"Feeling attractive will attract people to you" - definitely true. I'd like to see Dawkins approach that one.

Zack Wolk,

True or not, it has nothing to do with quantum physics. Wrapping your self-help tips (whether they have some psychological merit or not) in the cloak of quantum jargon in order to gain some of the respectability and credibility that physics enjoys is dishonest -- it is a tactic of a scam artist.

'Quantum mystics' are reputational leaches; in the same vein as those companies in China that make fake 'Rolex' watches.

See, I dont know. I think Chopra is a tough one. I don't think he's a con artist (or maybe he's a really good con artist). He seems to have done what he says he's done, he's using quantum physics as a metaphor to explain human nature and actions. "Wrapping self tips in the cloak of quantum jargon" is a bit unfair, I think. After all I've heard scientists use every day examples to explain, say, how the atom works.... for example, light is neither a wave or a particle, but they are described that way in an effort to explain their properties to people. I'd say the same about what he says... he acknowledges they're not literal truth. Just a way to explain how people act. I think Dawkins might be a bit hard on this guy....

While the rest of you are slinging the usual insults, consider this from a plain old common sense political perspective: if the worst we have to fear of a HRC presidency is that meditation and Ayurveda might penetrate the West Wing, our nation's future is looking brighter than I'd thought.

Incidentally, what Feynman said about quantum physics might also be said, perhaps more urgently, about Newtonian mechanics.

Would be good to see the unedited version of this. There's a good bit of their conversation that was cut out. I'm no fan of Chopra by any means but they edited it in such a way that Dawkins scores points and Chopra comes across looking bad. It seems like it was a much more rounded conversation in reality.

zakdegrassi,

Scientists use everyday examples to illustrate scientific concepts because people understand and can relate to those everyday things (e.g. atoms in terms of billiard balls, or whatever). In other words, the illustrative examples are easier to understand and to intuitively grasp than the scientific concepts alone. That is, after all, the whole point of using illustrative examples -- to explain a hard to understand thing in terms of an easy to understand thing.

So your comment about Chopra using quantum physics to 'explain' human nature and behavior implies that people understand and can intuitively grasp quantum physics better than they can human nature and behavior. Otherwise why use quantum physics as an illustrative metaphor?

Do you see the obvious problem with that?

Most people don't know jack shit about quantum physics; apart perhaps from some muddled and dimly remembered soundbyte aphorisms they acquired via cultural osmosis from a mix of TV documentaries, sensationalist and inaccurate newspaper articles, and the obfuscations and misrepresentations of quantum mystics. You cannot explain (say) paleontology to a person in terms of forensic criminology if that person is even more confused and ignorant about the latter than they are about the former.

Chopra's goal in invoking quantum physics cannot possibly be illustrative clarity.

I agree with Thomas. It did appear to be a more round conversation.

Wow, it's really refreshing to see the comments. I thought I'd be the only one sort of defending Deepak Chopra...

I think Dawkins idealizes "Science". He is usally talking about the scientific method, which is well and good - but most other people are talking about applied science, in which there are often problems and often "fundamentalists" who "believe" in certain approaches (and discount others) before there is perhaps enough evidence.

There are often problems with research which get discovered too late.

There are also many areas of research in which it is almost impossible to have a completely objective evaluation of events or in which an almost infinite array of subtle variations may have a great effect on the whole.

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein

Ah yes...

Premise 1: There are aspects of human life that are beyond (indescribable by) science.

Premise 2: Scientists are sometimes dogmatic about their own pet theories.

Conclusion: Therefore, Chopra's woo-itude is defensible.

Sorry, even if the premises are true they do not support an inference to the conclusion.

I agree with J.D.

Chopra is actually just attaching the word Quantum to sell more of whatever it is he sells.

He also has almost no understanding of evolution...

Are you the same 'Scott' as the one just above my previous post?

J.D.

I wasn't saying that at all.

AND PLEASE, there is so much "woo-itude" coming from the scientific community all the time. It's like joining the fucking "cure-of-the-month club" (or "cane-toad-of-the month-club"...)

And then later they'll come around and say, "D'oh! I guess that wasn't tested enough" or "well, we didn't fully understand the ramifications..."

HOWEVER, I wasn't implying by that, that what Deepak is doing isn't a scam.

I just wanted to say that sometimes research has limitations and that just because something on the surface may appear to not be based in science, doesn't necessarily mean that it won't eventually be proven by science to actually have value.

Some research isn't even peformed due to a bias against a certain approach, for example.

I think what I was saying was more subtle than what you're too used. It wasn't the typical straw man that people are always throwing out there...

I was refreshed that people here weren't immediately discounting everything Deepak had to say based on his image.

same Scott...

