When does an idea die? Plato and string theory clash with data
How long should one wait until an idea like string theory, seductive as it may be, is deemed unrealistic?
03 March, 2021
- How far should we defend an idea in the face of contrarian evidence?
- Who decides when it's time to abandon an idea and deem it wrong?
- Science carries within it its seeds from ancient Greece, including certain prejudices of how reality should or shouldn't be.
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p>From the perspective of the west, it all started in ancient Greece, around 600 BCE. This is during the Axial Age, a somewhat controversial term coined by German philosopher Karl Jaspers to designate the remarkable intellectual and spiritual awakening that happened in different places across the globe roughly within the span of a century. Apart from the Greek explosion of thought, this is the time of Siddhartha Gautama (aka the Buddha) in India, of Confucius and Lao Tzu in China, of Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) in ancient Persia—religious leaders and thinkers who would reframe the meaning of faith and morality. In Greece, Thales of Miletus and Pythagoras of Samos pioneered pre-Socratic philosophy, (sort of) moving the focus of inquiry and explanation from the divine to the natural. </p><p>To be sure, the divine never quite left early Greek thinking, but with the onset of philosophy, trying to understand the workings of nature through logical reasoning—as opposed to supernatural reasoning—would become an option that didn't exist before. The history of science, from its early days to the present, could be told as an increasingly successful split between belief in a supernatural component to reality and a strictly materialistic cosmos. The Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, the Age of Reason, means quite literally 'to see the light,' the light here clearly being the superiority of human logic above any kind of supernatural or nonscientific methodology to get to the "truth" of things.</p>
<blockquote>Einstein, for one, was a believer, preaching the fundamental reasonableness of nature; no weird unexplainable stuff, like a god that plays dice—his tongue-in-cheek critique of the belief that the unpredictability of the quantum world was truly fundamental to nature and not just a shortcoming of our current understanding. </blockquote>
<p>To what extent we can understand the workings of nature through logic alone is not something science can answer. It is here that the complication begins. Can the human mind, through the diligent application of scientific methodology and the use of ever-more-powerful instruments, reach a complete understanding of the natural world? Is there an "end to science"? This is the sensitive issue. If the split that started in pre-Socratic Greece were to be completed, nature in its entirety would be amenable to a logical description, the complete collection of behaviors that science studies identified, classified, and described by means of perpetual natural laws. All that would be left for scientists and engineers to do would be practical applications of this knowledge, inventions, and technologies that would serve our needs in different ways.</p>
<p>This sort of vision—or hope, really—goes all the way back to at least Plato who, in turn, owes much of this expectation to Pythagoras and Parmenides, the philosopher of Being. The dispute between the primacy of that which is timeless or unchangeable (Being), and that which is changeable and fluid (Becoming), is at least that old. Plato proposed that truth was in the unchangeable, rational world of Perfect Forms that preceded the tricky and deceptive reality of the senses. For example, the abstract form <em>Chair</em> embodies all chairs, objects that can take many shapes in our sensorial reality while serving their functionality (an object to sit on) and basic design (with a sittable surface and some legs below it). According to Plato, the Forms hold the key to the essence of all things.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTcwODg5Ni9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNDA3OTQzNX0.Fy8WPmFn0mT0fy5e3Qq3HN70lzJ7Epk2iICVl6BwM_Q/img.png?width=980" id="4f64f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5a29206a396ef429914fa48a441c00be" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="782" data-height="1024" />
Plato used the allegory of the cave to explain that what humans see and experience is not the true reality.
