Miss Bishop, Mitchell Grossberg, Dr. Ralph Goldin, and Socrates

 

I hated Miss Bishop. She was one of the worst teachers I ever had. I had her twice – in the fifth and seventh grades and I was convinced that she was out to get me. I had always received excellent grades and I was used to having a report card that I was proud to show to my parents. And there was no reason why it shouldn't be a good card. I was one of the smartest, if not THE smartest kid in the school. But she ruined it. She gave me a “U” in something or other. (I can't remember what it was. Its presence under whatever guise was an abomination for me.) Worse. The offending grade was in red ink. It was a positive embarrassment.

I subsequently realized that the “U” must have been the rating I got for effort. Sure I did well. It was easy. But she demanded more of me. She knew I was coasting. And only since have I come to recognize that she was pushing me to accomplish all that was within my reach, and to reach even further. It was up to me. I hated her, but she was one of the best teachers I ever had.

Mitchell Grossberg wasn't one of my teachers. He was a friend – a better friend than I appreciated. Even so, I can only remember one incident in our relationship, but in view of the fact that it probably happened sixty-five years ago or so, the impression it made on me is evident.

We were playing in an overgrown vacant lot. I was about ten or eleven and he was a year older than I. I can't recall how the issue came up but I called someone (probably Miss Bishop) a ____ [expletive deleted]. Mitchell responded by asking me if I knew what the word meant. It must have been obvious to him that I didn't because I used a verb as a noun, and I used an expletive in an age when cursing was far less common than is the case now. When I admitted my ignorance (it was also an age when children knew less about the “birds and the bees” than is true now) he simply told me not to use words I didn't understand. The idea of comprehending what I was discussing has stuck with me. I suspect that he didn't think twice about what happened, but it provided an important lesson for me.

There was a hiatus before the next teaching that affected my approach to the world. It happened during my residency in radiology. I was already a doctor and learning to be a specialist, and I thought I knew everything. In the middle of the night a resident from one of the wards asked me to perform some kind of emergency GI procedure (I forgot long ago what it was) and I argued against it because I didn't think it was indicated at that hour. Rather than fight it for too long or awaken one of the attending physicians to back me up, however, I did what was requested and put off the discussion with my superior until the morning.

The superior was Dr. Goldin, who was both the staff member most experienced in gastrointestinal radiology and a thoughtful and experienced physician. From him I sought a ruling – or really a rule – concerning the indications for the procedure. I wanted to have some criteria I could quote that would justify my refusal should the situation arise again. But he refused me. He didn't say whether I was right or wrong in the particular case, only that there was no rule. Each case had to be evaluated individually. In current jargon, one size doesn't fit all.

But the individual who affected my learning most, and who most influenced my own teaching methods, was one I never met. Indeed he lived, if at all, more than two millennia ago. It was Socrates, as portrayed by Plato. He taught me to think. His lesson encompassed all the others I've described. They were all important, but the example of Socrates, that I have to question everything, and work out all problems for myself, has governed my approach to education – both my own and that of my students – for most of my life. I have learned to ask questions rather than answer them.

In retrospect, none of the three teachers I mentioned prior to Socrates didn't always answer my questions. But all made me think about them. I hope that my students have learned this lesson as well.

Next episode: “They Speak For Themselves” – I said it and I meant it. At least at the time.

Heresy

Alright. I admit it. I'm an anomaly.

No! Wait. I'm being too harsh on myself. I'm trying to be politically correct. But deep down I know that I'm right and the world is wrong.

These thoughts crossed my mind last night as I had dinner out with my wife. It was at a nearby Chinese restaurant. It was her choice. Believe me it was her choice. My preference is for a steak house, since I love a nice steak with lots of burnt fat. Or a few similarly prepared lamb chops. With a nice glass of wine. Perhaps I'd choose a fancy dessert as well.

But I'm a good husband. So I had skinless fried chicken cutlets with peas and carrots. The name was fancier and, from the endless menu, it sounded tolerable. But it wasn't. Chicken is chicken and peas and carrots can, run but they can't hide. You can serve “snap peas” with grated raw carrots, but it's still peas and carrots. And schnitzel is schnitzel even with “plum” sauce. Moreover I suspect that the sauce was really a commercial combination of water, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial color, and artificial flavor – but I have no beef with high-fructose corn syrup and artificial stuff, so I'll let that pass. (Actually I had chicken, not beef, with the combination of water, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial color, and artificial flavor.) Fortunately it wasn't organic. (Or, at least, it didn't say so.)

Bottom line, though, is that I had chicken with peas and carrots. And the chicken was already sliced for me. People who eat in Chinese restaurants use chopsticks and they don't know how to cut food or they can't. (And maybe they all have false teeth.) There were lots of other things on the menu, but almost all of them were combinations of small pieces of meat and vegetables in some kind of thick, nondescript, sauce. Page after page of them. Far more than I cared to read. (There were also Thai dishes listed, as well as sushi, but all that proves is that the restaurant was keeping up with the fads. The food itself was no better.)

And, of course, there was a bowl of tasteless rice to fill me up, although there was no lack of food. What the dish lacked in quality it more than made up for in quantity. A big glass of water accompanied my meal. Fortunately it was tap water rather than some of the pretentious and overpriced bottled variety. I suppose I could have had green tea, but there's a limit to my masochism. I can take just so much.

