Gripping, riveting, captivating. Take your pick of adjectives, the fact is, Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey was that rare type of television that captures the world’s attention.
As the interview unfolded it became increasingly clear that Armstrong, if not a full blown sociopath certainly possesses many of the characteristics usually associated with one.
This should (if we’re thinking rationally) evoke feelings of sympathy for Armstrong rather than the anger and vitriol it appears to have produced. After all, no-one would choose the mind of a sociopath any more than one would choose to develop cancer.
While much of the commentary on the Armstrong saga centres on an incredible tale of deceit and denial, I can’t help but find myself drawn to a seemingly peripheral aspect of this story. Namely, the issue of belief.
Lance Armstrong personified the triumph of the human spirit: the cancer patient who beat the disease and then conquered the toughest race on the planet, seven times. His story was so powerful, so intoxicating that he became a symbol of hope and courage to millions.
As the myth grew so too did the untruths required to perpetuate it. Until all that was left was a snowball of lies, forging ahead, at all costs, no matter what.
The foundation of Livestrong ensured there were would be no lack of willing voices to support the Armstrong narrative. A yellow army of disciples, each one spreading the gospel and each a shining example of how belief is often formed on the basis of what we would like to be true rather than what is likely to be true.
Each time Armstrong raced and won, or defended himself against seemingly corrupt accusations of doping his legend grew, and any criticism of Armstrong became public relations suicide for those who dared. His defence included ruthless intimidation, lawsuits and slander. Armstrong’s most devout supporters added death threats to the arsenal.
Although the majority of Armstrong’s supporters were not zealots they to helped spread false beliefs. As the evidence against Armstrong mounted we were told his former team mates were all bitter, desperate and jealous.
We were told that he rode clean for years whilst all around him doped. For many these extraordinary claims did not require extraordinary evidence, Armstrong’s word was good enough.
Dogma is often responsible for that thinking which prevents us from seeing reality for what it is. And it’s exactly this type of thinking that allowed the Armstrong myth to survive in the face of overwhelming evidence. Perhaps most sickeningly bad arguments in his defence were supported by those who pointed to his charitable work as evidence of his integrity.
Which brings me to the real hero of this story: Science.
Unfortunately for Armstrong, science does not care about myths, fables and legends, or what we’d like to believe. Science is interested only in the truth.
For years, Armstrong hid amongst the gaps provided by scientific ignorance, always one step ahead of drug testing protocols. Until he wasn’t. Retroactive tests of Armstrong samples produced a raft of positive results. Then his biological passport indicated a less than one in a million chance that his biomarker variances could have occurred naturally.
Without hard evidence it would always have been Armstrong’s iron clad word vs the dissension of mere mortals. Had not science unshackled us from the myth how many of us would continue to spread it? How many of us would remain not simply ignorant but defiantly so?
Yesterday Armstrong said of his life: “I mean it’s just this mythic, perfect story, and it wasn’t true.”
What is true, is that the Armstrong myth is now an empty space. Filling that space with something real remains a battle between what Armstrong has done in his life to date and what he chooses to do with the time he has left.
There are many lessons to be garnered from the rise and fall of Lance Armstrong. None more important than the idea that curiosity, scepticism and reason are the greatest means by which we can pursue truth and meaning in our lives.
All that’s required to escape irrational beliefs is the courage to follow evidence and reason wherever they may lead.
quicksilver
Guest
Clyde, I have been busy today and now I am off to the airport for a week in NZ so if it is alright with you I would like to continue this discussion in a week's time. I have borrowed Sam Harris who is coming to NZ with me. It's been fun and why should philosophers have all the fun. Please say Hi to Elliott Woods for me. He and my daughter Jo went through school together. Cheers, quicksilver
Rath
Guest
Sl, Following a deterministic framework what you've put seems to make sense. That said there seems to be a lot of debate involving the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics and how it appears to make a case against hard determinism. I'm not clued in enough on this subject matter to make any meaningful comment. So much reading, so little time! Cheers, Rath
Science lover
Guest
Why are you being so hard on brains? It's not their fault they cause human decisions! Brains respond to external stimulations from their environment. And the environment, all living things is the result of biochemical processes. And biochemical causes can be traced back all the way to the initial cause: the Big Bang. So if you can't make humans responsible for their actions, neither can you make brains responsible. The Big Bang has been getting away with too much, for too long. If there is a car crash pile up, we always blame the initial car that caused the crash, not the third or fifth car. So likewise, why blame the brain when initial cause of everything is the Big Bang?
stillmatic1
Guest
so a guy has never failed a breath analysis test and then found that test to be wrong, steve? i would say rathbone and his love of science took a bit of a hit. if we assume (correctly) that science is always trying to find a better answer then we must also assume that society will get over this obsession of what is an illegal drug and what isnt. im sure rathbone has used some sort of drug to help his recovery that years ago wasnt legal. to say a drug is legal or illegal is a ridiculous position to have, and hardly shows someone to be enlightened. what is a worse drug? alcohol or an EPO? cigarette or an EPO? oh, but they get a pass because EPO's arent taxed by governments and generate revenue? this isnt about science, its about people moralising over what are acceptable drugs and which are not. we have 2 drugs that do so much more damage than those taken by sportsmen and yet the enlightened amongst us attack the sportsmen?? get a grip people, he took drugs to help him ride a bike!!
