Steven Weinberg on scientific progress

I'm a big fan of this passage from The First Three Minutes, Chapter V (emphasis added):

In following this account of the first three minutes [of the universe], the reader may feel that he can detect a note of scientific overconfidence. He might be right. However, I do not believe that scientific progress is always best advanced by keeping an altogether open mind. It is often necessary to forget one's doubts and to follow the consequences of one's assumptions wherever they may lead--the great thing is not to be free of theortical prejudices, but to have the right theoretical prejudices. And always, the test of any theoretical preconception is in where it leads. The standard model of the early universe has scored some successes, and it provides a coherent theoretical framework for future experimental programs. This does not mean that it is true, but it does mean that it deserves to be taken seriously.

It certainly begs the question which prejudices are the right ones!

Myths of Progress

Human reason can neither predict nor deliberately shape its own future. Its advances consist in finding out where it has been wrong.  -- F. A. Hayek

It's common among some of my intellectual peers to speak of the "myth of progress," a term used disparagingly of the idea of progress made popular in Western consciousness ever since the Enlightenment era. The idea that "civilization has moved, is moving, and will move in a desirable direction" is a very easy target for intellectual criticism, because it both impacts our everyday thought and speech and is obviously false. Yet I find myself a little dissatisfied by the apparent alternatives. Indeed, in my experience there seem to be three different myths of progress, all working together, often paradoxically. Here they are:

1. The myth of inevitable progress: the idea that whatever is newer is better. You see this a lot when it comes to technology, of course (it's actually a little sad to know how many people are willing to line up for the latest toy being released by Apple or Microsoft). But you also see it all the time when it comes to morality. On multiple occasions, for instance, I have pointed out to a friend that the 19th century feminists were pro-life. Typical response: "They lived a long time ago."
2. The myth of progress on demand: the idea that if we want more progress, we just have to fight for it. Think of Occupy Wall Street on the left, or the "cultural warriors" on the right. Intentionally militant language is used to signify that progress is both necessary and achievable through unrelenting determination.
3. The myth of nihilism: there is no such thing as progress, and nothing we do really changes anything in the long run. We're no better nor worse than our ancestors, we can judge no one and no one can judge us. This is, in some ways, an immature reaction to the first two, but it is also deeper than that. Reflecting on our astonishing lack of knowledge can easily lead an intellectual down the pass to despair. Perhaps we really know nothing, after all, and everything we think we know is just a narrative we tell ourselves to keep going. But this is itself a narrative we tell ourselves, and I suspect it is because we have grown weary of traveling down the arduous path of discovery.

All of these are myths, stories we tell ourselves to simplify the world. Or, perhaps, they are stories which really do capture a genuine truth about ourselves. Myths cannot be so easily dismissed as falsehoods. For a myth to become so deeply rooted in society, it must have some ring of truth to it, after all.

Nevertheless, all of these claims are demonstrably false once they are stated clearly. The myth of inevitable progress cannot stand up to the fact of two world wars, in addition to many other credible examples of moral decline. The myth of progress on demand cannot stand up to the fact that, for example, communist revolutions have largely resulted in far worse totalitarianism than anything devised by the reigning aristocracy. The myth of nihilism is equally flawed: the world really has, in a way which is simply unprecedented in history, repudiated institutions such as slavery which were finally seen for the evils that they are. And technological progress, for all of the difficulties it brings with it, really has made people healthier and more productive than ever before.

The reason all of this is important is that we as modern people thrive on the idea of progress. We place our hopes in it; we demand it; and, precisely because we love it so much, we sometimes despair of ever attaining it. It is important that intellectuals lay a proper foundation for thinking rightly about progress, a foundation that accords with both high ideals and common sense.

I began with a quote from a chapter of The Constitution of Liberty entitled, "The Common Sense of Progress." I think this essay is a fantastic read, and it's worth reading all the way through, but I think one can also distill from it a few basic principles that are worth repeating. Here they are:

1. Progress is necessary. No, it isn't inevitable, and no, it doesn't come by simply demanding more of it, but it is what we want, and that's both natural and healthy. As Adam Smith pointed out years ago, a static society is awful for those who are least fortunate, and a regressive society even worse. The only way we can meet the needs of the many is to continue to make progress.
2. Progress is unpredictable. Just because I think I know how to solve a problem doesn't mean I will. A much bigger point is that many problems cannot even be named, much less solved, until I solve other ones. I won't even know what further progress means until I overcome today's problems.
3. Progress does not always satisfy. Sometimes, in solving the problems of the day, I may just wind up wishing I hadn't. But if we always knew this ahead of time, there wouldn't be any need for progress in the first place; we'd already know everything we need to.
4. Progress is nonlinear. Just because we improve in one way doesn't mean we improve in every way. Sometimes in order to make progress in one area, we end up stagnating or even regressing in another. It is impossible to know ahead of time how this balance will play out in the long run.
5. Progress begins locally. No innovation can immediately affect everyone, but it must undergo a refinement process which always starts with the people with enough expertise to understand the innovation. I think this even applies to moral progress: it is only through determined visionaries, who see the problems of society in a specialized way, that movements can arise to reform society.
6. Progress is good. Even though we can't say this without qualification, it is nevertheless true that progress is good. If for no other reason than the mere satisfaction of learning something new, progress is a good thing that will always continue to attract the imagination of human beings.

