Science Literature

On 11 September 2008, a symposium on the theme "Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness" was held at the United Nations attended by medical doctors and neuroscientists. The organisers spoke of a search for a more comprehensive perspective on the "self" and the workings of the human mind. The speakers at the conference have been engaged in this search and were ready to consolidate and move on. But in order to develop their thinking, they needed to challenge the prevailing paradigm in neuroscience. "Though much remains to be done, their findings to date have shed a more holistic light on our understanding of the elusive mind-body problem." This holistic view opens up new opportunities for research:

"The symposium will also serve as the occasion for the formal launch of The Human Consciousness Project - a multidisciplinary collaboration of international scientists and physicians who have joined forces to research the nature of consciousness and its relationship with the brain."

Materialist critics say of the new paradigm: "This nasty mind-virus piggybacks on reasonable worries."

The prevailing paradigm in neuroscience is materialism. Everything about the brain is interpreted in terms of physics and chemistry: our sense of free agency, our consciousness, our hopes and our ability to appreciate beauty. Yet this paradigm has only limited results to show for all the effort expended and "scientists have yet to crack the great mystery of how consciousness could emerge from firing neurons". The UN conference set out an agenda for going beyond reductionism. Jeffrey Schwartz warned the delegates that what they were doing would be met with heated opposition, because materialism is deemed by many to be of the essence of science:

"YOU cannot overestimate, how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down. You're gonna hear a lot in the next calendar year about. . . how Darwin's explanation of how human intelligence arose is the only scientific way of doing it. . . I'm asking us as a world community to go out there and tell the scientific establishment, enough is enough! Materialism needs to start fading away and non-materialist causation needs to be understood as part of natural reality."

Sure enough, the event has raised alarm! The New Scientist reported it with the headline: "Creationists declare war over the brain". It has become commonplace for the science media to portray every departure from philosophical naturalism as "creationism" as though that were the ultimate crime for a scientists and no more needs be said. There is evidence that some of the conference speakers have links with the ID Movement, and apparently that is enough to shower derision on them. Since scientists are supposed to be able to grapple with complex issues and think rationally and objectively (rather than emotionally), I do not understand why there is so little outcry against the intolerant attitudes of so many science journalists and writers.

Here are some reactions quoted, described as "the voice of mainstream academia":

Andy Clark, professor of logic and metaphysics at the University of Edinburgh, UK: "This is real and dangerous and coming our way." [. . .] "This is an especially nasty mind-virus because it piggybacks on some otherwise reasonable thoughts and worries."

Patricia Churchland, philosopher of neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego: "it is an argument from ignorance. The fact something isn't currently explained doesn't mean it will never be explained or that we need to completely change not only our neuroscience but our physics."

It is instructive to flag up some of the missing ingredients in this report
1. No interviews with the scientists that were at the symposium are reported. This was noted by Angus Menuge in a letter (unpublished) to New Scientist: "I find it very troubling, that while Amanda Gefter took the trouble of interviewing sources who advocate scientific materialism, she did not interview any critics of that position, instead relying on third-hand reports. This does not seem to reflect journalistic best practice."
2. There was no acknowledgement that ID can lead to new research opportunities. This is perhaps not surprising, because science journalists have been programmed to say that ID closes the door on science. This is bad history, because ID science was the trigger for the time known as the scientific revolution and ever since then ID scientists have consistently demonstrated that ID extends the horizons of scholarly enquiry.
3. There is no acknowledgement that the new paradigm has emerged because of evidence. Materialists cannot allow any evidence to count against their paradigm. They are committed to the principle that all explanations of phenomena have to be formulated by reference to "chance and necessity". Consequently, as in the quote from Churchland above, any hint of evidence against their position is opposed as an argument from ignorance.

Geftner declares that only the materialist perspective is science in her final paragraph. She also throws out the charge that non-materialists are invoking a "God of the gaps" style of argument:

"What can scientists do? They have been criticised for not doing enough to teach the public about evolution. Maybe now they need a big pre-emptive push to engage people with the science of the brain - and help the public appreciate that the brain is no place to invoke the "God of the gaps"."

This "pre-emptive push" seems to be the only response of the materialists! Shout louder! Put more resources into educating the public! Never admit that non-materialist philosophies can lead to fruitful science! Ignore their claims of arguing from evidence and insist that they are using ignorance to invoke the "God of the gaps"!
In a letter of response to New Scientist, Beauregard and Schwartz write:

"We do not question materialist models of the mind-brain complex merely for ideological or political reasons. We want to move beyond them because we have not found them adequate explanations of mind-brain interactions, nor do they point to useful treatment plans. Your writer's attempt to smear scientists who are looking for new directions, while perhaps entertaining, is a poor substitute for thoughtful coverage of a growing area."

Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness, September 11th 2008, United Nations, New York.

and

Creationists declare war over the brain
Amanda Gefter
New Scientist, 22 October 2008

See also:

Beauregard, M. and Schwartz, J.M. Non-materialist mind, New Scientist, 29 November 2008, page 23.
Go here for the unedited version.

Menuge, A. Unpublished letter to New Scientist, 26 November 2008.