Science news and science current events, research and discoveries.
Top science news articles and science current events stories from the past week.
Science Resources
Science RSS News Feeds
Earth, Life and Space Science RSS News Feeds.
|
 |
 |
 |
| View Larger Image | Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life
by Lee M. Silver
| | List Price: | $26.95 | | Price: | $21.02 | | You Save: | $5.93 (22%) |  | | Available: | Usually ships in 24 hours | | | | | Sales Rank: | 657459 | | Studio: | Ecco | | | Binding: | Hardcover | | Number Of Pages: | 464 | | Publication Date: | June 01, 2006 | | Publisher: | Ecco |
| |
EDITORIAL REVIEWS |
Product Description
Biotechnology is the oldest and most widespread of inventions, providing sustenance for humankind since the beginning of civilization. Until recently, however, its tools were crude and its implementation was opaque. Today new understanding in the life sciences brings both precision and transparency to the process. Modern inventions could alleviate human suffering, feed the world, and, at the same time, stem the tide of earth's ecological degradation. Yet ironically, biotechnology becomes evermore contentious. On the left, New Age secularists rail against genetically modified crops. On the right, religious Americans want embryo stem-cell research to be a felony. While they share seemingly little beyond mutual contempt, Silver argues that both political camps are driven -- consciously or subconsciously -- by a fundamental fear of violating a higher spiritual authority, imagined either as the creator God of the Bible, who rules from above, or a vague Mother Nature goddess here on earth. In Challenging Nature, Silver offers a provocative look at the collision of science, religion, pseudoscience, and politics. A hands-on scientist who has actually manipulated genes, he leaves the laboratory, traveling the globe in what he calls “one scientist's journey from a cloistered community, in which life is assumed to be combinations of complex molecules and information flow between them, to a world of humanity dominated by soul and spirits, and to the intense chaos of Mother Nature at large.” The result is a fascinating book that could provide a wake-up call for the West, where the economic ramifications of pseudoscience may be enormous: a future in which Asia becomes dominant in biotechnological advances. |
CUSTOMER REVIEWS (Average Customer Rating: 4.0 based on 17 reviews)
|
Interesting .... but flawed 
In its best passages, 'Challenging Nature' exposes interesting facts and effectively challenges unthought-through conventional `wisdom'. It then goes over, from a sometimes different perspective, some of the same ground that Jared Diamond and others have efficiently covered.
At its worst however, the book slides into factual scientific misapprehensions, in-the-box thinking, overlooking of contradictory evidence, unasked begging questions, and seemingly a measure of scorn for the fellow man. It's too bad, because a critique of the damage wrought by fundamentalism at the commanding levers of public science policy in the US is called for. However, when reading Lee Silver's effort one is sometimes left to wonder who, in this debate, plays the role of Charybdis the frying pan and who Scylla the fire.
The factual errors range from the forgiveably mundane (e.g. the assertion that the Earth will survive for another few billion years. The sun will indeed survive another 4 billion years or so, but in the process it will start heating up and eventually expand into a red giant (with a radius equal to the Earth's orbit) much earlier, making the Earth uninhabitable through radiated heat within one billion years at most), to the significant.
For instance, the debate about free will is one of the very few key unresolved debates of mankind (Valid arguments exist on both sides of the debate, which is why it is unresolved.) What appears solid however, is that at bottom the argument can only be resolved by an understanding of how quantum mechanics plays out within the human mind and in its engagement with the outside world (in toto, i.e. including any higher dimensional components.)
Now the whole debate is summed up in the book in a few seemingly valid lines: Quote : (free will can only play out) ... either through quantum interactions (which are nonpredictable but random) or macroscopic interactions (which are predictable but nonrandom). However by definition free will would be both nonrandom and nonpredictable - (Hence, free will is illusory.)
On the face of it the above argument sounds open and shut, and indeed it has been used by others. But wait a minute. Quantum effects never cease to operate and be valid, even in the macroscopic world. In fact, many properties of the everyday world, many everyday-world technological applications, emerge from quantum effects. Quantum effects in the macroscopic world are seemingly less prevalent because of statistical effects: so many zillions of particles are involved in macroscopic renditions that overall, things become mostly 'predictable'.
The assertion that therefore such effects cease to count is the equivalent of, in mathematics, rounding off numbers, of neglecting numbers that are to the right of a decimal point: to an experimental physicist, 0. 0000000000005 for instance is much the same as 0. But to an exact mathematician, the former figure is, properly and exactly, infinitely larger than the latter. Now the early history of physics is littered with such approximations and oversights which later turned out to be wrong and the overlooked, approximated-away effect turned out to have tremendous material significance. Einstein was one of the first to realize that neglected 'mathematical terms' actually meant something. In one instance, something as big and in your face as the terms leading to e=mc² and the bomb. A whole indepth, at least book-length analysis of the cracks opened up by quantum effects at the macroscopic level is called for: it is entirely possible that free will finds its real-world delivery through these cracks.
