
Steven Pinker makes case for human progress in ‘Enlightenment Now’ - drewvolpe
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/harvards-pinker-makes-case-for-human-progress-in-new-book/
======
majormajor
A criticism by way of criticism of an article pushing it -
[https://fair.org/home/the-radical-dishonesty-of-david-
brooks...](https://fair.org/home/the-radical-dishonesty-of-david-brooks/) \-
from a "co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in
Washington, DC" FWIW.

The overall thrust seems pretty damning (given how much technology improved
recently, why hasn't that turned into more income and leisure time
improvements for many?), enough to seriously dampen my interest in the book
itself:

> The problem with the Brooks/Pinker story is that we expect the
> economy/people to get richer through time. After all, technology and
> education improve. In the ’50s, we didn’t have the Internet, cell phones and
> all sorts of other goodies. In fact, at the start of the ’50s, we didn’t
> even have the polio vaccine.

> The question is not whether we are better off today than we were 60 years
> ago. It would be incredible if we were not better off. The question is by
> how much.

> In the ’50s, wages and incomes for ordinary families were rising at a rate
> of close to 2 percent annually. In the last 45 years, they have barely risen
> at all.

\-- from a bit later:

> Should we celebrate this reduction in poverty rates over the last 33 years?
> Well, the [child] poverty rate had fallen from 27.3 percent in 1959 (the
> first year for this data series) to 14.0 percent in 1969. That’s a drop of
> 13.3 percentage points in just ten years. The net direction in the last 47
> years has been upward.

~~~
tryitnow
I agree with the criticism of Pinker's use of data.

However, I think his main thesis still stands: humanism and science are
winning strategies for human flourishing.

I think this his main idea (the benefits of science and humanism) is an idea
worth exploring and defending, but I don't think collecting a bunch of
measures of progress and saying "see, humanism + science works!" is the best
way of doing it.

I'd rather see someone approach the problem by focusing on what is lacking,
what are the major outstanding problems and then demonstrate that these
problems persist because we have not attempted to tackle them using science to
guide practice and humanism to guide our values.

This approach seems more mature and sophisticated than just saying "gee whiz!
look at all the goodies we got now!"

~~~
wpasc
Not meaning to offend, but you're kind of leading in to exactly why Pinker
writes the book.

> (the benefits of science and humanism) is an idea worth exploring and
> defending

He explores and defends those pursuits.

> I don't think collecting a bunch of measures of progress and saying "see,
> humanism + science works!" is the best way of doing it.

It's at the very least an objective method that doesn't rely on flimsier
propositions. You use the phrase "measures of progress" which are a great way
to measure progress...

> I'd rather see someone approach the problem by focusing on what is lacking,
> what are the major outstanding problems and then demonstrate that these
> problems persist because we have not attempted to tackle them using science
> to guide practice and humanism to guide our values.

He never disputes that there are still issues, he's just saying that if you
only ever focused on things that are missing, you might lose an appreciation
for the progress humanity has made.

If you only watched the news (which he specifically rails against), you'd
think we were going to hell in a hand basket. Of course we still have issues,
but to buy into the "end is nigh" mentality espoused by the media and plenty
of people (and some commenters here!) would be to ignore a wide variety of
indications that humanity's scientific and social progress are improving.

------
scosman
Bill Gates is saying this is his favourite book of all time:
[https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Enlightenment-
Now](https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Enlightenment-Now)

~~~
colmvp
Pinker was also on Ezra Klein's podcast which I thought was worth a listen:
[https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-ezra-klein-
show/e/53271...](https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-ezra-klein-
show/e/53271830)

~~~
bornonline1
Also on Joe Rogan's podcast very recently.

~~~
arprocter
Yep - JRE #1073

------
maldusiecle
Worthwhile criticism of the book here:
[https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlight...](https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-
thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
The writer spends half the article getting offended at Pinker calling religion
irrational.

~~~
maldusiecle
If by "half the article" you mean "one paragraph," then yes, yes he does.

