On this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, recorded live at SkeptiCamp, Ashlyn, Lauren, Laura, and Gem test their knowledge (and that of the audience) in a variety of scientific and pseudoscientific domains.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a podcast that delves into issues of science, critical thinking, and secular humanism.
SkeptiCamp Winnipeg is a conference for the sharing of ideas. It is free and open to the public: anyone can attend and participate! Presentations and discussions focus on science and free inquiry, and the audience is encouraged to challenge presenters to defend their ideas. You can visit the Winnipeg Skeptics' SkeptiCamp page for information about upcoming events and links to past SkeptiCamp talks.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, we're recording live from SkeptiCamp Winnipeg! Gem, Ashlyn, and Lauren talk about logical fallacies and deductive reasoning, and Gem hosts a game of Name That Logical Fallacy!
What follows is the text of my presentation from the Winnipeg Skeptics' fourth annual SkeptiCamp Winnipeg, an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking.
Some of this presentation is adapted from a 2013 position paper my project team wrote for Bad Science Watch last year as part of our investigation into anti-WiFi activism in Canada. Bad Science Watch is an independent, non-profit science advocacy organization that aims to protect Canadian consumers by countering bad science in media and politics. The organisation is always looking for volunteers (and, of course, donations!). You can find out more at BadScienceWatch.ca.
So, cell phones and WiFi: What seems to be the problem?
Well, the problem is in the last few years we have an increasing number of people who are complaining that radiation generated by our modern conveniences (like computers, cell phones, appliances, and power lines) is responsible for a host of debilitating ailments in certain people who are "electromagnetically hypersensitive". Activists are pushing for stricter government regulation, removal of wireless technology from schools, and radio-free zones.
To make sure that everyone's on the same page, I'll start with a bit of basic science.
First of all, what is radiation?
Well, "radiation" can mean a few different things. Generally, it's the process by which energetic waves or particles travel through space. If you want to classify radiation broadly, there are two main ways you can do it: first, you can ask, "Is it particle radiation or electromagnetic radiation?" and second, "Is it ionizing or non-ionizing?"
Particle Radiation
Particle radiation occurs when large, unstable elements decay into smaller, more stable elements. Particle radiation often comes in the form of alpha particles (groups of two protons and two neutrons), beta particles (which are free electrons or positrons), or free neutrons. This sort of radioactive decay also results in a little bit of electromagnetic radiation (in the form of gamma rays), which we'll talk about in a second. Particle radiation is a form of ionizing radiation (we'll get to that too, but generally speaking that's the bad stuff). We won't be talking much about particle radiation today, but when people talk about stuff being "radioactive" this is often what they mean.
Electromagnetic Spectrum
The second type of radiation is electromagnetic radiation. This is an energetic wave that propagates through space. Visible light is a type of electromagnetic radiation, and so are radio waves. EM radiation is a particular form of the more general electromagnetic field, which is a field produced by the movement of electrically charged objects, and which affects the behaviour of charged particles. Electromagnetic fields can be natural (the Earth and the Sun, for example, have their own EM fields), or they can be artificial. Artificial fields can be produced intentionally (microwaves use them to cook food, computers and phones use them to communicate), or they can be produced as a by-product of technology (pretty much anything that uses electricity will have an EM field).
Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation
Unlike particle radiation (which is generally ionizing), electromagnetic radiation can be either ionizing or non-ionizing. Radiation at non-ionizing frequencies may be sufficiently powerful to cause substances to heat up, but is not powerful enough to strip electrons from molecules (creating ions) and break molecular bonds.
Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation
The radio, microwave, infrared, and visible spectra are made up of non-ionizing radiation, while x-rays and gamma rays are forms of ionizing radiation, and ultraviolet radiation sort of straddles the line between the two.
High doses of non-ionizing radiation are known to cause thermal effects (think of putting your hand on an incandescent light bulb, or microwaving a pizza pocket), but low doses are not known to have any deleterious effects to living things. By contrast, high doses of ionizing radiation can result in serious burns and radiation sickness, while low, steady doses can result in genetic damage and cancerous tumours.
So that's generally what scientific investigations into radiation has found: ionizing radiation causes direct damage to living systems, and non-ionizing radiation doesn't (although it can heat stuff up). So what's electromagnetic hypersensitivity?
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (or EHS) is a term used to describe the adverse, subjective medical symptoms that some people report experiencing after exposure to certain frequencies of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (generally, the weak fields produced by WiFi hotspots, cell phones, or power lines). The symptoms associated vary from patient to patient, but often include fatigue, inability to sleep, headache, stress, muscle aches, and rashes. Sufferers report that their symptoms are worse in the city than in the country, and that they're especially bad when they're in close proximity to a device (such as a mobile phone) that emits a wireless signal.
