Heavenly confirmation bias

Here's a video^[1] of an Intelligence Squared^[2] debate, on the motion that "Death is Not Final". The Three Pauls talked briefly about this on Skepticule episode 73^[3], but I'm using this blogpost to set down a slightly more detailed account of my reactions to how the debate proceeded.

http://youtu.be/h0YtL5eiBYw


Eben Alexander^[4] is a neurosurgeon who claims to have seen Heaven during a near-death experience (NDE) while under the knife on the operating table. He wrote a book about it, Proof of Heaven^[5], using his credentials as a man of medical science to persuade the general public to take him on his word that he knows there is an afterlife because he was given a tour of the place. The book is a bestseller.

Supporting Alexander was Raymond Moody^[6], who apparently coined the phrase "near-death experience"^[7], but apart from that I don't think he contributed much of substance to the discussion. Indeed he seemed to be on another (astral?) plane altogether.

Opposing Alexander and Moody were Sean Carroll^[8] and Steven Novella^[9], who argued that, yes, death is final. Sean Carroll is a cosmologist and a good debater — as we saw recently^[10] when he took on Christian apologist William Lane Craig^[11], refuting Craig's arguments with ease and not a little aplomb. Steven Novella is a neurologist and another accomplished debater, so he was a particularly good choice to be put up against the afterlife proponents. I should point out here that though Alexander has made much of his credentials as a neurosurgeon, as far as I'm aware this is not the same as a neurologist (which is what Novella is). The difference between neurology and neurosurgery can probably be likened to that between fluid dynamics and plumbing, or between botany and gardening.

As is usual with Intelligence Squared, the debate format was semi-formal with a moderator, and an audience-vote before the debate and another afterwards. All four participants made opening statements, then there were rebuttals and questions. Alexander read his opening statement somewhat stiffly, whereas Carroll and Novella spoke extempore directly to the audience without notes. Moody, it seemed to me, just waffled.

Alexander and Moody took the position that consciousness is complicated and not understood, and therefore it might have a component that is separate from the brain. Moody was unhelpfully speculative on this point, while Alexander claimed to have proved it. Carroll and Novella on the other hand maintained that there is no evidence for consciousness existing apart from the brain, and that consciousness — and anything we describe as "mind" — is inextricably linked to the brain. Novella's phrase for this was: "The mind is what the brain does." Though consciousness is at present unexplained, much research is now under way, and the current lack of a full explanation is no justification for unevidenced claims for conciousness being mind-independent.

Alexander claimed that his tour through the afterlife took place when his brain was incapable of registering anything, but as Novella pointed out, he cannot know this. We don't know what time it is when we dream. As I see it, there's an even deeper flaw with Alexander's claim, which to me is so obvious I wonder how NDE's can ever be taken as evidence for anything other than being "near death". If Alexander's brain was all but completely non-functioning, how can he trust anything he perceived during that period?

By way of analogy, imagine this scenario. At a notoriously dangerous intersection a horrific traffic accident takes place, involving several vehicles, and everyone involved is killed. When the authorities arrive on the scene they find that one of the cars is relatively new, and so they decide to interrogate the engine management system (EMS) using standard computerised diagnostic tools. Though the car is a write-off, the electronics appear to be still partly functioning. The EMS is able to respond to the diagnostic tools, reporting that the vehicle is now — at the very moment the tools are probing — travelling at 90 miles per hour without consuming a drop of fuel. What does this indicate? Does it indicate that despite appearances (a crushed car incapable of motion) the vehicle is in fact moving very fast with impossibly low fuel consumption? Of course not — it indicates that the EMS is damaged, and its reports cannot be trusted.

This debate was a splendid example of confirmation bias. The idea of life after death is so attractive, some people will ignore the counter-evidence no matter how obvious it appears. Even after Novella had clearly stated that there were no reliably documented cases of NDEs and out-of-body experiences that produced information that could not have been obtained any other way, Alexander went on to state that there were too many cases that couldn't be explained — though he provided no citations for these.

Alexander further illustrated his confirmation bias (I'll assume that's what it was, rather than impute nefarious motives) when he stated that Carl Sagan^[12] wrote in The Demon-Haunted World^[13] that he was open to the possibility of consciousness independent of the brain — he even quoted the page number. Alexander was either naïve or mistaken, because while Novella could only splutter in astonishment that Sagan would never have said anything of the sort, several of those watching the debate's live stream simply looked up the page, photographed it, and posted the image on Twitter with the relevant hashtag during the debate — thus giving the lie to Alexander's rash claim.

At one point Alexander challenged the other side to provide a one-sentence explanation of consciousness, knowing of course that there currently isn't one. Novella stated again that there was ongoing research, but as Jonathan MS Pearce^[14] has pointed out^[15], he missed the chance to demand a one-sentence explanation of God. Despite this, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the after-debate vote confirmed that the motion "Death is Not Final" had been comfortably defeated.

