Friday, January 16, 2015

Abusing Science with Stories of Post-Death Experiences

I love Kojo Nnamdi's show on NPR. He's a smart, tech savvy, engaging host, and I almost always learn something new when I listen in. A few weeks ago, unfortunately, I learned that Kojo is not immune to falling for pseudoscientific nonsense.

The topic came up when Kojo interviewed Judy Bachrach about her new book  Glimpsing Heaven: The Stories and "Science" of Life After Death. Before I go any further, I want to point out that I added the quotations around the word "science" in the title because I can't bare to see the word abused the way Bachrach uses it.


In case you would rather see much more expert folk  than me address the subject, please head on over to my older post on the topic of supposed after death experiences with a video of  some really smart people debating the issue (along with two not-so-smart ones - I'll let you decide who is who).

Bachrach is a journalist, and it looks like she did a great job tracking down people who have studied alleged post-death experiences (in people who didn't actually die, of course, 'cause dead people can't talk), and several people who have had supposed death-like experiences and "came back" to tell about it. The book is full of moving stories and details that seem, to Bachrach, to be tellingly similar from person to person, as well as said tales of the apparently universal remorse and difficulties these people face after "choosing" not to die.

I wouldn't for a moment argue that these people don't actually have the memories they recount. Of course they do. In the video linked above, you can see that neurologist Steven Novella has some great explanations for how and why those memories might come about, without the experiences being of physically real events. I'm not interested in doing a second rate job of repeating Novella's arguments when you can get them straight from the neurologist's mouth by watching the video.

I'm not even going to address physicist Sean Carroll's discussion of the mechanisms that make it clear that the mind is the result of physical and chemical activity in the brain. Which in turn means that when the brain turns off, the mind is gone, just as when you turn off your computer, the programs that run on it simply stop.

No, the key point I want to address is that Bachrach has decided that commonality of "post death" experiences from person to person means that the experiences must be real. But what about post death memories that are physically impossible?

For example, on the book site hosted by publisher National Geographic (BTW, shame, shame on you Nat Geo, you are supposed to be a scientific organization), Bachrach says that the people she calls death travelers can " . . .  circle the planets, turn into pure light  . . . predict the future or intuit people's thoughts."

In her book, which I hope you don't buy because this sort of thing really should not be encouraged with monetary rewards, Bachrach and her post-death experts posit that the "travelers" don't just predict the future, but actually see it. One of her interview subjects supposedly has developed an amazing ability to pick stocks, I assume because he now knows the future of the market.

I'm not sure what it means to turn into pure light, but light has a speed limit. Just to travel to Neptune and back would take light  more than eight hours. "Circling the planets," if I understand that properly would take at least 2*pi=6.28 times as long. That would require a "post-death" experience lasting 25 hours or more. Clearly, that provides a simple check on the validity of at least one death experience. Imagine a scientist, or science journalist for that matter, named Salviati interviewing a post-death researcher named Simplicio:

Salviati: So, you say the death traveler circled the planets as pure light.

Simplicio: Yes

Salviati: Was he or she dead for more or less than twenty five hours?

Simplicio: Less.

Salviati: Physics fail. It didn't happen. Your pure light death traveler would have to move faster than light to do that. So the subject must not have been light, but nothing travels faster than light. And we're done.

Time travel is trickier. It's not definitively impossible, but if you want to try to find a physical way it might be possible, feel free to start by reading the extensive and entertaining Wikipedia piece on it. But even in the extremely unlikely event that it's possible, it's a pretty simple thing to confirm. You don't even have to be a scientist to check it, a plain old journalist will do just fine.

First of all, I would ask, "Is the time-traveling stock-picker rich yet?" If his portfolio performs about as well as mine (so so), I don't think we need to investigate him much further. If he's a stock market millionaire (frankly, I'd be a billionaire in a couple months if I'd seen the future), it would still have been a good idea for Bachrach to test him with a stock pick or two, and perhaps make a couple bucks along the way to enhance those book royalties. If she did, there's no sign of it in her writings in the book or online.

How about mind reading? There is absolutely no explanation in Bachrach's book as to why death-travelers should have developed such a skill. I mean, sure, if you're death traveling, I guess you could travel inside someone's brain and looks around, but what good would that be once you're back? Mind reading means reading now, not having read once at some time in the past.  That would be useless.

Like stock picking, it's pretty darn easy to test the mind reading claim. In fact, I'd be happy to offer my mind for the reading, when they aren't busy performing psychic interrogations for the CIA or whatever mind readers do for a living. If there have been any real mind readers, there's no evidence of it in the scientific literature. There is also no physical mechanism to explain it. No mechanism and no effect (I'm going to assume there's no effect until a study showing otherwise is published in a reputable science journal) means no truth to the claim.

