We Brights Keep on Learning!

One Bright who has previously contributed articles to the Brights’ Blog as the Science-minded Citizen wants to share what he’s been learning lately about evolution, a subject he deems “really fascinating.”

Adam Manning, an acknowledged amateur about the topic, nonetheless keeps an active interest in the fossil record. And what he has learned has forced a revamping of his thinking about the evolution of land-dwelling animals. He has recently tried to summarize “a new evolutionary route” and written an essay about it.

This new way of viewing the evolution of land-dwelling vertebrate animals sets them into just two groups, rather than the traditional three (the reptiles, the birds and the mammals). How can that be?

Check out Adam’s explanation on the blog. He titled it, “A New Look at Animal Evolution.”

The fabulous E.O. Wilson (who died last year) proclaimed how he (akin to Darwin) never outgrew his love of bugs. Similarly, it seems, Manning is among the many Brights who remain captivated by the story of life they absorbed as children, fascinated by contrasting living things as they are observed today with those organisms thriving back in the “dinosaur days” of long ago.

Brights Ponder and Create!

BC has welcomed thoughtful contributions of art, poetry, musical lyrics and so on to be considered for posting on the website in Expressions and Illuminations or citing in a bulletin. Some Brights, taking notice of that interest, have offered their creative work to this end.

Stephen, a Bright in California, has sent along the graphic enclosed above. He explains that his artwork superimposes a scan of 20th century composer Charles Ives' musical score for The Unanswered Question, with a quote about "knowing" by Nobel physicist Richard Feynman. Stephen titled the artwork: Marginalia Series: (Charles Ives/Richard Feynman #2), 2021.  For your ease of reading the yellow text, here it is:

“You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt, and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things. But I’m not absolutely sure of anything.”

Alongside the “doubt expression” image above, Stephen emailed a short essay of his further pondering. It is from a 2017 piece that was included in NY's Brooklyn Rail on the subject of ArtScience and the supernatural, titled "Sci-Art Doubts and Disruptions."

And Brights Write Fiction!

One instructive purpose of the Brights’ Net’s website is to help visitors understand that “being a bright” is not an ideology. (Principle 1) People in the constituency are distinct individuals. They have varied interests and hold to sundry philosophies, principles, and personal dogmas.  Nevertheless, whatever their particular worldviews may be, none encompass any supernatural or mystical elements. That’s what they have in common.

Falling under the umbrella of the naturalistic worldview leaves lots of room for varied perspectives, and plenty of Brights enjoy expressing their views. With their particular contentions, however, other Brights may or may not agree.

Some brights live in areas of the world where expression is perilous. Elsewhere, Brights are encouraged to voice their thoughts and be individually forthright in letters to editors, essays, blogs, and…yes…books!  We at Brights Central delight in hearing from the Brights who write to such great length, and BC is pleased to announce their tomes in the bulletin for other Brights to consider. Those authors who convey information according to webmaster guidelines can obtain a posting on the website under Books by Brights.

Not every Bright awakens to the opportunity to inform other Brights of their book at the time of publication. But, as the saying goes, “Better late than never!”  John, a Bright in Indiana (USA) wrote a novel a while back, incorporating his perspectives on the subject of God. His product has been added to the Books by Brights listings in both the Fiction and Primarily Religion-Referenced Framework categories.

Underpinnings of Human Morality

Typical of the societies in which most Brights reside is that the citizens are quick to look to supernatural agency (deities, spirits, unseen entities or forces) as explanation for the good and the bad, right and wrong, of circumstance and human action.

What can we Brights assuredly declare about how morality came about? Is there a firm explanation consistent with the naturalistic worldview? What does science have to say about the matter?

Posted on the website is a segment of information (PDF overview) worth a look by anyone who would like to pursue those questions. The Web Portal material resulted from a prior project of a Brights' Net task force led by Ruban Bala. The volunteers undertook to obtain sound, scientifically compelling evidence for the foundations of human morality. They learned conclusively that morality is grounded in biology and modified by cultural experience rather than revealed by supernatural agents or similar beliefs.

Project participants drew from peer-reviewed scientific research studies in diverse disciplines to acquire a body of robust, scientific substantiation that human morality is natural. Their results were submitted to notable members of the international scientific community and authenticated. Four distinct statements were validated and a web portal leading to substantiating evidence installed on the Brights’ website

The basic Reality of Morality information is provided in the form of an infographic in 15 different languages with explanations. Recommended readings and online access to the peer-reviewed studies are in English.

BC invites you have a look around the Morality Web Portal. Its brief explanatory materials (for the four scientific statements) offer a succinct grounding in the topic.  Also, think how you might best share the infographic with others – Make use of the language options! Morality—It’s only natural!  (No supernatural required.)

Who Is Saying So? - It Does Matter

A recent large and diverse cross-cultural study claims to address the fundamental question of how people trust what others say about the world. The study’s results strongly suggest that a scientific authority is generally considered a reliable source for truth, more so than is spiritual authority.

Since Brights tend to generally be part of a science-leaning segment of the global public, the findings of this global survey are apt to be greeted positively. Thus, delving into the specifics of the actual investigation, with its limitations, may be of interest. The methods in this experiment will surely intrigue those Brights who are distressed by the prevalence in society of nonsensical ideas and absurdities. Study investigators make use of gobbledygook as stimulus. That is, they provide to participants obscure, meaningless statements attributed to either a spiritual guru or a scientist.

