Evidence of Buddhism

[Ryokan]

3. There have been neurological studies on Buddhist practitioners that definitely show them as happier and less stressed than other people.
4. Buddhist meditation practices have been clinically shown to be helpful to people suffering from stress, anxiety & depression.

These are claims. Show us the evidence.

Scientists say they have evidence to show that Buddhists really are happier and calmer than other people.
Tests carried out in the United States reveal that areas of their brain associated with good mood and positive feelings are more active.

The findings come as another study suggests that Buddhist meditation can help to calm people.

Researchers at University of California San Francisco Medical Centre have found the practise can tame the amygdala, an area of the brain which is the hub of fear memory.

------------------------------

Paul Ekman, who carried out the study, said: "The most reasonable hypothesis is that there is something about conscientious Buddhist practice that results in the kind of happiness we all seek."

------------------------------

In a separate study, scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison used new scanning techniques to examine brain activity in a group of Buddhists.

Their tests revealed activity in the left prefrontal lobes of experienced Buddhist practitioners.

This area is linked to positive emotions, self-control and temperament.

Their tests showed this area of the Buddhists' brains are constantly lit up and not just when they are meditating.

This, the scientists said, suggests they are more likely to experience positive emotions and be in good mood.

Source.

The scans provided remarkable clues about what goes on in the brain during meditation.

"There was an increase in activity in the front part of the brain, the area that is activated when anyone focuses attention on a particular task," Dr Newberg explained.

In addition, a notable decrease in activity in the back part of the brain, or parietal lobe, recognised as the area responsible for orientation, reinforced the general suggestion that meditation leads to a lack of spatial awareness.

Dr Newberg explained: "During meditation, people have a loss of the sense of self and frequently experience a sense of no space and time and that was exactly what we saw."

Source.

"What science and Buddhism really share is the goal of understanding the nature of reality," Adam Ingle of the MindLife Institute, who organised the experiment, told BBC World Service's Reporting Religion programme.

"The difference is that science uses the scientific method and a lot of technology and objectives - it starts from the outside and probes the nature of reality.

"Buddhism uses the human mind, reformed through meditation, starting from the inside, looking at the same questions."

Source.

Ten volunteers were tested before and after 40 minutes of either sleep, meditation, reading or light conversation, with all subjects trying all conditions. The 40-minute nap was known to improve performance (after an hour or so to recover from grogginess). But what astonished the researchers was that meditation was the only intervention that immediately led to superior performance, despite none of the volunteers being experienced at meditation.

“Every single subject showed improvement,” says O’Hara. The improvement was even more dramatic after a night without sleep. But, he admits: “Why it improves performance, we do not know.” The team is now studying experienced meditators, who spend several hours each day in practice.

---------------------------------------

They found that meditating actually increases the thickness of the cortex in areas involved in attention and sensory processing, such as the prefrontal cortex and the right anterior insula.

“You are exercising it while you meditate, and it gets bigger,” she says. The finding is in line with studies showing that accomplished musicians, athletes and linguists all have thickening in relevant areas of the cortex. It is further evidence, says Lazar, that yogis “aren’t just sitting there doing nothing".

Source.

Regular meditation has been touted as a stress reducer for years, but a recent study says practitioners benefit from a brain boost as well.

CNN anchor Fredericka Whitfield spoke with Sara Lazar, a research scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, about the study and meditation's apparent benefits.

WHITFIELD: Explain to me why, based on your study, have you learned that meditation really has a calming effect and perhaps even may boost brain power?

LAZAR: What we found was that people who have been practicing Buddhist insight meditation have a thicker cortex in some parts of their brain than people who don't meditate.

Source.

Evidence enough for you, epepke?

 

[KingMerv00]

I wonder what the failure rate of Buddhism is. (Seriously)

It can't be for everyone, can it?

 

[epepke]

Evidence enough for you, epepke?

Well, it's a start, and better late than never.

But, no, it's not really enough, assuming that you're actually asking the question and are not just being shirty and petulant.