Is Alexander's insistence that he has "proof of Heaven" based on anything more than confirmation bias? His stance seems so obviously flawed that I'm left wondering if there aren't some effects of brain-damage hanging around after his near-death experience. That's the kinder interpretation. Another interpretation, less kind, might be that a neurosurgeon's salary could be considered a pittance in comparison to royalties from a bestselling book.

---

Links:

1. YouTube: Death is Not Final — http://youtu.be/h0YtL5eiBYw
2. Intelligence² — http://www.intelligencesquared.com/
3. Skepticule 073 — http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2014/05/skepticule-073-20140519.html
4. Eben Alexander — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Alexander_%28author%29
5. Proof of Heaven — http://www.amazon.co.uk/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife-ebook/dp/B008TTPQXA
6. Raymond Moody — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Moody
7. Near-Death Experience — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
8. Sean Carroll — http://preposterousuniverse.com/
9. Steven Novella — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Novella
10. YouTube: God & Cosmology — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07QUPuZg05I
11. William Lane Craig — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig
12. Carl Sagan — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
13. The Demon-Haunted World — http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Demon-haunted-World-Science-Candle/dp/1439505284
14. Jonathan M. S. Pearce — http://www.skepticink.com/tippling
15. "Carroll & Novella vs Alexander & Moody. Some terrible, terrible arguments" — http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/05/09/carroll-novella-vs-alexander-moody-some-terrible-terrible-arguments/

Fantastic (not in a good way) Unbelievable? show

What's next for Unbelievable? Raëlians? Scientologists? Moon hoaxers? 9/11 truthers?

Today on his radio programme Justin Brierley played host to a conspiracy theorist: one Andy McIntosh, a young earth creationist who seems to have spent an inordinate amount of time inventing circumstances which could somehow fit his wacky non-mainstream beliefs. His argument was an object-lesson in doing science backwards: start with a conclusion — the Earth is less than 10,000 years old — then look for evidence that could fit that conclusion. If something else contradicts that evidence, invent some additional circumstance in order to shoe-horn it into the story. Don't bother if there's no independent evidence for the additional circumstance, just declare that the evidence fits and choose the conclusion you prefer. This is Carl Sagan's "dragon in my garage" argument — it's unfalsifiable, and therefore scientifically worthless.

My sympathies were with McIntosh's sparring partner on the show, palaeontologist Robert Asher, whose aim appeared to be simply investigating the natural world. Andy McIntosh, however, was doing everything he could to make the evidence fit with a preconceived idea. At the beginning of the show McIntosh — perhaps unwittingly — disclosed the intransigent depth of his preconceptions:

"…as a person thinking into these issues as a Christian, I became aware, actually, that if the Bible's not true on the first few pages, I might as well dump it for the rest…"

So for McIntosh the Earth is young because anything else conflicts with his literal interpretation of Genesis. I'm not sure why he bothers with all that re-interpretation of scientific data when he already knows to what conclusions it will lead him.

What's amusing about "creation scientists" is the extraordinary lengths to which they will stretch the evidence in order to reconcile it with their unshakeable worldview. Young earth creationism inevitably requires the denial of so many different branches of science that its adherents end up living in a kind of alternative universe that could have been invented by Terry Pratchett. Sure, they somehow make it all fit, but in doing so they arrive at a scientific model that can only be described as speculative fantasy.

Direct link to mp3 of today's Unbelievable?:
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/ccec9398-7132-4965-b3de-073d928861cb.mp3

Apologists' own-goal in Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God

Chapter 9 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God is "The Pale Blue Dot Revisited" by Jay W. Richards & Guillermo Gonzalez; it appears to be an indictment of a modern — apparently revisionist — view of Copernicanism. Richards and Gonzalez quote Carl Sagan's famous musings on the scale of the universe and our place in it:

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.

Those of a religious bent generally don't like such nihilistic stuff. How dare anyone suggest that humanity is unimportant in the grand scheme of things? Recently we had Brendan O'Neill in the Telegraph making exactly this point. But Richards & Gonzales are making a different point, that Copernicus did not overturn an essentially geocentric view of the universe. They are claiming that Ptolemy's view was that the Earth is at the bottom of the universe (where — I imagine — all the rubbish tends to collect), and that therefore Copernicus was not such an iconoclast after all.

One might well ask, so what? This is in the section titled The Question of Science, but nowhere do the authors make a case, propose an argument or provide evidence for the existence of God. Strangely, it seems that Richards & Gonzales are claiming that Copernicus didn't originate the view that humanity is insignificant in the cosmic vastness — humanity has always been so. Maybe they're right — but if so, that's evidence against God.

---

4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952951

The universe is so vast, let's all just kill ourselves

Over at Telegraph Blogs Brendan O'Neill has got himself into a tizzy about how important he may or may not be in the grand scheme of things. Not that he says such in so many words, but his misapprehension of one of TV's current popular science hits betrays his discomfiture with reality:

I think I have solved one of the great mysteries of the universe: the question of why mop-topped stargazer Professor Brian Cox is so popular. It isn’t because of his looks, or his soft Mancunian voice, or his pop past in Blair-boosting band D:Ream. No, it’s because his wide-eyed cosmology is based on a view of mankind as insignificant, as a mere speck of dust in the post-Big Bang scheme of things, and that chimes brilliantly with today’s rather downbeat view of humanity. The floppy-fringed professor massages the fashionable prejudice that humanity isn’t all that special; no, we’re just a cosmological accident, which will exist only fleetingly before being wiped out by the explosion of our Sun or some other cataclysmic event.

