I've never had an opinion of Deepak Chopra. Honestly, I didn't even really know what he was about -- what he actually did. It seemed to me that he was one of those people that was mostly famous for being famous, kinda like Paris Hilton. But then I saw this column he wrote. Now I have an opinion.
Take a read through the column, and my commentary will follow. It is from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-perils-of-skepticism_b_373788.html and is called
The Perils Of Skepticism.
If you've ever used Google Alert, you know the jolts it can deliver. Whenever anyone in the blogosphere decides to blow a poison dart your way, Google is happy to deliver the news, along with the more positive mentions, of course. Most of my stinging darts come from skeptics. Over the years I've found that ill-tempered guardians of scientific truth can't abide speculative thinking. And as the renowned Richard Dawkins has proved, they are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God.
Over the years I've found that ill-tempered guardians of scientific truth can't abide speculative thinking. And as the renowned Richard Dawkins has proved, they are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God. Statistically, cynical mistrust is correlated with premature sudden death from cardio vascular disease. Since the skeptics who write venomous blogs trust in nothing, I imagine that God will outlive them. In the interests of better health, these people should read scripture, or at least a poem, twice a day. Doctor's orders.
I've debated skeptics, including Richard Dawkins (I spoke with Dawkins for over 90 minutes on camera in Oxford. He extracted 30 seconds from the dialogue and dubbed me the enemy of science.) and I am amazed that they mistake self-righteousness for happiness. A sort of bitter satisfaction is what they reap. No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others. Typically they sit by the side of the road with a sign that reads "You're Wrong" so that every passerby, whether an Einstein, Gandhi, Newton, or Darwin, can gain the benefit of their illuminated skepticism. For make no mistake, the skeptics of the past were as eager to shoot down new theories as they are to worship the old ones once science has validated them.
It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists. Einstein insisted, in fact, that no great discovery can be made without a sense of awe before the mysteries of the universe. Skeptics know in advance -- or think they know -- what right thought is. Right thought is materialistic, statistical, data-driven, and always, always, conformist. Wrong thought is imaginative, provisional, often fantastic, and no respecter of fixed beliefs.
So whenever I find myself labeled the emperor of woo-woo, I pull out the poison dart and offer thanks that wrong thinking has gotten us so far. Thirty years ago no right-thinking physician accepted the mind-body connection as a valid, powerful mode of treatment. Today, no right-thinking physician (or very few) would trace physical illness to sickness of the soul, or accept that the body is a creation of consciousness, or tell a patient to change the expression of his genes. But soon these forms of wrong thinking will lose their stigma, despite the best efforts of those professional stigmatizers, the skeptics.
Published in the San Francisco Chronicle
Let's look at some of these statements. Quoted material will be indented. I will call my response:
The Perils Of Snake Oil Salesmen.Most of my stinging darts come from skeptics.
And we will see why shortly. But let's start with a definition of skepticism -- a good place would be the definition used by... maybe... The Skeptics Society (
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/):
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe... Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.
So, basically, skepticism is the use of fact and reason to evaluate claims. Frankly, in a lifetime of seeking honest answers to questions, both big and small, I have not found a better approach.
Over the years I've found that ill-tempered guardians of scientific truth can't abide speculative thinking.
Nearly all science begins with "speculative thinking." Scientists START there, but they do not STOP there (this is a major difference between science and pseudoscience). They then test this thinking. If the tests back up their thinking, then they must present it to their peers via conferences and publication. Other scientists then try to topple the thinking and the facts, using reason and, often, their own experiments. This is a process that takes a great investment of time, money, and reputation. If your data back up your speculative thinking and the data from others' experiments and analysis do so, you are on your way to getting credit for a new discovery or way of viewing the world. If the experiments and analysis of others do not substantiate your thinking and associated facts, you could very well find yourself the recipient of a great deal of embarrassment, loss of funding, unemployment, and other bad things.
In addition, one finds that many of the great scientists were fans of science fiction as kids. Some, like
Isaac Asimov, have even been among the greatest writers of science fiction. Are we to believe that Asimov lacked speculative thinking? He was, after all, an industrial-grade skeptic, as well as a professor of biochemistry and -- gasp! -- an atheist/nontheist/rationalist/humanist. He was also the author of about five hundred fiction and nonfiction books (some of them listed
here) and an untold number of essays, short stories, columns, etc. He also won many awards for his writing, had awards and a magazine named after him, and left behind a vast legacy of creative skepticism.
