24. Nothing Could Be Further from the Truth (II)

Raphael, The School of Athens

“I Know, Because the Caged Bird Sings: Plato’s Theaetetus.”  
Part Two.

Script for podcast (aired Feb 28 2011) by Peter Adamson

Raphael's Plato

‘“Now, I know what you’re thinking: this will be easy. Just point to a thermometer, which tells us an objective fact about how cold the air is. But not so fast. Firstly, Protagoras can agree with your kids that whatever the thermometer says, it’s up to each of us to say whether it is cold or warm for us. Secondly, he can point out that the thermometer is itself something you perceive. If it seems to you that the thermometer reads, say, 30 degrees, then it’s true for you that the thermometer reads 30 degrees. It’s true for you simply because you perceive it to be the case. To insist on there being an absolute truth about the reading of the thermometer is to assume that there is a truth independent of any perceiver, and that’s what Protagoras denies: man is the measure of all things, right?

Socrates

“But Socrates has a couple of other tricks up his sleeve. He starts with abuse: wouldn’t it be just as true to say that a pig or a baboon is the measure of all things? Abuse is always satisfying, of course, but this argument doesn’t carry much weight. Fortunately he has more philosophically satisfying points to make too. For instance, on this “man is the measure” doctrine, there’d be no point consulting experts: why pay to go to the doctor if you are just as good a measure as the doctor is? If it seems to you that taking aspirin will cure that nasty bout of appendicitis, then it’s true for you! This sounds like a theory that will reduce the life expectancy of its adherents - reason enough to reject it. Closely related is an objection about predicting the future: if I expect to recover from my illness, then it will be true for me that I will recover; if it then later seems to me that I’m still sick, then it will seem to me that I have not recovered, and so it will be true for me that I didn’t recover. It’s hard to see how both of these could be the case.

Google Images

“But Socrates’ most interesting objection illustrates a classic, perennially useful philosophical maneuver. Whenever you’re presented with a bold new theory – especially a skeptical theory – ask whether the theory could be true on its own terms. For example, if someone says that nothing is true, you can ask him whether this claim is itself true. Or if someone says that language is meaningless, you can ask him how he is able to convey this idea in a sentence. In the same way, Socrates suggests that Protagoras’ relativism doctrine is self-refuting. For, even if Protagoras agrees with the doctrine, Socrates does not. Thus it will be true for Socrates that Protagoras’ doctrine is false. Indeed, since this follows from Protagoras’ doctrine, it will even be true for Protagoras that for Socrates the doctrine is false. Thus Protagoras is bound by his own doctrine to admit that his doctrine is false. But maybe this trick is a bit too tricky: even if Protagoras has to admit that the doctrine is false for Socrates, he doesn’t have to admit that it’s false in itself or really false. Remember, according to him, there’s no such thing as something’s just really being false or true. There is only something’s being false or true to you, to me, to Socrates.

“Before we get any dizzier, let’s leave relativism behind and move on to another major theme of this dialogue: the possibility of false belief. This theme arises when Theaetetus accepts that knowledge is not after all perception, and makes another suggestion. Perhaps knowledge is having a true belief. After all, when I know something I have a belief about it, and obviously it can’t be a false belief. So why not say I know something when I have a true belief about it? All well and good, says Socrates, but if we want to uphold this definition we need to understand how it could be that some beliefs are true, and others false. And here we will run afoul of those pesky sophists again. Some sophists suggested that it is impossible to say or believe anything false - in which case everything is just a matter of persuasion. This challenge appears in several Platonic dialogues; we’ve already seen it arising in the Euthydemus. But the Theaetetus is again probably the most famous case. The argument here for the sophistical view is rather reminiscent of Meno’s paradox, which we looked at last time. It goes like this: either I know something or I don’t. If I know about it, then I won’t make a mistake about it, thanks to my knowledge; but if I don’t know about it, then I can’t think about it, so I won’t be able to make a mistake then either. In other words, I’ll have either perfect knowledge of each thing, or no knowledge of it at all, and in neither case will I get things wrong. So, it’s impossible to make a mistake, to believe anything false.