Credit: Gothika via Wikimedia Commons CC 4.0
<p>When scientists and mathematicians use the term <em>Platonic worldview</em>, that's what they mean in general: The unbound capacity of reason to unlock the secrets of creation, one by one. Einstein, for one, was a believer, preaching the fundamental reasonableness of nature; no weird unexplainable stuff, like a god that plays dice—his tongue-in-cheek critique of the belief that the unpredictability of the quantum world was truly fundamental to nature and not just a shortcoming of our current understanding. Despite his strong belief in such underlying order, Einstein recognized the imperfection of human knowledge: "What I see of Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility." (Quoted by Dukas and Hoffmann in <em>Albert Einstein, The Human Side: Glimpses from His Archives</em> (1979), 39.)</p> <p>Einstein embodies the tension between these two clashing worldviews, a tension that is still very much with us today: On the one hand, the Platonic ideology that the fundamental stuff of reality is logical and understandable to the human mind, and, on the other, the acknowledgment that our reasoning has limitations, that our tools have limitations and thus that to reach some sort of final or complete understanding of the material world is nothing but an impossible, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01K2JTGIA?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">semi-religious dream</a>.</p><p>This kind of tension is palpable today when we see groups of scientists passionately arguing <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316013331?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">for</a> or <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1541646762?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">against</a> the existence of the multiverse, an idea that states that our universe is one in a huge number of other universes; or <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0735223793?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">for</a> or <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465092764?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">against</a> the final unification of the laws of physics.</p><p>Nature, of course, is always the final arbiter of any scientific dispute. Data decides, one way or another. That's the beauty and power at the core of science. The challenge, though, is to know when to let go of an idea. How long should one wait until an idea, seductive as it may be, is deemed unrealistic? This is where the debate gets interesting. Data to support more "out there" ideas such as the multiverse or extra symmetries of nature needed for unification models has refused to show up for decades, despite extensive searches with different instruments and techniques. On the other hand, we only find if we look. So, should we keep on defending these ideas? Who decides? Is it a community decision or should each person pursue their own way of thinking?</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="fa3185b1f66d82d9e77023abfa9da5bf"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YSWd21z2qqE?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>In 2019, I participated in an interesting <a href="https://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/loose-ends-string-theory-and-the-quest-for-the-ultimate-theory/" target="_blank">live debate at the World Science Festival</a> with physicists Michael Dine and Andrew Strominger and hosted by physicist Brian Greene. The theme was string theory, our best candidate for a final theory of how particles of matter interact. When I completed my PhD in 1986, string theory was <em>the</em> way. The only way. But, by 2019, things had changed, and quite dramatically, due to the lack of supporting data. To my surprise, both Mike and Andy were quite open to the fact that that certainty of the past was no more. String theory has taught physicists many things and that was perhaps its use. The Platonic outlook was in peril.</p><p>The dispute remains alive, although with each experiment that fails to show supporting evidence for string theory the dream grows harder to justify. Will it be a generational thing, as celebrated physicist Max Planck once quipped, "Ideas don't die, physicists do"? (I paraphrase.) I hope not. But it is a conversation that should be held more in the open, as was the case with the World Science Festival. Dreams die hard. But they may die a little easier when we accept the fact that our grasp of reality is limited, and doesn't always fit our expectations of what should or shouldn't be real.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Best. Science. Fiction. Show. Ever.
"The Expanse" is the best vision I've ever seen of a space-faring future that may be just a few generations away.
26 February, 2021
Credit: "The Expanse" / Syfy
- Want three reasons why that headline is justified? Characters and acting, universe building, and science.
- For those who don't know, "The Expanse" is a series that's run on SyFy and Amazon Prime set about 200 years in the future in a mostly settled solar system with three waring factions: Earth, Mars, and Belters.
- No other show I know of manages to use real science so adeptly in the service of its story and its grand universe building.
<div><br></div>
<p>Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know: <em>Best science fiction show ever. </em>That is a pretty audacious claim and it means I've got some explaining to do. But with 58.5 years of nerdom behind me, including years of watching "Star Trek", "UFO", "Space 1999", "Battlestar Galactica" (the original one that sucked except for the special effects), "Stargate", "The X-Files", "Farscape", "Battlestar Galactica" (the new one that didn't suck) and Firefly I have seen a thing or two concerning science fiction on TV. That's why I'm here ready to stand my ground and proclaim for all nerdom to hear…</p>
<p>"<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08MMJTJSH" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Expanse</a>" is the greatest science fiction TV show ever. EVER!</p>