Determining the prevalence of EHS is difficult, and estimates vary wildly depending on who's asking the questions, with the World Health Organization reporting a few individuals per million, while surveys conducted by support groups peg the number as high as one in thirty. But the effects of this syndrome are not limited to those who describe themselves as hypersensitive. Because these symptoms can compromise quality of life, parents groups and teachers unions in Ontario and British Columbia are pressuring schools to remove all WiFi installations (with some success), a group called Citizens for Safe Technology is calling for BC Hydro to suspend its Smart Meter program, and according to news reports some sufferers taken to the hills, moving as far beyond the reach of cellular signals and power lines as they can.
So what's the deal? Are these symptoms real or is it "all in their heads"?
First of all: What I just did? Don't do that. While psychogenic illnesses certainly do exist (and we would do ourselves a great disservice to deny that), framing the issue in terms of diseases that are "real" or "all in your head" is, at best, unhelpful, not to mention wildly inaccurate.
So, let's try that again: Are these symptoms really caused by a sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, or is something else going on?
Well, in 2004 the World Health Organization held a workshop on electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The working group proposed that we should no longer refer to "EHS", because "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" implies a causal relationship between the reported symptoms and electromagnetic fields, and that relationship hasn't been established. Because the actual cause of these symptoms isn't known to be EMF, the WHO suggested that the syndrome be referred to as "idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields" (or IEI-EMF) instead. Catchy, isn't it?
So that's where things stood in 2004: causality hadn't been established, and many scientists were skeptical, as there was no known mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation could result in these symptoms. How have things progressed since then?
Well, there's been a fair amount of research: some of it good, some of it not so good. The highest quality papers that we were able to identify involved double-blind, controlled provocation studies in which individuals who identified themselves as "hypersensitive" were exposed either to a source of EMF or to an inactive control. Subjects were asked to report on the severity of their symptoms, which allowed researchers to determine whether symptoms differed depending on whether the source of electromagnetic radiation was turned "on" or "off". While subjects reportedly experienced symptoms of EHS while in the presence of the device, researchers were able to find no consistent correlation between symptom severity and the presence or absence of electromagnetic fields. In addition, while many hypersensitive individuals claimed to be able to perceive the presence of EMF, it turned out that the majority were unable to do so under double-blind laboratory conditions. Is it just me, or does this remind anyone else of the JREF's million-dollar challenge?
While these and similar studies have fared well in replication and peer review, studies do exist purporting to show that EHS symptoms are correlated to EMF. However, they tend to exhibit basic methodological problems not present in the provocation trials. The body of the literature suggests that the symptoms of EHS are not caused by exposure to EMF, and several systematic reviews, including those published by Röosli in 2008 and Rubin et al. in 2010, concluded that the nocebo effect (the placebo effect's evil twin) played a significant role in the onset of EHS symptoms.
A 2006 study investigating several treatments for EHS symptoms, including "shielding" devices, "filters", supplementation, cognitive behavioural therapy, and even acupuncture, found that only cognitive behavioural therapy outperformed placebo. The body of available evidence suggests that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a psychogenic disorder. EHS is frequently compared to other controversial idiopathic conditions such as chronic Lyme disease.
Rather than addressing the methodological problems identified in their research or investigating plausible alternative causes of EHS, activists in Canada have generally focused on limiting access to WiFi, Smart Meters, and other devices that they claim (without evidence) to be the cause of EHS. One of the most prominent promoters of the link between EHS and EMF in Canada is Dr. Magda Havas, who teaches environmental studies at Trent University. She's published many papers on the subject, including one that claims to show that EMF (somehow) increases blood sugar. Dr. Steven Novella points out that this particular paper is actually nothing more than a four-patient case study (a series of well-documented anecdotes). Additionally, exposure to EMF was often guessed-at instead of measured, and no blinding was employed at all.
Another Havas study (which apparently did not pass peer review) purported to show that use of cordless phones resulted in huge spikes in heart-rate on an EKG; however, when Lorne Trottier and Harvey Kofsky investigated, they were able to replicate the spike on the EKG when it wasn't even hooked up to a patient! The best explanation seems to be that the EKG was experiencing electrical interference from the cordless phone—something that is specifically warned about in the heart rate monitor's user manual.
Okay, enough about EMF. Don't cell phones and WiFi cause cancer? I remember reading about something about the WHO classifying cell phones as a carcinogen a few years ago, don't I?