I'm not sure why I have to explain this on a skepticism board, but fluff pieces in popular science magazines or from news sources are one thing, and papers in peer-reviewed journals are quite another. I also think that I was fairly clear about being interested in the latter.

And, no, I'm not just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative or picking unfairly on Buddhism.

 

[Ryokan]

Well, it's a start, and better late than never.

To be fair to me, I quoted these articles in the very first sceptical to Buddhism thread, but it was ignored by almost everyone.

But, no, it's not really enough, assuming that you're actually asking the question and are not just being shirty and petulant.

I'm not sure why I have to explain this on a skepticism board, but fluff pieces in popular science magazines or from news sources are one thing, and papers in peer-reviewed journals are quite another. I also think that I was fairly clear about being interested in the latter.

And, no, I'm not just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative or picking unfairly on Buddhism.

Pick one of the articles then, and I'll track down the scientists that did the research. Just because it was reported in the news and in a popular science magazine doesn't mean it wasn't peer reviewed as well.

 

[epepke]

To be fair to me, I quoted these articles in the very first sceptical to Buddhism thread, but it was ignored by almost everyone.

OK. I must have missed that.

Pick one of the articles then, and I'll track down the scientists that did the research. Just because it was reported in the news and in a popular science magazine doesn't mean it wasn't peer reviewed as well.

I'll pick the penultimate one, then, because it seems to me that the others aren't saying much. And it's the only one that claims some concrete benefit and distinguishes Buddhism from other practices.

 

[Ryokan]

I'll pick the penultimate one, then, because it seems to me that the others aren't saying much. And it's the only one that claims some concrete benefit and distinguishes Buddhism from other practices.

According to the article, the scientist that did the research was Paul Ekman.

Background info on Paul Ekman :

http://www.paulekman.com/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman

Looks like a 'real' scientist to me. However, on the 'contact' page of his site, he makes it clear he's unavailable for questions.

So my task then is to track down a peer reviewed article that supports the claims quoted in the OP.

http://psych.umb.edu/faculty/perez/Psych612/Psych612_files/Ekman_Buddhist_psych_2005.pdf#search='%20Paul%20Ekman%20Buddhism'

Here's a peer reviewed (I assume it is, I'll admit to not being knowledgable about American academic circles) article that at least shows that Paul Ekman is involved in research on Buddhism. No reference to actual scientific research, however.

I'll keep looking.

 

[Kopji]

As with many things our mileage may vary. I dunno, I like Buddhism but I also don't see how we would apply a scientific philosophy like falsification to it. The examples below hopefully show what I mean. There is always a way to believe, but there is always an exception.

The basic idea of "all things are possible" is not a scientific one because science does what it does by placing limits on what can be called 'true'.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Buddhism does not / should not conflict with science, but it is not a scientific idea because it does not limit truth the way science does.

There's plenty of stuff like below around, but if Buddhism is not making specific testable claims, so what?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4743741.stm
A prison in Norway has stopped holding yoga classes after it found that instead of calming inmates, they were actually making some more aggressive.
High-security Ringerike jail near Oslo offered the classes to eight inmates on a trial basis earlier this year.

Prison warden Sigbjoern Hagen said some of the inmates became more irritable and agitated and had trouble sleeping.

http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=426
Even more alarming is that there has long been evidence that meditation can have an unambiguously negative effect on some of those who take it up - something that rarely, if ever, gets mentioned in popular press articles on the subject. In one study (Shapiro, DH, Adverse effects of meditation: a preliminary investigation of long-term meditators. Int J Psychosom 1992 39:62-7), two thirds of the subjects experienced some kind of adverse effect, ranging from increased anxiety to depression and a sense of disconnection from reality. Seven percent reported profoundly disturbing and lasting side effects.

Furthermore, many experts who have worked with former cult members have long described numerous meditation-related problems, including a symptom called "floating" in which people become unable to concentrate and feel a loss of their sense of themselves.