Sorry Brendan but that's just how it is. Get used to it.

The point is, Brendan, that we are special — just not in the way you think we are. The universe was not designed with us in mind (actually it wasn't designed at all, as far as we can tell — but that's probably another blogpost or two ... or a thousand). Nevertheless we are here, and that is one awesome fact.

And what have you got against Carl Sagan?

Like Sagan, Cox and his rationalistic acolytes in the media are attracted to the cosmos primarily because they believe its vastness reveals our smallness, that its 14 billion-year history puts our pathetic 250,000 years of inventing fire and skyscrapers and iPads into perspective. They see in the never-ending chasm of space, not worlds we should aspire to know and possibly conquer and colonise, but a big black challenge to the idea of human historic purpose.

There you go again: purpose. Imputing teleology is for those who can't cope with the way things actually are. As for conquering, that's a bit presumptuous isn't it? Maybe that's the human historic purpose you're talking about — humanity's cosmic crusade: to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no crusader has gone before, and subjugate the alien masses.

Copernicus’s challenge to the idea that the Earth was the centre of the universe was frequently cited by Sagan and his fans as a challenge to the idea that human beings are the centre of the universe – but it was no such thing. Rather, Copernicus wanted to increase human authority over the unknowns of the universe, not teach mankind a lesson about our “insignificance in the great loneliness of space”. In contrast, today’s cod-Copernicans in the Cox lobby are drawn to the cosmos because its weirdness and bigness feeds their drab, down-to-earth belief that there isn’t much point to life.

You've got it upside-down and backwards. As for "their drab, down-to-earth belief that there isn’t much point to life" — I'll let you into a little secret: life is what you make it. The point of life is life itself.

Brian Cox at TAM London

Last weekend I attended The Amaz!ng Meeting, London, put on by the James Randi Educational Foundation. This was the first TAM to be held beyond the shores of North America. It more than fulfilled my expectations and I had a great time. I'll post some of my impressions here, beginning with the first presentation.

It was a scheduling masterstroke to kick off TAM London with a lavishly illustrated presentation by Professor Brian Cox, who explained the purpose behind the Large Hadron Collider (and, incidentally, behind scientific research in general). He outlined the LHC's current state, and by way of a compressed but lucid lecture on cosmology and leading-edge particle physics he showed why this huge accelerator beneath the Swiss-French border is important. His elaboration of the problem that caused the LHC to be shut down shortly after it was commissioned was the clearest I've heard.

His main point was that while it's possible to theorise about scientific subjects, ultimately such theories have to be tested, and when it comes to particle physics, the only way of testing them is with something like the LHC. He also covered the media's misguided panic over the possibility of the LHC producing miniature black holes, listing some media quotes from a number of scientists - including himself: "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat."

In Brian Cox we are fortunate to have someone who not only knows his subject inside out, but is also able to communicate abstruse ideas with clarity, wit and passion. (It's no surprise that one of his scientific heroes is Carl Sagan.)

AfF #3: Teleological Argument

(Click here for Arguments for Fred #2)

"Teleology" is the study of purpose. In its basic form the teleological argument (the "argument from design") goes thus: with its complex physical laws and underlying structure the universe looks as if it was designed. If it was designed, there must be a purpose behind the design, and therefore there must have been a designer who had an intention - a purpose - when he, she or it designed the universe.

Appearances, however, can be deceptive. Just because the universe looks designed doesn't necessarily mean it was designed by a designer. Charles Darwin showed how the so-called design of life is explained by natural processes. But what about DNA, the digital genetic code that we now know lies at the heart of living cells, orchestrating these natural processes? That code must have come from somewhere. Computer code (whether down-and-dirty machine code, or its more abstract source-code variant) is produced by software developers. But just because computer code is written by computer programmers, we cannot legitimately infer that this is the only process that can produce complex information, digital or otherwise. Look at the Mandelbrot set, for example, which appears to be infinitely complex, yet is generated by a very simple equation.

In logical terms the problem with the design argument is that all conclusive evidence of design we have so far come across is evidence of design by humans. We have no conclusive evidence of design by any other entities, so we cannot extrapolate from what is essentially a sample of one. If the only example of design - where we know beyond doubt who the designer was - is design that we must classify as "human design", we are unable to say which characteristics of human design must necessarily apply to all examples of design.

Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents don't make this distinction; they simply say that if something looks designed, it must have been designed. This is a blinkered, parochial view that owes more to fear of the unknown than to logical consistency.

We don't know where DNA originally came from. We don't know a lot of things, but scientists are working on them, and will continue to do so while there remain things that we don't know. That's what science is about. If science knew everything, there would be no point to scientific inquiry. To quote the late, great Carl Sagan: "Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in."

UPDATE 2009-08-29: Click here for AfF #4