A Self Ordering World

00:00 Politics and Science presents the viewpoints of its participants and does not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of any other person or organization. Okay, we’ll cut that off and tell you that the following show does present the viewpoints of its participants. The following program represents the views of its participants. Just what I was saying and does not necessarily represent an official opinion of WMRW or any other person or organization. And you are listening to WMRW and Politics and Science with your host, John Barkhausen, and my guest today is Dr. Raymond Peat. And I’m happy to have him back again. And Dr. Peat, can you hear me? Yes. Excellent. We’re going to talk about your recent newsletter. It was entitled How Do You Know Students, Patience, and Discovery. And the scope of the newsletter, I thought, was pretty enormous. 01:03 It ranges from discussing and unifying self-ordering principle concerning the nature of the universe, which you can’t get much bigger than that. And talks about how the same principle is reflected in our learning processes, in our culture, and in all other functional, goal-directed systems in our world. You use the quote, One Thought Fills Immensity by William Blake, the motto of the newsletter. And I thought that’s very apt for this newsletter because it’s such a profound subject you’re bringing up. I thought just as a way to bring people into this, it would be useful if you could tell us some of your personal experience as a student and then as a teacher, and how this has formed your outlook toward the world. My parents had quite a few interesting books. They had got some from their parents’ 19th century books, like I think it was a second or third edition of Dartmouth’s Descent of Man. 02:10 And they had a little collection of the little blue books that were published, I think, in Kansas. And they were the classics in five and 10-cent versions. And so there really was quite a variety of reading material when I was a little kid. And Encyclopedia, the older Encyclopedia Britannica and others were pretty objective at that time on issues like Darwin versus Lamarck. And gave the research done in the 20s, early part of the 19th of the 20th century, in different countries, that gave me an orientation that I began preferring the non-genetic version of the adaptation of individuals to the environment. 03:17 And so by the late 1940s, when the genetics doctrine was being imposed politically very powerfully through the U.S., that made me start seeing the political significance of science in general, and especially biology. Can you give us some sense of time? What year were you reading the little blue books? Oh, right after I learned to read Alli Eup and such, I went right to the little blue books, probably 1940. And then all through the 40s, my parents knew about Peter Kropotkin’s political writings as well as his mutual aid factor of evolution. And so that was my first political book, was really Kropotkin’s biological work on evolution. 04:27 And from that, he drew his anarchist political ideas. And that fit in with the other stuff I had been reading on the true Darwin, not the pseudo-Darwinism that was promoted after the 1940s. Neo-Darwinism really was pretty much anti-Darwin. In Darwin’s introduction to the Descend of Man, he pointed out that his ideas were being distorted and that he didn’t say that the struggle for survival and natural selection was the basic power of evolution. He named several other moral marquee factors in evolution. 05:29 That’s more in line with what Kropotkin was saying. Kropotkin emphasized cooperation within species and even between species in symbiosis and such. Although I was interested in science before I went to college, by the time I was in college, I was convinced that there was really something wrong with America and British science in particular. And so I concentrated on the humanities and did my master thesis on bogey and plague. And that gave me a chance to spend years reading on the history of philosophy and philosophy of science and so on. Years later, I did go back to a degree in science. 06:31 I sort of inoculated myself against being indoctrinated and forced to believe the very dogmatic ideas that make up American science. What gave you the clue that it was dogmatic and not based in actuality? Oh, you heard the joke about Aristotle having counted the number of teeth in a donkey or something and that being repeated for hundreds of years. The same thing happened in American chromosome studies. Even though Germans were able to count and investigate the effect of chromosome way back in the early 20th century, they were thinking of chromosome as the carriers of heredity and disturbance in chromosomes as being the cause of cancer and so on. 07:43 And major American biologists didn’t even believe that chromosomes had to do with heredity until the early 1920s. And in the 1940s, well, all the way up until 1956, American and English were still saying that humans have 48 chromosomes. And I had read in the 40s to know that people vary somewhat in their numbers with teeth. By far the most common number of chromosomes was 42 in normal human. And somehow this fixed idea once said that with great authority, so Americans and British just kept saying it over and over for decades. Did you have some good teachers yourself personally going through the school system? 