Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm glad to see Orac go after Deepak Chopra, a man I have long regarded as one of the most transparent and ridiculous con men in the world. I like his response to this particularly idiotic claim by Chopra:
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.
Orac responds:
I also find it profoundly insulting that Chopra apparently really thinks that no skeptic has ever made a scientific advance or advanced the welfare of others. True, he includes the weasel word "to my knowledge." That may save Chopra because his knowledge base is clearly pretty thin, but it's insulting nonetheless. Let me tell Chopra something: Each and every scientist who won the Nobel Prize was a skeptic! Every scientist who makes a major discovery is a skeptic! Indeed, Einstein, Newton, and Darwin were all skeptics! Why? Because major discoveries in science come from finding out something that significantly changes our understanding of a scientific issue. Such discoveries do not come from just accepting current science. They come from testing current science, finding areas that it does not explain very well, and then trying to fill in those gaps. They come from questioning the status quo.In other words, they come from skepticism, fused with the scientific method to test hypotheses and to separate the wheat from the chaff. They most definitely do not come from Chopra's fuzzy, woo-ey, mushy thinking, and they most definitely does not come from scientists who accept science as it is. As usual, Chopra is trying to conflate being so open-minded that your brains fall out with science. In reality, science requires open-mindedness, but too much open-mindedness leads to accepting pseudoscientific nonsense.
Bingo. Chopra is not someone to be taken seriously. He's a carnival barker on the spiritual midway, selling, as so many others do, vaguely scientific-sounding bullshit about quantum physics and religion.
Politics
Comments
Einstein, in fact, was an ENORMOUS skeptic. He went to his grave trying to disprove the idea of "probability" in quantum physics, even in the face of its predictive power being one of the strongest in scientific history.
Posted by: Chris J. | December 4, 2009 9:40 AM
If science were not skeptical, the scientific method would be as follows:
1. Observe phenomena
2. Formulate hypothesis
3. Propagate hypothesis.
In other words, pretty much what Chopra does.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 4, 2009 9:43 AM
To be charitable, perhaps Chopra distinguishes between "educated" or "scientific" skepticism of the kind discussed by Orac and other individuals who espouse the scientific method of problem-solving with the kind of everyday skepticism that automatically dismisses any new idea without principled resort to reason.
I have encountered many of the latter, individuals that do not seem to recognize creative problem-solving, fresh solutions, or even that the search for "a better mousetrap" can be a worthwhile endeavor at all. They do things the way they have always been done because they are intellectually lazy, not because they have a pricipled, reasoned, "scientific" skepticism.
These individuals are not "skeptics" in the scientific sphere; they are simply nay-sayers, "nattering nabobs of negativity." If these are the people Chopra intends, he should simply be more clear about how he uses his words, or choose his words more carefully.
Einstein was a "skeptic" in the sense that he practiced science, and designed testable hypotheses, and encouraged active experimentation and use of the scientific method to falsify or potentially verify theoretical constructs and models.
But he was not a "philosophical" skeptic, in that he did not believe that the Universe is fundamentally unknowable, or that there is in reality nothing out there to know.
Describing Einstein, a man who devoted his life to the search for a reasoned approach to understanding the world around us, and who was not afraid to think differently, and approach problems in new ways, ways which were many times anathema to the accepted wisdom of his time, as a "skeptic" misses the entire point of the selected Chopra passage. He is clearly trying to differentiate between an Einstein, unafraid to choose his own path, and thereby create his own solutions to vexing problems; and those who opposed Einstein for trying something different.
We remember Einstein because of his willingness to go out on a limb, to try something unique, to use creativity coupled with logic to learn something about the world. The skeptics Chopra was referring to saw no use or beauty in Einstein's efforts, and were incapable of recognizing the value of Einstein's creative (though rigorous) approach to re-evalutating some of the accepted wisdom of the time. (Newton was good enough for their grandparents, by Jove, so he was good enough for them.)
Chopra is simply saying that somethimes, the one who thinks differently is the one who reaches an interesting and useful result.
Sure, he can be a little cheesy and fluffy at times (most of the time?) but I can hardly fault him for encouraging creativity and faith in one's own efforts if one chooses to swim against the stream.
Posted by: threetorches | December 4, 2009 10:09 AM
Gretchen - I think you've made a mistake there. What you've got as step 1 should actually be step 2, or possibly removed altogether.
