Humanist Association of Orange County

NEWSLETTER

A Chapter of the American Humanist Association

August 1999, Issue #23

Dave Silva – Editor Web Page Design – Victor Tanious

Lou Regal – Associate Editor, Frank Farsad – Circulation

Quote of the Month

"If I logically require others to respect my freedom as an autonomous rationality, then insofar as I acknowledge others as autonomous rationalities - reciprocity demands that I respect others’ freedom as well.

This norm of respect then issues in the political demand for democracy: only democracies, as resting on the consent of the governed, thereby respect and preserve the fundamental humanity of its citizens.

Juergen Habermas

"POLITICAL DEMOCRACY AND HUMANIST VALUES"

By Harry Becker

Under the banner of Humanist declaration (Manifesto II), there appears a section entitled "Democratic Society".

We will attempt to explore the affinities, and perhaps differences, between Humanism and political democracy.

The quote in the declaration is, "To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes freedom of speech, of the press, political democracy, the legal right of opposition in government policies, fair judicial process, religious liberty, freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom. It also includes a recognition of an individual’s right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide. We oppose the increasing invasion of privacy, by whatever means, in both totalitarian and democratic societies, we would safeguard, extend, and implement the principles of human freedom evolved from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

GEORGE E. BROWN: CHAMPION OF SCIENCE

At the last meeting Pete Anderson commented on the loss of George E. Brown, steadfast friend of science and technology. If only there were more like him in Congress.

HAOC PRESENTATION FOR JULY 18, 1999

TITLE:       The Nature of Psychological Knowledge: Is Psychology a Science, a Pseudo-science, or Something Else?

What "psychology" is depends a great deal on the context, a person’s understanding of psychology, a person’s understanding of what he/she means by science, etc. The "psychology" of Wall Street, is more of a metaphor or newspaper terminology, not something based on clear-cut scientific principles of psychology.

At first, (1879) mostly university based, psychology was primarily a science because it utilized the philosophy of science, experimentation, and empirical evidence. Then, psychology entered the world of an "applied science," e..g., IQ Tests, Personality Tests, etc. in the early 1900’s.

Freud’s impact on psychology was extensive. Although "psychology" wanted to call Freud a psychologist, he was really a neurologist by training, then a psychiatrist, and finally a psychoanalyst. He used the scientific method in neurology, but not much use in psychoanalysis, which he derived from anecdotal, clinical "insights". No doubt a "genius", but to this day there is much controversy, e.g. Freud’s exhibition on the East Coast.

After World War II, psychology became even more of a profession and this helped in the decline of psychology as a science. Professionals are no "scientists" by virtue of being "professionals." E.g., some MD’s are scientists, but most are "practitioners." How about lawyers and engineers? They may have been trained to some degree in the scientific method but most of them are not hard core scientists. The MD’s study scientific subjects such as chemistry, physiology, etc., but that does not make them scientists

For many years, the widely accepted model for the clinical psychologist was the "Professional/Scientist". This was much more the case 30, 40 years ago because the first tier universities were in charge of educating, training and developing psychologists. We went from three schools that gave out Ph.D.s in Southern, Calif. to dozens at the present time.

I. Different ways to look at "Science"

There is "professional science" and "popular science." The public knows mostly the "popular science" of psychology. Most of the "professional psychology" is in the major universities, hospitals, institutes, etc. We can ‘also look at it as "good science" vs. "bad science." Examples of bad science are sources such as Oprah, Dr. Schlesinger, etc.

III. WHEN PSYCHOLOGY IS A SCIENCE

I suggest that the psychology coming out of reputable universities is the closest thing to a real science of psychology. "The study of behavior."

You have many peers review journals that publish psychological research, e.g., American Psychologist, Journal of General Psychology, etc., etc. Right now, Cognitive Psychology is very big. Another fertile area for scientific psychology is the brain. CAT SCANS, PET SCANS, ETC. UCI Brain Institute has a great reputation. Learning theory was very big when I was going through graduate school e.g., B. F. Skinner.

II.      When Psychology is a pseudo-science.

Part of it depends on how rigorously we wish to apply the standards of science. Much of what we see in the Media, newspapers, magazines, and especially, tabloids, is pseudo-psychology.

Some examples:

PARAPSYCHOLOGY: Started by Rhine at Duke University. After about 100 years of research, there is no evidence for psychic phenomena.

Another example, Subliminal Advertising. Experimenters found it could not be replicated.

Diseasing of America by Stanley Peele is a good example of exposing much of what passes for "fact" in the world of addiction is really pseudo-science first promoted by a physician and an accountant. It was a combination of pop psychology and religion. In controlled studies with control groups, AA "treatment" tends to be no better than no treatment at all.

Janet Woititz, Ph.D. — Wrote best seller, and voila, the National Association of Adult Children of Alcoholics developed and prospered. That paragon of scientific knowledge Suzanne Somers worked as a spokesperson.

Claudia Black, Ph.D., Co-dependency expert, who has made this vague concept a household word that is supposed to mean something.