 

[Year Zero]

Obviously Buddhism is not something that you can prove the effectiveness of through experimentation, but it is not surprising that many practitioners seem happier or have a generally better mood. This is not due to any metaphysical beliefs per se but simply the philosophy of Buddhism that trains your mind to better handle problems you encounter in life. It helps you put things into perspective, and stand back from "the big picture" at times so as to better organize your thoughts and figure things out. In many ways Buddhist philosophy, particlarly of the Zen form, is a lot like critical thinking and science. You train yourself to recognize emotional attachments and judgements and look at things objectively to see the stark reality of things.

 

[username]

There's plenty of stuff like below around, but if Buddhism is not making specific testable claims, so what?

I find the quotes very interesting. I have seen others like them before, but when I see statements like "feel a loss of their sense of themselves." expressed as a negative I wonder what the words mean. To a buddhist, losing the sense of self is a good thing, not a bad thing, but the words in the quote might mean something entirely different.

I find that meditation is amazing in it's ability to evoke powerful experiences. It seems somewhat odd that it should be able to given that one of the most common techniques is to simply sit still and focus concentration on the breath, but it does.

Recently I stopped meditating for a few days because of a very 'unpleasant' experience. I had an insight into the suffering caused by gossip for all parties involved. I won't go into the details, but the effect of this insight was that I realized I could never gossip again. To gossip again would cause me (and others) pain just as real as if I stuck my hand into a flame (or someone elses). I no more wanted to gossip than stick my hand into a flame, both were painful.

The reason I stopped meditating for a few days wasn't because of this insight, which I regard as valuable, but because of it's real world effects and their repercussions.

I was standing around with some people at work, shooting the breeze and the conversation got a little gossipy. I couldn't take it. I had to excuse myself and leave. Wasn't hardcore gossip, just normal everyday, not really that bad kind of stuff, but I simply couldn't be a part of it.

I feared that if I never engaged in the casual conversations that involved a little gossip here and there I would alienate myself from my friends. Was I to become some fuddy duddy?

I avoided the meditation for a few days because I wanted to allow the sharpness of this insight to fade so I could do some light gossiping again without being aware of the pain it was causing. (I was choosing to return to a delusion out of fear)

So I learned something about the nature of gossip in a very powerful way and I also learned something about myself, and my fear of not being socially accepted within my peer group, potentially losing friendships etc. and how powerfully this affects my behavior. Just from sitting in meditation focusing on my breath.

Now, how this would ever be tested or evaluated scientifically is beyond me, I doubt it is possible, yet it is the kind of thing that buddhists and meditators in general are likely to experience.

I can see how some persons could experience what would be regarded as adverse effects from meditation, but it almost seems silly to think that mediation should come with a warning label. I mean it is just sitting still and focusing on the breath for 20-30 minutes (as a common example). How can something so innocuous be so powerful?

That is something I would like to see science explore.

 

[cajela]

Obviously Buddhism is not something that you can prove the effectiveness of through experimentation,

Nonsense. It was my OP up there and it's all about testable claims.

Now, I actually started writing this twice, once to have a browser crash and one to lose it myself through my own dumb actions so I'm feeling a bit bloody cross and terse, and also a bit inclined to go home rather than do it a-bloody-gain. Also, epepke, sweetums, snide "welcome to skepticism" remarks don't fly well with people who may possibly have been sceptics for longer than you've been alive, unless you happen to be an old crusty net user who predates http like me... The hostility I referred to was as you yourself noted, from yyreg, with whom I was previously unacquainted, not from you per se. There was no need to be snide. Please note that there is a difference between scepticism and hostility. There's a reason I frequent iidb much more than here...

But enough of being cross.

Right, my claims. Some seem to have wandered off so I shall summarise.

Buddhism is a large area, There are many sects and many beliefs. In order to do Buddhist meditation you do not have to subscribe to anything mystical at all. I explicitly restrict my claims to the practice of meditation. In fact I pointed out that the Dalai Lama can be a bit woo on some subjects, and that this was irrelevant to the practice.