Posted by: Dunc | December 4, 2009 10:14 AM
threetorches: That is an extraordinarily charitable reading of Chopra's words.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 4, 2009 10:18 AM
threetorches wrote:
He does not make any such distinction. He is criticizing those who say he's full of shit, which means practically everyone with an educated or scientific skepticism.
What you're calling skepticism is nihilism; not only are those things not the same, they are opposites and utterly incompatible. Scientific skepticism works precisely because it does believe that the universe is fundamentally knowable and that the best way to understand that universe is through the rigorous application of reason to explain the data. What you're talking about is postmodernist bullshit, not skepticism.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 4, 2009 10:19 AM
Chopra was just having an off day. His doshas was unbalanced because his Rhasa Dhatu was out of phase with his Shukra dhatu.
If you don't have the knowledge to understand this, Dr Chopra has many informative books for sale which can explain it.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 4, 2009 10:22 AM
My first and only encounter with Chopra was that he leveraged his celebrity to write articles and get interviewed about his recently taking up golf as a hobby several years ago. He also was playing on the same courses I played when I lived in San Diego (I never played with him). At the time, I only had a very passing familiarity with why he was famous.
A common attribute to beginning golfers who quickly get serious about improving is their unfounded confidence they'll be soon mastering the game. I've played with many guys who took the game up in their late-30s/early-40s, got their handicap to around 15, and believed they'd be joining the Senior PGA Tour by 50. IOW, they don't even know what they don't know - not even close.
A recent self-proclaimed 15 handicapper can't even properly describe a particular golf course they're playing on, let alone actually play. And when in a money game these newbies show they're more like a 20-something handicapper - a kind of anti-sand bagging that is painful to watch but helpful to covering the bar tab.
Chopra was the worst of these worst. His BS about the 'truths' of the game he espoused in these articles and how they came from universal spiritual truths was not helpful to the accommodationist cause.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 4, 2009 10:38 AM
Dunc: I agree. Choprawoo has no basis in reality whatsoever - step 1 is totally out of place, unless you restrict "phenomena" to "the set of things you can observe without opening your eyes."
Threetorches: Your entire post was just a lot of pointless waffling to try and say that Einstein was not a skeptic. Pity the only way you can do that is by redefining the word "skeptic" to mean something else.
Quite reminiscent of Chopra, in fact.
Posted by: Tacroy | December 4, 2009 10:43 AM
I thought Chopra was full of crap, or self-deluded, or both, even when I was disposed to be more generous regarding spiritual claims. It's long bothered me terribly that people take him seriously.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 4, 2009 10:45 AM
These individuals are not "skeptics" in the scientific sphere; they are simply nay-sayers, "nattering nabobs of negativity." If these are the people Chopra intends, he should simply be more clear about how he uses his words, or choose his words more carefully.
Yeah, Chopra should be more clear about how he uses his words or choose his words more carefully. :P
Anyhoo, Chopra describes Richard Dawkins as a skeptic, and then later says, "It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists", which is about the dumbest thing I ever heard of.
Posted by: 386sx | December 4, 2009 10:51 AM
Ed, thanks for the thoughtful response to my post. You may be right, that "nihilism" is closer in meaning ... But from Wikipedia, which is no authority, perhaps, but is easy to access and do a little light research on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
"In philosophical skepticism, pyrrhonism is a position that refrains from making truth claims. A philosophical skeptic does not claim that truth is impossible (which would be a truth claim). The label is commonly used to describe other philosophies which appear similar to philosophical skepticism, such as "academic" skepticism, an ancient variant of Platonism that claimed knowledge of truth was impossible."
Again, I distinguish between "scientific skepticism" and "philosophical skepticism," or possibly "academic skepticism."
Interestingly, the Wikipedia article carries an entry for "false skepticism," which seems to echo some of the qualities of my earlier theme:
Advocates of discredited intellectual positions such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial will sometimes seek to characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief.[11] According to Richard Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".
.
.
.
(And yes, EK, That is an extraordinarily charitable reading of Chopra's words.)
Posted by: threetorches | December 4, 2009 11:03 AM
threetorches-
Yes, there is some small subset of academic philosophers who take such a position. But they have nothing at all to do with this. Those people do not criticize Chopra; Chopra is being criticized by scientific skeptics who take the exact opposite position of the people you're talking about. So it simply has nothing to do with anything Chopra said. Indeed, those people you refer to are much closer to Chopra's position - that there is no objective reality, only the reality that we create through our conscious will - than they are to genuine scientific skeptics like Einstein and Orac (and me). Not only is Chopra not responding to those obscure academic "skeptics," they are likely to be on his side.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 4, 2009 11:15 AM
Chopra isn't talking about Pyrrhonian skepticism, which is the position that we literally cannot know anything with any certainty, or at least that we cannot say that anything is literally "true". Very few people believe that.
