They Tried to Set Up a Halfway House Between Materialism and the Supernatural

In the nineteenth century there was  a huge abundance of inexplicable paranormal phenomena. Although many people have tried to make it sound like it all began with the Fox sisters in America, the truth is that inexplicable paranormal phenomena occurred throughout the nineteenth century. Early in the nineteenth century,   many paranormal phenomena were occurring in connection with what was once described as Mesmerism or animal magnetism or somnambulism, but which is now most commonly called hypnotism.  Such phenomena continued up to about the middle of the nineteenth century, when there then occurred the phenomena associated with spiritualism. Belong long countless people were reporting things such as inexplicable raps and  the mysterious movements or levitations of tables. Many serious observers reported events such as the levitation of a human being (Daniel Dunglas Home), and the appearance of full-body apparitions or materializations.  Such reports started to seem more credible after the leading  scientist Sir William Crookes began testifying that he had successfully verified the reality of very many such phenomena, and after the Dialectical Society of London (largely composed of skeptics) issued a long 1871 report that was dramatically in favor of paranormal phenomena. 

Edward Cox's 1872 book Spiritualism Answered by Science was a book that appeared the year after the Dialectical Society's 1871 report; and Cox was one of the investigators involved in that report.  Probably some people bought Cox's book hoping to read someone discredit reports of the paranormal that may have irritated them.  If someone bought the book hoping to see a wholesale debunking of the paranormal, they must have been sorely disappointed. Before  long the book's pages start telling us that some of the main types of paranormal phenomena are well-established observational facts.  On page 20 the author states this:

"Not only is the evidence by which the phenomena of Psychic Force are established stronger than any upon which the criminal courts daily convict and punish even with death ; it is at least equal to the evidence upon which most of the other sciences are founded. The experiments with Psychic Force are in all respects as perfect and trustworthy as those exhibited by Professor Tyndall at the Royal Institution. They are as plain to the eye, as palpable to the touch, as audible to the ear, as any witnessed in that famous lecture room. If the senses can deceive in the one, so are they equally liable to be deceived in the other, and the argument of imposture would be found equally applicable to both."

On page 29 the author describes being part of a group of investigators testing the hypothesis (suggested by Michael Faraday) that table turning (also called table tipping) was merely the result of involuntary muscular effort by the hands, and decisively debunking such a hypothesis:

"Such was the reasonable argument that led us to look to involuntary muscular action as the explanation of the motions and sounds that were continually being made. To ascertain if this hypothesis was correct, we devised a series of tests that should place the matter beyond all possible doubt. First, all hands were laid upon the table ; then one hand only of each person ; then the table was touched by the tips only of all the fingers ; then by the fingers of one hand alone ; then with one finger only. Still the motions and sounds continued with but slightly diminished force. If our theory of involuntary pressure was correct, the force should have diminished in precise proportion to the lessened points of contact. Moreover, it did not explain the fact, continually before our eyes, of the table being raised several inches from the floor on one side only, the muscular action of the fingers upon that side of the table being antagonistic and not contributory to such a motion ! We continued our experiments with lessened faith in our foregone conclusion. First, one person withdrew from all contact ; then a second, and a third, until one finger of one person only touched the table. Nevertheless it moved, the sounds continued to come from it, and a frequent motion was the lifting up of the table at the side on which the finger was pressing down, if exercising any pressure whatever. I should state that at all of these test experiments the tables employed were the large and heavy dining tables, some nine feet and some twelve feet long, with six legs, in common daily use in the dining-room of members of the committee, standing upon Turkey carpets, therefore not easily slid and difficult to move by the arm. 

We next tried a more decisive test. All hands were joined and held over the table at the height of three inches from it, no part of any hand touching it, the room being well lighted with gas and all eyes keeping careful watch over the lifted hands. The sounds were heard and the motions produced as before. It was suggested that possibly the feet might be at work ; so two of the members seated themselves under the table to observe. The motions and sounds continued, but not a foot stirred. Then all the persons present stood, so that no foot could touch the table unseen. Still it moved. Lastly we devised a test that conclusively settled the question as to the possible agency of muscular action, conscious or unconscious. It was contrived thus : All present turned the backs of their chairs to the table, and kneeling upon the chairs, placed their arms upon the backs of the chairs, their hands being extended above the table, but without possibility of contact with it. The chairs were first placed six inches from the table, with which, as the reader will readily understand, neither foot nor hand, nor any part of the person, of any of those present could possibly come into contact unseen. In this position the table moved eight inches over the carpet and tilted several times. The chairs were then withdrawn further from the table, on each trial to an increased distance, and with the same results. At the distance of two feet from it the motions were continued, with but slightly diminished power....These experiments of motion without contact were repeated many times at different meetings in different houses, and with the same results. Thus was our third and last explanatory conjecture, which we had eagerly accepted on the authority of Faraday, completely demolished by the facts, and we were compelled reluctantly to the conclusion that there is a Force apparently proceeding from the human organisation by which motion is produced in heavy substances without the employment of any muscular force, and without contact or material connection of any kind between such substances and the body of any person present."

On pages 39-40 Cox reports a paranormal phenomenon of the mysterious alteration in the weight of tables (something similar to what was reported by Sir William Crookes in very careful observations):

"Alterations in the weight of tables and other furniture have been frequently exhibited. Bidding the table to be light, a finger lifted it ; the next moment, bidding it to be heavy, the entire force of the body was required to raise it from the floor. It was, however, suggested by myself and others who were engaged in the scientific investigation of the phenomena of Psychic Force, that possibly this change in the weight of the subject of the Force might be merely in our own sensations, and not an actual change in the gravity of the wood or the operation of any pressure upon it. To test this, a weighing machine was constructed with a hook to fix to the table, the index accurately marking the weight of whatever was attached to it. Applying this machine to the table and other bodies, we found that the change was really in them, and not sensational merely, as we had suspected. This simple experiment was tried so often, and with, so many precautions, as to establish it beyond doubt. The weights varied at every trial, but all proved the reality of the Force that was operating. One instance will suffice. Weighed by the machine, the normal weight of a table, raised from the floor 18 in. on one side, was 8 lb. ; desired to be light, the index fell to 5 lb. ; desired to be heavy, it advanced to eighty-two pounds ; and these changes were instantaneous and repeated many times."

On page 45 Cox begins to speculate about the nature of the mysterious force he has observed, what he has called a Psychic Force.  Cox's speculations on this matter are not very believable.  He seems determined not to go all the way towards admitting the existence of a mysterious supernatural force from some external agency beyond living humans. He tried to inhabit some halfway house between materialism and the supernatural. 

Cox tries to suggest that the effects he has observed can be explained as some natural but poorly understood force coming from human beings, not from beyond them. He imagines a kind of unconscious telekinesis or subconscious psychokinesis "mind over matter" coming from psychics or mediums or even ordinary people. 

