On September 11, 2001, the United States of America was rocked by perhaps the most horrific event in its history. In the horrible and uncertain days following the destruction of the World Trade Center (and other attacks) by Islamic zealots many Americans turned to prayer. Millions prayed in their homes and churches as their senators and congressmen prayed on the steps of the Capitol building and their president prayed in the White House. Bumper stickers, signs, and banners flooded the nation proclaiming, “God Bless America” and “Pray for America.” Millions of faithful Americans prayed for a miracle or perhaps a sign from God. Three weeks later such a miracle occurred. The timing could not have been better.

On October 2, 2001, the New York Times reported that researchers at prestigious Columbia University Medical Center in New York had discovered something quite extraordinary (1). Using virtually foolproof scientific methods the researchers had demonstrated that infertile women who were prayed for by Christian prayer groups became pregnant twice as often as those who did not have people praying for them. The study was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine (2). Even the researchers were shocked. The study’s results could only be described as miraculous. This was welcome and wonderful news for a shaken nation.

Columbia University issued a news release claiming that the remarkable study had several safeguards in place to eliminate bias and that the study itself was carefully designed to eliminate bias (3). This was no hoax. Media attention immediately focused on the miraculous study, and articles touting its spectacular results quickly appeared in newspapers around the world. Rogerio Lobo, chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Columbia and the study’s lead author, told Reuters Health that, “Essentially, there was a doubling of the pregnancy rate in the group that was prayed for” (4). Dr. Timothy Johnson, ABC News medical editor and Good Morning America commentator, stated, “A new study on the power of prayer over pregnancy reports surprising results; but many physicians remain skeptical” (5).

The facts I will relate here about the Columbia University “miracle” study confirm that those physicians who doubted the study’s astounding results had extremely good reasons to be skeptical. It remains to be seen whether ABC’s Dr. Johnson, a medical doctor who also serves as a minister at the evangelical Community Covenant Church in West Peabody, Massachusetts, will report or ignore the following shocking information that has since been revealed about the alleged study and its authors.

The “Miracle” Study

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is the most advanced form of infertility treatment currently available and represents the last hope for women with severe infertility. Therefore, any technique that could increase the efficacy of IVF by even a few percent would be a medical breakthrough. Yet the Columbia University study claimed to have demonstrated, in a carefully designed randomized controlled trial, that distant prayer by anonymous prayer groups increased the success rate of IVF by an astounding 100 percent (2). The Cha/Wirth/Lobo study involved 219 infertility patients in Seoul, South Korea, who required in vitro fertilization. Twenty patients were excluded due to incomplete data, leaving 199 study subjects. After randomization, 100 patients were assigned to the study group to receive IVF plus prayer from Christian prayer groups in the United States, Canada, and Australia. The control group of ninety-nine patients received IVF but did not receive any prayers from these prayer groups. In vitro fertilization was performed in the usual fashion in both groups. The 100 patients in the study group were not informed that the groups were praying for them. Furthermore, none of the patients were even informed that they were being used as study subjects. The prayer groups, which were thousands of miles away from the study subjects, prayed over photographs that had been faxed to them from Korea. Remarkably, the pregnancy rate in the prayed-for group (50 percent) was almost twice as high as the pregnancy rate in the nonprayed-for group (26 percent, p= .0013). The highly significant results seem to indicate that something spectacular had occurred.

However, even a cursory review of the report reveals many potential flaws. For one thing, the study protocol was convoluted and confusing, involving at least three levels of overlapping and intertwining prayer groups. Tiers 1 and 2 each consisted of four blocks of prayer participants. Prayer participants in tier 1, block A, received a single sheet of paper with five IVF patient’s pictures (a treatment “unit”) and prayed in a directed manner with a specific intent to “increase the pregnancy rate” for these patients about whom they apparently had no information whatsoever. Prayer participants in tier 2, block A, apparently performed two different types of prayer. First, they prayed for their fellow prayer participants in tier 1, block A, with the intent to “increase the efficacy of prayer intervention.” In other words, they were apparently praying to increase the effectiveness of their colleagues’ prayers, whatever those prayers might be. Next they prayed in a nondirected manner for the study patients with the “intent that God’s will or desire be fulfilled in the life of the patient.” Similar prayers apparently took place in all of the other blocks. Finally, in addition to all of the above groups, tiers, blocks, and units, a separate group of three individuals prayed in a general nonspecific manner with the intent that “God’s will or desire be fulfilled for the prayer participants in tiers 1 and 2.” In other words, these final three prayer participants were praying to increase the efficacy of the second tier of prayer participants who were in turn praying to increase the efficacy of the first tier of prayer participants who were in turn praying for increased pregnancy rates in the study patients.

As can be seen from this brief description, the study protocol was so convoluted and confusing that it cannot be taken seriously. Of course, a simple protocol could have been used to determine if prayer was efficacious in increasing the success rate of IVF. One might simply instruct a few believers to pray for successful IVF in the study group while no one prayed for patients in the control group. With distant prayer the patients would not know if they were being prayed for, or not, so there would be no intention-to-heal or placebo bias. Contrast this with the study design described above and draw your own conclusions. This article is too brief to describe all of the study’s flaws but readers who want more information are referred to two critiques I have published in The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (6,7).

Briefly, here are a few problems I pointed out. Choosing a complex study design rather than a simple one requires explanation, however the authors give no reason for selecting a bewildering study design. Including prayers asking that “God’s will or desire be fulfilled” introduced a vague and obfuscating concept that cannot be measured as an endpoint: no one knows what God’s will is, hence any outcome could be viewed as a success. The authors made no attempt to discover how much prayer was being conducted outside the study protocol, perhaps to other gods, since only one-third of Koreans are Christians. Occam’s razor (the principle that a simple explanation rather than a convoluted one is more often correct) demands that highly unlikely results be viewed with suspicion. Is it more likely that this study is flawed or fraudulent or that the authors have demonstrated the existence of a supernatural phenomena and thus have made perhaps the most important discovery in history?

The Columbia University Connection

The study’s three authors were Kwang Cha, Rogerio Lobo, and Daniel Wirth. Kwang Yul Cha, M.D., was the director of the Cha Columbia Infertility Medical Center at the time of the “miracle” study but apparently severed his relationship with Columbia soon after the study was published. A page on Columbia’s Web site, which has since been removed, described Cha as an “internationally renowned clinician and researcher.” Cha is a graduate of the Yonsei Medical School in Seoul, South Korea. Professor Rogerio A. Lobo, M.D., recently stepped down as chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University. When the study results were announced, Dr. Lobo told the New York Times that the idea for the study came from Dr. Cha; however, the Columbia news release claimed that Dr. Lobo led the study. For two years both Dr. Cha and Dr. Lobo have refused to return my phone calls and e-mails asking questions about the study. The study’s third author, Daniel Wirth, who will be described below, has no known connection with Columbia University other than his participation in the study.

In December 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), after being alerted by media coverage, launched an investigation into the lack of informed consent in the Columbia study.

Columbia University subsequently acknowledged noncompliance with its Multiple Project Assurance (MPA) and its own policies and procedures (8). Specifically, Dr. Lobo never presented the above research to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center (CCPM). In response to the DHHS investigation Columbia University agreed to have its IRB perform an educational in-service for Lobo’s department.

In addition, in December 2001, Columbia University Vice President Thomas Q. Morris, a physician, informed the DHHS that Dr. Lobo first learned of the study from Dr. Cha six to twelve months after the study was completed and that Lobo primarily provided editorial review and assistance with publication (8). This seems inconsistent with Lobo being listed as one of the study’s authors. This also conflicts with the fact that Lobo was identified by both The New York Times and ABC News as the report’s lead author. Lobo was also identified as the report’s lead author in a news release posted for two years on the Columbia University Web site. Interestingly, the press release has recently been removed from the Columbia site. If the report’s lead author did not conduct the international prayer study, who did?

The Mysterious Daniel Wirth

The remaining author is a mysterious individual known as Daniel P. Wirth. In October 2002, one year after the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study was published, Mr. Wirth, along with his former research associate Joseph Horvath, also known as Joseph Hessler, was indicted by a federal grand jury (9). Both men were charged with bilking the troubled cable television provider Adelphia Communications Corporation out of $2.1 million by infiltrating the company, then having it pay for unauthorized consulting work. Police investigators discovered that Wirth is also known as John Wayne Truelove. FBI investigators revealed that Wirth first used the name of Truelove, a New York child who died at age five in 1959, to obtain a passport in the mid-1980s. Wirth and his accomplice were charged with thirteen counts of mail fraud, twelve counts of interstate transportation of stolen money, making false statements on loan applications, and five other counts of fraud. A federal grand jury concluded that the relationship between Wirth and Horvath extended back more than twenty years and involved more than $3.4 million in income and property obtained by using false identities. In addition to the Adelphia scheme, Wirth apparently found a way to defraud the federal government by collecting Social Security benefits totaling approximately $103,178 from 1994 to 2003 in the name of Julius Wirth. This man, possibly Daniel Wirth’s father, died in 1994 but his benefits continued to be paid after his death via electronic funds transferred to the Republic National Bank.

Incredibly, at the time of the indictment, Horvath, Wirth’s partner, was already in jail, charged with arson for burning down his Pennsylvania house to collect insurance money (10). The FBI investigation revealed that Horvath had previously gone to prison in a 1990 embezzlement and false identity case in California. Interestingly, the investigation also revealed that he had also once been arrested for posing as a doctor in California. It appears that the “doctor” who performed biopsies on human research subjects in Wirth’s famous healing studies may have actually been Horvath impersonating a doctor. Horvath was a co-author on another of Wirth’s studies in which salamander limbs were amputated and found to grow back more quickly when “healers” waved their hands over the wounds.