He is talking, as Ed has quite rightly noted, about skeptics like Orac, James Randi, and Steve Novella, who have all taken him to task for spouting scientifically inaccurate quantum nonsense.
Most self-described skeptics believe that the scientific method (or methods) is the best way that we have yet found for coming to knowledge about the universe. But Chopra isn't interested in the integrity and self-correcting nature of the scientific method, he wants people to take his intellectually dishonest quantum horse-manure seriously.
He's got some cheek, I'll give him that.
Posted by: Damian | December 4, 2009 11:23 AM
My guess is that Chopra is confusing "skepticism" with just plain doubt or cynicism.
Posted by: catgirl | December 4, 2009 11:27 AM
3Tees.. you say
"and those who opposed Einstein for trying something different.'
what are you refering to? we all know about the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Einstein. I submit that does not fit your claim. also, in his latter years, there may have been people skeptical of his methods in trying to create a grand unified theory, but again I would not think they complained about it as something new..
are you claiming that people made fun of his ideas on the photoelectric effect? because they were "soemthing different"
please provide whos and whats ...
ooh maybe it was brownian motion that had people up in arms...
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | December 4, 2009 11:33 AM
The Chopster was just on The View the other day, and my mother emailed me and asked me what my "take" on him was. I tried to gently tell her that I was "not a big fan" but that it was clear he was a smooth talker who was able to move a lot of books.
I didn't have the heart to describe him as a pure con artist, partly because I want to reserve that for Kevin Trudeau, so that she can make a distinction there. But maybe I should just lump them together. It is galling to think that someone should achieve such prominence and influence while emitting such useless foam.
Posted by: cm | December 4, 2009 11:34 AM
"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." -Indiana Jones
Alright, if you want to really abuse the term "skepticism," then the birther conspiracy wags are skeptics too. Actual skepticism would look at all the Choprawoo and say, "hey wait a sec, how come you can't measure or accurately define a single goddamn thing you say, and yet say that the scientists who don't believe in your gibberish are wrong?"
I always like the example of the Nobel Prize for Physiology in like 2004 or so, where the guy who won found that most stomach ulcers were caused by an opportunistic bacteria that thrived in the overly acidic environment of an ulcer sufferer's stomach. He was skeptical of the idea that just stomach acid concentration (pH) was the cause of ulcers, and proved it using science. Others replicated his experiments, and lo and behold, ulcer treatment changed from just relieving the symptoms to curing most stomach ulcers. I'm sure Deepak would say it's some sort of quantum hydrogen ions that will stop attacking your stomach's mucus layer if your intentions were in the right frame of mind, but of those nasty mean ol' skeptics just won't listen!
Posted by: Rob Monkey | December 4, 2009 11:47 AM
Hey! As a guy who took up golf in his early 40s and got his handicap down to around 15, I resemble that remark! (The Senior PGA bit not so much, though everyone is allowed at least one wild fantasy, right?)
Posted by: tacitus | December 4, 2009 11:47 AM
Regarding Chopra, it's amazing how far you can get in life with little more than the gift of the gab. There is definitely an art to the way people like him can spend hours talking nonsense and yet somehow sound as if they are imparting some deep and meaningful (and reasonable) knowledge.
I can't even listen to Chopra, it's that painful, but some of you may have come across a British guy called David Icke -- a one time BBC sports reporter and another time self-proclaimed messiah. These days he's on the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe New World Order conspiracy theorist cult, believing that the a shadowy cabal of shape-shifting reptilian aliens are poised to take over the world.
His thesis is completely insane, but I was watching a recent video of his where he was calmly and methodically laying out his case and despite the fact I have zero doubt that his ideas are utterly nuts, I couldn't help but think "You know, he just sounds so reasonable. How can a man how sounds so reasonable be lying?"
It's a kind of hypnotism. They don't rant and rave, or pound their fists to get their message home, they just lull you into believing that their theories are ever so reasonable and enlightening. That's why they get away with so much nonsense.