Google Images

“As with Meno’s paradox, it looks like the way out is to say that there is some middle ground, where I know or grasp something well enough to make a mistake about it, but not so well that I am immune to error. Socrates presents two analogies to suggest how this could work. First, he says, imagine that your memory is like a wax tablet - the kind they used to write on in ancient Greece. When you perceive something, that’s like a stamp making an impression in the wax of your mind. Some people have tough, dirty wax and are slow on the uptake; others have fluid wax and get impressions quickly, but lose them just as fast. Others have wax which is ideally suited: easily stamped, but also good at holding the impressions. Quite a nice image of how memory works, really. Ok, so now for false judgment: that would happen when there is a mismatch between something you perceive and an existing impression in the wax of your memory. For instance, I think I am watching a silent film starring Buster Keaton, but actually I’m confused: that lovable fellow on the screen is in fact Charlie Chaplin, and I’m matching the visual image to the wrong stamped impression in my wax tablet. As Socrates says, it’s like putting your right foot into your left shoe.

Theaetetus

“Notice that this solves the sophistical dilemma: I can make a mistake about something because in a way I know it, and in a way I don’t. I know who Buster Keaton is, because I must have got acquainted with him to have an impression of him in my memory. But this doesn’t guarantee that I’ll be error-free in identifying people as Buster Keaton. This is a compelling analogy, and for once the proposal isn’t exactly rejected in the dialogue. Rather, the characters realize that even if it works for cases of mistaken identity in perception, there are many cases of false judgment where it will not help. For instance, what is going on when I add seven and five and get eleven? There’s nothing here about impressions being made on our memory by perception, and yet I’ve still made a mistake. So Socrates produces another image in place of the wax tablet. Imagine, he says, that your soul is like an aviary, a birdcage, with lots of birds flying around in it, each of which represents a piece of knowledge. Whenever you’ve learned something, you’ve acquired a bird and put it into your aviary. What happens when you add five to seven and get eleven is that you reach into your aviary and pull out the eleven bird instead of the twelve bird. Again, your knowledge of eleven actually enables you to make the mistake, the way your knowledge of Buster Keaton enabled you to mistake Charlie Chaplin for him.

Google Images

“But Socrates and Theaetetus decide that this model too is problematic. It means that when you make a mistake, it is precisely by virtue of knowing that you get things wrong. It is, paradoxically, because of your knowledge of eleven that you are able to have a false belief about five plus seven. The indefatigable Theaetetus has another suggestion, though: what if your aviary contains birds representing ignorance, as well as birds representing knowledge? Then when you make a mistake you’ve just grabbed the wrong kind of bird. But that ruins the whole point, which was to explain how we can know something just enough to make a mistake about it, without knowing it so well that we are immune to error.

Google Images

“So where does all that leave us? Right back where we started: without a general account of false belief, but still thinking that maybe knowledge is the same thing as true belief. Ah, but it isn’t, says Socrates. Just consider the case of a jury: they might be persuaded by some fancy lawyer that a certain man is innocent of a crime. And the man really is innocent. But we wouldn’t say that the jury knows, since they only believe this because the lawyer was slick enough to persuade them. Thus they have a true belief, but not knowledge. So much for that definition. Yet Theaetetus still feels - and today’s epistemologists tend to agree - that knowledge must have something to do with true belief. Maybe knowledge is true belief plus something else as well... something the jurors are lacking, but which you would have if you were, say, an eye-witness at the murder and know that the accused man is innocent.

