Contra Metaphysica

 

 

Argument Extraction

 

On nuance

In light of today's reading, it is important to own up to the imitative nature of my course thus far. As far as I can tell, I have not produced any original work throughout the past two dozen or so lessons. I have but duplicated the work of others. I have merely reported some findings, creating nothing of my own. I am an imitator—albeit an academically rigorous one—and Plato would've surely banished me from the kallipolis.

If my job thus far has been to parrot what other thinkers and scientists have said, I think it behooves me to include some criticisms of the findings we've covered so far. To respond to every single argument I have presented would take a whole other course—a Critical Thinking and Discourse (Pt. II). But that's not up to me. Instead, I'll share some information with you that seems to undermine many of the findings I've reported on in earlier lessons.

fMRI

Matthew Cobb's recent The Idea of the Brain is an invaluable resource for anyone who is interested in the brain. It is not quite a history of neuroscience, although a history of neuroscience is included in the text. Rather, it is a history of the different conceptions of the brain as well as the different methods we've had for studying the brain. I really can't recommend this book enough if you're interested in the brain. Most relevant to us at this point of the course, however, is chapter 14 of Cobb (2020). In this chapter, Cobb reviews the history of fMRI studies as well as some critiques of the methodology underpinning fMRI studies. fMRI (which is short for functional magnetic resonance imaging) measures brain activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow. This is at least in principle possible because cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation are coupled; that is, where the blood flows there appears to be neuronal activation. Thus, you can use blood as a proxy for neuronal activation.

fMRI studies have been essential in helping discover more about localization in the brain—the notion that different areas of the brain control different aspects of behavior. Having said that, many neuroscientists (namely those that don't use fMRI studies) have pretty strong criticisms of the practice. To truly understand the criticisms, I'd have to explain fMRI to you in much more detail than we have space for. However, all the criticisms of fMRI essentially all have this to say: The resolution in fMRI is simply too coarse. This is to say that a pixel in an fMRI image (or voxel to use the technical jargon) is too much of an oversimplification. Cobb reports that behind every voxel there is at least 5.5 million neurons, up to 5.5 X 10^10 synapses, 22km of dendrites, and 220km of axons. To pretend that we have a clear reading on what's going on in the brain via the tool of fMRI images is too much of a stretch. It is far too imprecise to really shine a light on how the brain works. Here is Cobb on the subject:

So fMRI studies have some problems. Why is this relevant to us? In his history, Cobb also notes that many studies about, say, the differences between men and women’s brains, are based on the coarsely-grained findings of fMRI studies. And so, without getting into too much detail. The argument that I built in Unit II for the abolition of party politics is, at least in part, based on data that is coming under attack. (Recall that I began that unit by reporting on the work of scientists who argued that there are differences between men and women in the lesson titled The Distance of the Planets.)

Does this undermine the argument completely? Not quite. Remember that the point of the argument was to make the case that party politics make one vulnerable to lazy thinking—to accepting a conclusion for the easy reason (because your in-group accepts it) rather than for the good reason (because evidence supports it). The people who accept or reject the findings of science based on how they can spin the findings are not good critical thinkers. Lefties might reject some science simply because they think it undermines their views. Righties might accept some science simply because they think it supports their view. Both of these approaches to science are unscientific. Nonetheless, it would also be unscientific to accept a premise that isn't wholly supported by the evidence. It might still be the case that there are real differences between men and women at the level of the brain, by the way. But now it is up to you to keep up with the science, to see where this debate goes, and maybe even to be a producer of scientific results yourself—as opposed to merely being a consumer, like me.

Intelligence

In his magnus opus Peak, Anders Ericsson summarizes his life's work into the study of experts and expertise. Most relevant for us is what we has to say about intelligence. If we were to fall into the trap of believing that our genetically-determined intelligence levels determine our lives for us, then we would be short-changing ourselves dramatically. Sure, some people do better on intelligence tests, and there are correlations to life outcomes. But genetic studies like the ones I reported on in The Distance of the Planets and The Family tend to downplay the role of environment. This is, I might add, not necessarily the fault of the researchers: it's not easy to be both an expert in genetics and sociology(!). Ericsson, however, does remind us of the role of environment, support groups, and, of course, deliberate practice.

