God: The Failed Hypothesis (11 page)

Although much of complementary and alternative medicine (that is, nonscientific therapies) is based on the assumption of a life force, sometimes called the “bioenergetic field,” biological science has not uncovered its presence within humans, animals, or plants
¹⁹
. Well-understood physical and chemical processes, the same that occur in all materials whether dead or alive, are sufficient to account for the observed interactions between various parts of living organisms. The physics and chemistry of living cells is basically the same as the physics and chemistry of rocks, just a bit more complicated.

The sensitive detectors used in physics laboratories are capable of detecting various kinds of radiation of very low intensity. Except for some weak electromagnetic radiation emitted by oscillating charges in the heart and brain that can be picked up with sensors placed directly on the skin, and the infrared thermal radiation emitted by all physical bodies dead or alive (or never alive, like rocks), living organisms emit no unique radiation that can be detected by our best scientific instruments.

Of course, one can argue that the instruments are simply insensitive to “living energies,” although the proponents of bioenergetic fields generally claim a connection to easily detectable electromagnetic waves
²⁰
. If it is significant, some effect should be measurable. For example, a widely used therapy is called
therapeutic touch,
in which a healer “manipulates” a patient’s “energy field.” After a decade or so of common use, you would reasonably expect some evidence for the efficacy of the treatment. In fact, there is none that is not purely anecdotal and thus not amenable to proper scientific testing. Indeed, therapeutic touch has been tested and failed the test
²¹
.

Qi = mc
²
?

I recently examined a published claim that the vital force called qi has been demonstrated in a scientific experiment in China. I presented my analysis at several universities in China during a visit there in April 2005 as part of a scientific delegation.

The reported experiments were performed during several public healing “lectures” by qi master and healer Dr. Xin Yan in Beijing in 1987 and published in a peer-reviewed American journal
²²
. Positive signals above background levels, claimed to be qi, were reported in standard radiation dosimeters. Both the background levels and signals were quite high. Other phenomena were reported that I did not consider because the paper lacked sufficient information.

The Yan paper was not published until 2002 and makes no mention of any successful (or unsuccessful) attempts at replication during the intervening years. The results are difficult to evaluate from the data presented. Furthermore, no error estimates are given, which would be sufficient cause to deny publication in most reputable scientific journals.

Nevertheless, the data presented are sufficient in the case of one experiment to draw some conclusions. In this experiment, Dr. Yan “emitted qi” during an eleven-hour (!) “lecture.”
Thermoluminescence dosimeters
(TLDs) of the type commonly used in nuclear laboratories to measure radiation exposure were placed throughout the auditorium. Doses significantly above background were reported from different directions, indicating that the supposed qi-rays were unfocused. Although some of the other experiments contained controls, no measurements taken under identical conditions with the qi master absent are reported for this particular experiment.

In figure 3.1, I have plotted the reported dosages measured by two types of TLDs as a function of distance from the podium.

One type [7LiF(Mg,Ti)] is sensitive to gamma rays while the other type [6LiF(Mg, Ti)] is sensitive to thermal neutrons as well as gamma rays. I averaged over the two sides of the auditorium where the intensities were comparable. The squares and circles on the figure show the measured radiation exposure in milliroentgens (mR) accumulated over the eleven-hour experiment. For gamma rays, one milliroentgen is approximately equivalent to one millirem (mrem), the unit used to measure biologically significant exposure. If the numbers are accurate, they represent an intensity that would exceed the generally considered safe dosage if experienced steadily for a year, five thousand mrem. That is, the recorded radiation intensity was appreciable.

At the same time, the dosimeters used in the experiment are designed for measuring long-term accumulated exposure with about a ten-mR detection limit. They were not particularly suit able for the short-term exposures used here, and more precise instruments for measuring instantaneous radiation intensities are readily available. As mentioned, no estimates or errors are given in the paper (sufficient cause for its rejection). If we put ten mR error bars on the data points, the results are insignificant.

Fig. 3.1.

Results from the experiment of Xin Yan et al. The square points are the data from the dosimeters sensitive to neutrons and γ-rays. The round points are γ-rays only. The solid curve shows what would be expected if the measured radiation were conserved as would be expected for any form of energy.

The authors claim numerous reports from the audience of beneficial health effects, although they present no data on this.

Gamma rays and neutrons are not noted for their positive health consequences unless directed at tumors, and the authors concede, “It is highly unlikely that the qi field generated by Dr. Yan contains actual gamma rays and neutrons. Rather the
TLD
readings seem to be a phenomenological description of the interactions between a
TLD
detector and Dr. Yan’s qi field.” They offer no theoretical model for the phenomenon, no suggestion on how qi-rays might affect these particular detectors.

Independent of the significance of the dosage level, we see in figure 3.1 that the “gamma-ray” data actually increase with distance, while the “neutron-plus-gamma” data show no significant distance effect. The smooth curve plotted on the same graph shows the (unobserved) falloff with the square of distance that is required by energy conservation (arbitrary scale).

If you were to ask me, “What is the defining property of energy?” I would answer the fact that it is conserved. If energy were not conserved, the quantity would be of little use in physics.

When one measures a quantity that is not conserved under conditions when it should be, then that can be taken as good evidence that what is being observed is not some form of energy. Qi does not look like energy. Indeed, it looks nonexistent.