THE DANCING WU LI MASTERS Gary Zukav

`The fact is that physics is not mathematics. Physics, in essence, is simple wonder at the way things are and a divine (some call it compulsive) interest in how that is so. Stripped of mathematics, physics becomes pure enchantment.'

Zukav's widely acclaimed bestseller aims to communicate that enchantment by describing recent developments in advanced physics for those with little or no mathematical or technical knowledge. The author draws comparisons between quantum mechanics, modern psychology, and eastern thought; indeed, the book title is derived from the Chinese ideogram Wu Li', which carries the meaningspatterns of organic energy'; My Way';nonsense'; I clutch my ideas' andenlightenment'. In The Dancing Wu Li Masters, Gary Zukav shows how the new physics embraces all of these concepts, conveying the ideas that have revolutionised modern science with rare directness and clarity.

I almost laughed out loud at Chopra's claims, which are some of the most dishonest and manipulative statments I think i've EVER heard.

"It's a metaphor, like an electron or a photon is an indivisible unit of energy, a thought is an indivisible unit of consciousness..."

The second part of that statement doesn't even make sense! It's jargon wrapped in bacon, so that the easily fooled will believe his "spiritual healing" techniques.

"[Qu. Theor.]...has a lot to say about observer effect..."

Excuse me? What does the observer effect have to do with this? The fact that measuring something automatically alters it has nothing to do with the conversation at this point, let alone much to do about Quantum Theory.

"quantum leaps are seen as discontinuity... just as creativity is seen as a discontinuity"

An electron changing energy states is related to creativity how? I'd love to see him explain this kind of bullshit.

"healing may be a biological phenomenon..."

Smartest thing he's said yet.. Damnit! Here comes the stupid.

"...that may rely on biological creativity."

And i'll just let you untangle this conglomeration of meaningless chatter..

"at very fundemental levels it may be a discontinuous phenomenon, it's something unpredictable that happens in the proliferation of uncertainty"

Wow. WTF. Discontinuity and uncertainty is what makes us sick? Someone needs to show this guy what a virus is.

Then he blathers on about how science is full of fundies, and how they steal from him, and how arrogant they are. I've never heard this man speak, and now i know why he doesn't more often.

How can any of you be defending this garbage?

Oh yeah, and once someone finds the entire Episode that aired yesterday, would you mind linking it here? Thanks.

@Scott:

I hardly think that chopra's "quantum spirituality" comes close to scientific rigour and studies, and your implying so is an insult to any scientist who has brought understanding to this world we live in.

Scientists can be wrong, and will tell you when old studies get disproven, or explained better, I hardly think Chopra would do the same.

Just because there are errors in science studies does not make science as amorphous as this hack.

I think J.D.'s point is a really good one. As Richard Feynman once said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." And Feynman noted that this applied to scientists. So Chopra's whole line of argument is not just preposterous. It's downright pretentious.

Good episode.

I wish he'd asked the people in this programme, "how do you know that?".

Scott - I'd bet that your perception of science is formed from poorly educated newsmen telling you about the latest wonder drug.

Scott,

OK, I see where you're coming from.

One caveat -- much of the "cure-of-the-month-oh-whoops-we-were-wrong" that you complain about is not the fault of the scientists so much as it is the fault of the journalists and public who misrepresent and misunderstand the tentative, skeptical, intensely self-critical nature of science.

When an experiment produces sensationalistic results that will sell newspapers and boost viewership ratings (like "toast causes cancer!!"), the media rarely waits for independent reproduction of the experiment, and they usually present the findings as ironclad proof rather than as a tentative conclusion that is innately (and intentionally) vulnerable to disproof by subsequent experiments. So when three years later more experimentation and analysis shows that the results of the first experiment were wrong, and the media says "toast is safe again!", the public starts to think that scientists keep changing their minds so often that they must not know what the hell they are talking about. To make matters worse, the public (at least the American public) apparently prefers someone who never changes his mind regardless of new facts over someone who engages in nuanced 'flipflopping'.

bell the cat,

I have read the Dancing Wu Li Masters. It does an ok job explaining the science to a lay audience (mostly I think because he had it vetted by actual scientists); but the parallels and comparisons he draws between quantum physics and Eastern metaphysics are preposterous and tortured...almost as preposterous and tortured as the comparisons Muslims draw between the findings of modern science and the vague mutterings of the Koran (which they do to 'prove' the Koran must have had Divine authorship).

Willey,

I agree with you regarding Chopra. I made my initial statement before knowing exactly who this guy is.

Science is self-correcting and scammers are not, that is clear. But the scientific community has had its own share of scammers. Haven't we been "scammed" in the past by scientifically "proven" medicines, pesticides, etc.? A day late and a dollar short. When my son is dead because a bunch of scientists agreed that a medicine was OK for use, the claim that they admit to their mistakes is of little value to me.

The idea that the body can become more healthy by training the mind is not so far-fetched, if it's this basic idea that's being attacked, then I'm on Chopra's side.

