I couldn't have said it better myself
So I won't.
Woo woo is a step ahead of (bad) science
It used to annoy me to be called the king of woo woo. For those who aren't familiar with the term, "woo woo" is a derogatory reference to almost any form of unconventional thinking, aimed by professional skeptics who are self-appointed vigilantes dedicated to the suppression of curiosity. I get labeled much worse things as regularly as clockwork whenever I disagree with big fry like Richard Dawkins or smaller fry like Michael Shermer, the Scientific American columnist and editor of Skeptic magazine. The latest barrage of name-calling occurred after the two of us had a spirited exchange on Larry King Live last week. . Maybe you saw it. I was the one rolling my eyes as Shermer spoke. Sorry about that, a spontaneous reflex of the involuntary nervous system....
Click here for the full essay: An essay by Deepak Chopra, reported on www.beliefnet.com.
Comments
Chopra is a caricature of the smug new-age know-it-all guru type who has made more than a little moolah with his lightweight new-age fodderol books and seminars and the rest. 'quantum healing' WTF?? "happy thoughts make for happy molecules"??
Chopra's writings and 'spiritual' talk are lightweight and safe, he wouldn't dare offend his crystal worshipping airhead acolytes channeling Rama and Sitting Bull in seances with anything threatening to their worldview. There's that bank account balance needs keeping an eye on. He is like the flip side of the CSICOP types. Yeah Shermer has thrown the baby out with the bathwater but that wouldn't be happening if Chopra and his ilk didn't encourage such an understandable reaction in the first place.
I wouldn't praise or turn a blind eye to a religious fanatic simply because he didn't share and actively opposed Shermer's materialist worldview, likewise I don't care for or endorse Chopra and others like him simply because he opposes Shermer's worldview. There's a reason why Shermer left the new-age scene in a hurry (yes he was once a part of it) and the Chopras of the world are part of the problem.
Some while ago I joined the Richard Dawkins forums. The experience has changed me for the better--let me explain:
Before joining and whilst, I had expounded much effort trying to reason with so-called skeptics, and/or atheist-metarialists. I must have seen this energy-sapping adventure as somehow meaningful
So I joined Dawkin's forums and eventually was ganged up on by two of his Rotweilers. Their manner, and language was disgusting. Yes I CAn swear with the best of them, but am adult enough to know not to when trying to have some kind of intelligent debate
So this is the Richard Dawkins Forums set up: The in-house skeptics, members and mods are allowed to insult, but if you tell them off--and you dont belong to their basic religion your the one warned and then suspended.
As simple as that, and so they keep it in the box.
As I say this was last straw that broke the camel's back---for the good, and I do not carte a jot for worrying what skeptics think anymore.
LIBERATION ;)))
I had kind of glanced at the article and didn't realize it was Chopra who I also agree is very New Age fluff
The BESt expose of much of the so-called New Age , IMO, is by Monica Sjoo in her book Return of the Light/Dark Mother or New Age Amrmegeddon?
BUT of course there still is DEEP spiritual meaning, but there are people who exploit authenticity--and for that expose I appreciate skeptics help too ;)
I wonder, Dean, what you think of Chopra?
Those who anxiously hurl epithets like "new agey" or "woo" at ideas that they don't happen to agree with have not paid enough attention to the history or sociology of science.
This does not mean I am in favor of pseudoscience.
He is no Aurobindo, Vivekananda, S K Rao, Radhakrishnan, B Alan Wallace or D T Suzuki. That's precisely why he is so popular. He is the anti-scholar. I'm not being elitist, but what sells in the market-place is usually the dumbed-down easy to digest empty calorie candy floss. Chopra's success proves the truth of that.
One may object that Chopra doesn't pretend he is a scholar, ok but he does pretend a knowledge and insight in Oriental and mystical philosophy in general that his smugness and superficiality betrays he does not possess at all, never mind what he writes and prattles. Just because he hasn't bought dozens of Rolls-Royces like the late Osho and descended into his paranoia or have a fondness for beautiful teenage boys like Sai Baba, doesn't mean he is any more genuine than them. I'm not saying he is as bad as them, he isn't (that would take some doing) but he is just no more genuine than them. Given the terrible damage the guru scene has done in the West and to Westerners alone in the post-sixties social environment, this should give one pause when any slick smooth self-appointed guru-type comes along (whatever his background). Skepticism cuts every which way.
Personally I would rather have a meal with Shermer than Chopra any day. Chopra is simply insufferable.
http://metgat.gaia.com/blog/2009/12/an-interview-with-dr-charles-tart
Sounds elitist to me. Not everyone is capable of or interested in doing scholarly work. Indeed, most non-academics think that what scholars do is so abstract or divorced from reality that they are irrelevant, at best.
But this doesn't mean that those very same people aren't interested in these ideas. They are. And it takes a special talent to popularize scholarly material into a form that everyday people can grok. Chopra has this talent, and if he is successful because of it, I think that's great.
