Skip to main content

Experimenting with Religion - Jonathan Jong *****

The idea of experiments related to religion may seem more than a little odd, but Jonathan Jong's exploration of a small but significant corner of the psychological landscape is genuinely fascinating. The aim is not to somehow prove or disprove religious beliefs, but rather to get a better understanding of what we really believe and what, if anything, influences those beliefs.

Since the replication crisis, which has showed that the results of many classic psychology experiments were dubious, I've been suspicious of all claims for new discoveries in the field. What's excellent about the way that Jong approaches it is that he doesn't cover things up (all too often, pop psychology books don't even mention the crisis), but rather openly discusses it. In fact, several of the studies discussed here have proved unreproducible - this is what makes the book particularly interesting. It doesn't just operate at the level of the findings - it tells us how the experiments were undertaken, what their limitations were and the provisos we need to attach to any findings and future research.

It helps, as he takes us through studies that try to discover whether thinking causes atheism, if children believe in souls and what people think God knows (to name but three), that Jong has a very warm, approachable writing style. I've read many popular psychology books, but I've rarely felt so much that I was getting an insight into how the researchers thought, as if I were able to chat to them in a relaxed environment. It's really well written.

My biggest reservation is that, despite acknowledging the crisis, Jong doesn't go far enough in questioning the approach taken, and seems to give too much weight to results that are at best statistically borderline. Two examples. In the first experiment to fail replication (the one about thinking and atheism), the experimenters tried to get people into an analytical frame of mind by showing them a picture of Rodin's statue The Thinker. The obvious question is why they didn't just get them to do an analytical task, rather than rely on the surely doubtful idea that just looking at a statue somehow will change your mental state in a clearly defined direction.

The second example is one where the researchers got no useful result and as a result start to indulge in what is effectively cherry picking. Jong is clear that this invalidates the experiment - but still goes on to describe their corrupted findings. Surely, if experimental psychology is to regain any trust, we need to say that as soon as an experiment is shown to be invalid, we can't deduce anything from the findings. They should be discarded and the researchers need to start again.

However, this concern does not make the book any less excellent, and Jong does make it clear when results are confusing or inappropriate. This is certainly the best psychology title I've read this year and well worth a look.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more