Rational Philosophy

The psychology and philosophy of familiarity.

My new baby was born last Friday. My four year old son was born on a Friday, too. And so was I. My mother noted the coincidence. I like coincidences even though rationally I don’t believe they signify anything.

Stephanie Rosenbloom writes in the NY Times about an odd phenomenon — that people identify with people and things that remind them of themselves. Research has shown that, for instance, people with the name Virginia tend to be more likely to move to Virginia (36% more likely than those not named Virginia). “It’s what we call implicit egotism,” says Dr. Pelham, a writer and researcher for the Gallup Organization. “We’ve shown time and time again that people are attracted to people, places and things that resemble their names, without a doubt.” The same effect revealed itself in those who contributed to Bush versus Gore — more Bs for Bush, more Gs for Gore. (Maybe the Democrats should investigate whether more registered independents in the US have surnames that start with an O or with a C…)

This associative effect seems curious but ultimately uninteresting until we dig a little deeper. I wasn’t convinced by Pelham’s easy conclusion that we can chalk this up to implicit egotism. Evolution, it seems to me, wires us to make associations. Making associations helps us connect parallel or related ideas and concepts. If we weren’t wired to make associations, we’d have a much tougher time grappling with abstraction and comparison.

As a case in point, researchers have created a drug that seems to be able to block the lethal effects of radiation by mimicking the action of cancer cells. Andrei Gudkov, of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, led development of the drug (code-named CBLB502). Once Gudkov and his team realized that radiation kills because of an effect called apoptosis — by which reparable cells die off because they have been damaged — they made the association with the actions of cancer. Cancers block apoptosis so that they can replicate. Gukov’s team developed a drug that mimics the malignant trick of cancer cells to block apoptosis for those exposed to radiation, thereby protecting them from cell death.

As with many of the traits that evolution bestows, the mental process of association has pluses and minuses. We have the wonderful, valuable power of association that permits us to draw analogies, extrapolate new ideas, and investigate and solve problems. But we associate even when the association is purely coincidental and signifies nothing. (An extreme example may be obsessive compulsive disorder by which people associate sets of activities or combinations of signifiers with good or bad outcomes.) Looking for one’s Googleganger is a mild side effect, as is the self-satisfaction with the idea that one and one’s sons were all born on the same day of the week.

Applying logic to the tricky problems of bodega cats, cancer stem cells, and administrative evasion on torture tapes.

The NY Times reports that perhaps the most successful way for bodegas and convenience stores to keep mice and rats away is for them to keep a cat. The only problem being that city health inspectors regard the presence of any animal — cat or rat — as a violation (the same fines apply). As José Fernández, the president of the Bodega Association of the United States, so elegantly puts it: “It’s hard for bodega owners because they’re not supposed to have a cat, but they’re also not supposed to have rats.”

Another Times report — this one on the role of cancer stem cells in cancer malignancy — reveals that scientists disagree on whether research treatments targeting cancer stem cells is scientifically and financially warranted. The Times quotes Dr. Scott E. Kern, a leading pancreatic cancer researcher at Johns Hopkins University, as saying that the hypothesis that cancer stem cells play a pivotol role in malignancy is more akin to religion than to science. Ouch. If the treatment research doesn’t get done, we may never know whether targeting cancer stem cells can help patients live longer. If the research does get done, other more viable approaches may be overlooked or delayed.

And the judge who, in 2005, ordered the preservation of documents concerning the “torture, treatment and abuse” of Guantanamo Bay prisoners, has refused to order a hearing on the destruction of the now infamous CIA interrogation tapes, instead taking the matter under advisement. According to the Times, government lawyers argue, in part, that Judge Kennedy’s order may not cover the detainees in question, since the order applied only to those who were indisputably at Guantanamo Bay on June 10, and there is a question about the whereabouts of at least some of the detainees on that date… So, presumably the government knows where the detainees were, but won’t reveal that information, and therefore this casts doubt on the question which likewise casts doubt on the applicability of the order, which means that the government can avoid a hearing.

Do these problems yield to logic? Let’s see.

On cats versus rats: When I walk into a convenience store and see a cat, I know what I’m getting. I can, if I’m leaning toward the health-inspector’s way of thinking, turn around and walk out. If I don’t see a cat, I may or may not see evidence of mice and rats; but, having read the article, I’m inclined to think that I would be foolish to assume that the store is free of mice and rats. As a consumer then, I’d say that I’m logically in favor of store-owners keeping cats. As a store-owner, since my customers would favor it, I would favor it and pay the fines if they came. (I’d be foolish to go against my customers’ wishes.) This also keeps the pressure up on the city to reexamine its stance on cats in corner stores. Are they really as potentially harmful to the public health as rats and mice?

On researching cancer stem cell treatments: This one seems very simple. There are two logical possibilities. Treatments that target cancer stem cells may benefit patients… or they may not. Pursuing such treatments is logical so long as this doesn’t jeopardize or seriously inhibit more promising treatments. Bypassing such research is illogical unless it can be shown that the research is to all intents and purposes unproductive. Showing that something related to cancer research is unproductive strikes me as a difficult and wasteful exercise. The logical answer seems to be to perform the research but do so prudently.

On ordering a hearing on the destruction of the CIA tapes: First order a hearing on the whereabouts of the detainees on June 10, 2005. This will answer the question of whether the order applies to any of the detainees. Then, if the detainees were at Guantanamo, order a hearing on the destruction of the tapes. Or, if the detainees were not at Guantanamo, order a hearing on the removal of the detainees from Guantanamo. Repeat ad infinitum.

For a rational, science-based explanation of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.