scientificamerican--2020-10-19--Rogue Rocky Planet Found Adrift in the Milky Way

Not all planets orbit stars .
Some are instead “ free-floating ” rogues adrift in interstellar space after being ejected from their home systems .
For decades astronomers have sought to study such elusive outcasts , hoping to find patterns in their size and number that could reveal otherwise hidden details of how planetary systems emerge and evolve .
Of the handful known so far , most free floaters have been massive gas giants , but now researchers may have found one small enough to be rocky—smaller even than Earth .
If its rogue status is confirmed , the roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free-floating planet ever seen .
Yet finding such small worlds could soon become routine , thanks to NASA ’ s upcoming Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope , set to launch in the mid-2020s .
Most planet-hunting methods rely on observing subtle changes in a star ’ s light to discern any orbiting companions .
But free-floating worlds , of course , have no star .
Instead astronomers use a quirk of Einstein ’ s general theory of relativity to locate these lost planets : All massive objects warp spacetime around themselves , similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rubber sheet , and can act as lenses to magnify far-distant sources .
When a “ lensing ” foreground planet is properly aligned with a background star , it amplifies that star ’ s light , causing a slight brightening .
This technique is known as microlensing , and astronomers first pioneered it to find black holes .
Of the approximately 100 worlds found to date by microlensing , only four have been identified as free-floating .
All the rest are planets that spin around their stars on orbits that are stretched out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through other standard planet-hunting techniques .
It is possible that the newfound wee world , known as OGLE-2016-BLG-1928 , could be attached to a star .
But if so , its orbit would place it at least eight times as far from its stellar host as the Earth is from the sun .
Confirming the planet ’ s likely free-floating status will require a few more years—time enough for any potential parent star , should it exist , to shift its position so that its light can be separated from that of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really a very exciting result , ” says Andrew Gould , an astronomer at the Ohio State University and an author of the preprint paper describing the result .
That study , which was led by Przemek Mróz of the California Institute of Technology , has been submitted to Astrophysical Journal Letters , where it is currently under review .
“ It ’ s a huge milestone to get this planet , ” Gould adds .
“ This is a very robust result and almost certainly a low-mass planet , ” says astronomer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is leading the science team working to determine the best observing strategy for NASA ’ s Roman telescope and was not part of the group that found the new world .
“ This gives us the first little peek at the likely distribution of a population of Earth-mass planets in the galaxy , ” he says .
Most planets form from the gas and dust left over after a star is born .
Under the leading planetary formation model , called core accretion , the gas and dust gradually and incrementally combine to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coalesce into planets .
A competing theory , disk instability , instead proposes that small segments of the disk rapidly collapse to form planets , and it favors the creation of larger worlds over smaller rocky ones .
Not all planets in a family get along .
Gas giants can act as bullies , flinging their smaller siblings into elongated orbits or tossing them out of their system completely .
These ejected worlds may continue to fly through space on their own as free-floating planets .
The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment ( OGLE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1992 for the faint stellar flickers caused by microlensing events .
But the new world was not spotted until Mróz and his colleagues reviewed some of OGLE ’ s archival data .
By combining OGLE ’ s results with contemporaneous observations from the Korea Microlensing Telescope Network , as well as data from the European Space Agency ’ s Milky Way–mapping Gaia satellite , the team was able to better estimate properties useful for gauging the putative free-floating planet ’ s mass , such as the distance between the world and the background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pegged the world ’ s mass at somewhere between that of Mars and Earth—making it one of the smallest objects ever found by microlensing .
“ It ’ s really at the hairy edge of what we can do , ” Gaudi says .
This discovery hints that rocky worlds are common in the space between stars .
Detecting something like this at the limits of astronomers ’ current capabilities suggests OGLE was either incredibly lucky or that small free-floating planets wander the Milky Way in astronomical abundance .
The discovery of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objects do , in fact , exist , whereas before they were only theorized .
And as more low-mass drifters are found , they can help scientists narrow down how worlds are born .
Core accretion models suggest planets should form in bunches , while a star might form a single world under disk instability .
Because of their isolation , single-world systems would have no planets to eject .
If astronomers find very few free-floating worlds as technology improves , disk instability might gain stronger support as the dominant mode of planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finding terrestrial worlds drifting through deep space provides more support for the core accretion model .
“ It ’ s very difficult to form such low-mass planets ” under disk instability says Wei Zhu , a research associate at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics , who was not part of the new discovery .
The newfound drifter instead provides strong support for the core accretion model .
“ That ’ s a good sign , ” he says .
But ejection caused by planetary interactions is not the only way to wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which theorists will have to take into account in their studies .
Most stars form in clusters , surrounded by their own stellar siblings , and they might be much better at sharing than planets are .
Worlds in the outskirts of their system could be pulled away completely by the gravity of a passing star , either joining that other star ’ s collection of planets or being tossed aside into space .
Some castaway worlds may even find themselves bouncing from star to star , attaching to and being stripped from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re basically Ping-Pong planets , ” says Susanne Pfalzner , an astronomer at the Jülich Research Center in Germany , who was not part of Mróz ’ s team .
Beyond its potential implications for planet-formation models , the newfound rogue planet is already having an effect on astronomers ’ plans for future missions .
According to Gaudi , it strengthens the case for changing Roman ’ s survey strategy .
The OGLE observations only utilized a single light filter , but two different filters can help to disentangle the source star @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stellar properties that help determine the mass of the free-floating planet .
Roman originally planned to focus most of its observations on a single filter , only occasionally switching to a second , but Gaudi says the new study is making the planning team reinvestigate whether more two-filter observations would be worth the reduction in data quality that would occur .
Regardless , current best-guess projections suggest Roman should reveal more than 200 free-floating Mars-sized planets—enough to potentially determine whether most are products of planetary interactions or of stellar encounters in clusters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gould is skeptical that Roman will detect sufficient numbers of small worlds to robustly discern between these two possibilities , but he remains sanguine about the future observatory ’ s transformative effects .
“ Roman will find more free-floating planets at a higher rate than we are finding today , ” he says .
“ It ’ s going to be a huge leap .
”

Not all planets orbit stars. Some are instead “free-floating” rogues adrift in interstellar space after being ejected from their home systems. For decades astronomers have sought to study such elusive outcasts, hoping to find patterns in their size and number that could reveal otherwise hidden details of how planetary systems emerge and evolve.
Of the handful known so far, most free floaters have been massive gas giants, but now researchers may have found one small enough to be rocky—smaller even than Earth. If its rogue status is confirmed, the roughly Mars-to-Earth-mass object would be the most diminutive free-floating planet ever seen. Yet finding such small worlds could soon become routine, thanks to NASA’s upcoming Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, set to launch in the mid-2020s.
Most planet-hunting methods rely on observing subtle changes in a star’s light to discern any orbiting companions. But free-floating worlds, of course, have no star. Instead astronomers use a quirk of Einstein’s general theory of relativity to locate these lost planets: All massive objects warp spacetime around themselves, similar to how a bowling ball stretches a rubber sheet, and can act as lenses to magnify far-distant sources. When a “lensing” foreground planet is properly aligned with a background star, it amplifies that star’s light, causing a slight brightening. This technique is known as microlensing, and astronomers first pioneered it to find black holes.
Of the approximately 100 worlds found to date by microlensing, only four have been identified as free-floating. All the rest are planets that spin around their stars on orbits that are stretched out so long that they typically elude detection through other standard planet-hunting techniques. It is possible that the newfound wee world, known as OGLE-2016-BLG-1928, could be attached to a star. But if so, its orbit would place it at least eight times as far from its stellar host as the Earth is from the sun. Confirming the planet’s likely free-floating status will require a few more years—time enough for any potential parent star, should it exist, to shift its position so that its light can be separated from that of the background star.
“It’s really a very exciting result,” says Andrew Gould, an astronomer at the Ohio State University and an author of the preprint paper describing the result. That study, which was led by Przemek Mróz of the California Institute of Technology, has been submitted to Astrophysical Journal Letters, where it is currently under review. “It’s a huge milestone to get this planet,” Gould adds.
“This is a very robust result and almost certainly a low-mass planet,” says astronomer Scott Gaudi of Ohio State, who is leading the science team working to determine the best observing strategy for NASA’s Roman telescope and was not part of the group that found the new world. “This gives us the first little peek at the likely distribution of a population of Earth-mass planets in the galaxy,” he says.
At the “Hairy Edge”
Most planets form from the gas and dust left over after a star is born. Under the leading planetary formation model, called core accretion, the gas and dust gradually and incrementally combine to form larger and larger pieces that eventually coalesce into planets. A competing theory, disk instability, instead proposes that small segments of the disk rapidly collapse to form planets, and it favors the creation of larger worlds over smaller rocky ones.
Not all planets in a family get along. Gas giants can act as bullies, flinging their smaller siblings into elongated orbits or tossing them out of their system completely. These ejected worlds may continue to fly through space on their own as free-floating planets.
The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE) has been scanning the skies for the faint stellar flickers caused by microlensing events since 1992. But the new world was not spotted until Mróz and his colleagues reviewed some of OGLE’s archival data. By combining OGLE’s results with contemporaneous observations from the Korea Microlensing Telescope Network, as well as data from the European Space Agency’s Milky Way–mapping Gaia satellite, the team was able to better estimate properties useful for gauging the putative free-floating planet’s mass, such as the distance between the world and the background star. Mróz and his colleagues ultimately pegged the world’s mass at somewhere between that of Mars and Earth—making it one of the smallest objects ever found by microlensing.
“It’s really at the hairy edge of what we can do,” Gaudi says.
Probing Planetary Formation
This discovery hints that rocky worlds are common in the space between stars. Detecting something like this at the limits of astronomers’ current capabilities suggests OGLE was either incredibly lucky or that small free-floating planets wander the Milky Way in astronomical abundance.
The discovery of a single free-floating terrestrial planet demonstrates that such objects do, in fact, exist, whereas before they were only theorized. And as more low-mass drifters are found, they can help scientists narrow down how worlds are born. Core accretion models suggest planets should form in bunches, while a star might form a single world under disk instability. Because of their isolation, single-world systems would have no planets to eject. If astronomers find very few free-floating worlds as technology improves, disk instability might gain stronger support as the dominant mode of planet formation. At the same time, finding terrestrial worlds drifting through deep space provides more support for the core accretion model. “It’s very difficult to form such low-mass planets” under disk instability says Wei Zhu, a research associate at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, who was not part of the new discovery. The newfound drifter instead provides strong support for the core accretion model. “That’s a good sign,” he says.
But ejection caused by planetary interactions is not the only way to wind up with worlds flying through stars, which theorists will have to take into account in their studies. Most stars form in clusters, surrounded by their own stellar siblings, and they might be much better at sharing than planets are. Worlds in the outskirts of their system could be pulled away completely by the gravity of a passing star, either joining that other star’s collection of planets or being tossed aside into space. Some castaway worlds may even find themselves bouncing from star to star, attaching to and being stripped from one sun after another. “They’re basically Ping-Pong planets,” says Susanne Pfalzner, an astronomer at the Jülich Research Center in Germany, who was not part of Mróz’s team.
Beyond its potential implications for planet-formation models, the newfound rogue planet is already having an effect on astronomers’ plans for future missions. According to Gaudi, it strengthens the case for changing Roman’s survey strategy. The OGLE observations only utilized a single light filter, but two different filters can help to disentangle the source star more easily, making stronger measurements of the stellar properties that help determine the mass of the free-floating planet. Roman originally planned to focus most of its observations on a single filter, only occasionally switching to a second, but Gaudi says the new study is making the planning team reinvestigate whether more two-filter observations would be worth the reduction in data quality that would occur.
Regardless, current best-guess projections suggest Roman should reveal more than 200 free-floating Mars-sized planets—enough to potentially determine whether most are products of planetary interactions or of stellar encounters in clusters, Zhu says. In contrast, Gould is skeptical that Roman will detect sufficient numbers of small worlds to robustly discern between these two possibilities, but he remains sanguine about the future observatory’s transformative effects.
“Roman will find more free-floating planets at a higher rate than we are finding today,” he says. “It’s going to be a huge leap.”