This doesn't excuse Chopra and I wasn't implying that at all. The way Chopra is selling his wares is highly questionable and he is an obvious hack.

"Science is self-correcting and scammers are not, that is clear. But the scientific community has had its own share of scammers. Haven't we been "scammed" in the past by scientifically "proven" medicines, pesticides, etc.? A day late and a dollar short. When my son is dead because a bunch of scientists agreed that a medicine was OK for use, the claim that they admit to their mistakes is of little value to me."

Science does not "prove" anything -- it can only disprove. When scientists agree that a medicine is OK for use they are saying "to the best of our knowledge thus far this seems OK for use, but we will keep testing and get back to you if we turn out to be wrong". The media --and the corporations that manufacture medicines-- will then take this as an absolute claim that the drug in question has been 'proven safe'; but that's just not how science really works.

The tentative and conditional conclusions of a skeptic are not as reassuring as a bold, absolute, unconditional assertion; and moreover they don't sell drugs and pesticides et al nearly as well. So be careful when you lay the blame of past 'scams' at the feet of scientists...while there have been scientists who make more of their results then they should, there are others out there who are even worse in that respect.

Haven't we been "scammed" in the past by scientifically "proven" medicines, pesticides, etc.?

I'm assuming you are referring to such things as pharmeceuticals (which are actually tested on the public in their last phase of testing, hence the recall rate being so high), and things such as DEET. DEET does a great job at repelling mosquitos, and is very useful in areas that malaria runs wild. However, scientists did not study the effect of DEET on the California Condor (i believe that was the bird that was affected), which it had detrimental affects on. Also, there are some that claim that DEET is a carcinogen, which is something that will not be proveable for many years of use, which we are approaching.

Just because scientists cannot Control the world with science, or forsee all side effects, does not render the original use for their science any less "real" or "true".

DEET will still repel mosquitos, what else it will do to you is not what was studied by those who created it.

Wiley,

I think you are mixing up DEET with DDT concerning its effects on the Condor.

I never thought I'd say it, but I get the feeling that Dawkins is going too far here. He seems to be on a quixotic mission to tear apart anyone who mixes capital S Science with anything that isn't more science. It's like an evangelical preacher yelling at anyone who believes in God but can't recite the book of Ruth from memory. Chopra's sloppy use of science is about as benign as it can be. The average person doesn't know whether an electron is bigger than a neutron; who cares if they are getting fed a crap course on quantum physics from some guru charlatan.

P.S. Scientists don't know shit (and can do less) about many medical problems, particularly mental disorders and chronic pain, which are what Chopra's "healing" focuses on. Why bust his ass when no one else is going to help people with these problems?

Chopra's sloppy use of science is about as benign as it can be. The average person doesn't know whether an electron is bigger than a neutron; who cares if they are getting fed a crap course on quantum physics from some guru charlatan.

From the ignorant posts above generalizing Science and scientists I would have to say the impact on public opinion of real Science and scientists is anything but benign.

Richard,

Scientists don't know shit (and can do less) about many medical problems, particularly mental disorders and chronic pain, which are what Chopra's "healing" focuses on. Why bust his ass when no one else is going to help people with these problems?

Medicine certainly has a lot of unknowns (though far less than it did a hundred years or even just a few decades ago). However, I would submit that if biology, neuroscience etc "don't know shit about many medical problems" that Deepak Chopra knows less than shit about those selfsame problems.

Why bust his ass? For the same reason that all quacks and snakeoil salesmen should be busted -- they are misleading the public, exploiting desperate people, taking their money and wasting their time on worthless treatments. He's not helping people, he's pulling the wool over their eyes.

Chopra is also annoying for his promotion of yet more public confusion about quantum physics and evolution (Chopra has sided with the Intelligent Design twits). For that alone he deserves a roundly pummelled bottom.

yea, Richard, I am also a sceptic but have used Chi Gong quite sucessfully for chronic pain and can see the benefit of alternative medicines. Would a scientist be able to explain why this worked for me when the medical field had nothing for me but (possible addiction to) pain medication?

When you consider the science has to factor in the proven complex of the placebo effect in any given drug trial, one has to wonder what causes this effect. And why some things are deadly for some people but not others (cigarette smoking, for example).

This I think is the area that Chopra is investigating. ( but, yes, I think some go too far when they make outrageous claims, or try to blame the patient for sickness, etc.)

Scientists have studied Tibetian Monks for example and cannot really explain their abilities to control their body systems developed by meditation.

The brain is a powerfull and complex organ, not well understood. It may be that a combination of the two approaches would be insightful.

Look at the modern acceptance of nutrition (health food!) by doctors, and how this has changed the aproach to certain diseases. Not all of it can be dismissed, and some should be studied.

