The Possibilities of the fMRI Helmet
by MikeGeneThe recent research about confirmation bias raises all sorts of tantalizing possibilities. Science itself is a human endeavor that is immensely dependent on the function of the human brain. Take away the human brain and you take away the science, a realization clearly evidenced by the fact that no comatose human being has ever made a scientific discovery. While some proponents of scientism may believe in skyhooks that lift science out of its human and biological matrix, those that value science will be more interested in the brain functions that shape science itself.
In the past, people have appealed to philosophy and bureaucratic-like rules to distinguish science from other forms of human expression. But what if we can reach the point where we can biologically measure the process of scientific inquiry? Imagine a century-or-so out from now, where it is possible that advances in technology and neuroscience will provide us with something far more sensitive and sophisticated than the current functional MRI that is also so portable that it can be measured by simply wearing something analogous to a lightweight helmet or headset.
At this point, we can measure the thinking of the politician, the doctor, the lawyer, the theologian, and the scientist as they all practice their craft. Would there be a biologically defined demarcation?
Furthermore, what if we could measure different types of scientific inquiry? Would a scientist purifying and characterizing an enzyme show the same pattern of brain activity as a scientist involved in an experimental dispute about the origin of life? Might such brain measurements eventually be reported as part of every scientific experiment in order to enhance peer review?
Imagine if future day versions of Michael Behe, Bill Dembski, Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, and Richard Dawkins all wore these advanced fMRI helmets as they hashed out their differences about teleology and non-teleology. What if the brain measurements showed that Ken Miller and Mike Behe exhibited the same pattern of activity (whether emotional or analytical)? Furthermore, what if the fMRI helmet was worn by a future day version of PZ Myers? Would it begin to smoke and catch fire or would it explode?
Whether or not such a scifi-like scenario ever develops, one thing is clear. As science better understands how the human brain works, we will better understand the context of science. And the enthusiasts for scientism might not like the gradual disappearance of their skyhook.
July 9th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Mike Gene wrote:
I think there is an underlying assumption here that the mind is reducible to the brain. I think that assumption is in error. The expect the mind-skyhook to continue into the forseeable future.
Comment by Bilbo — July 9, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
er…not "The expect"…"I expect"
Comment by Bilbo — July 9, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
What if "doing science" turned out to be no different than "doing religion." What if it turns out that scientific beliefs are no different from religious beliefs? What if barring religion from the classroom turns out to be the basis for barring science from the classroom? Can science explain science?
Will scientists refuse to explore these possibilities for fear of what they may discover?
Comment by Mung — July 9, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Mike Gene,
And ID Critics say that ID has no testable hypotheses.
Comment by Douglas — July 9, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Obviously, it is different in some respects, because science involves a number of activities–experimentation, statistics, etc.–that do not play much role in "doing religion." On the other hand, it would not be surprising if a lot of the same neural hardware is involved. After all, the same word processor can be used to write a scientific paper or a relgious tract.
I think the notion that peer review might somehow be aided by objective information about the state of mind of the scientist is nonsensical. Science is judged on the basis of the knowledge that is generated, not the state of mind of the practitioner. Furthermore, it is clear that different people may think in quite different ways. How would we decide what is the "right" way to think and the "wrong" way to think? The only way to do this would be to examine the scientific results, so at best fMRI data would be an inaccurate proxy for careful scientific consideration of the paper itself.
Comment by trrll — July 9, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Science is judged on many different bases, but at least implicitly, the state of mind of the practitioner is among them. Reputation, institutional affiliation, gender, social class, religious affiliation, and a host of other factors have served to some degree as proxies for "state of mind"; they are part of the reason different research and different scientists are trusted to different degrees. Most of these factors (with the partial exception of the first two) are far less significant in judging science than they have been in the past, but they certainly aren't gone completely.
The authority of modern science is built upon assumptions about the "scientitific" state of mind (as opposed to, say, the 17th century, when the authority of scientists was largely based on cultural authority more generally, hence the gentleman-scientist), and the ability of any intelligent and reasonable person, properly trained, to achieve this state of objectivity.
