Can one truly embrace the scientific method and revere religious masters or teachings as depositories of wisdom? If so, is that because one has assigned different epistemological realms to science and religion? Or does one try to explain religious sentiments as compatible with an attitude of scientific scrutiny? Good luck with that.
What is the truth-value of the concept of enlightenment?
Viewing humans as primates-mammals-animals-life forms, the concept of “enlightenment” and of “enlightened” beings seems strange to me. If enlightenment exists, could animals other than humans become enlightened? Why? Why not? No surprise: I’m skeptical about whether enlightenment, in any of its religious variations, actually exists.
I am more interested in the idea of enlightenment from outside a religious tradition – the etic perspective. For instance, how does the concept of enlightenment relate to broader societal practices and memes? What assumptions and themes are associated with the concept of enlightenment? How does the concept of enlightenment square with scientific findings? What is the truth-value of the concept of enlightenment? Does the concept of enlightenment make sense in terms of neuroscience and evolutionary theory?
Why do we believe that some people have achieved enlightenment? What counts as evidence of enlightenment, or an argument for the existence of enlightenment?
What is the relationship between enlightenment as a portal onto the really real* and enlightened humans as authorities on the really real? On the one hand, we have the idea that enlightenment is not on a continuum with regular experience; on the other, we have enlightened “masters” who are not on a continuum with regular folk. There is a special status, a categorical difference that marks the experience of enlightenment and the enlightened person : something absolutely different.
We’re talking about the authority of religious experience and of religious leaders. Since the state and the personal transformation cannot be understood by the unenlightened, the latter would do well to follow and obey those who have passed into the light. At least that’s the theory.
—
* Per Clifford Geertz, it’s the really real upon which the religious perspective rests.
Climate Change, Energy, and Mortality
We already know that a lot of people will die because of the havoc wreaked by climate change. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that between 2030 and 2050, climate change will cause roughly 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress. Most of these “excess deaths” will be due to the effects of extreme heat, variable rainfall, and the spread of infectious diseases. Developing countries and poor farmers will be especially hard hit.
Compare the above to current excess deaths due to air pollution: WHO reports that in 2012 around 7 million people died as a result of air pollution exposure. The sources of air pollution mostly overlap with the sources of carbon emissions. Coal is by far the biggest cause of deaths caused by air pollution. In 2013, for instance, outdoor air pollution from coal caused an estimated 366,000 deaths in China.
Coal also gives you more death per unit of energy. This from Nexbigfuture:
Energy Source Death Rate (world average deaths per TWh)
Coal (26% of world energy) 100 (from 15 in US to 170 in China)
Oil (36% of world energy) 36
Natural Gas (21% of world energy) 4
Nuclear (5.9% of world energy) 0.04
(TWh = terawatt-hours)
Coal is not only the most deadly source of energy; it’s also the biggest emitter of CO2 per unit of energy output – almost twice that of natural gas. No one’s saying natural gas is clean or safe – only that it’s a whole lot cleaner and safer than coal. Then there’s nuclear: even counting the Fukushimas and Chernobyls, nuclear is the cleanest and safest around. Wind, solar and biofuels aren’t yet at a scale that bears comparison in this club. Maybe someday but not yet.
Of course we want to keep developing alternative, non-emitting, energy sources so that eventually they become sufficiently cheap and scalable to compete with the Big Four – Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, and Nuclear. But if we care about saving lives, we’d get a lot more bang for our buck by encouraging natural gas and nuclear for now while continuing to work on their eventual replacements.
Denmark: Unions, Business, and Flexicurity
Denmark draws the lines differently. Pro-union doesn’t mean anti-business. Having a strong safety net doesn’t mean squeeze the rich. Maybe it’s more accurate to say that the lines are not there to begin with- that the ideal of ending poverty, facilitating economic mobility, and making sure everyone has access to the basics – healthcare, education, and family services – doesn’t have to pit Most of Us against a Despised Other (or at least an Undeserving Other). In Denmark, it’s more We’re All in This Together for the Long Haul.