Both Wirth and Horvath initially pled not guilty to the felony charges, and over the next eighteen months their trial was delayed six times. However, on May 18, 2004, just as the criminal trial of the United States v. Wirth & Horvath was finally about to begin, both men pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud (11). Each man faced a maximum of five years in federal prison and agreed to forfeit assets of more than $1 million obtained through fraudulent schemes. Horvath, however, was found dead in his jail cell on July 13, 2004, an apparent suicide.

Daniel Wirth’s Prior Research

Wirth, identified as Doctor Daniel Wirth on several of his publications, has no medical degree. He holds a master’s degree in parapsychology and a law degree. Wirth has a long history of publishing studies on mysterious supernatural or paranormal phenomena, mainly dealing with alternative and spiritual healing. Most of these studies originated from an entity called “Healing Sciences Research International,” an organization that Mr. Wirth supposedly headed. This entity, which sounds like a medical center or impressive research facility, could only be contacted through a post office box in Orinda, California. Between 1992 and 1997 approximately eighteen research papers authored by D.P. Wirth were published, mostly in obscure paranormal journals (12-29).

Wirth has stated that his experiments “represent a seminal research effort within the field of complementary healing,” and many faith healing advocates fully agree with his statement. Due to the apparently meticulous design and conduct of Wirth’s randomized, double-blind controlled studies he has become the virtual poster boy of alternative healing methods, particularly Noncontact Therapeutic Touch (NCTT). In NCTT the “healer” does not actually touch the patient but supposedly alters undetectable “human energy fields” surrounding the patient. According to Wirth, NCTT apparently achieves its healing effect by an interaction of “energy fields” between the practitioner and the subject. The method requires the healer to 1) “center” his/herself both physically and psychologically, 2) “attune” to the “energy field” of the subject by “scanning” with the hands two to six inches from the body in order to detect imbalances within or blocks within the energy field, and 3) consciously redirect and “rebalance” the energy in those areas of blockage (24). The existence of these imagined human energy fields has never been proven. Even if such fields did exist, it is not clear how a healer could possibly detect or modify them. In fact, in a recent study twenty-one experienced NCTT practitioners were unable to detect any “human energy fields” under blinded conditions. The study concluded that failure to substantiate TT’s most fundamental claim is unrefuted evidence that the claims of NCTT are completely groundless (30).

In addition to his extensive work on NCTT, Wirth has previously conducted several studies involving Christian faith healing. For example, he evaluated and reported on forty-eight patients treated by Greg Schelkun, a spiritual healer trained in the Philippines in the “Espiritista System” of faith healing (17). This system includes “psychic surgery,” laying on of hands, and distant prayer healing. It has a Christian foundation in which the practitioner supposedly cultivates divine healing by entering a trace-like state and opening themselves to the healing power of the Holy Spirit. Schelkun asserts that he acts only as a channel for the “universal energies” of God and that any “miraculous cures” that occur are due solely to the Grace of God. Wirth evaluated patients treated by Schelkun for conditions ranging from ovarian cysts to AIDS and even cancer. Wirth found that 90 percent of patients believed that their condition was improved by the treatment.

In October 2001 narcotics officers raided the Santa Monica, California, office of Dr. William Eidelman, co-author of many of Daniel Wirth’s papers. Eidelman is a believer in paranormal healing and an outspoken proponent of the medical use of marijuana. Officers presented a search warrant charging that Eidelman provided undercover narcotic agents with medical marijuana recommendations without valid medical grounds. On May 28, 2002, Eidelman’s license to practice medicine was suspended.

Journal of Reproductive Medicine

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this entire sordid saga can be summed up in one question: How did a bizarre study claiming extraordinarily unlikely and apparently supernatural results end up in a peer-reviewed medical journal? We may never know. For two years the editors of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine (JRM) refused to answer my calls or respond to letters about this study. The fact that study co-author Lobo serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of the JRM may or may not be relevant. It is known that Columbia University Vice President Thomas Q. Morris informed DHHS investigators that Dr. Lobo first learned of the study from Dr. Cha six to twelve months after the study was completed and that Dr. Lobo primarily provided editorial review and assistance with publication (8).

On May 30, 2004, the London Observer made many of these events public for the first time in an article titled “Exposed: Conman’s Role in Prayer-power IVF 'Miracle'"(31). The Observer article noted that the study was still posted on the JRM Web site and that phone calls from the Observer to the JRM were not returned. Three days after the scandal had been made public and linked to the journal, perhaps in response to an avalanche of inquiries, JRM co-editor-in-chief Dr. Lawrence Devoe finally stated that the Journal of Reproductive Medicine would remove the flawed Columbia study from its Web site and publish an editorial clarifying their author requirements. Both the Observer article and a June 7, 2004, article in The New York Sun stated that the authors did not respond to their requests for comment.

It must be emphasized that, in the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions. The importance of this fact cannot be overstated. One would think that all medical journal editors would be keenly aware of this fact and therefore be highly skeptical of paranormal or supernatural claims. One must therefore wonder if the Columbia researchers and the JRM editors were blinded by religious beliefs. Everything else being equal, if the claimed supernatural intervention had been Ms. Cleo manipulating Tarot cards rather than Christians praying, would the reviewers and editors have taken this study seriously? In any case, the damage has been done. The fact that a “miracle cure” study was deemed to be suitable for publication in a scientific journal automatically enhanced the study’s credibility. Not surprisingly, the news media quickly disseminated the “miraculous” results.

Damage Control

Clearly, JRM's belated decision to remove the Columbia study from its Web site will not correct the errors it made in publishing an absurd article and then persistently ignoring warnings about the mistake in doing so. Serious damage has been done. The editors were informed of several of the study’s flaws within weeks of its publication and yet allowed the entire study to remain on their Web site for two years. During that time the public was never given any reason to doubt the study’s validity or its miraculous claims. As a result of JRM's inaction the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study has been cited in many other “healing” publications and on other Web sites as strong scientific evidence for the validity of faith healing. A Google search performed on June 4, 2004, for the terms, “Wirth, Columbia, prayer” found 686 sites; many of these links led to articles touting the miraculous results of the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study.

Worse yet, the Columbia study is now being cited by faith healers as a shining example of “healing” research of the highest scientific quality. For example, I recently wrote a letter to the editor of Southern California Physician critical of its article “Prescription for Prayer” and the appalling claim by noted faith healer Dr. Larry Dossey that some 1,600 studies have revealed “something positive” about intercessory prayer. I commented that if there were, in fact, something positive it certainly wouldn't take 1,600 studies to find it! Dr. Dossey’s published response to my letter included the following convincing argument, “Controlled clinical trials and the peer-review process continue to serve us well. The most recent example of this process in action in the area of intercessory prayer is from Columbia Medical School-a positive, controlled clinical trial published in the respected, peer-reviewed Journal of Reproductive Medicine” (32). Yes, Dossey had used the hopelessly flawed Columbia “miracle” study to demonstrate the scientific validity of faith healing.

In the February 2004 edition of her nationally distributed newsletter, faith healing advocate Dr. Susan Lark cites the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study as strong evidence for the power of prayer (33). She notes that critics of faith healing have argued that most prayer studies have not been credible due to weak methodologies. However, she points out that “those researchers who believe in prayer are answering this critique quickly-and effectively. The fact is, the medical journals are rapidly filling with studies that are proving the power of prayer.” She then presents the proof by describing the Columbia “miracle” study.

In a published critique of phony healing methods, noted physician and chairman of the Dutch Union Against Quackery Dr. Cees Renckens has this to say about the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study: “Very recently a seemingly impeccable paper proving absurd claims was published in a serious and (hitherto?) respected journal in the field of reproductive medicine” (34). Dr. Renckens also states, “Fraud is difficult to extract from an apparently impeccable paper, but everyone is invited to draw one’s owns conclusions about the trustworthiness of the authors. We do not believe anything of the story and are very much opposed to publishing this kind of absurdity in serious journals.”

For both Columbia University and the JRM, the only honorable solution to this scandal is to fully and publicly disclose their mistakes and apologize for the attempted cover-up. Columbia erroneously submitted a profoundly flawed and absurd article and JRM erroneously published it. Simply claiming that they were duped by Wirth and attempting to blame him for their own mistakes would be unethical-and almost certainly false. It would also be a setback for science.

Conclusion

In summary, one of the authors of the Columbia Cha/Wirth/Lobo study has left the University and refuses to comment, another now claims he did not even know about the study until six months to a year after its completion and also refuses to comment. The remaining author is on his way to federal prison for fraud and conspiracy. Fraud is the operative word here. In reality, the Columbia University prayer study was based on a bewildering study design and included many sources of error. But worse than flaws, in light of all of the shocking information presented above, one must consider the sad possibility that the Columbia prayer study may never have been conducted at all.

Finally, Daniel Wirth’s history of criminal fraudulent activity casts a dark shadow over many of the supposedly seminal publications in the field of alternative and faith healing. In light of these facts, all of his frequently-cited publications must now be viewed with suspicion. While faith healers have performed rituals and cast out demons for millennia, they are now attempting to validate their claims with scientific methods and publish their results in peer-reviewed medical journals. It is one thing to tell an audience at a tent revival that prayers yield miracle cures but quite another thing to make the same claim in a scientific journal. By doing so, faith healers cross the line into the domain of science, a domain where superstitious and supernatural claims are not taken seriously.