Chopra makes the metaphorical implication that a fertile mind requires the application of manure. Skeptics reject -- and disprove -- this fallacy.
And as the renowned Richard Dawkins has proved, they are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God.
Chopra's technique here is subtle, but obvious: He knows that his target demographic -- the people who pay him for his products -- are more likely than not to believe in gods, fairies, monsters, and all that. So he is recruiting them to his side by polarizing them against skeptics. Notice that he does not say "the concept of God," or "the idea of God," or even "gods." He is talking to, and trying to influence a particular audience. This man is obviously a talented rhetorician. Also, Dawkins' reputation as a prominent atheist means that invoking his name will help to align the credulous to Chopra's side. Nifty moves.
To be honest, though, skeptics are not "annoyed by a nuisance named God." Skeptics tend not to believe in such an entity -- because it does not stand up to factual analysis -- so they cannot be annoyed by it. Chopra is smart enough to realize this. What some skeptics do get annoyed about is the insistence that such entities are factual and that decisions should be made on that unproven assumption. To a skeptic, fact -- not fiction -- is a proper (because it is proven) way to conduct affairs. None of the thousands of gods worshiped by humanity have a factual basis. The difference between a skeptic (or an atheist, though the two are not necessarily synonymous) and a monotheist is that the skeptic merely believes in one less god than the monotheist (SEE NOTE 1).
Statistically, cynical mistrust is correlated with premature sudden death from cardio vascular disease. Since the skeptics who write venomous blogs trust in nothing, I imagine that God will outlive them. In the interests of better health, these people should read scripture, or at least a poem, twice a day. Doctor's orders.
Neat. Check out this little dance he does in this paragraph:
1. In the first sentence, he uses scientific- and medical-sounding words to try to establish himself as being rational and based on fact (note that he does not provide a citation, which all scientific and medical articles do),
2. In that first sentence (it is a good one), he also slides in the word "cynical" -- a word with negative emotional connotations for most people -- as a synonym for "skeptic."
3. In the second sentence, he uses the tired false statement that skeptics believe in nothing (he also inserts "skeptic" where he used "cynic" in the first sentence, further associating skepticism with cynicism and the associated negative feelings). Skeptics believe in facts. They believe in reason. And they believe in these things because they have proven over and over to be worthy of such belief. Skeptics believe that two plus two equals four because it has been proven. Skeptics do not believe that two plus two equals 178,344, because that has not been proven.
4. He believes that "God will outlive" skeptics. An unproven and unprovable statement -- which is how he rolls, of course -- and one that is meant to get those credulous readers to snuggle up to him. He is trying to draw his target demographic closer (and it probably works).
5. The next sentence calls skeptics, who he has already tried to establish as cynics, "these people." He is working to establish a duality again, dividing "us" from "them." Not very wholistic of him.
6. His last sentence (sentence fragment, actually), is telling you that he is the authority here. Many people have been brought up to trust doctors, and he is playing on that. Again, some nifty -- and very skilled and practiced -- manipulation.
That was a busy paragraph. Phew! On we go...
I've debated skeptics, including Richard Dawkins (I spoke with Dawkins for over 90 minutes on camera in Oxford. He extracted 30 seconds from the dialogue and dubbed me the enemy of science.) and I am amazed that they mistake self-righteousness for happiness.
I don't know of this debate, so I cannot comment on that part, but any depiction of Chopra as an enemy of science has been firmly established by himself in this column. Skeptics use the scientific method, and Chopra is working hard here to align people against skepticism. That's pretty much the definition of an enemy, isn't it? From
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ENEMY: "one that is antagonistic to another." Isn't that the theme of his entire column!?
He also infers, quite bluntly, that skeptics are self-righteous. Again, the very definition of skepticism shows him to be either ignorant or dishonest (guess which one I think it is). Skeptics hand over claims to fact and reason. They make no proprietary (i.e., self-based) claims merely because "I said so," which Chopra has done in this column. He also sneaks in "happiness," knowing that that is what people seek. He tries to establish his knowledge of the subject while showing that "they" do not possess it. This guy is good.