scientificamerican--2020-10-18--3,000-Year-Old Orbs Provide a Glimpse of Ancient Sport

Ballgames are a big source of modern amusement , even amid the pandemic .
But they 're nothing new .
Consider for instance a 4,500-year-old linen ball found in a child 's tomb in Egypt .
Or 3,600-year-old rubber balls , from Central America—where the contest called for players to slam the ball with their hips .
Now , researchers have pinned a date on what they say are the oldest sporting balls in Europe or Asia—three spheres , dug up from the tombs of horsemen in the deserts of northwestern China , and crafted three millennia ago .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some sort of bat and ball game . ''
Patrick Wertmann is an archeologist at the University of Zurich , and part of the team that analyzed the ancient sporting equipment .
The balls are about three inches in diameter , wrapped in rawhide leather , and stuffed with leather strips and hair .
`` And then also when you look at the Chinese character of ball itself , it 's quite interesting because this character is made up of the ideograms of hair and leather . ''
The details , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Journal of Archaeological Science : Reports .
[ Patrick Wertmann et al , New evidence for ball games in Eurasia from ca .
3000-year-old Yanghai tombs in the Turfan depression of Northwest China ] As for how this ancient ball and stick game was played ?
`` It could be something like polo… but it could also be something like an early form of hockey or golf .
Since we do n't have any textural evidence and we do n't have any sticks from the same period , we do n't really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sport , Wertmann and his colleagues write that a ballgame of any kind would have provided excellent exercise—and military training , too .
[ The above text is a transcript of this podcast . ]

Full Transcript
Three leather balls with diameters between 7.4 and 9.2 cm are between 3200 and 2900 years old. Credit: (Picture: UZH)
Ball games are a big source of modern amusement, even amid the pandemic. But they’re nothing new. Consider, for instance, a 4,500-year-old linen ball found in a child’s tomb in Egypt or 3,600-year-old rubber balls from Central America—where the contest called for players to slam the ball with their hips.
Now researchers have pinned a date on what they say are the oldest sporting balls in Europe or Asia: three spheres, dug up from the tombs of horsemen in the deserts of northwestern China and crafted three millennia ago.
“We are quite sure they were used in some sort of bat-and-ball game.”
Patrick Wertmann is an archeologist at the University of Zurich and part of the team that analyzed the ancient sporting equipment. The balls are about three inches in diameter, wrapped in rawhide leather, and stuffed with leather strips and hair.
“And then, also, when you look at the Chinese character of ball itself, it’s quite interesting because this character is made up of the ideograms of hair and leather.”
The details and photos of the balls appear in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. [Patrick Wertmann et al., New evidence for ball games in Eurasia from ca. 3000-year-old Yanghai tombs in the Turfan depression of Northwest China]
As for how this ancient ball-and-stick game was played?
“It could be something like polo. But it could also be something like an early form of hockey or golf. Since we don’t have any textural evidence, and we don’t have any sticks from the same period, we don’t really know exactly.”
Regardless of the sport, Wertmann and his colleagues write that a ball game of any kind would have provided excellent exercise—and military training, too.
—Christopher Intagliata
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-10-19--If Past Is a Guide, Arctic Could Be Verging on Permafrost Collapse

Buried in frozen soil across the Arctic , billions of tons of carbon lies trapped in the ground .
Just a few degrees of warming could unleash it into the atmosphere .
At least , that ’ s what the past would suggest .
According to a new study , it ’ s happened before .
The research , published Friday in the journal Science Advances , looks back 27,000 years into Arctic history .
On at least three occasions , the study finds , periods of rapid climate change caused huge swaths of permafrost—a layer of carbon-rich frozen soil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collapse .
As a result , huge volumes of carbon dioxide poured into the air .
Today , the planet is once again enduring a period of rapid climate change—this time caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases .
In fact , research suggests , the Earth is warming at one of its fastest rates in millions of years .
If the past is any lesson for the future , that could mean a little more warming may trigger yet another massive destabilization of Arctic permafrost .
It ’ s a red flag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Arctic temperatures rise , permafrost begins to warm up .
And as it thaws out , it releases carbon dioxide and methane into the air .
Researchers have warned repeatedly that these emissions could speed the pace of climate change .
That could lead to a dangerous runaway feedback cycle , in which more warming causes more permafrost to thaw and release even more carbon into the air .
Just how fast that might happen is still a matter of debate .
Multiple studies have documented widespread warming and thawing in permafrost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still are working to determine how quickly permafrost may respond to future climate warming and how much carbon it will release in the process .
That makes permafrost something of a wild card in climate research—a major uncertainty in scientists ’ predictions about future climate change .
The new study suggests rapid climate change—even just a few degrees of warming—could trigger dramatic bursts of carbon from the thawing Arctic .
The scientists used data from ancient sediments , drilled from the bottom of the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia , where they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By conducting careful chemical analyses of these sediments , the scientists were able to document changes in the amount of organic matter flowing into the ocean from collapsing permafrost landscapes .
Thanks to similar studies , also relying on analyses of long-buried sediments and ancient ice samples , scientists have a good idea of what was going on with the Earth ’ s climate and its carbon dioxide levels thousands of years ago .
The study suggests that three distinct periods of rapid climate change over the past 27,000 years each coincided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landscapes .
Rising temperatures were likely a big part of it .
As the climate warmed , permafrost would have begun to thaw out and soften , sending mushy rivers of sludge pouring into the sea and releasing carbon into the air .
But that ’ s not the whole story .
The researchers believe that rising sea levels , fueled by warming oceans and melting glaciers , also played a big role .
Rising oceans severely eroded much of the Arctic coastline during at least two of these warming events , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused large tracts of frozen permafrost to abruptly collapse into the sea .
The study doesn ’ t necessarily guarantee what happened in the past will happen again in the future .
But it does warn it ’ s a possibility .
And it ’ s a growing concern as world leaders struggle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement .
Scientists say the world is on track to warm by several degrees before the end of the century if carbon emissions don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release from thawing permafrost means that there is even less room for anthropogenic greenhouse gas release in the Earth-climate system budget before dangerous thresholds are reached , ” Örjan Gustafsson , a scientist at Stockholm University and a co-author of the study , said in a statement .
“ The only way to limit permafrost-related greenhouse gas releases is to mitigate climate warming by lowering anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
” Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news @ @ @