On page 49 Cox states his theory:

"There is a Force proceeding from, or directly associated with, the human organisation, which, in certain persons and under certain conditions, can cause motion in heavy bodies, and produce audible and palpable pounds in such bodies, without muscular contact or any material connection between any person present and the heavy body so moved or on which the sounds are produced. This Force appears to be frequently directed by some intelligence. For the reasons presently to be specified, we conclude that this Force is generated in certain persons of peculiar nervous organisation in sufficient power to operate beyond bodily contact." 

Since the nineteenth century we have learned much about the organization of human bodies. We have learned that human bodies are vastly more organized than any one in the nineteenth century had imagined. But nothing we have learned about the stratospheric levels of organization in human bodies supports the idea that the human organization could result in some power to mysteriously manipulate matter outside of the human body.  It could be that the human soul has some ability to manipulate matter outside of the body, through something like telekinesis or psychokinesis. But nothing we have learned about the physical body can explain such an effect it if exists. 

One problem with such a theory of subconscious telekinesis is that it can explain only a fraction of reports of paranormal phenomena, only physical effects. Such a theory of subconscious telekinesis cannot explain reports of inexplicable mental effects. Subconscious telekinesis cannot explain the very many well-documented accounts in the nineteenth century of dramatic clairvoyance of hypnotized subjects. Subconscious telekinesis cannot explain cases such as that of the medium Leonora Piper, who (while in trance) stated a great deal of correct information relating to deceased people who should have been unknown to her.  

A book similar to Cox's book is the 1905 book Metaphysical Phenomena: Methods and Observations by J. Maxwell, who was not only a doctor of medicine but also a deputy attorney general. Maxwell's book has dramatic first-hand testimony of many inexplicable paranormal events. But rather than believe that such things are evidence for the supernatural, Maxwell seems to support the same kind of far-fetched "subconscious telekinesis" explanation given by Cox. Early in the book on page 14 Maxwell states this:

"I believe in the reality of certain phenomena which I have been able to verify over and over again. I see no need to attribute these phenomena to any supernatural intervention. 1 am inclined to think that they are produced by some force existing within ourselves."

The reader's faith in such an explanation may be shaken by the observations Maxwell reports.  In Chapter 2 Maxwell reports at great length hearing many times inexplicable raps. For example, on page 73 Maxwell states this: "The raps I have heard — of course I am speaking only of genuine raps — have resounded near the medium, as a rule, either on the table, floor, walls, or furniture in close proximity to him."  On page 74-75 Maxwell states this:

"With certain mediums the energy liberated is great enough to act at a distance. I once heard raps upon a table which was nearly six feet away from the medium...In the case I am speaking of, the table on which the raps were heard was about six feet away from the medium and myself; it was daylight, towards five o'clock on a summer's afternoon ; the table had never been touched by the medium or the experimenters before the seance ; the raps were loud, and were heard for several minutes."

After discussing a wide variety of his observations of inexplicable raps, on page 90 Maxwell states, "I have no manner of doubt whatsoever upon the authenticity of raps, a phenomenon I have heard so frequently, and under such diverse and excellent conditions." On page 92 Maxwell states, "

"To sum up, I am certain — as far as it is reasonably possible to be certain of anything in such a matter — that knockings of variable rhythm and tonality are heard in the presence of certain persons — knockings or 'raps' which cannot be explained by any known process. They are heard at diverse distances ; they often seem to obey the expressed wishes of the sitters, and to manifest a certain independent intelligence."

On page 93 the author states that he has observed levitation. He states this: 

"Levitation is the raising of an object from the ground without that object resting on, or being in any contact whatsoever with, any normal support. I have frequently observed this phenomenon with Eusapia Paladino under satisfactory conditions of light and other tests. She has given me several unimpeachable examples of parakinetic levitation, and, I repeat, in full light."

Maxwell is only one of very many distinguished observers who reported objects levitating in the presence of Eusapia Paladino under conditions precluding any possibility of fraud. No one who has made a scholarly study of such phenomena should be surprised by the mention of such observations occurring in full light. Skeptics of the paranormal frequently suggest some meme of mediums doing tricky things in the dark, but the most dramatic physical phenomena around mediums (such as phenomena around Eusapia Paladino and Daniel Dunglas Home) were observed in full light. 

The report Maxwell makes on page 98 was also made by many other distinguished witnesses (such as Flammarion):

"I verified telekinetic phenomena with Eusapia Paladino first of all. When operating with this medium, the seance-table was often elevated without contact. As a rule, Eusapia formed the chain of hands around the table without touching it ; at the end of a few seconds, she would make some passes over the table with her right hand, retaining her hold of her right-hand neighbour's hand at the same time : the table would then leave the floor, and remain suspended in the air for several seconds. It fell to the ground heavily as a rule. This experiment was made several times in my presence under satisfactory conditions of light. It was not only the table which moved with Eusapia : the curtains of the cabinet were often thrown over the table, as if a strong wind had blown them out."

Mentioning a levitation of chairs on to the top of a table, on page 99 Maxwell states this:

"With Eusapia, the sitters' chairs were frequently displaced, shaken, raised, and even carried on to the table. I cannot conceive how Eusapia could have obtained such results normally, considering the strict test conditions exacted at l'Agnelas."

In a chapter entitled "Luminous Phenomena" Maxwell starts out by discussing some not-very-impressive light anomalies, but eventually comes to a discussion of a very impressive anomaly: the appearance of a floating head apparition.  We read this on pages 150-151:

"We all saw these forms, or rather the form ; for it was always the same form which was shown, the profile of a long bearded face with a strongly arched nose. This appearance is said to be the head of 'John,' Eusapia's habitual personification. ...The hypothesis of fraud is still less admissible. The head we perceived was of natural size, and measured about I foot 6 inches from the forehead to the extremity of the beard. If the phenomenon is to be attributed to fraud, we must explain how Eusapia hid the necessary mask on her person ; we must also explain how she could have drawn it out unknown to us, and further, how she manoeuvred it. Eusapia did not go into trance at our Bordeaux seances. She sometimes saw the profile in question, and manifested her satisfaction at being able to look on, for the first time I think, at the phenomena which was produced through her. The light from the window was sufficient to enable us to see Eusapia's hands. I have no need to say that her hands were carefully held by her right and left controllers. If this profile had been concealed on her person, it would have been absolutely impossible for her to maneuver it. The profile we observed appeared to form itself at the top of the cabinet, at a height of about 3 feet 9 inches above Eusapia's head ; it descended slowly and placed itself just above and in front of her ; at the end of a few seconds it dis- appeared only to reappear later on under the same conditions. We always carefully assured ourselves of the relative immobility of the medium's hands and arms ; and the strange phenomenon I relate is one of the most irreproachable I have ever verified, so utterly incompatible is the hypothesis of fraud with the conditions under which we observed it."