ESP

One special ability of minds that is widely taken as real (especially in science fiction) would be
extrasensory perception
(
ESP
), in which minds communicate with one another by some mechanism that is not at present part of established scientific knowledge. Another is
psychokinesis
(PK), or mind over matter, where thoughts are capable of moving objects or otherwise affecting physical phenomena—in the past, present, and future. If a disembodied soul can use some from of psychokinesis to move around brain molecules, then it should be equally well able to move around molecules outside the brain.

If these phenomena exist, then they should be readily detectable in controlled, scientific experiments. Since the midnineteenth century scientists have attempted to scientifically verify the reality of unusual mental phenomena. These included the prominent physicists Michael Faraday, William Crookes, and Oliver Lodge. Faraday, the greatest experimentalist of the day, found no evidence, while Crookes and Lodge convinced themselves that they had discovered what they called the
psychic force.

However, Crookes and Lodge did not control their experiments sufficiently to make them convincing
²³
. They generally worked with spiritual “mediums” who were highly skilled at the various illusions that professional magicians and charlatans have developed over the centuries.

Crookes, Lodge, and other early psychic investigators made a fundamental error in allowing their subjects to control the protocol of their experiments. Even today we find this serious breach of commonsense methodology routinely made in psychic experiments. For example, consider the much-touted experiments conducted at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (
PEAR
)[24]. Scientists are no more capable of uncovering trickery than anyone else not specifically initiated into the magical arts—perhaps even less so since they are not used to the universe lying to them. Crookes and Lodge proved to be particularly gullible, possibly because of personal tragedies in their lives
²⁵
.

The need for better controls in psychic experiments was recognized in the 1930s by botanist Joseph Banks Rhine of Duke University. Rhine coined the term
ESP
and made an honest attempt to find empirical evidence for the existence of psychic forces. He announced a number of claims that did not stand up to critical scrutiny and, after numerous rejections by established scientific journals, he started his own journal for which he could choose more sympathetic reviewers. Despite his failure to convince mainstream scientists of the reality of psychic forces, Rhine pioneered a field of study that continues to the present day under the designation of
parapsychology
²⁶
.
Even parapsychologists must admit that they operate on the borders of conventional science.

As I have mentioned, there is no agreed-upon precise definition of science. So I will not press the point as to whether or not parapsychology is science. Parapsychologists continue to make claims that
ESP
has been observed in controlled experiments.

Some of these reports are peer reviewed, but the peers are generally other true believers who review manuscripts for special journals like Rhine’s that maintain different standards than mainstream scientific journals. The editors of these journals claim they provide a greater “openness” to new ideas. This is fine, but the publishing of poorly executed experiments, as exemplified by the qi experiment described above, does not serve any useful purpose and drags down the credibility of everything else published by that journal.

As with the creationists described in chapter 2, proponents of
ESP
claim that their results are unfairly rejected because of conventional science’s dogmatic attachment to old ideas. My reaction is the same as it was in the case of intelligent design: what possible reason would scientists have to object if convincing evidence for psychic phenomena was reported? As with intelligent design, the discovery of special powers of the mind would open up wonderful new avenues of research that would surely be generously funded by taxpayers. Mainstream scientists have not accepted the claims of parapsychology for exactly the same reason they have not accepted the claims of intelligent design.

The data do not warrant it.

From the first experiments in the mid-nineteenth century to the present, the claim of evidence for
ESP
simply does not stand up under the same scrutiny scientists apply when considering any extraordinary claim.

The Significance of Experiments

Let me expand on the issue of statistical significance of experiments, which is the basis on which many reported extraordinary claims can be quickly discarded. Parapsychologists argue that they should be held to the same standard of statistical significance as medical science, where claimed positive effects of, say, a new drug, are published when the statistical significance (”
P
value”) is 5 percent (
P
= 0.05) or lower. That is, if the experiment were repeated many times in exactly the same fashion, on average one in twenty would produce the same effect, or a greater one, as an artifact of the normal statistical fluctuations that occur in any measurement dealing with finite data.

But think of what that means. In every twenty claims that are reported in medical journals, on the average one such report is false—a statistical artifact!

Contrast this with the standard in the field of research where I spent my career, elementary particle physics. There the standard of
P
value for publication of an important new discovery is one-hundredth of one percent (
P
< 0.0001). This guarantees that, on average, only one in ten thousand such reports is a statistical artifact.

A possible justification for the low standard in medicine may be that medical journals are not venues for extraordinary new discoveries but places where promising new therapies are disseminated to the healthcare community as rapidly as possible. If one in twenty are spurious, that may be regarded by some as a small price to pay if a life might be saved by a therapy that works. Nevertheless, I think the medical standard should be higher, given the large number of false reports that are later withdrawn. Think of all the wasted money, effort, and lives that probably go into useless therapies under the current arrangement.

Indeed, medical researchers are beginning to recognize the inadequacy of their journal standards. Epidemiologist John Ionnidas has gone so far as to write, “Most published research findings in Medicine are false
²⁷
.” A recent paper in
British Medical Journal
recommends the
P
value threshold be changed to
P
< 0.001, not as tight as in physics but probably suitable for medical science, given all its added complications
²⁸
.