How Much Do We Really Know?

There were some interesting comments on the previous post, The 'Left Brain - Right Brain' Dancer. Some saw her turning clockwise, some anticlockwise, and others a bit of both. If you haven't looked at this picture, you might want to take a look now.  If you see the dancer turning anticlockwise, perhaps you would like to try a little experiment for me? Place your attention on your 'heart center', the center of your chest, and hold it there for a while as you watch the dancer. Does she now turn clockwise, I wonder?

One of the people who commented on the post was Liara Covert of Dream Builders. I am grateful to Liara for the interesting - and sometimes challenging - comments she leaves here. This time she remarked: "...research studies always offer food for thought. We can choose to believe them or not. We can choose to take information with a grain of salt."

Having a scientific education, I'd once have disagreed strongly with this statement. These days, however, I think I'm closer to Liara's point of view than to my own stance back then. I wouldn't  go quite so far as she does. If I jumped out of a plane, for instance,  I think I'd want to take a parachute with me, whatever I might decide to believe about gravity. But this is an extreme example. Is our knowledge of things always so well defined?

In our society, we like to think of ourselves as being governed by logic, but the truth is that all too often we have insufficient evidence to come to a purely rational decision about things. Our lives these days tend to be complex, and a great many factors are often involved. We rarely have all the relevant information, and even what we think we know can often be based on guesswork and supposition. People who think of themselves as essentially rational will grit their teeth and try to apply logic nevertheless, in spite of the lack of sufficient evidence, but isn't this really like building a house on inadequate foundations? Is it really any more sensible than reading tea leaves or looking for signs in the sky?

It may seem like anathema to the modern mind to take notice of such signs and omens, but many of us do such things instinctively even though we may believe we are creatures of logic. Prime examples are buying a house or choosing a partner. Most of us wouldn't dream of doing either of these without giving a great deal of weight to how we felt about it.

If, on the other hand, we were buying, say, a refrigerator, we would be much more likely to rely on logic, ticking off a checklist of features perhaps. How we felt about it would seem much less significant. It is only when we step up to larger, more important purchases, such as a car, that our gut feelings come to seem important. Even more so for a house - and even more than that for choosing a partner. In other words, the more important the decision, the less we tend to go on logic alone and the more we go on our feelings, our instinct, our intuition. How does this fit in with our rational, scientific world view exactly?

Of course, it might be argued that there are whole areas of our lives where logic can be applied with complete confidence. Think of all the scientific evidence we have built up about this, that and the other. This allows us to build at least parts of our lives upon certainty.

Or does it?

Liara says we can choose to believe such information or not. But how can she say such a thing?

Perhaps she is simply keeping up with the news...

I wonder if you saw a news report last week about a research study carried out at the University of Hull here in the UK which reviewed the data from 47 clinical trials into the use of SSRI (and similar) antidepressants. The study concluded that in most cases, the drugs are no more effective than a placebo. This is contrary to the evidence from previous studies. So why the discrepancy? Simply because the Hull team studied unpublished as well as published data. It seems that the drug companies have chosen to publish only those studies which suggest that their drugs are effective. If the studies have shown the opposite, they haven't been published. The Hull team had to use freedom of information legislation to get hold of the missing data.

(It occurs to me that the team in Hull must have really gone out in a limb in order to do this - and I find myself wondering if the study has been reported outside the UK. Has anyone seen it in the US or other non-UK media, I wonder?)

So in this case at least, the research studies didn't reflect the outcome of scrupulous research according to rigorously applied scientific methods at all, but simply the vested interests of the companies which had financed them. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that a similar approach may have been taken in the study of other drugs.

Suddenly, the body of research evidence in the field of therapeutic drugs no longer seems such a strong foundation for rational analysis. Other areas of research may be less controversial perhaps, but we are fooling ourselves if we ignore the potential influence of vested interests in all such studies. What results will encourage further finance? What results will assist the researcher's career? When a scientific study has been carried out, it doesn't have to be published if the researchers don't like the results. And if they only like part of the results, they don't have to publish the rest. On top of which, of course, there's a lot of scope for different interpretations - the way the results are presented can have a significant effect.

It would be ridiculous, of course, to dismiss the value of scientific research entirely because of such factors - or to ignore the immense benefits which science has brought us over the years - but we the general public are fooling ourselves if we think that our science is based upon absolute certainties. It does not equate to our world. It is, at best, an incomplete and often inaccurate model.

When set against this, it is perhaps not so ridiculous to place emphasis on what our own experience and intuition tell us. What do we feel inside? Do we detect a voice inside us which sometimes seems to speak with absolute confidence? Is it possible that we are connected to some source of intelligence which transcends the shortcomings of the scientific model? That if we trust ourselves, we will find inside a knowing?