No. Well, that's not actually true. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in Group 2B, which means that they are "possibly carcinogenic". While this puts radio waves in the same category as DDT, it also puts them in the same category as coffee, pickles, and "being a carpenter". It's worth pointing out that beer, wine, and other alcoholic beverages actually fall under group 1 (the "definitely known to be carcinogenic" group).
There's a lot of nuance here, but I'll try to break it down. First of all, the categories aren't divided up by how carcinogenic we think they are; they're divided up by how sure we are that they're at least a little carcinogenic. If we're quite positive that they're a little bit carcinogenic (like alcohol), they go in Group 1. If the evidence shows that something is probably carcinogenic, it goes in Group 2A. If the evidence is quite muddled (as is the case with radiofrequency EMF), regardless of how carcinogenic we think it might be, it goes in Group 2B. So saying that cell phones are in the same category as DDT (or carpentry) can be misleading. It has nothing to do with how dangerous we think it might be, it has to do with how sure we are that it might be dangerous (in this case, not sure at all). Several large, randomized, controlled trials have found no link between cell phone use and cancer, while others have found a correlation. I don't have time to delve deep into the details today, but so far I'm not convinced.
Several companies market products aimed at "protecting" customers from the putative harmful effects of EMF, including "Stetzer" filters and cellphone cases designed to block electromagnetic radiation. These devices offer no demonstrated health benefit, and as for the cases, to the degree that they may indeed block EM radiation, they would also interfere with the functioning of your device: that "radiation" is how mobile phones work. But that won't stop companies from making a quick buck at the consumer's expense.
Smart Meter
I want to talk specifically about Smart Meters for just a moment. Is anyone familiar with these? They record your electricity usage, like any other meter, but they report readings back to the utility automatically. The thing is, they do so wirelessly, which is apparently the chief cause for concern, and the data that they gather is much more temporally specific, opening the door for pricing that differs by time of day or season. I want to point out that there are potential concerns related to these devices that do not relate to health. I think that making this distinction is important, and it's one I harp on quite a bit whenever I'm asked to talk about genetically engineered foodstuffs. Whether or not I sympathize with criticisms of Smart Meters that relate to privacy, market forces, or information security, I want to stress that using bad arguments (like EHS) to support a potentially just conclusion is intellectually dishonest, and it's a good way to alienate potential allies, particularly if those people take critical thinking seriously.
It's important to point out that, given the balance of the available evidence, removing sources of EMF (such as WiFi or Smart Meters) is very unlikely to have any effect on those suffering from this EHS. Not only will these efforts inconvenience many people and incur substantial monetary costs, they're not actually going to get us any closer to helping anyone. And that, in my mind, is the biggest problem.
The WHO released a fact sheet on the subject of electromagnetic fields and health. I'll quote their conclusions here:
"The symptoms [of EHS] are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem."
To physicians, they further recommend: "Treatment of affected individuals should focus on the health symptoms and the clinical picture, and not on the person's perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF in the workplace or home."
So, cell phones and WiFi: Should you be worried? I'm not.
Thanks to Catrina Duffy, Adrian Powell, Ryan Gray, and Jason Locklin, who joined me in spending countless hours poring through the literature on this project.
On Saturday, 29 September 2012, the Winnipeg Skeptics held their third annual SkeptiCamp event. SkeptiCamp Winnipeg is a conference for the sharing of ideas. It is free and open to the public: anyone can attend and participate! Presentations and discussions focus on science and free inquiry, and the audience is encouraged to challenge presenters to defend their ideas.
Matt Bueno is a scientist who completed his masters degree at Ryerson University and went on to work at the University of Toronto. He's worked on various projects in diverse fields ranging from developmental neurology to evolutionary genomics to biophysics. He is new to Winnipeg, having recently accepted a position at the Health Sciences Centre as a diagnostic geneticist.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
On Saturday, 29 September 2012, the Winnipeg Skeptics held their third annual SkeptiCamp event. SkeptiCamp Winnipeg is a conference for the sharing of ideas. It is free and open to the public: anyone can attend and participate! Presentations and discussions focus on science and free inquiry, and the audience is encouraged to challenge presenters to defend their ideas.
Dr. Jim Young is a researcher in computer science at the University of Manitoba specializing in human-robot interaction. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Calgary, where he focused on mixing robotic interface design with sociology, and worked for four years at the University of Tokyo, designing easy-to-use robotic interfaces for the general public.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
On Saturday, 29 September 2012, the Winnipeg Skeptics held their third annual SkeptiCamp event. SkeptiCamp Winnipeg is a conference for the sharing of ideas. It is free and open to the public: anyone can attend and participate! Presentations and discussions focus on science and free inquiry, and the audience is encouraged to challenge presenters to defend their ideas.