08:45 Oh, yeah, I had three good teachers, I think, in the 19 years in college, university, out of about 60, I guess. I don’t think that’s a bad average from my own personal experience. Yeah. You probably did pretty well there. You’ve been teaching, I’d say, and you’re still teaching at this point, you put out a newsletter. And I should have said that Ray Pete is a physiologist and a science historian and also I think also going with that is the philosophy historian. You write in this newsletter, how do you know about teaching literature? And I was wondering if you could just recount your experience trying to follow the school regulations and then finally giving up on that. Yeah. That’s where I was teaching two different kinds of compositions and freshman compositions. 09:50 The department had a little list of how we had to create paper, three types of grammatical or spelling mistakes or diction. You would mark off so many points and the purpose is to fail about 90%!o(MISSING)f the freshman and that was called keeping up standard. And I saw that after doing that for a few weeks that the students were writing worse and worse because they saw that they tended to make mistakes when they didn’t have everything for a very constant control. So they started writing like first graders. And I had read several dozens of their papers to save myself the suffering of reading first grade papers. 10:58 I would put them in on, ignore the spelling punctuation and the things on that playlist, but I would grade them entirely on their ability to communicate something of interest to me. Within just a couple of weeks, everyone was writing much better. And I had my office partner who was teaching similar classes following the same rules. I had to read some of the before and after papers and grade them. And he found that when I wasn’t grading for errors, the students were writing better according to his department standards. So they were supposedly keeping up standards while actually degrading the work outside of the students. 12:00 Yeah, that sounds like a dysfunctional system and I’m glad you were able to find a solution to that. Ray, we just got an email and I think it’s true that saying that your voice is being clipped all the time. So I think we should probably hang up and I’ll try to reconnect with you and get a better connection. Okay. So I’ll call you right back in about a minute. Okay. So we are going to go to a song for just a second and I’m going to call Ray back. Alright, we’re back. Politics and Science with Dr. Raymond Peep. We were talking about your teaching experience and how you actually let the students write about things that were important to them. 13:11 And suddenly their performance improved even on the grammatical criteria that the college was so worried about. Is that right? Yeah. And when I asked them to put their emphasis on communicating something and to not think about the mechanics of it, suddenly the mechanics improved as well as the content. And did you know about Carl Rogers at that point or is that somebody you read about later? Were you influenced by him? For a while I was majoring in psychology in the 1950s and I read his client-centered therapy sometime in the late 50s. What was his influence on education, Carl Rogers? He went from his work showing that it’s the coherent personality of the therapist that makes a difference in therapy situations 14:15 and not any psychiatric technique that they might apply simply the validity of their communication with the client. He established that that was actually the thing that made psychological therapy work and then he extended that and began popularizing the idea of student-centered education. So that it was actually the psychiatrist or therapist allowing the person to self-direct their own emotional recovery that was working? What was the process of listening deeply that the patient, in effect, began hearing what they were saying themselves by having someone understand what they were saying? 15:24 And he also applied the same idea to, it seemed like, to the entire world. He talked about it in terms of culture? Yeah, he published a book on the philosophy of science with a co-author whose name I forget, but it’s probably a good introduction to Carl Rogers’ work to start at the philosophy of science. But at the end of his book, Plant-Centered Therapy, there’s a philosophical section that makes very explicit the philosophy behind the method. And how was he received? Well, even other psychiatrists, since he showed empirically that people recovered in proportion to the coherence of the therapist’s personality and manner of communication, 16:28 but it had nothing to do with whether they were a Freudian or a behaviorist or whatever. And so all of the doctrinaire psychologists said that isn’t possible because they really believe in their theories of therapy, and especially the medical psychiatrist just totally said he isn’t even a psychologist and much less a psychiatrist. The medical people were the most rejecting of his approach. Considering what he was saying, that’s not too surprising because it sounds like it was threatening to them. Yeah, and professors in general didn’t like that approach because the point of being a professor is to demonstrate that you know it all. 17:33 If a person goes into, say, a physics class, the assumption is that the professor is going to sort of transmit bit by bit his textbook in physics into the mind of the student because it’s an absolute filling up of an empty space in the mind of the student, and as if the professor knows everything for sure and absolutely. And back at that time when I was teaching English and literature and studying a variety of things, I talked to quite a variety of physics people because that was one of my interests. So physics underlies biology, which underlies the way we make language and how consciousness works. 