- Email: [email protected]
Humanist fundamentals
Letters– Climate with care From Piers Forster, University of Leeds; co-signed by 20 coordinating lead authors The article about David Wasdell’s critique of, and your editorial on, the contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contain several wrong statements and false claims (10 March, p 10 and p 5). As coordinating lead authors of this report we must clarify these. Wasdell appears to be illinformed about the processes involved in drafting this report. It went through several formal expert and government review processes, during which many thousands of comments were responded to. At all stages, including at the final plenary in Paris, the authors had control over the text. Any draft versions of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or chapters were just that: documents in which inconsistencies needed rectifying, gaps needed closing and complicated matters needed better and more accessible explanation. The accusation that subtle changes watered down the report is plain wrong. In particular, our co-chair Susan Solomon is robustly independent and has been determined to maintain the credibility of the science throughout the four-year process. The entire SPM had wording which followed logically, or even verbatim, from the chapters and which was firmly rooted in the assessed scientific literature. The changes enumerated by Wasdell are largely minor corrections that eliminated items that did not stand up to scrutiny. A case in point is the removal of statements about acceleration of sea level rise. Based on available data, sea level has risen as rapidly during some periods in the past 50 years as it is rising today, so an assessment of “acceleration” would be premature. The wide participation of 26 | NewScientist | 24 March 2007
070324_R_Letters.indd 26
the scientific community, the scientific accuracy and the absence of any policy prescription in this report are the characteristics that render it so powerful. A legitimate criticism is perhaps the poor communication to the general public of IPCC procedures. For example, the drafting process was designed to identify incomplete or inaccurate scientific statements within the early drafts and keep them from entering the public domain. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is currently the most comprehensive assessment of the scientific literature on climate change, and effectively and accurately communicates to policy-makers and the public the state of knowledge on this topic. Leeds, UK ● The full letter and list of signatories is on NewScientist.com
possible to significantly change our ways before it is too late; and that people everywhere need to immediately address the problem of what we put into the atmosphere and either take significant measures or face further, unstoppable change that may render parts of the planet uninhabitable or hugely changed. I am left wondering why, when Al Gore held the apparently very influential position of US vicepresident – armed with much of the knowledge presented in the film – Bill Clinton’s government was seemingly so unable to put into place the measures that had been on the table for years before that administration took office. If we can quickly come to understand this, we may be in a much better position to act appropriately when the next president takes office. Like my students, I don’t like to think about what happens if we don’t, but we all have to. Dover, Tasmania, Australia
An inconvenient post From Martin Chance I have just watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth with my class of 14 to 16-year-olds (see New Scientist, 8 July 2006, p 51). I am gratified that I have been teaching much of the genuine science it refers to for over a decade. I am
relieved that, according to their feedback, well over 90 per cent of the students accept the basic theses of the film: that ever increasing atmospheric and ocean warming is factual; that these are overwhelmingly caused by human activity; that it is still
Ethics by contract From Jon Webb The ethical puzzle discussed in the interview with Marc Hauser actually illustrates the failure of utilitarian theories of justice, which claim that we should act in a way that maximises human happiness, or some similar measure (3 March, p 44). From a utilitarian point of view, the two situations presented – five people versus one person dying in an emergency room, or on train tracks – are indistinguishable. From a “contractarian” point of view – as expressed, for instance, in John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice – there is no puzzle. Rawls proposes that we agree on a social contract from the point of view in which we do not know what role we will play in each scenario. On the train tracks, it is then clear that we would decide to sacrifice the one person instead of the five. In the emergency room, we cannot make a rule that someone walking in would be
sacrificed to save the others, because if we were to do so, no one would ever willingly walk into an emergency room again. The entire idea of hospitals as caring places would break down. Since contractarian theories predict the correct result, but utilitarian theories do not, this is really an argument against utilitarian theories, not a puzzle about right and wrong. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Saving Bohr From Simon Burton Are we all missing something obvious about the claims that Shahriar Afshar’s experiment violates Bohr’s principle (17 February, p 13)? This states that a single quantum can either behave as a particle or as wave, but never as both simultaneously. The key word is “simultaneously”. Afshar’s experiment does not seem to me to achieve simultaneous measurement – it only detects photons after the light has passed the fringe detector grid, been focused through a lens and bounced off mirrors. The time taken to do this is a veritable age at light speed – and certainly doesn’t achieve the requirement of simultaneity. Southampton, UK
