Did you know that you can navigate the posts by swiping left and right?
It is fun to watch two academics argue and differ in opinion on a subject. When more than two scholars, with varied academic expertise in philosophy of science, psychology, and humaen philosophy take the stage for a discussion, the fun most certainly turns into festivity of arguments. I was recently at the New York Academy of Sciences to participate in what can be called a slightly unusual event hosted by the Academy: a discussion on character and wisdom. The discussants were eminent philosophers, Philip Kitcher of Columbia University, who is best known for his book "The Ethical Project", Valerie Tiberius from the University of Minnesota, and psychologist/neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett from the Northeastern University.
The overall theme of the discussion was on the virtue of wisdom: What is wisdom and how can one obtain it?. To be frank, I never really had any hope that this question may be answered in an hour-and-a-half discussion. Promptly, the discussants acknowledged this fact at the very beginning: even the wisest men [and women] may not be wise at all times, alluding to the fact that wisdom itself is subjective. With this cautionary note, the discussants emphasized how and why this question has remanied a central topic of discussion in philosophy for centuries. Dr. Kitcher pointed out that the meaning of wisdom itself has changed over centuries, adapting to changes in human culture over time.
For example, according to early philosophers, "getting along" with fellow humans is considered good wisdom. While this tenet is still true, wisdom for success in today's world is prescribed by "getting ahead" of fellow humans, noted Dr. Barrett. The question then is Has the definition of wisdom changed in the history of philosophy over time? While all the discussants unanimously agreed that wisdom in the eyes of Aristole was different from the thinking of modern era philosophers like Emerson, they seemed to agree that certain tenets of wisdom remain unchanged over time: that is, wisdom is an invaluable virtue that may not be easily obtained; and has a deep connection to the ethical goodness in humans. If so, where in the human mind is morality coded? and, can we precisely identify the part of the human brain that is responsible for ethical goodness? While these are not certainly simple questions to answer, the discussion took a turn to the path of fiery arguments, moving the focus from character and wisdom to philosophy of science.
Lisa Feldman Barrett is a psycologist/neuroscientist, who laid out her ambitious research plan to map the part of human brain that is responsible for "consiousness." By understanding the deeper complexity of human brain, she claimed that in the near future, scientists would be able to have a glimplse of the "moral brain." Philip Kitcher, an expert in philosophy of science, almost instantaneously disagreed to this ambitious plan. As a biologist, my opinion very well reflected his stand-point on this issue. Let's take for example, the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans , a squiggly worm, which is used in biological research to study phenomena such as behaviour, locomotion, et cetra . This simple worm is composed of less than a thousand cells, and yet, its neural circuitry is at least as complex as any large animal. With this formidable example, Dr. Kitcher expressed his skepticism on how the proposed plan to study several million neural connections in the human brain be feasbile, while scientists do not have a clear picture of the function of neural cells in worms.
We can only make baby steps in science, said Dr. Kitcher, drawing examples from the field of genetics. Genetics, in the early 20th century was gaining popularity as a young and promising branch of biology. The founders of field of genetics initially abandoned complex questions related to human health and disease, but rather started examining the eye color in fruit flies, which led to a remarkable genetic revolution; and culminated in sequencing of the human genome. The point Dr. Kitcher made was very clear: good science demands two things (i) you ask manageable and right questions; and (ii) get simple, yet correct answers. The chance of getting right answers will increase only when the questions are simple. However, Dr. Tiberius mentioned that modern science is prepared to deal with complex questions, and that the scientific world in the 21st century is ready to tackle "big" questions. While I thoroughlly enjoyed these arguments, I could sense a discomfort among audience as the discussion contributed very little to character and wisdom, and slowly deviated to a forum on philosophy of science.
Whether humanity would oneday unlock the secrets of human "consiousness" or not, understanding the deeper secrets of human mind is not a trivial scientific pursuit. While we now know the answers to few questions about the human mind, many still remain unanswered. For instance, wisdom as we now know may not be a congenital trait, but rather a product of a trained mind. It is something that everyone can strive to achieve it, but not everybody has it. Also, wisdom is not a college diploma where once you have it, you claim ownership of it forever. It is very easy to lose wisdom. I striked a conversation with Dr. Philip Kitcher during hors d’oeuvres, who was fortunately in the queue behind me. I asked him for a good example of why wisdom is a product of a trained mind and may not be a genetic trait. He said "babies don’t have wisdom, do they?". I don’t know if babies have it or not, but I said to myself that I, for sure don’t have it.