Beach-front Musings on the Nature of Science

This Father's Day part of my treat was a family day trip to the Oregon coast. We went to Pacific City and had a great time. One of the many things I love about that area (aside from the fact that it's never very crowded) are the fabulous geologic formations. The shape, color and unique makeup of these formations has lead me to an interesting hypothesis about a possible explanation for the unique style of North West native art. Noodling further about this hypothesis got me to thinking about the nature of science-vs-mysticism-vs common sense reasoning that illustrates many of the problems we face trying to rationalize one with the others.

Below is a composite of three NW native images that are pretty representative of the artistic style of Pacific rim native American cultures. These are the kinds of images seen on totem poles for example. I've always been fascinated by native art and have a particular fondness for the NW styles.












I've never really seen a discussion as to the origins of this style but when you walk around Pacific City you see the rock formations that are illustrated below.





































It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the similarity amongst these images. Similar mineral rich rocks are found up and down the Oregon coast, though these are some of the most currently accessible. It is not a huge stretch to imagine that rocks like these might have been viewed by native tribesmen of old and invoked complex images of animals, beings, etc. The first image in particular has naturally occurring rifts in its one 'arm' that look very much like fingers or claws of a mythic beast.

We talked as a family about this possibility and my daughter asked. "So is this where they got the idea? I mean it looks pretty obvious."

My response was the automatic answer of a skeptic; "I have no idea. It's possible but we certainly can't say for sure. We'd have to know a lot more before I'd be comfortable with that claim."

She responded, "Dad, what else could it be. Look at them. They look just like the paintings."

"That doesn't really prove anything." was my somewhat predictable comeback.

She rolled her eyes knowing that she was about to fall victim to one of my gentle science rants, but escaped in the nick of time by offering to run with the dog (the infamous hellhound) in the surf...

What struck me is how this little scene mimics the larger picture of science in history and society. Long ago, some artisans fashioned art that looks a lot like these formations. Whatever their inspiration, they presumably had no idea what these formations were and we have pretty good anthropological evidence that native cultures anthropomorphized many things as part of their spiritual beliefs. It's not too hard to imagine (at this point all we can safely do) that some one coming upon that first rock in centuries past might have though it was some kind of mystical bear, for example. At that point, something completely natural from the standpoint of its geological origins may have taken on a spiritual meaning creating a new 'reality' for those laying eyes on it. Later fellows would no doubt have been warned to avoid the wrath of the sea bear and would therefore inherit the observational bias of their forebears. With no competing world view to offer any alternate explanation habits form not dissimilar to Pascal's Wager - it's probably better to just avoid that rock if I don't know that it isn't a bear.

Now, being schooled somewhat in science and skepticism, and untainted by the lore of the NW as anything other than another quaint native mythology, I can understand the geologic origins of the rocks and understand how these perfectly natural objects and processes might have contributed to the evolution of a spiritual belief system. Might have of course being the important concept here. This point illustrates the tension between science and common sense reasoning - which is often neither. It looks obvious that these rocks are very similar to the art works. But association and similarity is not causation, which is the precise flaw in much of what comes to be called common sense. Coincidence leads to association which leads to causation in people's minds. That simple formula plays itself out daily in millions of interactions despite the fact that orders of magnitude separate coincident items and events from truly associated items from that tiny subset of true cause and effect relationships. Coincident association is easy and natural - cause and effect requires the discipline of science.

And this is the way the majority of Americans view the world: some of them see not the rock but a sea bear, some see the rock and the art and just know they must be related, whether factual or not, and a few see the similarity but need a lot more evidence before they can accept that one lead to the other...

A Summer Treat: Gazpacho!

Time for another recipe. This one is great for summer and can be made and kept in the fridge for days (in fact, it gets better with time - until it rots, at which time it isn't so good.) This recipe is pretty zippy but is mild if you leave out the jalapeno (though why would one?). It's also incredibly easy and quick. It's great for parties and quick lunches.

Pliny's favorite Gazpacho

This recipe serves 8-10

Ingredients

• 1 cucumber, halved and seeded, but not peeled
• 2 red bell peppers, cored and seeded
• 4 plum tomatoes (seeds removed)
• 1 red onion
• 3 garlic cloves, minced
• 3 cups low sodium organic tomato juice
  
• 1/4 cup white wine vinegar
• 1/4 cup good olive oil
• 1 tablespoon kosher salt (if you use regular tomato juice, only add 1/2 tablespoon of salt)
• 1 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
• 1 and 1/2 jalapeno peppers
• juice from one freshly squeezed lime

-------------------------------------------------------------
Directions:

Chop the cucumbers, bell peppers, tomatoes, and red onions into roughly 1-inch cubes. Put each vegetable separately into a food processor fitted with a steel blade and pulse until it is coarsely chopped. Do not overprocess or you'll ruin it - each should be in a rough coarse consistency, not mush (2-3mm in size). It only takes a few pulses to get it right.

After each vegetable is processed, combine them in a large glass bowl (don't use metal unless you like an iron taste to your food) bowl and add the garlic, tomato juice, vinegar, olive oil, jalapeno, lime juice, salt, and pepper. Mix well and chill before serving. It's passable straight away, good in about 4-6 hours and fab in a day or two. The longer gazpacho sits, the more the flavors develop.

Enjoy!

Mind Games: How Might the Founders Have Approached a National Health System?

And now for something completely different... Ignoring the likelihood that they would have punted such matters to the States, I sometimes try to imagine how the Founders might have approached some of our modern problems. What might they have envisioned? They had their faults but never the less were brilliant political thinkers.

We know that they were schizoid about centralized power. It was important from the perspective of having a coherent union but also dangerous from the standpoint of potential for tyranny. (I think they would have hated Medicare.) They looked to the States to provide a better insight into the lives and direct needs of their populations and to check the run away growth of centralized authority. To a large extent the States were free to experiment as long as it didn't interfere with the common cause (not always a good thing). They did not trust the individual to do the right thing.

Is that enough to imagine the rough outlines of what they might have done? Let's take a stab at it. Here, the incongruent forces are the best interests of the individual patient and the rights and responsibilities of those who provide medical services balanced against being respectful of the societal burden of the program, both now and in the future.

The Founders had a pretty good model of strong centralization with checks and balances - our three branches of government. One, closely linked to the will of the people and empowered to determine the rules; one to administer the program and weed out new rules that might be a bit hanky; and one, distanced from the people's whim to oversee the other two and make sure the rules fit with the intent of the governmental blueprint. Not a bad model for an important program.

Could this be the model of a national health system? It's fun to consider it for a moment. Start with a simple blueprint of clinical medicine with the needs of the patient at the core. Something that includes:

"We hold this belief to be self evident that all persons in a great and just nation should be granted benefit of basic healthcare. That the purpose of this national health system is to provide clinically relevant care to all in accordance with only those limitations that threaten long term solvency, or are contrary to the science of medicine. That privacy, being critical to the free disclosure of vital medical information to the clinician, shall not be violated save in circumstances, well defined in these articles, that threaten the common health of our citizens. That clinical workflow takes precedence over administrative workflow except to the minimum required to maintain solvency and ensure patient safety. That outcome is a amalgam of patient responsibility, clinical services, societal limitations and disease science. This charter defines three branches of the national health authority: Regulatory, Governance, and Clinical Oversight."

Things like that.

Regulatory would be charged with creating the rules governing the financial and common practices. Governance would administer the program and its payment and service structure. And Clinical Oversight would consist of a judicial system of medical experts empowered to ensure that the medicine never takes second place and enforce accountability of the other two arms.

I know, its simplistic, but.....