As for dessert, everyone got a couple slices of orange and a commercial fortune cookie which I was smart enough not to eat. I eschewed the pop philosophy and my “lucky” numbers. I'm sure it wasn't my loss.

So where am I going with this? I'm Jewish and I don't like Chinese “food.” It ain't food! I don't care if half the world eats it or something similar (I don't like Japanese or Thai fare either), it just ain't food. Anything you have to eat with sticks isn't worth the time. I'd rather pick something up in my hands. (We're Henry the Eighth, we are.)

I guess this means that I fail in the test of multiculturalism. I'm ethnocentric. I've got teeth. I'm a heretic. A pariah. And I don't want everything mixed together.

But I don't care. Others, and I don't exclude Jews, can eat whatever they want. Even if it isn't food. It's their (foolish) choice. And I'll dutifully observe the ritual myself every now and again in order to keep up the ethnic image and maintain family peace, however I don't have to like it. And I don't.

Pass the bagels and lox. And the herring. And the rugelach.

And I'll have a steak tonight.

Next episode: “Miss Bishop, Mitchel Grossberg, Dr. Ralph Goldin, and Socrates” – Different, but the same.

 

Words Fail Us

If you've been reading these essays, by now you know that I'm a hermit. I hate people and I hate small talk. Mostly people try to inflate themselves with their comments, and I'm not impressed because I'm so much better than they. (For the record, I'm condescending and arrogant. I'm opinionated. I'm a curmudgeon. Contrary to those in Paul's audience, I don't suffer fools gladly. I hate (small) people and small talk. The people are a waste of time and their views border on idiocy.

As for my bad points, I occasionally doubt myself, which doesn't make much sense because I'm never wrong. But we all have our weaknesses, and my most foolish is that I give others the benefit of the doubt when they don't deserve it. If they doubt me they warrant no benefit.)

I prefer solitude and silence. Well, music is OK. But, apart from news, I'm not much interested in what is said on the radio. And even the news broadcasts seem to be designed more to entertain rather than inform. I'm word weary. There doesn't seem to be any refuge from Man's inanity. As I said, I prefer silence. But, according to Jean Arp (1887-1948),

Soon silence will have passed into legend. Man has turned his back on silence. Day after day he invents machines and devices that increase noise and distract humanity from the essence of life, contemplation, meditation. Tooting, howling, screeching, booming, crashing, whistling, grinding, and trilling bolster his ego.

What's worse, is that the situation is deteriorating day by day. Arp wrote in the first half of the last century, and since then the technology has gotten more sophisticated and the language more corrupted. I won't waste my time discussing the infernal electronic gadgets with which we communicate, but I'll limit my remarks to the content – the “corrupted” language. I'm not suggesting that languages don't change with time. They all do. It's to be expected. A few years from now English will be different. And in the past it was different. The English of Chaucer is completely foreign as far as I'm concerned, and Shakespeare is difficult for me when I don't have any commentary to help me. But they're not the problem.

What concerns me more is the way we now use our native tongue. Like, I mean, whatever. Even fillers like “like” have always been an acceptable part of the language, and these, too, are of no great concern (aside from sounding stupid to me). Similarly, words borrowed from other languages – whether they represent specific items like “chutney,” or concepts like “Schadenfreude” – have been adopted and have strengthened English.

More horrifying for me – and what makes me glad that I talk to so few people – is the decision to make our language more and more a political tool. It's not something new. We have long recognized not only that the pen is mightier than the sword, but that the basis of this idea is that words are powerful. Too many among us feel we need protection from some of them.

But modern society has gone too far. We've decided that our first responsibility is to spare the feelings of others. On the assumption that whatever we find indelicate will spark the same feeling in others, we have substituted euphemisms for all “unpleasant” words and ideas. For example, a cretin (in the correct medical sense of the term) is “special,” “challenged:” a dwarf (also a useful medical concept) has “stature issues.” A person we used to call “queer” is now “gay” (although the LGBT population has no problem with the term as is illustrated by such groups as, for example, The Queer Film Society and The Association for Queer Anthropology), and if a movie like “The Gay Divorcee” were remade, the Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire roles would have to be changed significantly. Meanwhile the English language has lost a useful word and concept.

And Ginger Rogers would no longer be an actress. We consider it demeaning to have a feminine term for “actor,” although may languages are gender based. (By the way, “gender” is a linguistic term substituted for “sex” in our culture for a variety of reasons that I won't discuss here.) But nowadays we've tailored our language to egalitarian concepts. She doesn't exist anymore. (That's “she,” not she. We haven't eliminated women – just the pronoun.) And our new gender-free language sacrifices itself on the altar of egalitarian ideas. The singular pronoun for man is “they.” The singular pronoun for woman is “they.” We rebel at the idea of sexually classifying anyone. Male chauvinism must be expunged.