Maxwell describes here seeing another apparition:

"All at once, after the production of some very faint, flitting lights, I perceived the beautiful face of a woman, pale, the eyes up-raised as though in prayer. The eyes and hair were black ; the hair was parted in the centre and dressed in the style of fifty or sixty years ago. The face was draped in a white veil which also covered the head, forming a kind of frame for the face. The physiognomy was of the sweetest, and of rare beauty. The apparition appeared to be slightly luminous, of a whitish, milky hue. It showed itself to the left of the medium, but high above him, near the ceiling."

On page 151 Maxwell indicates that despite such wonders he is sticking to his idea of such effects being produced by mere subconscious mind-over-matter by the medium. But he indicates on what shaky ground he is on in maintaining such at thing. He states this:

"Evidently I have no explanation to offer. The apparition of these human forms raises a problem, which is far more complicated than the problem of raps and movements without contact, and I think the study of this problem cannot be profitably undertaken at present. Nothing authorises me to consider these curious phenomena as demonstrating the exactness of the spirit hypothesis ; I think their cause lies elsewhere than in the intervention of the spirit of a deceased person ; but I am not yet able to formulate any rational opinion on this subject."

It is easy to understand Maxwell's hestitancy. It is one thing to maintain that a human has the power to subconsciously produce raps or levitations through mind-over-matter. But if you start maintaining a human has the ability to subconsciously produce an apparition of a human form, then you seem to have stretched such a telekinesis explanation beyond its breaking point, and gone very deep down a rabbit hole.  You might as well believe that when you meet Dave's wife and shake her hand, you are just meeting a mind-over-matter projection of Dave's mind, rather than a real flesh-and-blood person.  

On page 168 Maxwell tries to give some speculative mumbo-jumbo to try to explain how the apparitions he has seen might be caused by a mind-over-matter effect coming from some medium:

"Lights and forms raise problems much more difficult of solution. They may be susceptible of the following explanation : we will suppose that particles of a very attenuated substance, e.g. the ether or any other kind of rarefied matter, existed capable of being acted upon by nerve force ; they would become charged, and dispersed, according to the lines of force, and these lines would be determined by the action of nerve centres, and would take form corresponding to those particular centres. They would have a certain plasticity, if I may thus express myself, and this plasticity would be in connection with those centres, possessing preponderating physiological activity. If this connection existed with the superior ideatlve centres, we would have intelligible, definite forms, such as faces of human beings, heads of animals, and objects ; should connection with the inferior centres be established, undefined forms only would be obtained. Their luminosity would depend upon the state of con- densation of this rarefied matter of which they are constituted. Those subject to lesser condensation would be the most luminous ; and it might happen, that a form of greater density would be surrounded by a luminous atmosphere of lesser density."

Nothing we have discovered since 1905 substantiates such an explanatory speculation. No one has discovered any "nerve force" originating in a human body and capable of projecting outward beyond the body. Nor has anyone discovered any "rarefied matter" existing in the ordinary air. All that exists in the air are oxygen and nitrogen molecules which move around in a very disorganized matter, like bees buzzing around in a big cage. The idea (popular around 1905) that empty space was filled with a "luminiferous ether" was abandoned by scientists in the early twentieth century. 

On page 169 Maxwell admits how tenuous his speculations are about this topic, stating this:

"I do not conceal from myself the fact that my ideas are far from being definite, and that the hypotheses I timidly express would fare badly under rigorous analysis. I have found no better, and I have the impression that they ought to contain a particle of truth."

On page 232 Maxwell quotes Charles Richet as saying a woman told him this: 

"I see a woman standing near me ; she has grey hair, she is about fifty years of age, but looks older than she really is. Her hair is quite grey. I believe it is Madame B... though I am not quite sure yet. I see the figure 7 with her, which probably means that she will die in seven months, or on the 7th of some near month... Madame B. is very ill ; she has some sort of chest complaint — perhaps tuberculosis — and she will die very soon indeed."

The Madame B. in question was slightly sick (unkown to the woman) at the time, and then did die within 7 weeks, from some chest infection resembling tuberculosis. She normally died her hair black, but in her last days her hair reverted to its grey color. 

In a chapter entitled "Recent Psychical Phenomena," Maxwell cites at length the case of a person named M. Meurice who seemed to be haunted for a long time by the spirit of a person with the initials H.B., a person known to Maxwell, but not known to M. Meurice.  Very many times the details coming in connection with this manifestation seemed to match the details of H. B. that Maxwell remembered. After many pages detailing the case, and after noting that M. Meurice did not even believe in spirit manifestations, Maxwell confesses this:

"If we examine in a general manner the character of the H. B. personification, we are, perhaps, obliged to admit that it presents a spiritistic appearance. This appearance is all the more singular, in that it manifests in a centre where the spiritistic hypothesis is looked upon with disfavour."

It is rather easy to explain why the "halfway house" position of Cox and Maxwell has been maintained by few writers.  The position involves attributing to the human mind powers of telekinesis (mind-over-matter) that are inexplicable and utterly unexpected if the mind is a mere product of a brain, but quite possible if humans have a soul (for if humans have a soul, it is very hard to specify limits to the powers of such a soul).  At the same time, their position involves non-belief of a survival of the human spirit or soul beyond death (or forbidding the idea of observational effects produced by such surviving souls or spirits). Such a position is fairly self-contradictory. If humans have powers of influencing matter beyond their touch (some mysterious power of telekinesis), that would indicate in the strongest way the existence of a mysterious human soul or spirit; and once such a soul or spirit is admitted, it would make no sense to deny survival of a soul after death, or the possibility of effects being produced by souls surviving death. 

In the past sixty years, professors have preferred a much different position: a most unscholarly "head in the sand" denial of all the very abundant evidence for the paranormal (accompanied by a refusal to seriously study such evidence), and a "shame the witnesses" denial of any spooky phenomena that scientists cannot explain. This unempirical approach has been facilitated by two things: (1) the censorship and exclusion of notable evidence such as that discussed by Myers, Crookes, Rhine, Flammarion, Cox and Maxwell from academic writings after 1950; (2) the gradual attrition in which old books on library book shelves are replaced by new books.  Around 1970 and 1980 such suppressive denialism was working rather well to prevent people from learning about paranormal phenomena.  During those decades the book shelves of universities had almost none of the old books giving first-hand reports of the paranormal; and such important reports had been senselessly excluded from the more recent books on university book shelves.  But there are two reasons why such a suppression approach may fail.  The first is that hundreds of books giving very good evidence for the paranormal have been digitized, and can be read for free at web sites such as www.archive.org and www.gutenberg.org.  The second is that humans continue to have diverse types of dramatic experiences of the paranormal such as near-death experiences. 