Lessons from the 'Miracle' Study Scandal

• The real scandal here lies not in Wirth’s actions but in those of Columbia University and the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. The scientific method is designed to detect and correct errors and misconduct. In this case the system failed in many places. In fact, if Wirth had not been arrested, the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study might have never been retracted.
• Faith healing advocates like Drs. Dossey and Lark will no doubt try to put a positive spin on this scandal by claiming that it has successfully weeded out a few bad apples from an otherwise pristine bunch. Nothing could be further from the truth.
• Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Unless replicated under strictly controlled conditions, studies claiming to have demonstrated “miracle” cures belong in religious and paranormal magazines, not in scientific journals. This is true regardless of whether the claimed “miracle” involves supposed actions of deities, ghosts, psychic powers, or other “mysterious” phenomena.
• It is often claimed that faith healing may not work but at least does no harm. In fact, reliance on faith healing can cause serious harm and even death (35).
• In the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions. All scientists and editors of scientific and medical journals should be fully aware of this obvious fact.
• The “faith” in faith healing refers to an irrational belief, unsupported by evidence, that mysterious supernatural powers can eradicate disease. Science deals with evidence, not faith.
• Publication of absurd studies and pseudoscience in medical and scientific journals does serious damage to the public’s perception of medical science and science in general.

References

• Nagourney, E. Study links prayer and pregnancy. New York Times. 2001; October.
• Cha KY, Wirth, DP, Lobo, RA. Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? J Reprod Med 2001;46:781-787.
• Eisner, R. Prayer may influence in vitro fertilization success. Columbia News. This document remained on the Public Affairs News page of Columbia University Internet site for more than two years after the publication of the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study (www.columbia.edu/cu/news).
• Schorr, M. Prayer may boost in-vitro success, study suggests. Reuters News Service: 2001; October.
• Johnson, T. Praying for pregnancy: Study says prayer helps women get pregnant. ABC television Good Morning America 2001; October 4.
• Flamm, BL. Faith healing by prayer: Review of Cha, KY, Wirth, DP, Lobo, RA. Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? Sci Review Alt Med 2002; 6(1):47-50.
• Flamm, BL. Faith healing confronts modern medicine. Sci Review Alt Med 2004; 8(1):9-14.
• Carmone, MA. Letter to Thomas Q. Morris, MD, Vice President for Health Sciences Division, regarding possible noncompliance with DHHS regulations for protection of human subjects in the conduct of the Cha et. al. Study.
• Pair charged with scheming Adelphia out of $2.1 million. Associated Press. October 16, 2002.
• Dale, M. Arson added to charges pending against ex-Adelphia manager. Associated Press. Contra Costa Times. February 5, 2003.
• McDermott, J. Mystery man admits to conspiracy. The Morning Call Newspaper. May 18, 2004. This article can be viewed in the news archives at www.mcall.com.
• Wirth DP, Cram JR, Chang RJ. Multisite surface electromyography and complementary healing intervention: A comparative analysis. J Altern Complement Med 1997 Winter; 3(4):355-64.
• Wirth DP, Cram JR. Multisite electromyographic analysis of Therapeutic Touch and qigong therapy. J Altern Complement Med 1997 Summer; 3(2):109-18.
• Wirth DP, Richardson JT, Eidelman WS. Wound healing and complementary therapies: A review. J Altern Complement Med 1996 Winter; 2(4):493-502.
• Wirth DP, Chang RJ, Eidelman WS, Paxton JB. Hematological indicators of complementary healing intervention. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1996 January: 14-20.
• Wirth DP, Richardson JT, Martinez RD, Eidelman WS, Lopez ME. Non-contact Therapeutic Touch intervention and full-thickness cutaneous wounds: A replication Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1996 October: 237-240.
• Wirth, DP. The significance of belief and expectancy within the spiritual healing encounter. Soc Sci Med 1995;41(2):249-260.
• Wirth, DP. Complementary healing intervention and dermal wound reepithelialization: An overview. Int J Psychosomatics 1995;42:48-53.
• Wirth DP, Cram JR. The psychophysiology of nontraditional prayer. Int J Psychosom 1994;41(1-4):68-75.
• Wirth DP, Barrett MJ. Complementary healing therapies. Int J Psychosom 1994;41(1-4):61-7.
• Wirth DP, Mitchell BJ. Complementary healing therapy for patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Journal of Scientific Exploration 1994;8(3): 367-377.
• Wirth DP, Barrett MJ, Eidelman WS. Non-contact therapeutic touch and wound reepithelialization: an extension of previous research. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1994 (2) October: 187-192.
• Wirth DP, Brenlan DR, Levine RJ, Rodriguez CM. The effect of complementary healing therapy on postoperative pain after surgical removal of impacted third molar teeth. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1993 July 133-138.
• Wirth DP, Cram JR. Multi-site electromyographic analysis of non-contact Therapeutic Touch. Int J Psychosom 1993;40(1-4):47-55.
• Wirth DP, Richardson JT, Martinez R, Eidelman WS, O'Malley AC. Full thickness dermal wounds treated with non-contact Therapeutic Touch; a replication and extension. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1993 July: 127-132.
• Wirth, DP. Implementing spiritual healing in modern medical practice: Advances. J Mind-Body Health 1993;(9):69-81.
• Wirth DP, Johnson CA, Horvath JS, MacGregor JD. The effect of alternative healing therapy on the regeneration rate of salamander forelimbs. Journal of Scientific Exploration 1992; (6):375-391.
• Wirth, DP. The effect of non-contact Therapeutic Touch on the healing rate of full thickness dermal wounds. Nurse Healers Professional Associates 1992;13(3):4-8
• Wirth, DP. The effect of non-contact Therapeutic Touch on the healing rate of full thickness dermal wounds. Subtle Energies 1990; 1:1-20.
• Rosa L, Rosa E, Sarner L, Barrett S. A close look at Therapeutic Touch. JAMA 1998 Apr 1:279(13):1005-10.
• Harris, D. Exposed: Conman’s role in prayer-power IVF 'miracle'. The Observer May 30, 2004.
• Dossey, L. Response to letter to the editor. Southern California Physician December 2001:46.
• Lark, S. The power of prayer. The Lark Letter: A women’s guide to optimal health and balance. February 2004:1-3.
• Renckens, CNM. Alternative treatments in reproductive medicine: much ado about nothing. Human Reproduction 2002;17(3):528-533.
• Flamm, BL. The inherent dangers of faith healing. Sci Review Alt Med. In Press.

A now-classic UFO video was taken on the afternoon of March 5, 2004, in southern Mexico, over the states of Chiapas and Campeche. A Merlin C26/A aircraft of SEDNA, the Mexican Secretariat of Defense, was on routine patrol looking for drug smuggling or other illegal activity. It was using the Star SAFIRE II infrared sensing device manufactured by FLIR Systems of Portland, Oregon. From an elevation of 3,500 meters (approximately 11,500 feet), the infrared sensor system recorded a sequence of unidentified objects, at one point numbering as many as eleven.

These UFOs (like most UFOs photographed) appeared only as bright points of light, showing no detail or structure. But they were different from the run-of-the mill UFO sightings because the objects could not be seen visually but did appear only in the infrared images. Infrared systems such as the Star SAFIRE II detect electro-magnetic radiation in the 3 to 5 micron bandpass, with a resolution of 640 by 480 pixels. Images are formed by the differences in the scene’s apparent infrared radiant intensity caused by temperature differences and emissivity differences, and to a lesser extent reflected energy. Thus, objects hotter than their background appear to be self-luminous. The images can be recorded digitally or on conventional video recording equipment (with lower resolution) as was the case here. Infrared systems are useful for daytime operations, especially in humid climates where visibility tends to be poor, because infrared radiation penetrates the atmosphere better than visible light. These objects were recorded as brilliant objects in the infrared, suggesting that they were emitting enormous amounts of heat. However, due to the nature of the video recording and lack of knowledge of the sensitivity parameters, actual temperatures are impossible to ascertain from the available data.

To get a better understanding of the operation of the infrared recording system, and the situation in which it was being employed, I contacted John Lester Miller, author of more than forty scientific papers and four textbooks on infrared and electro-optical technology. He is also an active member of Oregonians for Rationality. [1] He explained:

The UFOlogists’ concerns about not being able to acquire the objects visually is meaningless. These systems are specifically designed to detect objects that cannot be seen by the human eye. Frankly, it would be a waste of taxpayers’ money to equip a plane with a system that could not detect objects invisible to the eye. If the eye could see everything that the IR sensor can, then it would be far cheaper and more effective to put a few privates in the aircraft with binoculars. But this isn't the case. By exploiting infrared electromagnetic radiation caused by thermal and emissivity differences in a scene, a different landscape is revealed. For example, infrared imagers can easily detect humans and animals at a distance of several miles at night where the eye or CCD sees nothing but darkness. Moreover, being longer in wavelength, typically infrared radiation transmits better though the atmosphere than visible and is exactly why it is now being deployed on commercial aircraft for enhanced vision for pilots.