<p>For those of you who don't know, "The Expanse" is a series that's run on SyFy and Amazon Prime set about 200 years in the future in a mostly settled solar system (slight spoiler alerts follow). Based on an <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/series/56399-the-expanse" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amazing book series</a> by <a href="https://twitter.com/AbrahamHanover" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SA Corey</a>, in this future there are three major political factions in constant conflict with each other. First, there is Earth which remains powerful but is stretched thin by climate change and overpopulation. Then there is Mars, a former colony of Earth, that's now an independent militaristic republic whose technology generally outpaces that of humanity's homeworld. The final faction is "The Belt" which refers to the asteroids and moons of the giant planets. Belters are resource extractors, and they are the oppressed underclass. After generations living on ships and in low-gravity environments, their bodies have changed, making it impossible for many of them to handle the crush of gravity on the inner planets. </p>
<p>The story begins with all three factions at each other's throats. Mars and Earth are in the midst of a long cold war that, occasionally, turns <a href="https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Vesta_Blockade" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hot</a>. What Earth and Mars have in common, however, is keeping their boot on the neck of the Belters who are, themselves, poised for bloody rebellion. This simmering political, social and military conflict would be enough for a hundred episodes but it's into this pile of dynamite "The Expanse" drops an alien artifact that changes everything and propels the narrative.</p><p>Now, the individual elements in what I described above are not really that original. You can find many versions of them in many TV shows across many decades. So, what does "The Expanse" do with these elements that makes it so special? For me the excellence of the show manifests in three distinct ways: characters and acting; universe building; science.</p>
<blockquote>The level of attempted scientific realism in the show is wonderful, extending even to little details like how whiskey spirals out of its bottle due to the <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coriolis-effect/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Coriolis effect</a> when poured on a rotating space station.</blockquote>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY5MTc0OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0ODc0NzIyMn0.h3G9wanrr1lmk3itUpVAyj-fw_iuUkUvyFa7Oum86-M/img.jpg?width=980" id="d6dcc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2e1eacc6a1afa879c5c199aec589c06b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1000" data-height="200" /><p>Let's start with characters and acting. No matter how good your science fiction ideas may be, you have to tell your stories through actors pretending to be characters interacting with each other. By its nature, science fiction shows can ask a lot of actors. They have to stare at green screens, pretending to be in awe of an alien mothership that won't get added till post-production CGI; or they dangle from wires emoting through a screen set in the weightlessness of space. It takes serious acting chops to maintain the gravity (or levity) that makes it all believable or better yet <em>relatable</em>. That's why the depth of performances in <em>The Expanse</em> is its best surprise. The recent season, for example, had actor <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4625680/" target="_blank">Dominique Tipper</a> killing it across three episodes as Belter engineer Naomi Nagata. Nagata is caught alone on a booby-trapped ship, exhausting herself trying to signal her friends to <em>not</em> attempt a rescue. It's a solo performance reminiscent of Tom Hanks' great work in "Castaway".<br></p><br>Across the seasons, other actors have also filled out their characters with an empathy that's comparable to anything else in any other genre on TV. <a href="https://twitter.com/ThomasJane" target="_blank">Thomas Jane's</a> detective Josephus Miller was an epic noir depiction of a man broken by circumstance but still moving towards something better. <a href="https://twitter.com/SAghdashloo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shohreh Aghdashloo's</a> foul-mouthed UN leader Chrisjen Avasarala is a skilled politician who will kick your ass and save your world at the same time. And, perhaps best of all, is <a href="https://twitter.com/weschatham" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wes Chatham</a>'s Amos Burton. Born in the worst the streets can offer he became a killer then escaped to become a spaceship mechanic. Chatham plays Burton as simultaneously dangerous, kind, and slightly bewildered, always wanting to do the right thing if he just knew what that was. And don't even get me started on how good <a href="https://twitter.com/CaraGeeeee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cara Gee</a> is as Belter captain Camina Drummer.
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY5MTc0OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NTgzOTgwMX0.7RtmTVSHBVO7lpWbIa3qx9bmpBi_qG58b6J_L-nGO0s/img.jpg?width=980" id="e8c48" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2b0f8459f35eb2073d4ed2347f667a6d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1000" data-height="200" /><p>Next, we come to what's called 'universe building' in science fiction. All the great acting needs a fully fleshed out, lived-in world to ground it. How, for example, do the trams work on a hollowed out, spinning asteroid like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)" target="_blank">Ceres</a> that's used as a space settlement? This isn't a physics question. Instead, it means if you arrived on Ceres, where would you find the tram station? What do the maps look like that would help you get around? These are the kind of details that fall both to the writers and the art department. Getting these details wrong means the world your show inhabits will either look cheesy or, worse, sterile, as if all your expensive sets never had anyone live in them.</p>