Arbitrary Biological Classification Conventions Are Ideology-Driven

To classify organisms, scientists use a system that derives from the work of the 18th century biologist Carolus Linnaeus. One feature of such a system is the habit of binomial nomenclature, the naming of species by using two Latin words (for example, Homo sapiens).  Another feature of such a system is a hierarchical group of categories, which include divisions such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family and species.  Current classifications based on such a system are quite arbitrary.  One problem is that there is no reason to think that nature follows such rules of classification, allowing organisms to be nice and neatly placed into such categories. 

Binomial nomenclature and other biological categorization customs are now the handmaidens of ideology. Certain people wish for us to believe that humans are very similar to other species that lived long before humans. So such species have been given names that place such species in the same genus as humans. For example, a species that lived around 500,000 years ago is called Homo erectus, so that such a species sounds similar to our species called Homo sapiens.  Such classifications are constantly used as talking points for those trying to persuade us that humans evolved naturally from some more primitive species.  It is often suggested that some other species with a name beginning with Homo must be our evolutionary ancestors or evolutionary cousins, on the grounds that they are in the same genus as our species. 

But the name given to some species is an arbitary classification, and we should never put much weight on such names and such classifications.  To get a taste of the arbitrary caprice of biological classifications, let us look at the work from which all such classifications are derived. 

The modern system of biological classification derives from a work entitled "A general system of nature, through the three grand kingdoms of animals, vegetables, and minerals, systematically divided into their several classes, orders, genera, species, and varieties, with their habitations, manners, economy, structure, and peculiarities" by the 18th-century biologist Carolus Linnaeus.  To see how absurdly arbitrary such a work was, and also the errant ideology behind it, we may turn to the page in which the work discussed how humans fitted into its system of classification. 

The page below shows the page in which Linnaeus put humans into his system of classification. On that page Linnaeus classified several categories of humans, including the following:

• "Wild men," which he called "mute," suggesting the incorrect idea that "wild" humans did not use speech. 
• "American," which he racistly called "obstinate," and "content free," as if American Indians did not have ideas and minds like other humans. 
• "Europeans," which he described as "gentle," "acute," and "inventive," the description of "gentle" being wildly inaccurate given the long history of wars and persecutions in Europe. 
• "Asiatic," which he racistly described as "haughty" and "covetous."
• "African," which he racistly classified as "indolent" and "negligent," and "governed by caprice."

Besides making these racist characterizations of categories of humans in the Homo species classification, Linnaeus chose to  classify various other humans in some other species different from Homo sapiens, including Patagonians in South America, who he racistly classified as "indolent," and "mountaineers" who he racistly classified as "timid."

What we have here is proof that the biological classification scheme from which all modern biological classification derives was founded by someone who arbitrarily classified organisms according to some scheme that served his own ideology. We should very much suspect that the biological names and classifications of modern biologists are just as arbitrary and ideology-driven. Just as Linneaeus wrote the page above to help spread his racist ideology, modern biologists classify things in a way designed to help spread  Darwinist ideology.  This involves three main errors:

(1) Trying to make the origin of humans appear as not-so-special a development, biologists senselessly classify humans in an animal kingdom, even though because the human use of language is a completely unique behavior unknown to any other species, humans should really be classified in their own unique biological kingdom (if included in any system of biological classification).  A sensible classification of biological kingdoms would be to specify four such kingdoms: a microbe kingdom, a plant kingdom, an animal kingdom and a human kingdom.  Given a wealth of behaviors and mental capabilities that are unique to humans, there is every justification for classifying humans in their own unique kingdom (or for simply avoiding all attempts to classify the human species, and restricting such classification to non-human organisms). 

(2) Biologists classify some extinct species as being in the same genus as humans (the genus Homo), even though such a classification makes no sense, given that there is no robust evidence that any such extinct species ever had the two defining characteristics of humans: the use of language and the use of symbols.  It would make far more sense to classify such extinct species in some other genus, and to classify humans in their own unique kingdom or their own unique genus.  

(3) Using a word he invented and following the classification of Linnaeus in the page shown above, a page filled with racist falsehoods,  biologists use the word "primates" to designate an order consisting of apes, monkeys, and humans. Such a speech custom is erroneous and misleading, given that humans have so many unique mental and behavioral characteristics that drastically differentiate them from all apes and monkeys.  Humans should not be classifed in the same kingdom, genus or order used for any other species. 

All attempts to classify humans as some category of animals clashes with the reality of unique human behavior, and such attempts also are morally corrosive. When we teach that humans are just animals,  we make humans more likely to kill other humans while thinking something like, "I shouldn't sweat it; I merely killed an animal, so it was not much different from hunting a deer."  

What we should remember is that every time we read about a biological classification or a species name, we are hearing arbitrary classifications as ideology-driven as the racist nonsense of Linnaeus, whose work all biological classification systems derive from.   The fact that some species was arbitrarily placed in some genus classification or order classification or kingdom classification is of no value as evidence in trying to figure out whether we do or do not understand human origins.

Consider the odd word "primates" invented by Linnaeus. Such a word is very strangely used as a category for creatures as diverse as humans and small monkeys. But a human bears almost no mental resemblance to a small monkey, and also bears almost no physical resemblance to such a thing. The small monkey is covered in fur, and has a long tail; the monkey lives in trees, and the monkey's thorax may be only a few inches across. A human, on the other hand,  has no fur, no tail, and a weight maybe thirty times greater; and does not live in trees.  And humans act nothing like monkeys. So what sense does it make to have one word ("primates") referring to both of these creatures?

Conversely, there is no one word referring to both dolphins and humans, but their similarities are arguably greater. Both love to swim; both are about the same length; both are clever; both have smooth exteriors with no fur and little or no hair; both eat fish; and both smile or make expressions looking like smiles. So why do we have no word meaning "dolphins and men", but do have a single word ("primates") meaning "apes, monkeys and men"? Merely because of accidents of language or arbitrary classification events that have no evidential force. The biosphere does nothing to naturally suggest the concept of primates; it merely suggests concepts such as "monkeys," "apes," and "humans."  The fossil record also does nothing to naturally suggest the idea of primates (an order including men and monkeys), and the wikipedia.org article on primates shows that to advance claims of primates appearing where they appeared, scientists have found it necessary to resort to very unbelievable tall tales such as monkeys rafting from Africa to Madagascar, and monkeys rafting across the Atlantic ocean. 

