… so a more “intuitive” definition. Again there is no intrinsic reason why my definition would be true. And any argument I would try to make, would either be circular in the sense of me referencing science showing us intuition can fool us. Or would need some new assumptions, and assumptions for those into the infinity.

And that I exactly why I think philosophy, or at least some types of philosophy are completely useless and a complete waste of time and brain. Why brain? Well I think most people doing philosophy are smart people and I am positive that if they were to use their mental capacity in solving real world problems within the framework of “science” or even preferably “natural science”, that would be far more useful. But then again, this depends on your definition of useful.

So does all this mean, I am somehow against philosophy or philosophers, absolutely not. If someone wants to do philosophy, it is not my right, to deny him that option. But what I do think, is that as a scientist, I can really stop thinking about whether science is the best, or all those “philosophy of science” questions, and just realize, that it’s just my taste/opinion that it is so. And to argue with someone with a different taste/opinion is a waste of time. Again I am not saying arguing about differing opinions is a waste of time, it most certainly is not, but arguing about opinions that you know you don’t really have any kind of evidence or argument to back it up, is frankly a waste of time. Going back to the blonde/brunette metaphor, is it really worthwhile for two guys to argue which one is better? Or could they be using that arguing capacity for discussing why this or that tax law is better, or why this or that protein should fold in some way or another. That again is an opinion of what it means to use your time productively and it may differ.

As a side note, I do not think all philosophical questions are worthless, some can be very useful, but as soon as your realize that a certain question involves making many assumptions and is rife with circular arguments, the reasonable way is to take the assumptions you agree with (follow your taste) and see to what position these assumptions take you.

Scientific illiteracy: the disease of the 21. century

Throughout the history of mankind technology and later science has been an important part of our societies. Technology has always played a big role in how our societies evolved and developed into more and more complex structures. As our technology and our understanding of the world around us (that’s the main goal of science) evolved, so did the ways at which we relate to each other, how we do business and how we go about our lives.

Today we live in a society that is technology and science dependent as never before in history. We put so much trust into technology as well as expect technology to solve all our problems. Indeed it does and did solve many problems, but there are some problems that technology can hardly do anything about it. Our society is now structured on things like social networks, emails, websites – the internet generally is creating its own society in a completely new environment that is very different from the environment we lived and evolved in for thousands of years. On the internet the classical perception of space and time is no longer valid. There is no close or near on the internet, no borders, no obstacles nothing to limit ones ability to communicate (with some exceptions), the sense of time is also blurred as things can happen really fast in mere seconds. And still with all of us being so sucked in by the internet and the wonderful things it can offer how many of us can really say we understand how it works. How many people actually know how basic services like websites and email works, how networks are build, what things are required to make it all happen.

Most people view this internet as this ether that simply exists – somewhere out there. All you need to do is connect to a hot spot or put your cable in and voila you are there. But rarely anyone realizes how many things need to be there, how much infrastructure and software alike needs to exist in order to support the internet’s existence.

Why does this matter at all, can’t we just use it and not care? Well it seems it works this way, but the whole idea behind democracy is that the people make informed decisions – at least that’s what the idea is. But today this is starting to slowly dissolve for two important reasons, the first reason is something that’s probably not possible to overcome – that the complexity of modern technology and science alike is simple to vast for any one person to know it all. The other reason, which is one I think we can and should try to fix is that scientific literacy is incredibly low.

Firstly lets talk about the first reason, the one that’s mostly not solvable by classical means. You can be a  well-educated person, but we as humans simply lack the capacity and even time to learn all there is to learn even on a single subject, let alone on a myriad of subjects that would be required to understand just one piece of technology we use today – like the smart phone. For really understanding how a smart phone works you would first need to understand how its hardware works and operates as well as later you would need to know how operating system conduct their business and how they support all that software – the apps you use.
Just understanding the hardware would be a serious challenge. Getting a basic overview and understanding of how circuits and processors work requires a fair amount of work. Sure, if you are a student of Computer Science, this should not pose a problem for you. You should be able to throw all this out of your sleeve – still the question remains to what extent. As far as I know studying Computer Science gives a fairly broad overview of the field and all the sub-fields in it. But later on if you wish to really become an expert on something you need to specialize. And specializing takes time, while also specializing in one field means not specializing in another.
I’m not trying to say that specialization is bad. On the contrary I think it is critical for today’s society. But while it has many benefits it does pose its own challenges.