Google Images

“It’s no easy task to say what that would be. As I say, modern-day epistemologists are still struggling with the question of how knowledge relates to true belief. In so doing, they are taking up a challenge first thrown down here in the Theaetetus. For the rest of the dialogue, Socrates and Theaetetus explore the possibility that some kind of “rational account” - a logos, that favorite word of Heraclitus - is what you’d need to add to true belief to render it into knowledge. As we expect by now, they don’t manage to make this work, and yet we do learn a bit more about knowledge, in particular how it does and does not relate to giving an account of yourself when you believe something. This last part of the dialogue is sufficiently complicated that giving an account of it would be no easy matter, and I’m just about out of time anyway. So I’ll close there for now. But Plato’s attitude towards belief and knowledge will continue to take center stage in the next few episodes. In two weeks, I’ll finally be looking at Plato’s theory of Forms, and trying to discover whether postulating Forms could help us understand what knowledge is. But next time, we’ll have a return appearance by my colleague MM McCabe, who will chat with me about Plato’s views on knowledge. So don’t make the mistake of missing next week’s episode of the History of Philosophy, without any gaps.”’

James P. Morse, Reality and the Mind
(Google Images)

23. Nothing Could Be Further from the Truth (I)

Google Images

One of the previous posts (The Haves and the Have-nots around us II) referred to the be-have-do triad and its multi-faceted nature. A conclusion became then obvious: being is, according to many, more important for Man [don’t forget, Man (with a capital m) is the philosophical category for the human being in English] than having – in conceptual terms (what hasn’t been tackled is the status of doing, for which the time is not yet ripe). Yet there’s more to it than that: as the previous post mentioned, problems connected with knowledge, values, reason, and language may find answers through philosophy; but where to look, and who should we listen to?

We should consider ourselves fortunate because – the truth is – we are spoilt for choice: information is ‘out there’ and, actually, an Internet connection gives unlimited access to it. The unfortunate occurrence is that Time is far from being on our side: it is practically impossible to get to know even a tiny fraction of what has been found in a domain. But this is not a real problem: Modern Man has in many ways got used to his limitations, which – of course – doesn’t mean he should enter a state of akinetic mutism (see the post ‘To Choose or not to Choose to do Something’) because of that: when there’s a will, there’s a way!

Plato's legacy: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle

It was the case that, while browsing the web in search of a better explanation for points in time, I stumbled upon this pearl: History of Philosophy without any gaps. It’s been on the blog page for a couple of weeks now, so it is time you scrolled down to see...what you could see and hear: you’ll step into another dimension, where you’ll find out about Man’s unyielding determination to Know. Your guide (and mine): Professor Peter Adamson from King’s College, London. 
Peter Adamson

He will accompany us through millennia of human enquiry; his friendly voice will guide us while explaining the whys and wherefores of Man’s endless struggle with the Unknown. You just can’t imagine [yet] how easy it becomes for anyone to understand what a line of thought really means; arguments unfold with a surprising clarity while you, the listener, witness the enquiries of the philosophers who shaped the Western world view – that is, precisely of those who have given us food for thought, even if we didn’t know it!

You will feel him close at any one time, but never as close as in these two posts: by courtesy of Professor Peter Adamson, you now have the unique opportunity to listen to the audio and read the script. When I expressed my hopes that at least one of 120 students will find answers to enquiries in his podcast series, he sent me the script below, with the following dedication: “Good luck on inspiring the other 119 to become more profound!”

And now I'll leave you in good company. Part two of the audioscript will be published in the following post.

Peter Adamson's podcast

“I Know, Because the Caged Bird Sings: Plato’s Theaetetus.” - Part One.