No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others.
Wow. This is a bold step to take in his path of manipulation. Was Newton not skeptical of Aristotelian physics? Was Einstein not skeptical of Newtonian physics? Was the entire field of quantum mechanics not skeptical of Einsteinian physics as a complete explanation? Was Darwin not skeptical of creationism or Lamarck's theory of use and disuse? Is not every scientist skeptical of the explanations for phenomena that have come before? New discoveries are not made by people who accept the world as it has been related to them -- they seek out new information and truths and use thoise things to solve problems and help humanity (and often even non-humanity). Chopra here is telling an outright, 180-degree-from-fact lie. But if you're still reading this far into the column, he probably figures he has you on the hook and now needs to use that same line to haul you into the boat.
Typically they sit by the side of the road with a sign that reads "You're Wrong" so that every passerby, whether an Einstein, Gandhi, Newton, or Darwin, can gain the benefit of their illuminated skepticism.
No. The sign says "Prove it." And those with the facts DO prove it.
1. Einstein's general relativity work (as far as the bending of light, which his famous equation predicted, since mass and energy were shown to be the same thing) was not accepted as fact until May 29, 1919, when Eddington provided proof of the bending of light during a solar eclipse. Without proof, science is not... well.. science. Einstein's "gedankenexperiment" techniques were uniquely brilliant, but with out the math AND the proof, it was not enough to build a worldview upon.
2. Gandhi? Okay, you got me here. What?
3. Newton. Newton explained his views with facts. These facts were the best that could be provided by the tools and data available at the time. With more precise tools and more information about the universe, some of his work has been shown to be wrong or just very good approximations.
4. Darwin struggled with the implications of his scientific findings, but accepted the facts. Again, it was anti-skeptics who did -- and still do -- deny his work, and even try to bury the truth it uncovered.
5. Chopra's use of the famous names above was intended to imply that he was on their side and the skeptics were/are not. This is a sort of proof by association with celebrity, which is a logical fallacy, but an effective rhetorical tool when speaking to the uneducated masses. By associating himself with celebrity names, he hopes to give himself more credibility. This works on many people. For people who understand his sleight-of-hand tricks, though, it has the opposite effect (this does not matter to him, as those people are unlikely to give him money, anyway. I told you this guy is smart).
6. Notice that Chopra does not mention the many skeptics/scientists persecuted (
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600,
Galileo Galilei was tried for heresy in 1633, etc., etc.) by spiritualists because they did not -- like Chopra -- like being held accountable by fact-and-reason-obsessed skeptics. Chopra is merely carrying on an old tradition of persecuting those who challenge the desire for power and money with facts and reason.
As long as we are invoking the name of Einstein, here's an actual quote from him:
All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
Notice Einstein didn't say that bullshit was the most precious thing we have. Or "spirituality," or warm and fuzzy faux-science. Nope. He said "science." Cross Einstein off the list of people you can use to support your stuff, Mr. Chopra. Of course, if you interested in being honest, you would have already done that.
For make no mistake, the skeptics of the past were as eager to shoot down new theories as they are to worship the old ones once science has validated them.
Skeptics do not worship old theories. In fact (there's that nasty word again), skeptics are the ones that overturn old theories/hypotheses/beliefs/assumptions/etc. But skeptics are eager to "shoot down" theories -- both new and old -- if they do not stand up to fact and reason. Fact and truth - unlike Chopra -- can stand up to such an assault. Real scientists/skeptics treat the critical treatment of theories as a good thing, as it points to way to more facts and greater truths.
It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists. Einstein insisted, in fact, that no great discovery can be made without a sense of awe before the mysteries of the universe.
There's no way to sugar-coat it: This is just a lie. A sense of wonder about the universe is endemic in skeptics, and this is why they dislike bullshit: it deadens the wonder of the universe and replaces it with drug-like complacency and stagnation. Some of the most prominent skeptics (
David Attenborough,
Carl Sagan, and many more -- including one of Chopra's targets:
Richard Dawkins) possess a sense of wonder that practically oozes from them. It is this sense of wonder -- of the possibilities inherent in the unknown -- that drives these people to greatness that very few are able to achieve. And, yes, Einstein was one of these.