Mike Innes is a geek gone wrong. He has a tan, he can throw and catch a ball, and he looks you in the eye when he's talking to you (some of the time). He's also a disgruntled IT worker for a local insurance company, armchair philosopher, and self-proclaimed face-melter of Internet trolls.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Richelle McCullough, Gem Newman, and Donna Harris discuss local and international news of interest to skeptics, including an investigation of anti-WiFi activism in Canada, a new study examining the negative impact that personhood amendments have on women, a governmental report in Québec endorsing the right to euthanasia, and more.
On Saturday, 29 September 2012, the Winnipeg Skeptics held their third annual SkeptiCamp event. SkeptiCamp Winnipeg is a conference for the sharing of ideas. It is free and open to the public: anyone can attend and participate! Presentations and discussions focus on science and free inquiry, and the audience is encouraged to challenge presenters to defend their ideas.
Donna Harris is the vice president of the Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics of Manitoba. She discovered skepticism in Las Vegas several years ago, and it has changed her live for the better.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
On Saturday, 29 September 2012, the Winnipeg Skeptics held their third annual SkeptiCamp event. SkeptiCamp Winnipeg is a conference for the sharing of ideas. It is free and open to the public: anyone can attend and participate! Presentations and discussions focus on science and free inquiry, and the audience is encouraged to challenge presenters to defend their ideas.
Dr. Laura Targownik is a professional gastroenterologist and health services researcher (and yes, she was already heard your colonoscopy joke). She is most interested in discussing how to improve the public's understanding of medical issues, better living through statistics, and in improving resources for skeptical families.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
On Saturday, 29 September 2012, the Winnipeg Skeptics held their third annual SkeptiCamp event. SkeptiCamp Winnipeg is a conference for the sharing of ideas. It is free and open to the public: anyone can attend and participate! Presentations and discussions focus on science and free inquiry, and the audience is encouraged to challenge presenters to defend their ideas.
Laura Creek Newman is a registered dietitian in Winnipeg who has a passion for everything involving food and nutrition. Her favourite skeptical topics are health, wellness, and the latest "miracle foods". She is an active member of the Winnipeg Skeptics with a particular interest in building community ties through volunteering events.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
On Saturday, 29 September 2012, the Winnipeg Skeptics held their third annual SkeptiCamp event. SkeptiCamp Winnipeg is a conference for the sharing of ideas. It is free and open to the public: anyone can attend and participate! Presentations and discussions focus on science and free inquiry, and the audience is encouraged to challenge presenters to defend their ideas.
Scott Burton is a professional motivational speaker and corporate entertainer. His hobby is participating in ultramarathons (races longer than 42.2 kilometres) while continually testing his abilities. Scott believes that we can all benefit from reaching for big goals and challenging our self-limiting beliefs.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
On Saturday, 29 September 2012, the Winnipeg Skeptics held their third annual SkeptiCamp event. SkeptiCamp Winnipeg is a conference for the sharing of ideas. It is free and open to the public: anyone can attend and participate! Presentations and discussions focus on science and free inquiry, and the audience is encouraged to challenge presenters to defend their ideas.
Dennis LeNeveu worked for 20 years at Atomic Energy of Canada doing research on nuclear fuel waste management, focusing on probabilistic risk assessment. Subsequently, he did consulting work in the area of risk assessment of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration in oil fields. Through this work, he became interested in the consequences of fossil fuel extraction and usage.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
We solicited feedback from participants at SkeptiCamp, and here's what they had to say!
The feedback cards asked participants to rank various aspects of SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2012 from 1–5. Of the roughly forty-five participants, we received nine completed cards. I've summarised the results below, including numeric mean and median scores and a verbal interpretation of the median (my preferred form of average, due to its resistance to outliers).
Please bear in mind that our sample is self-selected.
How was the conference as a whole?
Mean
Median
Verbal
Did you enjoy yourself?
5
5
Yes
Did you learn anything useful?
4.67
5
Yes
Were the breaks adequate?
5
5
Yes
Was the conference too long?
1.22
1
No
Were you able to participate?
4.56
5
Yes
Would you attend in the future?
5
5
Yes
Would you recommend SkeptiCamp?
4.89
5
Yes
How was the venue?
Mean
Median
Verbal
Was it clean and comfortable?
4.67
5
Yes
Was it sufficiently large?
4.78
5
Yes
How were the presentations?
Mean
Median
Verbal
Were the talks interesting?
4.75
5
Yes
Did they encourage discussion?
4.88
5
Yes
Were the topics diverse?
4.89
5
Yes
Were the talks easy to understand?
4.67
5
Yes
Was the atmosphere friendly?
4.89
5
Yes
Would you consider presenting in the future?
4.67
5
Yes
What was your favourite topic?