------
danharaj
Critical review panning the book:
[http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2018/02/20/4806696.h...](http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2018/02/20/4806696.htm)

~~~
wpasc
>my own prediction is that future historians, if they haven't all been
replaced by cognitive psychologists, will regard misplaced faith in data,
metrics and statistical analysis as the curse of the twenty-first century

I think that line ruined the review for me, that whole paragraph just
chastises the notion of evidence

~~~
foldr
No, it chastises misplaced faith in it.

~~~
Stefan-H
Can one have a misplaced faith in evidence? Once there is evidence for
something, it is not merely faith - faith is conviction without evidence. The
whole point of the scientific process is to re-evaluate conclusions when new
evidence is presented. I suppose historians may look back and find that some
of our scientific beliefs were held in spite of evidence to the contrary, or
that evidence was not sought out to disprove those beliefs, but I do not see
how a full discrediting of data and statistics would one day happen.

~~~
foldr
>Can one have a misplaced faith in evidence?

That's a semantic quibble which isn't really relevant to the point that
Harrison is making in the rest of the quoted paragraph.

But yes, you can have misplaced faith in e.g. null hypothesis significance
testing and other methods of data collection and analysis common in some of
the social sciences.

~~~
Stefan-H
My point was not that you can't have misplaced faith. But rather can you have
misplaced faith in the notion of evidenced based conclusions. If your
conclusions are based on evidence, then it isn't faith. It may still be wrong,
but it isn't faith.

~~~
foldr
Oh, that's just a pun on 'faith'. The 'faith' in 'misplaced faith' isn't
religious faith.

~~~
Stefan-H
Can you elaborate on what you mean? What definition of "faith" do you think is
meant here?

~~~
foldr
The ordinary meaning of the word 'faith', as in e.g. 'John has a misplaced
faith in his own abilities'.

~~~
Stefan-H
So belief without evidence. Do you see how it is non-sensical to then say
"misplaced faith in evidence"?

~~~
foldr
Faith doesn't mean 'belief without evidence'. That's a Richard Dawkins talking
point, not anything you'll find in a dictionary. John could have excellent
evidence for his own abilities, and yet his faith in those abilities could
turn out to be misplaced.

~~~
Stefan-H
"Not anything you will find in a dictionary" is a terrible bar to base
something off of: [https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/faith](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/faith) Definition 2b.
[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith)
definition 2.

Using faith and belief interchangeably seems disingenuous and ignores the
religious context that is part of faith. Faith implies a lack of compromise, a
concreteness, and unwillingness to change. Using that term to describe
evidence based science, and the belief that evidence ought to be presented
before a belief is held is an attempt to reduce science to dogma.

------
gtf21
John Gray wrote a fairly scathing review in the NS:
[https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlight...](https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-
thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon)

------
garyclarke27
I enjoyed Pinker’s last book and I enjoy Taleb’s books even more. Funny that
Taleb really hates Pinker’s work - deriding his analytical skills several
times in his latest book “Skin in the Game”. I think Pinker’s conclusions are
too Rosy and Taleb’s cynical views are too negative. Both provide much tasty
food for thought though.

------
originalsimba
I admire Pinker's optimism but the enlightenment was 300 years ago and the
fact that humans are still lagging behind their own progress by 3 centuries is
proof of something awful which it's maybe time we all acknowledge.

------
autopoiesis
This book is certainly being pushed very hard lately...

~~~
grzm
It's because it was just published. You see the same thing with many books, or
movies. It's partly deliberate marketing, and partly because there are people
excited about it. For that matter, there's been plenty of noise from people
who disagree as well. But it all surrounds the fact that it was just released.

~~~
maxniederhofer
I think there's more to it than that. The book proposes a return to a
classical rational-modern worldview with typical liberal values
("Enlightenment"). That optimistic view of the future would be one way out of
the tribalist identity politics that, fueled by fear, are ruining Western
society. There are big power interests, both financial and cultural, that are
interested in stability. Pushing Pinker's book is more than just marketing.

~~~
User23
Tribalist identity politics are inevitable in all multicultural societies. You
can bemoan human nature, but you can't change it.

That's not to say multicultural societies can't be successful, with discipline
and genius it can be done. For example Lee Kuan Yew
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew))
did a great job with Singapore.

~~~
sambull
Then it just becomes secular identity politics.

