Showing posts with label hypothesis testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypothesis testing. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Novel as Experiment in Whitehead’s Underground Railroad

Colson Whitehead’s The Underground Railroad was one of the most famous novels of 2016. In this novel, a young slave Cora escapes from Georgia on the Underground Railroad, and eventually...does she make it? I won’t spoil the ending. But in this novel the Railroad is really a railroad, with railroad cars on tracks running through tunnels.

One impression is inescapable, and intentional. The amount of deliberate suffering inflicted by slave owners and slave hunters on the slaves, and even on other whites, is almost infinitely brutal. In this novel, slave hunters would kill and rape white abolitionists. Slave owners would put the eyes out of a slave who tried to learn to read. A white daughter turned in her parents to be hanged for hiding a fugitive slave (Cora), in return for an elevation of her social status. One slave hunter wore a necklace made out of human ears. One slave owner tortured his male slave by cutting off the slave’s manhood, stuffing it in the slave’s mouth, and sewing it shut.

Remember, this is fiction. Many of these things did not actually happen. For example, it makes no economic sense for slave owners to torture and kill their slaves for minor infractions; slaves were expensive to buy and maintain. Slave owners would, in the real South, treat slaves like animals, but not usually worse. But Whitehead achieves the novelist’s purpose, to make the reader hate slavery, and to see how it turns slave owners into devils.

And then I realized that this was the point. Most of these brutal things occurred at some point in history, but not all at once. During the lynchings after the Civil War, whites would indeed torture blacks. In doing so, they were not losing any money, the way slave owners would have. Whitehead took actual events from the lynching period and stuck them into the time of slavery. Whitehead also created a superficially nice-looking South Carolina, where black escapees were treated nicely, but it turns out that they were being sterilized in the name of scientific eugenics, and being used in scientific experiments. These things actually happened in the first half of the twentieth century. By placing the brutalities of fictional Georgia and North Carolina alongside the superficial niceness of the fictional South Carolina, Whitehead was inviting us to compare them. Were eugenics and scientific experimentation (as in the Tuskegee experiments), any less brutal than slavery? We usually don’t ask that question, because they occurred separately in history. Whitehead lines them all up during one brief time in Cora’s life. He performs an experiment with history. Hypothesis: eugenics is less brutal than slavery. Conclusion: No, they are both brutal.

I tried this kind of literary experiment when I was in junior high. I wrote a short story in which I divided England into two counties, Rupertshire and Spratleyshire, and I gave them two different forms of government. I set them side by side and allowed a traveler to directly compare them. That’s all I remember about this story, which might be in a box somewhere.

The Underground Railroad will certainly stir your fury. The young escaped slave Cora did not take every opportunity for revenge that came to her. I found myself wishing she had tortured and slowly killed the slave catcher in Indiana, rather than leaving him alive and tied up. That is, Whitehead stirred my desire for revenge then confronted me with mercy. This literary theme will never grow old.

Colson Whitehead broke up the timeline of history in a way that is forbidden in most historical fiction: he altered the historical context. But he made this broken timeline into parallel segments and compared them, as in a scientific experiment.


I published this essay on my evolution blog earlier this fall.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

What Christianity Needs Is another Daniel

Many Christian churches encourage their members to just accept what the preacher says and to not ask inconvenient questions. This is not, however, the attitude that is praised by some parts of the Bible. There are parts of the Bible that encourage critical thinking and an experimental approach.

The best example is from a portion of the Bible that is no longer part of the Protestant canon (although it was included in the original King James Bible of 1611). The Catholic Bible usually includes it as a separate fragment, Bel and the Dragon. With a name like that, how could you not want to read it? Part of this fragment is the story of Bel.

Daniel is one of a few Hebrews in the court of a pagan king, and the king is not pleased by the fact that Daniel refuses to believe in pagan gods. Daniel tells the king that the great god Bel is nothing more than bronze and clay. Rather than simply to condemn Daniel for disagreeing with him, the king cites evidence for the divinity of Bel. He points out that Bel eats twelve measures of flour, forty sheep, and six vessels of wine every day. How could a mere statue do this? Furthermore, the king agrees to put the divinity of Bel to an experimental test. (Note: if you do not want your religious beliefs put in danger of being discredited, you had better not agree to such a thing.)

The hypothesis was that if Bel is a god, then he is capable of eating food, as his priests claim. The king had his servants place a day’s food in Bel’s temple, and then shut it, to make sure that Bel, and only Bel, was inside. The king sealed the temple shut with his own ring. He also placed a high standard of compliance: if Bel does not consume the offerings, the priests were to die, but if Bel did consume the offerings, Daniel was to die.

After the priests had left but before the temple was sealed shut, Daniel scattered ashes on the floor. He was convinced that there was a secret door, through which the priests entered and carried off the food for themselves and their families. This was his alternative hypothesis.

The next morning, the food was gone, and the priests claimed that they had been vindicated. Then Daniel pointed out the footprints on the floor. Daniel had done what four teenagers and a big dog in a van would have done. The king had the priests arrested. They confessed what they had done and showed the king the secret passage that they had used. The king put the priests and their families to death, and allowed Daniel to destroy the temple.

Numerous studies of the Near Death Experience and of intercessory prayer have shown that there is no clear evidence for miracles or an afterlife (more on this later). This is not an intrusion of science into a place where it is not welcome. Scientific hypothesis testing of a spiritual claim was, at least in this fragment of a Biblical book, praised.