<p>Happily, everything in "The Expanse" looks lived in. Everything looks like part of an organic whole. The sets and scenes give us a world built by humans for human purposes even if it's a city built into the side of a Martian cliff. From visions of New York City under siege from climate change to the claustrophobic interiors of Belter ships (all webbing, ductwork and grimy computer screens), the universe of "The Expanse" is endlessly rich, interesting, and believable (<a href="https://twitter.com/donttrythis" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Adam Savage</a> has a great set of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2ICDTv3VJA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">videos</a> on production design in "The Expanse").</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY5MTc1MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NDEyNDg2Nn0.b7YJNl900W-P531IJDBt-a3sxieX3VdjuyhOVJU19PY/img.jpg?width=980" id="90aec" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7630d221c2eadd637411ac089fb7c652" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1000" data-height="200" /><p>Finally, we come to the science, because, after all, this is science fiction. I am not one who demands that my science fiction always get the science right. What matters is that the writers create a self-consistent universe where whatever "science" is invoked remains constant as constraints imposed to provide obstacles and make the story work. But, to my joy, for the most part the "science" used in "The Expanse" is the science I teach in my <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/how-real-world-science-sets-expanse-apart-other-sci-fi-shows" target="_blank">physics</a> classes. For example, there is no imaginary "artificial gravity" babble. Instead, there is thrust gravity when the engines are on, accelerating spaceships. There is also spin gravity when you're on the inside of something rotating. Other than that, you are "on the float." Just like what will happen in real spaceships and space stations in the future.</p>
<p>The level of attempted scientific realism in the show is wonderful, extending even to little details like how whiskey spirals out of its bottle due to the <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coriolis-effect/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Coriolis effect</a> when poured on a rotating space station. Most importantly, the writers use the real physics real people will really encounter in real space travel as a kind of extra character in the show. During space battles, as ships roll and pivot, Newton's first law (inertia) means unsecured tools are sent flying across the cabin. That makes them dangerous projectiles our brave heroes must dodge while fighting evil and advancing the storyline. It all makes my physicist's heart weep in gratitude.</p>
<p>Of course, not all the science in "The Expanse" is valid or accurate or correct. But that's OK. No other show I know of manages to use real science so adeptly in the service of its story and its grand universe building. I often rewatch episodes of "The Expanse" just to get a sense of "Oh yeah, that's how it might look." In a way, the show is the best vision I've ever seen of a space-faring future that may be just a few generations away.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY5MTc1OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTc0OTQ1OX0.Enwz2n8tuWTiTJCUGhNZyKdFFMpIluc_gMiF81syppo/img.jpg?width=980" id="58949" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="19881167238be86e0db2bcae4e79f249" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="970" data-height="546" />
Credit: "The Expanse" / Syfy
<p>Now, I get it if you don't agree with me. I love "Star Trek" and I thought "Battlestar Galactica" (the new one) was amazing and I do adore "The Mandalorian". They are all fun and important and worth watching and thinking about. And maybe you love them more than anything else. But when you sum up the acting, the universe building, and the use of real science where it matters, I think nothing can beat "The Expanse". And with a <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_expanse" target="_blank">Rotten Tomato</a> average rating of 93%, I'm clearly not the only one who feels this way.</p><p>Best.</p><p>Show.</p><p>Ever. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
Introduce your child to the world of STEM with these DIY projects
These DIY learning kits focus on topics like coding, robotics, and AI, and are on sale for as low as $41.99.
24 February, 2021
Photo by Igor Starkov on Unsplash
- If you want your kids to learn and play at the same time, introduce them to the world of STEM and robotics.
- Starting as young as age five, STEM projects can increase a child's overall knowledge and critical thinking skills.
- These DIY learning kits for all ages focus on STEM topics like coding, robotics, and artificial intelligence, and are on sale for as low as $41.99.
<p>Sparking your child's curiosity, especially during an ongoing pandemic, is no easy feat. Instead of putting them in front of a screen, yet again, try opening their minds to the exciting world of <a href="https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/best-science-books-of-2020" rel="noopener" target="_blank">STEM</a> through these <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/robotic-art-kit?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=robotic-art-kit&utm_term=scsf-477923&utm_content=a0x1P000004eO9mQAE&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DIY learning kits</a>, which focus on <a href="https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/code-is-not-a-language" rel="noopener" target="_blank">coding</a>, robotics, and <a href="https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/10-ways-prepare-intelligent-machines-mit-study" rel="noopener" target="_blank">artificial intelligence</a>. </p><p>These educational kits, designed for kids as young as five years old, offer sample projects that will encourage them to develop and design. Every project is compatible with your little one's ever-growing collection of LEGOs, so the building process is just as fun as it is educational.</p><p>There's a specific <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/coding-kit?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=coding-kit&utm_term=scsf-477033&utm_content=a0x1P000004eO9mQAE&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DIY Coding Kit</a> available that will help your 9- to 12-year-old develop the fundamentals of coding and programming. Following that, you can introduce your young one to robotics via this <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/curiosity-kit?