Greetings, Everyone,
Between March 2, 2021 and April 19, 2021, I published 15 short videos on my Dr. Anth Talks Channel. Each week, 2 short videos are published on topics related to being human in a complex world.
Check out the past videos and make sure not to miss any in the future by subscribing to my Dr. Anth Talks Channel.
Thank you!
Walking in Sunshine: LifeStyle Changes to Make for a Bright, Healthy Future, the book that can change your life, is now available for free download. Click on the link, download the PDF, and
Discover Why:
While reading The Disappearing Spoon by Sam Kean, the author discussed the concept of ‘pathological science.’ ‘Pathological science’ results from scientists who cling to their ideas even when there is plenty of evidence against them. For instance, Kean discusses the idea that megalodon sharks might still be circling the deep oceans even though there is no evidence for this, while there is evidence that those sharks died out at least one million years ago. Yet, some scientists are pathologically attached to the idea that the megalodon lives.
I realized that ‘pathological science’ was the perfect term to describe what happened over the past 25 years with the rise of mtEve and the demotion of Neanderthals to non-H. sapiens status. There was/is little evidence to support mtEve as a concept, but it so excited many otherwise respectable scientists, not to mention the media and the general public, that mtEve swept away anyone who disagreed that she was the mother of all modern humans. This was a pathological science creation event par excellence. If this non-existent entity had been named mtMable, the rush to embrace her probably would not have occurred.
The name ‘mtEve’ fed into the creation stories many scientists were raised with; even if they no longer believed the stories, the concepts still manifested at an unconscious level. For the media and the general public who did/do still believe these creation stories, mtEve provided immediate validation that humans were special. Humans were not just another animal; not just another result of evolution. Pathological scientists also want ‘modern’ humans to be viewed as special, distinct, better than any preceding humans who were ‘archaic’ and different, more like an animal, less intelligent. Given the location of mtEve (Africa) and the poorly-derived date of mtEve (it varies a great deal, but many use 250,000 years ago), Neanderthals were relegated to the ‘archaic’ heap.
I have spent the past two-plus decades fighting against this pathological science, only to see it become accepted dogma even in textbooks. This is disturbing. If scientists can be so swept away by their emotions that they totally ignore evidence, is it any wonder that respect for science is softening? Fortunately, science is eventually self-correcting. It’s taken too long, but it is finally becoming clear that Neanderthals were no less ‘modern’ than so-called ‘moderns.’ There was no creation event 250,000 years ago in which mtEve popped into being and begat the first modern human. For 25 years, I asked for evidence of how speciation occurred between ‘archaics’ and ‘moderns’ and was shown no evidence. I was not surprised since there was and is no such evidence: mtEve was a creation of pathological science.
Robert G. Bednarik’s chapter, “The Expulsion of Eve” in his book The Human Condition, is a precise and detailed refutation of mtEve and the concept of ‘modern’ and ‘archaic’ humans. He slices and dices the ‘evidence’ (morphological, genetic, lithic, and cultural) until there is nothing left but hot air. While Bednarik does not use the term ‘pathological science’, it is clear from his analysis that mtEve proponents were and are acting pathologically. “…the Eve supporters have led the study of hominin origins on a monumental wild-goose chase.”
After I published Part 1 of this essay, I heard from a friend who thought I was being too harsh in my treatment of the wealthy. She also stated that the best way for those in poverty to have a chance to demonstrate their abilities and intelligence, and to achieve monetary success, was for them to obtain a quality education. While this was not the point of Part 1, I do agree with her that a quality education is a key to ending poverty. Since the poor are unable to provide themselves with a quality education, the funds to provide this education must come from elsewhere. I see two options: philanthropy and/or taxes. Both options rely on the wealthy (or at least those who have incomes well above poverty levels). Therefore, if the relationship [>power = >possessions = >intelligence = >human] I describe is invalid, all of those with the most power and possessions would not consider the poor to be less worthy, less human, than themselves and would willingly provide the funds, whether via philanthropy or taxes, so that the poor could obtain the quality education they need to achieve monetary success.
As with every relationship, there are exceptions. As I mentioned to my friend, Sir Richard Branson, the billionaire founder of the Virgin Group, does invest his money to improve the lives of the poor. In addition, Branson is working to ensure that his businesses operate in a sustainable manner in order to lessen the burden to Earth’s biosphere. If all of those with great power and possessions/money would follow Branson’s lead, the relationship I describe would be invalid. But I suspect I will be waiting a long time.