Buried in frozen soil across the Arctic, billions of tons of carbon lies trapped in the ground. Just a few degrees of warming could unleash it into the atmosphere.
At least, that’s what the past would suggest. According to a new study, it’s happened before.
The research, published Friday in the journal Science Advances, looks back 27,000 years into Arctic history. On at least three occasions, the study finds, periods of rapid climate change caused huge swaths of permafrost—a layer of carbon-rich frozen soil widespread in the Arctic—to quickly thaw or collapse.
As a result, huge volumes of carbon dioxide poured into the air.
Today, the planet is once again enduring a period of rapid climate change—this time caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. In fact, research suggests, the Earth is warming at one of its fastest rates in millions of years.
If the past is any lesson for the future, that could mean a little more warming may trigger yet another massive destabilization of Arctic permafrost.
It’s a red flag scientists have been waving for years.
As Arctic temperatures rise, permafrost begins to warm up. And as it thaws out, it releases carbon dioxide and methane into the air.
Researchers have warned repeatedly that these emissions could speed the pace of climate change. That could lead to a dangerous runaway feedback cycle, in which more warming causes more permafrost to thaw and release even more carbon into the air.
Just how fast that might happen is still a matter of debate.
Multiple studies have documented widespread warming and thawing in permafrost regions across the Arctic. But researchers still are working to determine how quickly permafrost may respond to future climate warming and how much carbon it will release in the process.
That makes permafrost something of a wild card in climate research—a major uncertainty in scientists’ predictions about future climate change.
The new study suggests rapid climate change—even just a few degrees of warming—could trigger dramatic bursts of carbon from the thawing Arctic.
The scientists used data from ancient sediments, drilled from the bottom of the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia, where they’d been buried for thousands of years. By conducting careful chemical analyses of these sediments, the scientists were able to document changes in the amount of organic matter flowing into the ocean from collapsing permafrost landscapes.
Thanks to similar studies, also relying on analyses of long-buried sediments and ancient ice samples, scientists have a good idea of what was going on with the Earth’s climate and its carbon dioxide levels thousands of years ago.
The study suggests that three distinct periods of rapid climate change over the past 27,000 years each coincided with massive thawing and collapsing on permafrost landscapes.
Rising temperatures were likely a big part of it. As the climate warmed, permafrost would have begun to thaw out and soften, sending mushy rivers of sludge pouring into the sea and releasing carbon into the air.
But that’s not the whole story. The researchers believe that rising sea levels, fueled by warming oceans and melting glaciers, also played a big role.
Rising oceans severely eroded much of the Arctic coastline during at least two of these warming events, the study suggests. The rapid erosion likely caused large tracts of frozen permafrost to abruptly collapse into the sea.
The study doesn’t necessarily guarantee what happened in the past will happen again in the future. But it does warn it’s a possibility.
And it’s a growing concern as world leaders struggle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement. Scientists say the world is on track to warm by several degrees before the end of the century if carbon emissions don’t start falling faster.
“Any release from thawing permafrost means that there is even less room for anthropogenic greenhouse gas release in the Earth-climate system budget before dangerous thresholds are reached,” Örjan Gustafsson, a scientist at Stockholm University and a co-author of the study, said in a statement.
“The only way to limit permafrost-related greenhouse gas releases is to mitigate climate warming by lowering anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-10-19--America's Last Line of Defense for a Safe Vaccine

When the Food and Drug Administration ran into White House resistance to its proposed vaccine safety standards in early October , the agency took a bold step : It published the guidance on its Web site .
The public could now see what vaccine manufacturers and the FDA ’ s own independent advisory panel would require to ensure a longer , scientifically rigorous process .
The two public health agencies responsible for overseeing the approval , distribution and use of a coronavirus vaccine—the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—have been undermined and politicized .
The FDA ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coronavirus vaccine did finally clear the White House , but the well-publicized resistance has further undermined public trust in Operation Warp Speed just as the United States inches toward a viable vaccine .
At a time when trust should be growing , the opposite is happening .
What should give Americans hope , however , is that both the FDA and the CDC have a last line of defense when it comes to approval and distribution of a vaccine : panels of outside experts who now merit the nation ’ s attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the days ahead , either of these independent bodies are sidelined , ignored or in any way circumvented , a red line will have been crossed , and the safety and/or efficacy of a coronavirus vaccine can reasonably be questioned .
For the CDC , it ’ s the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices , or ACIP , which next meets October 28–30 .
We each served terms on this committee at different times , and neither of us ever felt any political pressure during our tenures .
The FDA equivalent is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or VRBPAC , which next meets October 22 .
Most Americans have never heard of either .
These panels of health experts , with expertise in vaccinology , immunology , pediatrics , internal medicine , infectious diseases and preventive medicine , among other disciplines , have been studying and assessing the myriad coronavirus vaccines under consideration .
Each has been scouring data from phase I and phase II trials , and now are awaiting phase III data about some of the most promising vaccines in development .
The advisory panels operate with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , often in real time via livestream , to their discussions and discoveries , and public records document their work .
The 15 voting members on each advisory committee all undergo conflict-of-interest reviews , with annual filings to safeguard compliance .
Vaccine interests and financial attachments are disclosed , and members must recuse themselves from related votes .
Whether for a coronavirus vaccine or other vaccines , these panels make recommendations as to whether a vaccine is safe , efficacious and ready to be licensed ( FDA ) , as well as how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be distributed ( CDC ) .
Though the members on each committee surely understand the politics of the moment , they will never bend to it .
Today , despite regular political pressure being applied on FDA and CDC to meet arbitrary deadlines for a vaccine release , the time-tested vaccine vetting and approval system has held up since it was established nearly four decades ago .
However , the threat to this system is real .
Having both worked within it , we ’ ve identified several scenarios that would be troubling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perspective .
First , it will be problematic if the advisory panels ’ work is interrupted or circumvented .
Each one has established protocols and defined responsibilities that must not be short-circuited or compromised .
If the FDA commissioner or CDC director rejects or modifies the panels ’ recommendations , which rarely occurs , the decision will merit close scrutiny and an accompanying strong justification .
Second , FDA has now released strict guidance for approving vaccines for emergency use .
If manufacturers fail to comply with this guidance , the panels may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety of the vaccines .
Third , if anyone in the executive branch of government were to override FDA or CDC decisions and guidance regarding coronavirus vaccines under consideration , this would be a red flag .
If ACIP and VRBPAC are each allowed to do their work unencumbered , and there is fidelity to this tried-and-true process , Americans should feel confident that the recommendations of the advisory panels were based on rigorous science showing both safety and efficacy .
These committees ’ work is not about politics , but people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine misinformation and disinformation .
Today , only about half of adults in the U.S. say they would get a coronavirus vaccine if one became available this year .
Unless public trust improves , the U.S. likely will see thousands of avoidable deaths and needless suffering .
The pandemic itself will be given a longer life as we are forced to crawl toward herd immunity , which would require a vaccination rate well above 50 percent .
In many communities—particularly communities of color—the trust in government ’ s role in medical care was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeds sown over many generations because of violations of trust , systemic barriers and racist policies .
Physicians across the nation , including in underserved communities , depend on the scientific integrity of ACIP and VRBPAC recommendations to determine whether they are confident in bringing a vaccine to their patients .
We know that patients put trust in their physicians when it comes to determining whether to get a vaccine .
That ’ s why it ’ s all the more imperative that this trust not be eroded by putting politics above science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has had remarkable success with its vaccine programs and has been a global leader in disease control and prevention .
We can not let the trust developed over decades be diminished further during this pandemic .
The preservation of that trust , after all , will serve us not just today , but for generations to come .