Another rather peremptory error seemingly caused both by the author's seemingly dim view of the average man's IQ, and by a mistake that says, in effect, that if it's not proven then it's false: the whole chapter about nutritional supplements. At a certain age, health can definitely be improved in manifold ways by supplements. We are, as the author well knows, biochemical machines (with waning absorbing/ processing ability and metabolism with age) and as such susceptible to the effects of added molecules and chemicals input through our system. The author dismisses without analysis the effects of supplements that can be objectively analyzed: one case in point, amongst others, is that of gingko biloba. Gingko is simply a blood thinner with viscosity-lowering properties (take gingko and cut yourself when shaving: if you really absorbed gingko rather than a fake product then you'll bleed for a long time.) The reason why it improves memory is a simple mechanism: gingko-ized blood starts flowing through capillaries in the brain where it would not be able to in its thicker, more viscous and slabber version: hence, hitherto unused parts of the brain are now oxygenated and susceptible to rejuvenation, thus useable 'online' by the larger neural network. Another case in point is vitamin supplements, lutein supplements for the eye, etc. The effects for some of the failure to take some supplements are immediately observable. That no convincing studies were conducted does not mean that the effects do not exist. If the author did not automatically think we're silly, he would perhaps pause and think that if Americans spend $100 billion annually on supplements, there just might be something there.
Now for the belief in god. Three points.
First, the author seems to make the same mistake that many Westerners seem to make, i.e. mistaking God or god for the god of sometimes anthropomorphic, overly narrow, overly artificially structured religions, perhaps laden with vast amounts of unrelated human baggage and interpretations and irrelevant history. Typically, when Westerners throw away their religion, they throw away the baby with the bathwater and become reductionist atheists.
Second, he dismisses without any analysis why sizeable proportions of populations everywhere insist on believing in something. The author's hoary, tired explanation that all of mankind's spiritual pursuits were born because we're afraid of death does not even begin to hold water (Some of the OBE experiences reported by some people, for instance, just cannot be dismissed the way the author does: there is a vast body of serious literature on that.) Once again, the author's approach here seems unscientific, and the impression is that he is guilty of the very sin he accuses, properly, the fundamentalist of: to wit, abandoning objectivity to a prior agenda.
Third, a definition of god is sorely needed, so that we know what it is we're talking about. The eschatological god of someone like Paul Davies, for instance (extremely well analyzed in his excellent latest book - titled "Jackpot" in the US and "the Goldilocks Enigma" in the UK) is a totally totally different god than most others (and closer to the only possible definition of 'god' in Buddhism, for instance.)
The problem here, as in a couple of other themes, is also a failure of imagination, of out of the box thinking. If for instance you agree with Buddhism that the whole point of life on Earth is to learn, then it can be that being a conjoined twin with someone else for some time serves a purpose: the biotech mechanism of how that happens is then largely irrelevant. Often, one has the impression that this reductionist author would critique a TV show by looking at the electronic components and nuts and bolts of his TV set. This approach does not work: a different level view is called for.
Finally, one last, but telling, example. The author says that only 5.5 % of biotech scientists believe in god (whatever that means, see above), and dismisses them as obviously idiotic. But here is where the mistake is (apart from the fact that several chapters further on, he avers that of all scientists, biomedical scientists are quote apt to be anti-visionaries rather than visionaries', and explains that biomedical scientists tend to think inside the box! There must be a reason why more quantum physicists believe in something than biotech people: quantum physics is so weird, opens so many vistas onto other unexpected worlds and different ways of looking at reality, that from its basis it's easy to conceptualize e.g. higher dimensional implicate worlds.) Anyway what is missing here, without which the 5.5% figure is meaningless: an indepth IQ test of the 5.5% and of the 94.5%.
The author's implication is that 5.5% would be less intelligent than the others. I submit that the results of a protocolled IQ test would show the opposite. All these Ph.D.s in biotech are already intelligent, or they would not be there. The 5.5% obviously see something that the others don't. Maybe they see higher level connections, other possible explanations. Maybe they understand that, as foreshadowed in Gödel's incompleteness theorem, to understand anything you have to step outside of that something : be it maths (Gödel's) or biotech. Maybe they understand that in physics, time is largely an illusion, and that therefore evolution over millions of years, seen from a higher dimensional perspective, may mean something slightly different from what first meets the eye. Maybe they understand that to understand life, you have to understand it from without.