PS. Happy Birthday Sir Richard and President Mandela! (July 18, 2012)
We ignore women, their needs, their rights, their abilities, at the peril of our future. Their issues are not ‘women’s issues’, they are humanity’s issues. The attempts to marginalize and/or ignore women may well be major factors in why the world is in such trouble economically and politically. Gayle Tzemach Lemmon in her recent TED talk points out that women are marginalized in financing: they get micro-loans rather than entrepreneurial loans. Granted, a micro-loan is better than no loan, but her point is that when a woman creates a business it is viewed as less important and less economically valuable than when a man creates one. Treating women as ‘less than’ negatively affects all aspects of not only their lives, but their children’s lives, and, although the men generally do not recognize it, the lives of men, too. Simple reasoning makes this obvious: women make up half of humanity; or, as in the Chinese proverb that provided the title for Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn’s book Half the Sky, “Women hold up half the sky.”
As I write this, it is reported in the news that an Afghani women was strangled by her mother-in-law because she gave birth to a third daughter and not a son. Her husband also appears to have been involved in her murder. Sons are valued so much more than daughters that failure to give birth to one can lead to a woman’s death. A woman can destroy her family’s honor by being raped. The ‘solution’ is for her to marry her rapist, or to be put to death. Being jailed for being raped actually protects the woman from abuse and/or death. The girl’s hymen is no longer intact, so she no longer has value and has thus dishonored her family. As Kristof and WuDunn state, “The paradox of honor killings is that societies with the most rigid moral codes end up sanctioning behavior that is supremely immoral: murder.” (p. 82)
Young girls are ‘sold’ into marriages where they become virtual slaves. Choosing your own boyfriend can result in your death. These examples all involve Afghanis, but any culture that does not value woman equally with men will find ways to demean, mistreat, and abuse women. For instance, a judge in Canada (and he is not alone in this, as similar views have been expressed by judges in the United States) gave a mild (no jail time) sentence to a rapist because he, the judge, felt the woman had asked for it. These actions are done to keep women in their place, a place that is well below that of men.
Kristof and WuDunn have written a moving book highlighting the many, many ways women suffer from oppression throughout the world. But they have also written about the women who have fought back against oppression and who are making better lives for themselves and other women. For this to happen, the women must see themselves as valuable and as equal to men. Education is the key. Cultures that oppress women seek to deny girls access to education. But cultures can change. This is something that is too often ignored. Simply because it has ‘always’ been done this way does not mean that it always will be done that way. Holding back girls and women results in holding back the future. Clinging to the culture of the past not only marginalizes women, but marginalizes that culture in an interconnected and globalized world. Cultures can and do change. Education is the first, vital step.
Education gives girls knowledge and with knowledge they begin to realize that they should have a voice in their lives; a say in what happens to them. With knowledge comes the power to fight back against injustice. The first girls and women in their communities to come to this realization are very courageous. They frequently must endure great abuse and hardship. But they and their stories, as told by Kristof and WuDunn, serve as examples to other women and girls that change is possible, and change begins to happen.
Enmeshed with education are the healthcare needs of girls and women. Girls who do manage to attend grade school often disappear from school when they begin to menstruate because the schools lack the facilities the girls need during their period. A husband and brother in India realized just obtaining pads for menstruating girls and women was a problem, so he set out to solve this. Girls are also often forced into marriage at that time, which also ends their education. They need a way to manage their menstrual cycle and to obtain birth control so that they can continue their education. Denying birth control to girls and women because of religious reasons (as has been done with US foreign aid) in effect denies them a future of their own choice.
When a large percentage of women in a particular country are educated and enfranchised, their political power is harder to ignore. Issues that had been ignored, such as public health and children’s health, move to the political mainstream. When women become the majority in the government, massive cultural change is certain. In 1994, Rwanda was the scene of a bloody genocide. When peace was restored, a new government decreed that women had to hold at least 30% of the seats in all legislative bodies. Women now hold 56% of the seats in Parliament. Rwandan culture has changed dramatically. Rwanda is leap-frogging into the 21st century because the country realized that women are as valuable as men.
China has a long history of valuing sons more than daughters, so much so that with the one child policy and elective abortion, the country now has an unbalanced male/female ratio. However, the government now realizes that a better policy is to educate girls and women. When women are well-educated, they want to use their skills in the workplace. This delays marriage and child-bearing while also improving the economy. Parents now realize that daughters can be just as valuable as sons. A win-win for China: slowed population growth along with rapid growth in gross domestic product. India also sees the value of educating women. Bunker Roy created the Barefoot College which educates the poor to become technicians and engineers, among other occupations. According to Roy, men are untrainable. Instead, the Barefoot College trains grandmothers.
In the 21st century, women in all cultures must be equal participants in all aspects of life and business if we are to deal with the challenges the world will face. Corporations are discovering that those boards of directors with a higher percentage of women are significantly more profitable than those with the lowest number of women on their boards.
Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide should be read by anyone who cares about the future. The tales the authors have collected in their journeys around the world are moving, enlightening, and uplifting. While oppression is common and severe, it is possible for change to occur. The book concludes with a plan of action and a long list of things that the reader can do to contribute to the change that must occur. The website (linked to above) also provides opportunities for action. “Women are half the sky.” We cannot succeed in the 21st century without equality for all women and men.
I recently finished reading Shawn Lawrence Otto’s book: Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America. Otto co-founded Science Debate 2008 which was an effort to get the presidential candidates to have a debate on the important science issues affecting the United States. Despite strenuous efforts, the candidates refused to agree to such a debate. The only outcome was that the final nominees, Obama and McCain, did finally agree to answer, in writing, not in debate, “The 14 Top Science Questions Facing America.” I would like to think that there will be an actual Science Debate in 2012, but given that the only Republican candidate who seems concerned about science and the scientific illiteracy of his fellow candidates is Jon Huntsman, a man who has no chance to be the Republican nominee in 2012, this seems improbable.
Otto’s main thesis is that for the last several decades, scientists, while busy doing science, ignored the erosion of the public’s confidence in science and the rise of a belief system that claimed there is no objective reality; that we each create our own subjective ‘reality;’ therefore, the conclusions of science are only one way of viewing the world, and not necessarily the ‘best’ way. This flight from objective reality may well be why the United States ranks #23 in the 2009 PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) test of scientific knowledge. In addition, the United States ranks just above Turkey in a graph of countries depicting the percentage of the population accepting the validity of evolution, based on research published in Science. The educational system is failing the United States given that the researchers found that percentage accepting evolution actually declined over twenty years. Otto is convinced that this is because scientists failed to recognize that science is political; that scientists have to write for and speak to the public in language that will make it clear that science is necessary for the future stability, growth, and well being of the United States. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin understood that science was political. Their goal was to create a country where science could flourish. They would be appalled to discover that at the beginning of the 21st century, a huge chunk of the population is retreating into the anti-science mysticism of the centuries prior to the Enlightenment of the 18th century.
One of the key concepts that has been lost in the relativistic present is that there are not necessarily two sides to every argument. Otto points this out in the following example (p. 10):
“Journalism: There are always two sides to every story. Bob says 2 + 2 = 4. Mary says it is 6. The controversy rages.
Science: Most times, one side is simply wrong. I can demonstrate using these apples that Bob is right.
Politics: How about a compromise? New law: 2 + 2 = 5.”
Journalists create controversy where, based on the scientific facts, there is none. “If one side presents knowledge and the other ‘but faith, or opinion, but not knowledge,’ [John Locke] simply reporting both sides is not balanced journalism and constitutes malfeasance by the press.” (p.204-05) Such malfeasance is in large measure due to the fact that few media sources in the United States actually have scientifically-trained reporters. In fact, according to Otto, most media sources have cut or cut out their science departments. This is in contrast to the rest of the world where science news remains a vital part of media coverage.
Otto also discusses de Tocqueville‘s views of American democracy, published in 1835, after his travels throughout the new country. While impressed by many things, de Tocqueville also saw cause for concern. He saw Americans as tinkerers/inventors rather than as thinkers. The focus was on practicality rather than the search to understand the unknown; i.e. pure research without thought of how it might be used. “His [de Tocqueville’s] tale [of 19th century China’s retreat from science] suggests the dangers posed by embracing tradition and precedent at the expense of openness and creativity, applied research at the expense of basic science, fear at the expense of wonder, utility at the expense of beauty, and an insistence on financially quantifiable projections before an investment is made, the idea of which runs contrary to the entire process of discovery and creativity.” (pp. 58-9)
“If knowledge does not have primacy in public decision making, then no truth can be said to be self-evident, and we are left with the tyranny of ideology enforced by might (p. 219)…led [by] a generation of leaders that are at once arrogant and ignorant…(p. 134) Ignorance is not bliss. It’s tyranny.” (p. 252)
Otto points out that scientifically-literate children are most likely to have parents who are scientists or, and this is critically important, parents who are immigrants. “Fully 70 percent of the finalists in the 2011 Intel Science Talent Search competition were the children of immigrants–a stunning figure considering that immigrants make up only 12 percent of the US population…” (pp. 291-92)
This matters because if the United States continues to restrict immigration and/or makes life difficult for immigrants, these talented students will be lost to the United States, while at the same time providing a ‘brain gain’ to other countries. If anti-science attitudes continue to prevail in the United States, it will lose the future to other nations, particularly those in Asia. During the Middle Ages, science burned brightly in the Islamic countries. But fundamentalist, anti-science views came to dominate in those regions, and science was lost. To say such a future is not possible in an anti-science United States is arrogant ignorance.