Studies don’t show jack

My friend Shawn raised a concern over on his blog that big-picture theorist Ken Wilber is being a wee bit disingenuous about the allegedly empirical basis of his ideas. I’m concerned too, but this kind of philosophical sleight of hand is not unique to Wilber. On the contrary, it’s positively pandemic, as the phrase “research shows” is fast becoming the secular version of “the Bible says.”

I’ve read most of Wilber’s work, and it seems to me that his theories are based on his own brilliant creative intuition and not — as he would like us to believe — on research of any kind. The theory comes first, then any relevant research is brought in to buttress his ideas. Nothing wrong with that approach, if one is honest about it. But because “empiricism” is such a fundamental aspect of the theory itself, I think Wilber feels pressure to ground his ideas in empirical data, even when the ground is pretty shaky. But just as reason itself can be twisted to fit just about any agenda, so too can so-called “research” be cited to support any number of bogus claims. In fact, the way research itself is presently conducted in our profit-driven culture –with political and economic concerns coloring the process at every stage– one would have to be naive in the extreme to accept any claim on face value. Consider this Washington Post article from earlier this year, in which we learn that: “Every psychiatric expert involved in writing the standard diagnostic criteria for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia has had financial ties to drug companies that sell medications for those illnesses…”

So, it’s no small wonder that “research shows” depression and other mood disorders to be chemical imbalances best treated with certain drugs. Gimme a freakin’ break. Every day, thousands of publications fill their pages with bogus conclusions drawn from this or that bogus study, and every day millions of ignorant people mistake these fictions for facts.

Of course, there is solid research out there, and empiricism — in the broad sense of basing our knowledge on experiment, direct experience and clear thinking — might be the best tool we have to test our intuitions. And we can all learn to separate the wheat from the chaff for ourselves, if we care to take the time.