3 Things I Learned in Grad School - December 1 2016

How do you mix Poetic Naturalism, Translational Science, and the Drive-Discharge vs the Culture-Pattern Model? You read too much Sean Carroll, EO Wilson, and Arne Naess, and Roderick Nash.


Poetic Naturalism
From Wikipedia: “poetic naturalism understands that the way we find personally relevant meaning to life does not naturally emerge from a purely scientific approach. Science is a rigorous method of finding what is true or false, while poetic naturalism encourages extending the conversation to include contemplation into what is right and wrong”
 
Sean Carroll has a great new book called The Big Picture: Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. It is really really good and I can see it getting up there on my top five science book list -  I need to digest his thoughts a little more before I officially do that though. He goes through quantum physics in a very accessible way, evolution through natural selection and genetic drift cleverly, and a ton of other very pertinent science concepts that are relevant to humans. More than all that though, and something that few writers do (scientists especially), he intertwines philosophy with all these scientific topics. The consilience of his work produces a very mature and robust argument for a new ethics for us moderns. I want to say that he speaks to how with all we know through the ways that we know it becomes unethical to act contradictorily to our best theories. But he even says this is not possible because we cannot create an objective morality. Ah! This book is so full of great philosophy, Bayesian rationality, and cutting-edge science that it deserves so much more than this. However, he does introduce a completely new term and philosophical thought: Poetic Naturalism. Oh man, I think I am a poetic naturalist.
 
Maybe it is just me but Carroll and Poetic Naturalism seem to be an extension of EO Wilson’s sociobiology ideas. I see a lot of similarities. Anyway, here’s what Carroll calls Poetic Naturalism:
 
“Naturalism is a philosophy according to which there is only one world — the natural world, which exhibits unbroken patterns (the laws of nature), and which we can learn about through hypothesis testing and observation. In particular, there is no supernatural world — no gods, no spirits, no transcendent meanings.
 
I like to talk about a particular approach to naturalism, which can be thought of as Poetic. By that I mean to emphasize that, while there is only one world, there are many ways of talking about the world. “Ways of talking” shouldn’t be underestimated; they can otherwise be labeled “theories” or “models” or “vocabularies” or “stories,” and if a particular way of talking turns out to be sufficiently accurate and useful, the elements in its corresponding vocabulary deserve to be called real.”
(this is from his website: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/poetic-naturalism/)
 
I can’t wait to play with this idea more and include into my own perspective better. In the meantime, Maria Popova does a much better job of explaining Carroll’s book and his philosophy: https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/05/31/sean-carroll-the-big-picture/
 
Translational Science
Never have I heard this before this week (that’s not true- I heard it about a month ago but totally disregarded it because I didn’t know what it meant).  Translational science bridges the gap between regular research science and applied science. I’m thinking of the documentary Particle Fever where they show the healthy tension between theoretical physicists and experimental physicists working at CERN. The physicists that actually do play in both games would be considered Translational Scientists as would neuroscientists like Sam Harris, I think. My advisor used the idea in regards to conservation and my own work. That is yet to be seen as little of my work up until now has been science and my research now isn’t applied to anything but I like the idea being a Conservation Translational Scientist – it sounds fun.
 
Drive-Discharge Model v Culture-Pattern Model
This is wild. Freud approached this idea a lot with all of his work – the innate desires need to be expressed. Apparently, this guy named Konrad Lorenz pushed the idea further and specifically with aggression. His idea is described as the Drive-Discharge Model and can be described as a desire that continuously build without extrinsic motivation until it is ‘discharged’ or frustration specifically is a response to desire otherwise that has been frustrated or retarded.  The idea is similar to a pressure release valve and the pressure to act upon something (aggression, sex, whatever) is undeniable and going to occur anyway. If you release it through social acceptable methods (sport, ceremony, etc) then it goes away. If you don’t release it that desire, and specifically aggression, will overflow and spill into war or other socially dangerous activities.
 
EO Wilson says this was proven wrong by a guy named Sipes. More specifically, Wilson says that sociobiology explains aggression and other desire very differently and more nuanced. He says that we have the capacity for aggression and even war but it is an interplay between environmental pressures and learning from cultural values that determines whether that capacity boils over into dangerous territory. This makes way more sense to me as it gives us agency in our social engagement and doesn’t relegate the human species to a predetermined cog victim to the whims of innate behaviors. If nothing else, the human species, far more than any other species, has demonstrated the ability to transcend the boundaries of our genetic capacities. This model is called the Culture-Pattern Model. Basically, it says that yes we have ability to petty fights and even war but we are destined to follow that path and can learn and teach ourselves out of that rut with limited minimal consequences, especially compared to the NonZero social and global consequences of collaboration.