Ira Brodsky.com

Few movies evoke intense emotional responses as does Ben Stein’s new release, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. People seem to line up on two sides: those who fear “big science” is trying to destroy religion and those who believe that intelligent design (ID) is biblical creationism in disguise.

The real issues run much deeper. This is a debate about who gets to decide what constitutes science and how, if at all, that decision should be enforced.

According to Expelled, “big science” has decided that Darwinian evolution is no longer a theory but a proven fact. Consequently, there is no place in science for ID. The movie does not demand equal time for ID; it simply argues that scientists should be free to pursue research based on ID as long as they are willing to submit their work to the same kind of scrutiny applied to other scientific research.

Critics accuse the movie’s producers of using dishonest tactics: The scholars who allege they were persecuted for their ID views are merely using that as an excuse. The movie unfairly links Darwinism to Nazism. And the movie’s producers deceived leading evolutionists in order to secure their participation, and then manipulated their words.

Unfortunately, this has become a debate about Ben Stein and Expelled. Let’s get back to the issues.

Evolution is the best theory we have to explain the similarities between diverse living organisms. These similarities provide compelling evidence that higher organisms are the result of an evolutionary process. However, evolution does not satisfactorily explain this process. It doesn’t give us a detailed account of how new species come into being. Nor does it tell us precisely how life began.

Intelligent design is not a competing theory. It does not attempt to explain the diversity of living organisms. It is a simple hypothesis that challenges Darwinian views regarding the origin of life and the sufficiency of natural selection to explain the development of higher organisms. I understand why many people feel that evolution is science and ID is not. They are certainly not equals.

But I also know that the U.S. education establishment sometimes resorts to brainwashing and bullying. One of my children was once given a two-part homework assignment: 1) go through your family’s kitchen cupboards, identify all products and packages that are harmful to the environment, and report back to class and 2) get all family members to sign an environmentalist loyalty oath.

The education establishment warns that if we don’t teach our children “the scientific method” we will become a nation of science illiterates. Let me tell you a little story. Once upon a time the majority of scientists believed in something called “the luminiferous ether.” It was a mysterious form of matter that permeated all of space—and helped explain how electromagnetic waves propagate through a vacuum. Some great scientific work was done based on this assumption—even though it was later proved false.

The lesson is that scientists must remain free to embrace any hypothesis as long as it does not deny specific indisputable facts or make clearly contradictory assertions. We need more free exchange of ideas—not less.

UPDATE: May 5, 2008 - 9:50am Eastern:

Stein did not help his cause when he told Trinity Broadcasting Network "...science leads you to killing people." A more popular view is that science is inherently neither good nor bad. I go further: science is inherently good but can be corrupted and exploited for evil purposes.

Much has been written about the future technology depicted in Star Trek and its sequels. Another TV series (Danger Man) and its follow-on (The Prisoner) are also notable for their fascinating portrayal of advanced technology.

This post will focus on the technology from Danger Man, a.k.a. Secret Agent. Later, I will write a longer essay on the technology and socio-political context of The Prisoner.

Danger Man was produced in the UK during the early 1960s. It’s about the global adventures of a Cold War era British secret agent, John Drake, who is played by Patrick McGoohan. Though Danger Man is not set in the future, Drake frequently uses technology that we assume is withheld from the public for cost and/or national security reasons.

The Prisoner was filmed in the fairytale coastal town of Portmeirion, Wales in the late 1960s. It’s about a secret agent (again played by Patrick McGoohan) who resigns only to be kidnapped and imprisoned in “The Village.” McGoohan’s character is known thereafter as “Number Six.” Unlike Danger Man, The Prisoner is clearly science fiction, often featuring bizarre mind control technology. Though McGoohan denied that Number Six was John Drake that was probably for legal reasons; McGoohan himself resigned from Danger Man to produce The Prisoner.

I’m a fan of the two series for several reasons. The producers were unafraid to present the struggle for individual liberty as a battle between good and evil. However, the characters were often complex, and the dialogue was generally intelligent. Though most episodes contained violence, it was usually in the form of fistfights; John Drake and Number Six relied mainly on their wits and almost never on deadly weapons. Danger Man dramatizes Cold War espionage; The Prisoner shows how the mass media and even democratic institutions could be manipulated to take away our freedoms.