Carry out this test, Dr. Silver.
July 29, 2008 | |
Prometheus Unplugged?
Some of Lee Silver's supporters seem more like fans or groupies of some pop-cultural phenom than analysts of his work and its goodness...or lack thereof. Is Professor Silver really the new Prometheus or is he simply another secularist biotechie yearning for the apotheosis of his vision of science/technology and lamenting the fact that the science-god is being fettered by some human beings who don't worship at his altar? How dare we suggest that sciences do not inform us as to what is ethically right or wrong? Hiroshima, anyone? The abominable Tuskegee experiments on impoverished African American men? Radiation testing on unwitting volunteers? Nazi experiments on those they did not deem quite human? If that's Prometheus, I suggest that he should not only be bound by moral guideines, but we should pull the plug on old Pro while we still have a chance! Professor Silver: Find a better deity, PLEASE!
June 12, 2008 | |
Science, spirits and superstition 
During the construction of the luxurious Grand Hyatt Erawan hotel in Bangkok, several accidents occurred. After consulting a spiritual guide, a decision was made to build a small replica of the construction with a shrine dedicated to the Erawan-god, an elephant with three heads. The replica was intended for the phra-phum-spirits, who tend to get annoyed when you mess with their land. This kind of `doll-houses' are quite common in Thailand and according to professor Silver the `phra-phums' have already moved in to New York City as well. After seeing the film `Ghostbusters' you'd better watch out.
Professor Lee M.Silver is a molecular biologist who has travelled extensively around the world and has outspoken opinions about spirituality, cloning, GMOs and homeopathy, among other things. In `Challenging Nature' he notes the unholy alliance between fundamental Christians and the eco-Left; Greenpeace meets Prince Charles who in a speech dryly insists that it's about time that God, like the rest of us, also gets some rights. Don't interfere with the Creation.
Silver tells the story of the original Siamese twins Chang and Eng and other `freaks of nature'. His descriptions of some genetic aberrations like parasitic twins and teratomas are outright scary. It has a bearing on the demarcation of what constitutes a human being. Is it realistic to consider a microscopic embryo human or - on the other extreme - is a child not a human being until it becomes what Peter Singer describes as `a person'?
Since a resistance prevails against embryo cloning in the USA, as well as in Europe (except Britain), many scientists move east. In China, Korea and Singapore the doors are open to biotechnology development. According to Silver this has to do with the absence of monotheism. The idea that genetic manipulation equals `playing God' has no real meaning there. Which god should that be?
In the section `Mother Nature' he gives a scathing critique of what he sees as modern-day superstition. Anything from alternative medicine to organic food and biodynamic farming marches past. His views on for example Rudolf Steiner are rather uncompromising: while looking deep inside himself he could see that we humans have evolved from a group of primitive beings that once upon a time were living on the surface of Mars, Saturn, Jupiter - as well as on the sun itself. Fascinating stuff indeed.
Even if professor Silver states that `among modern scientists, molecular biologists are the least likely to have faith of any kind', he characterizes himself as `an extremely skeptical agnostic deist' (p.359n). I wasn't aware that such a creature existed.
March 06, 2008 | |
Accessible and entertaining read
Mr. Silver's book was a joy to read. Very engaging and full of information. I would highly recommend this to anyone. It's been a couple of months since I've read this book now, but as I recall I blazed through it pretty quickly.
September 08, 2007 | |
reductionalism + hubris = Science (with a capital 'S' like a deity) 
Silver goes about to prove that organic-environmentalist types are as 'religious' as fundamentalist Christians. That is an interesting, and perhaps, clever point. Unfortunately, that is where the clever points end.
After that, he goes on to rigorously prove that (1)souls do not weigh 21 ounces, (2)low organ music tones cause 'chills' in listeners, and (3)that robots will someday develop human personality.
This brilliantly illustrates to us that (1)if people held such ridiculous ideas about souls, the very idea of 'souls' must be hogwash! (It might be interesting to note that the aforementioned 21 ounces was not declared by a theologian, but a quack scientist who thought he could make pronouncements) (2) Religious experience is produced from clever music/physical tricks from calculating musicians and their lot (3) If robots can act funny, they now have a human personality and are intrinsically sacred 'humans'...which of course they are not, so that shows there is nothing intrinsically sacred about humans....
There are many more brilliantly logical points revealed in like manner.
Along the way, he describes plenty of gruesome human birth defects and ends with a beautiful elegant hymn to Science and technology and Reason.
Very inspirational reading to any dyed in the wool Materialist who reveres "Science" and is very convinced by the convincingness of his own point.
April 12, 2007 | |
SIMILAR PRODUCTS |
| |
|
|
|
|