Pot Stirrer
Guest
Rath, So what you are basically saying is the brains our for fathers had are the brains we have. They are incapable of developing any further. If LA had a brother in Cycling you must then be of the position that he would be cheating aswell just because his brother did becuase as you say he had no choice . I understand your view that it has to be his genetics that are the root cause for his behaviour. But that does consider that he is not the spawn of 1 parent but 2 original parents who by having children create new and original thought patterns and not prone to having predetermined thoughts becuase they are not clones.
Rath
Guest
quicksilver, Thanks for your considered reply. I do enjoy fleshing out the concepts we've discussed and I'm always open to changing my opinion if presented with better arguments than my current views are based on. Almost all of your questions are based on a misunderstanding of what I mean by 'free will'. If I were smarter I would no doubt be able to convey exactly what I mean more easily. You've sited my decisions as examples of free will. This misses the point. Clearly we are all able to make endless choices over the course of our lifetimes, in fact it's impossible to cease to choose. My point is that we do not choose to choose what we choose. Harris puts the argument well here: "Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them. If a man's choice to shoot the president is determined by a certain pattern of neural activity, which is in turn the product of prior causes-perhaps an unfortunate coincidence of bad genes, an unhappy childhood, lost sleep, and a cosmic-ray bombardment-what can it possibly mean to say that his will is "free"? No one has ever described a way in which mental and physical processes could arise that would attest to the existence of such freedom." I'd suggest you look into the following reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will As I posted in some of my responses above, I view the notion of free will as a logical dead end. My response to Pot Stirrer: It’s clear that we can’t select the things which determine our behaviour. You may very well be able to determine right from wrong but you played no part in your ability to do so. From this perspective can you see the logical problem? Where is the so called freedom of ‘free will’? I don't see much point in addressing all your questions until I have a better grasp on your views about free will. Perhaps you could outline them for me? In none of my writing have I told people what to believe, my article is based on the belief that scepticism is more valuable than credulity. I also completely disagree that "It is pointless berating someone for thinking differently". How we think is more important than what we think. Cheers, Rath
Beardan
Roar Guru
Very nicely written quicksilver. You are clearly an intellect and have put forward your points very well. I'd prefer to simply say Rathbone has lost the plot and whatever the bloke is reading, change it asap, cause it is A grade crap..!
quicksilver
Guest
Clyde, Thanks for your reply and I will answer your question regarding science and pose some for you. By the time I finished your article I realised it had very little to do with LA but that it had a lot to do with you putting forward your views on a whole range of things. How you write and what you say reminds me of other people I know who have abandoned religion and adopted science as a substitute. Your reply to me has now pushed our discussion well and truly into the philosophical realm and I will attempt to outline my views as a layman reader. You state that, in your view, free will is an illusion and refer to Harris and Hood as references so I must assume you are espousing determinism as your ruling principle. If so, why do you then try to coerce us into feeling sympathy for LA and if we don't then we are not thinking rationally. Surely, we are all determined to think whatever we will think. In the LA scenario you obviously believe you are rational and if we disagree with you then we are irrational. This sounds like you are making a choice in regard to what is and is not rational. Sounds like free will to me. Some thoughts on humans not having free will and where we go if we take this to it's logical conclusion. 1. How do we even have the concepts of choice, decide and freedom if they do not exist ? How can we know about something that doesn't exist ? 2. Can you show it is logically impossible for humans to have free will ? If so, how do you know what is logically possible ? 3. Re; LA, you say you are being rational and in the article you say you believe in truth. But surely It is not possible to do this unless you DECIDE to think rationally about these concepts. You will then decide which is the most reasonable conclusion. If we are completely determined by the meaningless chemical processes in our brain then it would be a mere coincidence if we were thinking rationally, not as a result of reasoning itself. To me, rationality and belief both require free will. 4. Who decides what concepts like truth, belief, dogma, rationality and others actually mean ? How do scientists decide what is true and what is myth ? Do scientists' brains determine them to know the truth better than other disciplines ? 5. You hold a view on the nature of truth. Is it determined or chosen freely ? Has it changed during the course of your life ? If, as you say, free will is an illusion, then you must be determined to believe that what you believe is rational. This is the same as, the Bible is true because the Bible says so or science is true because science says so. 6. To be consistent with what you believe Clyde, you should not tell people what to believe. It is pointless berating someone for thinking differently. We are no different to LA and his actions, in the determinist scheme of things, as we too are carrying out the actions fed into our behaviour by the software in our brains. Science, to me, is an umbrella term covering a whole range of activities involving people investigating the physical world, not what is logically possible. I believe that science is the best form of theorising about the nature of the physical world, but not about the nature of truth itself. There are facts and universal truths about the world but there is no scientific evidence that human "'reason' is a reliable tool for knowing the truth. This could be another illusion. Discussions regarding the nature of truth are philosophical discussions. I am aware of Harris and Hood and to me they are popularisers. They give you a gun and very little ammunition. Clyde, thank you again for replying to me and I look forward to your response to this post. I am enjoying the discussion and I am sure we ar looking for the same thing. To sum up - I think therefore I am.