The technology in Danger Man consisted mainly of advanced spy tools. The gadgets performed familiar functions such as eavesdropping and tracking—but their performance and small size exceeded what was possible in the 1960s and in some cases even today.

Danger Man gadgets included a battery-powered shaver with built-in tape recorder; a self-adhesive, thimble-size telephone bug requiring no direct connections; a cigarette lighter with concealed camera; and a cigarette lighter that doubled as a two-way radio. There was also a thimble-size location beacon and a larger compatible electronic compass. Gadgets and microfilm were often hidden in shoes, pencils, briefcases, and canes. Drake almost always operated alone but sometimes rigged up noise- and smoke-making devices to create the illusion of a SWAT team at just the right moment.

The smallness of the eavesdropping, tracking, and two-way radio devices would not seem impressive were it not for their extraordinary range and reliability. Today there are cell phones not much bigger than John Drake’s cigarette lighter that can perform all of these tasks plus take pictures and even short videos. However, cell phones require extensive infrastructure support.

Somehow, Drake is able to eavesdrop on conversations and track individuals using concealed devices with little room for batteries and presumably no Global Positioning System satellites, no mobile phone networks, and no external antennas. All of this was envisioned at a time when simple integrated circuits were just coming to market.

Danger Man correctly predicted the further enhancement of devices for recording and communicating. Understandably, it failed to anticipate digital electronics, which has made audio tape and photographic film essentially obsolete.

The ideals and optimism of Danger Man are reflected not only in its story lines and its hero’s personal integrity, but the assumption that free and open societies are more likely to gain and hold technological leadership. The series is as enjoyable today as it was in the 1960s—perhaps more so. It challenges the modern entertainment industry view that sophistication and moral goodness are mutually exclusive.

But arguably the best thing about Danger Man is that it set high standards for its sequel, The Prisoner.

Two frequently cited examples of foolish ideas that were once quite popular are spontaneous generation and eugenics. We now know that maggots and mice don’t spontaneously arise in meat and grain, and that trying to improve the human race through controlled breeding is a dangerous idea.

These ideas are ridiculed today, but they were once supported by intelligent and even illustrious individuals—and not without good reason.

Spontaneous generation was the rational alternative to biblical creation and the perfect complement to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Supporters of spontaneous generation said that given the proper raw materials and environmental conditions, life arises as the result of natural processes.

Eugenics was also a natural outgrowth of evolution. If humans and other species are the result of ongoing evolution, then we must learn as much as we can about the process, and apply that knowledge to the benefit of individuals and society. That was certainly the intention of early enthusiasts such as Alexander Graham Bell.

What brought these ideas into disrepute? Belief in spontaneous generation was an obstacle to understanding the spread of disease-causing germs. The fiercely conservative Louis Pasteur used swan-necked flasks to show that microbes do not arise spontaneously. He influenced Joseph Lister, the developer of antiseptic surgery. And Eugenics is now associated with racial discrimination, forced sterilization, and genocide.

It’s easy to portray these ideas as silly or immoral, but neither has been totally rejected. Scientists have shown that simple organic molecules can be created from inorganic substances. Genetic screening, counseling, and abortion are now common practices.

Browsing articles on the history of science at Wikipedia, I was surprised by the number and extent of scientific advances attributed to Islam’s “Golden Age.” For example, the article Islamic Science credits Muslims with inventing the modern scientific method. It explains that Ibn al-Haytham applied the scientific method while pioneering modern optics in the eleventh century, and that some consider him the first scientist. The article also asserts that al-Haytham employed a version of Occam’s razor before Occam was born, and that Roger Bacon was familiar with his work.

It would require considerable space just to recite the many crucial discoveries and inventions ascribed to Muslims from that period. We are told that “Muslim scientists… laid the foundations of agricultural science.” One paragraph cites no fewer than 45 inventions, ranging from coffee to “flight control surfaces,” that are “believed to have come from the medieval Islamic world.” We learn that Ibn al-Nafis was first to describe pulmonary and coronary circulation, that al-Khazini proposed laws of gravitation that were proved by Newton centuries later, and that Muslims developed theories of evolution long before Darwin. The essay also claims that public hospitals, libraries, and universities originated in the Islamic world, and that Muslims invented peer review.