The general claim.
Buddhist meditation is a practice which can be and is being studied by serious scientists.
Evidence: try google scholar and PubMed. Duh.

My broader knowledge is in part from Zen and the Brain, a book from that well known woo press (MIT press), with its dubious merits unacknowledged by any scientific peers (merely being Winner of the Scientific and Medical Network Book Prize for 1998), by an author with a mere 50 years experience as a practising and academic neurologist. Quick bio: http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/325.html Sceptics will no doubt be deeply unimpressed by the "guide to testable hypotheses" in the contents page...


More specific claims.
Thanks to Ryokan for tracking down some of the popular science. In fact, as I stated explicitly I am not an expert in the field, I have merely done some reading and had some experience with psychology as a patient/client. My factoids did indeed come from popular science reading and clinical handouts.

On the effectiveness of meditation for treating depression & anxiety disorders:
The Mayo clinic seems to think it's a good idea
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/meditation/HQ01070
One of the big guys here: Jon Kabat-Zinn http://www.umassmed.edu/behavmed/faculty/kabat-zinn.cfm thoughtfully provides a bibliography: http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/bibliography/index2.cfm

An example paper: Kabat-Zinn, J., Massion, A.O., Kristeller, J., Peterson, L.G. Fletcher, K., Pbert, L., Linderking, W., Santorelli, S.F. Effectiveness of a meditation-based stress reduction program in the treatment of anxiety disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry (1992) 149:936-943. (yes,m the conclusion is that it can be quite effective.) That was from 1992. This is not cutting edge stuff any more, which is why you get it in clinical practice these days.

On meditation and happiness - this is tad more cuttting edge.

Depressives have less activity in the left prefrontal cortex
http://www.thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_08/i_08_cr/i_08_cr_dep/i_08_cr_dep.html

A while ago an experienced meditator showed dramatically increased activity in this region
Wired article: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,60452,00.html

The lab that did the studies: http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/
One of their press releases: http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/front/News/Wallstreet Journal.htm says there's forthcoming results in PNAS.
The lab's publications list: http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/publications/publications.htm
I recommend this one for an overview: http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/publications/2005/Ekmanet.al_CurrDirPsychSci.pdf
And Science had a piece a while back: http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/front/News/buddhism and science.pdf Some other labs are mentioned in that Science piece - one at UC Davis, iirc.

I can't find the popular science article I read over Xmas, but I'm pretty sure it was from this lab, and they had EEGs of 175 people, some monks, some not. I suspect it's in press, or they shouldn't have talked.

Nevertheless, I think it's safely established now that there's testable real science going on.

OK, I really need to go home now. Catch you next week, perhaps.

 

[Dancing David]

I wonder what the failure rate of Buddhism is. (Seriously)

It can't be for everyone, can it?

Good question, I think it would be hard to study however.

There are many misconceptions about what the buddha taught, most rejection of buddhism comes from those misconceptions. I would assume the rates are similar to those who reject 'talk therapy' and psychiatry.

 

[Dancing David]

Obviously Buddhism is not something that you can prove the effectiveness of through experimentation, but it is not surprising that many practitioners seem happier or have a generally better mood. This is not due to any metaphysical beliefs per se but simply the philosophy of Buddhism that trains your mind to better handle problems you encounter in life. It helps you put things into perspective, and stand back from "the big picture" at times so as to better organize your thoughts and figure things out. In many ways Buddhist philosophy, particlarly of the Zen form, is a lot like critical thinking and science. You train yourself to recognize emotional attachments and judgements and look at things objectively to see the stark reality of things.

This can be studied very easily through the use of stress scales and quality of life surveys, so it is potentaily a verifiable hypothesis.

 

[epepke]

I'll keep looking.

I appreciate your good faith.

 

[epepke]

Now, I actually started writing this twice, once to have a browser crash and one to lose it myself through my own dumb actions so I'm feeling a bit bloody cross and terse, and also a bit inclined to go home rather than do it a-bloody-gain. Also, epepke, sweetums, snide "welcome to skepticism" remarks don't fly well with people who may possibly have been sceptics for longer than you've been alive, unless you happen to be an old crusty net user who predates http like me.

