Study Tackles Neuroscience Studies
that
Claim to Have Disproved ‘Free Will’
North Carolina State
University – March 12, 2018 -- For
several decades, some researchers have argued that neuroscience studies prove
human actions are driven by external stimuli – that the brain is reactive and
free will is an illusion. But a new analysis of these studies shows that many
contained methodological inconsistencies and conflicting results.
Claim to Have Disproved ‘Free Will’
“Score one for skepticism of claims that neuroscience has proven – or
disproven – any metaphysical position,” says Veljko Dubljevic, co-author of the
paper and an assistant professor of philosophy at NC State who specializes in
research on the neuroscience of ethics and the ethics of neuroscience and
technology.
“The problem is that neuroscientists in training are being taught these
studies provide definitive proof of the absence of free will, and instructors
aren’t being careful about looking at the evidence that supports the claims
that are made,” Dubljevic says. “Teaching uncritical thinking like this in
science courses is both unscientific and socially dangerous.”
At issue are studies like those pioneered by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s,
which assessed brain activity in study participants who were asked to perform a
specific task. Libet found brain activity preceded a person’s actions before
the person decided to act. Later studies, using various techniques, claimed to
have replicated this basic finding.
But in the first-ever qualitative review of these studies, researchers are
finding that the results are far from conclusive. The review analyzed 48
studies, ranging from Libet’s landmark 1983 paper through 2014.
“We found that interpretation of study results appears to have been driven
by the metaphysical position the given author or authors subscribed to – not by
a careful analysis of the results themselves,” Dubljevic says. “Basically,
those who opposed free will interpreted the results to support their position,
and vice versa.”
The researchers also found significant variability across studies. For
example, a subset of studies that actually looked at where activity was taking
place in the brain, and whether it was related to will (or intent to complete a
task), often found conflicting results.
“Meanwhile, the journal articles that drew the most forceful conclusions
often didn’t even assess the neural activity in question – which means their
conclusions were based on speculation,” Dubljevic says. “It is crucial to
critically examine whether the methods used actually support the claims being
made.”
This is important because what people are told about free will can affect
their behavior.
“Numerous studies suggest that fostering a belief in determinism influences
behaviors like cheating,” Dubljevic says. “Promoting an unsubstantiated belief
on the metaphysical position of non-existence of free will may increase the
likelihood that people won’t feel responsible for their actions if they think
their actions were predetermined.”
And this isn’t a problem solely within the neuroscience community. Earlier work by
Dubljevic and his collaborators found challenges in how this area of research
has been covered by the press and consumed by the public.
“To be clear, we’re not taking a
position on free will,” Dubljevic says. “We’re just saying neuroscience hasn’t
definitively proven anything one way or the other.”
The paper, “The impact of a landmark
neuroscience study on free will: A qualitative analysis of articles using Libet
et al.’s methods,” is published in the American Journal of
Bioethics – Neuroscience. The paper was co-authored by Victoria Saigle and
Eric Racine of the Neuroethics Research Unit at the Institut de recherches
cliniques de Montréal.
No comments:
Post a Comment