Scientific issues need scientific discussions. And I’m going to do that here. That is not what happens today on some issues and it should be noted.
Let’s start with Schrödinger’s cat experimentation. The original form of this problem used a solid box but to make things even clearer let’s use a box with a solid surface on one side ( side A) and a glass surface on the opposite side (side B). There are two observers. One looks through side A and so for the first observer the cat is both dead and alive and the other one looks through side B and for the second observer the cat is either dead or alive (and not both). But we know they both live in the same world. Let’s say those two observers go and two new observers do the experimentation. Again the world remains the way it was but observers come and go and create different worlds in their minds.
The point is that we can only detect a probability wave. It doesn’t mean that there are numerous outcomes it means that our knowledge is limited and we can’t see through the probability wall. We can however always start a meaningless discussion on how the other side of the wall might be. The same is true about social sciences.
Social sciences too, detect probability wave. In fact, that is true about all complex systems where A changes the state of B and B changes the state of C and so on. But how can we detect the probability wave? I will start with the social sciences and then I will generalize that.
Attractors specify the probability wave. For example, we have family values. In our friends’ community, there might be other values. So now there are two attractors (two magnets). A social study might reveal that the first magnet is far more powerful in a society. It means that the probability wave tells us that the probability that someone in that society is attracted to the first magnet is far greater.
Now I can talk about the point of this article. It’s about biology and evolution and nothing else. Suppose there are two attractors again. Biologists will tell you that one attractor, for instance, is ~20 times more powerful based on genetic experimentations. This example is even more interesting for evolutionists since reproduction is key in evolution. But then human right activists, rightly, will say those genetic variations are like eye color variations and the rights of individuals should be protected. Absolutely.
But there are two points to make here. Firstly alongside human rights advancements, science has advanced as well and has proposed simple solutions. Secondly, a system analyst will tell you that the power of each attractor should never be changed. If attractor A is ~20 times more powerful than the second attractor. We shouldn’t change that to 5 times. Because this disrupts the entire system.
That’s where media comes in. They should break taboos, so if someone is genetically very close to the second attractor they should feel no shame at all to undergo a simple surgery which is the gift of our time. Remember the power of attractors, especially in social scenarios, is very flexible.
There are always exceptions in nature and biologists discover a whole lot of them but they do not change the power of attractors. The problem arises when we change the balance. We have tools to solve the issue today and we should use it. Again this is a scientific discussion and nothing else and it should be treated as such.