Man’s search for truth: A physical scientist’s perspective
by Alfred A. Rabow
(delivered on 25 Oct 07 Cross Street Chapel, Manchester, UK.)
I’d like to start by mentioning a few things that had caused me to contemplate the question how science informs or misinform “Man’s search for truth.” The first was from a discussion amongst a group of men—This is a slight joke as it relates to the title word “Man’s” which John has seen fit to change in the title. I would have kept the original title as it is an allusion to Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s search for meaning” [0] as it happened that Mr. Frankl entitled his book that way—it is a part of our history. I will discuss Viktor Frankl’s work later in the talk.
So to continue, this was a meeting of a group of men (Derek, Danny, John and I.) In this meeting probing meaning it was stated “Science tells us that music is just vibration waves in the air.” And I thought, “Does science say this? No it does not.” After we talked this around another statement arose: “But science would say that a recording of violinist playing, recorded with perfect fidelity, is the equivalent of the violinist playing live for us as long as the sounds were indistinguishable.” And I thought, “Does science say even this? Again no.” So what does “Science” tell us and what do we expect Science to say? A second stream of thought came into my head: Birds or more specifically the corvids.
Corvids are crows, ravens, rooks, jackdaws, jays and my personal favourite the magpies. Rarely a day goes buy were on my way home I do not see a flock of crows—and here let me say your English crows look far more sinister than the American kind. The English crows seem to me to be asymmetric in their large wings that they seem to use as a menacing inky cloak. And they seem to hop club-legged like a perfect villain. On my way home I also almost always encounter magpies on the road. Often a magpie will get out of the way of my car at the last possible moment as I pass then get back to its carrion as I speed down the road. What does science say about the corvids?
Here I will include a quote from C. J. Herrick a noted scientist and founder of the journal Of Comparative Neurology: “It is everywhere recognized that birds possess highly complex instinctive endowments and that their intelligence is very limited” [1]. So birds have limited intelligence relying almost exclusively on instinct.
Is this true? Do you know whether it is true? Do I? Does science? The quote is from a man at the top of his field. He was the pre-eminent Animal neuroscientist when he made that statement in 1924—has this, the date it was said, just changed the “truth” of the statement for you?
Recent scientific experiments and publications report that corvids and parrots have intelligence comparable to that of primates and dolphins [2]. I will give an illustration of how corvids demonstrate their intelligence and how it is scientifically distinguished from instinct.
Western scrub jays store food for later use (called caching.) These jays will deploy a number of caching strategies if there is a competitor bird around: (1) hiding behind barriers and storing it in places that the other bird can see least well, (2) waiting until the competing bird is distracted before hiding the cache, (3) leading the competitor away from the cache, (4) making false caches containing stones or nothing at all, or, (5) coming back later and moving caches that were buried with a competitor watching. [2]
How do we know this is not instinct? A number of experiments demonstrate this, for example, that western scrub jays that have not personally been thieves do not think to use the caching strategies described above. The most reasonable explanation is that that individual jay, knowing what it is like to be a thief, imagined the other bird’s point of view as a potential thief—this is one of the hallmarks of intelligent behaviour that distinguished it from instinct--imaging the point of view of another. There are many other experiments that demonstrate this and other intelligent behaviour in corvids and distinguish it from instinct that time prevents me from telling but Science now says corvids are intelligent.
Not only does Science say that corvids are intelligent it says they posses intelligence comparable to dolphins and apes. That means as I drive home from work and see that murder of crows—they are thinking about each other and me much in the same way as would a pack of great apes would. As I see that magpie swoop down for that road-kill squirrel it is as if a dolphin has stopped by all pleased with herself for catching that fish in her mouth. Knowing this will I now share a profoundly different relationship with these individuals as I encounter them every day?
So Science is a system informs us about the physical world in important ways and that the “truth” can change so fundamentally that our beliefs may be turned upon their head. But surely science is a system that can address every problem will become more and more correct. I do not have time to prove that this is not true in this talk. And to be honest I am not sure I am up for the task—it does not seem like any fun and seems contrariwise to what I am trying to transmit to you folks.
