You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > Beware the Fausts of Neuroscience
 

 
Theatre of dreams: The results of an fMRI scan (Wellcome Collection)

"I rejoice to concur with the common reader; for by the common sense of readers, uncorrupted by scientific prejudices, after all the refinements of subtility and the dogmatism of learning, must be finally decided all claim to honours." 

Dr Johnson didn't say "scientific" (he said "literary"), and the word "poetical" came before "honours", yet his message still applies. Today there is a common reader of science. The trouble is that even when popularised its "refinements of subtility" can place it further beyond reach than those of literature. 

As a minister for science I was acutely aware of this. Had I been able to rely on scientists themselves for rational and detached advice — what else are they for? — things would have been simpler, but my impressions of those I met convinced me of two things: their awesome intelligence and real achievements, but in some cases an equally awesome propensity to overweening ambition and incurable condescension towards the common man.

I arrived with my own prejudices. As a diplomatic specialist in Communism, in China and the Soviet Union I had witnessed at first hand the biggest live experiment in history, as more than a billion human beings, caged in their own countries like laboratory mice, were subjected to the parascientific creed of dialectical materialism and Marxism-Leninism. (The term parascience, nicely evocative of paranormal and la pataphysique, I borrow from Absence of Mind, essays on science and religion by Marilynne Robinson, Yale 2010.) Of the outcome — some hundred million dead, three million in China during 1966-69 the years I was there — there is little more to be said, except to recall how many Western scientists, some eminent, went along with the experiment in the face of the scepticism of Johnson's common reader. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
pbasch
April 4th, 2012
9:04 PM
Interesting essay, but: You say, "...mind, consciousness and religion are figments of his intemperate imagination." That's not how I read the field. Religion, yes - that lives entirely in the imagination. "Mind" is too broad a word, like "society", or "truth" - it exists in a semantic sense. "Consciousness" clearly does exist, and is a function of our biology - brain and/or body. In fact, I don't see how "consciousness" could be a figment - simply having an imagination which can generate a figment is evidence of real consciousness.

Michael Russell
April 4th, 2012
6:04 PM
Every discipline gets in trouble when it claims to have reached the level of full determinism from causes to effects. But I don't see those claims among those folks only some tendrils pushing out to find more answers. Eagleman's "Incognito" and Pinker's current book "The Better Angels of our Nature" are both evocative of more discovery without a sense of completion. I am surprised that you dealt with Pinker 2002 and not Pinker 2011. As an aside... for heaven's sake get ride of the sans serif type face it is ugly and hard to read when so densely packed!

Anonymous
April 4th, 2012
5:04 PM
Brilliant stuff - clearly puts the new eugenics in it's place and a plague upon reductionists everywhere. Sadly Michael Farr's comments only serve to demonstrate that so many people still miss the point entirely. E

runbei
April 4th, 2012
4:04 PM
The "method" for balancing the influences of the amygdala and prefrontal cortex has been known and tested for millennia. It is meditation; see the studies of Richard Davidson, Vilas Professor of Affective Neuroscience at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Also, see "Out of the Labyrinth - For Those Who Want to Believe, But Can't." Walters makes an excellent case for the primacy of consciousness, not matter. If true, of course, that would change everything, turning the materialists' presumptions upside down.

Anonymous
April 4th, 2012
1:04 PM
"logically they should be given longer sentences, because nothing can change them." This gets it completely backward. The hard determinist claims we're unfree because characters and choices are causally determined--which means *everything* we do "changes them." But they can't be held morally responsible because they can't directly change themselves, and only can indirectly change themselves only *after* the deed for which they're held responsible. The anti-free will argument is not fatalism but determinism: put another way it's causalism, the belief that things don't happen magically, by chance, or arbitrarily, but by causes, and that there are no first causes (magic self causes like free agents). Ironically, it is the belief in free will that rejects change, because it rejects natural causality, the source of change. If a person's choice is not caused by any prior cause, it is arbitrary--it cannot be caused by anything, and so the person cannot do anything but what the magic 8 ball in their "will" tells them to do.

michaelfarr
April 4th, 2012
8:04 AM
sorry mate, a straw man if ever i have read one. Of course the "self' resides in the brain, connect body to heart-lung machine, remove brain, bit by bit, check sense of self, identify incremental loss of function and self then find eventually a deceased person even with heart and lungs pumping. The primitive machines we have at this time make rudimentary measures of the most complex organ we know of with trillions of connections and potential states, still it doesnt need a soul to explain it.

Shalom Freedman
April 4th, 2012
7:04 AM
I would also include in the bibliography of works debunking explain-and- cure- all neurocience the recent work of Roger Scruton. He also takes on the other great explainers-of- it- all these days the evolutionary psychologists. There is more I am not afraid in heaven and earth than is dreamt in all their computer- simulations.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.