Also, have some gurus taken advantage of their disciples? Of course, just as leaders in any domain (from priests to senators) can be foiled because they're human.
But are they all like that? No. I know many such teachers who are superstars among their followers, but unknown to most, and what they bring is for the benefit of us all.
In general I think the influx of Eastern practices and philosophy into the West has been far more beneficial than damaging. The Western adoption of yoga and meditation are just two areas of very positive change.
I haven't read Chopra in any depth, but I bet he would be a very interesting man to have lunch with.
DT Suzuki, btw, said some rather dubious things about Zen and had an unpleasant undercurrent of nationalism in his writings. In general, I think your awe of religious scholars is misplaced.
You haven't read Chopra in depth, it's impossible to read him in depth, there is no depth there.
I don't know why you have such a bee in your bonnet about Chopra. You seem very certain that there's nothing there, yet I somehow doubt you've read him either.
Scholarship, if it is genuine scholarship is in principle anti-faddish. There is nothing faddish about the writings of SK Rao, Vivikenada and Sri Aurobindo - none of their output is easy to digest (which is why it is not faddish), and in fact their writings are predicated on centuries of earlier scholarship, the history of Oriental mysticism and philosophy and a deep analysis including comparative analysis and commentary of the defintive mystical and religious texts and practices of the East. It is anything but faddish unlike Chopra's prattle. That's why you don't tend to see their output in new-age bookstores, but you do see Deepak Chopra, Jane Roberts and Osho and Carlos Castaneda.
Chopra blabbers on about the "quantum mechanical body" which is classic new-age befuddlement and bamboozling newagespeak that doesn't actually mean anything. Really. However it is very faddish if nothing else. His one recent book is entitled "How to know God' which is the height of hubris. Nobody, unless they truly know themselves and thus arguably know God should have the temerity, the chutzpah to write a book with that kind of title. Chopra is no Buddha, not even close - so he should never sell a book with that kind of title, but if his goal is to sell lots of books, well then you can understand why that title was chosen. When it's a choice between humility and advertising strategies to boost the sales of his books, it's easy to see which wins out.
here is an interview with the guru http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi-times/Deepak-Chopra-The-spirit-of-a-survivor/articleshow/16589510.cms
Now here is a quote from Chopra from that interview, "I initiated the concept of mind-body medicine and was invited for lectures across Europe".
Yes really that is an accurate quote, check for yourselves if you don't believe me. Now if that is an accurate quote, well what can I say? Chopra initiated the concept of mind-body medicine?? yeah like Al Gore invented the internet. That claim is simply beyond chutzpah, it is pure nonsense. Talk about an ego that knows no bounds.
Chopra's books are bestsellers, the writings of real Hindu scholars not exactly at the top of amazon bestsellers. That's because the former is catering to the faddish new-age market, the latter not. So it goes.
In any case, I guess Chopra can give as good as he gets. :-/
Having said that, I do think skeptics have preconceived notions just as any group does. All social groups have their own locked-in ways of seeing reality. I respect their caution but don't always respect their conclusions.
And when you practice 'unofficial' skepticism, e.g. questioning HIV-AIDS (but please, let's not argue this here) that's not okay. The 'real' skeptics don't question that.
Does this actually moves things forward? Perhaps it gives the promoters a sense of vindication when psychic research validates some small part of their claims.
However I suspect it would waste much time for those interested in exploring mind and its impact on reality.
I would recommend people look into something where they benefit regardless of the ability to be psychic, but are still connected to the common theme in most traditions of personal and psychic development.
This common theme is learning control of mental imagery. This is true from yoga to shamanism to Western esoteric practices.
Free samples of relaxation and shamanism-themed guided imagery can be found at:
http://www.energybodyways.com/
You benefit by at least gaining increased relaxation and creativity and perhaps in the future you will have some psychic experiences.
This is an off topic question relating to the "Compassionate intention" study published in 2008.
I find this the most rigorous study ever done of this type. Having read the paper, there is one small issue that I have been thinking about that is described in the methods section. I quote:
To synchronize the sender and receiver physiological signals, at
the beginning of each stimulus epoch the computer switched the
video signal from the receiver’s chamber to the video monitor in
front of the sender and simultaneously sent onset marker signals to both the sender and receiver Biopac systems..
Is there any way in which these onset/offset marker signals can be detected by receivers? If not, I would think this study to be one of the few psi studies (or even studies in general involving humans) that is 100% bulletproof when it comes to methodology. That is applaudable!
Tor
But whether the conversion of the optical signal back into TTL might have affected the receivers is an interesting question. I strongly suspect the answer is no because the optical converter was on continuously, so there wouldn't have been any sudden current flow during the conversion, and the cable that carried the TTL signal to the physiological monitor was shielded to ground.
Also, even if they could have detected a change in the TTL marker, they wouldn't have known what those signals meant. Still, it is a valid and interesting question to see whether people unconsciously react to small changes in (shielded) DC voltage in the local environment. I'll try it and see what happens.
