On Second Thought ...

Sharon Begley (On Science, Jan. 12, 09) laments how scientists have difficulty changing their minds. While I agree that being open to changing one???s mind is a nice ideal, I also think Begley???s angst is a little overwrought and probably misplaced. If individual scientists were expected to be the sole arbiters of the truth of their own ideas, then there would be reason for concern. But they aren???t, so there isn???t.

I apologize in advance for the quotation marks appearing as question marks...

I thoroughly enjoyed two of the previous books put out by Brockman and the Edge.org contributors (???What Do You Believe But Cannot Prove???? and ???What is Your Dangerous Idea????), and, after recently learning of the most recent book, "What Have You Changed Your Mind About?," I have been quite excited to buy the book at my first opportunity. So, understandably, I was quite surprised to read Sharon Begley's "On Science" article, "On Second Thought..." in which she claims, "few scientists answer the question in the title," in a way that expresses the ideal of changing one's mind based on empirical evidence. Begley states that many contributions simply tell of changes of "opinion" or an "evolution of values." She complains that only rarely did a contributor write of a change of mind in a controversial issue.
I was beginning to change my mind about buying the book. But I thought perhaps a little independent research would be necessary, surely Begley would agree that one must reserve a change in mind for a situation that has strong evidence from multiple sources. And what better source than the actual text, which I found is posted in its entirety on the Edge website (beginning at http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_1.html) After reading through many of the contributions, I realized I need not worry, as the contributors and their writing were just as enthralling as they were in the previous publications. However, I felt it unfair that the book should go undefended of an article making such claims.

So, in order to clear things up for other readers, I will point out a few things.

1. This is the question in its entirety:
???The Edge Annual Question ??? 2008
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT? WHY?
Science is based on evidence. What happens when the data change? How have scientific findings or arguments changed your mind?"
It has 165 contributors, and 112,600 words.

2. Almost all of the contributions (at least that I read) answered the question in a way that expresses the ideal of changing one???s mind based on the presence (or absence) of data. On the first page that I linked, which is one of 17, has, among others, a contributor who has taken the null hypothesis of there being no intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations, as opposed to firmly believing that the probability (nearly) proves that there are many, based on the absence of evidence, a neuroscientist who???s ideas about memory were fundamentally changed based on a colleague???s experiment, a historian who???s view of the Roman Empire changed when examining ???more personal??? historical records, and a former behaviorist who states, the ???data from evolutionary psychology has now convinced me that we evolved a dual set of moral sentiments: within groups we tend to be pro-social and cooperative

3. Begley states that there are ???few essays in which scientists do admit they were wrong,??? about something crucial to their reputation, but I think what she meant is there are few scientists who admit they were wrong on an issue she finds particularly important (or maybe that she has written an article on before??? Alzheimer???s not being caused by sticky brain plaque (WSJ April, 2004)(Newsweek Lab Notes July 25, 2008)? Hormone-replacement therapy (Newsweek Jun 30, 1997)? Asteroid not killing dinosaurs (Newsweek Lab Notes Oct 30, 2004)?).
Anyways, I found plenty that told of an overturned opinions of ???contentious issues??? ???central to their reputation.??? Susan Blackmore went from a PhD testing for ESP and other paranormal phenomena to a skeptic, throwing away her reputation in parapsychology. This a paragraph from Richard Dawkin???s contribution, ???I have changed my mind, as it happens, about a highly paradoxical theory of prestige, in my own field of evolutionary biology. That theory is the Handicap Principle suggested by the Israeli zoologist Amotz Zahavi. I thought it was nonsense and said so in my first book, The Selfish Gene. In the Second Edition I changed my mind, as the result of some brilliant theoretical modelling by my Oxford colleague Alan Grafen.??? (As a side note, his opening statements about ???flip-flopping??? and politicians and ladies and scientists intriguingly resembles Begley???s opening few sentences) Jordan Pollack is a computer scientist now denouncing email. Roger Highfield is the Science Editor for the Daily Telegraph, and he admits that science is often treated by scientists as a religion. Kai Krause, a ???Software and Design Pioneer,??? claims software writing is merely a performance art. Randolph M. Nesse, a psychiatrist at the University of Michigan, now believes that ???truth does not reside with smart university experts.??? And Nassim Taleb, an ???Epistemologist of Randomness and Applied Statistician,??? has realized the ???irrelevance of probability.???

I still plan on buying the book. And as for Begley, perhaps she should stick to ???dispassionate evaluation of empirical evidence,??? and overlook that the scientists that she was personally involved with proving wrong were not contributors, or at least contribute something along the lines of , ???I ???abandoned my cherished belief??? because Sharon Begley found ???evidence that undercut it.??????

And, on an ???up note,??? she can still change her mind.

As a scientist myself, I would say that the author's central thesis lacks enough references for support.

I sure have enjoyed this site. My chickens are hopping up onto the roost and I need to go to bed. Thanks for this opportunity to learn from this top notch article. Good night all.

I sure wish more people would comment on this article. It is a tremendous opportunity to learn something. Free of charge.

Sorry Sharon, I was getting bored. No reflection on your article. I always enjoy them.

""This field holds that we all carry genes that led to reproductive success in the Stone Age, and that as a result men are genetically driven to be promiscuous and women ""

Well, no S**t sherlock

""And Steven Pinker, one of evo-psych's most prominent popularizers, now admits that many human genes are changing more quickly than anyone imagined.""

Isnt that part of the mating and reproducing thing too? I always take mine off first. Well, usually anyway

and that mating and reprodcing stuff, well, I really like that too.

us folk don't mind the spoon fed part, just cook it a little before you serve it, we'll even try your other recipes ya'll