18:44 So as part of my understanding of language and consciousness, I felt I had to have satisfaction that there was some rational physics behind it. So I talked to a lot of physics professionals and invariably they would just, when I would ask them a question, they would quote word for word right out of their textbook or physics course. And it simply couldn’t conceive what I was asking if it was an attempt to know anything other than what is in the physics, but really the most dogmatic people in science seem to be in physics. One of my professors I thought was intelligent said that the average physics graduate student has trouble knowing whether a ball will roll up or down and then climb to plane because they’ve been trained so abstractly. 19:57 That’s a little discouraging. I mean, the physicists who tend towards the mathematical side dislike applied mathematics. And I’ve talked to some of those, one of the local professors who was very famous, explained some physical reactions, particle nuclear particle interactions as being explainable by a particle coming from the future. And meeting the nucleus at the moment that the nucleus emit a particle. Just a most fundamentally confused person who thought time could run both ways at the same time. 21:02 Well, that’s perhaps the influence of quantum physics on the scientific culture. Yeah, it’s the abstract way everything is thought, even getting someone to look at the history of where the idea of quantum thinking came from as a historical and cultural thing. There have been a couple of books treating the German physics community at that time and showing how important idealistic philosophy was in their cultural context. And when you look at the, for example, Einstein’s photoelectric theory, at that time, at the time that Einstein thought of the necessity to quantize light to explain the way a certain frequency of light rather than intensity is needed to liberate electrons. 22:18 At the time he thought that he was absolutely and simply mistaken about the electronic nature of matter. 20 or 30 years later he learned otherwise, but at that time he subscribed to the idea that matter is an assemblage of atomic particles, each one of which is electrically discreet and that there is no electrical blurring across the substance. And when Michael Polanyi in 1915, coming from Hungary, presented in Berlin a description of his work in absorption of gases under solid surfaces under pressure, Einstein was one of the people at the meeting that said, 23:19 sorry, that isn’t possible. You’re thinking in some kind of primitive Hungarian way, but here in Germany we know that electrons are discreetly attached to atoms and that you don’t get these things smearing out through space. And it was that kind of thinking that was background to the quantized physics that took over the world, but Einstein, who was very instrumental in it, was simply mistaken about how matter works. I see, so even great minds can go astray, and did he try to call it back when he realized his error? Yeah, it was about 1930 or so when the absorption people, they never admitted that Polanyi was right, but they started creating alternative ways to explain the experimental evidence that he had demonstrated. 24:37 So Polanyi’s evidence was vindicated, but they told a different story about how it worked, and from about that time on, Einstein began saying he couldn’t really accept the whole quantum approach of physical reality. I see, and we’re talking about Dr. Raymond Peake, who’s a physiologist and Eugene Morgan and a science historian, and it sounds like that’s an example of how a dogma gets legs of its own and walks off from even the people who originated the ideas, and we’re also talking about learning and how it works best if it’s self-organizing. And Carl Rogers was postulating that that’s an essential trait of everything in nature, that things tend to be self-organizing and they tend to try to live up to their fullest potential. 25:43 Well, it’s in the biological idea of what a cell and an organism is where you see the greatest, the clearest demonstration of that principle in sociology and therapy and so on. People think those aren’t really very scientific anyway, and in physics the dogma is so strong that there’s no possibility really to talk sensibly to the believers, but in biology there has been such a huge amount of data accumulated showing that things are open and flexible and that the trying to explain them in terms of these quantized eternal parts just doesn’t work, but that’s where molecular biology and the dominant theory of genetics came from. 27:03 There was a belief in an otherworldly nature of the gene that what they were doing was agreeing with the theological rejection of evolution, and Mendel was a monk who gained his own professional standing seeming to have disproved evolution by showing that traits are eternal even though the organism seemed to change. He showed that they’re only changing their appearance, but their essential nature is timeless. So the church people like Mendel’s work, but then English biologists found it and took it up again for the same reason that they hated some of the things that Darwin said which agreed with Lamarck, which was that organisms can be changed by their experience. 