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=curiosity-kit&utm_term=scsf-477924&utm_content=a0x1P000004eO9mQAE&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DIY Robotic Curiosity Kit</a> (ages 7 to 10) and <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/robotic-art-kit?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=robotic-art-kit&utm_term=scsf-477923&utm_content=a0x1P000004eO9mQAE&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DIY Robotic Art Kit</a> (ages 5 to 8) that also come with an accompanying app to guide you. </p><p>For kids with a specific interest in cars, turn to the <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/autonomous-vehicle-kit?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=autonomous-vehicle-kit&utm_term=scsf-477922&utm_content=a0x1P000004eO9mQAE&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DIY Autonomous Vehicle Kit</a> — made for children ages 8 to 13. It explores artificial intelligence and self-driving technologies that we guarantee you, as a parent, will find just as fascinating as your kid.</p><p>The best part about it all? All these kits have been marked down up to 40%. You can get the <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/coding-kit?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=coding-kit&utm_term=scsf-477033&utm_content=a0x1P000004eO9mQAE&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DIY Coding Kit</a> for only $65.99 (regularly $99) for a limited time. Meanwhile, the <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/curiosity-kit?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=curiosity-kit&utm_term=scsf-477924&utm_content=a0x1P000004eO9mQAE&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DIY Robotic Curiosity Kit</a> and <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/robotic-art-kit?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=robotic-art-kit&utm_term=scsf-477923&utm_content=a0x1P000004eO9mQAE&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DIY Robotic Art Kit</a> are selling for $70.99 (regularly $119) and $41.99 (regularly $69), respectively. Finally, the <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/sales/autonomous-vehicle-kit?utm_source=bigthink.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=autonomous-vehicle-kit&utm_term=scsf-477922&utm_content=a0x1P000004eO9mQAE&scsonar=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DIY Autonomous Vehicle Kit</a> is marked down to just $224.99 (regularly $249). </p><p><em>Prices subject to change.</em></p><script type="text/javascript"> (function (s,o,n,a,r,i,z,e){s['StackSonarObject']=r;s[r]=s[r]||function(){
(s[r].q=s[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},s[r].l=1*new Date();i=o.createElement(n),
z=o.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];i.async=1;i.src=a;z.parentNode.insertBefore(i,z)
})(window,document,'script','https://www.stack-sonar.com/ping.js','stackSonar');
stackSonar('stack-connect-p', '393');
</script><ul class="ee-ul"></ul><p><em><em><em><em><em><em>W</em><em>hen you buy something through a link in this article or from <a href="https://shop.bigthink.com/" target="_self">our shop</a>, Big Think earns a small commission. Thank you for supporting our team's work.</em></em></em></em></em></em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
How tiny bioelectronic implants may someday replace pharmaceutical drugs
Scientists are using bioelectronic medicine to treat inflammatory diseases, an approach that capitalizes on the ancient "hardwiring" of the nervous system.
24 February, 2021
Credit: Adobe Stock / SetPoint Medical
- Bioelectronic medicine is an emerging field that focuses on manipulating the nervous system to treat diseases.
- Clinical studies show that using electronic devices to stimulate the vagus nerve is effective at treating inflammatory diseases like rheumatoid arthritis.
- Although it's not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, vagus nerve stimulation may also prove effective at treating other diseases like cancer, diabetes and depression.
<p>Could a tiny electronic device treat some diseases more safely and effectively than pharmaceutical medicines?</p><p>For Kelly Owens, the answer was clear. She spent more than a decade suffering from Crohn's disease, a chronic inflammatory bowel disease that left her with severe arthritis in her joints. The pain forced her to use a cane, sometimes a wheelchair. She tried more than 20 medications and racked up more than $1 million in medical bills, but her condition didn't improve.</p><p>A physician told Owens and her husband that they shouldn't have children, and that she'd have to take steroids for life.</p><p>Then Owens turned to bioelectronic medicine. She reached out to Dr. Kevin Tracey, a pioneer in the field and president and CEO of the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in New York. Soon after, Owens and her husband moved to Amsterdam to participate in a clinical trial involving a relatively new bioelectronic approach to treat inflammation.</p><p>Doctors implanted a small electronic device in her chest that stimulated her vagus nerve, the body's longest cranial nerve. After two weeks, Owens didn't need the cane or wheelchair. Soon she was jogging on a treadmill.</p><p>A growing body of research within bioelectronic medicine shows it's possible to treat diseases by manipulating the nervous system. The field is essentially a fusion of neuroscience, molecular biology and neurotechnology. Dr. Tracey and his colleagues think the field may someday replace or supplement many pharmaceutical drugs used to treat major diseases, including cancer and Alzheimer's.</p><p>But how? The answer centers on how the nervous system controls molecular processes in the body.</p>
<blockquote>...the most revolutionary aspect of bioelectronic medicine, according to Dr. Tracey, is that approaches like vagus nerve stimulation wouldn't come with harmful and potentially deadly side effects, as many pharmaceutical drugs currently do.</blockquote>
The nervous system’s ancient reflexes
