Steven Novella slams the Institute Of Noetic Sciences

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.

1. It seems to me that further proof-oriented research will achieve nothing.

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?

 

As I understand it, Novella's accusation that IONS are engaging in pseudoscience is due to two considerations.

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.

The changing meaning of the word skepticism.

Modern skeptics of the paranormal often appeal to a quote made by the late Carl Sagan that  “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". However, I believe that originally to be a sceptic (I'll spell with a "c" for the original sense and a "k" for the modern sense), was to not simply accept the prevailing beliefs of one's culture, but to question them to see if these beliefs stand up to scrutiny. Crucially, no particular stance was taken. The prevailing beliefs may or may not be true, but the sceptic avoided simply assuming that they are true, and indeed avoided simply assuming they are false. What they attempted to do was apply reason and evidence and reach tentative, provisional conclusions in that way.

In contrast, skepticism in the sense in which it tends to now be currently used, at least as regards the "paranormal", has a supposition that modern science together with its implicit metaphysical assumptions, has successfully broadly painted a picture of what reality is like.  Lots of the details need to be filled in for sure, but in its broad outline skeptics assume it is essentially correct.  And, in general, the background beliefs of the intelligentsia regarding reality are shaped by the message that modern science seems to convey.

Now of course there are certain phenomena which are not consonant with such background beliefs and the conception of reality they entail e.g. apparitions, telepathy, the notion of an afterlife and so on.  Hence, when people claim to experience such things, the supposition of the skeptic is to assume that explanations consistent with the prevailing beliefs of one's culture are sufficient to explain the phenomenon concerned.  This is so even if such normal conventional explanations might be highly convoluted and implausible.  This is because no matter how implausible such conventional explanations might be, they do not rival the implausibility of accepting any paranormal phenomena -- or so skeptics maintain.  Any explanations not consistent with their beliefs are deemed to be controversial and extraordinary.  In order to accept a given anomalous phenomenon for what it seems to be, the evidence, to use Sagan's words, would need to be "extraordinary". 

So, in a nutshell, a skeptic assumes prevailing beliefs held by the intelligentsia are correct, and consequently he or she has a propensity to dismiss out of hand alleged phenomena inconsistent with such prevailing beliefs.  To describe modern skeptics as deniers is perhaps too strong.   But it certainly seems to me that modern skepticism is in many ways quite the opposite of the original meaning of the word scepticism.

Of course, a skeptic could argue that we are justified in subscribing to those beliefs informed by modern science.  He could also argue that the results obtained in parapsychology fall far short of the reliability of the results obtained in physics (as in the case of all "soft" sciences, including psychology and sociology). 

Two points should be made:

First of all, this doesn't justify the hijacking of the word "skepticism" to label this approach.

But secondly, and much more importantly, there is a stubborn misconception regarding what science actually does.   It tends to be conflated with a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality, an interpretation which itself cannot be justified.  More importantly, unless we presuppose materialism -- a metaphysical position which seems to me to be simply untenable -- science leaves out the existence of consciousness in its description of reality.  This includes our normal perceptions from our 5 main senses. Yes, we can describe the neural correlates of a conscious experience, such as a visual perception. But, even in principle, we cannot derive the experience itself, even from a thorough scientific understanding of the brain.  So, if normal perceptions are in principle inexplicable, how on earth can we claim that extrasensory perceptions are ruled out by science?   I suggest only by assuming philosophical materialism.  And materialism, apart from its unintelligibility, is not derived from science, but is a certain metaphysical stance.

Other blog entries by me might be of interest in this regard:

Science, the Afterlife, and the Intelligentsia

Science, the Afterlife, and the Intelligentsia
Do scientific explanations actually explain?
Science and the Afterlife
A very brief introduction to subjective idealism
 

---