Humanist fundamentals From Catherine Adams Along with Ray Kurzweil I believe the human species could do with judicious improvement, and look forward to benefiting (3 March, p 19). But the technologies he describes are powerful, with farreaching consequences, including unintended ones. Yes, we should develop them, but we should do so with our eyes open. I fear that those who express concern over the possibly damaging consequences of our tinkering, and who wish to proceed cautiously, are being lumped together with the www.newscientist.com
16/3/07 3:56:55 pm
See newscientist.com for letters on: ● Climate with care (in full) ● Saving Bohr ● Another fundamentalism ● Light my fire? ● Zombie origins
“Luddites” and “fundamentalists” who wish to stop all research. The very use of such words gives me pause. Name-calling, no matter how mild, is generally employed when one suspects that one’s position won’t stand up to informed debate. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. Loveland, Ohio, US From Bryan Hatton Ray Kurzweil is right to champion technological development, but he seems to have misidentified his enemies in this pursuit. He claims it is fundamentalist humanists, secularists and naturalists who fear progress in science and technology. There is a trend at the moment of using the term “fundamentalism” as a general slur against anyone with strongly held beliefs with which one disagrees – without any consideration of the precise definition of fundamentalism. It certainly does not mean resistance to “the idea that human nature is changeable”, as Kurzweil contends. He goes on to claim that humanism is “tied to tradition and fearful of development”. That’s the last thing it can be described as: the humanist movement has a long history of embracing science, free thought and development while others were hiding in the dark. Secularism takes no stance on science and technology and concerns itself only with the role of religion in state government. Naturalism is a rejection of the supernatural and has nothing to do with “a reverential view… www.newscientist.com
070324_R_Letters.indd 27
of the natural world”. Whether or not humanist fundamentalists do or even could exist is questionable, but what is undeniable is the lack of funds, membership, motivation, unity and political influence of humanist groups compared with the wealthy and organised religious lobby. Kurzweil is a “transhumanist”. This term, coined by humanist Julian Huxley, relates to a philosophy that espouses technology to enhance human mental and physical capabilities and possibly lead to the creation of an immortal “superhuman”. If this becomes possible will it be the humanists, who believe in fully embracing the only life they have, who will oppose it – or the religionists? Cardiff, UK
Leave those kids alone From Paul Harrison I am incensed at the possibility of ethyl glucuronide testing for alcohol intake being employed in schools (17 February, p 14). Schools have no right to monitor what teenagers are doing, much less punish what they might have done, after hours and at weekends. Some parents might allow their teenage sons and daughters to drink, say, a glass of wine at dinner, and while I can understand forbidding alcohol in schools, these restrictions should not bleed into home life. More importantly, there is a fundamental fact being ignored here: teenagers are junior adults, not overgrown children. If we want them to become welladjusted and responsible – to act like adults – we need to show them that we trust them by giving them the same privileges that any adult enjoys. This is as bad as trying to enforce sexual abstinence. Sadly, though, many people seem to be obsessed with “protecting” teenagers long past any reasonable point. Toronto, Canada
God of the gaps From Ben Hoskin Bryan Appleyard claims that the “God of the gaps” argument – which says God only exists in the unknown, the areas not yet encompassed by science – is antique (3 March, p 47). But his claim that “the very success of science raises a profound and complex question that can be seen to point to the existence of a deity” is precisely the “God of the gaps”: we do not understand why the universe has rules, therefore God must have done it. This is an argument from ignorance, and does not even attempt to answer why, or how, God exists, let alone how to avoid the self-contradictions inherent in the common idea of God. It ignores the possibility that the universe has to have rules, or could not exist. Or the fact that, had it no rules, we would not be able to exist. St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex, UK
of thermodynamics (heat can only be transferred from cold to hot with external work). So the heat coming out can indeed be much greater than the electrical energy supplied to the pump. Practically, we would all be better off if those presently using electric heating were able to deploy heat pumps instead. Not only would our electricity demand decrease appreciably, but we would substantially diminish our output of carbon dioxide. Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, UK
Lewd of the dance From Jeannette Davidson Whoever laughingly informed Ron Packman that the name of his experiment in surface texture for an Essex sculpture garden, “sitooterie”, meant simply a place to sit out was surely being rather coy (10 March, p 52). In the west of Scotland in the 1950s a
From George Taylor Bryan Appleyard cannot see what Richard Dawkins is getting so worked up about. Maybe it is the palpably and visibly malign impact that Christianity and Islam have on the world today. No one is claiming that religion is the source of all evil, merely that it is the source of an awful lot of it. Royston, Hertfordshire, UK