You make a great point J.D. about illustrative examples. Never read any of Chopra's works, but he reminds me of Hugh Ross and his bestselling book "Beyond the Cosmos: What recent discoveries in Astrophysics reveal about the glory and love of god". Yes, another laypersons guide to understanding the simplicity of god through the simplicity of astrophysics. I recall one of the graphs in his book charted the effect of blasphemy on god's influence on an individuals life, on the X axis… the progression of time, on the Y axis… the progression to "christlikeness" (swear to god Dr. Ross calls it this). From this you can chart the "will" falling from christlikeness as it is being affected by it's desire to rebel until it inches nearer to the dreaded dotted line that Hugh uses to represent the "blasphemy threshold". Beneath that threshold Satan is there to exert his influence, pulling you further away from Christlikeness. This is harrowing news folks. But "scientific-like" charts are authority to people who care less about the actual methodology in charting the data and those who want their answers explained with the legitimacy that science hold. A legitimacy it cannot account for on its own.

Richard, I am also a sceptic but have used Chi Gong quite sucessfully for chronic pain and can see the benefit of alternative medicines.

If you use Qigong there is a possibility that tissue oxygenation was a more likely culprit than the actual "mystical" belief in an actual biological plasma. Please remember this: correlation does not equal causation. It will help you in the future.

@AYK: thank you for the clarification. One mention of the problem a few months back on NPR isn't enough to keep the facts clear in my head.

This idea about thoughts being indivisible units of consciousness may not be that far off. There's was series this weekend in the LA Times about the study of memory formation in the brain. Thoughts become memories by altering the architecture of the dendritic spine. It could be said then that thoughts to have a biological impact on the structure of the brain. So, while it is metaphorical, it makes some sense to view thoughts as indivisible units of consciousness. Alter your thoughts and you do begin to alter the structure of your brain.

I think there is a big component of health that is ignored by much of the medical community (not all) and that is the mind's effect. That is realm in which Chopra works. That he uses scientific language for non-scientific ideas annoys me, but, when understood as metaphor or myth, it can provide a path for people.

I also would have liked to see this whole interview. It seemed like a hatchet job on Deepak. Deepak says "science is arrogant." Science can not be arrogant, scientists can. And Dawkins came off as arrogant.

Eric, I was talking about intractable chronic pain. I tried everything modern medical science had for me, and nothing worked-I didn't even get a placebo effect.

Why did practicing Qi Gong cure this 3 year episode of chronic pain for me? Who knows.... I certainly only care that it brought my life back to normal..

The main thing is: medical science sometimes has no answers. They cant even tell you why cancer treatments work for some and not others. Statistics mean nothing to the individual if you are in the negative group.

Maybe it has something to tell us about wholistic outlooks, about the complexity of the brain, about mind/body connections.

Doctors are more willing to look into these types of treatments, because they happen to help some people. I have seen acupuncture help physical problems in equines, and it is very hard to think horses would have a psychosomatic response....

Sometimes anecdotal evidence means complete relief for individuals, and to that individual scientific rigor is meaningless.

I have not followed Chopra at all, so dont know his philosophy. But do think that some ancient practices, including Ayurvedic treatment, should be studied.

After all, medical science does not know HOW aspirin works, it is after all, only a compound of willow bark that has been used by ancient cultures. Doctors do know that it works for some conditions, have studied its effects and millions of people use it for pain relief and as a blood thinning agent.

After all, medical science does not know HOW aspirin works, it is after all, only a compound of willow bark that has been used by ancient cultures. Doctors do know that it works for some conditions, have studied its effects and millions of people use it for pain relief and as a blood thinning agent.

Quit making things up. This has been false for a quite a while.

ok Dar, how does aspirin work? would like some scientific view......or theory.

I don't remember you helping pay for my Biochem degree.

Look it up if you really want to know and don't make assertions about things you are unsure about.

There are many things science still doesn't have answers for but you picked one they have discovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin#Mechanismofaction

going back to number 1 wingnut zack wolk, ""Feeling attractive will attract people to you" - definitely true. I'd like to see Dawkins approach that one."

What is the evidence that what you say is true?

I'd like to see zack wolk manage to get his head out of his ass.

You brought up this point, Dar, I really think it is up to you to prove the information exisists.

Medical science has a theory about how antidepresants work, but dont really know how they work, do they?

Or why they dont work in the same way for everyone.

Native Americans have used sacred springs for health problems in Ojo Caliente, NM for centuries. Turns out these springs contain Lithium.

Some ancient traditions are worth investigating. Ive used these springs myself, and yea, you feel really good for weeks afterward, hahah....

I would also like to see scott say something sensible.

I really don't care to educate you if you're too lazy to click on the link J.D. provided or do a google search.

Perhaps, a beethoven symphony can be explained with a complex model of how the brain stores memories, accesses auditory clues and how pleasure centers are activated.