The next time I jump out of a plane, I'm still going to take my parachute. After all, it feels right to have something to hold on to. But bear in mind that I didn't discover gravity in a book. I did a lot of research as a child: falling over and painfully scraping my knees.

 

This may also be of interest:

Alignment

Comments

[Andy (currently in Oz)]

Hi Simon,

Although I would like to comment on a lot of this very interesting post my backpacker budget prevents me from that. However, I would like to mention that the study of antidepressants did make headlines here in Australia (and was quite prominant as I dont watch TV and read little in the way papers)

[Pam]

One problem is that false positives are so much easier to report than false negatives. This is at least partly because we (the general public) like to find out new information!

I'm delighted to know of this Hull study, and the amount of publicity it has attracted. I think it would only have been possible to undertake a study like this in order to say something new about the subject. Without those previously published studies, the "drugs don't work" message wouldn't have been in the slightest bit newsworthy.

It won't surprise you, Simon, to know that I think scientific research is generally A Good Thing, and To Be Encouraged. I don't think we do science and its adherents any favours by positioning our own interests and attitudes as being completely outside of their frame of reference. I think it would be possible to design well-formed scientific studies of many of the phenomena you talk about on your blog, and by doing so I hope that the self-confessed rationalists would be swayed by the evidence. I continue to maintain this hope even in the face of dyed-in-the-wool, cynical, crusty old academics, because I know they're not the only ones....

At the end of the day, truth is truth whether you can prove it or not. I'm all for shining a light on the truth as I see it, illuminating more truth the broader my beam becomes, and being willing to substantiate that truth with as much intellectual rigour as I can muster. That's why I work (and would like to continue working) in academia, while also continuing to maintain an active interest in the kinds of issues you write about on your blog. One day, I feel sure that these will not be such uneasy bedfellows as they seem to be at the moment.

[Liara Covert]

Thanks for the powerful reflections, Simon. I always value your blog topics and reflections. I'm grateful to contribute to your discussions.

The "truth" is relative to what each of us desires to perceive. This applies to how aware we are of ourselves and the world around us. Your post compels me to respond. I can relate to different perspectives. Among my past jobs, I've been a laboratory drug researcher and I've also been involved in the politics and psychology of decision-making.

Historically, studies are always done with different motivations. Social, political and other trends determine who is awarded research grants on which topics. Drug companies fund particular studies because they believe in long-term profits. So, when you hear about a research study in the news and you wonder about the "value" or "meaning" of results, it makes sense to step back and realize how the general public and other people relate to process. Consider cost and prospective profit and for whom. For example:
a) who finances a particular study? ;
b) which institution conducts the research?;
c) why were specific "investigators" chosen? (what expetise do they offer, what else do they have to gain or lose?);
d) who or what stands to benefit from study results? (politicians, national economies, corporations, academics, chemists, ect.)
e) how will drugs help the user manage underlying issues that affect illness?

In my mind, all studies have intrinsic value. We can choose to be curious, to learn more about the results and how they may relate to us, or choose not to care at all. Some people prefer to take results with a grain of salt because "today's latest development" may be pulled from the shelves in future because of unforseen side effects. Developments are relative. They require a point of reference and a belief system as well as faith in the unknown.

[mergingpoint]

Hi Simon!
I read your previous post, left and right brain too.
My understanding goes like this. There is something called gross and subtle. Logic is applicable only upto the zone of Gross. subtle can be experienced only beyond logic. we, as humanbeings exist with a gross form and a subtle essence.
Science with all its discoveries and remedies is for the Gross-- body and mind(brain)
Spirituality is for the subtleness of the soul.
As long as we remain as humanbeings, its wise to balance the best of both as and when needed.

[AngelBaby]

I had to check out the dancer just to see if she would go both ways. Well, this time she did go both ways just for me! LOL! I am still working on the a-z, someday I will have it finished. I will let you know.

I have something for you on my site.

Love and Blessings,
Angelbaby

[Chris]

"It occurs to me that the team in Hull must have really gone out in a limb in order to do this - and I find myself wondering if the study has been reported outside the UK. Has anyone seen it in the US or other non-UK media, I wonder?"

Sad to say, the reason this study has had much less coverage in the US than in the UK may be that the findings of the study were much less clear-cut than the British news coverage suggested. According to the critique at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005420.html , the British coverage misrepresented and sensationalised this research. American reporters (who on the whole have a much better scientific training than their British counterparts) were more wary in their reporting, so the story did not hit the headlines there.

Incidentally, although the lead researcher was from the University of Hull, the other members of the research team were all from the US and Canada.

[Complete change of topic.] I don't know what to make of that rotating dancer. Few people could be more left-brained than me, yet I consistently see her moving clockwise. I have to look away and think hard before I can get her to go anticlockwise. So I'm very sceptical as to whether the perceived direction of rotation has anything to do which which half of the brain is involved.