Indeed, we don't risk offending someone else in any way (such as saying “I see” in the presence of one who is blind visually impaired). If something is offensive to any individual we view it as an attack, whether sexual, racial, ethnic, or “whatever.” And that makes it hate speech, which is not politically correct (PC). It's considered by the PC police as offending or causing some disadvantage, or even discomfort, to someone or some group. It doesn't matter if the charge is true. If made, it takes precedence over the Constitution and any right of free speech. And even the accusation of such an offense is enough to tar the accused.

Another imagined crime is “microaggression” which is the interpretation of something that is said, by anyone, as an attack. Such a charge may not be justified by the words themselves or the interpretations of others, but if an individual believes he they is (awkward – in fact wrong – but I don't want to offend anyone) being attacked, everyone must accept that judgment. Paranoia can govern reality.

And there is the demand in too many places for “trigger warnings.” That's the equivalent in other circumstances of movie ratings (like G, PG, R, X, and others) but it's transferred to schools, libraries, and similar settings. Part of the first paragraph of an article in a recent issue of The Atlantic is illuminating:

(see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356)

Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress.

There is a belief among many that people should be warned against books or lectures or anything else that may cause them distress. They should be able to protect themselves from any unpleasant ideas, or concepts with which they disagree. That college students, who presumably are there to be exposed to new, and possibly uncomfortable, ideas should be protected from them, is idiotic, but that's the view of some.

What we're left with is an unrecognizable, emasculated (my word processor had no gender- neutral word for this) language, which restricts our thinking rather than expands it. We are losing the free speech of which we boast. And all in the name of sensitivity.

It doesn't make sense. I'm glad I'm a hermit.

Next episode: “Heresy” – Sticks without stones won't break very much.

Arts And Science

“[Nobel Prize winner Joshua] Lederberg lets us know that in this sea of democratic relativism natural science stands out like Gibraltar. All the rest is a matter of taste.” Allan Bloom in “The Closing of the American Mind,” Simon and Schuster, 1987.

It doesn't seem to matter what the subject is, there's no debating the almost universally held view that the best way to the proper conclusion – the way to learn what is most important about some particular subject – is by the use of scientific principles; the path to Truth is via Science. (See also essay named “Emphasis” on September 23.)

As a people we have discovered the value of this approach, and we view with approval governmental actions that preferentially support education of mathematics and science over the needs of other disciplines. And sports and nutrition programs, shown scientifically to benefit us all, have also been assisted politically. Our goal is “a sound mind in a sound body.” It became obvious, moreover, that the only way that our country could stay ahead of the rest of the world, or at least keep up, was by maintaining a superiority in scientific achievements. If this meant some loss to the “Arts,” so be it. The superiority of science, and our need for its blessings, dictated an emphasis on it. The important questions will only be answered through science and mathematics. For example, “Multivariate modeling of uncharacteristic harmonics using archimedean copulas,” which was published in 2010 in “Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems,” discusses harmonics, a discovery of the third century BCE scientist, Archimedes.

I won't bore you with any mathematical details, but it must be noted, as is clear from the title, that the fine points of harmonics, one of the primary features of music, were initially demonstrated by a scientist. It is also of interest that much of “modern” music has been described as mathematical. I don't know if that's meant as a compliment or an insult, but it's apparent that the distinctions between art and science are not always clear. Sometimes art and science overlap. A beautiful sunset may move a physicist who can explain its technological aspects, but not its effect on him. Although these examples don't prove the point, however, I doubt that we are placing the emphasis where it belongs when we laud the superiority of natural science. And that's what we do.

When I was in medical school I was told (by a non-surgeon of course) that you could teach a monkey to operate. What was critical, however, was an understanding of why he would do so. What is also bandied about by scientists is that another monkey, with the help of other members of his species and an adequate amount of time, could write the works of Shakespeare. It was all a matter of chance and probability. It's a clever rhetorical point, but that's all it is. The statistical likelihood of that happening must be less than of another Universe coming into existence through scientific principles. It's nil. And even if it were possible, the monkeys would lack any understanding of what they were doing. They would just be doing. It would be a mechanical exercise which, even if it succeeded, would have no meaning.

Though not as well paid, scientists are a lot like plumbers or electricians. And in a way they're like the operating monkey. Their goal is to do – not really to understand anything beyond their craft. It my be to extend our knowledge of the Universe in which we live, and it may require a great deal of intelligence and effort, but in many ways it is also a mechanical exercise. It is not my wish to denigrate science, but the questions that scientists address are “what” and “how.” At least journalists add “who,” “when,” and “where” to the list to more fully describe their subjects of interest.

But those questions, important as they may be, have no fundamental meaning if we don't know “why.” And that is the realm of the Arts and the Humanities rather than the Sciences. And the domain of religion. Science doesn't deal in values. (In that way it's valueless.) Astrophysicists may be able to tell me when the sun will burn out, but – and it doesn't embarrass me to say so – I don't care. In all likelihood I won't be around to see it.

But I'm here now. And I don't know why. And there are others around. Who they are (philosophically), how I understand them, and how I interact with them are of far greater concern to me than what some mathematical formula or scientific theory will disclose. And those others. How they interact with their fellows could have a far greater impact on the lives of my children and grandchildren than any scientific hypothesis. I'm far more fearful of a modern military conflict than of a future astronomical cataclysm.