Medical science has a theory about how antidepresants work, but dont really know how they work, do they?

absolute bullshit! Stop spreading this kind of tripe. How do you think biochemists come up with this stuff? Just throw random chemicals into a vat and start feeding it to mice? "ah, that little mate looks happier now. Look at that, we've found a cure for depression". They know what chemicals do to certain parts of the brain, and they use chemistry to alter these parts of the brain to aquire certain results. Granted, we may not entirely understand everything about the brain, and the intricacies of how it works, but you cannot keep flatly claiming that we don't know how these pills work.

PS. Sorry to rant, but I'm tired of these statements about "we don't know how this works", when the statement should be "I don't know how this works".

bernarda,

I think zack wolk may have meant something like "if you feel attractive then you will be more confident, and many people find confidence attractive", or something like that. There is much anecdotal evidence to that effect, as I can (ironically) personally testify. However I am not aware of any scientific studies that would tend to support this hypothesis; though there may be hundred of such studies, I just haven't looked.

Of course even if this little bit of folk wisdom / self-help pop psychology is true, that does not in any way prove the truth of Chopra's ridiculous mouth-flappings about some sort of quantum mystical 'mind over matter' ability...

PS. Your mother doesn't love you.

Chopra may be popularizing science but Dawkins suffers from 'scientism'; I agree with Thomas above, that I'd like to see the unedited version of this conversation. I heard that Chopra pretty much took Dawkins apart in a public conference recently. You can see the animosity that CD has for DC; definitely a sign that they've a few things to learn from each other . . .

Hope Dawkins gets to speak to the friendly folk behind "The Secret" :-)

Nice link, Willey; though I prefer pz's title (your mother's soul doesn't love you)...

I'm taking bets on how long it will take someone to come along and say "that's not real love, that's just chemistry!" or some equivalent balderdash...

thanks for the link J.D... My point is this, aspirin was well known for centuries.

Native groups chewed willow bark for analgesic effect, before Bayer Scientists started squabbling over who was going to make money from processing the active ingredient.

Who knows if the whole compond of the bark has a better effect? Because it cant be patented, it will never be studied. I dont think you can discount the profit motive in modern drug development.

Some of the wiki entries are hard science, some say data suggests this may be the reason... this is the case with alot of drugs. It works for some people and not others. (aspirin did not help my chronic pain).

Drug studies can sometimes only give you statisitical evidence. Except in the true sucess stories of antibiotics, polio vaccine, etc... Dont think I am against modern medicine, but I know from personal experience it does not have all the answers. We dont have a cure for the common cold!

And some drugs do great harm. Side efects can sometimes be worse than the underlying disease.

One example I see on television is some drug for 'restless leg' syndrome. This drug has alot of side effects. Wholistic health practitioners will tell you restless leg is caused by a magnesium/calcium ratio in the body.....so drink a glass of milk before you go to bed! No side effects and calcium does no harm. People have been drinking milk (and chamomile tea, also a source of calcium) before bedtime for generations. Guess which treatment I would be more likely to try first?

If there were only success stories, then drugs would work for everyone, in all cases. This is not true. After all, the scientific method relies on repeatable and predictable outcomes.

This is why doctors are now looking more and more into prevention, nutrition, and life style.

Meditation has been used for thousands of years. Scientists know it changes brain wave patterns. Some people claim that meditation reduces stress. Doctors claim stress makes people more suseptable to disease......

Instead of rejecting ancient traditions we should be studying them.

Chopra may be bastardizing science

Fixed that for you.

Shano, Maybe you should listen to more scientists than those on the TV. The whole "eat right and exercise" shpeil seems to be something that all scientists will tell you. Please don't use pharmaceutical biochemists as representative of the entire medical field, it's a straw man. The last doctor i went to told me to take some herbs, and relax and drink fluids.

Sorry Willey, read the drug insert for any antidepresant. They have a 'theory' about serotonin uptake, synaptic inhibitors, blah blah blah..

If they really knew how these chemicals interacted in the brain, there would be cures for a huge number of diseases, including autism.

They much more work ahead of them, and I applaud their efforts, but;

If this theory was the whole story, then antidepresants would work for everyone, everytime. They dont.

entrancemountain,

"Chopra may be popularizing science but Dawkins suffers from 'scientism"

There are two things wrong with that sentence.

First, Chopra isn't 'popularizing' science, he is misrepresenting science. Science popularizers try to tell the truth about science in clear(er), easy to understand terms -- this enterprise is entirely antithetical to Chopra's obfuscatory shenanigans.

Second, while critics of Dawkins often accuse him of rank scientism, I have never seen them back their accusations up with direct, in-context quotes. Feel free to do so now...

Wiley, that is the point I am trying to make. People have been doing these things for centuries.