I have no doubt that medieval Muslim scholars studied and wrote about these topics. If any of them have been denied credit due merely to prejudice, then that needs to be corrected.

However, there are serious problems with many of the claims. Almost all of the references cited are secondary sources. Claims are frequently substantiated with hearsay and appeal to authority. For example, “His [al-Haytham’s] Book of Optics has been ranked alongside Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica as one of the most influential books in the history of physics.” Meanwhile, Western figures are smeared via innuendo (for example, the broad hint that Roger Bacon took his ideas from al-Haytham). And some statements are simply misleading; the article Islamic Medicine states that in 2007 Malaysian scientist Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor “became the first to perform biomedical research in outer space.” Perhaps that meant he was the first Muslim to perform biomedical research in space.

The biggest problem is that many of the claims are based on a simplistic priority test. To wit, it’s assumed that the first person to suggest an idea is its discoverer. As I explained in my History of Wireless, “The question is not who was first to make a claim, but who was first to make a difference.” Ibn al-Nafis may have been the first person to describe the circulatory system, but his text could not have made a very great impression, as it vanished and was only rediscovered in 1924. In contrast, William Harvey’s book builds the case for the circulatory system point by point, was widely read and debated during his lifetime, and had a profound and lasting impact. Al-Nafis’s insight deserves recognition, but Harvey is rightly given the lion’s share of credit.

If the Islamic Golden Age was so advanced, why is the Muslim world of today so far behind? The Wikipedia article “Islamic Science” acknowledges the decline, attributing it in part to the conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims, but primarily to invasions by Mongols and Crusaders. Still, it seems odd that a civilization that invented the scientific method was torn asunder by feuding religious sects and subsequently overrun by inferior peoples.

Unfortunately, it looks like Wikipedia’s user-created, history of science articles have been overrun by Islamic supremacists.

One of the greatest figures in the history of technology was an amphibian. Numerous frogs were martyred to the discovery of bioelectricity and the invention of electrocardiography. Frogs also played a supporting role in the development of the first source of continuous current, a turning point in the study of electricity.

In my History of Wireless, I discuss the “animal electricity” experiments of Luigi Galvani and his debate with Alessandro Volta, driving the latter to construct his “voltaic pile.” Galvani noticed that a frog’s crural nerve could be stimulated wirelessly to create a muscle contraction. This was first demonstrated indoors using a static electricity generator and then outdoors during lightning storms. Later, Galvani discovered he could trigger contractions merely by completing a circuit containing dissimilar metals, though he stubbornly refused to acknowledge that the source of electricity was external to the frog.

Galvani’s mistake drove Volta to perform further experiments demonstrating dissimilar metals can be used to generate electricity. (However, Volta failed to see that a chemical reaction rather than mere contact was the cause.) Armed with Volta’s invention, natural philosophers were empowered to make a series of further discoveries.

Was Luigi Galvani the first person to encounter wireless communication via electromagnetic waves? Close examination of Galvani’s research papers (as explained in the December 1971 issue of IEEE Spectrum by L.A. Geddes and H.E. Hoff) reveals that the muscle contractions in his first “wireless” experiments were due to electro-static induction. In his book The Ambiguous Frog, Marcello Pera shows that lightning storms also triggered contractions via electro-static induction. Galvani happened upon a wireless effect, but it was not due to electromagnetic waves. (This is not as odd as it might seem: in the late 19th century Joseph Henry, William Preece, and Oliver Lodge all pursued wireless communication via magnetic induction, which also does not involve electromagnetic waves.)

Galvani lost the debate with Volta but is now rightly considered the discoverer of bioelectricity. His work inspired Carlo Matteucci, who invented the “rheoscopic frog”—a severed sciatic nerve and its innervated gastrocnemius muscle that could be used as a sensitive electricity detector. In 1856, Kolliker and Mueller used the rheoscopic frog to observe the electrical activity associated with the beating heart of another frog.