When the Food and Drug Administration ran into White House resistance to its proposed vaccine safety standards in early October, the agency took a bold step: It published the guidance on its Web site. The public could now see what vaccine manufacturers and the FDA’s own independent advisory panel would require to ensure a longer, scientifically rigorous process.
The two public health agencies responsible for overseeing the approval, distribution and use of a coronavirus vaccine—the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—have been undermined and politicized. The FDA’s proposed guidelines for emergency use of a coronavirus vaccine did finally clear the White House, but the well-publicized resistance has further undermined public trust in Operation Warp Speed just as the United States inches toward a viable vaccine. At a time when trust should be growing, the opposite is happening.
What should give Americans hope, however, is that both the FDA and the CDC have a last line of defense when it comes to approval and distribution of a vaccine: panels of outside experts who now merit the nation’s attention and unequivocal support. If, in the days ahead, either of these independent bodies are sidelined, ignored or in any way circumvented, a red line will have been crossed, and the safety and/or efficacy of a coronavirus vaccine can reasonably be questioned.
For the CDC, it’s the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, which next meets October 28–30. We each served terms on this committee at different times, and neither of us ever felt any political pressure during our tenures. The FDA equivalent is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, or VRBPAC, which next meets October 22. Most Americans have never heard of either.
These panels of health experts, with expertise in vaccinology, immunology, pediatrics, internal medicine, infectious diseases and preventive medicine, among other disciplines, have been studying and assessing the myriad coronavirus vaccines under consideration. Each has been scouring data from phase I and phase II trials, and now are awaiting phase III data about some of the most promising vaccines in development.
The advisory panels operate with intentional transparency. The public has access, often in real time via livestream, to their discussions and discoveries, and public records document their work. The 15 voting members on each advisory committee all undergo conflict-of-interest reviews, with annual filings to safeguard compliance. Vaccine interests and financial attachments are disclosed, and members must recuse themselves from related votes. Whether for a coronavirus vaccine or other vaccines, these panels make recommendations as to whether a vaccine is safe, efficacious and ready to be licensed (FDA), as well as how and to which populations a vaccine should be distributed (CDC). Though the members on each committee surely understand the politics of the moment, they will never bend to it.
Today, despite regular political pressure being applied on FDA and CDC to meet arbitrary deadlines for a vaccine release, the time-tested vaccine vetting and approval system has held up since it was established nearly four decades ago. However, the threat to this system is real. Having both worked within it, we’ve identified several scenarios that would be troubling and even dangerous from a public health perspective.
First, it will be problematic if the advisory panels’ work is interrupted or circumvented. Each one has established protocols and defined responsibilities that must not be short-circuited or compromised. If the FDA commissioner or CDC director rejects or modifies the panels’ recommendations, which rarely occurs, the decision will merit close scrutiny and an accompanying strong justification. Second, FDA has now released strict guidance for approving vaccines for emergency use. If manufacturers fail to comply with this guidance, the panels may not have sufficient information to assess the safety of the vaccines. Third, if anyone in the executive branch of government were to override FDA or CDC decisions and guidance regarding coronavirus vaccines under consideration, this would be a red flag.
If ACIP and VRBPAC are each allowed to do their work unencumbered, and there is fidelity to this tried-and-true process, Americans should feel confident that the recommendations of the advisory panels were based on rigorous science showing both safety and efficacy. These committees’ work is not about politics, but people, and their evidence-based approach helps to counteract vaccine misinformation and disinformation. Today, only about half of adults in the U.S. say they would get a coronavirus vaccine if one became available this year. Unless public trust improves, the U.S. likely will see thousands of avoidable deaths and needless suffering. The pandemic itself will be given a longer life as we are forced to crawl toward herd immunity, which would require a vaccination rate well above 50 percent.
In many communities—particularly communities of color—the trust in government’s role in medical care was low even before this pandemic, with seeds sown over many generations because of violations of trust, systemic barriers and racist policies. Physicians across the nation, including in underserved communities, depend on the scientific integrity of ACIP and VRBPAC recommendations to determine whether they are confident in bringing a vaccine to their patients. We know that patients put trust in their physicians when it comes to determining whether to get a vaccine. That’s why it’s all the more imperative that this trust not be eroded by putting politics above science.
There is a reason the U.S. has had remarkable success with its vaccine programs and has been a global leader in disease control and prevention. We cannot let the trust developed over decades be diminished further during this pandemic. The preservation of that trust, after all, will serve us not just today, but for generations to come.


scientificamerican--2020-10-20--We Must Mobilize to Avert a Lonely Earth

Recently , thousands of migratory birds suddenly dropped dead across New Mexico .
Sparrows , warblers and swallows that normally wheel across New Mexico ’ s iconic landscapes as they fly south for the winter instead fell lifeless across the land , weakened by extreme conditions .
While scientists are still working to conclusively explain this tragedy , their initial findings clearly indicate that we are witnessing a canary in the coal mine moment—as we face down dual climate and nature crises gripping our planet .
As New Mexicans , we watched reports of this wave of bird deaths with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a scholar of biodiversity , we saw this disaster as just one link in a chain of threats to our planet ’ s life support system .
The World Wildlife Fund recently found that human activities have wiped out two thirds of the monitored populations of vertebrate species worldwide in the past 50 years—the blink of an evolutionary eye .
Rachel Carson warned us of a silent spring ; today , we face the prospect of a lonely Earth .
Ecosystems worldwide are on the verge of collapse , and with them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We are already experiencing the deep costs of inaction .
In recent months , wildfires consumed forests across the American west .
Meanwhile , a zoonotic disease , transmitted from animals to humans , has upended life across the globe .
Scientists tell us COVID-19 is just the tip of the pandemic iceberg if we continue to destroy habitats and illegally traffic wildlife .
In September , the United Nations released its report on the status of global biodiversity measures .
Sadly , the world has so far failed to meet a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago—to save the natural world from collapse .
This is a grim reality—but is also a call to action to protect nature and the diversity of life with which we share this Earth .
The scientific community has created a road map , an achievable goal to preserve and restore 30 percent of the nation ’ s lands and waters by 2030 .
We believe that the United States should join a broad international coalition to protect nature by 2030—and , in turn , save ourselves .
Here is where we tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
Nature is resilient .
If we give the natural world space , resources and protection , nature has demonstrated an amazing ability to repair itself so ecosystems not only survive , but thrive .
Native Americans , and Indigenous peoples all over the world , have lived for millennia in a sustainable relationship with nature .
Their knowledge and voices can help us reshape our destructive practices and restore our kinship with the natural world .
Countries across the world have already come together to solve shared environmental problems under strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are confident this momentum can continue .
The United Nations is now working towards a new agreement under the Convention on Biological Diversity that adopts the 30 by 30 goal and includes strong commitments to conserve land and water to get there .
Just this month , over 60 international leaders signed the Leaders ’ Pledge for Nature—promising to address the climate crisis , deforestation , ecosystem degradation and pollution by 2030 .
Under the Trump Administration , sadly , the U.S. is not at the table .
But it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must repair the damage that the Trump administration has wrought to our environment , both within our country and across the world .
We have the chance to reclaim the moral and scientific high ground if we commit to 30 by 30 on the global stage and immediately begin a national , state and local effort to get us there .
Thankfully , Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have presented an inspiring vision for our conservation future , including a 30 by 30 commitment in their platform as part of our national—and global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times , conservation does not mean austerity .
In fact , environmental stewardship is a path forward to economic growth .
A recent study by over 100 economists found that every dollar invested into 30 by 30 will yield five dollars in return .
That ’ s because investing in nature will save us billions in preventing the current crises we face while also providing good jobs , restoring sustainable forests , fisheries and agriculture , and growing the booming outdoor recreation economy .
The sustainable and prosperous future that 30 by 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible conservation agenda .
This means wide-ranging , grassroots environmental justice action involving public lands and waters , voluntary private conservation , urban green space , and enabling new and continued protection of wilderness and wildlife refuges .
In the U.S. , 30 by 30 is already popular among voters in the American West , and we expect this momentum will grow across the nation as awareness spreads .
If we act now , we can prevent the mass extinction crisis , and sustain a future where migratory birds renew their age-old journeys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must seize this moment and mobilize a global movement to accomplish the 30 by 30 goal .

Recently, thousands of migratory birds suddenly dropped dead across New Mexico. Sparrows, warblers and swallows that normally wheel across New Mexico’s iconic landscapes as they fly south for the winter instead fell lifeless across the land, weakened by extreme conditions. While scientists are still working to conclusively explain this tragedy, their initial findings clearly indicate that we are witnessing a canary in the coal mine moment—as we face down dual climate and nature crises gripping our planet.
As New Mexicans, we watched reports of this wave of bird deaths with alarm. But as a U.S. senator and a scholar of biodiversity, we saw this disaster as just one link in a chain of threats to our planet’s life support system. The World Wildlife Fund recently found that human activities have wiped out two thirds of the monitored populations of vertebrate species worldwide in the past 50 years—the blink of an evolutionary eye. Rachel Carson warned us of a silent spring; today, we face the prospect of a lonely Earth. Ecosystems worldwide are on the verge of collapse, and with them, the resources humanity needs to survive.
We are already experiencing the deep costs of inaction. In recent months, wildfires consumed forests across the American west. Meanwhile, a zoonotic disease, transmitted from animals to humans, has upended life across the globe. Scientists tell us COVID-19 is just the tip of the pandemic iceberg if we continue to destroy habitats and illegally traffic wildlife.
In September, the United Nations released its report on the status of global biodiversity measures. Sadly, the world has so far failed to meet a single conservation goal—of the 20 set 10 years ago—to save the natural world from collapse.
This is a grim reality—but is also a call to action to protect nature and the diversity of life with which we share this Earth. The scientific community has created a road map, an achievable goal to preserve and restore 30 percent of the nation’s lands and waters by 2030. We believe that the United States should join a broad international coalition to protect nature by 2030—and, in turn, save ourselves.
Here is where we tell you why we are optimistic about the future.
Nature is resilient. If we give the natural world space, resources and protection, nature has demonstrated an amazing ability to repair itself so ecosystems not only survive, but thrive. Native Americans, and Indigenous peoples all over the world, have lived for millennia in a sustainable relationship with nature. Their knowledge and voices can help us reshape our destructive practices and restore our kinship with the natural world.
Countries across the world have already come together to solve shared environmental problems under strong leadership like the Paris Agreement on climate—and we are confident this momentum can continue. The United Nations is now working towards a new agreement under the Convention on Biological Diversity that adopts the 30 by 30 goal and includes strong commitments to conserve land and water to get there. Just this month, over 60 international leaders signed the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature—promising to address the climate crisis, deforestation, ecosystem degradation and pollution by 2030.
Under the Trump Administration, sadly, the U.S. is not at the table. But it’s not too late.
The United States must repair the damage that the Trump administration has wrought to our environment, both within our country and across the world. We have the chance to reclaim the moral and scientific high ground if we commit to 30 by 30 on the global stage and immediately begin a national, state and local effort to get us there. Thankfully, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have presented an inspiring vision for our conservation future, including a 30 by 30 commitment in their platform as part of our national—and global —recovery effort.
In these challenging economic times, conservation does not mean austerity. In fact, environmental stewardship is a path forward to economic growth. A recent study by over 100 economists found that every dollar invested into 30 by 30 will yield five dollars in return. That’s because investing in nature will save us billions in preventing the current crises we face while also providing good jobs, restoring sustainable forests, fisheries and agriculture, and growing the booming outdoor recreation economy.
The sustainable and prosperous future that 30 by 30 represents is both a popular and eminently possible conservation agenda. This means wide-ranging, grassroots environmental justice action involving public lands and waters, voluntary private conservation, urban green space, and enabling new and continued protection of wilderness and wildlife refuges. In the U.S., 30 by 30 is already popular among voters in the American West, and we expect this momentum will grow across the nation as awareness spreads.
If we act now, we can prevent the mass extinction crisis, and sustain a future where migratory birds renew their age-old journeys across the globe. The United States must seize this moment and mobilize a global movement to accomplish the 30 by 30 goal.