Many others: LA Times Athlete typology, using Jung’s typology to predict athletic performance. There is no scientific evidence for this whatsoever.

Bradshaw’s "inner child" comes from a best seller and PBS. Please understand the PBS promotes much pseudo-science because it is popular, e.g., Depak Chopra, a bunch of new age jargon and a clever use of scientific concepts such as quantum mechanics, etc. The Discovery channel and the Learning channel do the same.

III. When Psychology is a "working science" or a "discipline."

There is a useful but sometimes more limited role for psychologists. If they stay within there areas of expertise and not oversell psychology, they can do things like:

Psycho-diagnostic testing and interviewing —Counseling and psychotherapy

Executive assessments, 360 degrees feedback assessments, management team building, etc.

What one should do, is try to form a judgment based on the evidence. It is not always popular to debunk what has been accepted as factual, e.g., trauma counseling (debriefing, etc.). A recent report states that trauma counseling is about as effective as doing nothing.

Summary & Conclusions

My view — Even though we are overwhelmed by gullible "believers", we should not yield to a superstitious impulse. Keep looking for evidence.

According to a poll in 1999, one out of six Americans say they have been in touch with the dead. One out of 10 say they have talked to the devil. One in four report a "telepathic" experience.

Thus, we should be committed to ridding the world of superstition, myths, delusions and old wives tales. In the long run, the real world is much more fascinating and awe inspiring than that of the imaginary. Look to scientific psychologists for your information about psychology.

"THE COMING DARK AGE?"

By Jerry Parks

The Dark Ages are usually defined as the common era years of 476 to around 1000CE, or on to the full start of the Renaissance. It was an era when, at least for the common man, a lot of knowledge was lost. Engineering and science regressed and superstition and belief in all kinds of silliness took over. At one time the Catholic church decreed that it was a sin to deny that witches flew through the air on broomsticks! Obviously the church used such belief to control the populace. To be fair, the church saved civilization from losing a lot of knowledge by gathering books and sequestering them in monasteries - although burning others that too clearly did not agree with the church’s position. The church, and some of the political powers, discouraged the common man from learning anything other than what they wanted them to believe. The year 476CE was, of course, the fall of Rome when the barbarians took over. Thus the Dark Ages started with a real bang! Civilized Europe was no longer civilized. With the absence of any significant secular authority, the church used the opportunity to gain control of people’s lives and their beliefs. If the people were rebellious because of their hard life, the church would blame all the problems on "witches" and then could get rid of those they didn’t like by claiming that they were the witches that caused the trouble, and having them burnt at the stake.

The so-called Dark Age was simply the most obvious period when such situations developed, and knowledge was lost. As different civilizations waxed and waned, as different religious beliefs or political powers came and went, there would be eras when true knowledge flourished, and eras when knowledge was lost or set aside in favor of beliefs with no logical substantiation.

In an entertaining way, Petr Beckmann’s book "A History of Pi" shows how different civilizations came up with different values for Pi. You’d think that once someone had a good approximation for PI, they wouldn’t drop it unless they had a proven better value. After all it is rather easy to verify experimentally, at least for the rough approximations that were common in the early days. But different schools of thought would arrive at values based on some imagined idea of what was appropriate, or that simply seemed right and thus would be much worse than earlier estimates. Religion and politics have a big influence on all walks of life, including knowledge and science, and often it is not a beneficial influence.

Fortunately, the Dark Ages were followed by the Renaissance. (After all, there was hardly any way to go but up.) To quote Barbara Tuchman (in The March of Folly), the Renaissance was the period when the values of this world replaced those of the hereafter. The individual found in himself, rather than in God, the designer and captain of his fate." Thus there was a general and significant revival of art, literature and learning.

The question arises: are we heading back into another Dark Age? The extremely powerful religious right seems to be getting more and more political clout. The house of representatives has voted to allow the posting of the "Ten Commandments" in public buildings even though the first three or four (depending on whose version you use) are strictly for the promotion of the Judeo-Christian God and have nothing to do with proper behavior. It might make sense to post the "Golden Rule" which says everything that the Ten Commandments say, except for the "worship me - or else!" admonitions. "Creation Science" is promoted by otherwise well educated people as "proof’ that Darwin was wrong. They come up with all sorts of silly reasons to "prove" that the biblical story of creation is correct, and that the earth is not nearly as old as science has proven without any reasonable doubt. More and more people are closing their minds to logic and reason and insist that whatever their church says is right, is indeed right, without any doubt, and that is that! And, unfortunately, that is being taught to their children. Is there a coming dark age?

Editor's note: If anyone out there would like to contribute a letter, or short article on "Are we headed for another Dark Age?" let me know? It seems like a worthwhile topic if kept within the bounds of reason.

"WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING"

By Juan Bernal, Ph.D.