Useful work From Peter Borrell I accept that the Aircon advertisement Feedback mocks implies something astonishing by saying their products’ “heat pumps… generate more heat than they use” (3 March). In the context of the many barmy claims which Feedback frequently, and rightly, exposes, this one is just a bit too close to nit-picking for my taste. Like refrigerators, heat pumps use electric power to transfer heat from somewhere cold to somewhere warmer – a practical manifestation of the second law
sitooterie was a wee shady corner where chaste couples could become more familiar with each other’s surface texture between dancing limited-contact reels and strathspeys. Edinburgh, UK
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
24 March 2007 | NewScientist | 27
16/3/07 3:57:04 pm
070324_R_Letters.indd 26
the scientific community, the scientific accuracy and the absence of any policy prescription in this report are the characteristics that render it so powerful. A legitimate criticism is perhaps the poor communication to the general public of IPCC procedures. For example, the drafting process was designed to identify incomplete or inaccurate scientific statements within the early drafts and keep them from entering the public domain. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is currently the most comprehensive assessment of the scientific literature on climate change, and effectively and accurately communicates to policy-makers and the public the state of knowledge on this topic. Leeds, UK ● The full letter and list of signatories is on NewScientist.com
possible to significantly change our ways before it is too late; and that people everywhere need to immediately address the problem of what we put into the atmosphere and either take significant measures or face further, unstoppable change that may render parts of the planet uninhabitable or hugely changed. I am left wondering why, when Al Gore held the apparently very influential position of US vicepresident – armed with much of the knowledge presented in the film – Bill Clinton’s government was seemingly so unable to put into place the measures that had been on the table for years before that administration took office. If we can quickly come to understand this, we may be in a much better position to act appropriately when the next president takes office. Like my students, I don’t like to think about what happens if we don’t, but we all have to. Dover, Tasmania, Australia
An inconvenient post From Martin Chance I have just watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth with my class of 14 to 16-year-olds (see New Scientist, 8 July 2006, p 51). I am gratified that I have been teaching much of the genuine science it refers to for over a decade. I am
relieved that, according to their feedback, well over 90 per cent of the students accept the basic theses of the film: that ever increasing atmospheric and ocean warming is factual; that these are overwhelmingly caused by human activity; that it is still
Ethics by contract From Jon Webb The ethical puzzle discussed in the interview with Marc Hauser actually illustrates the failure of utilitarian theories of justice, which claim that we should act in a way that maximises human happiness, or some similar measure (3 March, p 44). From a utilitarian point of view, the two situations presented – five people versus one person dying in an emergency room, or on train tracks – are indistinguishable. From a “contractarian” point of view – as expressed, for instance, in John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice – there is no puzzle. Rawls proposes that we agree on a social contract from the point of view in which we do not know what role we will play in each scenario. On the train tracks, it is then clear that we would decide to sacrifice the one person instead of the five. In the emergency room, we cannot make a rule that someone walking in would be
sacrificed to save the others, because if we were to do so, no one would ever willingly walk into an emergency room again. The entire idea of hospitals as caring places would break down. Since contractarian theories predict the correct result, but utilitarian theories do not, this is really an argument against utilitarian theories, not a puzzle about right and wrong. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Saving Bohr From Simon Burton Are we all missing something obvious about the claims that Shahriar Afshar’s experiment violates Bohr’s principle (17 February, p 13)? This states that a single quantum can either behave as a particle or as wave, but never as both simultaneously. The key word is “simultaneously”. Afshar’s experiment does not seem to me to achieve simultaneous measurement – it only detects photons after the light has passed the fringe detector grid, been focused through a lens and bounced off mirrors. The time taken to do this is a veritable age at light speed – and certainly doesn’t achieve the requirement of simultaneity. Southampton, UK
Humanist fundamentals From Catherine Adams Along with Ray Kurzweil I believe the human species could do with judicious improvement, and look forward to benefiting (3 March, p 19). But the technologies he describes are powerful, with farreaching consequences, including unintended ones. Yes, we should develop them, but we should do so with our eyes open. I fear that those who express concern over the possibly damaging consequences of our tinkering, and who wish to proceed cautiously, are being lumped together with the www.newscientist.com
16/3/07 3:56:55 pm
See newscientist.com for letters on: ● Climate with care (in full) ● Saving Bohr ● Another fundamentalism ● Light my fire? ● Zombie origins