scientificamerican--2020-10-20--Resist Misinformation, Watch Birds and Remember Plagues

This month I learned that senior editor Jen Schwartz is an evil genius at media manipulation .
She produced our cover package about misinformation , including a story about her own role in an Election Day drill in which she demonstrated how easily bad actors can disrupt honest news coverage .
It 's funny and chilling and a little too real for comfort , and I 'm more grateful than ever that she is working for the side of truth and reality rather than disinformation .
Misinformation is one of the hottest areas of research right now—unfortunately because there 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic , election season , trolls who weaponize confusion and the massive influence of social media platforms , conspiracy theories and quackery are spreading more quickly and widely than ever .
We hope that understanding the science of misinformation will help us all tell sense from nonsense and find the best ways to resist and debunk dangerous myths .
During the pandemic shutdown , lots of people are discovering the joy of watching birds .
Senior editor Kate Wong was inspired by the goldfinches at her feeder to look into how birds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longtime birder , I 'm delighted to see this hobby becoming more popular .
It 's now hawk migration season , so when you 're outdoors , look up , and you might see raptors heading south in a hurry .
You might not expect a story about space war to be ... charming ?
And amusing ?
Satellites fighting satellites is a serious issue , and science writer Ann Finkbeiner is a serious person , but she also knows how to bring out the absurdity of a situation and get experts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enjoy an amazing graphic within .
Rocket science may be challenging , but brain science is immeasurably more complicated .
Journalist Diana Kwon offers a possible explanation for how psychological trauma can cause neurological symptoms in a feedback loop that scientists are just starting to piece together .
The mysterious condition is called functional neurological disorder .
At a time when every conversation eventually turns to the pandemic , it 's hard to imagine that we will ever forget it .
But collective memory for the catastrophic influenza of 1918–1919 , which killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was shockingly fleeting .
The story is by Scott Hershberger , a summer writing fellow who worked with us through a program from the American Association for the Advancement of Science .
Plenty of other plagues have shaped history , and researchers around the world are extracting pathogens ’ genetic material from their victims to show which diseases caused the worst mass deaths and how the germs spread around the world .
The article by science writer James P. Close begins here .
We hope that looking at the history of past plagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which will only be ended with science , public health measures and a shared interpretation of reality .
We got more attention than we expected for our editorial in last month 's issue endorsing Joe Biden for president .
More than 1,000 publications covered the endorsement , and the response was overwhelmingly positive ( whew ) .
Thanks very much to everyone who sent supportive messages , including some people who disagree with the decision but respect us for feeling a responsibility to speak up .
We hope those who are disappointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for everything else we have in common : a desire to understand the world , share knowledge and discoveries , and show that reality is more rich and fascinating than misinformation .

This month I learned that senior editor Jen Schwartz is an evil genius at media manipulation. She produced our cover package about misinformation, including a story about her own role in an Election Day drill in which she demonstrated how easily bad actors can disrupt honest news coverage. It's funny and chilling and a little too real for comfort, and I'm more grateful than ever that she is working for the side of truth and reality rather than disinformation.
Misinformation is one of the hottest areas of research right now—unfortunately because there's just so much to study. With the pandemic, election season, trolls who weaponize confusion and the massive influence of social media platforms, conspiracy theories and quackery are spreading more quickly and widely than ever. We hope that understanding the science of misinformation will help us all tell sense from nonsense and find the best ways to resist and debunk dangerous myths.
During the pandemic shutdown, lots of people are discovering the joy of watching birds. Senior editor Kate Wong was inspired by the goldfinches at her feeder to look into how birds evolved such spectacular diversity. As a longtime birder, I'm delighted to see this hobby becoming more popular. It's now hawk migration season, so when you're outdoors, look up, and you might see raptors heading south in a hurry.
You might not expect a story about space war to be ... charming? And amusing? Satellites fighting satellites is a serious issue, and science writer Ann Finkbeiner is a serious person, but she also knows how to bring out the absurdity of a situation and get experts to tell us what they really think. Enjoy an amazing graphic within.
Rocket science may be challenging, but brain science is immeasurably more complicated. Journalist Diana Kwon offers a possible explanation for how psychological trauma can cause neurological symptoms in a feedback loop that scientists are just starting to piece together. The mysterious condition is called functional neurological disorder.
At a time when every conversation eventually turns to the pandemic, it's hard to imagine that we will ever forget it. But collective memory for the catastrophic influenza of 1918–1919, which killed 50 million to 100 million people, was shockingly fleeting. The story is by Scott Hershberger, a summer writing fellow who worked with us through a program from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Plenty of other plagues have shaped history, and researchers around the world are extracting pathogens’ genetic material from their victims to show which diseases caused the worst mass deaths and how the germs spread around the world. The article by science writer James P. Close begins here. We hope that looking at the history of past plagues can help us understand the COVID-19 pandemic, which will only be ended with science, public health measures and a shared interpretation of reality.
We got more attention than we expected for our editorial in last month's issue endorsing Joe Biden for president. More than 1,000 publications covered the endorsement, and the response was overwhelmingly positive (whew). Thanks very much to everyone who sent supportive messages, including some people who disagree with the decision but respect us for feeling a responsibility to speak up. We hope those who are disappointed in the endorsement will stick with us for everything else we have in common: a desire to understand the world, share knowledge and discoveries, and show that reality is more rich and fascinating than misinformation.


scientificamerican--2020-10-20--How the Best Forecasters Predict Events Such as Election Outcomes