A future experiment I've had on the drawing board for some years would eliminate all marker signals by using GPS clocks to time-synchronize the experiment. If I can raise the funds I'll do that experiment, which among other things would allow sender and receiver to be anywhere on Earth that receives GPS signals.
Btw, what about the Biopac-systems? Isn't there a switch going on/off inside them too, as they receive the marker signals? If so, wouldn't this be an additional source of a EM signal?
Time synchronizing is a good idea. That would certainly remove any possible artifacts from wiring in/out of the chamber, but the Biopac system would still need to register an on/offset, and thus potentially would create an artifact?
If such weak EM signals could influence the receivers, I don't think it would matter if they knew what they meant. I mean, unconsciously they could still react and a correlation would be created with the send epochs.
That being said, other studies seem to show effects that are displaced in time, or were the sender is deep below sea level, and thus lend support to the original hypothesis, not some EM artifacts.
The TTL input does flip a digital bit, but the EM caused by that flip would be minuscule. It's not as though a physical switch were thrown.
> Time synchronizing is a good idea. That would certainly remove any possible artifacts from wiring in/out of the chamber, but the Biopac system would still need to register an on/offset ...
No. After the recording session the marker recorded on the sender's Biopac would be used to locate the same time in the receiver's record.
I hope this line of research continues to be explored. There are many exploratory question waiting to be answered. One is to find out the experimenters role (if any) in amplifying/inhibiting the original intention of the senders.
It is a tough nut to crack though, as all these retro-causal effects are at play too. As you have pointed out before, blinding those involved in experiments doesn't necessarily make psi blind.
What do you think of this article from Wiseman? Is he just re-hashing old arguments or is it a good critique of psi research? It appears well reasoned I have to say.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/heads_i_win_tails_you_loser_how_parapsychologists_nullify_null_results/
By chance one would expect 5% of studies to be significant if the null hypothesis is the true state of affairs. In the example given both experimental subsets are above chance expectation. This is hardly a persuasive argument, in fact it argues against it! In any case, meta-analyses take the filedrawer effect into account. This is nothing new.
"Perhaps the most far-reaching version of this “get out of a null effect free” card involves an appeal to the “experimenter effect,” wherein any negative findings are attributed to the psi-inhibited nature of the parapsychologist running the study."
Experimenter effects are well known and accepted in psychological research. Why should we expect not to encounter the same effects in psi research? More to the point, several experiments conducted by Wiseman and Schlitz, conducted under identical conditions, have shown that she gets significant results and he does not. So if anyone were to accept the reality of psi-related experimenter effects, one would think it would be Wiseman.
Etc. In an upcoming book I have responded in more detail to this and to several other skeptical articles. When that book is published I'll let you know.
So many times you'll hear a creationist talk about the problems with the fossil record. All the while not understanding that biologists have moved beyond mere fossils.
This problem of ignorance, perhaps selective, seems to present itself with regards to psi.
I'm sure that Dean has already made this point in some form, but it's worth repeating. :-)
Indeed, and the percentage of successful studies out of the total that predicted above chance results was about 30%!
I wonder what the picture would be like if the Watt (2006) study was repeated with undergraduate projects that were investigating conventional psychological topics? Would we see similar rates of success/failure?
I remember doing my undergraduate final year project. Although I wasn't studying psychology at the time, I remember feeling very inexperienced at what I was doing. If I remember correctly, most of the projects carried by my student mates didn't work out very well either. One of the problems was the limited amount of time you were given to prepare and do the experiment. I'm sure that applies to most undergraduates, in the UK at least.
We're never going to agree, I think, at least not on Chopra (although I suspect we have other things in common). I would ask this, though: is Billy Graham a less sincere Christian than Karl Barth because the former is a populariser while the latter is an abstruse theologian? Does Graham's popularity mean he is only in it for the money and the fame? I think these are unwarranted assumptions.
I would also like to recommend a book, if I may. It's called Grassroots Spirituality by Robert Forman, and it's a sympathetic investigation by a serious religious scholar of many of those things dismissively labelled 'new age'. He sees a sea-change in the religious and spiritual life of the US and probably the world that has gone largely unnoticed and unremarked. It contrasts with your views, but I think you would find it interesting.
Firstly, James Randi does not pretend to be a scientist and therefore it doesn't matter whether or not he contributes to science. I'd rather that Dean and his colleagues be challenged with harsh skepticism, even if it's overboard, than indifference or fawning acceptance. Dean may agree with me.
I think that the real issue is not Randi or Shermer or anyone else. The real issue is that skepticism is just like any other identity: there are preconceptions and dogmas unique to it (yes, science too, though usually minimized). I'm not saying that if you subscribe to Skeptic magazine that you're doing something wrong. It's just a fact of societies that they form their own doctrines and ways of seeing the world.
I'm sure you know what I'm getting at so I'll not let myself get into a sermon. :-)
(Interesting how 'Randi' and 'Radin' have the same letters!).