Which I am, of course, sugar lump snookie-pants. For just online skeptical discussions, I've been doing them since 1976, and of course I was a skeptic long before that.

So I got my snide put-down in, and you got yours.

.. The hostility I referred to was as you yourself noted, from yyreg, with whom I was previously unacquainted, not from you per se. There was no need to be snide.

Well, then, you had no reason to write "some people" then, as it was only one person, and as far as I can tell, in this thread cycle, yyreg and I are the only charter members.

But enough of being cross.

Agreed.

Buddhism is a large area, There are many sects and many beliefs. In order to do Buddhist meditation you do not have to subscribe to anything mystical at all. I explicitly restrict my claims to the practice of meditation. In fact I pointed out that the Dalai Lama can be a bit woo on some subjects, and that this was irrelevant to the practice.

OK, my position is thus. First of all, I have a distrust of the concept of "woo." It seems to me that it is a social category that sometimes says more about the culture of skepticism than it does about actual evidence for claims.

With respect to Buddhism, I see a potential problem in that it is a large area. Specifically, I see the possibility of and some degree of suggestive evidence for a kind of "good cop/bad cop" process. Because there are supernatural concepts in some forms of Buddhism, other aspects of Buddhism may seem non-pseudoscientific by comparison. Many people, in order to appear more attractive, invite uglier friends to go out with them so that they can look good by comparison. There's also the old story of the guy who hit himself in the head with a hammer because it felt so good when he stopped.

If you just want to rule the Dalai Lama out of bounds, that's fine. But I think it's also valid to point out that non-Buddhists aren't responsible for the Dalai Lama, either. In any event, what's left shouldn't get automatic plus marks just because it isn't the Dalai Lama.

Oh, and thanks for the cites.

 

[epepke]

There are many misconceptions about what the buddha taught, most rejection of buddhism comes from those misconceptions. I would assume the rates are similar to those who reject 'talk therapy' and psychiatry.

Honest, I hadn't read this before composing my response to cajela, but I think this is an example.

There are many valid reasons to question the value of talk therapy. As I've pointed out, Freudian therapy went on for a long time without any good studies, and when studies were done, they turned out not to support it very well. As a result, Freudian is now widely considered pseudoscience.

What I am concerned about is this kind of argument: "most rejection of buddhism comes from those misconceptions." This is problematic. First of all, it can lead to the tacit assumption that acceptance of Buddhism should be the default position, by the fact that it is necessary to come up with reasons why people do not accept Buddhism without evidence. Second of all, as I've pointed out, the "woo" concepts within Buddhism as a broad category can make the "non-woo" concepts seem good by comparison and divert attention away from the idea that they are amenable to skeptical testing just as any other claim is.

In my view, from a skeptical position, this is nonsense. However, there was a recent thread about what one has learned from this forum, and several people have pointed out that even self-identified skeptics can exhibit faith and dogmatism. This seems to me to be true, and it's just part of the environment I have to deal with, even though I don't like it. It relates to the specific here, because in my observation, Buddhism gets a free ride that is not granted to, say, Christianity.

So let me put it this way, if it makes it clearer. There is a practice called "Christian counseling," which involves claims substantially similar to the psychological claims about Buddhism. However, in my estimation, people on this forum would be more "skeptical" of these claims simply because there is a higher probability of suspecting Christianity than there is of suspecting Buddhism. This is irrational, of course, but it happens all the time.

I, however, don't think that skepticism of the claims of Christian counseling, qua Christian, should be any different from skepticism of the claims of Buddhist self help qua Buddhist, or the claims of CBT qua secular.

I am pleased that people are actually looking up papers now, but I do have to point out that this has happened only after some prodding.

 

[Ryokan]

I am pleased that people are actually looking up papers now, but I do have to point out that this has happened only after some prodding.

