Monthly Archives: May 2019

Some Thoughts On Human Nature

Leave a reply

Nikos has brought up a few questions, about “human nature” and “universals” across cultures, along with a question regarding a “language instinct.”

I think it is fairly obvious – meaning that we would all agree, across cultures – that there is something that we refer to as “human nature.”  The basis for this agreement is the common experience of the capacities, potentialities, dispositions present in newborns across cultures (hence the possibility of adoptions across cultures), as well as our ability, even in adult life, to join a different culture.  We are all born with “something,” which then develops and crystallizes through our interaction with our environment, as we have discussed before .  It is important to keep in mind that the shaping of our potentialities (our central nervous system if you like) through interaction with the environment begins very soon after birth.  In addition, the first few years of life are a critical period for providing the basis for the continuing development of abilities that are important in later life (like language skills) – if the environment does not provide sufficient resources during this early period, it is very difficult to “catch up” later.  The importance of this early period for our development suggests that when we look at someone’s abilities in later life we cannot readily attribute them to what the person was born with or what their environment provided.  Even in cases where we can identify a problem with the infant at birth, their future development may well reflect inadequacies of their environment (for example, vision or hearing problems that though treatable were not addressed).

It is difficult to stress enough that “nature” develops discernible features through “nurture.”  I find the nature/nurture dichotomy deeply misleading, as there is a dynamic interplay between the two.  An example I find helpful for highlighting this point is imprinting in ducks: ducklings will follow as their mother the first object they see after hatching.  Their brain circuitry is primed to be shaped through the experience of the first moving object provided by their environment – and if this object happens to be Konrad Lorenz, that’s who they follow.  A related example is provided by reed warbler mothers that feed cuckoo bird chicks whose eggs hatched in their nest.  Their brain circuitry is looking for something to feed – and if this object happens to be a cuckoo bird chick, that’s who they will feed.

Konrad Lorenz followed by ducklings
Reed warbler feeding a cuckoo chick

In terms of “universals” across human cultures, we would all agree I think about the existence of similarities.  Humans share a common biology (fairly evident as we can reproduce across cultures), and this common biology involves a long period of postnatal development and maturation and living in communities in the same material world.  Cultures will likely encounter similar challenges and may well develop similar tools to tackle them.  Of course we will find similarities across cultures!  At the same time, the challenges and solutions may well reflect the specifics of the particular environment of a culture, as well as the specifics of the particular population.  But I am not sure what “universals” in the abstract might be referring to.

Along the same lines, we may well agree that language is found across human cultures.  Communication is necessary for living in a community and we have several combinations of sensory and motor channels we could and do use: auditory, visual, haptic (touch) for example for sensory; vocal chords and mouth, hands and fingers for motor, etc.  Becoming and being part of a community is vital for the survival of a human being, hence the presence of a strong drive for communication and the priming of our nervous system to be shaped through communication (someone might call this “language instinct” I guess) – shaped through the receiving of sensory inputs and the providing of corresponding motor outputs.  The communication tools are of course refined, developed, and standardized over time, depending on needs, challenges, or newly available technologies.  It is also important to keep in mind that we use plenty of sensorimotor information during communication (body posture, facial expressions, tone of voice, and so on), and not only what we may strictly refer to as language.

Some final thoughts that I feel are important for maintaining perspective when talking about “human nature,” “universals” and “language instinct.”  One is that plenty of animals live in groups and we may well find several interesting similarities with them – see for example Frans de Waal’s work about other primates.  Another is that animals that live in groups engage in communication, providing interesting examples to consider when thinking about language, the dissemination of whale songs across pods coming to mind.  And last but not least, Alex, the African Grey parrot who learned how to talk, reaching the level of a human toddler.

The Power of Science

2 Replies

The previous three posts on Truth, Science, and the Duhem-Quine Thesis make a strong, even obvious, argument for the importance of our socialization in our engagement with the material world.  Our socialization is a constituent part of our knowledge, of our ways of going about in the world.  What is more, these posts make the case for scientific knowledge itself being the product of socialization into particular communities, scientific communities, which have their own specialized ways of engaging with the world.  It is the specialized abilities developed by the different scientific communities that underlie scientific knowledge.  The abilities, for example, that allow us to measure the color of an object, or extract and analyze the DNA of an animal.

But if scientific knowledge is the product of socialization, of specialized abilities developed within particular communities, then scientific knowledge is actually local knowledge, knowledge that is specific to these particular communities.  How do we then account for the indisputable power of Science, for scientific knowledge being the basis of so many aspects of our lives, a basis independent of our own socialization?

The discussion of the examples in the previous post, measuring the color of an object and analyzing the DNA of an animal, point to what is going on.  The scientific approach may involve the specialized abilities of individuals, but these abilities have been acquired through supervised training, with the explicit goal of ensuring consistency, that is, of getting the same results regardless of the individual – what matters is doing things according to the training.  The performance reflecting these abilities has been checked and cross-checked many times, by different individuals, at different places, and at different times, and the performance has been adjusted and fine-tuned as necessary. Along with this standardized performance of trained individuals, scientific measurements involve the use of standardized equipment, equipment that has been constructed, checked and cross-checked to perform consistently at different places and at different times.  Indeed, there are standardized procedures (frequently referred to as calibration) that ensure that the equipment is performing as expected. 

It is this standardization of individual performances and tools that underlies the extension of scientific knowledge beyond the boundaries of the particular communities.  And this extension takes a tremendous amount of effort to put in place and subsequently maintain it.  One way to think of scientific knowledge is in terms of the development and dissemination of standards, of immutable mobiles, things that remain unchanged as we take them to different places to assist us in ensuring consistency.  Tools, machines, or chemicals readily come to mind, as we continuously ship them around, regularly exchanging them, allowing the comparison of our actions and experiences across locales and times.  Integral to the successful diffusion of these standards is of course the availability of appropriately trained individuals with the abilities to use them.

And so this is where Science derives its power from: not from special access to the world or a special way of engaging with it, but from the systematic hard work across times and places to standardize our interaction with the world – the scale is immense indeed, indicating the enormous amount of work involved.  The scientific approach achieves that by the standardizing of abilities and conduct through training, and by developing tools, machines, chemicals, and other standards, to ensure the consistency of our interaction with the world.  When considering the scale of effort that goes into this standardization, it is important to keep in mind an essential element of the scientific approach, namely its emphasis on communication, on expressing scientific knowledge in forms that can be easily communicated and shared.  And what is being shared ranges from methods and protocols, what we might call how-to’s, to theories and maps, descriptions that is, to organize our experience and guide what we do.  This communicability allows not only for sharing, but also for the accumulation of scientific knowledge – in some form at least – and its transmission across time and space.  There is a cumulative effect in other words that helps sustain the immense scale over which scientific knowledge is applicable.

We are actually fairly familiar with the importance of standardization, as breakdowns that result from incompatibilities in standards are not an uncommon experience.  There are plenty of Bureaus of Weights and Measures across the world, institutes that store standards and instruments developed by scientific communities.  These standards and instruments allow the comparison of someone’s scales for measuring, length, time, weight, electricity, and so on, with those of others, elsewhere.  In this way, items made in one place can be used elsewhere, the threads of a screw made in Illinois will match the threads of hole in a car assembled in Michigan, the weight of vegetables put in a package in Mexico will match the weight measured in a grocery store in Canada, the cell phone chargers made in Korea will work in Europe, and so on. And there are continuous efforts to work out agreements and establish standards that will ensure compatibility in areas of manufacturing, electronics, communications.