28:13 And that has racial overtones. If you say the working class people can radically change their nature and become philosophers, that messes with the whole authoritarian social system. And so the English ruling class biologists loved the Mendelian approach because it said Darwin and Lamarck were both profoundly mistaken about how evolution works. That’s fascinating. So really genetics just grew out of a scientist found a way to appease the church who didn’t like the idea of evolution, but genes represented something eternal that God could create. Yeah, one of the things in the 50s that made me think American biology was ridiculous was that they believed that genes would specify everything including the way we thought and the way each synapse, every nerve cell was supposed to be genetically determined as to location 29:37 and the way synapse with other nerve and someone calculated how impossible when they realized how many brain cells there were, people started rethinking that and said it wouldn’t be possible to have enough genes in a cell to specify how it works. And as the genetics people learned more about DNA, it turned out that the great bulk of the DNA isn’t there for genetic purposes. The genes that make up a person or a yeast are a very small part of the DNA that’s present. Our DNA isn’t very different from that of a monkey or a yeast cell, but something is very different in our reality. 30:40 So it sounds like there’s not just a prejudice among educators and other therapists against the self-ordering idea, but it goes across all the professional trades. Yeah, I happened to be teaching a linguistics course in the 60s and just about the time that Noam Chomsky was coming out against the Vietnam War, I had been pointing out how there was absolutely no evidence in Chomsky’s type of linguistic. He totally ignored evidence. It was an absolutely idealistic doctrine saying that we have genes that specify the way we talk, and there’s almost no difference in Chomsky’s idealistic, genetic idea of language. 31:48 And Konrad Lorenz’s genetic explanation for all behavior, which Konrad Lorenz designed specifically for Hitler to justify racial extermination, and Chomsky wouldn’t like that comparison. But in fact, they’re both committed to ignoring the actual evidence and believing that genes explain everything. I’m not sure where Chomsky’s motive came from, but Lorenz said it was obviously to say that society is constituted the way it could be, except for the mongrels with the bad genetic traits such as liking jazz music and things that were culturally unpopular and should be exterminated. 32:55 I must admit I’m a little confused because I hear the dogmatists saying that everything’s laid out and determined by genes, and yet they also, which seems like something that’s completely set in stone, and yet they’re also proposing things like chaos theory. Yeah, that was the idea of randomness that goes way back into the 19th century. It was sort of a compromise. They said that if anything changes, it changes only randomly. And so when Muller started showing that he could mutate fruit-wise with X-rays, the change was seen to deteriorate almost always. Any mutation made the animals defective. 34:02 And that was because change is random, and so if you’re going to have change, it can’t be meaningful. You can’t say that if you feed four people that they will have healthier babies who will be more intelligent, because that would say that you have a directional change being caused by the environment. The whole point of genetics is to say environment can’t change the reality of the organism. And if you change it, it’s only going to make it worse, so don’t bother trying to improve the traits of a population. I see. So it really is political, not only a theological response, but a political response. Yeah, I think the doctrine of randomness lay at the end of this loving of chaos theory. 35:11 You’ve said that neo-Cantian philosophy has dominated U.S. universities for more than a century, and it argues that our senses are limited, so we can’t really know the world. Does that tie into that? Yeah, our senses are determined by our genes, and even for the Chomsky point of view, and a lot of the biologists even our thoughts and behaviors are determined by our genes. You were talking about Chomsky, and he’s famous for theorizing about languages. How do languages fit into how we learn? Chomsky says that we really don’t learn our language in the structural sense that we’re born with it. All we do is learn some of the minor details of vocabulary and pronunciation and such. 36:16 That’s from our culture. The neo-Cantians at the extreme say that our perceptions are shaped by our genes, and many of them revive the Leibnizian idea of monads. All of our knowledge and experience is in our genes, and so we aren’t really experiencing anything. George Wald, who was a famous professor who investigated vision, he explained that color vision is based on a difference of frequencies rather than an absolute color, 37:19 and he, by testing people who had had their lens removed from their eyes because of cataracts, he found that they could see patterns in ultraviolet light the same way bees can. That’s one of the favorite examples of the neo-Cantians that we are determined to see the world in a certain way. For example, bees see a pattern in flowers reflecting ultraviolet light that humans don’t see. When the thick lens is removed from the eye, the ultraviolet light gets to our retina and humans can see it. It’s just a matter of the intensity of stimulus and such that makes the difference between what a bee sees and what a human sees. Very similar things apply to how we think about the senses. Some people say that bees and birds and other animals each has its genetically programmed way of thinking about what it experiences, 38:39 and so we can never really know what a bee or an ant is thinking because they are only following genetic rules. But people who really are willing to look at the animals in their natural setting, and in other words, who are studying them in an intelligent way, see that the bees and the ants are solving problems, unique original problems that never happened before in a manner that rivals human thinking. For example, given a set up of instructions and arrangements in space, ants were able to learn and transmit information 39:41 as competently as trained air traffic controllers in indistreetly defined informational situations. There are lots of demonstrations that show that animal thinking isn’t genetically determined and unconscious, but behaves almost identically to the way human thinking works, proceeding the situation, analyzing it, and communicating it. I’ve never understood why we separated ourselves from the animals to begin with, because it just seems like another form of elitism. It’s obvious that we’re very related to all the other beings on this earth, especially mammals, and it seemed like some insecure elitism that drove us to put us on a pedestal. 