There is no foolproof solution to the problem. There are too many fools and scoundrels around. And there are too many whose knowledge doesn't extend beyond their own needs. But it is reasonable to assume that the more fully that people have been educated to the way others think, to their values, and to the conditions that make life “livable,” the fewer and the less violent our future conflicts will be. And that is the purview of the humanities and the arts. “Music hath charms …” but first we have to hear and understand the music.

We must, in addition, understand each other. And ourselves, for without insight we lack any form of sight, and are unable to appreciate the needs of everyone else. We need to learn what science cannot tell us – what it cannot measure. History, literature, art, and all those other “irrelevant” disciplines reflect wisdom, and they are far more important in the long run – and, even more so, in the short-run – than mathematics and science. That is what we should emphasize in the education we provide for our young. “Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.” – Immanuel Kant. “Choose life.” – Deuteronomy, 30:19.

If there must be scientists then, and if they require projects to occupy their minds, we would all benefit if they would turn their attention to determining why some people don't respond to the arts and the humanities, and to find a cure for this affliction. Gibraltar's flowers are of greater significance than its rock. And “democratic relevance” must give way to human understanding.

Next episode: “Words Fail Us” – And vice versa.

Silence

It is hard to excuse silence in the face of injustice, but not so hard to understand it.

Silence as a (lack of) response to injustice has three roots: agreement, apathy, and fear. The situation that has brought this to mind at this time originates in the Middle East, but it has spread far beyond that area, and now has world-wide implications. More specifically I am referring to “radical Islam,” and its effects on its moderate coreligionists. We're always left with the questions of whether moderate Muslims actually exist and, if they do, why they don't speak out to condemn the violence their brothers and sisters initiate.

Whenever there is a discussion of terrorism, wherever it may occur, note is made of the fact that the perpetrators are almost invariably Muslims. Very often the victims are as well – especially in Muslim countries – but almost irrespective of the site of the violence, those who support it find a way to attribute the cause to Israel and to the Jews. And they succeed in this strategy because there is widespread belief – by some in virtue of Islamic teachings and by others in any tactics that are focused on the Jews. For thousands of years people have been taught to hate and fear Jews whom they view as representatives of the devil and to whom they attribute all varieties of evil. Killing them is simply fitting, and it's also a method of survival.

For somewhat less time, but still centuries, Muslims have been in agreement with such a philosophy. Their theology included “toleration,” but also taxation and subjugation of “The People of the Book,” a category that included Jews and Christians. However in the last hundred years they have emphasized actions against the Jews, primarily because there were too many Jews in a land they considered part of their demesne. (It is also important to note that the various strains of Islam also harbor ill will against each other because of historical and doctrinal differences – ill will that is often the cause of violent hostility.)

But anti-Semitism has existed away from Muslim lands for a long time and it persists even today. Perhaps it reached a peak during the Holocaust, but the underlying antipathy can be found in many lands, often disguised as “anti-Zionism” so as to make it more acceptable and give it a patina of social acceptability – even virtue. People living in safety have no difficulty in faulting those they hate, especially when that group may be in peril. They can afford to be arrogant, condescending, and “holier than thou” without facing any personal hazard. (BDS is an example of such bias disguised as an act of justice. Proof of prejudice – which, of course, they deny – is the fact that their policy is only applied to one country.)

For the most part, however, people just don't care. As the Charlie Hebdo incident is now demonstrating, with increased numbers of accusations of intolerance against the cartoonists who worked there, it is easier and (a lot) safer to blame the victim than to face the criminal. After all, the violence doesn't affect them and it's none of their business. It was admitted by Reverend Martin Niemöller: “First they [the Nazis] came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist. ...” That was the first line of a “confession” that ended, “Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.” The apathetic, those who have their own problems and don't want to get involved, may themselves wind up as victims of the injustices they ignore.

But fear is the main reason people don't speak up. When you see unchecked injustice all around you it takes immeasurable courage to draw attention to yourself. Members of the press fear for their lives. If moderate Muslims don't condemn violence, it is because they fear becoming victims of it. I believe that the vast majority of Muslims are “moderates” (though current Muslim teachings may place a greater emphasis on low tolerance for difference than is found in other religions), however they are moderates who, like the victims of their coreligionists, live in fear. In a way they are like the American Jews who, during the Second World War, often hid their religion rather than speaking out for the victims of Hitler. They were afraid. There was much anti-Semitism in the United States and they feared feeding it.  I understand their anxiety, although it had catastrophic consequences.

There is a fourth cause of silence, economics, but that can usually be subsumed under the rubric of fear. It can be exemplified by two cases (though there are doubtless many others): the media's willingness to report stories in a manner favorable to the government of the country in which they work, lest they be exiled from that country, and a government's support for the existing regime in a land providing them with goods and resources that they cannot get elsewhere, or it would be prohibitively expensive to do so.