I just got back from work, and I'm leaving for Oslo in an hour to attend a political seminary. For that reason, I'm not able to pursue the research of Paul Ekman this weekend.

I will resume so when I get back on monday, and have some ideas on where to go. Those research papers have to be out there somewhere, I just hope they're online.

Personally, I haven't even thought of looking for scientific proof of Buddhism. Getting to Buddhism was a long and random path for me, and I readily admit I was extremely sceptical of it at first. However, after trying it for a while, I can honestly say it has changed my life.

Thanks for taking the wheels from Yrreg, Epepke. I've always been of the opinion that Buddhism can handle having the light of criticism shine on it. No matter who 'wins' or 'loses', I'm enjoying this.

Have a good weekend folks!

 

[username]

Personally, I haven't even thought of looking for scientific proof of Buddhism. Getting to Buddhism was a long and random path for me, and I readily admit I was extremely sceptical of it at first. However, after trying it for a while, I can honestly say it has changed my life.

That is how I viewed it as well, applying skeptical criticism to the claims of changed lives seemed, I dunno, out of place. Not really out of place as in it isn't possible to examine whether or not buddhist practice leads to this, but out of place in that it seemed like it is the kind of thing one experiences for themselves.

Kind of like sitting around looking for evidence of whether or not water is wet. Why look for evidence when we all have water nearby? Stick a finger into water and see if it is wet. Experience it and see for ourselves. Paralysis by analysis also came to mind.

Either one obtains a benefit from the practice or they do not. This may be entirely subjective, but it doesn't seem like it matters.

That is why I initially figured skeptical criticism would focus on the more woo elements like reincarnation and various concepts of karma.

This has been an interesting thread for me to follow though and I look forward to watching it unfold. I am not hostile to the idea of examining the practice and the claimed result at all, I am just saying that initially it never even occured to me to do so, it seemed - not necessary given how easy it is to experience personally.

 

[UserGoogol]

Which I am, of course, sugar lump snookie-pants. For just online skeptical discussions, I've been doing them since 1976, and of course I was a skeptic long before that.

Where online? To my knowledge, neither Usenet nor BBSes were around in 1976, although I suppose email mailing lists should've been around back then. (Not doubting you neccesarily, just honestly curious. The great thing about the Internet is that most people from the earliest days are still alive and well. On the Internet, ten years is old, and thirty years is pre-historic.)

 

[epepke]

Where online? To my knowledge, neither Usenet nor BBSes were around in 1976, although I suppose email mailing lists should've been around back then.

The PLATO system. Originally developed at the University of Illinois, there was a daughter project at FSU, and they had a satellite in Sarasota, Florida, where I happened to live, as well as many other satellites distributed throughout Florida.

The PLATO system was an amazing system, many years ahead of its time, and in some respects many years ahead of anything available today. It was designed for teaching. I got into it doing some lessons based on the Florida Functional Literacy program.

The discussion fora were called NOTES, and they were pretty much indistinguishable in essence from modern fora and USENET. There was also a real-time TALK program, essentially indistinguishable from instant messaging.

The terminals had 512 by 512 screens with 16 by 16 touch panels, pretty much unheard of at the time. The programming language, TUTOR, later known as PAL (PLATO Author Language) is still pretty advanced by modern standards. Tolerance for misspellings (similar to agrep) was built into the language. Certain kinds of variables allowed seamless and easy multithreading and persistence.

Some terminals had videodisc players, music synthesizers (the earliest was the Gooch Synthetic Woodwind, developed at FSU), speech synthesizers, and even slide projectors to project optical graphics behind the screen (the earliest terminals uses a plasma screen).

It also had downloadable fonts, both bitmap- and line-based.

PLATO was one of the reasons that I eventually transferred from MIT to FSU. Yeah, FSU was a podunk university, but ironically, they had the freedom to explore this rather exciting technology.

 

[Marc L]

I'm not epepke, but I've got a question. Were studies done comparing the effects of Buddhist meditation versus non-Buddhist meditation?

Marc