Deepak Chopra: shockingly wrong,
even for Deepak Chopra
I am no fan of Deepak Chopra. For years he has gone on TV, in print, and in his books, peddling all manners of nonsense. Here’s a quick reality check: if his claims of "quantum healing" are correct, why is he getting older?
Anyway, he has gone to the very font of new age nonsense, the Huffington Post, to spew more woo: he’s written an article about why skepticism is bad. It’s almost a bullet-pointed list of logical fallacies.
About the "poison darts" of criticism:
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.
<sarcasm>Yes, because scientists have no imaginations and cannot come up with original thoughts.</sarcasm>
But wait, he’s not done! Pandering to religious people:
Since the skeptics who write venomous blogs trust in nothing, I imagine that God will outlive them.
Oops. He’s confused trust and faith. Not surprising, since he’s confused about a lot of stuff:
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.
That first line trembles on the very edge of being a blatant and gross lie. Given that Einstein was a skeptic, Darwin was a skeptic, Sagan was a skeptic, Feynman, Gould, and thousands of other scientists are skeptics, what he said is simply ridiculous. Edward Jenner, I think, could arguably have advanced the welfare of others, having invented the vaccine, which has saved hundreds of millions of lives over the years. How many has Chopra saved? And, in fact, almost all advances in science are done by skeptics; true believers are the ones who don’t have the motivation to innovate.
But the moonbeam spinning continues:
It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists.
Yes, thankfully he informed me of my lack of a sense of wonder. Sheesh. Go to any blog post I’ve written in the "Pretty pictures" category and be stunned by my lack of wonder and awe at the natural universe around us.
And then he makes his biggest mistake, one that is all-too-common by people who think skepticism is the same thing as cynicism:
Skeptics know in advance — or think they know — what right thought is.
Bzzzzt! WRONG. We don’t know necessarily what the right thought is. But we do know when we see a failure in the process of thinking. And in the case of one Deepak Chopra, that failure is lit up like a neon sign and draped in the open for all to see… if they’re willing to think about it.
Originally posted at the Bad Astronomy Blog.
I am just flabbergasted at how disconnected from reality this guy is… And he somehow is making a living at this.
Not just a living: a fortune. Sad.
It fascinates me to no end when people use skepticism and cynicism interchangeably. Even my family/friends view me as a someone who removes the wonderful enigma from their horoscope-loving lives.
Skeptics have actually opened up even more doors of mystery and awe-inspired wonder. At least it has for me. I wonder why so many fail to see this…
“Yes, thankfully he informed me of my lack of a sense of wonder. Sheesh. Go to any blog post I’ve written in the “Pretty pictures” category and be stunned by my lack of wonder and awe at the natural universe around us.”
SCORE!!! Fantastically stated, start to finish.
::note to blog owners ~ you need a functional button for “boisterous, unending applause”::
Anyone who can open their eyes, even in a single moment, and not look at this world/universe with a massive sense of wonderment, has all the attention and curiosity of dried grass.
Do people actually listen to Chopra, other than Oprah?
Perhaps this gentleman’s psyche has become quantumly entangled with blinded idiocy, they seem to have the same spin.
Whilst unpacking after my latest move, I found Deepak Chopra’s book on living forever. It belonged to my mother-in-law. I say “belonged” because after I pointed out that Mr. Chopra is indeed aging, she pitched it in the garbage.
I can see how attractive his bs could be, though. I see new lines every time I look in a damn mirror, and trust me, that definitely qualifies as desperate times.
I am not Oprah, and I do listen deeply to Dr. Chopra. There seems to be confusion here about the nature and definition of skepticism. Chopra suggests that skeptics who move beyond the realm of inquiry, rely too heavily on scientific proof. It is the process of scientists and critics to question beliefs. He suggests that critics who are not open to the possibility that science is constantly changing, as is true of our own bodies, have chosen to limit exploration.