Getting back to the scientific illiteracy problem. We are going to take a simple example – well maybe not a simple one but a very illustrative one. The well know anti-vaxers movement. This movement for me represents the whole scientific illiteracy problem and the fact that science itself is poorly understood in general. Some background – anti-vaxers are those who do not wish to vaccinate their children, there are many reasons but the main reason is that they thing that vaccinations somehow harm and/or are ineffective.
Where this belief comes from is a bit of a mystery and there are probably many factors and variants, one of them being the infamous supposed link between autism and vaccinations. This has been disproved many times over by the scientific community and honestly it should not even get the attention it got because the study/studies that were supposedly the source of this (mis) information were simply put junk. While I will not try to explain the whole process of how and why studies should be made in a certain way I can recommend a book that illustrates this wonderfully. Bad Science from Ben Goldacre

One possible way of viewing this situation is that most people simply cannot trust anyone anymore, I would partially put myself into this group as due to all recent events I find it extremely hard to trust anything. Most people view the pharmaceutical industry as simply evil, which does have some ground and one can understand why this happens. The problem is when this perception of the world clouds judgement and makes people bias. Combine that with lack of knowledge and you have a very dangerous mix.

In the anti-vaxers movement you see exactly that, on one side they to not believe the pharmaceutical industry and then they extrapolate this lack of trust into science in general (as if there is some world conspiracy among scientists). They start thinking of science as simply some propaganda tool and do not appreciate that one of the main goals of science still is to find the truth and prevent hoaxes. Because of this bias they then tend to believe someone who you can actually demonstrate that has a financial or personal interest. While also ignoring all the scientific facts about vaccinations.

So on one hand you have suspicion (based on previous bad experience), with little or no evidence of foul play. And on the other side you have demonstrable self-interest and a mountain of evidence that says otherwise. How should you choose, well actually this is where knowledge and knowing things comes into play. Without any additional knowledge, you could still be choosing the wrong way.
But once you have a little bit of knowledge you can try to dissect what one or the other sides are saying and see what makes more sense. In the anti-vaccination community you see a general lack of understanding how modern vaccines work and general lack of any knowledge about chemistry, biochemistry, immunology etc.  You can hardly expect them to be people making rational decisions. One simple example is that they lack the basic understanding that some chemical element being dangerous or lethal does not mean that all the molecules containing this element are also lethal or dangerous. Some may be, some may not, but you cannot get this information by simply observing the element. It also goes the other way around – if some molecule is made out of elements that are by themselves harmless it can still be dangerous and/or lethal.

Example: Tetrodotoxin, which molecular formula is  C11H17N3OThe elements of this molecule are all non-lethal by themselves. Carbon makes nice diamonds and all living things, hydrogen is the component of water and the driving force of the Sun. The air we breathe is almost 80% nitrogen. And oxygen is the thing we cannot live without. So if you would follow the anti-vaxing idea of inferring lethality from just the elements a molecule is composed of – then this molecule should be harmless. But it far away from that.