I have mentioned the Holocaust, Nazis, Hitler, and anti-Semitism. There are many who believe that invoking those images cheapens them. I understand their concerns. But it is remembrance of the Holocaust and its outcome that gives me hope at a time when the Middle East appears to be in a death spiral. The German people were complicit in the Shoah, but most of them today seem interested in going the way of tolerance. During the war the vast majority were silent about the injustice all around them. It took a thorough licking to rid them of their rulers and get them the freedom to cast off their tolerance of intolerance, but their more recent actions suggest that they have done so. The intolerance has long existed in them and others, but the tragedy of the last century may help them, and others, learn to control it. It will never be gone completely because our parents, teachers, friends, and clergy will continue to teach us this evil lesson, but it is more out in the open and subject to discussion and condemnation. The answer to the abuse of free speech is more free speech, and the answer to abuse of justice is justice, aided by free speech.

Perhaps it will take a licking of radical Islamists to restore justice to the region. And it will certainly take a reeducation of those who teach hatred – especially the clergy. But the Holocaust showed us it can be done. It was at great cost, but it was done. And silence is not the answer.

The Rabbit Died

At one time those were the code words meaning that a woman was pregnant. We didn't say the word “pregnant” in public then. We were too delicate. Maybe the rabbit didn't think so, though. She gave her life to confirm (or not to confirm – she died irrespective of the test's outcome) the pregnancy. Actually she didn't really “give” her life. (It was taken from her by some doctor or lab technician who wanted to take a peek at her ovaries.) But she died for a good cause. Her involuntary forfeiture made the arrival of the stork more understandable.

Times change, though. Nowadays even if we didn't have more advanced tests – ones not requiring the sacrifice of the rabbit – we would find a way to protect the poor animal from harm, even if we chose to kill the fetus. The protection of animals has become an important priority in our culture, and among strict vegans (it would be disingenuous to suggest that all vegans are cut from the same cloth) it is considered improper to “exploit” animals in any way. Many, in fact, eschew almonds (http://almondsarenotvegan.com/) because the pollination of almond trees requires bees. (Of course, there's no denying the fact that if that is your approach, virtually all the fruits and vegetables we eat – or use for clothing, construction, etc. – suffer from the same kind of shortcoming (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees) which limits the intake of those who won't eat animal products either. But I won't pursue that point except to note that wiseGEEK tells us that honey bees pollinate about $15 billion worth of crops in the United States each year. So it's an economic issue as well as a moral one.

We live in a time of animal rights – and human wrongs. While cruelty to animals ought not be accepted, advocates of those rights – those who speak for animals – sometimes lack perspective. According to the first chapter of the Bible, “G-d said 'Let us make man in our image and likeness. Let him dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky … and every land animal that walks the earth. … G-d said to them [humans], … Fill the land and conquer it.
'” Not everyone accepts this teaching, but it is hard to contradict the evolutionary tree that puts humans at the top of the animal kingdom – a fact that those who disdain “speciesism” consider anthropocentric. (Plants and other Eukaryota are beneath, while farther down the tree are the Archaea and Bacteria. Where viruses fit in is not clear. But what is evident is that the distinction between plants and animals simply reflects which branches we mark off as being significant. The DNA sequences of all living things have much in common because they ultimately evolved from the same common ancestors. Humans, for example, share about 50% of the same DNA sequences that occur in bananas.) There is a hierarchy, however, whether we're comfortable with that fact or not.  (Incidentally, see http://www.wisegeek.com/are-vegetables-dead-when-you-buy-them-at-a-grocery-store.htm. It may be food for thought for some vegans.) 

Notwithstanding the reality, however, there are many whose mission it is to prevent exploitation of animals and to protect them from humanity (as an example, see http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm). For some the commitment is absolute, even if the implications are not fully appreciated. For example, electricity which is usually produced through the burning of fossil fuels, and transportation based on the same form of energy do not raise a second thought, while a well-kept horse who pulls a wagon is being exploited.

There are, however, exceptions to the rules of animal protection. No one would think of trying to stop a large fish from eating one that is smaller, nor prevent a lion from stalking an antelope. And you'd probably fail if you tried switching a predator to kale. Nurture shouldn't be, and, in fact, isn't always victorious over nature. Nor morality over reality. In terms of dietary preferences, for example, while some may view veganism as morally superior to carnivorism, the latter is normal, and not evil, for some species.

And animals have long played an important part in our lives. They were prominent in mythology (eg Pegasus, mermaids, and satyrs), we used them for prophesy (reading entrails), they were food and sacrifices, we hunted and fished – even using live bait, we used them for transportation and agriculture, pulling carriages and chariots among other things, and we benefit even now from their use socially and for entertainment, as guide dogs and therapy animals and in zoos. And, as I have mentioned, they played a large part in our farming (herding and providing organic manure in addition to pulling plows), medicine (think cow pox and Botox for example), as well as house pets (do veterinarians exploit animals?).

Which of these uses represents inappropriate use? Which is inherently evil? Cannibalism, of course. But to avoid them all we'd have to go back hundreds or thousands of years, and even then we wouldn't succeed. We have always exploited animals for our benefit – and some of them have eaten us when they had the chance. Nature has made us what we are. Our intelligence – which is greater than that of a banana or a rabbit – has given us domain over many other forms of life.

My intelligence, however, sets the limits for me. I oppose cruelty, to animals – human and not. That includes medical use as well as hunting for sport. But I do not turn away from reality. I would not bounce a ball on an ant, but I recognize that I step on some unintentionally. And I endorse the use of medicines to kill parasites – vegetable or animal. I see the value of a veterinarian if not a taxidermist. And a Saint Bernard with brandy.

