The play-dough of science

When we are infants we play with things, feel things, put them in our mouths, crawl around until we bump into objects and explore and discover the properties of everything about us, and each new experience helps us build a concept of reality, which we then use as a framework for all of our subsequent behavior and our categorizations of the things we encounter.  

Infants are naturally scientific.  For example, a child’s epiphany about language—connecting the sounds people make with actual meaning—is pure science.  The child consumes many different sources of data and searches for patterns.  She’s not intentionally looking for the meaning of language, for in the beginning, she doesn’t even know to look for such a thing—she’s merely exploring and playing, and the noises made by other humans are among the many stimuli that seem interesting.  But then an awareness begins to awake in her, a new and transformative way of experiencing what she’s encountered all along.  She understands now that these—words—can have power.  Certain ones make the adults behave funnily.  She tries to speak some herself.  A struggle ensues to master the concept of speech, with extravagantly positive results.  And now finally she understands language—her mind has undergone a paradigm shift.     

What distinguishes a scientist’s work from a child’s is that the child rediscovers conceptions that are common to us, whereas a scientist tackles phenomena that are not yet comprehended by anyone.  But scientists can learn from the process of children.  Indeed it’s the scientists who take risks, who misunderstand the dogma and run crazy experiments, and who view the unknown with fresh eyes—typically young scientists—who do the most revolutionary work.  Older scientists can reject foolish notions and keep the youth focused, but they have trouble embracing the radically new.  The youth are the architects of paradigms.  

Skills are essential for science, but specific skills do not a scientist make.  The actual science comes in the play—in the use of hard skills to futz around with the sillyputty of reality, and to generate epiphanies.  This process is not about throughput, it’s about novelty; discovery; seeing the patterns that are perpendicular to the usual conception.  Although a scientist can spend tremendous effort and time doing one task with utter efficiency, the most significant science often occurs outside of the lab.  It is out there, at the beach or the cinema, that she experiences her earth shattering moment, and sees everything familiar anew. 

But I don’t mean to imply that science is a pursuit for the lazy.  A scientist must be utterly immersed in her problem if her trip to the beach is to benefit her.  The boundary of our knowledge is mercurial and amorphous, and identifying it, and then being able to find the shape of its weaknesses, requires a deep knowledge of precedent.  Although efficiency and skillfulness aren’t synonymous with good science, good science generally doesn’t emerge in the absence of these.  Epiphanies spawn from intuition and knowledge, as well as a huge dedication and effort.    

So how then do we judge progress in science?  After a paradigm shift the goodness of the science is obvious, but before then it can be murky.  While science often requires completion of roadblock tasks, ordinary definitions of productivity, such as ‘throughput’ or ‘hours of work put in’ or ‘speed,’ can lead us to stress the wrong factors.  If the solution to a scientific puzzle is West, it’s not helpful to move North, even if you do it with utter efficiency.  That being said, a scientist might need to travel North for a while to realize that West is the way.  But the best science might involve thinking and reading about the meanings of North versus West, and understanding well that distinction before ever leaving the origin.  Balancing contemplation and movement is all part of the craft.  

Nowadays, your field—whatever it is—is probably starting to feel a lot more like my description of science.  Tasks can be outsourced, but intuition cannot be.  So nurture your flexibility and creativity.  Be willing to work like a dog when it’s needed, but also make time for your passions.  Remember that your trip to the beach might provide the epiphany that will revolutionize everything.  And keep in mind that it’s not about effort—it’s about seeing your destiny like play-dough, and building the right intuition about how you must shape it. 

The freeing of Gilad Shalit

On Tuesday Israel announced the closing of a deal between itself and Hamas for Israel to release 1027 Palestinian prisoners—hundreds of whom are on life sentences with at least 599 Israeli deaths on their hands—in exchange for one Israeli prisoner, Gilad Shalit, who has been a prisoner of Hamas for the last five or so years.  On the surface this deal seems downright insane.  One can spout mumbo jumbo about the relative values of life in different cultures, but the numbers slice any sort of logical discourse to ribbons.  This is not the first time that Israel has released hundreds or thousands of prisoners in exchange for one, or in some cases for dead bodies, and this precedent undeniably gives Hamas incentive to continue its kidnappings.  If Hamas gets a thousand fighters back for each one that it kidnaps, you can do the math.  The Israeli prison system becomes a revolving door.  Life sentences mean nothing.  It’s like Hamas is playing a video game and each kidnap provides one thousand extra lives.  Why does Israel keep giving its enemies this leverage?