Robots and Emotions: Science Fiction Hype or Real Science?
A Sampling Sampler: Statistics for the Non-Statistician
How to Run 100 Miles: Challenging Self-Limiting Beliefs
Next Generation DNA Sequencing: Small Technology, Big Changes
The Good Ship Self-Esteem
Measures to Avoid Adverse Consequences of Irresponsible Extraction of Fossil Fuels
What topic do you wish had been covered?
The Role of Skepticism in Society
Religion
Something by Anlina
(Anlina Sheng was originally scheduled to speak at SkeptiCamp this year, but was unable to present due to a sudden family emergency. We encourage everyone to check out Anlina's popular talks from last year's SkeptiCamp.)
Do you have any complaints, suggestions, or other feedback?
"Load presentations onto one laptop ahead of time."
"It was fun!"
"Keep doing a good job."
"Some quiet fans would be nice to cool the room. Perhaps when question period becomes a discussion, more control could be used to allow more response & questions."
We plan to release videos of all of the presentations in the coming months. Stay tuned!
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Laura Creek Newman talks about supposed "superfoods" and Anlina Sheng tells us everything there is to know about polyamory.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, the LUEE hosts take the day off to enjoy a wonderful Canada Day, which allows hosts Robert Shindler, Richelle McCullough, and Gem Newman a chance to look back at the past year to share with you a couple of presentations from our vault.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
Scientific Spirituality
Dr. Ali Ashtari obtained his Bachelors and Masters degrees in Electrical Engineering from Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, Iran, and his Ph.D in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Manitoba. He currently holds a post doctoral fellowship at the University of Manitoba. He describes himself as a "militant atheist", and has recently developed an interest in meditation and the scientific study of spirituality.
Science & Media: A Love Story
Richelle McCullough is a medical student at the University of Calgary and is graduating with a Masters degree in Physiology from the University of Manitoba this spring. She blogs at Subspecies and for the Winnipeg Skeptics, and is proud that she is frequently trolled by people who think that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Realities and Myths About Sex Work
Anlina Sheng is a freelance graphic and web designer, a feminist, and a sex-workers' rights advocate.
How to Change Minds
Mike Innes is former born-again Christian, and is now a passionate activist for skepticism and equality. He is the father of two boys, and he spends much of his time building more computers than he knows what to do with. The text of this presentation is also available on the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
Polyamory and Mononormative Assumptions
Anlina Sheng is a freelance graphic and web designer, a feminist, and a polyamory activist. For more information about polyamory in Winnipeg, visit PolyWinnipeg.org.
Perpetual Motion and Free Energy... Science or Pseudoscience?
Javier Hernandez-Melgar is a student at the University of Manitoba, pursuing a joint honours degree in math and physics.
Evaluating Rational and Emotional Arguments
Brendan Curran-Johnson is a software developer, unrepentant geek, and incorrigible satirist.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
Logical Fallacies (A Spoonful of Sugar)
Paul Nordin is a member of the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Winnipeg Secularists. He is currently majoring in philosophy at the University of Winnipeg.
Free Will: What is it? and Do we have it?
Gem Newman graduated with distinction from the University of Manitoba with a B.Sc. in Computer Science, specialising in Artificial Intelligence. He founded the Winnipeg Skeptics in 2010, and more recently he co-produced a short documentary called "The Nonbelievers' Beliefs" with fellow skeptic Scott Carnegie. He blogs at WinnipegSkeptics.com, StartledDisbelief.com, and occasionally at SkepticsOnThe.Net.
Denialism
Jeff Olsson is a former Anglican priest and the current president of the Humanist Association of Manitoba. His book, Leaving Faith Behind, is available on Amazon from Xlibris. The Humanist Association of Manitoba can be found at mb.humanists.ca.
What follows is a transcript of my presentation from the Winnipeg Skeptics' second annual SkeptiCamp Winnipeg, an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking.
Free Will: What is it?
So what is free will? Well, it depends who you ask.
Free Will: Three Views
I'll briefly sketch outlines of three views of free will in this presentation.
The first is that of "Libertarian Agency". While many off-the-cuff definitions of free will seem to quickly descend into tautology, by far the most cogent definition of free will that I've come across was offered by Apologist J.P. Moreland.
The second position that I'll discuss (the dissenting view) is the determinist position. In brief: we do not have free will.
Finally, I'll take a moment to introduce the compatibilist position, which states that determinism can be reconciled with free will. This is the position taken by many modern naturalist philosophers, such as Daniel C. Dennett.
Libertarianism
[Insert Ron Paul joke here.]