In chapter 8 of Peak, recall, Ericsson harshly critiques the notion of prodigies (e.g., Mozart, the high jumper Donald Thomas, etc.). Again, it is deliberate practice in all cases that leads to excellence and elite level performance. Again, exactly zero experts in a domain got to where they are without deliberate practice. What about intelligence? Ericsson found that intelligence is correlated with higher performance only in the beginning. In fact, note all the things that Ericsson mentions that IQ isn’t correlated with. IQ isn’t correlated with excellence in chess (once players get to the elite level); it isn’t correlated with musical ability (once players get to the elite level); it isn’t correlated with excellence in performing oral surgery or becoming a London taxi driver (where one has to acquire GPS-like knowledge of London); among scientists, it isn’t correlated with scientific productivity. High IQ might help one get through school, since IQ is consistently correlated with academic achievement but it won’t give you an advantage at the elite level.

What does this mean for you? I'll try to summarize. IQ tests are probably measuring something, says Ericsson. And this something is a pretty good predictor of whether or not you will finish school and how well you will perform. This something also looks like it is a good predictor of life outcomes, like lifelong earnings, longevity, etc. But(!) life outcomes (like lifelong earnings, longevity, etc.) might have to do more with environment than with genetics. Remember from the work of Bryan Caplan that going to college gives you an economic premium, even though you don't seem to learn much there, and this is obviously a puzzle. So, it could be the case that the reason why college graduates have better lifeoutcomes have to do with the way society is organized rather than because they have a genetic advantage over everyone else. What's the evidence for this? Ericsson says its in the brains of the experts! Once you get to the elite level, there are no real differences in intelligence. At that level, success has more to do with work ethic and the type of practice that you do to excel in your craft (i.e., deliberate practice). Put bluntly, IQ tests are probably a good predictor of academic success but cannot say anything definitive of lifelong success. This is because when you look at actually successful experts, they are not typically smarter than non-successful individuals in their field. They just practice differently. This suggests, then, that the way society is organized plays an important role in life outcomes. Ericsson again:

In short, even though it looks like you have to have an IQ of around 110 to be a successful scientist, it is just as likely that the educational system has been set up so that only people with an IQ of around 110 actually get hired as scientists. Is this way of organizing the institution of science the correct one? That's a whole other conversation. But(!) the take-home message here is that work ethic matters. Whether you are an A student or not, you can always improve. You can use deliberate practice to get better at basically any type of activity. It's just going to require considerably unpleasant practice. But hey, at least the ball is in your court.

Conclusion

Does this mean the arguments that I've been developing are all for nothing? Of course not. There is just more nuance to these arguments than was originally let on. That's just how it goes. And if you thought the world was going to be easier to figure out than this, then let me disabuse you of that idea right now. The world is hard. You need sophisticated mathematical tools and scientific literacy to even try to attempt to understand it. And then you have to argue about which mathematical tools and scientific approaches are best for studying the world. And that's a whole new mess. In fact, I didn't even mention the replication crisis in many social sciences (but see the FYI section; see also Clayton 2021). Critical thinking is hard work. But, in my opinion, it's worth the effort.

 

 

 

Contra Metaphysica

In this section, I want to disagree vociferously with Plato. Sure, I am (mostly) an imitator. But imitation isn't all that bad. Poets, painters, and cover bands all have their place in a well-functioning society. I have my place in a well-functioning society. After all, it's not easy to find someone who can summarize information from many disparate fields like I can. Sure, I didn't produce any of it. But I've consumed a ton of it. And quantity has a quality all its own. So I disagree with Plato: imitation has its place. But there's a deeper issue that I have with Plato.

One way of understanding Plato, as we've seen, is as a teacher. Maybe he didn't mean anything he said (see, for example, Klosko 1986). Maybe he was just trying to get you to think. Another way of looking at Plato is as a counter-revolutionary (see Vernant 2006). Plato wasn't the first philosopher by a long shot. There was a long established tradition once Plato showed up. And most of these thinkers were 'positivist' in their leanings, meaning that they were moving away from myth and towards ideas that were more debatable and even testable. So, instead of accepting dogma, these early philosophers would argue about what the truth might be. Plato, however, showed up and reintroduced myth back into philosophy. It's not only the myth of the metals and the myth which closes Book X. (Stay tuned.) Plato's theory of the Forms sounds completely mythical and supernatural. It would have us believe that numbers and The Good exist independent of humans, in their own special dimension. The positivist philosophers would've been horrified at this idea. If you reintroduce these sorts of supernatural beliefs back into the conversation, then there's no way to settle the issue. Supernatural, metaphysical beliefs are intellectual dead-ends.

