Why science still needs philosophy

Tonight’s NOVA episode on PBS was about intelligence in great apes and what specifically, whether just by degree or by kind, separates their intelligence from ours.

That said, one of the research experiments, described in detail by the lead researcher, seems to have been highly overinterpreted.

The scientist said he had tested chimps’ counting ability by displaying blocks with varying numbers of dots on them, similar to dominoes or dice, then gotten them to match up what they saw on different dots, up to a count of 9, with a set of blocks from 1-9 on a string.

After working with individual dots, he got them to look at several dot-blocks in a row, and the chimps pointed out numbers in correct order. (As proper, the numbers, on blocks similar to child’s play blocks, were strung randomly rather than in numeric order.)

He then said he repeated the experiment, number blocks in the same order, while hiding part of the number blocks. He claims this is proof of how chimps can count.

I see it as proof of nothing of the kind.

Rather, it seems to be quite possibly nothing more than proof of chimp acuity in short-term visual memory. That itself might be worth more study, but it’s nowhere near earth-shaking.

I’d like to think that a philosopher, especially a cognitive philosopher, or a cognitive scientist well grounded in cognitive philosophy, would readily have picked that up as well. Perhaps many evolutionary biologists also would. But, are we sure?

And that is one evidentiary sample why, in my opinion, science still needs philosophy.

Tacitus: Accurate guide to early Roman Christianity, or not?

My short answer? Not.

Tacitus is a “go-to source” for many scholars of early Christianity, whether classicists, New Testament exegetes seeking a background for “Pauline” Rome, or early Christian period historians.

But, there’s some problems with Tacitus’ assertion that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome over disturbances about “a certain Christ,” as he is normally translated.

First, Tacitus does NOT use Χριστος, the Greek word for Christ, but Χρήστος, a Greek epithet often translated as “noble” or similar, and used for Apollo. It is arguable that the Latin-first Tacitus confused two Greek words, but, perhaps he did not. In either case, it shows someone who, although familiar with classical Greek vocabulary was likely unfamiliar with Greek religious terms being used to represent yet other religious ideas coming from a non-Greek culture and language.

In other, shorter words, Tacitus had little familiarity with Judaism in general, let alone the idea of Messianism. Perhaps he meant to use Χρήστος about some esteemed rabbinic leader in Rome for all we know.

In any case, there’s nothing to indicate that, by “a certain Christ,” Tacitus actually meant ”this particular Christ,.” In other words, if Tacitus is talking about a historical incident, this could have been a Messianic disturbance with no connection to Yeshua bar-Iusuf of the village of Nazareth. As even the book of Acts makes clear, Messianic claimants were running all around Judea. And, as events in Alexandria show, Judea itself wasn’t the only locus of Jewish religious ferment.

Next, per evangelical Christian sociologist Rodney Stark, there were probably less than 1,500 Christians in the entire world at the time Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, allegedly for a Christian disturbance.

Of those 1,500 Christians, reasonably, no more than 300, at best, would have been in Rome, out of a population of 1 million. It’s ridiculous to think that “Christians,” rather than “Jewish Messianism,” could have been the cause of either Claudius’ expulsion or Nero’s persecution.

And, if all the Jews were expelled, when did any of them come back? And, how many?

In short, leaning on Tacitus as an authority for either the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, or the existence, let alone the strength, of pre-Pauline Christianity in Rome, is leaning on a mighty slim reed indeed.

==

Update, May 26, 2024: A person at r/AcademicBiblical, in chat with me about a main comment of hers there, where she claims that 1 Clement, stripped of legendary accretions, is about Peter and Paul being killed by fellow Christians, nonetheless, in response to me, claims that the Tacitus is not an interpolation. 

I offered as a sidebar the Option B, that, if genuine by Tacitus, it's still a double-bankshot smear, projecting back from his own interactions with Christians, of what was a non-event, so that he could smear Nero even more than Christians.

As for said person's claims rejecting the interpolation idea? They note that the Correspondence of Paul and Seneca mentions the Great Fire earlier. Two counterpoints: First, on a late dating, only about 20 years earlier. So, it's in the same milieu, even if earlier. Second, the 11th letter of said correspondence is generally believed to be by a second forger than most other letters. Severus himself?