Given that they have so many unique mental characteristics and unique behavior characteristiscs, there has never been any justification (scientific or otherwise) for claiming that humans are animals.  The claim that humans are animals is one of the most absurd speech customs of modern biologists.  As for the claim that humans descended from animals, such a claim is unproven; and even if such a claim were true, it would not do anything to prove that humans are animals.  Even if one thing is descended from another thing, it does not prove that the first thing is an example of the second thing. For example, a man can trace his origin back to a fertilized egg, but that does not show that a man is a fertilized egg; and a large plant had its beginning as a seed, but that does not show that a plant is a seed. 

We should remember that expert classification conventions are speech customs that do not necessarily match reality.  Until 1973 psychiatrists classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. But after a 1973 meeting, they changed their minds, and stopped classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder. The speech custom they had before 1973 (of calling homosexuality a mental disorder) did nothing to show that homosexuality is a mental disorder.  Wiser humans in the future will look back on the current  biologist's classification custom of classifying humans as animals, and regard that with the same scorn as people now have towards pre-1973 classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder. 

Postscript: In his long and very interesting book Man and His Relations by S. B. Brittan, which often deals with paranormal phenomena, we read the following astute statement:

"But  if  instead of  confining  our  observations  to  the  physical  department of  his  complex  nature,  we  have  regard  to  moral  aspects and  psychological  attributes,  we  shall  readily  discover  that Man  is  forever  separated  from  the  whole  animal  world  by natural  lines  that  are  broader  and  deeper  than  any  that define  the  limits  of  the  other  kingdom. A great  gulf divides  the  illimitable  faculties  and  rational  reverence  of Man  from  the  highest  development  of  the  brute  instincts. Materialism,  aided  by  the  most  ingenious  sophistry,  has never  been  able  to  bridge  the  chasm.  The  grand  faculties and  achievements  which  so  distinguish  Man  from  all  inferior natures,  plainly  indicate  that  the  Race  constitutes  a separate kingdom.  In  a treatise  on  the  Unity  of  the  Human  Species M.  Quatrefages  says  that  'Man  must  form  a kingdom  by himself,  if  once  we  permit  his  moral  and  intellectual  endowments to  have  their  due  weight  in  classification.' ”

The Bad Argument Experts Keep Giving When Asked About Extraterrestrial Life

For many decades scientists have been asked about the possibility of extraterrestrial life.  Again and again they have been posed these questions:

• Are we alone in the universe?
• Is there life on other planets?
• Is there intelligent life on other planets?
• Do extraterrestrial civilizations exist?

It seems that a large fraction of the time that scientists are asked these questions,  they reply by giving a fallacious argument. One such argument may be called the "many chances equals many successes" argument. The argument may be stated like this:

"There are billions of planets in our galaxy, so there must be many planets on which life exists."

"There are billions of planets in our galaxy, so there must be many planets with extraterrestrial civilizations."

"There are a vast number of planets in our universe, so life must have arisen many times."

"There are a vast number of planets in our universe, so there must be very many civilizations on other planets."

"There are a huge number of planets in our universe, so there must be many other extraterrestrial civilizations."

A very similar  argument may be called the "many chances equals some successes" argument. The argument may be stated like this:

"There are billions of planets in our galaxy, so there must be some  planets on which life exists."

"There are billions of planets in our galaxy, so there must be some planets with extraterrestrial civilizations."

"There are a vast number of planets in our universe, so life must have arisen on some other planets."

"There are a vast number of planets in our universe, so there must be some other civilizations on other planets."

"There are a huge number of planets in our universe, so there must be some other extraterrestrial civilizations."

Let us look at some examples of experts using this very fallacious argument. In a recent article in The Conversation (reprinted here) asking scientists about whether extraterrestrial life exists, astrobiologist Jonti Horner stated this:

"Space is unbelievably big. In the last few decades, we've learned almost every star in the cosmos has planets. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is estimated to have up to 400 billion stars. If each of those has five planets, we'd have two trillion planets in our galaxy alone. And we know there are more galaxies in the cosmos than there are planets in the Milky Way. In other words, there's a lot of real estate out there. And with so much variety, I find it impossible to believe Earth is the only planet that has life – including intelligent and technologically-advanced life."

So Horner is arguing this: "many chances equals some successes."  In the same article, an equally fallacious statement of the same bad argument is given by astrophysicist Steven Tingay, who states the following, after answering "Yes" to the question of "Do aliens exist?":

"The Universe contains hundreds of billions of galaxies, each of which can be composed of up to billions and billions of stars. Most of these stars have at least one planet each. These planetary systems form out of a rich mixture of elements, including all the elements regarded as essential for 'life'. So, it is hard to believe that the particular mix of conditions that resulted in 'life' only occurred on Earth, and not on the trillions of other planets in the Universe."

So Tingay is arguing  "many chances equals some successes" and is insinuating "many chances equals many successes."  In the same article, an equally fallacious statement of the same bad argument is given by Rebecca Allen, who states this:

"There are more than 100 billion planets estimated to exist in our galaxy alone (with some six billion potentially being Earth-like). Therefore, the probability that life exists elsewhere is all but confirmed."

In the same article, scientist Helen Maynard-Casely gives the worst of the five answers by experts, by stating this:

"I'm of the opinion that it's only a matter of time before we find something that resembles biology somewhere other than on Earth. This is because we're increasingly finding various potential pockets in our solar system that may be hospitable to life as we know it."

This reasoning can be summarized as "some chances equals at least one success," which is like "many chances equals some successes," but even more fallacious. Similarly, before stating with unwarranted confidence that he is "quite certain" we have not been visited by aliens in his lifetime, SETI astronomer Seth Shostak states this in a recent interview:

"But there are roughly a trillion planets in the Milky Way galaxy. Buy a trillion lottery tickets, you're going to win."

Here again we have "many chances equals some successes" reasoning. Similarly, in Scientific American the Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb states the following, which states once again the "many chances equals some successes" argument:

"So if you roll the dice on life billions of times in the Milky Way, what is the chance that we are alone? Minuscule, most likely!"

Such reasoning is completely fallacious. It is not at all true in general that "many chances equals many successes." It is also not at all true in general that "many chances equals some successes" or even that "many chances equals at least one success." If the probability of something happening is sufficiently low, then we should expect many chances to yield zero successes.  So "many chances" does not necessarily equal "many successes," and "many chances" does not necessarily equal "some successes" or even one success. For example:

• If everyone in the world threw a deck of cards into the air 1000 times, that would be almost 10 trillion chances for such flying cards to form into a house of cards, but we should not expect that in even one case would the flying deck of cards accidentally form into a house of cards. 
• If a billion computers around the world each made a thousand attempts to write an intelligible book by randomly generating 100,000 characters, that would be a total of a trillion chances for an  intelligible book to be accidentally generated, but we should not expect that even one of these attempts would result in the creation of an intelligible book. 
• If you buy a million tickets in a winner-take-all lottery in which the chance of winning is only 1 in 100 million, you should not expect that any one of those tickets will succeed in winning such a lottery. 