<p>You accidentally place your hand on a hot stove. Almost instantaneously, your hand withdraws.</p><p>What triggered your hand to move? The answer is <em>not</em> that you consciously decided the stove was hot and you should move your hand. Rather, it was a reflex: Skin receptors on your hand sent nerve impulses to the spinal cord, which ultimately sent back motor neurons that caused your hand to move away. This all occurred before your "conscious brain" realized what happened.</p><p>Similarly, the nervous system has reflexes that protect individual cells in the body.</p><p>"The nervous system evolved because we need to respond to stimuli in the environment," said Dr. Tracey. "Neural signals don't come from the brain down first. Instead, when something happens in the environment, our peripheral nervous system senses it and sends a signal to the central nervous system, which comprises the brain and spinal cord. And then the nervous system responds to correct the problem."</p><p>So, what if scientists could "hack" into the nervous system, manipulating the electrical activity in the nervous system to control molecular processes and produce desirable outcomes? That's the chief goal of bioelectronic medicine.</p><p>"There are billions of neurons in the body that interact with almost every cell in the body, and at each of those nerve endings, molecular signals control molecular mechanisms that can be defined and mapped, and potentially put under control," Dr. Tracey said in a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJH9KsMKi5M" target="_blank">TED Talk</a>.</p><p>"Many of these mechanisms are also involved in important diseases, like cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, hypertension and shock. It's very plausible that finding neural signals to control those mechanisms will hold promises for devices replacing some of today's medication for those diseases."</p><p>How can scientists hack the nervous system? For years, researchers in the field of bioelectronic medicine have zeroed in on the longest cranial nerve in the body: the vagus nerve.</p><blockquote>What's more, clinical trials show that vagus nerve stimulation not only "shuts off" inflammation, but also triggers the production of cells that promote healing.</blockquote>
The vagus nerve
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTYyOTM5OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NTIwNzk0NX0.UCy-3UNpomb3DQZMhyOw_SQG4ThwACXW_rMnc9mLAe8/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=700" id="09add" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f38dbfbbfe470ad85a3b023dd5083557" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />Electrical signals, seen here in a synapse, travel along the vagus nerve to trigger an inflammatory response.
Credit: Adobe Stock via solvod
<p>The vagus nerve ("vagus" meaning "wandering" in Latin) comprises two nerve branches that stretch from the brainstem down to the chest and abdomen, where nerve fibers connect to organs. Electrical signals constantly travel up and down the vagus nerve, facilitating communication between the brain and other parts of the body.</p><p>One aspect of this back-and-forth communication is inflammation. When the immune system detects injury or attack, it automatically triggers an inflammatory response, which helps heal injuries and fend off invaders. But when not deployed properly, inflammation can become excessive, exacerbating the original problem and potentially contributing to diseases.</p><p>In 2002, Dr. Tracey and his colleagues discovered that the nervous system plays a key role in monitoring and modifying inflammation. This occurs through a process called the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01321" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">inflammatory reflex</a>. In simple terms, it works like this: When the nervous system detects inflammatory stimuli, it reflexively (and subconsciously) deploys electrical signals through the vagus nerve that trigger anti-inflammatory molecular processes.</p><p>In rodent experiments, Dr. Tracey and his colleagues observed that electrical signals traveling through the vagus nerve control TNF, a protein that, in excess, causes inflammation. These electrical signals travel through the vagus nerve to the spleen. There, electrical signals are converted to chemical signals, triggering a molecular process that ultimately makes TNF, which exacerbates conditions like rheumatoid arthritis.</p><p>The incredible chain reaction of the inflammatory reflex was observed by Dr. Tracey and his colleagues in greater detail through rodent experiments. When inflammatory stimuli are detected, the nervous system sends electrical signals that travel through the vagus nerve to the spleen. There, the electrical signals are converted to chemical signals, which trigger the spleen to create a white blood cell called a T cell, which then creates a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine. The acetylcholine interacts with macrophages, which are a specific type of white blood cell that creates TNF, a protein that, in excess, causes inflammation. At that point, the acetylcholine triggers the macrophages to stop overproducing TNF – or inflammation.</p><p>Experiments showed that when a specific part of the body is inflamed, specific fibers within the vagus nerve start firing. Dr. Tracey and his colleagues were able to map these relationships. More importantly, they were able to stimulate specific parts of the vagus nerve to "shut off" inflammation.</p><p>What's more, clinical trials show that vagus nerve stimulation not only "shuts off" inflammation, but also triggers the production of cells that promote healing.</p><p>"In animal experiments, we understand how this works," Dr. Tracey said. "And now we have clinical trials showing that the human response is what's predicted by the lab experiments. Many scientific thresholds have been crossed in the clinic and the lab. We're literally at the point of regulatory steps and stages, and then marketing and distribution before this idea takes off."<br></p>The future of bioelectronic medicine
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTYxMDYxMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjQwOTExNH0.uBY1TnEs_kv9Dal7zmA_i9L7T0wnIuf9gGtdRXcNNxo/img.jpg?width=980" id="8b5b2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c005e615e5f23c2817483862354d2cc4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="2000" data-height="1125" />Vagus nerve stimulation can already treat Crohn's disease and other inflammatory diseases. In the future, it may also be used to treat cancer, diabetes, and depression.