This seems to be a time where many “givens” are coming into question. Many of us are finding that our beliefs are challenged. “Unproven” beliefs which are unfolding, may not be acceptable to us now. But some may spark our imagination, unlock our creativity, and open us to possibility – even before we have the proof, which one day may come to support our emerging understanding of the universe.
“He suggests that critics who are not open to the possibility that science is constantly changing…”
Whoever those “critics” are, would certainly not be serious scientists. After all, science IS the process of discovery. Change is what it is all about. If that is what Chopra is asserting, then that is a straw man argument.
Oops. If it is a straw man argument, then it is a straw man argument. That is a tautology. Whether Chopra argues the point has nothing conditional to do with its status as straw.
I’m sorry, I haven’t the slightest idea what your point here is. It had zero to do with what I said.
Whatever you feel Chopra “suggests” in his post is irrelevant. Since we are not psychic, we may only evaluate what Chopra says, not what he may or may not have meant to say. Chopra’s entry is largely a defensive retaliation against skeptics who criticize his “work” and accuse him of grossly misunderstanding, misrepresenting and/or oversimplifying scientific concepts to advance his own agenda.
I won’t itemize each and every ridiculous statement Chopra makes in his post, after all I only have so much time. I would like to point out that it’s ironic that Chopra chastises skeptics for sitting “by the side of the road with a sign that reads “You’re Wrong”” and then two paragraphs down he demonstrates the precise behavior he denounced:
“But soon these forms of wrong thinking will lose their stigma, despite the best efforts of those professional stigmatizers, the skeptics.”
It seems the only people who are qualified to make value judgments, in Chopra’s estimation at least, are people who think like Chopra.
So good to see people on the other side of the fence are keeping an open mind to different points of view…
The second point I’d like to stress is that we are not discussing ideas that are simply UNPROVEN- we’re discussing ideas that have been thoroughly debunked. So a much more accurate term would be a “disproven belief”, not an “unproven belief”.
Your statement regarding “skeptics who move beyond the realm of inquiry, rely too heavily on scientific proof” doesn’t make any sense. Proof is the result of an inquiry. In order to arrive at a conclusion a hypothesis has to be formulated and then tested. The result is proof which either supports or refutes said hypothesis.
Granted that is a very watered down version of the scientific method…
And if we rely too heavily on scientific proof what alternative do you suggest? Should we all vote? (Reality by popular opinion, lol) Should we ask Chopra or Oprah or Dawkins or Shermer what we should believe? (Reality by dictation, lmfao) Or should we just guess?
Science remains the best weapon in our arsenal when it comes to understanding the way the universe works. It isn’t perfect, and it’s not infallible, but it’s a lot more reliable than the other options.
Wow, this summed up just about everything I was thinking about deepak chopra lately.
Watch this video, it will probably piss you off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAX_IcdFNK8
It starts with “if deepak doesn’t know how to live a longer life, than no one does”
Watch it, see if you get pissed :)
AA,
What specifically is objectionable?
Specifically, Chopra’s assertion as FACT that we can self regulate our gene expression. This is based on a pilot study by Dean Ornish U.C.S.F. that had only 30 men, to see if diet,exercise, and stress management could affect the progression of prostate cancer. While the study is interesting, and warrants further investigation, it is very preliminary, and Chopra’s statement makes it sound as though this has been proven, and is very misleading. Also, while Chopra’s points about living in the moment, generousness of spirit, and prizing relationships over consumerism, are reasonable and worthy goals, the idea that spiritual energy is the energy of the universe, is just totally unfounded woo.
LOL… just when I thought youtube couldn’t get stupider after that “fat people falling down” montage.
Yeah, I think everyone should watch it, but it is actually too funny to get angry about.
I think that’s a key point. In the minds of many people, skeptic = naysayer. Look at the way skeptics are portrayed in movies & TV, for example – the skeptic character is always the one saying “no, that’s not possible” all the time, even when presented with “real” (ie – fictional) evidence. They never have anything positive to contribute, and are typically portrayed are grim, humorless killjoys.