Posted by: tacitus | December 4, 2009 12:02 PM
Michael Heath and tacitus have it well sussed: Chopra is indeed like the self-delusional golfers whereas tacitus would be more like a skeptic (willing to try and experiment and do their best but aware of what he/she does not know). Who knew golf could make such good analogies for Chopra? (self-inflicted and well sliced by Mssr. Heath to be sure)
(oh - to be clear: no sarcasm intended for Mssr. Heath - the golf analogy is spot on here and I had forgotten Chopra had indeed been doing the same thing on the course that he tries to sell in the media)
Posted by: criswell | December 4, 2009 12:03 PM
"These days he's on the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe New World Order conspiracy theorist cult, believing that the a shadowy cabal of shape-shifting reptilian aliens are poised to take over the world. "
That's insane!!!! They already took over back around 1974.
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | December 4, 2009 12:11 PM
@16: Sure, Kevin. Here is a link to a popular publication, maybe about your speed (google is YOUR friend, too, you know):
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162
The relevant quote:
The anti-relativity movement got underway as soon as Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published, in 1905. Some scientists disputed its assertion that the old Newtonian concepts of absolute space and time — which had never been scientifically established — were superfluous. Indeed, the attempt to restore these concepts to mainstream physics has been the essential foundation of almost every crank theory since. ... Even more enraging to some scientists and engineers was the worldwide fame Einstein attained with the 1916 publication of his General Theory of Relativity, which extended special relativity and offered a radically new explanation for gravity. ... A number of Germans, many of them anti-Semites, despised Einstein's socialist views and envied his fame. Outside Germany, however, Einstein's theory also met resistance. Albert Michelson, famous as the American who devised the failed Michelson-Morley experiment to detect aether, the invisible medium that 19th century scientists supposed responsible for the propagation of light waves through space, never accepted relativity and he politely admitted this to Einstein when they met.
.
.
.
So there you go. Michelson did not accept relativity, at least not totally, and not in the way it is currently understood.
Einstein's rejection of "absolute qualities" of space and time were not well-received by many of the old guard. This is well-known. This is why Einstein's theories are described as "revolutionary," rather than as shrug-worthy "so whats."
If everyone shrugged and said so what? to relativity, we wouldn't still be talking about Einstein at all.
Now, if you all don't mind, I am really, truly done discussing Chopra, critics of Chopra, academic v. scientific skepticism, Einstein, relativity, et al.
I have provided links to sources backing up my definitions and themes, and I have responded politely to challengers. I have noted a distinction between two (or possibly three) uses or definitions of the word "skepticism" which is used differently in different academic disciplines.
But as #9 above seems to find all such discussions to be "pointless waffling," I will let it go. Maybe part of the problem is that I didn't read the original Chopra (nor do I plan to read it in the future).
I have also never heard any of the philosophical investigations of Plato referred to as "postmodern bullshit," so that was a new one, as well.
Certainly my original post is no "defense of Chopra," or at least I doubt Chopra would see it as much of a defense; nor was it somehow an attack on scientific skepticism - to the contrary, I took issue with Chopra's use of the word without clarifying what exactly he meant.
Accusing Chopra of sloppy writing and/or thinking is hardly an attack on the literal-minded scientists among us, no matter how challenged their reading comprehension may be.
Posted by: threetorches | December 4, 2009 12:16 PM
cm:
I'd wager that Trudeau is worse, because his medical woo directly endangers people's physical health. Trudeau is arguably responsible for lost lives and the degradation of people's physical health, which is more than can be said of Chopra (I know he sometimes promotes medical woo and "The Secret" type nonsense, but it's not nearly as bad, as far as I know).
Posted by: Kyorosuke | December 4, 2009 12:26 PM
catgirl #15 wrote:
The confusion is deliberate: for fuzzy thinkers like Chopra, blurring distinctions between vaguely similar ideas is a feature, not a bug. They think it makes them "holistic," capable of seeing the deep connections beneath things. Actually, it just makes them sloppy.
And the 'bait 'n switch' is a very useful tactic. You can nod your head when you read pseudoscientists and spiritual woosters, because what they say makes sense on at least one level -- where it is trivially true. Dogmatic skepticism will cut off progress; eating right, exercising, and relaxing will help maintain good health; controversial ideas should be discussed in school, so that students don't only know what to think, but how to think. And your agreement over the reasonable interpretation of what they're saying, is supposed to spill over into the radical interpretation and even more radical conclusions: we are all part of a Higher Consciousness; alternative treatments like homeopathy and reiki work; Intelligent Design is serious scientific theory which should be taught in science classes. The superficial resemblance to something that actually makes sense is supposed to grant credibility to what doesn't, because 'deep-thinkers' will progress from one, to the other.