The classic interview question that every applicant dreads : tell me about a time when you changed your mind .
Most interviewees launch into some canned story about a sudden revelation—an aha moment of transformative insight—intended to demonstrate the candidate ’ s candor , open-mindedness and analytic skills .
The interviewer nods along as they consider if the story is memorable and thoughtful enough to score the candidate that job offer .
But is suddenly changing your mind really a mark of insight ?
Major revelations make for memorable stories , but our research shows they rarely represent how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rather than doing a 180 , those who excel at making accurate predictions tend to change their beliefs gradually .
They revise their predictions to reflect new information , but they do so slowly , comparing it with the information they had before .
Most of us do not spend our lives forecasting the future , but any decision we make depends , in part , on our implicit predictions .
Who we vote for , what jobs we take and even whether we carry an umbrella out the door all reflect our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political candidate will do if elected , what job is the best fit , the chance of rain that day .
To understand the science of accurate predictions , the Good Judgment Project , a research effort led by Barbara Mellers and Philip Tetlock , where I was a post-doctoral scholar , recruited thousands of volunteer forecasters and asked them nearly 500 questions about the future .
Generally geopolitical , these questions focused on topics such as “ Will Angela Merkel win the 2013 election for chancellor of Germany ?
” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of H5N1 in China in 2012 ?
” The participants ’ answers were probabilistic .
For example , a forecaster might predict that Merkel had a 80 percent chance of winning reelection .
Over the course of the four-year study , sponsored by the U.S. intelligence agency Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity ( IARPA ) , the team collected over one million predictive judgments .
Out of the thousands of participants , the Good Judgment Project identified so-called “ superforecasters , ” those who demonstrated uncanny skills in predicting the future and even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to classified information .
To become a superforecaster , volunteers had to make consistently accurate predictions across dozens of questions over a period of at least nine months .
Accuracy was the gold standard for talent spotting , but watching the results play out took time .
So we hunted for other early clues about who might be especially good at prediction .
And one promising clue was the way that forecasters updated their beliefs .
For years , psychologists , political scientists and businesspeople alike have studied how individuals change their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revise the probabilities in their head .
An example of this revision is when we see a dark sky from the window at noon and project that the chances of rain have gone up from 40 to 80 percent .
Changing one ’ s assessment can be a sign of open-mindedness .
As Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has noted , people who are right a lot also change their mind a lot .
But big changes—for example , jumping from 40 to 80 percent—are not necessarily a sign that someone is open-minded .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by recency bias , the tendency to overemphasize new information .
Sudden changes may also be caused by the availability heuristic , which makes us overemphasize facts and stories that come to mind easily , although not necessarily those that help us predict what ’ s ahead .
Good forecasters resist these tendencies and avoid overreacting to new or particularly memorable information .
The best forecasters must learn to navigate the twin risks of underreaction and overreaction .
To find these individuals , we measured their belief-updating tendencies based on three criteria : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is how often a person changes their beliefs about a question .
Confirmation propensity is the habit of confirming one ’ s previous beliefs and sticking to the original answer .
And magnitude is how much each revision has changed on the probability scale .
We found that individuals with high confirmation propensity were generally inaccurate forecasters—they tended to assign high probability to events that did not happen and low probability to events that did occur .
In contrast , those who updated their beliefs frequently were highly accurate forecasters .
Finally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increments outperformed their peers who made more drastic changes .
Like Aesop ’ s proverbial tortoise , frequent updaters showed better subject-matter knowledge , more open-mindedness and a higher work rate .
They were not always spot on with their initial forecasts , but their willingness to change their opinion allowed them to excel over time .
In contrast , incremental updaters resembled Aesop ’ s hare : they were not especially hardworking , knowledgeable or open-minded .
But they scored well on tests of fluid intelligence—which included questions on logical , spatial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their initial estimates for a question .
The best forecasters combined the good qualities of both the tortoise and the hare .
The pattern of frequent incremental forecast revisions was a reliable mark of being good at prediction .
How forecasters update their beliefs is a very personal process , drawing on different thinking styles , life philosophies and predictive abilities .
But despite this fact , belief-updating techniques can also be taught .
We know , because we tested them .
We randomly assigned approximately half of the subjects to receive a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half , the control group , received no training .
Interestingly , the forecasters who received training subsequently updated their beliefs in more frequent , smaller steps and achieved better accuracy than the control group .
The training materials did not explicitly tell forecasters to make smaller updates .
Rather we provided general lessons that they could apply to their practice to balance their initial intuitions .
First , when we encounter opposing evidence , we often ignore one piece in favor of the other .
For example , if we come across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favored candidate in the lead and the other showing that person trailing , most individuals choose the preferred poll and discount the other as inaccurate .
As a forecaster , however , the best tactic would be to average the two .
Averaging is generally less work , but it also requires us to compromise and entertain an idea that contradicts our beliefs .
Second , training also helped participants overcome what psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman called the inside view bias , or the tendency to focus on the unique aspects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a situation with other similar ones , we focus instead on what makes it unique .
And as a result , we often give outsized weight to insignificant factors .
For example , when predicting the outcome of an election , we might concentrate on something such as yard signs as an indicator , although the signs are unique to our particular town and situation .
Conversely , the outside view is the practice of examining historical data and considering a given case as one of many .
We may ask , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading in mid-October go on to win in November ?
” To answer this question , we may then construct a reference class of , say , the past 10 presidential elections and count how many times the October poll leader won the general election .
The resulting percentage—the base rate—is the outside-view answer .
We can ’ t all be master forecasters , but by taking the outside view and averaging conflicting data , we can inch closer to making better predictions .
If you are interested in practicing and improving your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a National Science Foundation-sponsored study in which our team is working to predict if , and when , COVID-19 vaccines and treatments will pass clinical trials .

The classic interview question that every applicant dreads: tell me about a time when you changed your mind. Most interviewees launch into some canned story about a sudden revelation—an aha moment of transformative insight—intended to demonstrate the candidate’s candor, open-mindedness and analytic skills. The interviewer nods along as they consider if the story is memorable and thoughtful enough to score the candidate that job offer.
But is suddenly changing your mind really a mark of insight? Major revelations make for memorable stories, but our research shows they rarely represent how the best analytic minds revise their beliefs. Rather than doing a 180, those who excel at making accurate predictions tend to change their beliefs gradually. They revise their predictions to reflect new information, but they do so slowly, comparing it with the information they had before.
Most of us do not spend our lives forecasting the future, but any decision we make depends, in part, on our implicit predictions. Who we vote for, what jobs we take and even whether we carry an umbrella out the door all reflect our best guesses about the future: what a political candidate will do if elected, what job is the best fit, the chance of rain that day.
To understand the science of accurate predictions, the Good Judgment Project, a research effort led by Barbara Mellers and Philip Tetlock, where I was a postdoctoral scholar, recruited thousands of volunteer forecasters and asked them nearly 500 questions about the future. Generally geopolitical, these questions focused on topics such as “Will Angela Merkel win the 2013 election for chancellor of Germany?” or “Will there be a significant outbreak of H5N1 in China in 2012?” The participants’ answers were probabilistic. For example, a forecaster might predict that Merkel had a 80 percent chance of winning reelection. Over the course of the four-year study, sponsored by the U.S. intelligence agency Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), the team collected more than one million predictive judgments.
Out of the thousands of participants, the Good Judgment Project identified so-called “superforecasters,” those who demonstrated uncanny skills in predicting the future and even did so better than intelligence analysts with access to classified information. To become a superforecaster, volunteers had to make consistently accurate predictions across dozens of questions over a period of at least nine months. Accuracy was the gold standard for talent spotting, but watching the results play out took time. So we hunted for other early clues about who might be especially good at prediction. And one promising clue was the way that forecasters updated their beliefs.
For years, psychologists, political scientists and businesspeople alike have studied how individuals change their mind—and, more specifically, how they revise the probabilities in their head. An example of this revision is when we see a dark sky from the window at noon and project that the chances of rain have gone up from 40 to 80 percent. Changing one’s assessment can be a sign of open-mindedness. As Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has noted, people who are right a lot also change their mind a lot.
But big changes—for example, jumping from 40 to 80 percent—are not necessarily a sign that someone is open-minded. Such sudden reversals may instead be triggered by recency bias, the tendency to overemphasize new information. Sudden changes may also be caused by the availability heuristic, which makes us overemphasize facts and stories that come to mind easily, although not necessarily those that help us predict what’s ahead. Good forecasters resist these tendencies and avoid overreacting to new or particularly memorable information.
The best forecasters must learn to navigate the twin risks of underreaction and overreaction. To find these individuals, we measured their belief-updating tendencies based on three criteria: frequency, confirmation and magnitude. Frequency is how often a person changes their beliefs about a question. Confirmation propensity is the habit of confirming one’s previous beliefs and sticking to the original answer. And magnitude is how much each revision has changed on the probability scale.
We found that individuals with high confirmation propensity were generally inaccurate forecasters—they tended to assign high probability to events that did not happen and low probability to events that did occur. In contrast, those who updated their beliefs frequently were highly accurate forecasters. Finally, individuals who updated their beliefs in small increments outperformed their peers who made more drastic changes.
Like Aesop’s proverbial tortoise, frequent updaters showed better subject-matter knowledge, more open-mindedness and a higher work rate. They were not always spot on with their initial forecasts, but their willingness to change their opinion allowed them to excel over time.
In contrast, incremental updaters resembled Aesop’s hare: they were not especially hardworking, knowledgeable or open-minded. But they scored well on tests of fluid intelligence—which included questions on logical, spatial and mathematical reasoning—and were unusually accurate with their initial estimates for a question.
The best forecasters combined the good qualities of both the tortoise and the hare. The pattern of frequent incremental forecast revisions was a reliable mark of being good at prediction.
How forecasters update their beliefs is a very personal process, drawing on different thinking styles, life philosophies and predictive abilities. But despite this fact, belief-updating techniques can also be taught. We know, because we tested them. We randomly assigned approximately half of the subjects to receive a one-hour predictive-training intervention, while the other half, the control group, received no training. Interestingly, the forecasters who received training subsequently updated their beliefs in more frequent, smaller steps and achieved better accuracy than the control group.
The training materials did not explicitly tell forecasters to make smaller updates. Rather we provided general lessons that they could apply to their practice to balance their initial intuitions.
First, when we encounter opposing evidence, we often ignore one piece in favor of the other. For example, if we come across two election polls, one showing our favored candidate in the lead and the other showing that person trailing, most individuals choose the preferred poll and discount the other as inaccurate. As a forecaster, however, the best tactic would be to average the two. Averaging is generally less work, but it also requires us to compromise and entertain an idea that contradicts our beliefs.
Second, training also helped participants overcome what psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman called the inside view bias, or the tendency to focus on the unique aspects of each situation. Rather than comparing a situation with other similar ones, we focus instead on what makes it unique. And as a result, we often give outsized weight to insignificant factors. For example, when predicting the outcome of an election, we might concentrate on something such as yard signs as an indicator, although the signs are unique to our particular town and situation.
Conversely, the outside view is the practice of examining historical data and considering a given case as one of many. We may ask, “How often does the U.S. presidential candidate leading in mid-October go on to win in November?” To answer this question, we may then construct a reference class of, say, the past 10 presidential elections and count how many times the October poll leader won the general election. The resulting percentage—the base rate—is the outside-view answer. We can’t all be master forecasters, but by taking the outside view and averaging conflicting data, we can inch closer to making better predictions.
If you are interested in practicing and improving your outside-view thinking skills, consider signing up for a National Science Foundation-sponsored study in which our team is working to predict if, and when, COVID-19 vaccines and treatments will pass clinical trials.


