(This is the first entry in a series exploring the background to a new book with the working title “The Science of Spirituality”.)
We live in an age where science is being threatened by a barrage of alternative facts. Not only are conservative political leaders gagging scientists, removing funding for research programs and denying the findings of those programs, but the quality of peer reviewed literature is being scrutinized. This is not a bad thing to focus on. In a recent paper, published in the journal Nature it was found that 70% of scientists had been unable to reproduce the experimental results of another scientist, at least once, and 50% had been unable to reproduce their own results. You would think that the results of research conducted by scientist A, and described in a paper published by scientist A, could be reproduced by scientist A. This appears to not be true in a small number of cases. This on its own might cause us to question the trustworthiness of some portion of scientific literature.
In another case the Guardian newspaper published an article describing a sting operation that was launched against 255 open-access scientific journals. In this exploit a fake research paper was submitted for publication. Here are the statistics regarding the due diligence expended by the editorial staff when selecting this paper for publication:
The “wonder drug paper”…was accepted by 157 of the journals and rejected by 98. Of the 255 versions that went through the entire editing process to either acceptance or rejection, 60% did not undergo peer review. Of the 106 journals that did conduct peer review, 70% accepted the paper.
My goal in making these observations is not to diminish the weight of scientific inquiry, but rather to underline the importance of maintaining scientific and journalistic standards. We should also strive to base our claims on sound reasoning. In the political sphere it has become fashionable to make outlandish and unsubstantiated assertions in public. Take for example the claim by Ben Carson, during the 2016 presidential primaries, that the pyramids were built by the Joseph of the Bible to store grain during the seven years of plenty (described in Genesis 41). He presented no evidence for this, but said that this is what he chooses to believe. He is quite entitled to have an opinion on this. I might disagree with his logic, noting that if it was Joseph’s plan to build a structure for storing grain it would need a large internal storage capacity (something the pyramids lack). However, if he were to make this assertion the foundation of his presidential campaign he would not be receiving my vote. Other voters, who would presumably support the same belief, would be at liberty to cast a ballot in his direction, but this by no means gives credence to a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence.
Although making such a claim might not meet the criteria of rationality it does illustrate why we hold beliefs – we choose them. Regardless of the process by which the belief comes to be, whether it be by gut feel alone or as the result of extensive research, there comes a point where we are “convinced”. From that point on, or until we obtain new data or experiences that change our mind, we are a believer. This is equally true for Christians and Atheists. There is no way to be the other person and fully understand the reasons why they see the world the way they do, we are limited to either the things we observe or the things that are imposed on us from without. Regardless of the source of the data, however, we are always responsible for making a choice. What we can do, and what rarely happens, partly because of the echo chamber principle is to have empathy for the other and put ourselves in the other’s shoes. We rarely change our beliefs when under the pressure of reason, in fact, we tend to dig in our heels and hold onto our beliefs even harder! This approach does not promote truth.
The Ben Carson example illustrates a case where the lack of evidence is meaningful because accumulating evidence by observation is possible. That, however, is not always an option. Due to the limitations of our five senses there are many features of reality which cannot be observed directly without using devices to supplement our natural abilities. The list is long but includes such things as radio waves, the moons of Jupiter and bacteria. Prior to the invention of the radio receiver, the telescope and the microscope there was no direct evidence for the existence of such phenomena. In this light it would be arrogant in the extreme to assume that we are currently in possession of the sum total of knowledge regarding the unseen. In the absence of a comprehensive awareness of such things the inquiring mind would do well to consider how observable phenomena might provide indirect evidence for realities that cannot, as yet, be measured.
In the following posts my aim is to make the distinction between concepts who’s existence is supported by the scientific method and those which lie beyond the reach of science. The latter include ideas and speculations for which there is both no direct evidence and no way of obtaining it. What I hope to avoid is the promotion of claims for which there is no evidence at all.
Stuart Morse
Is the closing paragraph splitting your concepts into two or three?
Those supported by scientific method
Those where there is no direct evidence (but could well be indirect evidence) and
Those that have no evidence at all
because you could infer you link the latter two together.
Also paragraph 5 you talk of Christians and Atheists – surely you want a wider demographic, so those of a religious or non religious world view, or even religious, atheistic or agnostic.
Hi Neil. I agree that science can be used to infer things for which there is only indirect evidence. What you helped me see is that there are two types of indirect evidence. For example, the empathy principle has been know about forever. The fact that humans can have an empathic connection was studied scientifically by observing empathy in action. This was indirect evidence for the fact that there are empathy/mirror neurons that facilitate the process (something that was discovered only recently).
The type of indirect evidence I was referring to, which points to something that is beyond scientific observation, is illustrated by underlying physical principles which we can deduce from the way matter behaves, but which it is unlikely we will ever be able to answer the question “why”. These include constants such as the Atomic Mass Unit, Bohr Radius and Planck Constant. We know what these are, but we don’t know why they have these values. It’s true that these things could be determined if we had the gear and the smarts to find the answer, but I’m deferring to those in the know who claim they are just mysteries. I’m placing consciousness in this class. We know that consciousness exists, but we don’t know what it is. (See my answer to Nat’s question for more on this.)
Regarding your other observation, I used Christian and Atheist as a simple dichotomy to show that atheism is also a faith.
Stuart, my first instinct upon reading the working title of your book “The Science of Spirituality” was to tell myself that it is an oxymoron given that science is based on a concept of empirical verifiability whereas spiritual phenomena, as far as I know, cannot be tested and proven to be true.
It is significant, as you point out, that several articles published in scientific journals fail that test of verifiability (or the reproducibility of their experimental results). It is a problem that the scientific community constantly struggles to grapple with.
The idea of scientists holding on to their ‘beliefs’ until they are “convinced” to change their positions in light of “new data or experiences” is exactly what Thomas Kuhn describes with the concept of “paradigm shifts” in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, 1962, University of Chicago Press.
For all these reasons, I think you have picked a very intriguing subject to explore. What I am curious about is what tools you will use to study spiritual phenomena. For science we, at least, have the scientific method no matter how imperfectly it has been applied. Is there a set of tools for studying metaphysical phenomena (such as the concept of God etc) that you may utilize in your exploration of this subject?
Good observation Nat. In the normal sense of empirical verifiability spirituality and science do clash. The sense in which I’ll be exploring spirituality is by analyzing those facets of subjective conscious experience that can be measured objectively using tools such as FMRI and PET scans. I’ll then use my own self-awareness as a laboratory in which to explore the felt-sense aspects of physical neural phenomena. My goal is to help others understand why they feel a particular way, and why this feeling doesn’t have to drive negative behaviours such as addiction. I’m using the term “spirituality” to describe the inner reality that is known only to ourselves and God. While this comes about as a result of cellular activity which can be measured, the experience itself cannot be measured. For now, at least, the study of these things is the limited to the spheres of philosophy and religion.