The scholastic definition of written argument according to Purdue University is a "genre of writing that requires the student to investigate a topic; collect, generate, and evaluate evidence; and establish a position on the topic in a concise manner." In light of this definition, it arguing almost seems completely benign, and yet, those of us that have been in violent disagreements with our peers know that it can be quite destructive to one's inner peace. So the question is, why do we argue?
The history of the human species is fraught with disagreement. Ever since we were our most primitive selves, before the onset of language or structured reasoning, violence, jealousy, irrationality, and want for survival have all ruled the human psyche. The very definition of arguing supports this idea: "Primarily, argument has two purposes: argument is used to change people's points of view or persuade them to accept new points of view; and argument is used to persuade people to a particular action or new behavior." - UMOC. So, it stands to reason that arguing would become part of our everyday social structure even in a world of intelligent debate. But is it possible that intelligence in fact arose to support arguing?
An article in the NY Times covers the topic of the "Argumentative Theory of Reasoning". As it turns out, a lot of researchers are arguing over this. The gist of the theory is, what if reasoning and intelligence arose as a toolset for settling disagreements? i.e. 'I want this mate, you want it too, but I can tell you why I deserve it more.' or somesuch. This idea that reasoning arose is supported by many social phenomenon, one most apparently being 'Confirmation Bias', or the tendency to search out and find constructs and evidence that support your beliefs rather than ultimately searching for truth. It's easy to see why it would be so hard for us to give up our beliefs if reasoning was ultimately developed to support this very action.
But, some researchers are skeptical. If you consider all of the skills that humans have developed over the our span of existence, while it is a useful visual aid to think of everything as a 'tool' that humankind has developed to overcome some obstacle, it's also prudent to remember that not everything reaches its intended goal on the course of its evolutionary process. So, while it's nice to think that intelligence is a function of argument, intelligence can also be considered the product of many other, even more useful, needs. As John Horgan, a blogger for Scientific American, states, the very reason that we might be attracted to this theory is "less because of its intrinsic merits than because it appeals to their intellectual biases, just as the theory might predict." Which, in itself, is an increasingly complex paradox, simultaneously critiquing acceptance of the theory, while seemingly supporting the idea.
All of these revelations shed only a little bit of light on our propensity for debate. While some theories might claim to know exactly what it is that your co-worker is up to when he or she is fighting with you, it's safe to say, there's some room left for argument.
To read the NY Times article on the Argumentative Theory of Reason, click here.
Check back for more next week, I'll be trying to keep these posts on a regular weekly schedule, as well as providing updates on my upcoming YouTube channel! Thanks for reading, and be sure to share!
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Are LEGO babies the future of reproduction?
It seems inevitable that genetics and reconstructive medicine are taking us towards a future where we have choice in shaping our bodies and those of our future children, but in this future of "LEGO babies", what will the legal and moral implications be?
A recent article in PopSci, Infant Possibilities, explores the recent breakthroughs in genetic selection of pre-developmental embryos and the positive outcomes of using this process to screen for genetic defects and then re-implanting the most suitable embryo via in-vitro fertilization. While I'm sure you can see the incredible possibility that exists in this to eliminate genetic disorders, there also exists the possibility for selection of other characteristics as well. It might shock you to know that gender selection using this process is not only possible, it's legal, and it's been done already many times in the US.
As it turns out, using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) for sex selection and even selection of physical attributes is legal in the majority of the developed world. There are a few notable exceptions, such as in the UK where it is only legal to screen for genetic disorders, but the rest of us seem fine with it. Why is that? Maybe it's because it's a cleaner, more civilized alternative to the sex-selective abortions that became rampant in China. Or maybe it's because it's becoming cheap enough that we don't worry that limited access to it will cause a surge of genetically superior babies from people of more considerable influence. Or possibly, the line between selecting your child's healthy genes and their potential eye color is so small, so benign, that we disassociate it with the implications that follow. Whatever the reasons, it's not going anywhere, and just as the legality of post-birth self modification or augmentation is yet to be fully decided, I'm sure we'll be arguing about this in courts for a while to come.
In 2006, a survey conducted by the Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute at John Hopkins University, that found that nearly 42% of IVF clinics in the US offer non-medical application of their selective process. But possibly even more concerning, is the revelation that these clinics source outside labs 86% of the time for the majority of their genetic analysis. Just as the debate over genetic selection has it's sticking points, so does the debate on access to genetic information. Are we sure that we are prepared for the legal ramifications of sharing our genetic makeup indiscriminately among corporate laboratories?
As it stands, I'm not sure that our legal system is prepared for what's coming. Too few checks and balances, and too many warning signs already from related incidents of information leaking and legal loopholes used by individuals not interested in playing by the rules. I'm sure whatever is to come, it's going to be interesting.
The question is, are you ready for the rise of the LEGO babies?
If you'd like to take a look at the survey conducted by the Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute, you can access it here.
A recent article in PopSci, Infant Possibilities, explores the recent breakthroughs in genetic selection of pre-developmental embryos and the positive outcomes of using this process to screen for genetic defects and then re-implanting the most suitable embryo via in-vitro fertilization. While I'm sure you can see the incredible possibility that exists in this to eliminate genetic disorders, there also exists the possibility for selection of other characteristics as well. It might shock you to know that gender selection using this process is not only possible, it's legal, and it's been done already many times in the US.
As it turns out, using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) for sex selection and even selection of physical attributes is legal in the majority of the developed world. There are a few notable exceptions, such as in the UK where it is only legal to screen for genetic disorders, but the rest of us seem fine with it. Why is that? Maybe it's because it's a cleaner, more civilized alternative to the sex-selective abortions that became rampant in China. Or maybe it's because it's becoming cheap enough that we don't worry that limited access to it will cause a surge of genetically superior babies from people of more considerable influence. Or possibly, the line between selecting your child's healthy genes and their potential eye color is so small, so benign, that we disassociate it with the implications that follow. Whatever the reasons, it's not going anywhere, and just as the legality of post-birth self modification or augmentation is yet to be fully decided, I'm sure we'll be arguing about this in courts for a while to come.
In 2006, a survey conducted by the Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute at John Hopkins University, that found that nearly 42% of IVF clinics in the US offer non-medical application of their selective process. But possibly even more concerning, is the revelation that these clinics source outside labs 86% of the time for the majority of their genetic analysis. Just as the debate over genetic selection has it's sticking points, so does the debate on access to genetic information. Are we sure that we are prepared for the legal ramifications of sharing our genetic makeup indiscriminately among corporate laboratories?
As it stands, I'm not sure that our legal system is prepared for what's coming. Too few checks and balances, and too many warning signs already from related incidents of information leaking and legal loopholes used by individuals not interested in playing by the rules. I'm sure whatever is to come, it's going to be interesting.
The question is, are you ready for the rise of the LEGO babies?
If you'd like to take a look at the survey conducted by the Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute, you can access it here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)