Below are some very general observations about probability:

• It is not necessarily true that many chances (also called trials) will yield many successes. 
• It is not necessarily true that many chances (also called trials) will yield some successes or even one success. 
• If the chance of success on any one trial multiplied by the number of trials gives a number less than 1, we should not expect that even one of the trials will produce a success.
• If the chance of success on any one trial multiplied by the number of trials gives a number greater than 1, we should  expect that at least one of the trials will produce a success.

Here are some examples illustrating the last two of these principles.  Let us suppose that the chance of winning a prize in a particular lottery is 1 in 1000. If you buy more than 1000 tickets in this lottery, you should expect to win a prize, because the chance of winning on any trial multiplied by the number of trials is greater than 1 (1.001 to be exact).  If you buy fewer than 1000 tickets in this lottery, it will be unlikely that you win. For example, if you bought 900 tickets in such a lottery, the chance of winning on any trial (.001) multiplied by the number of trials (900) would equal .9. Since that number is less than 1, you should not expect to win even once.  

A binomial probability calculator can be used to verify such principles. Such a calculator will use a mathematical approximation method to get a rough idea of probabilities, given a particular number of trials, and a particular chance of success. For example, using the binomial probability calculator at Stattrek.com, we find the following:

The last of these lines verifies that the likelihood of at least one success is slightly greater than 50 percent if there are 1001 trials that have each a chance of success of 1 in 1000. 

So how should we calculate the chance of extraterrestrial life existing on at least one planet revolving around any star in the universe? We should judge whether the chance of success on any one trial (the chance of life appearing on a random planet) multiplied by the estimated number of planets in the observable universe is a number greater than 1.  The number of stars in the observable universe has been estimated as a billion trillion. Given about 10 planets per star, we can estimate the number of planets in the observable universe as ten billion trillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). 

Roughly speaking, if the chance of life randomly appearing on the average planet is greater than 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, we should expect that life exists on at least one other planet. But if the chance of life randomly appearing on the average planet is less than 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, we should expect (given only chance) that no life exists outside of our solar system. 

Unfortunately for extraterrestrial life enthusiasts, there is every reason for suspecting that the chance of life appearing on any random planet (because of accidental chemical combinations) is very, very much less than 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  Even the simplest microbe requires 50 or more types of functional protein molecules.  An average functional protein molecule consists of hundreds of amino acids arranged in just the right way to acheive a functional result.  It has been estimated that the probability of a functional protein molecule forming by chance is less than 1 in 10 to the hundredth power. 

Here the math tells a decisive tale.  It seems that by chance that nowhere in the observable universe would there form even one of the functional protein molecules needed for life. But more than 50 types of such molecules would be needed for even the simplest thing to exist. Even the simplest microbe is like a purposeful arrangement of many thousands of amino acids parts, just as a 50-page instruction manual is a purposeful arrangement of about 15,000 letters. 

But there are two complications which cloud the issue. The first is the possibility that there may be unknown natural reasons why it would be inevitable that life appears whenever it has the chance. Materialists often appeal to such a possibility, but never have done anything to substantiate such an idea.  Such a possibility is simply a "magic lamp" conveniently evoked by many materialists. 

Another complication is that perhaps it is not mere chance that controls the odds of life appearing on other planets. It is quite possible that there is some divine force "loading the dice," making the fantastically improbable occur very often.  If there is such an ageny (which might be something that occurs through direct action or indirectly through special laws not yet discovered that increased the chance of life appearing), then "all bets are off" in regard to probabilities.  In fact, it is quite possible that despite basically impossible odds of life forming by chance on any planet, that the universe is teeming with life and possibly even intelligent life,  simply because some creative divine design force is at work in the universe. 

A further complication is that the chance of intelligent life appearing on some planet is not at all equal to the chance of some life appearing on some planet. The first probability may be a trillion or a billion trillion quadrillion times smaller than the first.  Contrary to the triumphalist boasts of Darwinism adherents,  no one has shown that intelligent life or even multicellular life inevitably follows from the existence of microscopic life, nor has anyone even shown that eukaryotic cells (the more complex kind of cells) should inevitably appear once prokaryotic cells (the simpler kind of cells) exist. 

Clearly estimating the likelihood of extraterrestrial life and extraterrestrial civilizations becomes quite complex when we consider all of the factors that should be considered.  When asked about whether extraterrestrial civilizations exist, an intelligent answer for an expert to give might be something like this:

"Calculating the chance of extraterrestrial life or extraterrestrial civilizations is very complicated, and very dependent upon the assumptions made. Under one reasonable set of assumptions, there could be a great number of extraterrestrial civilizations. Under a different reasonable set of assumptions, there would probably be no extraterrestrial life anywhere in the universe."

Rather than giving that type of intelligent answer, we so often get the stupid little sound bite of fallacious reasoning equivalent to "many chances equals many successes" or "many chances equals some successes."  Our experts seem so often to go into "childish reasoning mode" when talking about the likelihood of extraterrestrials. On a NASA page we have some reasoning (based on the number of stars in the observable universe) that "human civilization is likely to be unique in the cosmos only if the odds of a civilization developing on a habitable planet are less than about one in 10 billion trillion, or one part in 10 to the 22nd power."  An astronomer then says this:

"One in 10 billion trillion is incredibly small. To me, this implies that other intelligent, technology producing species very likely have evolved before us."

Of course, reasoning based on a feeling or impression about whether a number is "incredibly small" (or a suspicion that "incredibly small" probabilities should not exist) bears no resemblance to scientific or philosophical reasoning.  There is no rule that probabilities cannot be incredibly small, and anyone should be able to think of thousands of real probabilities that are much smaller than 1 in a billion trillion.  In life and nature, there exist billions and trillions of probabilities very much smaller than 1 in 10 billion trillion.  The astronomer's reasoning is as silly as the argument below:

"Someone estimated that if I type random characters while blindfolded all day, the chance of me producing a best-selling book will be less than 1 in 10 to the hundredth power. Less than 1 in 10 to the hundredth power is incredibly small. So if I type random characters while blindfolded all day, I probably will produce a best-selling book."

When asked about whether extraterrestrials exist elsewhere in space, a scientist should tell us about the very high amount of organization and functional complexity in even the simplest living thing, and why that has that such a great effect on the odds of extraterrestrial life appearing. Virtually never will a scientist do such a thing. In this regard, our scientists act like someone who is asked, "What will happen if I jump from a flying airplane?" and who fails to mention the little detail that you will be killed. 