Let me give you an example. Let's just say that you and your friend are trying to figure out why your car won't start. You'll say, "It's probably the starter." The nice thing about this claim is that it is testable. You can, for example, replace the starter and see if that does the trick. If it was just the starter, then your car should turn on now. Maybe your buddy said it was the battery. This is equally helpful in that it is testable. Maybe it was both the starter and the battery. Now you're having a discussion as to what could've caused that situation to arise. This is all productive, I hope you can see. But let's just say that another buddy joins the conversation and says, "Yeah, there's ghosts in your engine." This is, I hope you can see, completely unhelpful. By introducing supernatural entities into the conversation, your friend has added nothing testable to the mix. Moreover, metaphysical beliefs (like belief in ghosts or the after-life) are usually conjured up and believed based on essentially nothing. For example, what makes one theory of the after-life stronger than another theory? Nothing. They're just both stories, neither of which can be verified.

This is what Plato has done. In the very beginning of the field, philosophy seems to have been moving away from myth and Plato brought it right back in. Plato is like your friend who thinks that the engine is haunted. He made things worse. Worse still, Plato's writings survive precisely because of their metaphysical content. As it turns out, most of the literature of the classical world, including the writings of the early positivist philosophers, is lost. This process of losing our intellectual heritage was initiated when Christians took control of the Roman empire in the 4th century CE (Nixey 2018). In fact, only about 10% of classical writings are still in existence. Why was Plato preserved? In short: Because it fit in with the Christian doctrine. That's why, if you grew up in the Christian tradition, Plato's ideas aren't too far out for you. He argued for the existence of souls, a different realm that is better than the one we currently live in, an objective right and wrong, ideas about a minority who understands the Forms (priests) and the masses who need to be guided by the minority, etc. So, we don't have Plato's writings because he's the best. We have them because Christians strategically chose to preserve them, while letting the rest turn to dust. This is not to say that Plato's ideas are all trash. But we must realize that there was a great filtering process that led to us thinking of Plato as one of the greatest philosophers of the classical age.

What now? I can only tell you my conclusions. First and foremost, base your beliefs off evidence. This is highly unnatural, since we always want to accept beliefs that cohere with what we already believe. Try to fight that urge, and always follow the evidence. Second, if you come to a contentious issue (i.e., a problem with multiple possible viewpoints and no obvious solution), always try to move the discussion towards what is testable and measurable. Don't bring up ghosts or supernatural entities, and definitely don't rely on them for your explanations or philosophy of life. Try to steer your intellectual pursuits so that they always make contact with reality as understood by the sciences. Remember the key questions in science: "What are we talking about?" and "How do we measure it?" If you're thinking in terms of these questions, you're doing well. Third, develop networks of other critical thinkers. Even if you follow steps 1 and 2, that doesn't guarantee your ideas will be right-headed. Be open to the intellectual challenge of defending your views. Fourth, keep up with the latest science; i.e., become a life-long learner.

On the third point, I have a bit more to share. Students ask me all the time what the moral is to my PHIL 101 course—a class with many twists and turns. I don't want to spoil the fun if you haven't taken it, but here's one of the main takeaways from the course: intellectual breakthroughs come about when certain sociological requirements are met. In other words, there's actual ingredients to intellectual breakthroughs. In that course, time and time again I show different problems and how a solution to them was approximated when several people looked at the problems in different ways and argued about it. Here's a summary of the necessary ingredients for intellectual breakthrough by sociologist Randall Collins (2009), who himself studied the sociology of science and philosophy. Intellectual progress requires the following (in no particular order):

• Technologies by which we can share ideas and take the perspectives of others (e.g., novels, the internet, mobile phones, etc.)
• Chains of personal contacts which foster intellectual creativity through the constant raising of objections
• Intellectual rivalries
• Emotional energy and ideas you are willing to fight for
• Movement away from superstition and towards empirical (testable) hypotheses

In closing, if you like my classes, it might be because you like this approach to thinking. Every single one of my classes has this idea as an undercurrent. There's names for this kind of view, but I won't add any more jargon to this lesson. I playfully refer to it with some fake Latin: contra metaphysica. Even though it doesn't really mean anything in Latin, I like the way it sounds. It sounds like a commitment to a certain kind of critical thinking—a kind of critical thinking that works.

 

 

---

 

 

---

 

 

---

 

FYI

Suggested Viewing: Stuart Firestein, The Pursuit of Ignorance

Supplemental Material—

• Audio: Science Friday, Why Science Needs Failure to Succeed

• Video: SciShow, The Times and Troubles of the Scientific Method

• Video: TEDTalks, How failure can be a path into the unimaginable | Stuart Firestein

Related Material—

• Reading: Aubrey Clayon, The Flawed Reasoning Behind the Replication Crisis

• Video: Center for Inquiry, James Ladyman on Pseudoscience and Bullshit

Advanced Material—

• Reading: Brian Hepburn and Hanne Andersen, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry on Scientific Method

For full lecture notes, suggested readings, and supplementary material, go to rcgphi.com.