Official Comment Count: 1,031,570

Reality is always more complicated than you think.

Profile

jake-head-shot.jpgJake Young is a MD/PhD student at Mount Sinai School of Medicine focusing in Neuroscience. He is due to graduate in 2032. He received a BS and a MS in Biological Sciences from Stanford University -- where he spent most of his time drinking heavily and building vegetable catapults instead of learning information that would now be eminently useful. When he is not failing terrifically to perform his sworn duties, he enjoys watching bad movies, ethnic food, and running.

Pure Pedantry is a blog about science -- social sciences and otherwise -- as well as academic and scientific culture. No one can live on science alone, so I also like to dwell on pop culture, periodically explore the humanities, and indulge in other types of geeky goodness.

Jake is joined periodically by two wonderful guest bloggers: Kara Contreary and Kate Seip. See the About Page.

DISCLAIMERS: 1) Jake Young is not a licensed physician (yet). He is merely a medical student. The information published on this site is not intended for use in medical decision making. Please seek advice from a licensed, medical professional before making any health decisions. 2) The opinions expressed are my own or those of my co-bloggers. They do not represent the views of SEED magazine or the educational establishments we currently attend.

Search this blog

Archives

Blogroll


raptor.jpg

« Shameless Self Promotion: Seed Interviews Me | Main | Daily Show Schmevolution »

Summary of Best Science Writing of 2006 Book Signing

Category: Books
Posted on: October 6, 2006 9:27 AM, by Jake Young

So I went to the book signing last night for the Best American Science Writing 2006, and it was really interesting so I want to plug this book. In attendance were Jesse Cohen, the series editor, as well as authors Paul Bloom, Dennis Overbye, and Johnathan Weiner.

I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, but Dennis Overbye wrote about a convention for time travelers at MIT. Johnathan Weiner wrote about a weird syndrome of combined neurodegenerative diseases that occurs in a cluster on Guam -- possibly because they like to eat bats.

My favorite, however, was Paul Bloom -- a psychology professor at Yale -- in part because he is a practicing scientist and a science writer but mostly because his essay sounds so interesting. His essay was about the science of religion -- more specifically why human beings have religion. He noted from his own research that babies and young people are particularly prone to adopting supernatural beliefs to the point that it appears that we are hardwired to do so. He argues that this propensity is a evolutionary relic. I am excited to read the essay to see if he proves his case.

I had a chance to talk with him afterwards, and I brought up the issue that many researchers -- David Sloan Wilson being one that springs to mind -- have argued that religion is evolutionary but that it is also evolutionarily beneficial. David Sloan Wilson has proposed the idea that religion arose from group selection because religion promotes in-group cohesiveness. This would differ from Dr. Bloom's ideas because Bloom is essentially arguing that religion is neutral to selection and secondary to larger evolutionary trends in human social capacity. Dr. Bloom responded that he was aware of the alternative ideas, but that he doesn't buy them because he doesn't see why supernatural belief would be necessary to promote cohesiveness -- an excellent point.

I love this stuff primarily because it skirts the issue of ID vs. evolution to get to the nitty gritty -- and more interesting in my opinion -- issue of what role religion plays in human psychology and society.

Anyway, I highly recommend picking up this book. It looks like they got a really good crew of science writers, and I am excited to read it.

(The interview yesterday was taped by some people from Seed, and once it is editted and posted I will put up the link.)

Comments

Is Dr. Bloom really so ideocentric as to believe there are not real reasons that religion is important socially as well as intellectually. You can't have a dialectic, nor a creative and evolving intellectual argument without
a]fear and curiosity of the unknown--yes there is still a lot we do not "know" about the universe. Religion fuels that debate just as much as science does. Without the dialectic there is no progress.
b] Most people will never know tranquillity of spirit without a crutch. Do we want a majority of humans without a frame of reference?
c] Durkheim says the very basis of religion is the tendency to categorize. In category is then "better" than out category as a corollary. Without religion intellectual enterprise would never have developed. Religion remains today the Hegelian counterpoint to science and without it science suffers as well.

Posted by: Jospeh T Young | October 6, 2006 6:31 PM

I found Bloom the most captivating too. But my favorite moment of the evening -- by far -- was the bemused look on Dennis Overbye's face when someone addressed him as "doctor."

Posted by: Melinda | October 7, 2006 12:38 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Most Active

Search All Blogs