In their testing of over ten thousand participants in 24 countries, the investigators systematically quantify the difference between acceptance of statements made by a scientific authority or a spiritual authority. From the global sample, the investigators found that scientists have more credibility than spiritual leaders.  Results from the large experimental sample, combined with additional independent data garnered from 143 countries and described in the study, led investigators to conclude that across cultures, science is a powerful and universal heuristic signaling the reliability of information.

Still, many issues remain to be explored. The investigators point to science serving as an important cue for credibility, with scientific authority to be considered the more reliable source for truth than spiritual authority. However, does the attribution really translate into a better understanding of truth?  What if politicians or corporations are saying, “science says so”? The public can still be led astray by “science cues” like Ph.D.-bearing authors on book covers, clever language in advertisements for vitamin supplements, and other “science-sounding” appeals. Investigators have much more to do to solve their fundamental question[s] of how people trust what others say about the world.

Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability

Given the generally science-leaning bent of most Brights, BC has been following and occasionally drawing attention in Brights’ Bulletins to the work of the UN-based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC is now conducting its 6^th major global assessment (the IPCC does comprehensive scientific assessment reports every seven years or so; its last was completed in 2014).

Our July-August bulletin detailed the 2021 report by Working Group 1, which was titled “The Physical Basis of Climate Change” and offered a comprehensive summary of what is known about climate change on earth, integrating what has been learned from published scientific papers across the globe.

Now, just-released is the newest report. The 2022 document comes from Working Group 2 and is titled “Impacts, Adaptations, and Vulnerability.” This is not-at-all a cheery chronicle. Vulnerability appears to be the watchword within this comprehensive look at ecosystems, biodiversity, and human communities at both global and regional levels. It points to a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future. The UN Secretary-General termed it “an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership.”

In its over 3,600-pages, 18-chapters, the document reviews the susceptibilities and the capacities and limits of the natural world and human societies to adapt to climate change. Thankfully, for the generally interested, the lengthy landmark report’s overarching conclusions are presented in a more concise manner here in what the IPPC calls “headlines” for the press. (In it, the panel’s assertions put forth are tagged with varied levels of confidence.)

Numerous news outlets have provided commentaries on the new climate report, offering helpful summaries and interpretations. One such example is the very brief 4-minute video from the PBS News Hour (USA). A quite readable essay interpretation from Climate Home News (UK) is another. The latter briefly elaborates on the following five items that CHN identifies as key takeaways from the February 2022 document.

1. Climate change is hurting our health.
2. Some things will be lost forever.
3. We can adapt… up to a point.
4. The poorest will be hit hardest.
5. Each 0.1 degrees Celsius matters.

March Cling Special

March is a good time to refresh all sorts of things (even if you live in the southern hemisphere and are looking toward winter!), so pay attention to the FREE OFFER for March. During this month, you can obtain from BC a static window decal with which to share anew your naturalistic outlook!  (Nothing supernatural in a brights’ worldview!)

The Brights’ tagline encourages us all to illuminate the naturalist worldview and the Brights’ static cling is a handy means for doing so. It’s a tool for showing others that you are staying to “the bright side of life” (Perhaps hum Monty Python’s “Always look…” about now? 🙂)

A static cling - mounted in the appropriate place - can not only point out your own outlook, it can lead a curious person to the website to investigate “what it’s all about!” And, properly installed, the cling will cling for years (until purposeful removal).

If you live in the US — It will cost you only a self-addressed forever-stamped envelope to obtain a static window decal to put on your car window (or onto another see-through surface). Please do consider, though, enclosing in your SASE a dollar or two as a gesture of solidarity with Brights outside the USA. That will enable BC to pay the actual international postage (US$1.30) to send the same item internationally to Brights in other nations who would like to have one.
(As a reward for your gesture of generosity, you will receive a bonus cling. (Please note: supply of clings is limited, so a substitution may occur.) If you happen to use a #10 business envelope, BC can also fit inside a Brights’ bookmark, which is described and pictured resting in a book on the Brights’ merchandise page.

If you live outside the US— To show your interest, please send a simple email request to the-brights@the-brights.net with WANTCLING in capital letters in the subject line. We queue these requests by date and, during the month of March, will fulfill to the level of hoped-for kind generosity shown by American Brights paying the postage. We will also include a bookmark and other swag in the envelope, up to the one-ounce postage limit.

Musings of New Brights

Only a fraction of folks who register at the website actually answer the “How did you hear about the Brights?” question. (Most don’t.)  And although a “comments” box is also available, fewer still go further to explain their thinking at the time. Usually a comment is brief, but there is an occasional treatise of near-essay length!

Most statements received from these “new Brights” fall into these three categories: (1) they indicate some frustration with “the way things are” in their world; (2) they say what they think about whole idea of “the brights” or (3) they react to the term. Here is a sampling.

• I am concerned at the alarming infusion of radical religiosity into altering the neutral frameworks of a responsible society.
• Why do I let my friend preach to me yet I don’t feel comfortable telling her that she has been had by her upbringing?
• I am a senior citizen and currently am studying Stoicism. I think the Stoics and the Brights are pretty sympatico.
• Thank you for trying to bring cohesion to a worthy, disparate group. It's not easy to feel like you belong when defined by a negative - a lack of faith, in this case - and I commend you for trying to remedy that.
• I have great respect for James Randi and found out that he was a Bright, so I checked you out. Glad I did.
• I’m very tired to meet every single day people who live their life just considering irrational things whatever they are.
• As a scientist I support a naturalistic, science-based decision-making process in all public policy decisions.
• This is something positive for the world that needs to be more known about.
• Not sure if the name "bright" is a good idea. But I really appreciate the effort and with you to further the cause
• Love the idea.
• I have never willing put on the yoke of dogma and yet I feel it pressing in from every direction.