In his essay "Naturalism and Libertarian Agency", Moreland describes his "libertarian" view of free will. He insisted that our actions do not have prior causes: you are the ultimate cause of your own actions. You can initiate and/or stop yourself from initiating any action. We are all "little gods", "unmoved movers".
Now, you may ask why I'm citing an apologist to define free will. Well, theologians tend to spend a lot of time thinking about free will, as it is central to theodicy and many other works of apologetics. I'll be dealing primarily with libertarianism for the purposes of this talk, but I'll briefly discuss a different, compatibilist view of free will later on.
Libertarian agency is also called contra-causal free will, because it holds that our decisions are not bound (or "determined") by a causal chain of events. However, if our minds (and therefore our decision-making processes) are entirely the product of our brains (which are made of matter), it is difficult to imagine how our thoughts could be completely free, or causally unbound. For this reason, free will is often linked with dualism. Within this framework, the "soul" or "spirit" (which is not composed of matter, and is therefore freed from causation) is the "free agent" in decision making.
Free Will: Do we have it?
"Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."
—Arthur Schopenhauer?
Einstein attributed this to Schopenhauer but, as often happens, it seems that the original source is slightly less pithy.1 Regardless, it certainly captures the sentiment.
Do we have free will? I don't think so. Not the libertarian kind, anyway.
Laplace's Demon
"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at any moment knew all forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of the beings that comprise it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."
—Pierre-Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities
Determinism
Determinism holds that we live in a causal universe, and that we are not somehow exempt from that web of causality. Our thoughts and deeds are fully caused. Our decisions are the effects of prior causes, and the causes of future effects.
Put simply, determinism is the position that your choices, like all other aspects of the macroscopic universe, have causal antecedents; that is to say, given the same options and the same set of preconditions, you will always make the same choice.
But we still make choices. If you're at the café for lunch, and you decide to get a regular Pepsi instead of your usual Diet Pepsi, there was a reason for that: probably many reasons, that all came together in that one decision. In fact, the question, "Why did you do that?" really only makes sense within a deterministic framework.
Remember: determinism doesn't say that you're some sort of mindless automaton with no mental life. You still deliberate over choices, your past experiences still play a role, you'll still sometimes make snap judgements based on your emotions instead of thinking things through—but all of these factors are fully caused, and causally affect your decision-making process in turn.
Determinism does constrain you, but it only constrains you to act within your own character—which, upon reflection, doesn't seem so bad.
The Process of Deliberation
Within the deterministic framework, your decision may be influenced by a multitude of factors. Some of these factors may be consciously recognized, while you may be completely unaware of others. Regardless, from the determinist perspective, your decisions are the result of a calculus. A whole bunch of variables go in, and a decision comes out.
Let's contrast this with contra-causal free will: you are waiting to cross the street, and the light says "Don't Walk". Perhaps you're running late for a meeting, perhaps you've been standing in line all day and you're feeling impatient, and perhaps you were recently issued a citation by a police officer for jaywalking. Does any of this factor in to your decision to cross against the light? If you're a "libertarian agent", the answer must be "no" (or at the very least, "not necessarily"). If you are an unmoved mover, you simply choose.
In many ways, a free choice is a meaningless choice.
When you're weighing your options, this is a deterministic process. In fact, "weighing" one's options is an excellent analogy for the way decision-making works within a deterministic framework.
Even though it might seem like a close call, 30 grams of lead and 15 grams of gold will always weigh more than 5 grams of silver and 35 grams of copper. If you weighed them a second time, could things come out differently?
I'll expand a little on the example that I used earlier (which I stole from the guys at Reasonable Doubts, by the way). Let's say you're ordering lunch, and you're trying to choose whether you're going to have a Pepsi or a Diet Pepsi. Your decision may be influenced by how you're feeling about yourself, by whether your spouse has recently made a comment about your waistline, by whether you have a strong dislike for the aftertaste common to diet sodas, by whether you suffer from diabetes or chronic hypoglycaemia, by whether you have a sweet tooth, by whether your father used to drink a Diet Pepsi while he worked on the car, by whether you just saw a magazine with a really slim model on the cover, or by whether you've decided that aspartame (or high-fructose corn syrup, for that matter) is part of a secret government mind-control project.
Do we have options in a deterministic universe? Does it make sense to say that you chose the Diet Pepsi over the Pepsi? Doesn't that imply that things could have worked out differently?
Well, in a sense, things could have worked out differently—had a different set of contingencies been in play. When choices or options are presented to us, we don't necessarily know which we will choose, but that doesn't make our choice free from causal influence.