Take unions and business: most workers belong to unions, but the unions are much less adversarial in Denmark than in the US. Unions, employers and the government work together in the spirit of “flexicurity”. Unions negotiate pay and working conditions, resolve disputes, and administer unemployment insurance programs. Employers pretty much have the ability to hire and fire at will, allowing them to flexibly respond to changes in production and market conditions. Corporate taxes are low (about 22%). Business regulation is minimal.
Thanks at least in part to Danish flexicurity, labor market participation in Denmark is considerably higher than the EU average (65% to 57%). Young people in particular have an easier time finding jobs than in most other European countries. Employers are less afraid of taking risks on inexperienced workers, because they aren’t contractually bound to retain them if they prove unproductive or market conditions change. As a result, youth unemployment is low in Denmark: just 10.3%, compared to a Euro area average of 22%.
In exchange for job security, workers get a more basic sense of security: the knowledge that if they get sick, lose their jobs, or have a child, the State is there to make sure they’ll be taken care of.
Red Flags of Bad Science and Pseudoscience, Part III
These Red Flags and their definitions are from the website Science or Not? The examples and comments are mine.
Technobabble and tenuous terminology: the use of pseudo scientific language In this tactic, people use invented terms that sound “sciencey” or co-opt real science terms and apply them incorrectly.
Once again, I’ll be relying on Jon Kabat-Zinn to illustrate this Red Flag. Kabat-Zinn is a well-known advocate of Mindfulness. The following are some quotes from Kabat-Zinn – all from Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness, Kindle Version, Revised Edition 2013; Bantam Books, New York. The pages are Kindle page numbers. The italics are mine.
“Living organisms have developed impressive ways of protecting themselves from all the unpredictable fluctuations in the environment and of preserving the basic internal conditions of life against too much change. …regulatory responses, all accomplished via feedback loops, preserve the dynamic internal balance, called homeostasis, or now, more precisely allostasis, by keeping the corresponding fluctuations of the organism within certain limits” 5315-22
“The modern terminology for biological wear and tear is allostatic load, a term introduced by Bruce McEwen, a renowned stress researcher at Rockefeller University.” 5354
Of course, homeostasis, allostasis and allostatic load are real scientific terms. Kabat-Zinn is not using them incorrectly in the above quotes, but he is co-opting them to support his broader case about how fragile our physical “inner balance” is, so much so that unless we practice mindfulness we are at risk of disease and early death. Between “toxic” thoughts and feelings, unawareness, cancer-prone personalities, and just plain ol’ stress*, the unmindful among us are in mortal danger. Delicate homeostatic inner balance has been put to the service of New Age fear-mongering.
I also want to point out how, in the above quotes, Kabat-Zinn associates the italicized technical terms with markers of status and authority. Some of these markers are obvious, like “renowned”; some slightly less obvious, like “The modern terminology” – why point out that something is “modern”, except to give it a bit more cachet? And then we get subtle: “called”, as in “called homeostasis”. Check out some of the synonyms for ‘call’: demand, announce, summon, order, command, and designate. In sports, a call is a decision made by a referee or umpire. There is something definitive or compelling about calling: to call the outcome of an election, to be called to a vocation. To call is something parents often do: call the kids in for dinner. And so when we are told that a dynamic inner balance is called homeostasis, the term assumes an air of authority conferred upon by the parental scientific community.
* For instance: “Some doctors believe that time stress is a fundamental cause of disease in the present era” (7811).
Climate change action priorities, simplified version
Climate change action priorities, simplified version: reduce green house gases, protect habitats, protect wildlife and protect humans. For this post, I’m going to focus on protecting humans – operationalized as reducing the extra deaths caused by climate change.
A huge factor in reducing climate-change related deaths is economic development. Specifically, as GDP increases, mortality rates decrease. Mean death rates fall by 15% for every 10% increase in GDP. And we’re not just talking about old people getting a couple extra years: on average, a 10% increase in income means a 5% fall in infant mortality.