And I love a steak.

Next episode: “Arts and Science” – We're in the “Age of Enlightenment,” but not of discernment.

Devolution

It occurred to me while I was writing about the deity “Gravity” last week, and as I've been reading a tract whose purpose is to debunk the idea that science has “buried” G-d, that the idea of science as a religion leaves a lot out – especially an issue that has political, as well as theological and scientific implications. I'm referring to “evolution” which has been a source of contention between local and national governments, between local and national school authorities, and between individuals and the Judiciary for a very long time. The Scopes Trial, which took place over ninety years ago, was hardly the first manifestation of that dispute, but it was probably the most important spur to the use of this issue as a(n American) polarizer of opinion on the claimed incompatibility of science and religion.

The idea of some form of evolution dates back at least to the time of the Greeks, and there are those who believe that even before that the Torah described animals now extinct, providing room for discussion of more recent forms of the same line. According to “infoplease,” however, “Under the restraining influence of the Church, no evolutionary theories developed during some 15 centuries of the Christian era [theories which might be used] to challenge the belief in special creation and the literal interpretation of the first part of Genesis.” It took the publication of Darwin's “Origin of Species” in 1859 for the concept to get traction. (Even then, the publication was unplanned – only taking place when Darwin feared that another man, Alfred Russel Wallace, might publish first. Darwin had been “sitting” on his data for more than two decades.) Because of the theological implications, reaction to his ideas was vociferous – both among his supporters and detractors.

I will not review their arguments at this time, but only note that the initial reaction was that the two ideas were mutually exclusive. “Believers” were scathing in their denunciations of Darwin's heresy, while atheists saw evolution, and science in general, as cogent evidence for their long held position. As I noted in the prior essay, Stephen Hawking said “It is not necessary to invoke God.” Even today there are many convinced “believers” who consider all those who accept evolution as atheists, and their view is true of many of science's adherents. (In current American speech, “evolutionist” is sometimes used as a code word for “atheist.”)

But the presumed exclusivity of the positions has been tempered in recent years. (Admittedly Hawking's statement is recent but he is hanging on to a position that many have abandoned.) Most of those who consider themselves religious are willing to accept the idea that evolution is simply a mechanism by which G-d created life forms. And, while hanging on to the use of evolution as a proof for his own atheism, evolution biologist Stephen Jay Gould also said “Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs – and equally compatible with atheism.” The reality is that many men of science in the past and at present also themselves were (or are) believers. Another of Gould's ideas is pertinent: “science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible existence. We neither affirm it nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.”

But another of the reason's why scientists avoid such ideas and assertions, apart from the fact that many are themselves not atheists, is that Natural Selection, however attractive as an explanation, has many areas of weakness and want. It is viewed by some as making statements that are contrary to the evidence and leaving large gaps in its attempts to explain the observed facts. I won't deal with most of them, but there is one particular aspect of the concept that makes me wonder about the whole thing – reversibility.

One of the many flaws perceived about evolution is that, notwithstanding the large number of fossils found, there is an absence, or at least a dearth, of “missing links” – remains providing evidence of transition from one form of life to another (eg amphibians to birds or apes to humans). Paleontologists tell us that there are some already, and that it is only a matter of time before more proofs are found. Perhaps, but that is only the beginning of the problem.

Chemical reactions are two-way streets. One direction may be favored, but given time and variety of conditions they are reversible. Mutation and evolution ought to be the same. If the changes are purely by chance, there is no reason why a retrograde evolution (devolution?) shouldn't occur and, since stages prior to the most recent survived earlier, these should survive as well, and, perhaps, spawn even earlier examples of life. Time and variety of conditions have certainly been available. So there should be “missing links” to the past as well as to the future. We can date the fossils we find, so those remains should be identifiable as being displaced from their period of assumed existence. Overlap is believed to have occurred as life evolved, and it is reasonable to expect that devolution could take place along with the antegrade variety. And why haven't prior species returned? Dinosaurs, for example. While it might be argued that newer species are better adapted and would prevent older ones from becoming established, I suspect that large carnivorous dinosaurs could hold their own against people and pigs.

 

That is an assumption. It is unproved. Logical as it might seem, devolution has not been demonstrated.

But however logical the concept of evolution may be, it, too, is unproved. There are pieces of evidence that suggest that it is an accurate description of biological history, however they can only be viewed as assumptions based on the available information. Those who assert that evolution is a fact rather than a theory are promoting a belief rather than a proven fact. It is a religion which is based both on science and a wish to have an explanation for those events that are unprovable. It is a science of the gaps. And while its adherents may denigrate the views of those who favor other approaches – while they may term those views “mythology” – it is misleading on the part of evolution scientists to invoke knowledge alone when a large part of their position is based on belief. They are no less “believers” than those whom they oppose.

So when the courts rule that “Creationism” is religion and has no place in a science class, it would not be unreasonable for them to say the same of Evolution. Distinguishing between them is also political and religious.

Next episode: “The Rabbit Died” – Animal rights and human wrongs.