“Luddites” and “fundamentalists” who wish to stop all research. The very use of such words gives me pause. Name-calling, no matter how mild, is generally employed when one suspects that one’s position won’t stand up to informed debate. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. Loveland, Ohio, US From Bryan Hatton Ray Kurzweil is right to champion technological development, but he seems to have misidentified his enemies in this pursuit. He claims it is fundamentalist humanists, secularists and naturalists who fear progress in science and technology. There is a trend at the moment of using the term “fundamentalism” as a general slur against anyone with strongly held beliefs with which one disagrees – without any consideration of the precise definition of fundamentalism. It certainly does not mean resistance to “the idea that human nature is changeable”, as Kurzweil contends. He goes on to claim that humanism is “tied to tradition and fearful of development”. That’s the last thing it can be described as: the humanist movement has a long history of embracing science, free thought and development while others were hiding in the dark. Secularism takes no stance on science and technology and concerns itself only with the role of religion in state government. Naturalism is a rejection of the supernatural and has nothing to do with “a reverential view… www.newscientist.com
070324_R_Letters.indd 27
of the natural world”. Whether or not humanist fundamentalists do or even could exist is questionable, but what is undeniable is the lack of funds, membership, motivation, unity and political influence of humanist groups compared with the wealthy and organised religious lobby. Kurzweil is a “transhumanist”. This term, coined by humanist Julian Huxley, relates to a philosophy that espouses technology to enhance human mental and physical capabilities and possibly lead to the creation of an immortal “superhuman”. If this becomes possible will it be the humanists, who believe in fully embracing the only life they have, who will oppose it – or the religionists? Cardiff, UK
Leave those kids alone From Paul Harrison I am incensed at the possibility of ethyl glucuronide testing for alcohol intake being employed in schools (17 February, p 14). Schools have no right to monitor what teenagers are doing, much less punish what they might have done, after hours and at weekends. Some parents might allow their teenage sons and daughters to drink, say, a glass of wine at dinner, and while I can understand forbidding alcohol in schools, these restrictions should not bleed into home life. More importantly, there is a fundamental fact being ignored here: teenagers are junior adults, not overgrown children. If we want them to become welladjusted and responsible – to act like adults – we need to show them that we trust them by giving them the same privileges that any adult enjoys. This is as bad as trying to enforce sexual abstinence. Sadly, though, many people seem to be obsessed with “protecting” teenagers long past any reasonable point. Toronto, Canada
God of the gaps From Ben Hoskin Bryan Appleyard claims that the “God of the gaps” argument – which says God only exists in the unknown, the areas not yet encompassed by science – is antique (3 March, p 47). But his claim that “the very success of science raises a profound and complex question that can be seen to point to the existence of a deity” is precisely the “God of the gaps”: we do not understand why the universe has rules, therefore God must have done it. This is an argument from ignorance, and does not even attempt to answer why, or how, God exists, let alone how to avoid the self-contradictions inherent in the common idea of God. It ignores the possibility that the universe has to have rules, or could not exist. Or the fact that, had it no rules, we would not be able to exist. St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex, UK
of thermodynamics (heat can only be transferred from cold to hot with external work). So the heat coming out can indeed be much greater than the electrical energy supplied to the pump. Practically, we would all be better off if those presently using electric heating were able to deploy heat pumps instead. Not only would our electricity demand decrease appreciably, but we would substantially diminish our output of carbon dioxide. Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, UK
Lewd of the dance From Jeannette Davidson Whoever laughingly informed Ron Packman that the name of his experiment in surface texture for an Essex sculpture garden, “sitooterie”, meant simply a place to sit out was surely being rather coy (10 March, p 52). In the west of Scotland in the 1950s a
From George Taylor Bryan Appleyard cannot see what Richard Dawkins is getting so worked up about. Maybe it is the palpably and visibly malign impact that Christianity and Islam have on the world today. No one is claiming that religion is the source of all evil, merely that it is the source of an awful lot of it. Royston, Hertfordshire, UK
Useful work From Peter Borrell I accept that the Aircon advertisement Feedback mocks implies something astonishing by saying their products’ “heat pumps… generate more heat than they use” (3 March). In the context of the many barmy claims which Feedback frequently, and rightly, exposes, this one is just a bit too close to nit-picking for my taste. Like refrigerators, heat pumps use electric power to transfer heat from somewhere cold to somewhere warmer – a practical manifestation of the second law
sitooterie was a wee shady corner where chaste couples could become more familiar with each other’s surface texture between dancing limited-contact reels and strathspeys. Edinburgh, UK
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
24 March 2007 | NewScientist | 27
16/3/07 3:57:04 pm