Said person does reject an actual persecution, so they're solid there.

 

‘Ol’ Blue Eyes,’ you’ve got a short ancestry

Sinatra’s oldest granddaddy is only 10,000 years old at most, scientists say. That’s when some University of Copenhagen researchers say a mutation produced the first blue eyes.

“Originally, we all had brown eyes,” said one of the researchers, Hans Eiberg. But a mutation affecting a gene called OCA2 “resulted in the creation of a ‘switch’ which literally turned off the ability to produce brown eyes.”

Interesting, the switch is actually in an adjoining gene, but it influences OCA2.

This also shows, that aside from their clear biases, the Charles Murrays of the word who continue to be hard core “naturists” don’t know jack about what we’re learning about how genetics really works.

Move over, Zeus

The site of an Arcadian shrine to Zeus was apparently recycled from previous worship of a pre-Zeus divinity — complete with female consort. The first use of the site dates back to circa 3000 B.C.E.

We still don’t know a tremendous amount about the pre-Minoan/Mycenaean history of what is today Greece. A find like this is fascinating.

Is lust an emotion?

Would you call lust an “emotion” or a “drive”? In either case, would “revulsion” be its best opposite?

Thimerosal does NOT cause autism

A definite study puts the total kibosh on the old autism conspiracy-theorist canard.

The findings came from a look at children diagnosed with autism in California from 1995 to 2007. It found that the number of autism cases continued to rise through that period even though the preservative thimerosal — nearly half of which is made of ethylmercury — was removed from most vaccines in 2001.

The data “do not show any recent decrease in autism in California despite the exclusion of more than trace levels of thimerosal from nearly all childhood vaccines (and) do not support the hypothesis that that exposure (to it) during childhood is a primary cause of autism,” the study concluded.

Unfortunately, that won’t stop most conspiracy-theorists from beguiling deceiving parents of autistic children, if not about thimerosal, then about something else.

Gurus, authoritarianism and recovery groups — not just an AA phenomenon

For years, beyond its religious emphasis, a major complaint many people have had about Alcoholics Anonymous (and NA), is the idea of “sponsorship.” While the idea of a mentor to help in one’s sobriety, especially if truly voluntarily chosen, may be an idea of worth, in reality, especially with it being a quasi-requirement of AA/NA, it is easily abused.

Predatory-minded sponsors can easily become controlling and manipulative to minds in the midst of trying to clear themselves of the fog of alcohol and/or drugs. Or, people who aren’t official sponsors can do some of this. The predatory nature can come in with sexual manipulation, establishing a power base in a local support group for the sponsor, and more.

Even outside the official sponsorship idea, gurus can set themselves up with new insights on the best way to get clean/sober, etc. And not just inside individual groups.

The name “Clancy” is well known for propagating an entire subset of groups within AA.

Many critics of AA have observed that, sociologically, it’s a place of redemption for people who washed out of their local Lions Club, or something similar.

But, it would seem the problem is related to recovery groups and personalities susceptible to addictions, and not 12-Step models of recovery.

Several examples from the world of “secular recovery” will suffice.

One is Jack Trimpey, founder of Rational Recovery. Trimpey, as though he were the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Recovery, has, in essence, declared recovery groups null and void. He has said alcoholics/addicts who continue to go to such groups are, in essence, still weak.

Then, you have Marty Nicolaus, founder of Lifering Secular Recovery, an offshoot of Secular Organizations for Sobriety. LSR ostensibly was founded as a separate recovery organization after a Nicolaus-led lawsuit against SOS over some serious recovery issues, such as “single-substance sobriety,” failed in court.

I’ve talked to enough people in LSR besides Nicolaus to not doubt that SOS needed a fire under it (to which its founder, Jim Christopher didn’t repond), and there were grounds for the lawsuit. However, I’ve also talked enough to people in SOS, and done enough analysis on my own, to know that personality issues, including Nicolaus’ personality, were involved.

And, at the individual meeting level, “control freaks” and other types have popped up in my LSR experience too. This is true for online meetings as well as face-to-face ones.

That said, I reject the idea of “the addictive personality” as many people (often not really addicts) use it. But, to the degree addiction exacerbates personality traits, and less desirable ones in some people, and recovery groups give them a platform to spew this out, this is a worrisome phenomenon.