Fg=Gm1m2/d2

If you don't recognize the name I've written it's perfectly understandable. [Actually, the blog program format doesn't permit sub- and superscript in the title.  For the correct formula see the fourth paragraph.] Though it might be clear to the initiated, it has the potential of being confusing to the rest of us. We know it as Gravity, the first and most important of the gods of the religion of Science, but believers are familiar with the formula, which is its sacred spelling.

Science, for those who don't know, is a polytheistic religion with an extensive literature and its own list of deities. Besides Gravity there is Electromagnetism (F_em= k*Q*q/r*r), the Strong Force (this is too complicated so I'll use the familiar names of Science's gods from now on), and the Weak Force, as well as Mathematics, Physics, Cosmos, and many others. But it all started with Gravity.

According to Stephen Hawking, one of the High Priests of the religion, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing, … Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. … It is not necessary to invoke God.” (Interestingly, while Hawking states that Gravity obviates the necessity to have a Creator, he doesn't deny that there is one.) Thank Gravity for Gravity.

That's the first entry in the catechism of Science. Hawking was once asked to explain all of Science while standing on one foot (figuratively – physically it would be a challenge beyond his ability) and he responded “F_g=Gm₁m₂/d². That is the whole of Science, and the rest is commentary. Go and learn it.” (Well maybe I made that up.)

What characterizes a religion? How do you recognize it? According to Oxford, religion is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” In this case the superhuman power, which apparently was present before the universe, was Gravity – Science's principal deity. Clearly there are many who observe Science but don't worship Gravity. Whether they are lapsed Scientists or bad Scientists is beyond the scope of this discussion, but if they believe that the universe was created by Gravity they are Scientists.

It is reassuring to know that even if you have some questions about Gravity as the Creator, there are still many gods in which you can believe. Every Scientist has some formulas on which he relies in difficult times. They are surely controlling powers, and their dependability and mightiness are certainties. The formulas, themselves, control our destiny. “It is not necessary to invoke God.”

Those of us who wonder about the origin of the various formulas are simply asking the wrong questions. We are basing our confusion over Science on our own beliefs. But Scientists have their own religion and their own deities – ones in which they trust. Ones in which they believe. Perhaps they would reject the word “believe,” preferring to view their views as representing knowledge rather than belief. But that is typical of religion. Worshipers consider their perspective to represent the Truth. They know that to be the case. No other explanation of the facts is possible and all alternatives are mythology. At least that's what they say.

And their response to the argument that all the conditions for life that exist are virtually impossible statistically is the “anthropic principle” – the science of the gaps. It's really a F_g=Gm₁m₂/d² ex machina.

 

Hawking:  Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing, … Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. … It is not necessary to invoke God.”

The Bible: “In the Beginning, G-d created heaven and earth. The earth was without form and empty.” While gravity is not denied, it is not necessary to invoke it.

It seems to me that the religion of Science is simply substituting one incomprehensible mystery for another but claiming that its view is based on knowledge, not belief. But the idea that “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist” seems to me to be more a matter of belief than knowledge. And if I were a real scientist and based my views on provable facts I would say so.

Real Scientists, however, know that it is not Belief, it is Truth. My bad.

Next episode: “Devolution” – Forward to the past.

Below The Beloit

 

I'm feeling old today. The Class of 2015 of Beloit (Wisconsin) College was graduated recently – not a particularly mind-boggling piece of information. Of greater consequence, however, is the fact that when each class begins there, the school publishes a “Mindset List” (https://www.beloit.edu/mindset/previouslists/2015/) designed to inform the reader of the perspectives of the members of the class. The list, unfortunately, told me far more than I really wanted to know. It hit me where I hurt. I'll impart some of the intelligence from that list, which is designed to describe the world since they were born – 1993 on average.

Andre the Giant, River Phoenix, Frank Zappa, Arthur Ashe and the Commodore 64 have always been dead.

1. There has always been an Internet ramp onto the information highway.

2. States and Velcro parents have always been requiring that they wear their bike helmets.

3. The only significant labor disputes in their lifetimes have been in major league sports.

4. There have nearly always been at least two women on the Supreme Court, and women have always commanded U.S. Navy ships.

5. Amazon has never been just a river in South America.

6. Refer to LBJ, and they might assume you're talking about LeBron James.

7. The Communist Party has never been the official political party in Russia.

8. Women have always been kissing women on television.

9. Sears has never sold anything out of a Big Book that could also serve as a doorstop.

10. Public schools have always made space available for advertising.

11. Refugees and prisoners have always been housed by the U.S. government at Guantanamo.

The facts I've listed were extracted from a 75 item list (the numbers were inserted by my word processor and aren't those of the original document), and were the ones that most reminded me of how much I've aged. When I was young (as if you care) the world was different. The facts on the list weren't simply wrong – some of them were unimaginable. I won't describe why on a point by point basis, but in the middle of the last century life was different. I'm not suggesting that life was better then, only that it was different. The idea of computers, the internet, and all that has developed out of it were purely science fiction then.

Of course not all the changes are for the better, but we've learned to live with them. One of the most surprising things to me is that I'm surprised. The alterations have been sequential and orderly, like most changes. And I've observed them with interest as they have occurred. For the most part they were incremental (for example, there were threats of a campus riot when tuition at my college was raised from $750 a year to $850 – it's a lot higher now) and, however jarring, not entirely unexpected. Looking at them now, compressing long sequences into single changes, emphasizes those changes. The nickel Hershey bar of my childhood now costs a dollar. And it's smaller.