All this is not say that science doesn't work or that there is no objective reality, but simply that the reasons science works don't line up all that well with "scientific method" party line (as philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science have been pointing out for the last few decades).
Comment by ragesoss — July 9, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Hi Mike,
Ironic that you would borrow Dennett's metaphor of the skyhook. Dennett himself is often accused of scientism, yet he is quite comfortable dealing with science within what you call its "human and biological matrix." He makes this quite clear in his latest book, Breaking the Spell. No skyhooks needed.
I would argue that the very success of science stems from its willingness to acknowledge the foibles of human nature. We are prone to accept the pronouncements of authorities, so science insists on empirical evidence. We tend to overemphasize the relevance of anecdote, so science insists on large samples and statistical validity. We tend to observe what we're hoping for, so science insists on independently reproducible results. And so on.
Science is all about reducing the likelihood of undetected human error. Any evidence from the neurosciences that aids this endeavor will be welcome.
Comment by keiths — July 9, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Hi Keiths,
It's good to hear that Dennett acknowledges the human and biological matrix that shape science. Many others, however, seem to view science as some sort of non-human endeavor, where pure objectivity is attained and all that matters is "the evidence." Yet in reality, sociological factors can and do come into play. Dennett himself made this clear in his e-mail to Michael Ruse, where he castigates Ruse for being to close to the "Forces of Darkness" (his words). Beneath the official position lurks tribalism and fear. Wouldn't it be interesting to see the fMRI results of Dennett as he processes ID claims?
Yes, the success of science stems from its willingness to acknowledge the foibles of human nature. But not all science is equally insulated from these foibles, as there are some topics that tend to invoke tribalistic urges and emotional responses more so than others. Some of us have seen many scientists, over the years, react to ID claims with all sorts of emotions, including fear and terror, while nurtruing of form of group-think among their own herd. While these scientists are not representative of the overall scientific community, they do seem to play a significant role in helping to define the perspective of ID among the larger scientific community, advocating, for example, that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo and a threat to the very existence of science itself. Are we to believe such activity has no effect?
As for insisting on empirical evidence, large samples and statistical validity, and independently reproducible results, where is all this when it comes to the scientific consensus that the Earth did indeed spawn Life?
Anyway, I'll be slow on replies for the next couple of weeks because of other priorities.
Comment by MikeGene — July 9, 2006 @ 11:52 pm
July 10th, 2006 at 10:08 am
I would say rather that the authority of modern science is built upon a long track record of discovery, particularly as reflected in the progress of technology. This is seen as validating the procedural methodology (which is not at all the same thing as "state of mind"). As a scientist, I don't care what state of mind the experimenter was in, so long as the proper controls are there, the results are accurately described, the math is correct, and the conclusions follow logically from the results.
Comment by trrll — July 10, 2006 @ 10:08 am
July 10th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Mike has a book tour =P.
Comment by Mung — July 10, 2006 @ 11:13 am
July 11th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
And, in these enlightened days, one of the proxies for "state of mind" is whether one conscientiously says "gender" when he really means "sex."
Comment by Ilion — July 11, 2006 @ 10:22 pm
July 11th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
I'm currently reading a book about the history/development of English (called "Stories of English" should any reader be interested in these sorts of things.) Anyway, just a couple of days ago, I read a section quoted from an early Middle English text. The subject matter had to do with the king (one of the early Henrys, or perhaps Stephan) and his retinue arriving somewhere. "˜Retinue' was the modern English word; in the Middle English text, the word was "˜herd' (perhaps is was spelled "˜hird').
Comment by Ilion — July 11, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
"Mike has a book tour."
"Who was that masked man?"
"Him Kemosabe."
Comment by Bilbo — July 12, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
It's refreshing to see at least some threads at Telic Thoughts straying towards sex.
Comment by Douglas — July 12, 2006 @ 8:34 pm