Script for podcast (aired Feb 28 2011) by Peter Adamson

‘“Those of you who spend time with children will know that, between the adults and the children of this world, a war is raging. Skirmishes in this war are fought across the land, every morning, and both sides use all the weapons at their disposal - tantrums, the silent treatment, withheld treats, even, in extreme cases, the naughty step. I am speaking, of course, about the question of how warmly to dress. The children’s perspective on this issue is well-entrenched: it is not nearly as cold outside as you parents would claim, and we aren’t going to wear that winter coat, though we may be willing to consider a light sweater. The parents’ point of view is equally firm: you’ll catch your death of cold. Now, I guess that most of the people listening to this podcast are above the age of 12, and so naturally favor the adult perspective. There is, we quite naturally think, a fact of the matter about how cold it is outside: just look at the thermometer. Yet the children can turn to us and say, “but I don’t feel cold. So for me, it isn’t cold.” And they’ve got a point, albeit a point which is undermined slightly when they start shivering even as they’re insisting on how warm it is. The point is that it is for each person to say how cold the air feels to them. You might even say that, whatever the temperature may be, the air’s being cold is nothing more than the air’s seeming cold to each of us.

“This prompts an unsettling thought. It’s not implausible that the air is really neither cold nor hot in itself, but is cold for you, and warm for me -I grew up in Boston, so I’m made of tougher stuff than you are. And we can think of other cases: most of us have been in disputes about whether a certain piece of clothing is blue or green, and maybe it is just green for one person, blue for someone else. Thus the unsettling thought: what if everything is like this? Suppose that there is no truth apart from the way things seem to each person? Things may be warm for me, cold for you, blue for me, green for you, good for me, bad for you, while having none of these features in themselves. In that case, nothing is true absolutely. Rather, truth is relative: something might be true for me and false for you, but neither false nor true in itself. This relativist theory of truth is one that still arises in contemporary philosophy, but it has its roots in the dialogues of Plato. In particular, it is explored in my very favorite Platonic dialogue: the Theaetetus.

René Magritte, Les Reflets du Temps

“In a few previous episodes I’ve mentioned the word “epistemology,” which means the study of knowledge - because the ancient Greek word for knowledge or understanding was episteme. We saw last week that Plato’s Meno has quite a bit to say about epistemology, and we’ve found interesting epistemological ideas already in the Pre- Socratics. But the first work to devote itself fully to epistemology is the Theaetetus. It explores some of the ideas of the Meno but goes well beyond them, investigating not only this relativist theory of truth, but also the question of how false judgment is possible and how knowledge relates to belief. The main characters are our old friend Socrates, Theodorus, a mathematician, and a young man who is a mathematician like Theodorus, and profoundly ugly like Socrates: he shares Socrates’ protruding eyes and snub nose. This is Theaetetus, one of the most admirable characters ever to engage with Socrates in Plato’s dialogues. Despite his youth he shows much more commitment to the philosophical search than the older Theodorus. He offers several attempts at saying what knowledge might be. As we have come to expect in Socratic dialogues, each attempt is refuted, but he doesn’t lose heart - and we learn a great deal about knowledge in the course of the dialogue, even if the characters fail to produce a definition of knowledge that satisfies them.

“Theaetetus’ first attempt is to say that knowledge is perception. The word for perception here is aisthesis, which incidentally is where we get the word “aesthetics.” It can mean sense perception - that is, vision, hearing, smell, and so on - or more broadly any kind of perception, including the perception of things with the mind. Especially if we take it in this broader sense, Theaetetus’ definition looks plausible: we know something when we perceive it. Or perhaps one might say, we know when we grasp that something is the case. But Socrates shows that Theaetetus’ definition could be taken in a more unsettling way: if knowledge is perception, then whatever seems to me to be the case must actually be the case for me. Here he gives the same example I used a moment ago: the wind seems warm to me and cold to you, so I perceive the wind as warm and you perceive it as cold. If perception is knowledge, then that means that I know the wind is warm and you know it is cold. How could this be? Well, only if truth is relative: it’s true for me that the wind is warm and true for you that it is cold, but there is no such thing as the wind’s being truly warm or cold in itself, relative to no perceiver. After all, knowledge is nothing but perception.