So instead I will use the third tine of the trident that pricked my mind on Science and Truth. I had been enjoying reading Victor Frankl’s “Man’s search for meaning.” It may seem odd that I have used the adjective “enjoying” as the book concerns Victor Frankl’s experience in the concentration camps of Poland during WWII. But for me, as a Jew, his thoughts are familiar—all that is different are the severity of the cause and the seriousness of the contemplation. Otherwise, it is quite familiar and not shocking or saddening—it is how I think and feel. The book is a telling with authenticity and seriousness that immediately makes it an important exploration which moves me and which I can enjoy.
In “Man’s search for meaning” Victor Frank is both telling his personal story and relating what it meant to him professionally as he was a scientist, a psychotherapist, before and after his time in places the likes of Auschwitz and Dachau. And as I was enjoying it, sweeping it into my mind and soul, I came this passage [3]:
…what about human liberty? Is there no spiritual freedom in regard to behaviour and reaction to any given surroundings? …do the prisoners’ reactions to the singular world of the concentration camp prove that man cannot escape the influences of his surroundings? Does man have no choice of action in the face of such circumstances?
We can answer these questions from experience as well as on principle. The experiences of camp life show that man does have a choice of actions…We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be take from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.
And I thought, “No it does not prove anything.” Scientifically that observation of giving the bread away does not answer the question of freedom to choose one’s own way. All that we have observed is that in a given circumstance certain individuals did ‘A’ and others did ‘B.’ It tells us nothing about whether they had to choose ‘A’ or ‘B.’ What do you think, does the above passage prove the described freedom?
And then I thought more. What am I doing applying the scientific method to this passage? What if instead I had read this passage from Buddhist monk Tich Nhat Hahn [4]:
The Four Immeasurable Minds are the basis for freedom. When we are in touch with things by means of the mind of love, we do not run away or seek, and that is the basis of freedom. Aimlessness takes the place of grasping. When we have freedom, what seemed to be suffering becomes Wondrous Being…Wondrous Being is beyond being and nonbeing. If a bodhisattva needs to manifest being, if he needs to be born in this world, he will be born in this world. There is still life, but he is not caught in ideas of being, nonbeing, birth or death.
Would I have applied the scientific method to Tich Nhat Hahn’s statement? What is true or untrue about both passages? Is this the question we want to ask? Is this how we choose to interact with them?
And reflecting on this, I remembered a passage from Viktor Frankl that had great meaning for me. It was only some tens of pages previous where he is describing a morning before the sun has risen in a camp work group. It is a group of men where everyone is fragile—many without shoes in the snow—many soon to die:
[another prisoner’s comment] brought thoughts of my own wife to mind…I looked at the sky, where the stars were fading and the pink light of the morning was beginning to spread behind a dark bank of clouds. But my mind clung to my wife’s image, imagining it with an uncanny acuteness. I heard her answering me, saw her smile, her frank and encouraging look. Real or not, her look was then more luminous than the sun which was beginning to rise.
A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth—that love is the ultimate and highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in contemplation of his beloved. In a position of utter desolation, when man cannot express himself in positive action, when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings in the right way—an honourable way—in such a position man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved achieve fulfilment. For the first time in my life I was able to understand the meaning of the words, “The angels are lost in perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory.”
--------- end of talk -----------
[0] Viktor E. Frankel “Man’s search for meaning”, Rider Publishing, London, 1959, ISBN 9781844132393.
[1] Herrick, C. J. 1924 “Neurological foundations of animal behaviour.” New York: Henry Holt. As quoted from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_intelligence.
[2] Emery, N. J. and Clayton, N. S. 2004 “The mentality of crows: Convergent Evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes.” Science, vol. 306, pp. 1903-1907.
[3] Page 74, Frankl ibid.
[4] Page 243, Tich Nhat Hahn “The heart of the Buddha’s teaching”, Broadway Books, New York, 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0369-2.
[5] Page 48, Frankl ibid.
There was a lively and often challenging question and answer session with opportunities to learn from each other . The contrast between spiritual and cultural Judaism was highlighted as was the difference between orthodox, reform and liberal Jews. Indeed, it was made clear that unlike Christianity, there is infact, no orthodox position.