So, proposals designed to reduce GHGs that also reduce economic development need to look at the trade-offs involved. Of course we need to reduce GHGs – but if the means are so drastic that GDPs are greatly reduced and, consequently, millions die, we should be upfront about that. Put that trade-off on the table. Don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.
What are we saying when we say something? A Question of Values and Priorities
When we say that political differences basically come down to values, we are often saying there’s an unbridgeable gulf between us and people on the other side. Values are generally seen as bedrock non-negotiables, so what’s the point of even talking to the other side? And so we have the increasing polarization and breakdown of communication between Democrats and Republicans.
Instead of thinking about political differences in terms of values, think of these differences in terms of priorities. Priorities are informed by multiple, often competing, goals based on multiple, often competing, values. Since multiple goals and values are involved, at least some are likely to be shared across the political spectrum. And prioritizing is not just about what we should aim for and what matters – it’s also based on assessments of urgency, opportunity, and resources (think time and money). To frame issues in terms of priorities is to appreciate a complex world.
When we talk about priorities, there’s less “either/or” thinking than when we talk about values. When we talk about priorities instead of values, there’s more room for discussion and compromise.
Being Present, Watching Thoughts, and Flitting between Data Streams
The world places conflicting demands on our brains. When we are intentionally paying attention to sense impressions or tasks, “stimulus-independent-thought” (aka “tasked-unrelated-thought” aka “mind wandering”) is unable to proceed. This is because focusing on something taps into the same general cognitive resource, one which can only “handle only one coherent data stream at a time” (Teasdale et al 1995, p 38). In other words, paying attention to what we’re doing or what we’re perceiving disrupts the progression of thought and vice versa.
To focus on one stream of data prevents us from focusing on other streams of data. So if we’re looking at a painting and also thinking about the painting, these cognitive acts are alternating. The switching back and forth often happens so quickly that we’re unaware that one stream has been turned off while another becomes active. It may feel like a seamless experience but it’s not. There’s a lot of switching going on.
Of course, our brains are constantly processing multiple streams of information and making decisions outside of what we happen to be paying attention to. We couldn’t walk, drive, eat, talk, or basically do anything without the automatic brain system doing all that simultaneous information processing. That type of processing is happening in outside of and along the edges of consciousness. It’s not the same as paying attention.
So, can we be “present” to the external world while watching our thoughts “unfold” in real time. I’m thinking not. Different data streams are involved. At best, we can flit from stream to stream, making it seem simultaneous. But it’s not.
References:
Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., & Williams, J. M. G. (1995). How does cognitive therapy prevent depressive relapse and why should attentional control (mindfulness) training help? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 25-39.
Teasdale, J. D., Dritschell, B. H., Taylor, M. J., Proctor, L., Lloyd, C. A., Nimmo-Smith, I., et al. (1995). Stimulus-independent-thought depends upon central executive resources. Memory and Cognition, 28, 551–559.
Denmark’s Pension System
This is a continuation of the Denmark explorations. This time around, we’ll be checking out Denmark’s pension system.
Some basic information about Denmark’s public pension system, from Pensions at a Glance/2013 – OECD and G20 indicators, (hardly a ‘glance’ – the thing is 368 pages long!). Denmark has four types of government-funded or government-mandated pension programs:
Basic Pension Benefit: full basic pension amount is DKK 5713 per mo ($857), equivalent to around 17% of average earnings but a lot less for higher earners. (DKK = .15 US $)
Targeted Supplemental Pension Benefit: pension supplement is up to DKK 5933 ($890) per mo – for the poorest pensioners who have few other financial resources.
Occupational Pension Scheme: fully funded defined-contribution scheme (like 401Ks) agreed between the social partners. Coverage is almost universal. Contributions are typically between 10% and 17% of earnings.