These images were viewed though one of the worst atmospheric conditions possible. Hot, humid, and partly cloudy at a land and sea interface, during the thermal instability of sunset or sunrise. This represents one of the most difficult atmospheric conditions for accurate imaging. These conditions seriously impair the quality of the images in the visible and even reduce the quality in the infrared. In these stressing atmospherics, it is no surprise that there was nothing visible to the eye and the images are blurred and altered in the infrared. The smaller images below the main images could be reflections from water or ground (common in the infrared) or even mirages. All of these phenomena are typically observed in such conditions. The bending of the light in the atmosphere going though multiple dynamic layers of varying indexes of refractions also call into question the angular indications.

Any representation of a three-dimensional scene on a two- dimensional surface (be it a painting, photograph, television, or infrared scene on a display) lacks absolute range information. It is impossible to infer the range from the image of an object based on brightness or size, unless the brightness and size are well known, the atmospheric conditions are well known, and the sensor settings are known. There are simply too many unknowns to solve the equations. Painters and photographers have long exploited the human predisposition to read range into a two-dimensional scene for both optical illusions and stunning artistic effects. Infrared sensors frequently employ a laser rangefinder option for this very reason, which was not present on the sensor that acquired these images. The only way to accurately determine range is by radar.

Figure 2. The same reported “IR UFOs” at maximum zoom: individual flares from each oil well are now visible.

At some points two unidentified objects were reported to have turned up on radar. However the position and number of the radar objects did not even come close to matching that of the infrared ones, so whatever the radar targets were, they were not the same as those recorded on video. This is generally the case when visual sightings of UFOs (or in this instance, infrared sightings) are “confirmed” by radar. Unfortunately, no radar data from the aircraft was recorded, so we must rely on the crews’ recollection of what it showed. The military radar operator in the city of Carmen was contacted, and it was not showing any unknown objects. [2] UFO researcher Brad Sparks, plotting the direction and distance of the aircraft’s radar returns on a map, found that some of them appear to match the position of the Yucatan Highway 186. He suggests that the measured velocity of the radar objects (fifty-two knots, or sixty miles per hour) is quite consistent with the velocity of trucks, and so concludes that some, although not all, of the moving objects spotted on radar are due to trucks on the highway. [3] There are many kinds of objects, both flying and on the ground, that can turn up as targets on aircraft radars and infrared sensors.

The tapes were released to Jaime Maussan, a well-known Mexican broadcaster and UFOlogist who has made a career out of the sensationalist promotion of supposedly “unexplained mysteries.” Maussan’s pronouncements range from the sensational to the absurd. For example, in 2000 he told a UFO conference about “glowing extraterrestrials” being widely seen in Mexico, and claimed to have sighted one of them himself. He also showed a photo of a supposed alien “life form” reportedly encountered by Apollo 11 astronauts on the Moon, labeled “El Hombre de la Luna.” [4] If one wanted an objective evaluation of the objects in the video, Maussan would be last person to turn to. Indeed, a May 17, 2004, editorial in the influential Mexican newspaper La Cronica de Hoy by Raul Trejo Delarbre suggested exactly that.

On May 11, Maussan held a press conference promoting the videos as a sensational mystery. Maussan’s story ran widely in the news media worldwide, including the Associated Press, CNN, Reuters, MSNBC, USA Today, and Fox News. He soon had the videos on his TV show, as well as on a Web site. [5] The Web site is filled with a mixture of information and misinformation concerning the objects. It claims that the “halos” seen surrounding the objects is evidence of a powerful magnetic field. It goes on to wax knowingly about the objects’ “frequency” and “vortex,” as well as their supposed violation of “entropy,” all of which is complete pseudoscientific balderdash.

Unfortunately, many would-be skeptics made hasty pronouncements about the objects, thereby giving all UFO skeptics a bad name. The Urania Astronomical Society of the state of Morelos told the newspaper El Universal on May 13 that the UFOs filmed might be a group of weather balloons. Dr. Julio Herrera of Mexico’s National Autonomous University told the Associated Press that the UFOs were electrical flashes in the atmosphere, a theory that makes very little sense. A few days later, he was attributing them to “ball lightning.” Rafael Navarro of that same university told a press conference on May 14 that the UFOs were luminous sparks of plasma energy. Mexican astronomer Jose de la Herrin stated that the stationary objects could be meteor fragments. UFOlogists were soon gleefully mocking these absurd explanations, making it look as if skeptics were ignorant fools who couldn't recognize alien spacecraft when they saw one. There is nothing wrong with saying, “I don't yet have enough information to know what the objects are, but I am confident that when more facts come in, we'll find a prosaic explanation.”

Figure 3. The flight path of the Merlin C-26/A aircraft. The look-back angle of —134 degrees points toward the offshore oil platforms in the Bay of Campeche. The supposed “radar UFOs” were in the opposite direction, ahead of the aircraft. Some of them were probably trucks on the Yucatan Highway.

By May 20 some skeptical analysts had identified the probable source of the objects: burning oil well flares from offshore oil platforms in the Bay of Campeche. This region is the center of Mexico’s petroleum industry, containing more than 200 wells on nine platforms, many of them close to the city of Carmen. (One of the voices on the video can be heard saying that the objects are “at Carmen.”) At that point it was thought that there had been some temporary burn-off of excess natural gas within the well-but it turns out that the oil well flares burn more or less continuously in this region. The area also has large steam generating plants that pump incredible amounts of hot steam deep into the ground to increase the pressure and ease the flow of oil.

One anonymous “concerned outdoorsman” who works on offshore oil platforms wrote on the environmentalist Web site myoutdoorjournal.com:

Each day while I work, I see flares burning at such a rate that it is almost unbelievable to the human eye. I'm told that all gas sources are being burnt off through the flares just to keep the crude oil flowing from each well. Each production platform consists of at least twelve penetrations drilled into the sea floor reaching to different depths. Each platform has a flare some have two, in which are roaring twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year. . . . At night when looking across the bay of Campeche, it looks like a spotted forest fire out of control in the distant far yonder, in any direction you choose to look. The black smoke rolls and it never stops!

On May 26, Capt. Alejandro Franz of the private Mexican UFO research organization Alcione, who is far more skeptical than Maussan and his colleagues, independently came to the same conclusion. A former pilot who has flown extensively in that region, Franz wrote on the widely-read UFO Updates online forum: “Cantarell Field or Cantarell Complex is the largest oil field in Mexico, located 80 kilometers offshore in the Bay of Campeche. . . . The objects (lights) are in a fixed position with a dark background (the sea) while the camera on board is following the lights that are showing in the screen as a very brilliant source of light . . . the lights are coming from steady oil platform flames (passive fire) located in the Gulf of Mexico between 50 and 90 Km from Ciudad del Carmen City where the objects, at least one light as the FLIR or RADAR operator tells is exactly over Ciudad del Carmen” [6]

On the Alcione Web site, Franz provides a great deal of information and many photos concerning the Cantarel offshore oil wells and their continuous flares. No reasonable person could see his photos comparing the flaming offshore platforms with the infrared UFOs from the video and reject the probability that the two are the same.

Franz is mistaken in suggesting that the aircraft was headed north at the time that the videos were taken. The aircraft was headed eastward, at an azimuth of approximately 80 degrees. This is confirmed by an event occurring near the end of the half-hour video, twenty-six minutes in. The crew members are briefly surprised by the image on the Star SAFIRE II of a large, round object. They zoom in, and realize that it’s the moon coming up. “The moon, it’s the moon,” they laugh. The moon rose at approximately 17:20 from their location, at a geo-azimuth of 75 degrees. Because the azimuth of the Star SAFIRE II relative to its aircraft mount is reading approximately -5 degrees (just left of straight ahead), that confirms that the aircraft was on a heading of about 80 degrees. It may or may not be significant that the Sun was at this time at an azimuth of 260 degrees, directly behind the aircraft.

The Star SAFIRE II records the altitude and azimuth of the object it is imaging at all times relative to its aircraft mount. The altitude of the UFOs is within a degree or two of the horizon with respect to the aircraft. The crew said that the objects were at the same elevation, i.e., on the horizon. The pitch of an aircraft in “level flight” depends on a number of factors, including its airspeed, trim, bank angle, the configuration of its flaps, gear, spoilers, etc. If the aircraft had a one to three degree pitch upward from its centerline (typical of normal flight), this needs to be figured into the altitude reading from the infrared sensor. It would mean that a “zero elevation” reading indicates that the sensor is pointed below the horizon, when looking backward.

During the main part of the UFO encounter, the object’s azimuth is reading around -134 degrees, approximately the 7:00 position behind the aircraft. When plotted on a map showing the aircraft’s position and heading, this points in the direction of the largest oil well platform complex in the Gulf of Campeche. From the video, the objects can be seen to be over water, but one cannot judge the altitude of the objects above the water, or their relative motion with respect to the water. When two brilliant UFOs are seen behind fluffy clouds (figure 1), the infrared camera is set to the medium zoom field of view, giving a field of 3.4 by 2.6 degrees. We are seeing the two main oil well platforms. Soon afterwards, the operator selects the narrowest field of view using the E-zoom feature. The field of view is only .04 by .03 degrees, which makes the objects appear about nine times larger. We see the result in figure 2, when individual flames are resolved on each oil platform, revealing nine or more “UFOs.” If you compare this frame to the photo found on the Alcione Web site showing a daytime view of flames on the oil platforms, you will see that they match up quite well.