M.C.Escher, Relativity

“Socrates adds that in putting forward such a view, Theaetetus would be in good company. In particular, this relativistic theory of truth was asserted by the great sophist Protagoras. As we saw in our previous episode on the sophists, Protagoras was famous for saying, “man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not.” Like Theaetetus’ definition of knowledge as perception, this “man is the measure” doctrine could be taken in a lot of different ways. But Socrates wants to take both claims as boiling down to relativism about truth. If I am the measure of whether the wind is warm, then there is nothing more to the wind’s being warm than its being warm for me, and not cold for me. The way things seem to me determines the way the wind is and isn’t - for me.

“But wait, there’s more: Socrates adds that Theatetus and Protagoras have another heavy-hitter on their side, namely the Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus. You might remember that when I talked about Heraclitus, I said that Plato portrays his illustrious predecessor as believing in a doctrine of total flux. That is, everything is constantly changing in every respect, and there is no stability in us or the world around us. The Theaetetus isn’t the only dialogue where Plato ascribes this view to Heraclitus, though it is the most famous example. But why does the flux doctrine go along with relativism about truth? This is a slightly complicated question, but the basic answer is that if Protagorean relativism is true, then the things in the world around us will have no stable natures from moment to moment. They will only be whatever they seem to be to various perceivers, and this is changing all the time, according to Heraclitus as he’s presented here. So on this view, it would turn out that nothing is cold, and nothing is warm; rather everything is always changing in every way. Actually it might be even worse than this: if we say that what is changing from warm to cold or vice-versa is both warm and cold, then the air will always be both warm and cold. It was with this in mind that Aristotle later accused Heraclitus of denying the principle of non-contradiction.

“These radical consequences of the flux doctrine give us plenty of reason for rejecting it. And, if buying into the relativist theory of truth means buying into the flux theory, then maybe we’ll give up on relativism as well. But Protagoras will try to persuade us that the relativist theory isn’t as implausible as it seems. If you’re interested in which things are good, then obviously what you’re interested in is which things are good for you. What would it even mean for something to be good, but not for you, or for anyone in particular? This, perhaps, connects the theory Plato is considering to the real historical Protagoras. He claimed to teach virtue, and may have supposed this was possible because the good is the advantageous, and that he could teach you how to get things you would consider to be advantageous, like political power. Whether Protagoras really held the radical epistemological theory that Plato ascribes to him here in the Theaetetus is of course another matter. But let’s leave that aside, and also leave aside the problems about flux, and just consider the problem of how to refute someone who adopts the relativist position on truth.”’

BBC World: Aurora Borealis over Dunvegan, Isle of Skye (Scotland)

22. Making Sense of It All

Google Images

Well, this is again wishful thinking, for I do wish I could help my readers find their way through ideas, and notions, and concepts, and lay everything neat and clean in a sentence. And the sentence would be as well-constructed and comprehensive as an aphorism. But aphorisms – principles expressed in just a few words – are sharply defined sentences relating to abstract truth. So far so good, but what is truth? And, if we really were able to define truth, would that be the truth, that is, only one? And then again, whose truth would that be – mine, yours, someone else’s? Who would lay claim of authorship upon that all-comprising sentence, and could it, for that matter, have an influence on the rest of the people? What kind of influence would that be, positive, or negative? Are positive and negative straightforward terms, or are they, too, liable of interpretation?

Google Images

No need to count the questions in the previous paragraph. There’s not even a shade of a doubt that others would emerge, following the same line of thought in pursuit of a pattern. The pattern. In the end, another affirmation finds its way in the argument: trying to keep such profound concepts from possible biased interpretations proves to be an insurmountable difficulty, for the more we try to unify our convictions, beliefs, and values, and make them produce harmony, the more elusive the outcome.

Google Images

Let’s take for granted that at least some of the readers of this post belong to that category whose natural tendency is to attain harmony in their lives. Whoever has undertaken the quest for harmony knows what it takes to find that state of steadiness and keep it despite the fluctuations of events occurring during their existence. Are we the only ones to doubt about our decisions, to seek the truth, to waver about the very values that have been transmitted to us through upbringing, institutionalized education, or about the theories we have adhered to along our lives? Surely not.  How many of us are in search of a role model, someone whose wisdom, inner balance, and strong will surpass our own and so are able to come to our rescue when we are in need of certainty – a voice that could show us the way?