40:44 Yeah, just a few decades ago, some of the most famous professors in the country were saying that there are subhumans and real humans, and that working class people are genetically inferior, and that with an improved society, there won’t be any exceptions to the stratification so that working class people will all go to the bottom genetically, and that the talented people will all rise to the top, that people will never change status once the society sorts things out so that poor people will never try to get a college education. 41:46 So it’s kind of like the old European world attitude where people are relegated into their careers at a very young age by how they test in schools. Yeah, I wasn’t the bell curve co-authored by Hernstein and Murray. Hernstein was a famous Harvard professor who said that we needed a proper meritocracy where there wasn’t the confusion of trying to educate working class people. Yeah, well it sounds like the same system that you were teaching in where they wanted to eliminate a certain number of the students from the student body by the time the course was done. So it’s more of a filter than an education device. Ray, I was wondering if you could address some of the other aspects of the article you recently wrote, the newsletter, how do you know students’ patience and discovery. 42:52 You talked about Alfred Korzybski, I believe, and also Paolo Freer, both pointing out the use of language and the use of abstractions in education and how that’s a help and a hindrance. Yeah, Paolo Freer was a person who had an empirical view of reality and that when people realized that they could define the words of their language, it caused them to start thinking rather than simply accepting what their background was. So he asked people to choose a vocabulary that they wanted to investigate and to define the terms themselves and then to test their definitions and a true empirical approach to reality. 44:05 And Korzybski pretty much got stuck in the idea that there were gradients of concreteness and generality and the truth involved getting down to the specific concrete fact. And he was basically an enemy of the idea that there could be a critical approach on the general level and that general perceptions and concepts were ultimately just as valid as concrete naming of individual situations. He wanted the proper scientific language. He wanted it to have a coefficient or a diacritical mark indicating the particular individual and the particular time you’re referring to and implying that generalities were always farther from reality. 45:28 But if you realize that all of the facts are, whether you’re talking about an atom, here and now, an organism or a process, we’re talking about patterns of experience. And if a person doesn’t look for a pattern on the scale of generality, naturally they’re not going to find it. And it’s the same thing as assuming that everything an ant does is stupid. People like the famous E. O. Wilson, I think his name is, who has written famous books on ants, basically believes ants are stupid. But it’s simply because he investigated them in stupid ways that failed to look at their unique response to unique circumstances. 46:32 So if a person doesn’t look for a general phenomenon, naturally they’re not going to find it. But if you look with scale for a general behavior, then you’re going to see things that are maybe of the maximum important. For example, when people are studying cancer, the genetic people don’t look for field phenomena, and so they can’t see them. But whenever someone looks for such a thing as a cancer field, they see that it’s there. For example, the definitive cancer cells are surrounded by a field of pre-cancerous cells, and it fades off into simply inflamed or stressed cells. 47:35 And without being the field phenomenon in any process, you’re going to get stuck with the reductionist jumble of the meaningless particles. And the government has some amazing giant computers that stuff with the observations of what enzymes and genes and signal substances are doing, and think that they’ll come up with something, but they’re failing to simply look intelligently at the field behavior or the way this thing is functioning as a whole through time and space. And that’s sort of the difference between the way von Bertalanffy looked at systems theory and the way P.K. Anokin derived his more cybernetic kind of approach to systems thinking. 48:43 You said Anokin came up with the concept of feedback, something we all use today. Yeah, in English it became popularized by Norbert Wiener, but all of the concepts were developed about 15 years before that by P.K. Anokin, who was one of Havloff’s colleagues, and Anokin saw that it was what was able to explain the development of an embryo meaningfully instead of the embryo being guided blindly by genetic reactions. Each of the cells and systems was responding to the situation that found itself in at any moment, and adjusting itself, changing its metabolism, and restructuring itself. 