So threetorches' "charitable interpretation" is both right, and wrong. If you were to ask Chopra if he meant to say what threetorches hopes he meant to say, he would say "of course!" And then wham! here comes the completely uncharitable meaning, added on blithely as if you've already granted his main point, and he's just helping you clarify and refine it.
For those who aren't familiar with Chopra, the brilliant Orac once gave what he called the "only response you'll ever need to Chopra-woo." Actually, it's not really a response: it's a basic summary of everything Chopra is likely to say on Intelligent Design and God:
Ok, now you know. He's in the middle ground connecting science and spirituality, and he's selling the idea that this is a respectable position, because he's sympathetic to both sides, and understands what he's talking about, and sees how it all comes together. And if you like this idea, then you're already on board, because it's got to be true.
Posted by: Sastra | December 4, 2009 12:42 PM
tacitus @ 19 - I had two years of not knowing what I didn't know. Then I started taking lessons regularly where I began to be aware of how much I didn't, and still don't know. I think the game attracts people who believe skills honed in other areas make for an easy path to excellence in golf. My delusion was that because I was a really good (though not great) freethrow shooter in high school basketball, that I could do the same in golf. Even I now laugh at that naivety.
The two sports I noticed who do seem to prepare one for a quick rise in golf are baseball and hockey - but only for the very skilled in either.
My initial illusion wasn't Sr. PGA Tour Pro, but merely that I could create a repeatable swing that would never break down like I was able to do with shooting in basketball. I now realize only a handful of tour players ever achieved this standard which goes to show you, I didn't even know what I didn't know.
BTW, I think I've seen elsewhere you write from England. I used to get over to Scotland a couple of times a year to play. I loved their version of golf far more than American parkland golf, though we now enjoy quite a few links-style courses in the states and where I live, which markets itself as the Golf Mecca (Gaylord Michigan).
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 4, 2009 1:20 PM
Gaylord MI, is a "Golf Mecca"? Do you have to pray five times a round?
Deepcrap Chopra is Benny Hinn with updated shctick.
Posted by: democommie | December 4, 2009 2:01 PM
"@16: Sure, Kevin. Here is a link to a popular publication, maybe about your speed (google is YOUR friend, too, you know):"
a) I saw that link. weak. weak approach. weak content.
b) maybe your speed is going backwards and thinking out your ass
c) google isn't a god, too, you know, also...
so you got nothing.
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | December 4, 2009 2:54 PM
Yup, though I took up golf after coming to the States and I've only ever played one round of golf in the UK. It was an unusual golf course though -- a local muni near Cheltenham that is situated on the top of a range of hills, essentially open moorland dotted with heather and other types of scrubby shrubbery. The fairways also double as grazing for sheep, which means there is a special rule for gaining relief should a ball landing in a pile of, er, byproduct of that grazing. It was fun to play -- if a little on the hilly side -- though I had a nice chip into a green spoiled by the hide quarters of one of those aforementioned sheep.
Posted by: tacitus | December 4, 2009 2:58 PM
@Catgirl #15: Chopra isn't confusing anything; he's a con, plain and simple. He's full of shit and yet is so popular with "New Agers" - speaking of which, Roger Ebert gave the New Agers a good spanking in an article a few days ago.
Posted by: MadScientist | December 4, 2009 3:21 PM
Posted by: WScott | December 4, 2009 4:03 PM
Chopra is just using the well-worn Galileo Gambit to parry those who realize that his quantum flapdoodle is a bunch of scientifically vapid noise. Even if occasionally off-target, science uses skepticism heuristically because there are vastly more loony-tunes ideas out there than good ones. For every Einstein there are thousands of cranks out there with their "autodynamics" or "null physics" or designs for a perpetual motion machine. Deepak Chopra doesn't even rise the level of the latter, he's just snake-oil peddler looking to con the gullible with pseudo-scientific jargon.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 4, 2009 5:00 PM
@32 Tyler DiPietro
Is there a problem with conning "the gullible with pseudo-scientific jargon"?
Chopra weaves an alternate fabric of reality perception that many people rather enjoy. Its not unlike going downtown to 'Mariscos Nabalato' for the ceveche and cold beer. Just the anticipation of it gives me a warm happy feeling. Just writing that gave me a warm happy feeling and it has altered the potentialities of my event horizon.
Integrating quantum-bunkum into our otherwise mundane lives doesn't have to be a bad thing at all.
