Steven Novella, an American clinical neurologist, is well-known in the skeptical community and is co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society. He also has a blog that he regularly contributes to. I occasionally read it, and I usually find him refreshingly level-headed and sober in his assessment of the relevant issue at hand. Indeed, in the majority of his blog posts that I happen to read, I find myself in more or less full agreement with him. I do, however, very much disagree with him both regarding the possibility of an afterlife and on the existence of psi.
Recently, Novella published a blog post called Problems with the Institute Of Noetic Sciences, and I'd like to comment on a couple of things he says in there.
Novella references a Daily Beast article. Novella complains:
The article focuses on neuroscientist Spiro Pantazatos and his collaboration with IONS, looking for brain regions that might correlate with specific paranormal phenomena. My problem with this research is that is assumes various paranormal phenomena are real, when that has not been scientifically established. In fact, as I point out in the article, we have over a century of research which has failed to demonstrate psi phenomena (ESP, clairvoyance, telekenesis, etc.) to point to. This is not some new idea that has never been explored.
I take it then that Novella favours further proof-oriented research. I have two issues with this.
2. What IONS favours doing instead, namely "process-oriented experiments", might well pay dividends, not least of all on the issue of whether psi exists at all.
Allow me to elaborate.
There has been 140 years of parapsychological research which, according to IONS, objectively demonstrates what they label "non-local consciousness effects". Now, without getting into a debate about whether they have or not, I imagine that this is what they truly believe. But this being so, to what avail from their perspective would yet further proof-oriented research achieve? Surely precisely nothing, since they're already convinced of its existence. And the same applies to other believers in psi.
So what about skeptics of psi? Well, if 140 years of research hasn't convinced them and considering that they appear to be just as belligerently against the possibility of psi as they have ever been, it then seems scarcely likely that yet more proof-oriented research will convince them otherwise.
Hence, from whichever perspective one looks at it -- whether from a proponent of psi or a skeptic -- further proof-oriented research might well be largely a fruitless endeavour.
On the other hand, if psi exists, then carrying out process-oriented experiments will hopefully reveal the factors that are most conducive to its manifestation. This in turn is clearly helpful to definitively establishing its existence. In addition, it will furnish us with knowledge about the capacities of consciousness and more general questions of how it relates to the material world.
So it seems to me a no-brainer to conclude that process-oriented experiments in parapsychology are far more useful. And if good science connotes research that is the most helpful to promoting understanding and knowledge, it is good science too. This invites the question of why Novella and other skeptics I have read are adamant that process-oriented experiments in parapsychology are in fact "bad science". This is simply not true.
Following on from what Novella said above, he adds:
There is also the not-insignificant factor of a complete lack of scientific plausibility. Sure, it’s always possible there is something going on beyond the known laws of physics. To be philosophically pure one should never say “impossible” in science. But if a claim does violate the known laws of physics at a fundamental level, that should give any proponent significant pause. It does raise the bar for evidence dramatically. We should not accept marginal or subjective evidence in order to overturn centuries of established physical laws. That would never be a good bet (so far skeptics have a really good track record always betting on the laws of physics).
This is a very common criticism made by skeptics. If he is referring to the largely metaphysical assumptions typically made by scientists (and I think this is what skeptics tend to have in mind), I comprehensively address these in the following blog post:
Skeptical Inquirer attempts to explain why psi could not possibly exist
I'd also like to add that there is a fundamental misunderstanding that Novella is making here. Namely, the possibility that psi could violate any specific physical laws as we currently know them. Allow me to explain.
Physical laws as we currently know them do not include consciousness in their description of reality. Indeed, the issue of how consciousness relates to one's body is known as the Mind-Body problem and has more recently been labelled the hard problem (alternatively, see this more easily understandable Guardian article). Of course, various solutions have been proposed. There are even those who deny the very existence of consciousness! The point being here is that even though there is virtually universal agreement amongst academics that the brain does somehow or other create consciousness, how it does so generates intense disagreement and a great deal of heated debate.
Now, if we do not have a broadly accepted scientific theory explaining the very existence of consciousness, then it necessarily follows that we also do not have any scientific theory or laws explaining the existence of the properties of consciousness. But psi is an alleged ability of consciousness, that is, it is a property of consciousness. Hence, to claim that psi violates any specific physical law, or laws, fails to grasp this fact.
So what should we make of Novella's dismissive comments?
Firstly, the fact they are engaging in process-oriented experiments rather than purely proof-oriented research. Secondly, that psi phenomena would violate or break the laws of physics. But, as I have argued and pointed out, neither of these accusations have any merit whatsoever.
Finally, I feel an extract from another blog post of mine -- Often it's extremely hard to decide what is the rational thing to believe -- might be appropriate here:
There is another worry with scientists. The very fact they enjoy a high level of prestige and are respected, means they are listened to and judged by most people to know what they're talking about, even when they pontificate on topics that reside outside their area of expertise. For example, when they derisively dismiss psi, an afterlife, "God", an objective morality, and other contentious issues of a philosophical nature. But, given that most of them have never studied philosophy, or perhaps even given these topics much thought, how seriously ought we take their opinions here?
The answer to that question, I hope, is obvious.
Another aspect of scientific scepticism (I believe), is a deep rooted insecurity based on the power and influence in the USA of fundamentalist Christian movements, dating back to the 'Scopes' trial in the 1920's which threatened the intellectual hold of science on US culture. Many scientists seem to be terrified of this sort of thing happening again, and so are dogmatically against any encroachment of 'irrationality'. I imagine also that adherents of materialsim feel a similar threat to their world-view, which depends entirely on there being nothing to be found outside it's carefully selected parameters.
ReplyDeleteFinally, there is the well recognised trope that science advances only when the upholders of the 'old regime' have died off. Many scientists probably make a significant intellectual investment in the current status quo. I remember reading a book (whose title and author I have unfortunately forgotten, which dealt with the refusal of the German scientific establisment just before WWI to engage with Einsteins theories. Whether the next generation of scientists (if there is a next generation, given how global warming is going) will be amenable to change remains to be seen.