I dont know how old you are, but Doctors in the past never used to take into account lifestyle, nutrition or other factors they take seriously now. Women were given speed to lose weight! In the '50's a doctor might light up a fag talking to you. Drugs were the all and all. Glad this has changed, but there was great resistance to this in the '50's and '60's.

So maybe some of the other ways to be healthy, like Chi Gong, meditation, acupunture, ayurvedic medicine should be studied. But the question is always, "who is going to make the money? Can it be patented?" They dont have all the answers, so people must become responsible for their own decisions about treatment.

Many rely on anecdotal evidence because there is nothing else.

Someone should really do a scientific study to find out why all of you got so bitter, warped, and angry. The mere suggestion of a mystic, holistic, or spiritual element to existence makes your blood run red and your claws pop out.

This is why, given the choice, I'd rather hang out with your average religious person than your average atheist. As an atheist I find the Dawkins type to be so incredibly overdue for a swift kick in the teeth. They're the kids at the magic show who shout out "It's up his sleeve!" and expect everyone to pat them on the back, raise them on their shoulders, and parade them around.

People who make straw man arguments and try pretend they are tough online are the ones I think need a "swift kick in the teeth".

if Chopra were to acknowledge himself as a magician and his "studies" as a "magic show" then I might agree with teabag, but that doesn't seem to be the case

TeaForTheTillerman,

"They're the kids at the magic show who shout out "It's up his sleeve!" and expect everyone to pat them on the back, raise them on their shoulders, and parade them around."

Wow. What a terrible analogy. Religion isn't like a magic show. People actually believe that shit, and as a consequence they are willing to do all manner of absurd and even downright evil things. A boor who 'spoils the fun' for everyone else by revealing the magician's cheap gimmick is in a completely different league from someone who tries to challenge (what he believes to be) irrationalities and falsehoods that are causing people to harm themselves and those around them.

One wonders if TeaForTheTillerman would defend supposed psychic and "Biggest Douche in the Universe" John Edward with the same zeal as he does religion, mysticism, et al.

Are people who point out that Edward is a total fraud who uses cold reading techniques to exploit the grief, credulity and statistical innumeracy of his audience also 'kids at the magic show' who are "overdue for a swift kick in the teeth"?

Actually, I thought they both said truthful things here. I agree - Chopra shouldn't use the term quantum physics to describe his approach since there is an expectation of accuracy unless he clearly explains its metaphoric use AND I think scientists need to understand there can be something effective in an scientifically-unproven approach to health and wellness - even if just a true placebo-type effect. (How do scientists explain a placebo effect anyway?)

And for Willey, as I recall in an article on anti-depressants, psychiatrists were saying they did not know how Wellbutrin works. Maybe they do now but this was while it was being prescribed and it was not that long ago. That would imply "they" don't know.....

Someone should really do a scientific study to find out why all of you got so bitter, warped, and angry.

This statment makes about as much sense as an obese person clamoring at everyone else to eat healthy. Maybe you should try your own medicine, doctor.

They're the kids at the magic show who shout out "It's up his sleeve!" and expect everyone to pat them on the back, raise them on their shoulders, and parade them around.

Oh and personally I'd rather hang out with the obnoxious kid who learns to think for himself than the one who prefers to eat glue.

I dunno...I DO know that I don't know JACK about quantum physics, but Chopra sure does sound like a lot of yak yak quack quack to me!

another great clip recommendation from erick. i'd love to see norm post something like that just to fuck with everyones' heads. do YOU like turtles? hee hee

omg, there's a whole youtube cult around that kid. i like the billo interview. i smell a new religion. kill it while its still young!

Specific points I've made have been attacked, which is great, I like having a real discussion. But when people such as bernarda say: "I would also like to see scott say something sensible", it really irritates me. Have I really been so obtuse as to earn that?

One of the points I've been trying to get across is this: It's OK for Dawkins to defend "Science" against "Religion", because both are ways of understanding the nature of the universe.

However it's not as easy to defend "Science" against non-traditional medicine (let's leave Chopra out of this argument for the moment! I agree with Dawkins that Chopra should not be using mumbo jumbo to sell his products - I think I made that clear).

The problem with Dawkins' argument is that his "Science" is almost always "pure science", whereas the layman's view of "Science" is (more or less) "applied science".

Dawkin's sees the process of science as perfect, which it is, if and only if we're talking about pure science. The process involved in applying that scientific research to human needs is, however, not perfect.

Shano's use of Chi Gong is a perfect example of the resistance of the West to take alternative medicine seriously. This is the arrogance that's being talked about - a lot of eastern medicine has been discounted out of hand by the western world. Slowly the scientific community been coming around and in the last 20 years or so, I'd say, (definately not more than 30 years)the west has been taking it more seriously.

The problem with that has been, that a lot of quacks are riding on this new idea that eastern medicine wasn't completely wrong and are taking avantage of poor saps in the same way that snake oil men did in the 19th century.