Imagine that you are standing before a door. You might say, "Maybe there's a person behind that door." Either there is or there isn't; only one of those propositions is true, and which is true has already been determined. Your statement, "Maybe there's a person behind that door," reflects only your ignorance of which of these options has been determined. Similarly, "Maybe I'll have the Diet Pepsi," doesn't have to reflect "real" options; it may simply reflect your own uncertainty about which option you will eventually choose.
The Evidence for Causal Determinism
"Yes, we have a soul. But it's made of lots of tiny robots."
—Giulio Giorello
Although they are not without their critics, the studies of Haynes and Libet have provided evidence that decisions that we think we're making are actually made before we're even aware of them. This suggests that the "choice" that we consciously experience may be more a self-report, an epiphenomenon.
There is also a significant body of evidence from the field of psychology showing that our decisions can be predictably, causally affected by psychological priming and by transcranial magnetic stimulation.
There is also the case of Phineas Gage, a nineteenth century railway foreman who was seriously injured on the job. In an accidental explosion, he had a steel rod blown in through one eye and out through the top of his head. Although he survived, his personality and behaviour were severely affected. According to the attending physician, he became profane and impulsive.2
This handful of examples serves to demonstrate that our decisions are not freed from the web of causation.
And where does does this leave libertarian free will? To again quote Laplace, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là."
Common Objections to Determinism
"If determinism is true, our concepts of morality and justice are meaningless! We would have no responsibility for our actions!"
There are two main problems that I have with this objection. First of all, it isn't true. While it may be that we can't assign ultimate blame to people for their actions, even actions that we may find morally repugnant, there are several ethical systems which don't rely on assigning ultimate responsibility to the actors involved (consequentialism, for example, or even virtue ethics).
As far as justice goes, while a punitive system of justice makes no sense within a deterministic framework, a correctional system does. We can also focus on the prevention of crime. A system of justice based upon retribution avails us nothing.
Second, even if it were true that our concepts of morality and justice would fall by the wayside within the deterministic framework, that's not actually an argument against the truth of determinism. This is what it's known as an argument from final consequences, a fairly common logical fallacy.
In fact, many of the other arguments levelled against determinism come in the form of the argument from final consequences: "If determinism is true, then I'm just a robot!" Yup. I guess so. "If people think that their actions are determined, they're more likely to cheat and steal!" Probably true, actually, based upon some recent psychological studies. But again, that's not really an argument.
"But what about the soul?"
I'm more or less assuming monism for the purposes of the talk. I think that the principle of parsimony and fairly solid neurological evidence suggests monism over dualism. Dualism really falls apart when examined in light of modern psychology and neuroscience. It is a fact that core personality attributes can be altered by a physical change to the brain. The soul, if it exists, would seem to be completely redundant.
"Quantum indeterminacy. That is all."
It is true that quantum indeterminacy may pose a problem for a strict interpretation of determinism.3 The quantum uncertainty gambit is a red herring, however, in that it actually does nothing to rescue free will.
Modern physics tells us that there are genuinely indeterminate events that occur on a quantum level, so there may be a sense in which (on a very small scale) events are not strictly deterministic. But there are two primary reasons to think that this has no bearing on the issue of free will. First of all, that quantum indeterminacy seems to cancel out at the macroscopic level. Neurons and synapses, while small, are not at all likely to be impacted by this uncertainty. Second, even if there is some way in which quantum indeterminacy may have some impact on the functioning of the brain, how would a random, indeterminate event open the door for free will? As Jeremy Beahan, Adjunct Instructor of Philosophy at Kendall College, put it:
An indeterminate event is even more frightening than a determinate event, because even in determinate events you can say, "Hey, look, my past experiences, the influence of my environment, everything like that goes into this choice." A genuinely indeterminate event, if that could affect consciousness, then that's something that just happened. And something that happens randomly is not the same thing as freedom.
"Determinism is unfalsifiable."
Of all of these criticisms, this is the one that I find most coherent. However, I still disagree. Lab studies can and do show predictable, and replicable causal influence on our decision making. Now, you may well object that influenced does not mean determined. I have two responses to that: First, I would contend that given the obvious difficulties in controlling for all variables when conducting these tests, we shouldn't expect to get a 100% determined outcome. The physics of the brain is immensely complex. Second, if our decisions can be even influenced by factors outside of our understanding or control, how can they be called in any meaningful sense "free"?
Saying that we may be influenced, but there's still perhaps a tiny place for a free agent to make free decisions really boils down to a free-will-of-the-gaps argument.
I have also encountered other objections, but time constraints do not allow me to discuss them at length.4
Compatibilism
There are some definitions of free will that are compatible with determinism.
Rather than asserting that a decision could have come out differently even had all of the contingencies been the same (the libertarian position), compatibilists may define "free will" simply as an agent's capacity to act in a manner that is not coerced or restrained.