What we see here is scientific illiteracy, there are many more examples but I don’t want to be boring with all of them. The basic idea of making rational decisions that you need information and knowledge to asses that information. Without that you are just acting out on faith. Yeah sure you cannot trust all the information given, but you must then apply both of these rules everywhere. First choose whether you trust some source of information and then asses the information with the knowledge you have no matter how much you trust the source. If you do not have knowledge to do so, then you are in trouble, because then all you have is trust, but you lack the means to rationally decide who to trust.
At least for me, you do not trust someone just because he tells you what you want to hear, or is nice to you, looks nice or any other thing. You trust first based on some form of information that this person is an expert of the field (this can be formal education for instance) and then you must also see his “track record”, has he been right many times, does he have any biases that might make him an unreliable source etc.
Yes sometimes some correct ideas go completely against the current and it takes someone to break the existing paradigms, but this does not happen so often so just because you might make some (a very tiny amount) of false negatives is far better than simply saying anything that is against the current paradigms must be true because of this or that conspiracy, that way what you will mostly get is many false positives as well as many false negatives. So you will be wrong most of the time, any maybe just maybe right on one special occasion.

So what we would need today is more scientific literacy for people to be able to appropriately asses the information they are being fed, to detect bullshit from either side. Doubt is great, but knowledge and later informed doubt is better. And also some curiosity would not hurt anyone, if you want to or have an opinion about something and you are vocal about it, do some research and read up on the basic literature for understanding the topic, doing good research means firstly checking both sides but not simply going trough the conclusions but also assessing the stuff you read.

There is much more to be said on this topic, but for now lets leave it here, and later on we might address some parts of this in more detail.

Research idea – human language vs computer language

So we know a lot about human language, how it works, what it is made of and which brain centers are most involved in it. We know that while we are not the only animals using sound as a form of communication, we are the only species on earth that has formed a complex from of language with which we communicate.

Language is crucial in many aspects of being human, its a big part of our cognitive development – our language abilities can predict or at least be an indicator of cognitive ability in general. Language has played a central role in the development of our civilization and is crucial to our technological and scientific endeavours, those of the past and those still to come.

So far there has been quite a lot of research in this field from many different perspectives.

But what I would be interested in is how similar and how different classical human languages are compared to computer languages – from a brain activity perspective. You rarely (or never) hear anyone speak in Python or C or Java, so it would be interesting to see which centers are active in the brain while doing programming tasks and how those are related to classical human languages.

Another things worth looking into would be how does knowing many human languages effect the learning ability of computer languages and if some same principles apply. Like for example that a child that learns two languages in his early childhood has different patterns in the brain than someone learning another language in later stages of life. Would this be true also in the case of learning to program. Also knowing many languages in early life usually makes it easier to learn new ones in later life. Does this apply only to human languages or to computer languages too? Especially for computer languages it does make a lot of sense as knowing one programming language and understanding the basic programming paradigms makes learning a new programming language quite simple.

Programming languages are much simpler compared to human language so one could expect interesting results in the aspect of complexity of brain patterns, but on the other hand programming usually involves algorithmic thinking and problem solving while human language does not – that should produce other complex patterns in the brain connected to higher cognitive tasks like reasoning, planning, problem solving, etc…

In a libertarian society: Would monopolies rule? – a response to a video

This is a response to this video, please watch it, before you read this.

It is a great video that has many valid points. Why I actually decided to make a response to it is because it is basicly about the main objection I have about libertarianism, while there are many things about libertarianism I like, this one is the most critical problem that I have with libertarianism. And if you ignore the small details, its actually the main and only objection, but it basicly makes it all fail for me.

So if you watch the video it is about monopolies, it first describes 2 ways for monopolies to form and I think that here he unintentionally makes the error of not addressing what non-supporters of libertarienism think about formation of monopolies.

So first he describes that monopolies form either with the help of government, which is very much valid. And is also one of the main issues libertarienism points out everytime. But then as the other option of monopolies forming he just says that it’s by having the best ever customer service, which he also validly states is nearly impossible. So he does not really say anything wrong but he leaves out some other options of monopolies forming, that are more distressing.

Before I begin talking about these other options I must first state that I am not interested in debating how bad the government is, as I do not support many actions of the governement (and am not some super-pro-government socialist). This post is merely a critic of the libertarian views and ideas. Also I might not have any better suggestions and/or they are not part of this post, but I don’t think that lack of a better idea means I should not be able to criticise some other ideas. So please, responses are welcome but regarding the article and not the promotion of libertarianism by showing how bad the government is – this serves no purpose.