The objects appear to be moving with respect to the clouds that pass in front of them, giving the objects the illusion of motion. However, the motion of the aircraft with respect to the clouds, as well as the motion of the clouds themselves, causes the highly magnified lights to appear to shift position with respect to the clouds. Since the azimuth of the objects does not change significantly during the time they are being filmed, it is evident that the apparent motion of the objects with respect to the clouds is caused primarily by the motion of the aircraft with respect to clouds, and not by motion of the objects themselves. This situation is analogous to zooming in using a telephoto lens on a video camera, and pointing to a far away mountain. Then, while keeping the camera pointed to the mountain, walk along a treed path. The trees will have apparent angular motion (or optical flow) due to the camera’s movement, while the mountain stays approximately still. When overworked, stressed, disoriented, and confined to looking at a three-dimensional scene on a two-dimensional display, it is easy for the crew to become confused regarding what is moving. All of the UFOs recorded by the Star SAFIRE II are on the left side of the aircraft, toward the Gulf of Mexico, with the great majority of them around -134 degrees.

Discussing the image quality that we see in the UFO video, Miller explained:

Unlike CCDs [charge-coupled devices, commonly-used photo detector systems], all infrared focal planes suffer from sensitivity drifts from pixel to pixel, and periodically require all scene pixels to be normalized. This is generally done by the user commanding it, then a “paddle,” coated with a uniform black coating, is inserted into the field of view. Without this being done, images will possess “Fixed Pattern Noise” and these images all do. The vertical lines and dark splotches are classic infrared fixed pattern noise and limit operator effectiveness. They are not indicative of typical images from this system. Moreover, though these are infrared images, they suffer from the same poor quality that most “UFO” photographs suffer from-blurry, out of focus with incorrect exposures.

In the 1990s a wonderful new technique to grind and shape infrared optics went into production. This is diffractive optics via diamond turning. A fixed fresnel-lens-like circular pattern is cut onto the lens surface (typically the back of the lens). This results in color-corrected optical systems with far fewer lens elements, thus saving significant cost and weight and size. The drawback is that this “ring” pattern scatters a small amount of light. The amount of this scatter is minimal and can be seen only with a bright overexposed image. This scatter from the diffractive optic pattern accounts for the halo effects of these overexposed images.

Unfortunately, the infrared sensor’s recoded output is in a standard commercial video format (e.g., NTSC or PAL). These were the accepted video standards when the equipment was designed. The infrared focal planes have dynamic ranges of thirteen or fourteen bits, but the image-forming electronics compresses this wide range in a nonlinear fashion to make cosmetically appealing images on a six or eight bit capable display, a low-dynamic range for video recording. In other words, a lot of information gets lost. Unfortunately, just like your camcorder, the compression is adaptive based on scene statistics and details, and the settings are not recorded. This, along with other factors such as atmospherics, eliminates such airborne infrared system from recording any precise data, unlike common handheld thermographic and scientific cameras. From a videotape, one cannot glean any radiometric data, as it is all processed in an unknown manner with nonlinear and adaptive algorithms to make a clearly displayed image on conventional television. Also every copy degrades the tape, and every format (DVC, SVHS, VHS, etc.) imposes its own proprietary scaling and changes on the data, making reliable scientific measurement impossible.

The UFO believers who participate in the online UFO Updates forum, which includes many “leaders” of the UFO movement, laughed off the valid explanation of oil well fires as flippantly as they did the absurd ones. UFO author Ray Stanford scoffed at “oil rig flares tracked on radar at near the aircraft’s altitude,” of which neither statement was true: the radar targets were in a different direction entirely, and distant objects near the horizon may well be on the ground. Roswell champion David Rudiak scoffed at “invisible, flying oil wells,” while Alfred Lehmberg suggested that skeptics might as well propose “soaring lighthouses and gassy pelicans.” Others raised the specter of elves, angels, flaming seagulls, etc. Jaime Maussan argued that the flaming oil wells would not have been visible, because they were 125 to 200 km or more distant. He neglected to calculate that from an altitude of 3,500 meters, the horizon is nominally 211 km distant, and that atmospheric refraction typically extends this distance somewhat, depending on meteorological conditions, as also does the height above the water of the flames themselves. [7]

By their reaction, the “leaders” of UFOlogy have shown themselves incapable of distinguishing logical from illogical thought, and science from pseudoscience. The lesson of the Mexican Infrared UFO video illustrates once again the inability of the UFO movement to perform critical thinking.

Notes

1. Miller is the author of the textbook Principles of Infrared Technology: A Practical Guide to the State of the Art (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994) and Photonics Rules of Thumb (McGraw-Hill, 2004), as well as two ancillary versions of Photonics Rules of Thumb (McGraw-Hill 1994 and 2003).
2. Information provided by Jaime Maussan. See virtuallystrange.net
3. See virtuallystrange.net.
4. At the Bay Area UFO Expo, San Jose, California, September, 2000. See “Reptoids and Martians Invade Silicon Valley” by Robert Sheaffer, Skeptical Inquirer, January 2001.
5. See Maussan’s Web site about the videos at ovnistv.tv.
6. See Franz’s original posting at virtuallystrange.net. Alcione’s Web site is at alcione.org.
7. See www.istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Shorizon.htm for an explanation of how to calculate the distance to the horizon as a function of elevation.

Piero Angela, the program’s host (as well as its creator and producer), is the leading scientific journalist in Italy. He was also the first journalist in Italy, in 1977, to present a series of TV shows highly critical of parapsychology, on which James Randi and various members of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) received a lot of attention.

It also inspired Angela to start an Italian version of CSICOP, an organization which came to be called CICAP, the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

Since then, Superquark has presented the scientific point of view on many paranormal and pseudoscientific subjects. This time, however, there was not only science at stake but also money. Millions of Italians use homeopathic products, and the homeopathists claimed that the broadcast was unfair and could threaten their businesses. The Catania-based Italian Association of Medical Homeopathy and the Rome-based Italian Federation of Associations of Medical Homeopathy complained that Angela selected only interviewees who were critical of homeopathy. So they brought two lawsuits, one civil and one criminal, against Angela and his co-author Giangi Poli.

“We are dealing with Lady Homeopathy here,” said Giulia Bongiorno, Angela’s lawyer, “since it has never happened in Italy that a criminal suit was brought against someone accused of defaming not a person but a remedy, an abstract concept.”

Angela immediately received strong backing from the scientific community, including letters and statements from individual researchers including Nobel Prize winners Renato Dulbecco, who has called all homeopathic products “worthless concoctions,” and Rita Levi-Montalcini, who said that “the greatest damage of this so-called therapy is that it deludes patients.”

“You have to understand,” says Angela, “that Italian public-television archives show that fourteen times more programs had been broadcast advocating homeopathy than criticizing it. My program only sought to redress the imbalance. I don't think that my job is to tell viewers what they want to hear. Science is not like philosophy, where viewers can listen to both sides and decide for themselves. Science cannot be decided on by the vote of viewers.”

The July 19, 2001, issue of Nature reported that one of the guests on Angela’s show was Antonio Cassone, head of the department of bacteriology at Italy’s national health institute-and who is also a member of the ministry of health’s ad hoc committee on homeopathy.

On the show, Cassone merely offered the opinion that safety information should be provided on all homeopathic products and that efficacy information should be provided on anything that is to be ingested. “I would have had no objection to a homeopathist sharing the show,” he says in Nature, “because it would have been even more convincing to the viewers that arguments of homeopathists against providing information are untenable.” But he fully supports the way Angela produced his program.

The case went to court in the autumn of 2001, and it took over three years to be settled. Finally, on May 20, 2004, the court presented a fifty-nine page, highly detailed judgment confirming that homeopathy has no scientific validity. What was said on the show, the judgment states, “falls within the right to fair comment and criticism and cannot in any way be considered offensive or defamatory, as it merely gives an account of a situation which is perfectly true.”

It is the first time that a court has handed down a judgment on this topic, which for years has been at the center of heated debate between the international scientific community and the supporters of homeopathy.

Judge Cinzia Sgr— wrote that “Science, in fact, is not a matter of mere categories of opinion. In the scientific field, either something is, or it is not. Either a treatment works, or it doesn't. And if it works, it is necessary to demonstrate that fact with clear scientific findings backed up by a solid statistical base. Although the international scientific community has always requested such scientific evidence from homeopathic medicine, it has never received attestation of its validity. It is completely devoid of any such foundation, remaining substantially an 'emotional medicine.'”

Piero Angela was, of course, the defendant, but the real accused appeared to be homeopathy itself.

Although the judgment affirms that it is not the task of the court to enter into the question of the validity of homeopathic medicine, given that Angela was charged with criminal defamation, the judge had to conduct an investigation into homeopathy in order to ascertain whether this therapy could be equated with traditional medicine.

Based on the court’s investigation, it was determined that Piero Angela bore no obligation to give a voice on his program to the homeopaths insofar as Superquark is a scientific program. The criticisms formulated in the course of the broadcast were considered justified, highlighting the fact that homeopathy does not have scientific validity. In that respect, one could say that Piero Angela was acquitted, while homeopathy was found guilty.

“The fundamental problem of homeopathy,” says Stefano Cagliano, the scientific adviser to Angela during the process, “is in its efficacy. The possible risk is not in an incidental toxicity but in the fact that some may prefer a homeopathic remedy instead of a proved cure.”

This kind of attention is an attitude that Superquark has constantly presented toward all kinds of useless medicines and not only toward alternative remedies. “The first rule of science,” comments Angela, “is that you have to prove what you claim, and in court, we said that had we acted differently, it would have de-legitimized us in the view of the scientific community. I think we did a public service and our program on homeopathy falls within the many shows on prevention that we have done so far.”