It’s a huge perception problem we have as a group. I think we need to be more vocal about what we’re for, not just what we’re against. We need to tell people that scientific discovery involves both imagination and critical thinking. We need to share our sense of wonder in the universe (like Phil & Neil Tyson do so well). And we need to remind people that the opposite of skeptical…is gullible!
And we need to remind people that the opposite of skeptical…is gullible!
Very well stated, excellent point.
I think that’s a good point, but a hard sell. Skepticism generally promotes critical thinking, and in common thought being critical means finding flaws. And too an extent it does, but it also entails understanding strengths. I’m not sure that anyone is interested in understanding that and I really think that an explanation would fall on deaf ears. I do agree, however, that skepticism is a PR nightmare.
WScott, I’m quoting you in my skeptics class:
“the opposite of skeptical…is gullible!”
Conspiracy theorists would agree because they consider themselves skeptics and everyone else gullible.
LOL.
Absolutely Max, we’re all, obviously, gullible when we disagree with conspiracies.
Don’t say you don’t believe in the Illuminati??? LOL.
A skeptic, in my view, is one who questions everything, lets nothing, not even science, go unchallenged. If a statement can be validated, verified, demonstrated, there’s no naysaying involved.
How is that the opposite of wonder and imagination? Questions are at the core of imagination – why is the sky blue and birds manage to fly with all the engineering against them? I challenge someone to come up with anyone who has made progress, made a breakthrough, made a new invention who wasn’t a skeptic, who didn’t say, “What we’re doing now isn’t working, what can we do differently? What haven’t we tried?”
The primary difference between these innovators, inventors and geniuses and those hawking nonsense today is that the former made sure it worked before they touted it, they challenged their own findings and own theories and own engineering. And they didn’t continue down any path demonstrably false given the facts available.
In the end, that’s how you tell the difference between a dreamer and a real genius. The real genius wants to help the world by finding a better way of doing something, thinking something, solving a problem (or a passel of them). The dreamer wants the title and adulation (haha!) or a real genius (though they’ll often just settle for wealth and fame) without proving their worth, testing their own claims, challenging themselves.
A real scientist doesn’t mind skeptics – as long as the skeptic has a command of reality and can be swayed by hard data. There is no litmus test for a real scientist, in my opinion, or any genius so good as his willingness to be challenged.
After all, it’s those who have nothing to back their assertions who have the most to fear from the truth. Isn’t it?
Bravo, Stephanie. People should not be afraid to lose their ‘Santa Claus’ beliefs for fear that there won’t be any wonder left in the world for them. When one false door closes, another reality based door to a world full of real mysteries waiting to be solved, can open. Come into the light my children!
“A real scientist doesn’t mind skeptics – as long as the skeptic has a command of reality and can be swayed by hard data.”
By “real scientist” do you mean an ideal scientist or an actual human scientist?
Actual human scientist. If you know some that won’t take questions (“You’re not even qualified to ask me questions…”), chances are they’re work can’t take scrutiny. I’ve been working with scientists for years. Only a handful have ever had an issue with being challenged.
Without fail, all those that had an issue were sitting on self-serving assumptions or had other problems that didn’t do well under scrutiny. I’ve learned to look for it.
Scientists who push the envelope can get pretty bitter at the skeptics.
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmember/mar1int-1
“It was a campaign, everyone was against me. But I knew I was right, because I actually had done a couple of years’ work at that point. I had a few backers. And when I was criticized by gastroenterologists, I knew that they were mostly making their living doing endoscopies on ulcer patients.” -Barry Marshall
“A goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull but also just stupid.” -James Watson
“Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combing all this evidence…” -Alfred Wegener
And here’s one from a guy who may be a crank or he may yet be vindicated.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58665#27
“No matter, the global tokamak program provides jobs for hudreds of thousands of people in many countries, and is a safe place to put political pork funding, simply because it IS NO THREAT TO OIL – it won’t ever work, but it sounds good to the untutored public..” -Robert Bussard
It’s the same thing you hear from cranks: “I know I’m right, and skeptics are either too stupid to understand, or they’re protecting their financial interests.”