So back to the main topic, among other and the ways described in the video monopolies can form in many ways and these while they might not be observed yet (for many reasons) are very much possible. Another thing to add is that there is a great difference between sectors you cannot compare grocery stores, massage parlors, hair salons with sectors like pharmaceutical industry, energy industry, ICT industry. While there are many differences the two biggest differences are that on one side setting up a grocery store does not require the same amount of investment as starting a pharmacetuical company or a power company. The other big difference is that some items/services have different elasticity properties then others. Simple example, if u are sick and you know some pill would help you get better you will be preprared to pay a substantial amount on the other hand if some store has apples that you deem to expensive you will simply not buy them.

Why I did another detour is because I will be mostly talking about monopolies forming in the energy industry, pharmaceutical industry, water and waste industry, ICT industry etc… These are the powerful industry sectors that provide us with the things we could hardly live without going back to the caves. So one way of monopolies forming in these industries is simply by making entry into the market so much harder, (by many different ways). For example if a power company owns all the power stations in an area and maybe even owns the power grid it can have a substantial advantage. So for someone entering into that market someone would have to invest a huge amount of money just to build one powerstation, and still they could not compete with the prices or would have to pay the other company to use the grid just to supply the power. Not even mentioning other difficulties an extremenly rich and powerful company can create.

Another example is the pharmaceutical industry here you have the problem of patents, if some monopoly would form with all the patents how exactly could someone compete given that you would have to invest huge amounts of money into production and still could not reach the same capacity as them. And then you also have the problem of making (not producing but “inventing”) your own drugs, which is a long and very expensive process (for a very good reason, unless you want homeopathy, in which case we have nothing to discuss).

Imagine someone having a monopoly over water supply and even owning water reservoirs, how exactly could you create your own alternative water network and supply and still be able to compete with the monopoly.

Another example is ICT industry, while yes the internet is great, but it also requires a lot of infrastructure and very expensive one too. How exactly can you expect to get into that market where you would basicly need to deploy your own satelites and underwater optical cables in order to ba a player on the market.

It’s very easy to see that in these industries that motivation for having a monopoly is big and if there is nothing (like the government, can be something else, any ideas?) stoping it it would happen, some companies would love to merge by themselves because this would actually be very good for them for many reasons beside profits, standardization, mass production etc…

Another thing he somehow misses in this video is when he talking about discrimination, he talks about discrimination against customers, but actually usualy the problem of discrimination today is not that someone cannot buy something at particular store, but the problem is that someone cannot get a job at a particular company. And even if we follow his train of tought – that is, we have a company that has a monopoly because it has such a great and super nice cheap service. This company could still choose to employ just lets say people that are libertarian (or anything else). This would change nothing in the sense of the market and I do not see how libertarianism would answer this particular issue, except for boycot which I will address later.

So I have yet to see how exactly libertarian theory would try to prevent or tackle these problems, without using any form of government (we could be just going in circles then, them talking about government needing to be weak but still preventing monopolies and me replying that weak governments can’t do that job with them being all weak). The only idea I have heard (so far) is a vote in the form of boycot.

But there is a catch – how is boycoting better then voting? For giving a vote or using any other means of democracy you do not need to – not take medicine or not get treatment, you do not need to – not use a mobile phone or electricity. In the form of boycoting vote, for me it translates, if I don’t like the actions of my power company I have to stop using electricity (but I really really don’t want to go back to the pre-industrial era).

Thats basicly why (with all the lil deatils aside) liberatarianism while it has some good ideas is still not something I would be willing to implement as a system as it does not improve the existing one. And I do want a new system, I do think that the current system is flawed in many ways. But I don’t want to change if for the sake of change, for something I think could/would even make it worse. If we would change it somehow, I would would want to change it into something better in all aspects not just something different.