“Science does not "prove" anything -- it can only disprove. When scientists agree that a medicine is OK for use they are saying "to the best of our knowledge thus far this seems OK for use, but we will keep testing and get back to you if we turn out to be wrong". The media --and the corporations that manufacture medicines-- will then take this as an absolute claim that the drug in question has been 'proven safe'; but that's just not how science really works.“ -J.D.

Hi J.D.,

No science doesn't "prove" anything (hence the quotes).I don't think it "disproves" anything either. Science supplies evidence. Sometimes "overwhelming" evidence. I agree with you 100% on this - I know you're just trying to clear up my ignorance on this and I appreciate that. I understand the process and it's this process, which involves the government, corporations and the media, that's not perfect, just as you say.

The sad thing is that "Science" always takes the blame in the mind of the general public.

An ironic "thanks" to Andy as well: “Scott - I'd bet that your perception of science is formed from poorly educated newsmen telling you about the latest wonder drug.”

I guess I need to work on my rhetoric. Great place for practicing!

Just because scientists cannot Control the world with science, or for[e]see all side effects, does not render the original use for their science any less "real" or "true".

Hi Willey,

This is exactly what I'm talking about. We need to be clear about what we're arguing.

The results of the application of a discovery do not make the discovery any less "true" or "real". I agree with you.

The process involved in applying science for human use is where things get complicated. Where science can get a bad name.

DEET will still repel mosquitos, what else it will do to you is not what was studied by those who created it.

Exactly my point! In my opinion, the release process in the US is flawed. Products get on the market even though they've been inadequately tested.

Part of the blame, in my opinion, is the incredibly poor education the average American gets in Math and Science.

Much of the blame for the christian fundamentalist movement can probably be attributed to this as well.

Just because scientists cannot Control the world with science, or for[e]see all side effects, does not render the original use for their science any less "real" or "true".

Hi Willey,

This is exactly what I'm talking about. We need to be clear about what we're arguing.

The results of the application of a discovery do not make the discovery any less "true" or "real". I agree with you.

The process involved in applying science for human use is where things get complicated. Where science can get a bad name.

DEET will still repel mosquitos, what else it will do to you is not what was studied by those who created it.

Exactly my point! In my opinion, the release process in the US is flawed. Products get on the market even though they've been inadequately tested.

Part of the blame, in my opinion, is the incredibly poor education the average American gets in Math and Science.

Much of the blame for the christian fundamentalist movement can probably be attributed to this as well.

sorry about the double post.

Here is the full program:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047&q=The+Enemies+of+Reason+Part+2&total=336&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Exactly my point! In my opinion, the release process in the US is flawed. Products get on the market even though they've been inadequately tested. Part of the blame, in my opinion, is the incredibly poor education the average American gets in Math and Science. Much of the blame for the christian fundamentalist movement can probably be attributed to this as well.

Can't disagree with you there. However, I lay the blame at capitalists (sp?), and not scientists. Maybe it's capitalist scientists. Amazing what the all mighty dollar can do.

And thanks for the Link JD.

"No science doesn't "prove" anything (hence the quotes).I don't think it "disproves" anything either."

"Part of the blame, in my opinion, is the incredibly poor education the average American gets in Math and Science." - Scott

Exactly!

Science is not about proof - proof belongs in the realms of Mathematics and Logic. Science is about observing, measuring, hypothesising, testing and evaluating.

The beauty of science - my life's work, by the way - is that it provides a means of examining the observed world about us in a rational and dispassionate way. One of my colleagues was asked by a student to define Science in one word and he replied "Skepticism". In science you cannot get a wrong answer - only the correct answer to the wrong question.

I would urge all of you to watch the full program. The end isn't as strong as the beginning, but the first 30 minutes pretty accurately portrays the distrust for scientific methods, and fully confronts the placebo effect.

I can't see Chopra as anything but benign. There is no imaginable damage to the field of quantum physics. No one that has ever studied physics above a high school level can take it seriously. He has no impact on the study of physics, nor do any of his followers. No one will ever publish this crap in SciAm, let alone a respectable journal. It's totally peripheral to Science.

It's a shame Dawkins show is designed to rile up skeptics. No one else could get past his elitist, arrogant presentation.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Chopra's bullpucky does no harm whatsoever to science (though even just his public support of intelligent design makes this assumption doubtful), that does not mean he is not contemptible, risible, and worthy of scorn. Like so many in the Newage snakeoil industry he is a flaky scam-artist, exploiting the desperation and credulity of people in order to rake in wads of cash. I'm not calling for him to be jailed or assassinated or anything like that -- but I bloody well will condemn and criticize him when the opportunity arises.

You see, personally I find people who deceive others --especially those who deceive the vulnerable in order to take their money-- to be morally repugnant.

omg, there's a whole youtube cult around that kid. i like the billo interview. i smell a new religion. kill it while its still young!