Hopefully these principles are a reasonable enough baseline for thinking about progress in the modern world, so that we as intellectuals can actually say things with both confidence and realistic expectations. Nothing we do will ever result in quite the thing we wanted or expected, but that is no reason not to do it. Nothing we believe is ever invulnerable to criticism or change, but that is no reason to believe nothing. The more realistic we are in our desire for change, the more hopeful we can be that change is possible. We will never know in our lifetimes whether it was all worth it, but we can be sure that such was true also of our heroes of the past.

As for me, I would like to believe that there really is some meaning behind all of our history, civilization, and progress. If we in the modern world have trouble believing in God, then I would rather that we at least believe in something that extends beyond ourselves. And since we are so prone to believe in progress, it would help if we at least believed something true about it.

The future of education

If a revolution in education production is possible, this is it:

"Humanizing the classroom"--with technology, incidentally. It's more than just humanizing the classroom; it's individualizing education. Educators have always been searching for ways to give each student the chance to move at her own pace; now that opportunity is readily available.

A colleague of mine is actually trying this method with her calculus class. Apparently you can make your own video lectures, which she has done, and she is assigning the lectures as homework. Then the entire classroom experience is for the students to work on what used to be homework. I'm really excited to see how it goes for her. I'd be willing to try this teaching method in the future; I sort of wish I'd thought of it before we started this semester.

And this is all thanks to YouTube...and a former hedge fund analyst. Spontaneous order, indeed.

A meditation on progress

In Chapter Three of The Constitution of Liberty, Hayek sets out to justify a measured form of progress. He begins,

Writers nowadays who value their reputation among the more sophisticated hardly dare to mention progress without including the word in quotation marks. The implicit confidence in the beneficence of progress that during the last two centuries marked the advanced thinker has come to be regarded as the sign of a shallow mind. Though the great mass of the people in most parts of the world still rest their hopes on continued progress, it is common among intellectuals to question whether there is such a thing, or at least whether progress is desirable.

Up to a point, this reaction against the exuberant and naive belief in the inevitability of progress was necessary.... There never was much justification for the assertion that "civilization has moved, is moving, and will move in a desirable direction," nor was there any ground for regarding all change as necessary, or progress as certain and always beneficial....

But if the fashionable disillusionment about progress is not difficult to explain, it is not without danger. In one sense, civilization is progress and progress is civilization. The preservation of the kind of civilization that we know depends on the operation of forces which, under favorable conditions, produce progress.

421

421...

That's the number of lives saved by the 40 days for life campaign that recently ended. David Bereit, who is basically in charge of this movement that has taken shape in just the past couple of years, always puts a tally of just how many babies are saved from abortion thanks to the 40 days effort.

Why do I think that number is so important? Because it's real, tangible evidence of people making a difference. I love that Bereit always wants us to know the number. It shows that his number one concern is that lives are actually saved.

If the pro-life movement were about anything other than saving actual lives, these numbers wouldn't really matter to the people involved. Especially not when they hardly make a dent in the total number of abortions that occur each year.

To put a bit of perspective on it, in 2005 about 1.2 million abortions were performed. On average, that's over 3,000 abortions every day.

So why is 40 days for life rejoicing that after four different campaigns, only about 1,500 (including the numbers from this last campaign) abortions have been prevented? That's only about half of the number that happen every day, on average.

The only possible reason to get excited is that every life is actually worth something. Each of these 421 children matters. Although I understand the complexities of the abortion debate, it does somewhat confound me that in our country this idea needs defending.

I have been personally involved in 40 days for life, and I think it represents numerous possibilities for the future. Groups who gather together to pray in front of abortion clinics are composed of people who are equally willing to support women during and after pregnancy. The pro-life movement has slowly but steadily begun to integrate its message against abortion with a network of organizations equipped with real alternatives, such as pregnancy care centers and post abortion healing. People who pray can also give practical help to women, whether financially or emotionally.

What's secretly happening is that a progressive society is being formed at the center of what has been historically branded a conservative movement. A powerful alternative to the status quo is emerging out of the scattered efforts of people who just can't stand to think of children dying. This counterculture doesn't live according to old American rules of individualism. Its members go out of their way to save even the smallest human being, not primarily through law-making but through love: one person stands on the sidewalk and offers brochures, a group of people sit quietly praying, a group of volunteers offer free services at a pregnancy care center, a counselor provides post-abortion healing services, and others soon get involved one way or another as all of these start working together to make sure the needs of women are met--all of this because abortion just seemed so wrong.

The only problem is that the members of this society are not all used to this sort of lifestyle. Most of the pro-life movement is still about trying to persuade and change laws. But where the future of the movement really lies is in allowing this progressive society to fully take shape. That is the only way a pro-life nation would ever be sustainable; without a community that habitually cares for the needs of the helpless, abortion will always be seen as a necessary evil.

Four hundred twenty-one children, who are now safe from abortion, are living testimony to the fact that such a community can exist.