Over my long life I must have read 1000 answers by scientists when asked about the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, but I cannot recall any of them ever giving the type of answer that should be given, which is an answer like the "under one reasonable set of assumptions" answer quoted above, or an answer something like this:

"Even the simplest living thing is so functionally complex and organized that the chance of life accidentally appearing from non-life is fantastically small, very much less than 1 divided by the number of planets in the observable universe. If there is some intelligent agency that has acted to help make life appear, life and perhaps even intelligent life could exist throughout our galaxy and throughout the universe. If no such agency exists, we should expect that life does not exist on any other planet in the observable universe."

In general, over the past 50 years expert responses to questions about the likelihood of extraterrestrial life have usually been of poor quality.  The two main relevant factors that need to be discussed are the extreme difficulty and very high mathematical improbability of abiogenesis (life forming from non-life on a particular planet), and the number of planets in the observable universe.  Experts almost never discuss the first of these things when asked about the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, just as they almost never realistically discuss the gigantic degree of hierarchical organization and fine-tuned dynamism in large living things (just as if they were trying to make us think that living things are a billion times simpler than they are). Many of the answers given to "are there extraterrestrials out there" questions include misinformation, such as the untrue claim often made by Carl Sagan that the building blocks of life exist abundantly in outer space.  (The building blocks of microscopic life are functional proteins, which have never been detected in outer space; and almost none of the different building blocks of the building blocks of life have been found in outer space, since no more than about one or two of the 24 amino acids and nucleotides used by life have been found in space.)   The failure of decades of SETI efforts to pick up extraterrestrial radio signals is conveniently ignored by almost all experts asked about the likelihood of extraterrestrial life.  Then there is a frequent use of "most experts agree" claims, which are never backed up by specific evidence that such a majority of opinion exists. 

Postscript: in a Forbes article we read this quote from scientist Peter Ward:

“I would bet my life in an instant that there are other intelligent species in our galaxy,” said Ward. “The numbers are too great to believe otherwise.”

We see here an example of the all-too-common reality of a scientist having absolute dogmatic confidence in a fallacious argument. The phrase "the numbers are too great" refers to the number of planets in our galaxy. So the reasoning is "many chances equals at least one success," which is a completely fallacious argument for the reasons given above.  This is also an example of the all-too-common reality of a scientist having an absolute unshakable faith in something contrary to the low level facts he has gathered. Ward previously wrote a book listing many reasons why planets as favorable to life as Earth should be rare.  Indeed a recent headline on www.space.com has a title "None of the alien planets we know of could sustain life as we know it, study finds." The article states, "Astronomers know enough about the nature of stars in the Milky Way to assume that the right conditions for photosynthesis-driven life might be rare."

Why Do We Expect Rectitude From Experts Who Never Swore an Oath?

Let us consider certain types of oaths sworn by people. The most common type of oath is a marriage oath. Before witnesses, a person swearing a marriage oath may swear something such as "I, John, take you, Mary, to be my lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part."  Although such a vow does not explicitly pledge exclusive sexual fidelity, such a vow implicitly suggests such a thing, and seems to imply that one partner will be faithful to another partner for the remainder of his life (or at least a good long time). So having heard her husband recite such an oath, a wife has at least some basis for thinking that her husband is not fooling aound with some other woman.  The marriage oath creates at least some expectation of good behavior that the husband will be expected to live up to. 

There is another type of oath sworn by public servants in the United States, people such as members of the House of Representatives,  senators and governers. The oath goes something like this: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." Such an oath does not promise terribly much. But at least it creates an expectation that the person swearing will do the job that he has been given.  So if a newly elected US senator swears such an oath, we will have reason to expect that he will at least occasionally show up at the US Senate to cast votes, and that he will not spend the next six years only doing things like touring the world on his yacht or hanging out at posh luxury destinations. 

To become a President of the United States, you must swear an oath promising "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Lyndon Johnson taking the Presidential Oath of Office

Then there is the oath sworn by doctors, the Hippocratic Oath.  There is a tradition of swearing such an oath, dating back more than two thousand years.  A modern version of the oath is below, and according to this page it is used by many medical schools:

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say 'I know not,' nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

Rather than using this oath, quite a few medical schools use an oath from what is called the Declaration of Geneva. The current version of the oath goes like this:

"AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:

• I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;
• THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;
• I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;
• I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;
• I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
• I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
• I WILL PRACTICE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;
• I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;
• I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due;
• I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare;
• I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard;
• I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
• I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour."

Knowing that doctors have sworn oaths such as these, it is may be logical for us to expect that doctors will follow high standards of moral behavior.  But anyone watching HBO's recent series The Crime of the Century will be shocked to discover that many thousands of doctors did not at all follow such high standards of behavior, and were some of the principal players in an opioid overdose epidemic that led to more than 500,000 unnecessary deaths by opioid overdoses in the United States alone.  

Besides these professionals, there are very many professionals who do the equivalent of swearing an oath, by signing contracts pledging that their behavior will be good. For example, if you arrange for some remodeling of your house, you may sign a contract, and when the contractor or electrician or plumber signs the same contract, he will typically pledge to do work according to the prevailing professional standards. Contract programmers often sign contracts with clauses that are pledges to do work according to industry standards.  

But what about scientists? Is there any oath that they swear to, one that should cause us to expect high moral behavior from them? It would seem that some oath of integrity would be even more necessary for scientists than for physicians. A physician has the power to control what you think about the state of your body, but scientists have a much broader power: the power to shape what billions believe about the basic nature of life, mind and the universe.  A physician doing the wrong things can damage a few hundred lives, but if scientists such as a nuclear physicist or genetic engineer do the wrong thing, they may imperil millions or billions of lives.  Nonetheless, the vast majority of scientists have never sworn any oath in which they promised to speak truthfully or act morally. 

In September 2000 a bunch of scientists got together for a day-long meeting in which they debated whether there should be some type of oath for scientists, and what it might be. The meeting is discussed in the long article here. It seems that no agreement was reached about any oath for scientists.  

I can imagine a good oath for scientists to swear.  It might have elements such as this:

• "I promise to follow high standards of integrity, honesty and excellence in all experimental and observational activities, and in my reports about all such activities.
• I promise never to do work that imperils my fellow human beings.
• I promise never to claim understanding of matters I do not understand. 
• I promise not to claim my team or my colleagues or my scientist predecessors have proven something that has not been proven. 
• I promise not to describe speculations or theories as if they were facts.
• I promise to make no false statements about scientific matters." 

But scientists swear no such oath.  I can understand why a careerist scientist might not want to pledge to do no work that imperils his fellow human beings.  Very much of US scientific funding comes from military spending or from corporations (some of which are more interested in making money than protecting the public from harm). 

