Superstition; or Why We Must Not be Pigeons

A psychological study (Skinner '48) showed that pigeons developed superstitions when food was released to them at random intervals. They ended up perfoming any number of actions that they were doing when the food was released in the belief that they had some sort of control over the process. Tellingly, it took a lot more 'failures' to stop the behaviours than 'successes' to create them.

The internet has brought access to the world's accumulated knowledge into the home, and we should be witnessing a dismantling of the superstitions that we'd built in harder, more ignorant times. Sadly, we are physiologically flawed and must make real efforts to overcome our inherent tendency to cling to comfortable fallacies. Logic seldom triumphs over emotion and belief.

One of our peculiarities is to search for an eternal and all-powerful father figure. Children at around 4 become resigned to their own limitations, and clutch to authority figures in their life doling out justice on their behalf. They will inform liberally on the actions of others that they judge to be 'bad' and recommend appropriate punishments. If something goes wrong, it is to these shining knights that they rush to. But even they fall short eventually.

The idea that we alone stamp our notions of 'right and wrong' onto an uncaring universe whose sublime size and timescales dwarf us and everything we'll ever do into insignificance isn't a particularly pleasant one. It does liberate our actions if we do not hide from this reality behind fantasies. Nietzsche announced the death of God, the concept underpinning our societies and moral codes, over a century ago. Our shared ethics and beliefs have yet to unravel however, and it seems that religious uptake is actually rising. 

Simultaneously, unproven and unprovable discourse continues to billow forth from individuals worldwide to the general acceptance of ostensibly educated audiences. Most of this is harmless; but all of it should be refuted. Here's the grain of sand that initiated this post; 

'The Pillow Book: put a book by, or about, one of your mentors, or the subject you are interested in, under your pillow. Occultists and energy practitoners believe that everything resonates with energy and information. To them words are actually living things and by sleeping with the book under your pillow you can absorb, contact, mingle with the energy and information in that book.'

I would love to believe that this is true. It would certainly make studying somewhat easier. But I don't have any faith that I would perfom any better in an objective test on the book's information, even if I slept with it under my pillow for a decade.

Likewise I have the same disdain for homeopathy treatments that use water which supposedly retains a 'memory' of a highly diluted active ingredient; which is often found in greater concentrations in tap water.  Expensive and repeatedly proved to be no more effective than a placebo in controlled, unbiased tests, we see the same 'pigeons', pecking and flapping, for a miracle that will not happen.

It could be argued that beliefs should be in someway sacred if they are useful to the person who harbours them. Some of the strongest, most content people that I know put their faith in something that only faith can stand for. Likewise, perhaps if anecdotal evidence shows repeatedly that an unexplainable practice is valuable it should be left alone for those whom it benefits. 

This is weakness and selfishness. Beliefs held by the individual should be routed up and examined by the society wherever they are found. If there is substance in them, then they should be probed and adopted, upheaving and superceding previously established 'facts' if necessary. 'Science' should not be immune either, tinged as it occasionally is with funding concerns and political bias. 

The comfort of the individual should be seen only from the ship of society. We are all too easily lulled into believing the 'saving lie'. The Dark Ages are as close as allowing the prevailing discourse to become poisoned with prevarication. We must not fall into the trap of giving equal value to comforting, popular ideas based on nothing but 'faith' as the horrible, minority-held truths uncovered by individuals searching for verifiable facts. It is truth that will drive us forward; and it is lies that will drag us back.

Say What? Wikileaks publishes US diplomatic cables, and Julian Assange wanted for alleged Swedish sex crimes.

This week has seen the release of confidential US Embassy cables by the website, Wikileaks. How terribly exciting. US diplomats forewarned countries worldwide, the site came under several DoS attacks, and the move has been lauded and condemned in relatively equal measure.

Have we been lied to then? Not really. It is reassuring that in the main, the candid assessments by American diplomats land well within our expectations and, with a pinch, also within the implied area cast by official diplomatic announcements. Much of the Arab world worries about Iran, and has prompted the US to act. The US hasn't. We're all worried about the safety of Pakistan's nuclear facilities based on that country's challenges.

Nothing has so far knocked us for six. But this does not mean that these cables can be discussed briefly and forgotten. Unfinished as many assessments were, they have provided us with a candid, agenda-free picture of how the world appears to Americans in country. In itself, this is a valuable historical record from a prevailing discourse.

We have been treated to a fleshing-out of facts. Kant believed that to show due respect to humans as rational, moral agents, the truth must be told, allowing them to act as they see fit with any available facts. This appears to us to be a uniquely philosophical perspective. ‘No darling, you look wonderful tonight...’

In reality, it is obvious that it takes a lot of digging to uncover a whole truth. While actual lying seems rare, massaging of figures and important omissions are commonplace. This is why Wikileaks disturbs us. Here are the ostensible facts, free in so many senses of the word, for us to do with as we please. We will doubtless do nothing. Criticised leaders condemn the act of unauthorised dissemination; the public tut over supper.

But this cynical view, so typically British in its sense of inevitability, is increasingly challenged. The Iraq and Afghanistan war leaks led to real concern and proper inquiries. This new release will again raise important questions, and despite Palin’s politically expedient fury, the outing of truth is important, and appears to have been done with the mitigation of the very real risk of losses directly due to disclosures borne in mind.

Technology has allowed this. Downloading thousands of documents onto a USB stick is considerably easier than photocopying them; propagating them online is easier than having them printed. The internet has changed everything. Wikileaks has been set up in such a way to circumvent national jurisdictions. This allows them to publish what could not be mentioned in a ‘free’ press. Interested parties ought to take note of the D-notice served to the UK media establishments and read the original cables online.

This is not to assume that anything published on this extraordinary ‘free’ platform is true, or even complete. There is something of Baudrillard’s Hyperreal in the project; the single, unbiased form of truth, outshining all others. Are we to imagine that among such leaks the lack of really damaging disclosures that would actually change anything can be expected? Putin has voiced concerns; so have others.

This is not to detract from the mission embarked upon by the Wikileaks team. With little support, they have used their platform to inform on the goings-on of so many murky areas off-limits or unknown to battalions of journalists and bloggers. Their scope surpasses that of the citizen journalism seen on Twitter during the Iranian elections.

Chief among them is the Australian Julian Assange who, in a rather well-timed move, has been forced into hiding in the UK after Swedish rape allegations. I doubt many people believe the charges. Some will be glad that something is being done to put pressure on him; others will sigh at the blatancy of the attempt to stifle him after traditional channels of law proved unfit for the digital age.

Others may amusingly point out that the Australians have always been keen on the beautiful Swedes, and it’s again convenient that the majority of the world is gunning for him, guilty or not. Perhaps ‘gunning’ may be too far a double-entendre here.

In any case, long may it last. The real problems are elsewhere, powerful tides and currents compared to choppy waves. Floating on our rafts, we’ll worry about the latter, but be moved by the former. It makes interesting reading, and has something of that illicit thrill of blundering through a door marked Private. But no, ‘humankind cannot bear very much reality’ and we shall soon see the World, who has momentarily sat up to pay attention, slump back down into a lukewarm diet of digital distraction, happiness and woe. More leaks please!