49:49 Every time the situation changed, the particles changed to suit the situation where the genetic theory has this infinitely complex idea that all of these constantly changing developmental processes have to be dealt out in the genes somehow and somehow read at the proper time, it just is impossible when you try to guide it like clockwork from the inside. But when it’s a matter of responsiveness to the presently perceived situation, it will explain how an embryo developed. And Anokin has been applied for many years to all of the aspects of learning, brain development, and physiology in general. 50:50 We’re running out of time, so we should probably sum up. My interest was piqued by one thing he wrote, which was that Anokin found principles that would explain the origin of organs and their functions, and that would also apply to the interactions between individuals. So he saw the micro and the macro principles of self-organizing. Some of his books are available in English, and one of the interesting things about his understanding of brain function was that he argued that it’s impossible to explain the basic processes of hearing and seeing and learning in terms of an honor off all or none function. In the form of nerve communication, he said that each nerve basically has an intelligent awareness of what’s happening, much more than just being a switch that goes on and off. 51:58 He said that each nerve is receiving a complex signal from its extremity with standards and adjusting the way the developing organism does at other levels. So everything is self-organizing from the whole right down to the cells? Yeah, and one of my professors of biochemistry, Sidney Bernhardt, I took reading and conference courses from him, or I would bring him a book by Albert St. Georgie, for example, and he would read it and say, not scientific enough, and he would suggest I read something, and he was a very bright but very skeptical person, but he published a series of papers showing that all of the basic assumptions of biochemistry, 53:05 which the ideas that you squash up a cell, close the enzymes in a solution of water and salt, and that by diffusion the particles will meet the enzyme and react and so on. He showed that in the glycolytic metabolism in which glucose enters and lactase or pyruvate or carbon dioxide comes out, he showed that the enzymes outnumber the substrate molecules, and the reaction involved one enzyme handing off the product of its reaction to the next enzyme, so it isn’t a random diffusion of material through water randomly finding an enzyme, 54:07 but it’s a totally organized enzyme to enzyme handoff of the material that they’re working on, and he did that simply by counting molecules, which anyone could have done, but they were so committed to the idea of randomness in a watery solution, that they totally missed the point of what’s happening in the cell. We have a number of questions that have come in by email. Two of them are pretty similar. One is, what would you recommend to a young person who wants to study biology? He has a degree in English, and the other person was wondering what research we can trust. Oh, well, don’t trust anything. Just read it carefully and think about what they’re doing and even think about who they are and what they’re trying to do. 55:12 For example, I recently saw a discussion of the anti-cancer drug called Ukraine, and some English researchers offered to give it an objective test, and the producer enthusiastically agreed, but then when he learned what they were going to do, he said, well, no, I want an independent evaluation, and they wrote articles in Lancet saying the producer was unwilling to submit it to an objective test, but when I looked at their 200 or so previous publications, they were absolutely aligned with the cell-toxic chemotherapy industry, and they were going to test his substance in violation of the standard research procedures 56:19 for the European Union, but that got into the literature as the producer of the substance being unwilling to have an objective test where they were the ones trying to put it through a non-objective situation. Reading about the history of the person making the claim is part of the process of finding out what they’re doing, and just carefully looking at the nature of their work will about nine times out of ten show that they have some ulterior motive. And about where to start, probably Gilbert Lane is a good place to reorient to how the biological community works and how they have ignored Lane for almost 60 years now, 57:22 and I’ve looked at the literature citing Lane and see that when someone misquoted, totally misstated what Lane said, his misquotation went down through about a dozen repetitions in which people claiming to have read Lane were simply misquoting a misstatement about Gilbert Lane. That one error led to deliberate misrepresentations of Gilbert Lane’s work, so when you really pay attention to Gilbert Lane, what you’re doing is seeing a lot of corruption in the biological community. We’ll have to leave it there, Ray. We’re out of time. And another person asked if you put a book out with all of your dietary recommendations laid out in one place so people could gain a clear understanding of what to eat and what not to eat. 58:27 No, not really. Coming out gradually in my newsletter. Okay, and I’ll give that information out right now. We’re out of time. Thanks so much, Ray. If you have any questions for Politics and Science, you can direct them by email to politicsandscienceatmadriver.com. That’s politicsandscienceatmadriver.com. Archive shows can be found at radioforall.net. That’s radiothenumberforall.net. Politics and Science presents the viewpoints of its participants and does not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of any other person or organization.