This judgment arrives at a time when homeopathy and other so-called unconventional therapies are at the center of a project of law being discussed in the Health Commission of Italy’s Chamber of Deputies. The plan would be to give full equality to these therapies, with the institution of chairs covering the subject in public universities. Many academic and scientific groups have taken up positions against such a project, including the Italian National Bioethics Committee.

It therefore comes as no surprise that the makers of a recent New Age movie making its way across the country decided to inject a massive dose of quantum mechanics into the film’s storyline. What the #$*! Do We Know!? is packing them in. Many people who have seen the movie are already claiming that it has changed their lives. I tried to go to one of the first screenings in Los Angeles and was turned away because it was sold out. So what is this movie that uses quantum mechanics to change people’s lives?

Filmed largely in Portland, the movie is a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense dressed up as modern science. The film oscillates between interviews with a number of so-called experts (especially in physics) and a rather flimsy storyline involving a deaf woman, played by Marlee Matlin, who is being encouraged to wake up and see life’s full potential. A young basketball player who has taken it upon himself to enlighten her repeatedly asks her how far down the rabbit hole she wants to go.

An examination of the film’s pedigree helps explain its peculiar approach. The three directors are students of Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment in Yelm, Washington, which is run by New Age channeller J.Z. Knight. Knight claims to channel a 35,000-year-old warrior from ancient Lemuria named Ramtha (aka “The Enlightened One”), who dispenses wisdom through her. Ramtha’s followers are said to include many people from the entertainment industry, such as actors Linda Evans, Don Johnson, Shirley MacLaine, and Richard Chamberlain. Knight herself appears in the film as one of the talking heads, and even holds forth on the subject of quantum mechanics.

Knight, who’s been channeling her prehistoric alter ego since the 1970s, is paid as much as $1,500 by those who attend retreats held at her school.

I want to focus a little on the science, because this is where I believe the film is at its most disingenuous. Each of the physicists interviewed trots out a sound bite or two about how quantum mechanics supposedly shows that objects can be in two places at once, that matter is mostly empty space, or that all parts of the universe are deeply interconnected. The existence of a reality that’s independent from the human mind as usually understood by scientists, or indeed by any rational person, is repeatedly assaulted to the point of being mocked. In addition, we are assured that when Columbus arrived on the shores of the Americas, the natives could not actually see his ships because it was beyond their paradigm of what could exist.

The fact that the science is being distorted and sensationalized here is not at all surprising. What puzzles me the most is that by making quantum mechanics the heart of the movie, the filmmakers have fallen prey to a crude form of reductionism which is usually regarded as the enemy of New Age ways of thinking. By focusing so much on basic physics, the filmmakers do not seem to realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot. One moment they talk about all kinds of emergent phenomena, such as global consciousness, that go far beyond the reductionist worldview. The next moment they seem to suggest that the physics of fundamental particles explains human behavior! Even if we grant that quantum mechanics tells us that particles can be at two places at once-which, of course, it does not-how can one then assume that such bizarre effects work their way right up to macroscopic dimensions with no attenuation in order to determine human behavior? As many scientists and philosophers now realize, even if matter is fundamentally governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, this does not entitle us to suppose that chemical and biological phenomena will follow those same forms of behavior. This is to say nothing of even larger leaps such as the question of whether human behavior is dictated by the laws of physics.

Reductionism works in principle but not in practice, even though all the branches of science are interrelated. If you want to perform a certain chemical reaction, you ask a chemist. You do not ask a quantum physicist, although, in many instances, the quantum physicists may have some very helpful things to say on the matter. If you want to study biological organisms, you do experiments on the biological scale instead of renting time at the local particle accelerator. The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the “really big questions in life.” But now their knowledge of quantum mechanics is even allowing them to become movie stars and, better still, in a movie that is changing people’s lives!

After dazzling the audience with dubious pronouncements from quantum physics, the storyline returns to Marlee Matlin’s character, who is having an ever-increasing number of mind-expanding experiences, culminating in her realization that she no longer needs her prescription pills and that she can toss them into a lake. What a pity that the appreciation of modern science shown by New Agers is restricted to the more esoteric parts which are seen as supporting their worldviews. Meanwhile, something as beneficial (and mundane) as modern pharmacology is viewed with utter contempt to the point that people are effectively being told to throw away their prescription drugs and to cure themselves by waking up to the real meaning of life.

I.

Can science and reason be used to develop ethical judgments? Many theists claim that without religious foundations, “anything goes,” and social chaos will ensue. Scientific naturalists believe that secular societies already have developed responsible ethical norms and that science and reason have helped us to solve moral dilemmas. How and in what sense this occurs are vital issues that need to be discussed in contemporary society, for this may very well be the hottest issue of the twenty-first century.

Dramatic breakthroughs on the frontiers of science provide new powers to humans, but they also pose perplexing moral quandaries. Should we use or limit these scientific discoveries, such as the cloning of humans? Much of this research is banned in the United States and restricted in Canada. Should scientists be permitted to reproduce humans by cloning (as we now do with animals), or is this too dangerous? Should we be allowed to make “designer babies?” Many theologians and politicians are horrified by this; many scientists and philosophers believe that it is not only inevitable but justifiable under certain conditions. There were loud cries against in vitro fertilization, or artificial insemination, only two generations ago, but the procedure proved to be a great boon to childless couples. Many religious conservatives are opposed to therapeutic stem-cell research on fetal tissues, because they think that “ensoulment” occurs with the first division of cells. Scientists are appalled by this censorship of scientific research, since the research has the potential to cure many illnesses; they believe those who oppose it have ignored the welfare of countless numbers of human beings. There are other equally controversial issues on the frontiers of science: Organ transplants-who should get them and why? Is the use of animal organs to supply parts for human bodies wrong? Is transhumanism reforming what it means to be human? How shall we control AIDS-is it wicked to use condoms, as some religious conservatives think, or should this be a high priority in Africa and elsewhere? Does global warming mean we need a radical transformation of industry in affluent countries? Is homosexuality genetic, and if so, is the denial of same-sex marriage morally wrong? How can we decide such questions? What criteria may we draw upon?

II.

Many adhere today to the view that ethical choices are merely relativistic and subjective, expressing tastes; and you cannot disputes tastes (de gustibus non disputandum est). If they are emotive at root, no set of values is better than any other. If there is a conflict, then the best option is to persuade others to accept our moral attitudes, to convert them to our moral feelings, or, if this fails, to resort to force.

Classical skeptics denied the validity of all knowledge, including ethical knowledge. The logical positivists earlier in the twentieth century made a distinction between fact, the appropriate realm of science, and value, the realm of expressive discourse and imperatives, claiming that though we can resolve descriptive and theoretical questions by using the methods of science, we cannot use science to adjudicate moral disputes. Most recently, postmodernists, following the German philosopher Heidegger and his French followers, have gone further in their skepticism, denying that there is any special validity to humanistic ethics or indeed to science itself. They say that science is merely one mythological construct among others. They insist that there are no objective epistemological standards; that gender, race, class, or cultural biases likewise infect our ethical programs and any narratives of social emancipation that we may propose. Who is to say that one normative viewpoint is any better than any other, they demand. Thus have many disciples of multicultural relativism and subjectivism often given up in despair, becoming nihilists or cynics. Interestingly, most of these well-intentioned folk hold passionate moral and political convictions, but when pushed to the wall, will they concede that their own epistemological and moral recommendations likewise express only their own personal preferences?

The problem with this position is apparent, for it is impaled on one horn of a dilemma, and the consequence of this option is difficult to accept. If it is the case that there are no ethical standards, then who can say that the Nazi Holocaust and the Rwandan, Cambodian, or Armenian genocides are evil? Is it only a question of taste that divides sadists and masochists on one side from all the rest on the other? Are slavery, the repression of women, the degradation of the environment by profit-hungry corporations, or the killing of handicapped people morally impermissible, if there are no reliable normative standards? If we accept cultural relativity as our guide, then we have no grounds to object to Muslim law (sharia), which condones the stoning to death of adulteresses.

III.

What is the position of those who wish to draw upon science and reason to formulate ethical judgment? Is it possible to bridge the gap and recognize that values are relative to human interests yet allow that they are open to some objective criticisms? I submit that it is, and that upon reflection, most educated people would accept them. I choose to call this third position “objective relativism” or “objective contextualism"; namely, values are related to human interests, needs, desires, and passions-whether individual or socio-cultural-but they are nonetheless open to scientific evaluation. By this, I mean a form of reflective intelligence that applies to questions of principles and values and that is open to modification of them in the light of criticism. In other words, there is a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which bears fruit, and which, if eaten and digested, can impart to us moral knowledge and wisdom.

In what sense can scientific inquiry help us to make moral choices? My answer to that is it does so all the time. This is especially the case with the applied sciences: medicine, dentistry, nursing, pharmacology, psychiatry, and social psychology; and also in the policy sciences: economics, education, political science; and such interdisciplinary fields as criminology, gerontology, etc. Modern society could not function without the advice drawn from these fields of knowledge, which make evaluative judgments and recommend prescriptions. They advise what we ought to do on a contextual basis.

Nonetheless, there are the skeptical critics of this position, who deny that science per se can help us or that naturalistic ethics is possible. I think that those critics are likewise mistaken and that naturalism is directly relevant to ethics. My thesis is that an increase in knowledge can help us to make wiser decisions. By knowledge, I do not refer simply to philosophical analysis but scientific evidence. It would answer both the religionist, who insists that you cannot be moral unless you are religious, and the subjectivist, who denies there is any such thing as ethical knowledge or wisdom.