Wonder if Chopra ever watched Carl Sagan’s Cosmos.
If so, he would tweak it in the same manner he just tweaked Einstein cs into a non-skeptic.
Good point. Ironically, science popularizers like Carl Sagan and Michio Kaku may have provided the bits and pieces of real science for Chopra to mangle.
My thoughts exactly! If there’s one thing that characterizes Sagan’s work for me, it’s his phenomenal sense of wonder. I’ve never seen an antiskeptic’s face light up the way Carl Sagan’s did in Cosmos. 30(? I forget) years later, I still revisit it from time to time.
Yeah, I’m curious, how do you define “real scientist”. I’m completing my undergrad anthropology requirements (in hopes of getting my masters- then my PhD one fine day) and I have met people who are “skeptical” of all social sciences. The most common question is: “How do you know for sure that (insert species) did (insert behavior) or lived in (insert habitat)?” Some people will accept answers that are made with a reasonable amount of certainty. Others don’t- not because they have strong reasons to suspect otherwise, but simply for the sake of doubting. Creationists are “skeptical” of evolution, but that doesn’t mean their skepticism is informed, or there questions are particularly intelligent- or that they will accept any answer they’re given if it disagrees with what they want to hear.
And yes… listening to stupid questions from fundamentalist dingbats really get my panties in a twist (after the 457 time I’ve heard ‘what 100% proof do yous got to show that humans and chimps is related?’)
There is such a thing as stupid questions, and I think it’s safe to assume that even the most patient scientist would tire of them.
Thanks. This made my day. :)
“There is such a thing as stupid questions”
I prefer to call them uninformed or ill-considered questions.
Yes, yes there are those… then there are the stupid ones. LOL
Chopra is either sincere and very deluded or he is a cynical liar. There are dozens of examples, several cited in my book on alternatoid medicine published by Prometheus Books. The most obvious example, besides his claim that people can live forever (in body, not just spirit), is his claim that he and hundreds of TMers can levitate and fly at will. In the book I challenge him to prove, under careful observation, that he or anyone else can sit on a luggage scale and decrease his weight by 5% for 15 seconds. That would be just one twentieth of what he claims he can do, but he declined the challenge. Yet to the media he is a sacred cow guru, beyond criticism or merely asking skeptical questions or asking for evidence for his fantastic claims. That they behave like a bunch of lap dogs to this sophist-charlatan is baffling and disturbing.
I’m not a scientist by any measure. I simply want to know what is real and tangible.
My wife, on the other hand, is a “magical thinker” and involves herself in all sorts of paranormal mumbo-jumbo, crystals, psychics, curanderas with their healing eggs, aura, and lately its drum healing (playing drums heals all sorts of ailments), The Secret and its so-called universal energy, etc. I scoff at this stuff. She says I’m “negative”. I like to say I’m a realist.
Do I enjoy a good fantasy or science fiction movie? Of Course I do, but when I leave the theater I don’t begin to believe that I can buy a magic wand and go about casting spells.
Skepticism has give me a a sense of freedom. It’s about being realistic.
How do you two reconcile your differences? If you have children, what do you teach them? How do you treat illness?
Not a fan of Chopra, not a fan of Oprah, not a fan of Oz, not a fan of Jennie McCarthy nor Dr Phil. They are all rooting around in the same bag as far as I’m concerned. Oz has compromised his credibility with me by adding a large dollop of woo to his career.
we’re pulling the plug on this piece of blasphemy called PHARYNGULA…
http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?/topic/25104-atheist-apocalypse/page__pid__117856__st__0&
Need an antidote for Chopra nonsense? Try Tim Minchin (just in time for cocktail party season).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WidsgIt3lfw