[Liara Covert]

Chris, thanks for pointing out the interest of the media itself. I forgot. Some people don't believe media can be truly objective. We don't always know how or why certain stories make certain papers or not. People with clout are able to get stories printed or keep things quiet selectively. Do we notice?

Simon, I can understand why your view of gravity is grounded in your experience. Yet, its misleading to assume everyone experiences life the same way, or that only limited ways exist to experience the physical world. Some humans claim to live differently than science dictates is possible. What we choose to think and believe shapes our existence. We can choose to limit ourselves or choose to expand. By unconditionally sharing your experiences and also being open to experiences of others, you open yourself to the joys of learning and connecting: Consider these blogs:
http://blog.dreambuilders.com.au/journal/2007/10/23/5-steps-to-experience-more-than-one-place-at-once.html

http://blog.dreambuilders.com.au/journal/2007/10/22/learn-to-walk-through-walls.html

[Sue Ann Edwards]

I bring up the subject of Quantum Physics, for the Unified Quantum field does not work in the way scientists are used to. There is no predictability. Just because something works once, does not mean it will work again.

Studies can reveal possibilities. possibilities we may have never imagined. But predictability is something quantum physics does not support.

"Science"....chuckling...what any scientist will tell us is that everything we once thought we knew has been proved wrong so everything we think we know will most likely follow that same course.

{{mergingpoint}} mentions the 'gross' and the 'subtle', only he mentions it like they were separate and I am saying they are not. They are intrinsically connected. The 'subtle' is actually what is manifesting the 'gross'.

[Liara Covert]

As Sue-Ann brings up quantum physics, I draw attention to Ervin László. This philosopher of science has written over 75 books and more than 400 papers. In 2004, he published, "Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything." This book proposes a field (quantum physics grid) of information comprises the cosmos.

Using the Sanskrit term for "space", Akasha, László calls this field the "Akashic field." He believes a quantum vacuum is the basic energy and information-carrying field that informs all universes past and present. This implies a storehouse of memories about everyone and everything. Such a field would explain why our universe is so highly-orchestrated as to form galaxies and conscious beings. Evolution may actually be an "informed" rather than random, process. He offers his hypothesis to solve key issues stumping quantum physics (i.e. non-locality and quantum entanglement). He also offers the means to reconcile disputes between science and religion.

[mergingpoint]

May i wish to correct Sue Ann Edwards...

Realization can not happen without a body which is gross. Soul by itself can not exist and experience without the gross form, body.Body in turn can not exist without soul.
hence, experience is subtle and expressions are gross form of the subtleness. They are both sides of the same coin.They can never be separate.
Human -gross, being-- subtle
Lets be humanbeings!!

[Simon]

Hi Andy in Oz – It’s splendid to hear from you! I hope the trip is going well and I’m flattered that you’re spending some of your precious online time reading my blog. I’ve heard that you’ve been living with the Aborigine people so I suspect you’ve been reading a few signs and omens along the way. It’s interesting that news of the drug study made it out there in Australia. There’s been less publicity in the US apparently (see Chris’ comment above).

[Simon]

Pam, Liara and mergingpoint – Thanks for your comments - I think I pretty much agree with you all! The problem with research findings is not really to do with research itself but with the way human society functions. The way in which individuals and organisations place their own interests above the greater good has a negative impact on all aspects of our lives, not just in scientific research. As I have mentioned in an earlier post, I look forward to the time when this may be different.

I agree that scientific research is a valuable tool. Without it, I wouldn’t be sitting here writing this, for one thing! And as you say, Pam, it should be possible to design studies of many of the phenomena discussed here at The Secret Of Life. This rarely happens currently because a) the finance isn’t available and b) no well-regarded journal would touch the results in any case. But this is the result of vested interests and prejudice. It isn’t the fault of the scientific method.

I certainly don’t think we should turn our backs on science and logic, but I would like to see us acknowledge that they aren’t the only tools available to us. I have come across people who arrogantly dismiss any kind of thinking which lies outside the scope of existing published research, and believe that this is a logical, rather than blinkered, stance to take. This is the kind of limited thinking we need to leave behind. merging point talks about a balance between science and spirituality, “the best of both as and when needed”. I'll sign up to that.

[Simon]

Angelbaby – I’m glad to hear you’re on with the A-Z. Don’t worry – I took *months* to do mine! I look forward to reading it whenever it’s ready.

[Simon]

Chris – Many thanks for your comment and the link to the article. Reading it only confirms my belief that I need to befriend a competent statistician! I’m not sure that the US journalists gave less attention to the story because they had a greater scientific understanding than their British counterparts; more likely they knew when they were beat. The statistics are rather daunting. The article seems to focus on this problem but, rather frustratingly, does little to address what seems to me to be the central issue, which is whether the previous non-publication of the less favorable results made a significant difference to the overall research evidence. This is how the Hull study was reported by the BBC, and the article doesn’t appear to invalidate this perspective.