Daniel Dennett articulates his two-stage model of decision making in his essay, "On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want":
[W]hen we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent... Those considerations ... then figure in a reasoning process, and … ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision.
That's not only compatible with determinism, that is determinism!
Free Will: Do we have it?
Again, it depends what you mean.
We've looked at libertarian agency, we've looked at determinism, and we've looked at compatibilism, which attempts to marry the two.
Libertarianism? Certainly not.
Why I'm a Determinist
To wrap up, I'll briefly recap the three reason that I come down (provisionally) on the side of determinism.
First of all, given that our brains are made of "stuff", and our minds seem to be entirely the product of our brains, we're left without any known mechanism for free choice, from a contra-causal perspective.
Second, we have solid evidence from psychology and neurology that our decisions are not causally free, and can be strongly influenced by factors outside of our understanding or control.
And finally, we already acknowledge, both in our legal systems and in our quotidian lives, that there are reasons for our choices. Those reasons serve as explanations for our actions precisely because they have a causal influence on our decision-making.
Remember...
Either your actions are determined or they're not—but you are no more a robot if you believe in determinism than if you believe in free will.
"A theory about a thing does not change the thing the theory is about."
Harlow, J.M. 1868. "Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head". Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society. 2:339–342.
Libet, B., Gleason, C.A., Wright, E.W., Pearl, D.K. 1983. "Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act". Brain. 106 (3):623–642. PMID 6640273. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6640273
Dennett, D. 1981. "On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want". Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. MIT Press.
Moreland, J.P. 1997. "Naturalism and Libertarian Agency". Philosophy & Theology. 10, 2. http://afterall.net/papers/490937
Schopenhauer, A. 1839. "Prize Essay on Freedom of the Will".
Notes
1 A more accurate translation of Schopenhauer would be:
You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing."
—Arthur Schopenhauer, "Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will"
2 I hesitate to mention Phineas Gage, as there exists so much exaggeration and distortion surrounding his case, with both the naturalists and the dualists of his time citing it in support of their claims. A careful review of the facts, however, supports the claim that specific damage to the brain results in specific damage to the mind and specific changes to personality.
To be clear, misinformation about the Gage case is not limited to proponents of dualism, with some (admittedly minor) misstatements of fact being presented even by the folks at Reasonable Doubts. That in mind, even a conservative reading of the known facts supports a naturalistic understanding of the mind. Although he misremembered the date of Gage's death (which I wouldn't count remarkable, save that it has been noted by several critics), Dr. John Harlow's account of the events seem balanced and fairly reliable, and supports (in my opinion) the central contention of this presentation.
Harlow writes:
The equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, although untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was "no longer Gage."
3 Proponents of some sort of quantum free will often point out that, since the advent of quantum physics, we can no longer be said to live in a clockwork universe. Perhaps it's trite of me to say so, but I think that certainly we can! When we look at clockwork, we see gears turning in a determined fashion, interlocking, all connected. We see inevitability. But, with our understanding of quantum physics in mind, we know that every clock ever commissioned was subject to the same quantum indeterminacy—and yet its gears continued to turn, day in, day out.
"If determinism is true, then the future is fixed. We couldn't change anything!"
In a sense, that's true. But don't despair: the future will still be shaped by the present, just as the present is shaped by the past. Our actions may be causally determined, but those actions still impact the thoughts and deeds of others. It's important not to confuse determinism with predeterminism or fatalism. You're no one's marionette. I'm not suggesting that your path is laid out for you: just that you will forge your own path, and that there is a path that you will forge.
"But I feel like I have free will!"
Our senses are fallible! We may seem to have free will, but we also seem to have a complete visual field, when in fact we each have a fairly sizeable blind spot in each eye. Memory seems to accurately record events, but psychological studies continue to demonstrate that it is fickle and unreliable.
"What does it matter if we don't have free will? How could this possibly be relevant?"
First off, I think that understanding that nobody is "perfectly free" to make choices might allow us to move from a justice system that is less punitive and more focused on reformation of criminals and prevention of crime, which I think that any person in their more lucid moments would agree is a step in the right direction.
Second, exploring new areas of knowledge has proved beneficial in the past, even when no immediate application of this knowledge is readily apparent. There could be medical/neurological applications, perhaps. Determinism also makes the idea of general artificial intelligence plausible, which I find to be a hopeful prospect. I don't think that it's ever a mistake to nurture intellectual curiosity.
Third, it further hamstrings that (already quite stupid) theist response to the Problem of Evil: "Humans have free will, and thus they must have the choice to do evil. Evil is caused by free will." There are many other problems with that response, of course, but pointing out the false premise can't hurt.