The rheoscopic frog was crucial to the development of electrocardiography. Though early researchers had galvanometers for detecting and measuring electrical current, the response time of those devices was too slow for observing the heart’s electrical activity. The rheoscopic frog was the best electrical test and measurement instrument available for that purpose—until it was replaced decades later by the capillary electrometer and then the string galvanometer.

In an interview with CBS's Lesley Stahl, Al Gore reportedly likened people who don't believe in man-made global warming to individuals who believe the Earth is flat and that the 1969 moon landing was a hoax.

It's unfortunate that Al Gore, a long time advocate of scientific research, chooses analogies that can only serve to discourage the free exchange of ideas about a complex and imperfectly understood system--the Earth's environment.

Gore seems convinced that because most scientists believe human activity increases greenhouse gases, anyone who denies the urgent need for action is either irrational or delusional. However, what marks
flat-earthers as irrational is their refusal to accept evidence based on direct observation. For example, seafarers noticed that mountains disappeared below the horizon as they sailed away from them. The Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse also provided evidence that the Earth is spherical. Does Gore believe that global warming is just as easily verified?

Geocentrism is a more apt analogy; it can be employed by both global warming activists and their critics. Activists can argue that while neither heliocentrism nor global warming is directly observable, both are supported by a mass of scientific data and calculations. Critics already point out that in an ecosystem defined by titanic forces, global warming activists wrongly place humans at the center.

Gore's comparison of critics of global warming to people who think the 1969 moon landing was a hoax is nothing but a smear. Even Gore seemed to acknowledge that his analogy crossed the line: "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off." (Translation: "Yeah, I smeared them, but they deserved it.") Gore knows, or should know, that theories regarding the effects of human activity on climate change are still largely speculative. Though most scientists believe global warming is a serious problem, we should not forget that there is a science establishment with a long history of presumed infallibility; science orthodoxy has often been an obstacle to progress.

The clash of opposing scientific theories is often a catalyst or even necessary ingredient for progress. Get used to it, Al.

UPDATE: April 4, 2008 - 10:10am Eastern:

UN meteorologists say that global temperatures will actually dip "slightly" this year, wiping out any warming over the past decade. Perhaps they are flat-earthers and conspirators?

Not to worry, the UN assures us that global temperatures have nevertheless risen 0.74°C since the beginning of the 20th century. It would be interesting to know the margin of error; both instrument error and errors due to frequency and location of measurements need to be taken into account.

And what about the elephant in the living room? The dip in temperature is attributed to a natural event, La Nina. Apparently, this one natural event is capable of counteracting all human activity worldwide. But that's precisely what some critics of policies intended to combat global warming have argued for years.

The margin of error, the overriding effect of select natural events, and our limited knowledge of long term temperature cycles should be cause for any scientist with a modicum of healthy skepticism to admit that we don't yet know whether human activity causes harmful global warming. It certainly warrants further study, but it seems premature to curb industrial growth.

It’s hard to decide which is more disconcerting: the EU’s decision to pick a technology winner in mobile TV or the passivity of US leaders in the face of the EU’s anti-competitive rulings.

The EU explains that it’s necessary to pick a mobile TV technology winner in order to avoid a prolonged standards battle that might delay market development. Supposedly, competing standards sow confusion among consumers, who wisely decide to hold onto their money until a single standard emerges. And if that is not enough to convince you, there is always the mother of all government-mandated technologies, Europe's GSM mobile phone standard. (GSM is one of the most successful technologies in history.)

History’s judgment is not so clear. There are few instances in which we can say with certainty that a market was delayed because of competing standards. Markets may be delayed for any number of reasons. In fact, many markets were slow to develop even with the supposed impetus of a single standard.

Nor are there many examples of markets springing to life thanks to government-mandated standards. The success of Europe’s mobile phone standard, GSM, is undeniable. But as I explain in my book, The History of Wireless, several factors contributed to GSM’s success.

Wouldn’t it be nice if there were two planets identical to Earth on which we could test competing political, social, and economic theories? No doubt the outcome of any such experiment is a function of many variables. It’s easy for policymakers to construct arguments around one or two variables, but that doesn’t mean they are right.