In his presentation on "Randomness, Chaos and Complexity Theory," Feb. 21, 1999, Pete Anderson’s mentioned the "metaphysical" question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" At our May meeting, Paul Ricci also touched on the same question, when he discussed the cosmological issue of the finely tuned universe and the claim that an intelligent creator is required to explain this fine tuning. We have, then, the suggestion that this question is a significant one, which merits our attention. Since this question has always puzzled me, I propose that we take a closer look at this question:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

This is usually presented as a "deep" question, a significant, metaphysical question. Some see this question as inquiring about the causes, conditions, or reasons for the existence of the universe.

Let us say that the question posits two alternatives: either nothing could have happened (?) or something could have come into existence. Either A or B. Since A happened, why did it happen? Consider a few analogous questions:

Either I say something or remain silent. I decide to speak up. Why did I speak rather than remain silent?

Either we do something or do nothing (in Kosovo, for example). Suppose we opt to do something. Why something rather than nothing?

Either the continents are permanently fixed in place or they move about on tectonic plates. Scientists find evidence for concluding that the continents have moved. Someone could raise the question: Why continental movement rather than no movement?

In these cases the "Why A rather than B?" question makes sense. We can imagine what considerations would be relevant to our response, and what would not. But what would be relevant responses to our original, "deep" question?

Does it call for a theory, an explanation? Surely it does not seem to call for a scientific theory. Which of the sciences could investigate a state of reality suspended between existence and non-existence? If a cosmologist or an astrophysicist advances a theory explaining how a specific physical state of things led to the Big Bang, his theory would purport to explain how one state of existence led to another state. His theory would not explain how we get something rather than nothing as our cosmic reality. But this is what the question seems to imply: that somehow we can delve into this state and explain why existence happened rather than nonexistence.

Does the question call for theological speculation? (e.g. Does it ask why the Creator, who had a choice, would do something rather than nothing?) I seriously doubt that most scientists or rational philosophers would interpret the question this way. But then how can we interpret the question? Does it call for metaphysical speculation on a state of reality suspended between being and non-being? What could this possibly mean?

The question may have meaning for a theologian, who is accustomed to talk about God’s intentions in creating the universe out of nothing, or for a Heideggerian metaphysician, accustomed to talking about the Nothing. But what meaning does it have for a humble rationalist?

For many rationalists, this is a very odd question, in some ways suggestive of the medieval question "How many angels can dance on the head of pin?" Both questions leave us mystified when we try to say what the relevant considerations might be. We might even ask whether these questions pose coherent problems. (* See W. Kaufmann’s remarks below.) Taking up these questions, we’re much in the position of someone trying to play a game with no rules or coherent procedures. Some people might enjoy such a game, but most of us certainly can find better ways to occupy our time. At the very least, we should require that the question be analyzed and its meaning clearly stated. Then we can decide whether it poses a significant problem that can be rationally approached.

Juan Bernal (Worker in the field) July 3, 1999

 * From Walt Kaufmann’s book, From Shakespeare to Existentialism (Doubleday & Co., Garden City, N.Y. Anchor Books edition, 1960):

Re. Heidegger’s Introduction to Metaphysics — The first of the four chapters of the book bears the title "The Basic Question of Metaphysics" and begins: "Why is there any being at all and not rather nothing?" Surely Heidegger’s inability to answer this question is not due to the age we live in but to certain peculiarities of the question. No previous age could have answered this question; and if a future generation should be able to answer it to its own satisfaction, it won’t be because Being has revealed itself but because the intellectual conscience has gone to sleep.

One need not be a positivist to suggest that it is the philosophers task to determine by analysis of this question why it cannot be answered. Heidegger, however, proceeds as if Kant had never written Critique of Pure Reason and as if the "why" of this question were unambiguous. The possibility that the question itself might be open to serious criticism is not even considered: The question is treated like an authoritative text --as a preacher might treat a verse from Scripture. It is expunged and extolled, circumscribed and circumvented, without ever being analyzed. (p. 345).

Chuckles

by Frank Farsad

English Origins

P’s & Q’s

1.         In English pubs, ale is ordered in pints and quarts. So in old England, when customers got unruly, the bartender would yell at them to mind their own pints and quarts and settle down. It’s where we get the phrase "mind your P’s and Q’s."

Sleep tight

1.         In Shakespeare’s time, mattresses where secured on bed frames by ropes. When the ropes were pulled, the mattress tightened., making the bed firmer to sleep on. That’s where the phrase "good night, sleep tight" came from.

Trivia

1.         How come the word ‘abbreviated’ is such a long word?

2.         Why do we put suits in a garment bag and put garments in a suitcase?

3.         Why are they called apartments, when they’re all stuck together?

4.         Why doesn’t Tarzan have a beard?

5.         why does lemon juice contain "artificial ingredients" but dishwashing liquid contains "real lemons?"

6.         If Superman could stop bullets with his chest, why did he always duck when someone threw a gun at him?

7.         Why do they call it the Department of Interior when they’re in charge of everything outdoors?

The cruise liner, Queen Elizabeth II, moves only 6 inches for each gallon of diesel fuel it burns.