But I'd better simply accept reality and suck it up (language has changed too, though mine is probably well out of date). It's not Beloit's fault that the years are passing. I can't wait until the Class of 2015 is my age and reading the list current at that time. Unfortunately, I'll probably be long gone. Not only is the world changing, but I am.

Next episode: “F_g=Gm₁m₂/d^2” – A Weighty Issue

L'Affaire Davis

I'm late, once again, in commenting on an item in the news – a highly contentious issue. In reality I had not intended to write about it at all, but it came up in conversation over dinner with friends a few nights ago. I didn't say anything then because I make it a point never to argue with people who disagree with me. There's no point. They're wrong, but in all likelihood I won't be able to convince them to see things correctly. And they certainly won't convert me to their distorted viewpoint.

The particular dispute to which I refer regards the actions surrounding Kim Davis. From my perspective, the main issue involves her rights, and it is not primarily a consideration of anyone's views regarding same-sex marriage. For the record, although it ain't my thing (actually I don't really care), I have no particular argument against that kind of union except for the use of the word “marriage” which has a particular meaning and specific connotations in our culture. I'd be much happier if another word were formulated that indicated this particular form of union. But my concern is more a matter of language than law, since I have a greater regard for the former than the latter. (That should antagonize the lawyers.) This is especially true in an instance like this, in which I think her rights were violated by those charged with interpreting the law.

The argument was made that she was an elected official who refused to do her job. And both of those claims are true. But it ought not be overlooked that this was not her job at the time she sought and won elective office. During her term the Supreme Court decided that same-sex unions should be legalized. Whether or not that was a proper decision – whether it was within their province to make such a decision – is not the issue, for us or for her. The reality is that this was their position and we have come to accept the views of the Justices as the law – irrespective of the actual content of the Constitution. So during her term as an elected official the job was changed to include something to which she had a strong religious objection. It wasn't what she signed on for, but it's what the judiciary decided she should do.

As I understand the Constitution, it specifically forbids any religious test for office, and prohibits the government from any involvement in religious practices. Obviously a decision about what is a religious issue is open to argument, but there were enough objections from religious organizations that it is difficult to dismiss out of hand the perspective that the concept of same-sex unions has theological implications. In such a circumstance it seems to me that it is a rather severe remedy to jail someone who will not participate in an act she feels to be contrary to her beliefs. If robbery were called legal by the courts I hope we would not fault a public official who refused to participate in it irrespective of the law and his or her beliefs. (That's actually a bad example since the public assumes that politicians are deeply involved in robbery already. But you get the point.) However we might feel about such an analogy, for Kim Davis this is equivalent.

In the Jewish morning service there is a prayer expressing the wish that we speak the truth, and that we always be in awe of G-d. “At all times let a man fear G-d as well in private as in public, acknowledge the truth and speak the truth ...” While that “truth” differs from one religion to the next, the underlying principle, one common to all, is that we remain true to our beliefs, and express them openly. Interestingly, the Bill of Rights to our Constitution says the same thing. The first right protected, in its very first sentence, is that of religious freedom. Further on, in the same Amendment, the right to speak freely is declared. Jailing Ms. Davis, and prohibiting her from expressing her wishes to others in her department, seems to violate both of these principles. Yet there is no mention in the Constitution of marriage, and certainly not of same-sex unions. We often claim that our system forbids the imposition of the will of the majority on a minority, and we surely proscribe any tyranny of the minority over the majority. In this case the Supreme Court and U.S. District Judge David Bunning (a minority) are imposing their will over an individual (another minority). I doubt that was the original intent.

Reasonable accommodations to religious needs of those in private employ are required by government, but that doesn't seem to be the case in high profile cases – as defined by public interest and passion – like that of Kim Davis. Removing her name from the licenses (as they have removed “bride” and “groom”) and having others issue those licenses would have been a far more sensible method for dealing with the situation than jailing her, although the courts and the public would not have the opportunity to make a (politically correct) statement and, more important, to get their pound of flesh that way. We seem to have different rules for governmental cases that are in the public eye from those patterns we require of private enterprise. We require more of the private sector than of the government.

What is the solution to the problem? Should we follow the Constitution, change it, or ignore it? Right now we're playing it by ear. In some cases the courts seem to follow popular opinion while in others they appear to be writing the law as they think it should be. The President avoids Constitutional requirements by fiat – by an Executive Order or by calling a treaty an “agreement” in order to avoid the need for senatorial confirmation. The Senate, itself, is stymied by a minority, and the will of the public is ignored.

I don't know the answer. I do know, however, that finding a scapegoat will not solve the problem, though it may distract public attention in the direction of the current fashions rather than long-term needs. Whatever the solution – if there is one – we probably won't find it in a blog like this. But if we agree that the First Amendment is something we respect, and if we follow the prohibition against ex post facto laws, we must find a way to protect citizens from judicial overreach and, while we're at it, to protect our Constitution, from those who see themselves as above the law.