Before I outline this position, let me concede that the skeptical philosophical objections to deriving ethics from science have some merit. Basically, what are they? The critics assert that we cannot deduce ethics from science, i.e., what ought to be the case from what is the case. A whole series of philosophers from David Hume to the emotivists have pointed out this fallacy. G.E. Moore, at the beginning of the twentieth century, characterized this as “the naturalistic fallacy” [1] (mistakenly, I think).

But they are essentially correct. The fact that science discovers that something is the case factually does not make it ipso facto good or right. To illustrate: (a) Charles Darwin noted the role of natural selection and the struggle for survival as key ingredients in the evolution of species. Should we conclude, therefore, as Herbert Spencer did, that laissez-faire doctrines ought to apply, that we ought to allow nature to take its course and not help the handicapped or the poorer classes? (b) Eugenicists concluded earlier in the century that some people are brighter and more talented than others. Does this justify an elitist hierarchical society in which only the best rule or eugenic methods of reproduction be followed? This was widely held by many liberals until the fascists began applying it in Germany with dire consequences.

There have been abundant illustrations of pseudoscientific theories-monocausal theories of human behavior that were hailed as “scientific"-that have been applied with disastrous results. Examples: (a) The racial theories of Chamberlain and Gobineau alleging Aryan superiority led to genocide by the Nazis. (b) Many racists today point to IQ to justify a menial role for blacks in society and their opposition to affirmative action. (c) The dialectical interpretation of history was taken as “scientific” by Marxists and used to justify class warfare. (d) Environmentalists decried genetics as “racist” and thought that changes in species should only be induced by modifications of the environment. Thus, one has to be cautious about applying the latest scientific fad to social policy.

We ought not to consider scientific specialists to be especially gifted or possessed with ethical knowledge nor empower them to apply this knowledge to society-as B.F. Skinner in Walden II and other utopianists have attempted to do. Neither scientist-kings nor philosopher-kings should be entrusted to design a better world. We have learned the risks and dangers of abandoning democracy to those wishing to create a Brave New World. Alas, all humans-including scientists-are fallible, and excessive power may corrupt human judgment. Given these caveats, I nevertheless hold that scientific knowledge has a vital, if limited, role to play in shaping our moral values and helping us to frame wiser judgments of practice--surely more, I would add, than our current reliance on theologians, politicians, military pundits, corporate CEOs, and celebrities!

IV.

How and in what sense can scientific inquiry help us?

I wish to present a modified form of naturalistic ethics. By this, I mean that ethical values are natural; they grow out of and fulfill human purposes, interests, desires, and needs. They are forms of preferential behavior evinced in human life. “Good,” “bad,” “right,” and “wrong” relate to sentient beings, whether human or otherwise. These values do not reside in a far-off heaven, nor are they deeply embedded in the hidden recesses of reality; they are empirical phenomena.

The principle of naturalism is based on a key methodological criterion: We ought to consider our moral principles and values, like other beliefs, open to examination in the light of evidence and reason and hence amenable to modification.

We are all born into a sociocultural context; and we imbibe the values passed on to us, inculcated by our peers, parents, teachers, leaders, and colleagues in the community.

I submit that ethical values should be amenable to inquiry. We need to ask, are they reliable? How do they stack up comparatively? Have they been tested in practice? Are they consistent? Many people seek to protect them as inviolable truths, immune to inquiry. This is particularly true of transcendental values based on religious faith and supported by custom and tradition. In this sense, ethical inquiry is similar to other forms of scientific inquiry. We should not presuppose that what we have inherited is true and beyond question. But where do we begin our inquiry? My response is, in the midst of life itself, focused on the practical problems, the concrete dilemmas, and contextual quandaries that we confront.

Let me illustrate by refer to three dilemmas. I do so not in order to solve them but to point out a method of inquiry in ethics. First, should we exact the death penalty for people convicted of murder? The United States is the only major democracy that still demands capital punishment. What is the argument for the death penalty? It rests on two basic premises: (a) A factual question is at issue: capital punishment is effective in deterring crime, especially murder; and (b) the principle of justice that applies is retributive. As the Old Testament adage reads, “Whatever hurt is done, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. . . .” [2]

The first factual premise can be resolved by sociological studies, by comparing the incidence of murder in those states and nations that have the death penalty in force and those that do not and by states and nations before and after the enactment or abrogation of the death penalty. We ask, has there been an increase or a decrease in murder? If, as a matter of fact, the death penalty does not restrain or inhibit murder, would a person still hold his view that the death penalty ought to be retained? The evidence suggests that the death penalty does not to any significant extent reduce the murder rate, especially since most acts of murder are not deliberate but due to passion or are an unexpected result of another crime, such as robbery. Thus, if one bases his or her belief in capital punishment primarily on the deterrence factor, and it does not deter, would one change one’s belief? The same consideration should apply to those who are opposed to the death penalty: Would they change their belief if they thought it would deter excessive murder rates? These are empirical questions at issue. And the test of a policy are its consequences in the real world. Does it achieve what it sets out to do?

There are, of course, other factual considerations, such as: Are many innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit (as was recently concluded in the State of Illinois)? Is capital punishment unfairly applied primarily to minorities? This points to the fact that belief in capital punishment is, to some extent, a function of scientific knowledge concerning the facts of the case. This often means that such measures should not be left to politicians or jurors alone to decide; the scientific facts of the case are directly relevant.

The second moral principle of retributive justice is far more difficult to deal with, for this may be rooted in religious conviction or in a deep-seated tribal sense of retaliation. If you injure my kin, it is said, I can injure yours; and this is not purely a factual issue. There are other principles of justice that are immediately thrown into consideration. Those opposed to the death penalty say that society “should set a humane tone and not itself resort to killing.” Or again, the purpose of justice should be to protect the community from future crimes, and alternative forms of punishment, perhaps lifetime imprisonment without the right of parole, might suffice to deter crime. Still another principle of justice is relevant: Should we attempt, where possible, to rehabilitate the offender? All of the above principles are open to debate. The point is, we should not block inquiry; we should not say that some moral principles are beyond any kind of re-evaluation or modification. Here, a process of deliberation enters in, and a kind of moral knowledge emerges about what is comparatively the best policy to adopt.

Another example of the methods of resolving moral disputes is the argument for assisted suicide in terminal cases, in which people are suffering intolerable pain. This has become a central issue in the field of medical ethics, where medical science is able to keep people alive who might normally die. I first saw the emergence of this field thirty years ago, when I sponsored a conference in biomedical ethics at my university and could find very few, if any, scholars or scientists who had thought about the questions or were qualified experts. Today, it is an essential area in medicine. The doctor is no longer taken as a patriarchal figure. His or her judgments need to be critically examined, and others within the community, especially patients, need to be consulted. There are here, of course, many factual questions at issue: Is the illness genuinely terminal? Is there great suffering? Is the patient competent in expressing his or her long-standing convictions regarding his or her right to die with dignity? Are there medical and legal safeguards to protect this system against abuse?

Our decision depends on several further ethical principles: (a) the informed consent of patients in deciding whether they wish treatment to continue; (b) the right of privacy, including the right of individuals to have control of their own bodies and health; and (c) the criterion of the quality of life.

One problem we encounter in this area is the role, again, of transcendental principles. Some people insist, “God alone should decide life-and-death questions, not humans.” This principle, when invoked, is beyond examination, and for many people it is final. Passive euthanasia means that we will not use extraordinary methods to keep a person alive, where there is a longstanding intent expressed in a living will not to do so. Active euthanasia will, under certain conditions, allow the patient, in consultation with his physician, to hasten the dying process (as practiced in Oregon and the Netherlands). The point is, there is an interweaving of factual considerations with ethical principles, and these may be modified in the light of inquiry, by comparing alternatives and examining consequences in each concrete case.

I wish to illustrate this process again by referring to another issue that is hotly debated today: Should all cloning research be banned? The Canadian legislature, in March 2004, passed legislation that will put severe restrictions on such scientific research. The bill is called “An Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction” (known as C-56), and it makes it a criminal offense to engage in therapeutic cloning, to maintain an embryo outside a woman’s body for more than fourteen days, to genetically manipulate embryos, to choose the gender of offspring, to sell human eggs and sperm, or to engage in commercial surrogacy. It also requires that in vitro embryos be created only for the purpose of creating human beings or for improving assisted human-reproductive procedures. Similar legislation was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and is before the Senate. It is still being heatedly debated. It includes the prohibition of reproductive cloning as well as therapeutic stem-cell research. Two arguments against reproductive cloning are as follows: (a) It may be unsafe (at the present stage of medical technology) and infants born may be defective. This factual objection has some merit. (b) There is also a moral objection saying that we should not seek to design children. Yet we do so all the time, with artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogate motherhood. We already are involved in “designer-baby” technology, with amniocentesis, pre-implantation, genetic testing, and chorionic villus sampling (the avoiding of unwanted genes by aborting fetuses and implanting desirable embryos).

If it were to become safe, would reproductive cloning become permissible? I can think of situations where we might find it acceptable-for example, if couples are unable to conceive by normal methods.