Credit: Adobe Stock via Maridav
<p>Vagus nerve stimulation is currently awaiting approval by the US Food and Drug Administration, but so far, it's proven safe and effective in clinical trials on humans. Dr. Tracey said vagus nerve stimulation could become a common treatment for a wide range of diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, hypertension, shock, depression and diabetes.</p><p>"To the extent that inflammation is the problem in the disease, then stopping inflammation or suppressing the inflammation with vagus nerve stimulation or bioelectronic approaches will be beneficial and therapeutic," he said.</p><p>Receiving vagus nerve stimulation would require having an electronic device, about the size of lima bean, surgically implanted in your neck during a 30-minute procedure. A couple of weeks later, you'd visit, say, your rheumatologist, who would activate the device and determine the right dosage. The stimulation would take a few minutes each day, and it'd likely be unnoticeable.</p><p>But the most revolutionary aspect of bioelectronic medicine, according to Dr. Tracey, is that approaches like vagus nerve stimulation wouldn't come with harmful and potentially deadly side effects, as many pharmaceutical drugs currently do.</p><p>"A device on a nerve is not going to have systemic side effects on the body like taking a steroid does," Dr. Tracey said. "It's a powerful concept that, frankly, scientists are quite accepting of—it's actually quite amazing. But the idea of adopting this into practice is going to take another 10 or 20 years, because it's hard for physicians, who've spent their lives writing prescriptions for pills or injections, that a computer chip can replace the drug."</p><p>But patients could also play a role in advancing bioelectronic medicine.</p><p>"There's a huge demand in this patient cohort for something better than they're taking now," Dr. Tracey said. "Patients don't want to take a drug with a black-box warning, costs $100,000 a year and works half the time."</p><p>Michael Dowling, president and CEO of Northwell Health, elaborated:</p><p>"Why would patients pursue a drug regimen when they could opt for a few electronic pulses? Is it possible that treatments like this, pulses through electronic devices, could replace some drugs in the coming years as preferred treatments? Tracey believes it is, and that is perhaps why the pharmaceutical industry closely follows his work."</p><p>Over the long term, bioelectronic approaches are unlikely to completely replace pharmaceutical drugs, but they could replace many, or at least be used as supplemental treatments.</p><p>Dr. Tracey is optimistic about the future of the field.</p><p>"It's going to spawn a huge new industry that will rival the pharmaceutical industry in the next 50 years," he said. "This is no longer just a startup industry. [...] It's going to be very interesting to see the explosive growth that's going to occur."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Why science denial and science negation are different
Surprising as it may seem, we are all very good at denial. Negation, however, is a different phenomena.
24 February, 2021
Credit: mvdiduk, Rob Atkins via Adobe Stock / Big Think
- What makes a person espouse an ideology so intensely as to negate the reality of well-established facts? Perhaps the differences between negation and denial can help us understand.
- Negation looks to the past, while denial looks to the present and future. We negate a historical fact and we deny the reality in front of us. Negation involves a conscious choice to lie, even if it involves the suffering of millions. Denial is subtler and, surprisingly, we all do it.
- Climate change conflates both negation and denial. Hopefully, understanding why will spur more into action, as we choose to become heroes of a new anti-denialist narrative.