Beardan
Roar Guru
you have really lost the plot havent you Rathbone.
Rath
Guest
PS, We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. It's obvious to me that free will is an illusion. It's clear that we can't select the things which determine our behaviour. You may very well be able to determine right from wrong but you played no part in your ability to do so. From this perspective can you see the logical problem? Where is the so called freedom of 'free will'? Once you see people's actions (good and bad) as functions of factors beyond their control one cannot maintain a conventional way of thinking with regards to accountability. Most people find it too difficult or disconcerting to consider that their choices are constructed of causes over which they had no control. The problem of course is that it's so bloody obvious :)
Clint
Guest
Would it also be true to say that without science, Lance and his team of doctors would have never had the knowledge to run 'the most sophisticated doping programme ever'? Is it not merely a case now that the science in the hands of the "good guys", has finally caught up with science in the hands of the "bad guys"?
Pot Stirrer
Guest
Your in Denial. Your hero is nothing more than a con artist, and thats the prob the sadest part. All those fans he has let down by making them believe in a lie.
simmo green
Guest
I raced both the track and road at an acceptable level domestically and often ride with my kids, mostly on the trails these days. All of us love the sport in it's various forms. Riders who aspire to race professionally know well in advance how unrelenting and hard the sport is and what's required to race at a constantly high standard. It's never been a well guarded secret. The sport itself is not the issue, the UCI and those profit from Pro Cycling are the real culprits, not the Armstrongs
Matt h
Guest
Why? Justify what you say Or are you just on angry pills?
Matt h
Guest
I'm sorry, your position is just horrifying. I assume that if your 10 year old takes up cycling you will encourage him to take PED's? When he dies of a heart attack at 42 will you say it was worth it? If this is the reality of the sport then it needs to be banned.
Pot Stirrer
Guest
Rath i think thats crap. If your intelligent you know right from wrong. Many people have had bad thoughts and not acted upon them. " you are not your thoughts" As for “Can you claim any credit for not possessing the type of mind that produces the actions for which Armstrong is now infamous?” Absolutley i can. Buy having will power, a sense of whats right and wrong. Have you never not had a thought to do something illegal but didnt becuase you had been tuaght right from wrong? As for Ivan Milat i would not feel sympathy for him under any circumstances id blame people like psychologists for knowing he had a mind capable of what he did and did nothing about it. Much like the people who give parole to people who re offend. Clearly they were wrong about their assesment and yet its someone else who pays the price for that error.
Rath
Guest
Pot Stirrer, I'll think you'll find that you don't get to choose to choose what you choose. "And yes i can claim a mind that would not be capable of doing what LA did." That's not the point at all, what I said was: "Can you claim any credit for not possessing the type of mind that produces the actions for which Armstrong is now infamous?" Clearly you cannot. It's for this reason that of course people like Ivan Milat deserve sympathy, however counter intuitive it might seem. As we begin to understand the brain I've no doubt that our thinking with regards to incarceration, punishment and accountability will undergo a paradigm shift, in fact this is already (slowly) happening. Would your views regarding Ivan Milat change if you discovered he had/has a brain tumour which directly influenced his actions? If yes, ask yourself why.
Pot Stirrer
Guest
Your showing your gen y charecterisitcs now Rath. Or uv been listening to to many sports pshycologists. You can balme or justify anything on some event or set of events all you like but its still a choice and unless your certified you still make your own decisions. And yes i can claim a mind that would not be capable of doing what LA did. I know u not thinking like that but what your suggesting is that you would then have to have Sympathy for someone like Ivan Milat aswell ? Just becuase its only sport and he set up a charity to protect himself doesnt make it any less serious than any other criminal offence.
Rath
Guest
quicksilver, "You have obviously thought a lot about all of the above and your article caused me to do the same" I'm very pleased to read the above, getting people to think is the entire point of the article. My column really has nothing to do with Lance Armstrong or Oprah. I thought this was obvious but clearly many people missed the metaphor. I've created no dogma around science. Science is a culture of doubt whereas religion is a culture of faith. It's cringeworthy to have to break things down so simply, but there you have it. If one values the truth, intelligent reasoning, scepticism and evidence then it's hardly surprising that one might come to value and respect science. Perhaps you will answer a question: "Science is not perfect but it is far and away the best instrument humanity possesses in pursuing truth." Do you believe this to be a true statement? And if not may I ask why? As to the point regarding free will, may I recommend that you look into some of the work by Sam Harris and Bruce Hood on this issue. It might shed some light on how and why I've come to view free will as an illusion. A little reading certainly changed my views regarding blame or praise attributed to others or oneself. Cheers, Rath
Steve
Guest
Still ignoring the fact he failed one then?