It is the second area I mentioned above that is especially telling-the opposition to any forms of embryonic stem-cell research. Proponents maintain that this line of research may lead to enormous benefits by curing a wide range of diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, or juvenile diabetes. Adult stem cells are now being used, but embryonic stem cells may provide important new materials. The criterion here is consequential: that positive outcomes may result. Opponents maintain that this type of research is “immoral” because it is tampering with human persons possessed of souls. Under this interpretation, “ensoulment” occurs at the moment of conception. This is said to apply to embryos, many of which, however, are products of miscarriages or abortions. Does it also apply once the division of stem cells occurs? Surely a small collection of cells, which is called a blastocyst, is not a person, a sentient being, or a moral agent prior to implantation. Leon Kass, chair of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, believes that human life cannot be treated as a commodity and it is evil to manufacture life. He maintains that all human life, including a cloned embryo, has the same moral status and dignity as a person from the moment of conception.

This controversy pits two opposing moral claims: (a) the view that stem-cell research may be beneficent because of its possible contributions to human health (i.e., it might eliminate debilitating diseases) versus (b) an ethic of revulsion against tampering with natural reproductive processes. At issue here are the questions of whether ensoulment makes any sense in biology and whether personhood can be said to have begun at such an early stage, basically a transcendental claim that naturalists object to on empirical grounds. These arguments are familiar in the abortion debate; it would be unfortunate if they could be used to censor scientific stem-cell research.

This issue is especially relevant today, for transhumanists say that we are discovering new powers every day that modify human nature, enhance human capacities, and extend life spans. We may be able to extend memory and increase human perception and intelligence dramatically by silicon implants. Traditionalists recoil in horror, saying that post-humanists would have us transgress human nature. We would become cyborgs.

But we already are, to some extent: we wear false teeth, eyeglasses, and hearing aids; we have hair grafts, pacemakers, organ transplants, artificial limbs, and sex-change/sexual reassignment operations and injections; we use Viagra to enhance sexual potency or mega-vitamins and hormone therapy. Why not go further? Each advance raises ethical issues: Do we have the reproductive freedom and responsibility to design our children by knowing possible genetic disorders and correcting them before reproduction or birth?

V.

This leads to an important distinction between two kinds of values within human experience. Let me suggest two possible sources: (a) values rooted in unexamined feelings, faith, custom, or authority, held as deep-seated convictions beyond question, and (b) values that are influenced by cognition and informed by rational inquiry.

Naturalists say that scientific inquiry enables us to revise our values, if need be, and to develop, where appropriate, new ones. We already possess a body of prescriptive judgments that have been tested in practice in the applied sciences of medicine, psychiatry, engineering, educational counseling, and other fields. Similarly, I submit that there is a body of prescriptive ethical judgments that has been tested in practice and that constitutes normative knowledge; and new normative prescriptions are introduced all the time as the sciences progress.

The question is thus raised, what criteria should we use to make ethical choices? This issue is especially pertinent today for those living in pluralistic societies such as ours, where there is diversity of values and principles.

In formulating ethical judgments, we need to refer to what I have called a “valuational base.” [3] Packed into this referent are the pre-existing de facto values and principles that we are committed to; but we also need to consider empirical data, means-ends relationships, causal knowledge, and the consequences of various courses of action. It is inquiry that is the instrument by which we decide what we ought to do and that we should develop in the young. We need to focus on moral education for children; we wish to structure positive traits of character and also the capacity for making reflective decisions. There are no easy recipes or simple formulae that we can appeal to, telling us what we ought to do in every case. There are, however, what W.D. Ross called prima facie general principles of right conduct, the common moral decencies, a list of virtues, precepts, and prescriptions, ethical excellences, obligations, and responsibilities, which are intrinsic to our social roles. But how they work out in practice depends on the context at hand, and the most reliable guide for mature persons is cognitive inquiry and deliberation.

Conservative theists have often objected to this approach to morality as dangerous, given to “debauchery” and “immorality.” Here, there is a contrast between two different senses of morality: (a) the obedience/authoritarian model, in which humans are expected to follow moral absolutes derived from ancient creeds, and (b) the encouragement of moral growth, implying that there are within the human species potential moral tendencies and cognitive capacities that can help us to frame judgments.

For a naturalistic approach, in the last analysis, ethics is a product of a long evolutionary process. Evolutionary psychology has pointed out that moral rules have enabled human communities to adapt to threats to their survival. This Darwinian interpretation implies a biological basis for reciprocal behavior- epigenetic rules-according to E.O. Wilson (1998). [4] The social groups that possessed these rules transmitted them to their offspring. Such moral behavior provides a selective advantage. There is accordingly an inward propensity for moral behavior, moral sentiments, empathy, and altruism within the species.

This does not deny that there are at the same time impulses for selfish and aggressive tendencies. It is a mistake, however, to read in a doctrine of “original sin” and to say that human beings are by nature sinful and corrupt. I grant that there are individuals who lack moral empathy; they are morally handicapped. Some may even be sociopaths. The salient point is that there are genetic potentialities for good and evil; but how they work out and whether beneficent behavior prevails is dependent on cultural conditions. Both our genes (genetics) and memes (social patterns of enculturation) are factors that determine how and why we behave the way we do. We cannot simply deduce from the evolutionary process what we ought to do. What we do depends in part upon the choices we make. Thus, we still have some capacity for free choice. Though we are conditioned by environmental and biogenetic determinants, we are still capable of cognitive processes of selection, and rationality and intentionality play a causative role. (Note: There is a considerable scientific literature that supports this evolutionary view. See Daniel Dennett, Freedom Evolves [New York: Viking, 2003] and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995]; Brian Skyrm, Evolution of the Social Contract [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996], Robert Wright, The Moral Animal [New York: Pantheon Books, 1994] and Nonzero [New York: Vintage Books, 2001], Matt Ridley, The Origins of Virtue [New York: Viking, 1996], and Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson, Unto Others [Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998].)

Ethical precepts need not be based upon transcendental grounds or dependent upon religious faith. Undoubtedly, the belief that they are sacred may strengthen moral duties for many persons, but it is not necessary for everyone.

I submit that it is time for scientists to recognize that they have an opportunity to contribute to naturalistic ethics. We stand at an interesting time in human history. We have great power to ameliorate the human condition. Biogenetic engineering, nanotechnology, and space research open new opportunities for humankind to create a better world.

Yet there are those today who wish to abandon human reason and freedom and return to mythological legends of our premodern existence, including their impulses of aggres- sion and self-righteous vengeance. I submit that the Enlightenment is a beacon whose promise has not been fulfilled and that humankind needs to accept the responsibility for its own future.

Conclusion

A caveat is in order. In the last analysis, some degree of skepticism is a necessary antidote to all forms of moral dogmatism. We are continually surrounded by self-righteous moralists who claim that they have the Absolute Truth, Moral Virtue, or Piety or know the secret path to salvation and wish to impose their convictions on all others. They are puffed up with an inflated sense of their own rectitude as they rail against unbenighted immoral sinners who lack their moral faith. These moral zealots are willing to repress or even sacrifice anyone who stands in their way. They have in the past unleashed conquering armies in the name of God, the Dialectic, Racial Superiority, Posterity, or Imperial Design. Skepticism needs to be applied not only to religious and paranormal fantasies but to other forms of moral and political illusions. These dogmas become especially dangerous when they are appealed to in order to legislate morality and are used by powerful social institutions, such as a state or church or corporation, to enforce a particular brand of moral virtue. Hell hath no fury like the self-righteous moral fanatic scorned.

The best antidote for this is some skepticism and a willingness to engage in ethical inquiry, not only about others' moral zeal, but about our own, especially if we are tempted to translate the results of our own ethical inquiries into commandments. The epistemological theory that I propose is based upon methodological principles of skeptical scientific inquiry, and it has important moral implications. For in recognizing our own fallibility, we thereby can learn to tolerate other human beings and to appreciate their diversity and the plurality of lifestyles. If we are prepared to engage in cooperative ethical inquiry, then perhaps we are better prepared to allow other individuals and groups some measure of liberty to pursue their own preferred lifestyles. If we are able to live and let live, then this can best be achieved in a free and open democratic society. Where we differ, we should try to negotiate our divergent views and perhaps reach common ground; and if this is impractical, we should at least attempt to compromise for the sake of our common interests. The method of ethical inquiry requires some intelligent and informed examination of our own values as well as the values of others. Here we can attempt to modify attitudes by an appeal to cognitive beliefs and to reconstruct them by an examination of the relevant scientific evidence. Such a give-and-take of constructive criticism is essential for a harmonious society. In learning to appreciate different conceptions of the good life, we are able to expand our own dimensions of moral awareness; and this is more apt to lead to a peaceful world.

By this, I surely do not mean to imply that anything and everything can or should be tolerated or that one thing is as good as the next. We should be prepared to criticize moral nonsense parading as virtue. We should not tolerate the intolerable. We have a right to strongly object, if need be, to those values or practices that we think are based on miscalculation, misconception, or that are patently false or harmful. Nonetheless, we might live in a better world if inquiry were to replace faith; deliberation, passionate commitment; and education and persuasion, force and war. We should be aware of the powers of intelligent behavior, but also of the limitations of the human animal and of the need to mitigate the cold, indifferent intellect with the compassionate and empathic heart. Thus, I conclude that within the ethical life, we are capable of developing a body of melioristic principles and values and a method of coping with problems intelligently. When our ethical judgments are based on rational and scientific inquiry, they are more apt to express the highest reaches of excellence and nobility and of civilized human conduct. We are in sore need of that today.

Notes

1. G.E. Moore. Principia Ethica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903).
2. See Exodus 21.
3. Kurtz, Paul (ed.). The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge (Amherst, New York: Prometheus, 1992), chapter 9.
4. Wilson, E.O. Consilience (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1998).