The Other Defined Contribution Pension Scheme: statutory, fully funded, collective insurance based. Contributions are split, with two-thirds paid by the employer and one-third by the worker.
Taking the 4 types together, net earnings replacement rate for median earners in Denmark is 83%; in US, it’s 50% (but for US, that’s SS only).
Denmark’s pension system takes up 6.1% of GDP, compared to 7.8% OECD average and 6.8% of GDP in US. It is one of the most highly rated pension systems in the world. Denmark’s system is not currently is danger of going bankrupt (although low birth rates and aging of the population will likely require future adjustments for it to remain financially solvent).
One reason for the financial soundness of the Danish pension system is that except for the Basic benefit, which everyone receives (pretty small amount) and the Targeted benefit (which relatively few people receive), much of the system is paid through defined contributions, rather than “defined benefits”. Pension funds are also conservatively invested, primarily in safer bonds (80%, compared to just 20% in riskier stocks).
Bottom line: Denmark’s pension system is generous and well-run. It is financed through defined contributions and high taxes. There are trade-offs of course: Danes pay a lot to live in relatively comfort in old age. So they have a lot less money to spend in the prime of life. Then again, most Danes can expect to live a decade or two after retirement. And who needs all that stuff anyway?
Red Flags of Bad Science and Pseudoscience, Part III
These Red Flags and their definitions are from the website Science or Not? The examples and comments are mine.
Cherry picking: “In cherry-picking, people use legitimate evidence, but not all of the evidence. They select segments of evidence that appear to support their argument and hide or ignore the rest of the evidence which tends to refute it.”
Once again, I’ll be relying on Jon Kabat-Zinn to illustrate this Red Flag. Kabat-Zinn is a well-known Mindfulness advocate. Examples are from:
Jon Kabat-Zinn, Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness, Kindle Version, Revised Edition 2013; Bantam Books, New York.
In this book, Kabat-Zinn refers to a study that apparently showed
“…a lack of closeness to one’s parents during childhood was associated with a risk of cancer. We might speculate that this has something to do with the extreme importance of early experience s of connectedness to later health as an adult.” 4937
The study Kabat-Zinn cites was included in a recent meta-analysis, which concluded: “This review comprises only longitudinal, truly prospective studies (N=70). It was concluded that there is not any psychological factor for which an influence on cancer development has been convincingly demonstrated… (My italics)
(On a side note, I also want to point out Kabat-Zinn’s tendency to use inflated language, as in the “extreme” importance of early experience of connectedness to later health. How does he conclude early childhood experiences are ‘extremely” important to later health? What other things might poor “connectedness” in childhood co-vary with? How about poverty, family disruption, bad neighborhoods, health behaviors, etc.? And how much disconnection is necessary to have this deleterious long term effect? Just some, or only at the extreme ends of the continuum? If only extreme cases, what co-varies in the childhood environment with extreme lack of connection? Unfortunately, Kabat-Zinn addresses none of these questions.)
In another example, Kabat-Zinn writes at length about the benefits of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), citing at one point a study by Teasdale et al, in which:
“people with a prior history of three of more episodes of major depression taking the MBCT program relapsed at half the rate of the control group, which only received routine health care from their doctor…This was a staggering result…” 7322 (Kindle page)
What the Abstract for Teasdale et al study actually says: “For patients with 3 or more previous episodes of depression (77% of the sample), MBCT significantly reduced risk of relapse/recurrence. For patients with only 2 previous episodes, MBCT did not reduce relapse/recurrence.” Later in the paper, the authors note “It is clear that the intervention did not reduce risks of major depression in the normal range.”(p. 621)
Not a refutation – but hardly “staggering”.
References:
Garssen B. Psychological factors and cancer development: evidence after 30 years of research. Clinical Psychology Review 2004 Jul; 24(3):315-38.
John D. Teasdale et al Prevention of Relapse/Recurrence in Major Depression by Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2000, Vol. 68, No. 4, 615-623.