It’s ironic that one week the EU is fining Microsoft more than one billion dollars for anti-competitive practices, and another week the EU is picking a technology winner precisely to avoid the ill effects of competition.

Average life expectancy has roughly doubled over the last century. However, most of the increase is attributed to improvements in public health and nutrition--improvements that dramatically reduced infant and childhood mortality. Modern medicine has otherwise yielded only small increases in average life expectancy.

Not everyone is impressed with today's medical technology. Critics complain that technology drives the cost of healthcare through the roof; that most healthcare providers place too much emphasis on expensive technology; and that technology sometimes poses new health threats (e.g., exposure to x-rays).

This reminds me of the old debate about whether personal computers (PCs) really increase office worker productivity. Skeptics argued that the time and effort required to master PC applications offset any productivity gains. That may have been true in the days of MS-DOS. However, the development of graphical user interfaces and the Web changed everything. Now, no one argues that the PC's productivity gains are illusory.

What lessons can we draw from the PC productivity debate? The critics were wrong on two counts. Though early PCs created a whole new set of care and feeding demands, the benefits were sometimes overwhelming. PCs enabled people to do things they couldn't do before and, therefore, the old ways of measuring productivity no longer applied. And though the demands may have exceeded the benefits for most users, it was only a temporary state of affairs; the balance shifted as personal computers became easier to use and software was developed to automate more tasks.

Likewise, we should be careful not to apply the wrong measures to medical technology. Medical technology may not dramatically increase average life expectancy, but it can certainly increase the life expectancy of individuals. Additional increases in average life expectancy will be hard to achieve, and technology will be essential to squeezing out further gains.

Technology has increased productivity in virtually every industry. Healthcare is the only industry in which technology is portrayed as mainly adding cost. But technology may be just the scapegoat. Other factors, such as expanding bureaucracy and malpractice insurance, have contributed to spiraling healthcare costs. It would be interesting to see a comparative study of healthcare costs over the past several decades.

There is a fascinating article in today's New York Times about how Cubans are using digital technology to fight their oppressors: Cyber-Rebels in Cuba Defy State’s Limits.

Cubans are using cameraphones, memory sticks, and the Internet to share information, criticize the government, and let people both at home and abroad know about small but significant acts of resistance. For example, a video has been circulating showing students at a "prestigious computer science university" confronting Ricardo Alarcón, president of the National Assembly.

Digital technology poses a conundrum for the thugs who rule countries such as Cuba, Iran, and China. They know that their countries will fall hopelessly behind if they prohibit digital technology--and that will fuel opposition and unrest. They also know that digital technology empowers people--which also fuels opposition and unrest. So they try to walk the fine line of permitting limited access.

Digital technology is having a profound impact on geopolitical events. It allows people to record and archive content on an unprecedented scale: emails, text messages, podcasts, pictures, and videos. It also enables people to circumvent censorship and spread the truth.

Digital technology is being used not only to write history, but to make history.

I recently learned about three episodes in the history of medicine that most people will find surprising. They remind us that some of the medical technology we take for granted evolved from exotic and even shocking early work. Pun intended.

Episode #1: The first open heart surgeries were performed on children using a parent as the heart-lung machine. One physician quipped that this was the only medical procedure with the potential for 200% mortality. Fortunately, it wasn't long after that that machines capable of aerating the patient's own blood were invented.

Episode #2: Doctors knew for many years that some patients suffer from abnormally slow heart rate (also known as Stokes-Adams disease or "heart block") and that the problem eventually kills them. Then it was discovered that the body controls heart rhythm using electrical signals. Paul Zoll pioneered the use of artificial electricity to treat heart block. Shocks were administered to the patient's chest; the implantable pacemaker had not yet been invented. Obviously, Zoll's method could only be used temporarily--for example, after surgery. Some patients tolerated the shocks quite well, while others could be observed jumping with each electrical pulse.

Episode #3: For a short period, the standard procedure for treating ventricular fibrillation was to cut open the patient's chest and massage the heart directly. Worse, this usually had to be done on an emergency basis wherever the person happened to be at the time.

These methods, as unpleasant as they sound, led to the development of safer and more effective solutions.