Free will is an imaginary concept made up by religious people to rationalize other imaginary concepts like heaven and hell and good and evil. There, may I have the money and get back to a question science can address? What's that? Not so fast, you say? I first need to pay homage to the Christian philosophers that have continually tried to wriggle their way into relevant dialogue with the help of wealthy philanthropists? One such source is the John Templeton Foundation. There is an article in the Chronicle Review of Higher Education this week that explores some of Templeton's recently funded projects. The topics are disappointing. Free will, immortality, and evil top the list. All of them being studied from the slanted angle of philosophy rather than science. Here is Nathan Schneider in a piece titled "The Templeton Effect"
In the past few years, Templeton has been stepping up the number of
its six- and seven-figure awards for people in the discipline to study
what the foundation calls the "Big Questions." These "Big Questions" are
the kinds of out-there topics that make philosophy seem bold and
exciting to a college freshman but can feel thoroughly desiccated after a
few years in graduate school: free will, the universe, evil, hope,
consciousness. Controversy, though, always follows money, especially when it's
Templeton money. Partisans of Richard Dawkins and his fellow New
Atheists have long despised the foundation, interpreting its interest in
dialogue between science and religion as an attempt to buy undeserved
credibility for the latter at the cost of the former. Adds Brian Leiter,
"It's clearly more of a windfall for philosophers who have some sort of
vague religious angle to what they're doing." Yet he also points out
that Mele is an exception. His foregoing work on free will expressed
scant interest in the religious implications—which makes it all the more
noticeable that his Templeton project has a component devoted to
theology.
Read the rest of this article here at the Chronicle of Higher Education.
For me, the problem with Templeton funding is where the foundation is choosing to make these grants - Universities. By distracting wide-eyed college freshman with a false carrot at the end of a never ending tunnel of philosophy Templeton is doing a disservice to institutions of higher learning. If the foundation wants to give grants for young people to enter the seminary fine, but I'd prefer they keep their money out of the University.
Philosophers may argue with me and say that Templeton funding is a boon to their field and that I should not rain on their parade. I call bullshit here. Why do you need funding above and beyond your salary? By accepting money for pseudoscience "experiments" you are hurting your field. If you are taking these huge sums and buying nicer armchairs you are no better than the clergy fluffing their nests with church donations. I will grant that not all people who have received some money from Templeton have automatically been turned into faith-pushers. Brian Greene and Tracy Day launched one of the most powerful science expositions in history with a starter grant given in part by Templeton - the World Science Festival. Though there have been some controversial panels at the World Science Festival these should not overshadow the general awesomeness this festival offers. I have volunteered there three years in a row and it just keeps getting better. I highly recommend it.
I have decided to focus my "homework" leading up to the World Science Festival on E.O. Wilson and his recent change of mind regarding a
long-held tenet of evolutionary biology - inclusive fitness. The theory
of inclusive fitness provides a logical and mathematical framework to
rationalize kin-selection. Kin-selection explains why behavioral traits
such as self-sacrifice come to be in certain species. Although it
appears an organism is sacrificing their life for the "greater-good"
they are really just behaving that way so that their genes can be passed
on through their relatives who they are trying to help survive. Wilson
has abandoned the idea that altruistic behavior emerges out of the
struggle for existence as previously explained by a simple equation
championed by none other that HIMSELF at an earlier stage in his life.
The equation is rB>C. In which r is a relatedness factor B is the fitness Benefit to the altruistic organism and C is the Cost of
genetic fitness to the organism for carrying out the act of altruism.
This equation was put forth and formalized by the British evolutionary
biologist W.D. Hamilton in the 1960's.
So why has Wilson changed his mind about inclusive fitness? In a 2010 paper in the prestigious scientific journal Nature Wilson,
along with colleagues Martin Nowak and Corina Tarnita claim there is
not enough evidence in the real world of organisms who display altruistic
behavior that follow the rule rB>C. They go further to say that the
factors in the equation, B and C are too difficult to quantify. Wilson admits
the equation is simple, elegant, and alluring however he maintains that
it is too simple and needs revision.
Wilson's
flip-flop (btw, I am not using flip-flop in a negative way here as I
think in science changing one's mind is a virtue not a vice) has caused
an uproar in the scientific community drawing heavy criticism from some
of the most vocal evolutionary biologists including Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins.
Wilson's critics have said he is using his authority to make
assumptions without backing up his claims with real-world data (though Wilson does cite termite and ambrosia beetle societies). Wilson
fires back at them with the same criticism, saying they have a lack of
data on their side (though they do cite sawfly, wasp and bee societies). This makes for the juiciest kind of intellectual
debate, one that sends scientists out in the field in search for
more evidence.
Meanwhile, Wilson's apparent embrace of
"group-selection" has opened the flood-gates for scholars from the
humanities to jump on board the cooperation-train and use
"group-selection" to explain social phenomenon like the persistence of
religion in human society and the rapid growth of social networks. Among
these are psychologist Jonathan Haidt and social commentator David Brooks. The worry here is that the scientific debate over evidence will be overlooked by the hungry mobs of humanitarians so eager to extract rationale for morals out of biology.
I am excited to go into this debate and try as I might to filter out the wheat from the chaff when it comes to sound-science. It gets particularly noisy when morals get involved. I have seen this before at the World Science Festival as I covered the last "Faith and Science" discussion panel in 2010. My big worry is that the conversation will devolve into a silly argument about the participants underlying motives as the festival is in large part funded by a controversial organization called the John Templeton Foundation. Compounding this fear of mine is that Matin Nowak (the Austrian born, Harvard mathematician, and co-author of E.O.Wilson's) has received many millions of dollars form the Templeton foundation for his research. Indeed, many of the intellectuals in the Wilson camp are notorious in the scientific community for receiving money from Templeton (Jonathan Haidt winning the Templeton prize in 2001.) My hope is that the conversation can stick to the science and not get railroaded by money and politics.
This post has been entered into the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center's travel award contest. Winner's will receive money to help pay for the travel expenses for attending the Science Online conference to be held at the end of January 2013 in Raleigh, North Carolina. Apply for the travel award here!