The BBC report suggested that the drugs are really largely ineffective. If the truth is that this was an exaggeration and the drugs are simply *less* effective than previously thought due to the non-publication of some of the results, then it seems to me that this is still an important issue. It may be a less newsworthy issue than if they were not effective at all, but it is still of importance to patients and their doctors - and it still raises questions about how research is presented.

I asked Chris for a few more details of his experience with the dancer. He wrote: “I find that I can, with some effort, make her change direction while looking very intently at her right leg as it passes the left leg, and telling my brain whether the right leg should be in front of, or behind, the left leg at that moment…. One thing I have noticed about this graphic is that if I slowly scroll up the page from below (so that the dancer's feet appear first), then she is usually turning anticlockwise. But if I scroll down the page from above (so that her head appears first), then she is usually turning clockwise. I have noticed with some other internet images that they can look different depending on whether you scroll up or down to them.”

I’ve tried these techniques just now but I seem to be having a resolutely clockwise day! I think we are only going to be able to reach one conclusion from all of this, which is that looking at the dancer is good fun.

[Simon]

Liara again – I agree totally about the benefits of being open, and from what I understand of the fabric of matter, it may well be that we can learn to walk through walls. What I think of as common sense, however, tells me otherwise. Which leads us on neatly to the next bit:

Sue Ann and mergingpoint – I'm not sure that you are in fundamental disagreement here. Perhaps it may help to differentiate between what *is* reality and what we currently *experience* as reality? It seems to me that Sue Ann is talking about the former, while mergingpoint is talking about the latter.

The *true* reality is unity, in which everything is spirit. Everything is really the ‘subtle’ world, even the parts which are manifested as 'gross', the latter being what the Buddhists might describe as ‘illusion’. Here there is no solid matter. Everything is composed of empty space and quantum particles, which are not really particles at all.

Of course what I have just said goes as much against good old down-to-earth common sense as anything I’ve ever written on this blog, yet the astonishing thing is that science and spirituality both suggest that this is really the way things are.

What we currently experience day to day, however, is something rather different, in which matter is something solid (especially if it drops on your toe), many experiments do repeat consistently, and merging point’s ‘gross’ and ‘subtle’ realms appear to be separate. This is the world of duality. This is the world we know.

It is only when we look really closely that this illusion begins to seem less real. I think of it as like climbing up on a stage and looking closely at what had seemed to be realistic scenery only to find that it’s really painted on cardboard. In the same way, if we start investigating the fabric of matter, the quantum entities themselves, we start to see things the way they really are. It’s like the illusion breaks down here because we weren’t expected to look that closely, just as theater audiences aren’t supposed to climb up on the stage and start poking around at the scenery.

I’m reminded of our friend the dancer again, the way she’s more likely to change direction if you look at her out of the corner of your eye – as though she’s more likely to change when she thinks you’re not looking!

For the time being, we’re all going along with the illusion, so the scientific method yields (for the most part) consistent results, solid matter seems solid enough, and we (or most of us at least!) can’t really walk through walls. But we’ve talked about a change coming, a shift in consciousness. Could the illusion be something which we will choose to change?

[Simon]

Liara - Thanks for mentioning Laszlo. He's one of many people I would like to investigate more closely. His information-carrying field reminds me of the theory of loop quantum gravity, which I mentioned in an earlier post ('The Nature of the Universe').

Many thanks for all your comments!

[mergingpoint]

Hi Simon,
There is actually no disagreement with Sue. May be the way i have put it across, looks to give that impression of division. There can be no division between gross and subtle.
what reality "is' is all about.
Interesting discussion, indeed.

[Liara Covert]

As far as I understand Simon, "common sense" doesn't exist?! Yet, I think you mean to suggest a great majority of human beings are just not yet on the wavelength where they sense benefits in being open. At least, they seem not to raise awareness because of believing their created illusion of fear.

[Simon]

Thanks mergingpoint. I've enjoyed this discussion too. Thanks for your contributions to it. I'm glad you agree there's no disagreement! We all 'know' but our words can sometimes get in the way...

[Simon]

I feel like I straddle two worlds, Liara: the apparently solid world of 'common sense', in which it's best to get out of the way if a piano is falling on your head, and the fearless new world in which we can leave such mundane considerations behind. The latter perspective sometimes seems real to me, but I tend not to use it when I'm crossing the street.

If a change is going to come, what will shift, I wonder? Will we leave 'common sense' behind? Or perhaps common sense itself will shift so that the down-to-earth skills which get us safely through each day will slowly, imperceptibly change - and we will awake one day to find that we're living in a marvelous new world, without having realized we've left the old one behind.