<div><br></div>
<p>As members of society and as consumers of information we have been discussing quite extensively in social and commercial media the puzzling reasons as to why so many people with different levels of education and financial means would blindly negate facts that are self-evident and well-known in order to defend a position which is, more than anything else, ideologically based. In other words, what makes a person espouse an ideology so intensely as to negate the reality of well-established facts? Examples are easy to come by: Earth is flat; vaccines are bad for you; there is a deep state conspiracy bent on changing the world order; global warming is a hoax; there was no holocaust; there were no dinosaurs; we never landed on the Moon. You can add your own [here].</p>
<p>This list intentionally mixes two very different attitudes people have to certain facts: denial and negation. There is an essential distinction between the two which is often overlooked: negation looks to the past, while denial looks to the present and the future. In English, this distinction is not as clear as in Romance languages: people tend to use denial, as in holocaust denier, and to "be in denial." But it may be time to sharpen this distinction, to make it more effective and, hopefully, to have more clarity. </p>
<blockquote>A negationist is a conscious liar. It is someone who'd rather live in a fabricated reality based on a fabricated past, even if this may mean negating the suffering of millions.</blockquote>
<p>Negation requires a conscious choice to partake in a lie. Someone who negates the holocaust does so by asserting that it didn't take place, choosing to ignore historical facts, documents, and narratives that are well-established and beyond questioning. To negate the lunar landings, the sphericity of Earth, or that dinosaurs ever existed is a conscious choice to ignore scientific data that is accessible to everyone. A negationist is a conscious liar. It is someone who'd rather live in a fabricated reality based on a fabricated past, even if this may mean negating the suffering of millions. A negationist lives in a world that only exists in their mind, usually motivated by self-interest; power or money, mostly.</p>
<p>Denial is different. Surprising as it may seem, we are all very good at denial. We may deny that we are sick, or that the person we love doesn't love us back, or that we are not competent to do a job. Sports fans of losing teams deny the reality and go back to the stadium with hope refreshed. When we say, "John is in denial," we mean that John doesn't want to face reality as it is. This may explain why so many more succumb to denial than to negation. Reality is often hard. We may be broke; we may be lonely; we may be lost in life. In 1973, the American cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker published the Pulitzer Prize-winning book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0684832402?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>The Denial of Death</em></a>, where he argued that we create elaborate defense mechanisms to protect us from the certain knowledge of our mortality. How do we do it, day in, day out, knowing that the end is inevitable? Becker argued that we are able to do this due to our dual nature, at once physical and symbolic. As animals, we are aware of our physical needs and limitations. As symbolic creatures, we contemplate the infinite and the divine; we tell stories of heroic feats that defy the reality at bay.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY4NDYyMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2OTQwNjQ3MH0.lLnsJmhIirCCqYj-7hNPL64jz23rCk8C6HM40Se7ORo/img.jpg?width=980" id="101ac" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="63c08ccf2d5ee181fd8769e78edd3755" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="2000" data-height="1125" />
Trump supporters lined the street on President's Day to show support for him after his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
<p>We can thus begin to see why so many people in the US have chosen to deny the reality of the Biden-Harris election, or that masks and social distancing are essential tools to beat the pandemic. When ex-president Trump claimed that there was a plot to steal the election from him, he positioned himself as the hero-martyr, the victim of a destructive plot that was after him and, by proxy, also after everyone who supported him. He used the old trick of galvanizing a visceral group response by creating a fake reality that bundles people together in a single cause: he made his followers into heroes fighting for freedom. The no-mask using is a clear illustration of how far this identification of "fighting for freedom" can go, even to the denial of the obvious danger of dying from COVID. This shows that our symbolic allegiance is more powerful than the physical. No wonder so many people are ready to "die for a cause," often with tragic consequences.</p><p>Deniers find force in their cohort, energizing each other and relying on group dynamics to find companionship and strength. Tragically, by forcing our physical separation in lockdowns, the pandemic worked as a catalyst to the deniers, their perceived "loss of freedom" bringing them closer together to the point of making them all believe in the heroic dream of a power takeover. The attack on the Capitol on January 6th is the epitome of denialism in modern America, from both sides of the aisle: the perpetrators who marched and pillaged and those who failed to read the obvious signs of mounting danger, denying the reality in front of them.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY4NTc0NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MTc4NjI3N30.Gn1etm8Dj_toM5CBh6T5aPKeIZRLOSiKXX7wX1MVjE4/img.jpg?width=980" id="51776" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bc2b517415a9bdc33741409656673c4b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="2000" data-height="1125" />
Science denial — or is it science negation? A protest banner set up in front of the Republican National Convention Headquarters on August 24, 2020, in Washington, DC.
<p>Climate change conflates both negation and denial. There is conscious lying from various interest groups—mostly large corporations that greatly benefit from the fossil fuel industry, as flagged in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change" target="_blank">this article</a> from <em>T</em><em>he Guardian</em> exposing 100 companies as responsible for 71 percent of global carbon emissions—that aim to cloud and discredit past results from the scientific community (global warming is a "hoax"), and there is denial from many well-informed people, who simply choose not to believe that they actually can do something to change the situation.</p><p>"I'm just a person, what can I do to change this massive, worldwide problem?" Well you can do many things: As a consumer, you can boycott companies that don't align with your worldview or that ignore their impact on the world's climate; you can consume less fossil fuels, turn unneeded lights off, use less water, buy a hybrid or electric car, use more public transportation (once it's safe again), eat less meat (perhaps the most impactful individual choice one can make to fight global warming)…</p> <p>Although there are nuanced distinctions within negationism and denialism, by exposing their more obvious differences it may be easier to find constructive solutions that move us beyond the current climate stalemate. We need to turn climate change denial on its head, and make us all the new heroes of the "save the future" cause. Because the truth is, as climate change deteriorates our living conditions, we will all be the martyrs of our own failure to see what's in front of us.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