This is the view probably held by most Americans and certainly the view I came to this country with.  I was walking with my friends Tomer and Shiri one evening on Rothschild bouldevard, back in the summer when the social uprising was in full swing, and when I saw yet another of the ‘Free Gilad Shalit’ posters that are all over the city, I felt the need to tell my friends exactly how ludicrous I thought this Gilad Shalit issue is. 

You see, here in Israel, the issue of Gilad Shalit is not just some asterisk being silently dealt with by a few officials up in office; obtaining his freedom has been a major social and political movement, and in every protest, demonstration, or gathering about anything, the issue of Gilad Shalit always seems to pop up, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with what else is being discussed.  Gilad Shalit’s release is like the issue of abortion in the US; whether or not you want it to, it somehow seeps into every political discussion.  Why, I asked Tomer and Shiri, are the Israelis so irrational about Gilad Shalit, so willing to give up so much in exchange for a single soldier who was kidnapped?  I couldn’t comprehend it.  I expected my extremely liberal and highly educated scientist friends to fully support my incredulity.  Instead, they waited for me to run dry in my tirade, and then Tomer calmly explained it to me.

In Israel, he told me, every able-bodied person (aside from Arabs and some of the ultra religious) serves in the army, starting around the age of 18.  The army is seen as a necessary force for the defense of the nation, which is indeed even reflected in its name: the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).  In relinquishing their children to the state at such a vulnerable age, families make an unspoken pact with the state that in return for its new recruits, it will take full custody of those children, will treat them as if they were its own, and that it will do everything in its earthly power to return them home when their service is over.  In most cases, this means that the state will keep the country’s children from needless harm, will equip them properly, and will authorize them to use lethal force if their lives are in danger.  In the case that a soldier dies, his or her body will be buried in proper tradition, with all respect given. This means that if the body must be recovered from the enemy, it will be, even at great cost. 

Similarly, in the case that a soldier is kidnapped, this means that the state must do everything in its power to get that soldier back alive.  Up until Gilad Shalit, Israel has always delivered on this pledge, even when it required extremely difficult sacrifices.  However, this one time, the state seemed to be waffling. 

Tomer put it most clearly with the following statement.  He said that if in the future the Israeli government makes it clear that it cannot stomach certain sacrifices for the return of a single soldier, then at least new soldiers going in, and their families, will know what they’re facing.  But Gilad Shalit had entered the army with the implicit understanding that the state would do everything possible to release him in the event of his capture.  Israelis saw the state’s vacillation on this as a symbol of grand betrayal, the government leaving one of its sons to suffer at the hands of a cruel enemy.  It wasn’t rational in an objective sense, but it did have a particular reasoning behind it.  It made sense to the families of Israel, each of which could remember its own sons and daughters going away to the army and could relate personally to the plight of the Shalits. 

I still don’t agree with the Israeli decision.  There are so many things wrong with the exchange of over 1000 enemies, many of them murderers, for one young soldier—so many philosophical and moral lenses through which it seems flagrantly unjust—that it would take me a long time to fully unravel my thoughts on it.  However, at least I feel that I understand why Israel made the choice that it did. 

Perhaps in the future the Israeli state will more rationally weigh the life of one man versus the security of a nation, but at least this time, the one life was considered worth it.  I wish Gilad all the best in his recovery and reintegration into some semblance of normalcy.  And I wonder if at some point the Israeli state will make it clear to its enemies—and to its own citizens—that the next time, there will be no such exchange. 

The problem of culture

How much are gurus like ordinary culture?  How deep does our programming go? 

Culture and society rely on some degree of brainwashing to hold together, but then extreme interpretations can lead to wars and destruction.  War, which is essentially culturally justified murder, arises when cultures, whether individual or collective, go into a survival mode, feeling threatened by some other.  But these definitions are entirely arbitrary; you could have been born that way, or he this way.  Who’s to say who is right?  Any good fundamentalist (or guru) will say that he is, but that doesn’t help us at all in a relative world.  When the decision is whether to attack an enemy or not to, a choice of one world-view versus another must be made, and this is a matter of life versus death.

Without an objective observer, or even the theoretical possibility of one (even if you believe in God, it’s unlikely he’ll step in and directly state his opinion), how can we hope to overcome these barriers and bring peace to this world?  Even if we stand aside from war, there will always be some fundamentalist who will just take advantage of our weakness.  If we stand up for ourselves, we are making a proclamation that our side is right, regardless of costs.  Sometimes this is necessary for survival, but survivalism isn’t a basis for cohesive morality.  Who’s to say that our survival is more important than the survival of that other guy?  In a zero-sum game, the answer is that everyone says it, because to each of us, our own survival is paramount.  We will justify it with god or philosophy or other illusions, but fundamentally the view is survivalist.  Can we admit to ourselves that this is the case?  If we can admit it, will it then change our behavior?