The bottom line is this: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Post-death experiences are about as extraordinary as things can get, especially when they include phenomena that violate physics in the world of the living. Question: why not provide said evidence if a few very simple tests are all it takes? Answer: because "post-death" experiences, and Bachrach's book, are utter nonsense.

Come on Kojo and National Geographic - you folks are better than this.













36 comments:

  1. Sighs, I really wish these debates could reach a more meaningful higher level.

    You get the believers on the one side who believe anything and everything. Then on the other side the materialists . . well . . who take things way too literally, presuppose that their beliefs must be correct etc.

    I find it all rather tedious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alright then, step it up. Exactly how do you take it to a higher level?

      Delete
  2. I found the article rather interesting however the ganzfeld experiments as described in the book The Search For Psychic Power by C.E.M Hansel actually provided scientific evidence for telepathy. In addition to this Dean Radin's book The Conscious Universe is full of evidence for psychic phenomena. I find these debunking articles tiresome because they only present one side of the argument in the same way a believer's is the other extreme. I am aware of subjective validation and cold reading and delusion but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Books aren't peer reviewed, so you have to take the author at their word. In order to make a case for telepathy, or any psychic phenomenon, it will have to be published and reproduced by other scientists. Until then, there isn't really another side to present.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anyone seeking relief from the bloviated nonsense on this pseudoskeptical blog would do well to start at Dean Radin's evidence page: http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll take a look, but are you claiming psychic phenomena are real? Or that death travelers can exceed the speed of light?

      Delete
    2. It makes it a lot easier to publish and cite pseudoscience garbage if you are the journal editor. The first three references I clicked through are from Dean Radin's own journal Explore, so there's no credibility in them.

      And remote healing through prayer?!?! Wow. Welcome to the middle ages.

      Delete
  5. Hi Buzz, there is this in Frontiers of Neuroscience (2014), "A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness". Really worth it with a stunning list of signatories.
    http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full

    Re the debate with Drs. Alexander Moody, Carroll and Novella, there is certainly a physics issue for some of these NDE experiences as real (i.e. what physics can explain these?), esp. the shared death experiences Ray Moody speaks of but isn't science data driven? That is key surely?
    It's the issue of trying to "shoehorn into existing categories" that is wanting here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I only note Carroll and Novella in this piece for completeness. The point of this piece is that if post-death experiences are at odds with physics, it's almost certainly because there's a problem with the memories, not with physics.

      Delete
  6. From the Frontiers article it is indeed implied psi phenomena are real. investigations have been carried out over 100 years! The question is whether they break Lorentz invariance. Just *suppose" there is something beyond a quantum input (still no FTL *signals* allowed in quantum physics). Would that break Lorentz invariance?

    As to memories, I thought that hallucinations are ruled out for NDEs, esp. in the cardiac arrest model (*no* brain activity) - yet some people still report accurately their operating room surroundings. How can that be without a functioning brain?

    I think, with these phenomena, science is caught between a rock and a hard place.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The simple answer is that the memories aren't created when the brain is not functioning. This must be the case for the faster than light travels. It can't happen, so the memory is false. We know that must be true for the ftl memories, and therefore is likely true for the other physically implausible memories.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There's a very good article on "Why can't the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?" - by Oliver Burkeman over at the Guardian now, for anyone interested.
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness

    ReplyDelete

  9. Its very useful if every one should follow this.
    TopTwitterServices

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you for this tutorial.its really informative tutorial. SharkAHyland

    ReplyDelete

  11. The information which you people are given are really superb..!!!
    gamexin

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peoples are giving wonderful thoughts… gkyibiao

    ReplyDelete

  13. Thank you for this guidance.its really informative for all..
    haoxiang-bio

    ReplyDelete

  14. Nice post all information are useful to real life. monkeydork

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nice post. Every one should implement this one bibliotecasdixitais

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nice post. Every one should implement this one dhc9

    ReplyDelete
  17. What a good suggestion posted by the peoples ecomuseocasasola

    ReplyDelete
  18. Articles are very nice…Nice comments too ericamillerstudios

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you for this tutorial.its really informative tutorial fafm-gh

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thank you for this guidance.its really informative for all aphronet..

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nice post all information are useful to real life. stacja21

    ReplyDelete
  22. its really informative tutorial. Thank you for this tutorial becempowered

    ReplyDelete
  23. The information which you people are given are really superb factsantidepressants..!!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Beautifully written book on a subject I had always been curious about! This is the first book I've read on the subject that goes into this kind of depth and is this accessible. It's fascinating and challenges all my previous notions on what happens after you die. The stories in here will leave you speechless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it's crap. It is some of the worst science writing I've ever seen, perhaps because the author is not really a science writer.

      Delete