Half the ideas in this book are probably wrong. The history of human science is not encouraging. Galton's eugenics, Freud's unconscious, Durkheim's sociology, Mead's culture-driven antrhopology, Skinner's behaviorism, Piaget's early learning, and Wilson's sociobiology all appear in retrospect to be riddled with errors and false perspectives. No doubt the Red Queen's approach is just another chapter in this marred tale. No doubt its politicization and the vested interests ranged against it will do as much damage as was done to previous attempts to understand human nature. The Western cultural revolution that calls itself political correctness will no doubt stifle inquiries it does not like, such as those into the mental differences men and women. I sometimes feel that we are fated never to understand ourselves because part of our nature is to turn every inquiry into an expression of our own nature: ambitious, illogical, manipulative, and religious. "Never literary attempt was more unfortunate than my Treatise of Human Nature. It fell dead-born from the Press," said David Hume.But then I remember how much progress we have made since Hume and how much nearer to the goal of a complete understanding of human nature we are than ever before. We will never quite reach that goal, and it would perhaps be better if we never did. But as long as we can keep asking why, we have a noble purpose.
I would like to spend another post at least delving into some of the interesting research and ideas that went into this book, but I wanted to start with this excerpt because it spoke volumes to me about the integrity of its author.
The pursuit of truth requires that we not be adherents of conclusions, but rather that we are able to respect and adhere to the methodology by which we arrive at these conclusions. The scientific method is a more important idea than anything it can reveal about the truth of reality, because it is the means by which we can detect error.
For example, I sometimes forget that I am not actually an anarchist. I am first and foremost an empiricist. I hold anarchism to be true because empirical evidence demonstrates that Statism is immoral, corrupt, and unsustainable. If there were evidence to the contrary, then I would not be an anarchist.
I think maintaining humility in the face of reality is a hallmark of wisdom, and I respect Matt Ridley for his devotion to the scientific method (not to mention his encyclopedic knowledge of the biological sciences).
More often than we realize, or that we care to admit, empirical evidence derived using the scientific method reveals truths that make society uncomfortable. You can ignore reality, but that does not change it. You can't argue with reality. My humble advice, especially for those among my readers who believe in science, is to apply its methodology to everything.
Science works. Yep, even in politics. But you'll probably not like the results. If you feel hostile toward truth, ask "why?". Yep, science even works on you.
:)