René Magritte, La Recherche de l'Absolu

It seems that this happens to human beings precisely when they are called upon to face important events which demand a course of action. Indeed, only then do we realize that all that has already been experienced before; what’s needed then is either to try and find out on one’s own, or else listen to the voice of wisdom.

Kandinski, ParisArt

Harmony may take the form of the music of the spheres – an ancient philosophical concept that regards the movements of the Sun, the Moon, and the planets as mathematical relationships which express qualities or ‘tones' of energy manifesting through numbers, visual angles, shapes and sounds – all connected within a pattern of proportion. Pythagoras, the first man to call himself a philosopher, or lover of wisdom, identified that the pitch of a musical note is in proportion to the length of the string that produces it, and that intervals between harmonious sound frequencies form simple numerical ratios. Pythagorean ideas exercised a marked influence on Plato, and through him, on all of Western philosophy.

Plato's Theaetetus: the roots of knowledge

And so time has come to turn our gaze to philosophy for a while: it is highly probable that we will find answers to such problems as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Undoubtedly, the following video will bring more ideas to the fore, and will clarify them. They are all meant to introduce the domain of our special guest, to whose work I am looking forward to dedicating the next two posts.

21. [Brave] New World, [Same] Old Patterns

Google Images

Two yellowish strands wrapped around each other. The image of the DNA molecule (see ‘Lost for Words, Spoilt for Choice’) brought back a precious memory: the double helix staircase in the Castle of Chambord (Val de Loire) – most likely designed by Leonardo da Vinci. Déjà vu. The puzzlement you feel while realizing that, unless you go down the stairs again, you will never meet the ones who went up the other stairs. The dizziness overwhelming you while looking down into the stairwell’s vanishing point.

Google Images

And it’s all here, around us, from the bottom of the oceans to the nebulae in outer space.

Google Images

Would mankind evolve more quickly if someone were able to find The Pattern – that which is reproduced in so many natural phenomena from the atom to the Cosmos?  

But even if we cannot, we may hope that others – our children, or, for that matter, their children – will finally find it.

a model of da Vinci's staircase

But the time hasn’t come yet to leave the solid ground of scientific discourse. Writing one yourselves is always the best practice one can think of, so here’s the basis for writing an expository essay:

Being familiar with the conventions of essay writing is far from being sufficient in order to readily write it; first, it is only after a number of trials that the writer begins to feel the independence of his or her own creation, namely, the way the ideas follow each other in a logical succession; second, only by acquiring mobility in using synonymous words, phrases, and structures can the author be satisfied with the final version. So let’s take for granted that handling a fair amount of linguistic resources may be seen a potential skill in view of writing an essay (the first good one is the toughest to produce) and, while coming closer to reality, let’s revise the basic features, or key points, of essays.

·        Layout

Introductory paragraph which introduces the topic (in this case, Genetic Engineering);

Main body (a number of paragraphs containing the main points).

Concluding paragraph summarising the points you have made.

·        Preparation

Work out your ideas and write out an outline or plan in note form before you begin the essay.

·        Style

Google Images

Use formal vocabulary - avoid colloquialisms and slang. Avoid contractions and exclamations.

Use ‘objective language’ whenever possible – use passive forms, avoid extreme adjectives.

Do not use the personal pronoun ‘I’ unless the title specifically asks for your personal opinion/experience.

Always back up your points with reasons and examples.

Here is a model answer; there’s something wrong with it, though: some of the words are missing, and you must provide them yourself!

[Adapted from Distinction: English for Advanced Learners – Teacher’s book, by Mark Foley & Diane Hall]

In (1)… last few decades a new branch of Science, genetic engineering, has opened up new possibilities for medicine and health. These new possibilities are the result of biotechnology, (2)… allows scientists to interfere with and alter the biological processes of life itself. In genetic engineering, scientists can take strands of human DNA and copy and improve (3)… before putting them back in the body. Doctors are hoping (4)… this will lead to the ability to correct flaws and defects in the unborn child, a process known (5)… genetic therapy.