Skeptics know in advance -- or think they know -- what right thought is. Right thought is materialistic, statistical, data-driven, and always, always, conformist. Wrong thought is imaginative, provisional, often fantastic, and no respecter of fixed beliefs.
By this point, he is so deep in his lies and misinformation that there is no going back. There is nothing left to do but rally the troops for the charge up the hill.
1. As we have established by the very definition of skepticism, skeptics do not claim to "know in advance." They require proof. And even at that, they recognize the provisional nature of that proof.
2. He purposely confuses "thought" with "proof." Yes, proof is, indeed, "materialistic, statistical, data-driven" and similarly grounded in reality. If not, then why did he appeal to a statistical correlation earlier in his column?
3. He states that skeptics are not "imaginative" or "provisional," or "fantastic," but I think I have demonstrated this lie above. Skeptics are among the most imaginative people there are, which is why they are responsible for the great scientific breakthroughs that help us live longer, stay healthier, travel off-world, understand our own human nature, uncover the secrets of the universe and the atom, and publish and read information (both good and bad) on an internet.
4. As far as not respecting "fixed beliefs," he is pretty much right on that account (a lone fact drowning in a sea of toxic rhetorical detritus!). EVERY belief is subject to study in the skeptic worldview. If it is true, it will hold up. If not... well, aren't we better off without it? Do we really want to live our lives based on lies and misinformation? (SEE NOTE 2)
Before once again reading his final paragraph, I want you to understand something. Deepak Chopra is a brand name. Make no mistake about it, it has a dollar value. That brand name sells consumer products. These products are, he has made it quite clear, not endorsed by fact and reason. Chopra is publishing PR for his products; he is advertising here (SEE NOTE 3). Think of skeptics as a sort of intellectual consumer advocate group. Whereas Consumer Reports (and similar groups and people) bring the ire of irresponsible corporate manufacturers upon them, skeptics likewise evoke the wrath of irresponsible corporate bullshit artists.
Now read his final attack, his
coup de grace. And see if it doesn't make you chuckle a little bit:
So whenever I find myself labeled the emperor of woo-woo, I pull out the poison dart and offer thanks that wrong thinking has gotten us so far. Thirty years ago no right-thinking physician accepted the mind-body connection as a valid, powerful mode of treatment. Today, no right-thinking physician (or very few) would trace physical illness to sickness of the soul, or accept that the body is a creation of consciousness, or tell a patient to change the expression of his genes. But soon these forms of wrong thinking will lose their stigma, despite the best efforts of those professional stigmatizers, the skeptics.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is how a 21st-century snake oil salesman operates. It is brilliant, and both hostile and transparent to those who question it. This is nothing new, just an old tradition with new products and ways of selling them.
If you are a supporter of these sorts of charlatans, I humbly ask that you question some of the undocumented, conveniently warm and fuzzy, manipulative marketing that these people impose upon you. The well-being of the world, now and in the future, is too important to be left to self-aggrandizing con men like Deepak Chopra.
***
NOTE 1: Skeptics believe in one less god than monotheists because there is no more evidence for the literal existence of one god than any other, whereas monotheists (indeed, most theists period) generally believe in one of these gods and not others because they have been told to do so.
NOTE 2: This touches on an inherent ethical aspect of skepticism. Skepticism assumes that truth and fact are good and lies and misinformation are bad. If you reject that assumption -- like Chopra demonstrates he does -- then skepticism isn't for you. Before you send me the "gotcha" note: Yes, all human knowledge/experience rests on some sort of assumption. Skeptics merely work to pare that down to as few as possible, to peel away the layers of fiction to find truth and facts that can be applied in the world in which we live. If you have a better method, the world is waiting to hear it.
NOTE 3: As I mentioned earlier on, I didn't know much about Chopra before I read this column of his. My assumptions about his "products" are based on what he wrote above. It seems pretty obvious that he is a purveyor of pseudo-science, and probably makes a pretty good living at it. Notice that he didn't mention that, either?