I hope Dawkins isn't booked so maybe he can go after that too.

Whether Chopra is a con artist or delusional is immaterial: the harm he is causing is the same.

This is absolutely appalling -- I had no idea this guy was quite that far off the deep end! Honestly, he reminded me of Ted Haggart, accusing Dawkins of arrogance because he dares to question his voodoo...

But MY voodoo works! don't question the voodoo...

If you don't oust these kind of kooks, those who don't know better might begin to think they are one of us.

The 'observer effect' Chopra is talking about fits EXACTLY right: in Quantum physics it means that you will affect what you observe. Anybody who has ever done or received counsellings of any kind can attest that the mere diagnosis, or even the statement of the problem, affects both the counselor and the counseled. Also note that in psychology recognizing the problem is hailed as the major part of the solution. As for fundamentalism in science...I am a scientist. I have witnessed fundamentalism ("sticking to your pet theory regardless of the evidence"). You probably know of it, too: Edison vs. Tesla (DC vs. AC current) springs to mind for starters. Yes, that's not good science, but exists nonetheless.

P.S. I love Dawkins, agree with him wholeheartedly most of the time, but in this instance he is creating a problem where none exists. He is blundering ahead with his preconception of what Chopra stands for without considering what the guy actually says. He's doing exactly what he criticizes others for: ignoring the facts so as not to have to change his perception.

What is the greater harm from both fields, though, when you are speaking about medical science?

If a 'doctor' advises you to try meditation or bio-feedback, somewhat similar techniques, btw.

Or if the doctor immediately prescribes xanax or valium, both highly addictive drugs that have side effects and are dangerous for some people, especially when they try to discontinue them.

Who is the bigger 'snake oil' salesman? A Chi Gong instructor or a someone who pushes a scientifically approved drug that comes with the promise of sure addiction and numerous detrimental side effects....

Or the folklore that tells you to have some yogurt before bedtime versus the drug company trying to sell you a pill (with numerous side effects) so your legs aren't "restless" before you go to sleep? (Am sure they will probably develop another miracle drug to deal with these side effects, too, hahah.)

Alot of drugs are apporved because they have a whopping 10% improvement over placebo. wow. I realise this is part of the investigation, and may lead to a better breakthrough in time. But the really crooked way drug manufacturers tweak some drugs to keep the patent active is pretty damn shady. We pay them big money for this kind of deception, too.

There are very few altruistic scientists like Jonas Saulk working in medicine now. Capitalism may be deforming medical science somewhat.

I finally got to see the full video and I'm surprised the focus was on Chopra and not on Homeopathy, which seems to be the greater evil. Maybe Chopra is really famous in Athiest circles?

It was interesting that Dawkins mentioned leeches. They are actually used in modern medicine - something he didn't realize, I guess.

Discounted out of hand...

But all in all Dawkins makes very important points. There are definately too many people making money from quackery these days.

The way drug manufacturers keep patents alive certainly is disturbing. I will agree with you there.

But as for which is the bigger snakeoil salesman -- the guy who sells you a worthless product and a line of hokum, or a doctor who prescribes drugs that are effective but have substantial downsides and dangers? I'd say the former is the only snakeoil salesman in that comparison. However if the doctor recklessly and/or unnecessarily prescribes the drug, and/or if the doctor does not fully inform the patient of the downsides and dangers, then the doctor is incompetent and derelict in her duty....which in cerrtain respects is worse than being a snakeoil salesman.

I agree some alternatives are pure hokum, I cant imagine homeopothy having anything other than a placebo effect, for example.

Some alternatives should be studied and never will because of the profit motive.

Alternative medicine has made great strides in a number of fields, including nutrition, sports psychology, and making science look seriously at life style and stress factors in disease models.
Look at the beneficial efforts of midwives in reintroducing the importance of breastfeeding infants. Taking back the ground from medical science/drug company profits that advocated bottle feeding for a few decades there.

Medicine had some spectacular successes that led to some great arrogance-we will eventually have a pill for every ill of mankind! We will have a pill for obesity, etc.

I just get frustrated when my niece tells me her doctor kept her waiting past her appointed time because he was talking to a freakin' drug salesman.

Sorry Willey, this is the first interview I've seen of Deepak that actually has him making some sense. IAAQP, and as far as he admits it's a metaphor, his claims were a stretch but still make sense. I have nothing but contempt for Deepak's essays and business, but very little of it surfaced for this episode.

i despise both of these people. inserts image of axe-grinding for Norm again, please refocus on the politics rather than this invented "culture war". there are voices such as Hitchens which reach a wider audience more eloquently and we need you back! Chopra actually comes off better than Dawkins despite Dawkins' supercilious looks and patronising rhetoric. ugh. CLUES