scientificamerican--2020-10-20--Presidential Debates Have Shockingly Little Effect on Election Outcomes

The first 2020 presidential debate did not go well for Donald Trump .
Viewers were turned off by the president ’ s constant hectoring of Joe Biden .
And many were alarmed when he not only declined to denounce white supremacists but went so far as to tell a far-right neofascist group to “ stand by.
” Polling by FiveThirtyEight revealed that 50 percent of people who watched the event rated Trump ’ s performance as “ very poor.
” But while Biden clearly won the debate , this does not mean he will win the election .
Studies indicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if any , impact on votes .
For a variety of reasons , this observation is especially true in 2020 .
“ People aren ’ t really watching debates because they ’ re like , ‘ I ’ m gon na take this time and really compare these two candidates on their merits , ’ ” says Yanna Krupnikov , a political scientist at Stony Brook University .
Most people watching have already chosen their candidate , she says , and even if that candidate does not perform well , “ they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re going to vote.
” For years , researchers have suspected presidential debates have a tiny to nonexistent influence on election outcomes .
Most studies have focused on a single debate or election , however , limiting their ability to weed out potential confounding variables .
“ Some people are heralding the debate [ in late September ] as the one that mattered , ” says Christopher Wlezien , a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin .
“ But if you look at public opinion polls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these things out.
” The almost concurrent news that Trump and others in his administration contracted COVID-19 may have had a more consequential effect on people ’ s views of the candidate .
To cut through such noise , in 2019 Vincent Pons , an associate professor at Harvard Business School , and graduate student Caroline Le Pennec of the University of California , Berkeley , produced a working paper analyzing the influence of 56 TV debates on 31 elections in the U.S. , the U.K. , Germany , Canada and three other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included 94,000 respondents who were interviewed before and after an election to see who they planned to vote for and who they actually wound up choosing .
The surveys took place in the two months leading up to an election , with a different set of individuals interviewed each day .
This approach allowed the researchers to determine the percentage of people who had settled on their final choice as election day grew nearer and to test for any effect immediately before and after a debate .
Across all voting systems and election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that debates neither helped undecided voters to make up their mind nor caused those who had already made a decision to switch candidates .
“ I was surprised , ” Pons says .
“ If you look at the numbers of people watching TV debates and at all the media attention around debates , you would think debates matter.
” Pons ’ s study is not the only one to conclude that debates do not , in fact , have an impact .
Wlezien arrived at the same finding when he and Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. presidential election polls between 1952 , when the first televised debate took place , and 2012 .
The best predictor for a candidate ’ s standing after a debate season , they found , is what it was before that person ’ s face-offs .
A variety of factors likely contribute to the ineffectiveness of presidential debates in helping individuals to decide how to vote .
For starters , many of the people who take the time to watch debates are those heavily engaged in politics to begin with , Krupnikov says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a particular candidate .
In the U.S. especially , when an election actually takes place , candidates have been campaigning for months—giving Americans plenty of time to have already made up their mind .
And even if something sensational does happen in a debate and causes a wider stir , the effects tend to be small and fade by the time of the election .
“ Debates are short-term events , so they have less effect on people ’ s choices , ” Wlezien says .
“ These performances just get added into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , unlike many other developed countries , the U.S. has only two major political parties—a dichotomy that contributes to deep ideological divides and a strong us-versus-them mentality .
The two-party system likely lends weight to Pons ’ s finding : compared with citizens of other countries , American voters are significantly less likely to change their decision in the two months leading up to an election .
Given all of these observations , most people who watch debates do not view them to be persuaded but to “ see how their candidate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other candidate , ” says Jay Van Bavel , an associate professor of psychology and neural science at New York University .
Regardless of what actually transpires in a debate , evidence also indicates that many viewers filter what they see in a way that aligns with their goals and identity .
In unpublished results from a new study , Van Bavel found that , depending on which political party they belong to , people shown clips from a 2016 debate between Hillary Clinton and Trump selectively paid attention to different parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When partisans tune into a debate , they often walk away with an opinion that just confirms what they believed before the debate began , ” Van Bavel says .
Presidential debates for the current U.S. election are probably even more subject to these forces than usual .
Political polarization is at an extreme high , and voters are already well acquainted with both candidates from their years in office .
“ The more knowledge you have of someone , the more crystalized your attitude about them is , ” Van Bavel says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at record levels .
Millions of people have already cast their ballot , making the final presidential debate especially inconsequential .
“ There ’ s something very counterintuitive about telling people that , actually , this debate probably won ’ t matter at all , ” Van Bavel says .
“ The things that will matter in this election—probably more than any other—are voter turnout , voter registration and early voting .
”

The first 2020 presidential debate did not go well for Donald Trump. Viewers were turned off by the president’s constant hectoring of Joe Biden. And many were alarmed when he not only declined to denounce white supremacists but went so far as to tell a far-right neofascist group to “stand by.” Polling by FiveThirtyEight revealed that 50 percent of people who watched the event rated Trump’s performance as “very poor.”
But while Biden clearly won the debate, this does not mean he will win the election. Studies indicate that televised presidential debates have very little, if any, impact on votes. For a variety of reasons, this observation is especially true in 2020.
“People aren’t really watching debates because they’re like, ‘I’m gonna take this time and really compare these two candidates on their merits,’” says Yanna Krupnikov, a political scientist at Stony Brook University. Most people watching have already chosen their candidate, she says, and even if that candidate does not perform well, “they already have a decision as to how they’re going to vote.”
For years, researchers have suspected presidential debates have a tiny to nonexistent influence on election outcomes. Most studies have focused on a single debate or election, however, limiting their ability to weed out potential confounding variables. “Some people are heralding the debate [in late September] as the one that mattered,” says Christopher Wlezien, a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. “But if you look at public opinion polls, it’s hard to really partition these things out.” The almost concurrent news that Trump and others in his administration contracted COVID-19 may have had a more consequential effect on people’s views of the candidate.
To cut through such noise, in 2019 Vincent Pons, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, and graduate student Caroline Le Pennec of the University of California, Berkeley, produced a working paper analyzing the influence of 56 TV debates on 31 elections in the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Canada and three other countries. The researchers’ data set included 94,000 respondents who were interviewed before and after an election to see who they planned to vote for and who they actually wound up choosing. The surveys took place in the two months leading up to an election, with a different set of individuals interviewed each day. This approach allowed the researchers to determine the percentage of people who had settled on their final choice as election day grew nearer and to test for any effect immediately before and after a debate.
Across all voting systems and election types, Pons and Le Pennec found that debates neither helped undecided voters to make up their mind nor caused those who had already made a decision to switch candidates. “I was surprised,” Pons says. “If you look at the numbers of people watching TV debates and at all the media attention around debates, you would think debates matter.”
Pons’s study is not the only one to conclude that debates do not, in fact, have an impact. Wlezien arrived at the same finding when he and Robert Erikson of Columbia University analyzed all available U.S. presidential election polls between 1952, when the first televised debate took place, and 2012. The best predictor for a candidate’s standing after a debate season, they found, is what it was before that person’s face-offs.
A variety of factors likely contribute to the ineffectiveness of presidential debates in helping individuals to decide how to vote. For starters, many of the people who take the time to watch debates are those heavily engaged in politics to begin with, Krupnikov says, so they have already committed to a particular candidate. In the U.S. especially, when an election actually takes place, candidates have been campaigning for months—giving Americans plenty of time to have already made up their mind. And even if something sensational does happen in a debate and causes a wider stir, the effects tend to be small and fade by the time of the election. “Debates are short-term events, so they have less effect on people’s choices,” Wlezien says. “These performances just get added into this giant pile of information.”
Also, unlike many other developed countries, the U.S. has only two major political parties—a dichotomy that contributes to deep ideological divides and a strong us-versus-them mentality. The two-party system likely lends weight to Pons’s finding: compared with citizens of other countries, American voters are significantly less likely to change their decision in the two months leading up to an election.
Given all of these observations, most people who watch debates do not view them to be persuaded but to “see how their candidate is going to dominate, smear or embarrass the other candidate,” says Jay Van Bavel, an associate professor of psychology and neural science at New York University. Regardless of what actually transpires in a debate, evidence also indicates that many viewers filter what they see in a way that aligns with their goals and identity. In unpublished results from a new study, Van Bavel found that, depending on which political party they belong to, people shown clips from a 2016 debate between Hillary Clinton and Trump selectively paid attention to different parts and remembered what happened differently. “When partisans tune into a debate, they often walk away with an opinion that just confirms what they believed before the debate began,” Van Bavel says.
Presidential debates for the current U.S. election are probably even more subject to these forces than usual. Political polarization is at an extreme high, and voters are already well acquainted with both candidates from their years in office. “The more knowledge you have of someone, the more crystalized your attitude about them is,” Van Bavel says. Additionally, early voting is happening at record levels. Millions of people have already cast their ballot, making the final presidential debate especially inconsequential.
“There’s something very counterintuitive about telling people that, actually, this debate probably won’t matter at all,” Van Bavel says. “The things that will matter in this election—probably more than any other—are voter turnout, voter registration and early voting.”