Some of the worst inventions in history are the fruits of scientific activity. By inventing the atomic bomb and the far more dangerous hydrogen bomb, the physicists held a gun to mankind's head, a gun that is still pointed at mankind's head, since thousands of nuclear weapons still exist. Besides inventing Zyklon-B, the chemical that enabled the gas chambers of the Holocaust, the chemists created the unnecessary inventions of napalm and the defoliation agent Agent Orange, which produced millions of pointless deaths and birth defects in the Vietnam War.  The deaths coming from the sticky horror of burning napalm were some of the most painful deaths humans have ever suffered. 

The biologists may be the next group of scientists to hold a gun to mankind's head. By tampering with genes, there may come from some biology lab a danger worse than COVID-19 (something which mysteriously originated in a city with a large lab for studying viruses).  This should not surprise you when you consider that scientists do not pledge to avoid work that harms mankind.  A recent Scientific American article is entitled "Why Scientists Tweak Lab Viruses to Make Them More Contagious."

The oath of office of people such as US senators and US presidents does not involve any pledge of truthfulness. But while running for office, a candidate for the US senate or the US presidency will typically state that he or she will tell the truth.  In his or her speeches, the person may say something like this:

"I'm not like that other guy running. You can't believe that liar. But you'll get nothing but the truth from me."

But it seems that the typical person becoming a professor does not even informally promise to tell the truth. He may refer abstractly to "scientist codes of conduct."  But it is hard to remember any professor or scientist who even informally pledged to tell nothing but the truth.  Why should we not expect to get from materialist science professors behavior like that of the materialist communists of the Soviet Union, who had no regrets about lying whenever they thought it could be justified by some "ends justify the means" rationale?  The rule of such communists seemed to be that it is okay to tell any lie, as long as it promotes the glorious final goal of promoting the triumph and survival of communism.  We may wonder whether materialist professors think privately to themselves that it is okay to tell little lies whenever it promotes what they think is the "glorious final end" of getting people to believe in materialism or Darwinism. 

When a scientist appeals to "scientist norms" or "scientist codes of conduct," he is generally not referring to anything that has been written down.  It is not clear why something so nebulous should do very much to keep someone from going astray.  There seems to be no well-known book devoted to articulating a scientist code of conduct. 

Some of our scientists teach the appalling nonsense of free will denial.  You should never expect moral behavior from anyone who advances such a doctrine. Instead, because he thinks he is not to blame for anything he does, you should expect him to act immorally whenever it benefits him. 

I see that two people wrote a paper entitled "The Scientist's Pledge" proposing a pledge of rectitude scientists should make when getting a PhD. The paper states this:

"Medical students transition to their profession with the recitation of the Hippocratic Oath. However, no analogous oath has been widely adopted for students graduating with doctorates of philosophy (PhDs) in the various sciences."

As of this writing, the paper has been cited only one time. A similar paper entitled "A Scientist's Oath" has been cited only two times. It seems our professors are not very interested in affirming or pledging their good behavior.   

Ethics is not a branch of science, but a branch of philosophy (something many science professors wrongly scorn as irrelevant). Scientists often strive to make "value free" assessments of physical reality, and may regard a scientific paper as being "sullied" if it promotes a moral viewpoint.  It is not at all clear why we should expect high moral behavior from those who may regard moral standpoints as distractions from scientific objectivity.  The main operating principle of our scientists sometimes seems to be "behave and speak as your peers behave or speak" rather than "follow your conscience." 

We currently have an ecosystem in scientific academia that rather seems to reward shady behavior rather than stringent truthfulness.  The main performance metric used to judge professors is the number of published papers they have written and the number of citations such papers have got.  Such metrics are used to determine whether professors get promoted or get tenure. There is a "publication bias" that disfavors papers describing null results, and favors papers claiming interesting results.  The more interesting the claimed result, the more citations a paper will get, regardless of whether its research can be replicated. 

In fact, papers with results that cannot be replicated are (according to one study) about 153 times more likely to be cited than papers with research that can be replicated.  Such a system would seem to push  experts towards poor conduct and shady speech, in which they use questionable research practices to produce false alarms, and claim research accomplishments that were not actually achieved, for the sake of getting higher numbers of paper citations.  Given such an ecosystem, which seems to incentivize bad behavior,  we should not be terribly surprised by honesty shortfalls from our experts. 

Many scientists make statements that may have a corrosive effect on morality.  Explain to a man some of the very many reasons for thinking that both his multifaceted mind and the mountainous degree of hierarchical organization and purposeful dynamism in his body may have a divine source, and such a man may regard himself as someone who should live up to some transcendent moral ideals. But if you do your best to hide such reasons and tell a man that he is "just an animal" (a lie that many modern scientists are fond of telling), such a man may have no tendency to act in a particularly moral way. 

Instead of establishing a pledge of good conduct that scientists should swear, some of the science establishment these days is  promoting a dubious "Trust Science" pledge. The pledge states the following:

“Trust in evidence-based, scientific facts is essential for providing sustainable solutions to today’s challenges. By adding my name to this declaration and pledge, I recognize the key role that scientific research and discovery play in improving quality of life for all. I pledge to trust science.”

An online page asking you to pledge such a trust has got the grand total of 4566 people to sign such a pledge. Oops, it seems the public has no great eagerness to pledge a trust in scientists. 

Asking for "trust" is what goes on when you are not dealing with proven facts. No one would ever ask you to trust the belief that the sun is very hot or that microbes cause diseases or that planets have a gravitational pull.  But if someone is asking you to believe something that is not a proven fact, he might ask you for a pledge of trust. A wife's husband might ask her to trust that he is faithful, but would never ask her to trust that he is a male.  

The word "science" is defined in many different ways. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines science as "the careful study of the structure and behavior of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities."  Theorists often go wrong, so there is no particular reason we should pledge to "trust science" defined in such a way. In fact, such a pledge would seem to be contrary to the true spirit of science, which is about trying to build up sufficient observations about a topic to eliminate a need for trust.  

Nowadays what we read on the most popular science web sites is a strange mixture of fact, observational results, speculation, hype, clickbait, triumphalist  legends, ideology, corporate propaganda and entertainment weakly rooted in observations. Rather than pledging to "trust science," people should pledge to subject the statements of scientists and science journalists to the same critical scrutiny they apply to the statements of politicians and political lobbyists,  always asking, "What part of this is fact and what part is not fact?"

As for the clause "I recognize the key role that scientific research and discovery play in improving quality of life for all," it sounds like something straight from a PR desk.  The quality of human life was not improved when atomic weapons or napalm were invented, and there is reason for suspecting that the qualify of life may have recently been very much harmed (or will one day be very greatly harmed) by reckless microbe research.  Rather than asking for "pledges of trust" which sound like authoritarian oaths of fealty sworn in dictatorships,  it would be better to work on improving scientist behavior and scientific truthfulness standards so that our trust in the work of scientists comes naturally rather than being ginned up by pledge-seeking sites.