People like sixpak chopra are indeed pioneers of where religion has to go to regain relevance. That is, to get out in front of science instead of fighting a futile rear-guard action against science.
Getting out in front of science guarantees one will be wrong but it isn't the point. We're not here to get it right, we are here to have a good time.
gm_
Posted by: George Boldi | December 4, 2009 7:07 PM
@33:
chopra is flat out lying to people to take their money, con them into thinking what he sells is help when it is simply puffery, and you see nothing wrong with that?
scammers, liars, and con men, whether chopra or those selling "distributed consciousness", should be called on their crap.
Posted by: dean | December 4, 2009 7:53 PM
Please don't tell me we have another MTS here.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 4, 2009 7:56 PM
How Chopra and other woosters, and BS-peddlers in general, hack Root on peoples' brains:
Their verbal and nonverbal communication convey two things: one, an emotional state; and two, conceptual content. A predictable percentage of the audience is in a similar emotional state at the moment, so they "recognize" the BS-peddler as being "similar to themselves." Another predictable percentage of the audience is in an emotional state that includes willingness to shift state while listening; and as they listen, they do so.
For either type, starting or ending up in an emotional state that "recognizes" the BS-peddler as "like themselves," they let down their guard and are more willing to accept the conceptual content the BS-peddler is selling. To the extent that the conceptual content also triggers emotional responses, and those responses are reinforcing (pleasurable in some way), these audience members find their belief "strengthened."
The root cause of this (in both senses of the word "root"), is the inability of individuals to differentiate between emotional "carrier" and conceptual "content." This is basically hardwired in the brain: emotions make decisions, reasoning seeks to explain the decisions in a consistent manner.
Once you understand how this works (mindfulness meditation is useful for this, and not in a wooey way but just as training in self-observation), you can make the distinctions between emotions and reasoning, and make deliberate choices that weren't accessible before.
For example there was a time when I thought it paradoxical that I made regular use of some of Richard Dawkins' ideas even as I disliked him for being arrogant as hell. The obvious answer is: the ideas are conceptual content that stands on its own two feet, and his emotional tone is obnoxious at times, and there is no more a contradiction there than there is in the fact that a mouse is gray on top and white on the bottom: it's still the same mouse, and it doesn't all have to be the same color.
Cognitive literacy could go a long way toward immunizing people against BS, whether of the Chopra variety, or the Sarah Palin variety, or even the commonplace socially accepted BS that people take for granted, such as the idea that unlimited growth is possible on a finite planet.
Posted by: g347 | December 4, 2009 11:01 PM
Philosophical skepticism is more commonly called radical skepticism. That isn't nihilism. It's just radical skepticism. I know of no academic anywhere, under any circumstances, who advocates radical skepticism.
Chopra wasn't address radical skepticism. He was addressing skeptics as in people like Carl Sagan, who as we all know had no sense of wonder. In other words, he's going after "skeptics" in common parlance. The type to publish in Skeptic magazine.
If he was going after skeptics in any broader sense, he'd have to include himself as he's skeptical of all manner of things. He's skeptical of evolutionary biology, for one.
Posted by: Jason S. | December 5, 2009 12:04 AM
He's a rank amateur compared to the pope, mother theresa, and the dalai lama.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 5, 2009 1:52 AM
Posted by: Snoof | December 5, 2009 12:29 PM
The best possible reaction to Deepak so far:
http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=70009
Posted by: meltedrubbersoul | December 5, 2009 12:48 PM
@23
So you wrote that long-winded original post without having actually read Chopra's article? Then you get all miffed that you're getting the dogpile? Welcome to teh internetz.
Posted by: Pareidolius | December 6, 2009 4:13 PM
Deepak Chopar,is Scheduled to appear on Conan O'Brien's "The Tonight Show" tonight December 7, 2009 as the Feature Guest! The Promos are Shocking! Look at NBC.com Why would they have an vocal anti-Christian guest RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS that insists that the bible is Mythology and talks about the Jesus Myth. Now Deepak is being sold as entertainment and "Fun Filled Insights" and Setting Religion Straight to 4 million Americans on the Tonight Show TONIGHT, Dec. 7.
Posted by: Shane | December 7, 2009 10:14 AM
Shane, the people on this blog find Chopra distasteful precisely because he peddles the same sort of woo as does Christianity. We don't find him "shocking" because he is "anti-Christian" (which he really isn't).
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 8, 2009 8:31 AM