scientificamerican--2020-10-20--Searching for the Atoms of Life

Searching for the Atoms of Life

The search for extraterrestrial life is one of the most exciting frontiers in astronomy , and the recent detection of a potential biosignature in the atmosphere of Venus has now raised the possibility that life might exist on the nearest planet to Earth .
Absorption of light at millimeter wavelengths by phosphine molecules has been identified in the Venusian cloud deck 35 miles above ground level , where the temperature and pressure are similar to what they are in the lower atmosphere of Earth .
There , microbes may reside in droplets at a density that is orders of magnitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if so , they could have common ancestry to terrestrial life , given that asteroids occasionally graze the atmospheres of both planets , potentially transferring material from one to the other .
Of course , conclusive evidence for Venusian life will have to await a probe that would scoop material from the Venusian clouds and search for microbes within it .
We assign special significance to finding extraterrestrial life because it would imply that we are not alone in the universe .
But do our personal interests impose any obligations on the universe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleague Stephen Greenblatt e-mailed me recently a problem raised by Lucretius ’ version of Epicureanism : “ Since we are all made up out of the atoms that we share with inanimate matter , is there a particular value in life forms ?
” My reply as a physicist was simple : “ We are complex structures of atoms , and we tend to get emotional when witnessing other complex systems .
But the splendor of complex structures of LEGO does not imply that they carry anything else beyond the pieces that make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is something beyond our physical body boils down to a straightforward line of inquiry : “ Is physics a complete description of nature ?
” So far , based on all experimental evidence , the answer is in the affirmative .
Works of art marked by special beauty , such a Leonardo da Vinci ’ s Mona Lisa , which is ultimately just paint on canvas , or Michelangelo ’ s David , made of marble , trigger a sense of awe and an emotional reaction .
But they do not imply any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physics .
The same is true about our most advanced creations in computer technology .
We respond to artificial intelligence ( AI ) systems as if they had a life of their own .
Our interaction with living things can be viewed as a natural extension from works of art and technology to systems with a higher level of complexity .
In fact , the Turing test is all about our inability to detect the difference between an interaction with a human and a computer .
When structures are too complex for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assign an abstract meta-level description for their behavior that goes beyond the hardware that makes them .
Software engineers at Google do not fully understand how their AI system operates but they can attribute general qualities to its response to data .
What we label the “ human mind ” is probably a meta-level description of this sort .
It has to do with the behavior of one of the most complex systems we know , a human , in response to the environment .
A human is a structure of atoms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity to forecast how it will respond to particular circumstances .
“ Free will ” is linked to the unpredictability of our crude model of humans and the limited information we have on their environment .
Our scant understanding applies to ourselves as much as it does to others .
What I call “ myself ” is different from “ someone else , ” if you consider how much knowledge I have about myself and the fact that whatever happens to it matters more to me than it does to you .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better understanding of my liver than I do the liver of another person , I do not understand the inner workings of my mind any better than I do the mind of others .
Given this perspective , the “ mind ” represents an emergent phenomenon of a complex system that we do not fully comprehend .
But science is a work in progress , and it is possible that we will gain a better understanding in the future .
As our knowledge improves , less of the human mind will appear mysterious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be associated with the physical body , in the same way that the charm of the Mona Lisa can be traced back to the specific paint marks left by da Vinci ’ s brush on the canvas .
Of course , this notion might be unsettling to philosophers who wish to elevate the status of what it means to be human beyond the physical reality of atoms .
To that , all I can say is that reality is whatever it is , irrespective of the misconceptions that people have about it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth just because philosophers thought it did .
This perspective also carries a narrative for the end of our life .
Its minimalistic interpretation of death is that it resembles the unplugging of a computer from the wall socket .
The system shuts off abruptly and the hardware becomes inactive afterwards .
One is left with a body that returns the atoms it borrowed for a short time from Earth .
Burial resembles the disposal of the computer relic in a recycling bin , making its raw materials available for new structures to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his brilliant book and essay on the subject .
He argued : “ Atomism for Lucretius was meant to be therapeutic ; it was intended as a form of consolation .
This notion of therapy was already in question in Lucretius ’ time—Cicero asked what on earth was consoling about the prospect of returning to one ’ s constituent atoms—and there is something bleak , it seems to me , in your version as well .
One looks for consolation elsewhere , I think [ … ] in the wonder aroused by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing.
” I endorse Stephen ’ s bottom line .
After decades of studying the physical world , I am coming around to appreciate the value of the art as consolation .
With it , greater pleasure can be drawn from the way things are organized than from understanding their building blocks , especially at a time when we are stuck in advancing fundamental physics .

The search for extraterrestrial life is one of the most exciting frontiers in astronomy, and the recent detection of a potential biosignature in the atmosphere of Venus has now raised the possibility that life might exist on the nearest planet to Earth.
Absorption of light at millimeter wavelengths by phosphine molecules has been identified in the Venusian cloud deck 35 miles above ground level, where the temperature and pressure are similar to what they are in the lower atmosphere of Earth. There, microbes may reside in droplets at a density that is orders of magnitude smaller than in air on Earth; if so, they could have common ancestry to terrestrial life, given that asteroids occasionally graze the atmospheres of both planets, potentially transferring material from one to the other. Of course, conclusive evidence for Venusian life will have to await a probe that would scoop material from the Venusian clouds and search for microbes within it.
We assign special significance to finding extraterrestrial life because it would imply that we are not alone in the universe. But do our personal interests impose any obligations on the universe? In this context, my Harvard colleague Stephen Greenblatt e-mailed me recently a problem raised by Lucretius’ version of Epicureanism: “Since we are all made up out of the atoms that we share with inanimate matter, is there a particular value in life forms?” My reply as a physicist was simple: “We are complex structures of atoms, and we tend to get emotional when witnessing other complex systems. But the splendor of complex structures of LEGO does not imply that they carry anything else beyond the pieces that make them.”
The question of whether there is something beyond our physical body boils down to a straightforward line of inquiry: “Is physics a complete description of nature?” So far, based on all experimental evidence, the answer is in the affirmative.
Works of art marked by special beauty, such a Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, which is ultimately just paint on canvas, or Michelangelo’s David, made of marble, trigger a sense of awe and an emotional reaction. But they do not imply any building blocks beyond the standard model of physics. The same is true about our most advanced creations in computer technology. We respond to artificial intelligence (AI) systems as if they had a life of their own. Our interaction with living things can be viewed as a natural extension from works of art and technology to systems with a higher level of complexity. In fact, the Turing test is all about our inability to detect the difference between an interaction with a human and a computer.
When structures are too complex for us to fully understand in detail, we assign an abstract meta-level description for their behavior that goes beyond the hardware that makes them. Software engineers at Google do not fully understand how their AI system operates but they can attribute general qualities to its response to data. What we label the “human mind” is probably a meta-level description of this sort. It has to do with the behavior of one of the most complex systems we know, a human, in response to the environment. A human is a structure of atoms, so complex that we lack the computational capacity to forecast how it will respond to particular circumstances. “Free will” is linked to the unpredictability of our crude model of humans and the limited information we have on their environment.
Our scant understanding applies to ourselves as much as it does to others. What I call “myself” is different from “someone else,” if you consider how much knowledge I have about myself and the fact that whatever happens to it matters more to me than it does to you. But just as I do not have a better understanding of my liver than I do the liver of another person, I do not understand the inner workings of my mind any better than I do the mind of others.
Given this perspective, the “mind” represents an emergent phenomenon of a complex system that we do not fully comprehend. But science is a work in progress, and it is possible that we will gain a better understanding in the future. As our knowledge improves, less of the human mind will appear mysterious, and more of its phenomenology will be associated with the physical body, in the same way that the charm of the Mona Lisa can be traced back to the specific paint marks left by da Vinci’s brush on the canvas.
Of course, this notion might be unsettling to philosophers who wish to elevate the status of what it means to be human beyond the physical reality of atoms. To that, all I can say is that reality is whatever it is, irrespective of the misconceptions that people have about it. The sun did not revolve around the Earth just because philosophers thought it did.
This perspective also carries a narrative for the end of our life. Its minimalistic interpretation of death is that it resembles the unplugging of a computer from the wall socket. The system shuts off abruptly and the hardware becomes inactive afterwards. One is left with a body that returns the atoms it borrowed for a short time from Earth. Burial resembles the disposal of the computer relic in a recycling bin, making its raw materials available for new structures to form.
Stephen replied with an insight from his brilliant book and essay on the subject. He argued: “Atomism for Lucretius was meant to be therapeutic; it was intended as a form of consolation. This notion of therapy was already in question in Lucretius’ time—Cicero asked what on earth was consoling about the prospect of returning to one’s constituent atoms—and there is something bleak, it seems to me, in your version as well. One looks for consolation elsewhere, I think […] in the wonder aroused by art; in the sheer joy of existing.”
I endorse Stephen’s bottom line. After decades of studying the physical world, I am coming around to appreciate the value of the art as consolation. With it, greater pleasure can be drawn from the way things are organized than from understanding their building blocks, especially at a time when we are stuck in advancing fundamental physics.