Genetically engineered drugs are now becoming available and can be used to combat many serious diseases. One of the (6)… exciting of these is an antibody which can be used (7)… fight cancer. Known as ‘magic bullets’, these substances will be able to carry radioactive drugs to the cancerous cells. Biotechnology (8)… also made it possible to use human insulin to treat diabetes, replacing the use of pigs as donors and thus reducing the risk of infection. (9)… example is IGF: within twenty years, doctors hope that this will be available to fight bone disease. One genetically engineered drug which is already (10)… trial is Interferon, which is being tested for use against arthritis.

Google Images

Scientists have also developed (11)… technique of using chemical proteins called enzymes to cut out the unwanted parts of the DNA. These can then be repaired and put (12)… into the body.

This opens up the possibility of identifying faulty genes (13)… unborn children and treating them (14)… they are still in the womb. The children would then be born free of all genetic defects (15)… as hereditary diseases, leading to a much healthier and longer life.

Of course, (16)… of these treatments can change our susceptibility to environmental factors such as diet and nutrition, and these (17)… continue to have a major effect on human health. (18)… is more, although biotechnology has succeeded in producing new and effective drugs, the possibility of interfering (19)… human genes is still the subject of ethical debate, and it may be many years before the techniques which are now theoretically possible become (20)… everyday reality.

Take a piece of paper and write down the missing words. Not until you finish should you

20. A Walk in Utopia (II)

Google Images

Times are changing, and now, looking back at Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, we have a right to ask ourselves how ‘science-fiction-like’ his science-fiction novel is; the society he portrayed back in 1932 as operating on the principles of mass production and Pavlovian conditioning must have been overlooked at the time because of the social and political unrest looming large in Europe: a radical revision of the world order was under way, which culminated with the global conflict we now know as WWII. 

Human Beings: how surprising an adventure to understand them, or, rather, to try to find the essence of their be-have-do patterns (see The haves and have-nots around us I). But let’s not jump to conclusions yet; for the time being you’ll agree that we can affirm at least this: once an idea is born inside a person’s mind there’s nothing to stop it from developing. How else could we grasp the meaning of genetic engineering if not by considering the attempts on behalf of generations of scientists at discovering the secret of life?

Google Images: Genetic geneOlogy

So, why look into the DNA structure? Well, because it’s there!

The article you’ve read in the previous post speaks about exactly that: the adventure of looking into things. Surely, it’s not new anymore, for it was written some time before 1993, and what was then considered as theoretically possible (see article in A Walk in Utopia I) has developed into fact (history) and (still) [science-]fiction.

Whether the manipulation of human genes is meant for healing wounds (1j), treating pancreas dysfunction (2e), bone disease (4a), or preventing heart attack (5l), the underlying concept is the same: medical magic bullets directed to specific targets with a view to helping the organism against strokes (6h), lung cancer (7k), or diabetes (8d). But there’s no denying that prevention is better than cure, and this may well be the turning point in scientific research: the future is now, for the proceedings of biotechnology are supposed to advise on genetic therapy which, in turn, may give us super-babies (9b), bring about a Revolution (10i) in body information storage, correct inherited defects by means of drugs (11g) – all in all, lead to a complete understanding of disease (12c).

Google Images

 

It’s high time we listened to the expert: here’s Craig Venter, the one scientist under whose supervision the human genome was decoded, and his programme ‘A Voyage of DNA, genes, and the sea':

Craig Venter's "voyage"

Now after watching Craig Venter’s film, and in the light of the advances of biotechnology mentioned in the article, the question arises: what advantages and disadvantages do you see to genetic engineering? Give examples of its uses, and try to draw the line between fiction and non-fiction yourself. Your comments will be, as always, welcome!