“The reason for the survival of these recurrent determinist theories is that they consistently tend to provide a genetic justification of the status quo, and of existing privileges for certain groups according to class, race, or sex. These theories provided an important basis for the enactment of sterilization laws, and also for the eugenics policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany.”
-- Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin CONFIRMS one of my deeply-held values in this quote from Pinker’s essay.
I entered into college as a computer science major planning to specialize in computational biology. This would allow me to work on the cutting edge of science that deals with “mapping out the mind” through computer science. There are plenty of theories out there today that are about how scientists can figure out how the mind works. It just so happens that Steven Pinker wrote a book called How the Mind Works. I read it during high school and other scientific work about how they’re every so slowly but surely “mapping out the mind”. Though I was highly sold on this idea and scientific work something seemed amiss and ominous about mapping out the mind. We human beings, no nothing more complex in the universe than our own brains. The potential agency of knowing how are brain works creates a fear in me like no other. I told myself when entering college; why not look into it deeper then?
When Pinker talks about the fear of nihilism and determinism, he doesn’t quite convince me for once. In his talk about the fear of determinism he dodges discussing about the actual genetics part and doesn’t talk about how dangerous the naturalization of things really are. Although, let’s not forget that this essay is talking about “human nature”. He considers a few of the prominent views of human nature but doesn’t reject the notion that there is a human nature either. Hence, there seems to be some sort of naturalization going on in his work. Pinker rejects the notion of the Blank Slate, which allows room for his belief in naturalization (genetics). This sentence seems to capture what I’m talking about here, “I think a better understanding of what makes us tick [I agree with], and our place in nature, can clarify those values [I don’t agree with].” Those values he’s talking about are moral values and he is ever so suggesting that there exists a human nature.
Just a side note - Pinker is self-aware and points out that it is “essential to look at the connection between politics and the science with some care, and to ask why are there such emotional reactions.” Though he doesn’t dig into why people want to naturalize human behavior into a nature.
First of all Mr. Blimpy I gotta say: love the font it truly caught my eye! I am intrigued with your major choice and how you came upon it. I suppose I should ask if computer science is still your major? Anyway I agree with you when you say our own brain is the most mysterious and complex thing in the universe for us. I too find this amazing. The fact that we have the ability to gaze billions of light years into space and see nothing: the origins of the universe, send spacecraft to different planets, see dreams of living on a distant planet plausible, and yet we still don't know, in every fine detail, how our brains work. That truly shows the complexity of something that is closer to us than anything else.
ReplyDeleteI want to keep Pinker from turning into a (simple) bad guy He's not. The Language Instinct (on linguistics) and How the Mind Works (on cognitive science) are two of the smartest, clearest books I know. But as Aaron says, all science has its necessary biases. It's human.
ReplyDelete