…and this is a 
Shame on Oprah
Category: Skepticism
Posted on: March 5, 2007 7:30 AM, by PZ Myers
"The Secret" is the latest New Agey scam; there's an excellent article on this con on Salon:
Worse than "The Secret's" blame-the-victim idiocy is its baldfaced bullshitting. The titular "secret" of the book is something the authors call the Law of Attraction. They maintain that the universe is governed by the principle that "like attracts like" and that our thoughts are like magnets: Positive thoughts attract positive events and negative thoughts attract negative events. Of course, magnets do exactly the opposite -- positively charged magnets attract negatively charged particles -- and the rest of "The Secret" has a similar relationship to the truth. Here it is on biblical history: "Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Jesus were not only prosperity teachers, but also millionaires themselves, with more affluent lifestyles than many present-day millionaires could conceive of." And worse than the idiocy and the bullshitting is its anti-intellectualism, because that's at the root of the other two. Here's "The Secret" on reading and, um, electricity: "When I discovered 'The Secret' I made a decision that I would not watch the news or read newspapers anymore, because it did not make me feel good," and, "How does it work? Nobody knows. Just like nobody knows how electricity works. I don't, do you?" And worst of all is the craven consumerist worldview at the heart of "The Secret," because it's why the book exists: "[The Secret] is like having the Universe as your catalogue. You flip through it and say, 'I'd like to have this experience and I'd like to have that product and I'd like to have a person like that.' It is you placing your order with the Universe. It's really that easy." That's from Dr. Joe Vitale, former Amway executive and contributor to "The Secret," on Oprah.com.
The main focus of the article, though is on how Oprah Winfrey is destroying her own credibility with the promotion of this nonsense; I never felt she had any credibility before (and heck, she had a negative account with me for advancing the career of that annoying fraud, Dr Phil), so that really doesn't resonate with me…but the uncompromising dismissal of "The Secret" is worth reading.
Comments
"Just like nobody knows how electricity works. I don't, do you?"
Yahoo, the dumbing down of America is taking place right before our eyes. Idiocracy is just around the corner.
Posted by: ryogam | March 5, 2007 7:42 AM
Y knw, y slm n prh.
Y slm n bm.
Bt y prs Drwn.
Nw, wht d thy hv n cmmn tht y hv prblm wth.
Posted by: Emanuel Goldstein | March 5, 2007 7:44 AM
Actually, PZ tends to slam or support traits of these people or thier personalities. He is very consistant and does not use race in his rational. I know this because he shares his rational and does not mention race unless it is appropriate.
Posted by: Mike Fox | March 5, 2007 7:48 AM
Joe Vitale, former Amway executive
Um humm.
And look. Legion the troll has made an appearance. The dungeon is calling your name(s).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 5, 2007 7:58 AM
Recently she had a show focusing on psychics. She had one skeptic there to balance the show, allowing her a few minutes to propose that there was there was nothing to it, the rest of the time focusing on readings and crime-solving psychic profilers.
There was another show where her cardiac-surgery friend extolled the virtues of accupuncture and talked about energy flow.
She does this kind of crap all the time, brainwashing soccer moms everywhere.
Posted by: Miguelito | March 5, 2007 7:59 AM
Gah. I mean, of course you need to visualise things to get them, generally. But that's not some magical universe returning energy to you, it's the fact that visualising specific things usually means you then plan to make those specific things happen, and having an actual plan tends to be helpful in getting said things to happen. (Not that everything you visualise will happen. I, for instance, have visualised winning a very large lottery.) It's not magic. Just thinking things does nothing.
Plus, it's so easy to confirm that it "works". I am, for argument's sake, visualising finding True Love. It has not happened yet? I am not visualising it enough, or something is blocking my energy flow, or the universe is telling me I'm not ready. It has happened? Awesome, visualisation works!
And of course this turns into my least favourite concept ever: everything happens for a Reason. You got cancer so you could learn something! Your brother was murdered so you could learn something! Now not only is there a reason that things happen (you're poor, you're sick, whatever), it's also because of the energy *you* put out into the universe, so it's really all your fault.
Posted by: wolfa | March 5, 2007 8:04 AM
Hmmm, "negative thoughts attract negative events." Sounds like something Tony Snow might use in defense of the Cheney Misadministration.
Posted by: Disgusted in St. Louis | March 5, 2007 8:07 AM
(sorry, couldn't resist!)
Posted by: djlactin | March 5, 2007 8:08 AM
This Secret phenomenon seems to have become ubiquitous in the USA. I will be checking bookstores more often to spot the exact moment when the faux-parchment booksies appear in Bulgaria. After all, Sylvia Brown is in print. It seems all kind of woo ripples through the world and hits the Bulgarian market with some delay. So I expect the secret to pop up. It will be a test for the integrity of publishers.
Posted by: Hipparchia | March 5, 2007 8:13 AM
Emanuel Goldstein,
I'm having trouble understanding what you're getting at. Could it be that PZ dislikes people whose names start with "O"?
Posted by: Kutsuwamushi | March 5, 2007 8:28 AM
Let's face it: shopping became a religion in America in the 80s. I just see this as the formalisation of doctrine.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | March 5, 2007 8:32 AM
Now, if Obama were noted for public support of woo, beyond the groveling before religion that is demanded of any American politician, then that complaint might make sense.
Posted by: wrg | March 5, 2007 8:33 AM
"Positive thoughts attract positive events and negative thoughts attract negative events"
Sounds like Masaru Emoto's fallacy!
Poor Oprah!
Posted by: Juliana | March 5, 2007 8:34 AM
You people got to give Obama more respect... He is my Senator, and I emailed him last year and asked him to punch Santorum of PA for me because Santorum was backing ID, and of course mentioned the wedge and church and state seperation. He emailed back and said that although he wouldn't punch out Santorum for me he firmly believes in a seperation of church and state. So Troll Goldstein - Kiss my O-loving butt.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 5, 2007 8:41 AM
Gah! A for effort, D- for science. The correct statement is that positive electric charges attract negative electric charges; magnets themselves are usually not electrically charged at all. Magnetism comes from electric charges in motion: say, from electrons flowing down a wire. The electrons are negatively charged, but they move against a background of positive metal ions, so the wire overall is electrically neutral.
The spirit of the article is not far wrong. Opposites attract in magnetism too, but that involves north poles attracting south poles. (The critical difference between poles and charges is that poles always come in pairs: cut a magnet in half, and you get two magnets, each with a north and south end — not a "north magnet" in one hand and a south in the other!)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 5, 2007 8:49 AM
Fortunately, a reader has already commented about the physics error:
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 5, 2007 8:52 AM
My parents fell for this. *facepalm*
Posted by: Abbie | March 5, 2007 8:52 AM
I've long believed that Oprah's on-screen character had more than a bit of New-Agey "feel-goodiness" about it--which is probably what attracts her character to women (ducts), but I'm puzzled by something specific from the Salon piece. When did magnets become charged? I know that there is a north-and-south poleness about magnets, but I was unaware that they had become charged. Something must have happened in the 35 years since I left my physics training.
Posted by: raj | March 5, 2007 8:53 AM
Huh. I thought everybody knew "The Secret". After all, W.C. Fields and H.L. Mencken let the cat out the bag years ago...
Posted by: NJ | March 5, 2007 8:56 AM
Maybe we should start a counter movement:
The "OTHER" Secret.
Stupid Attracts Stupid.
As in:
Fundamentalism attracts... you, yeah you with the plastic crucifix on the t.v. and the open checkbook! Wake the fuck up!
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 5, 2007 9:04 AM
If I were an unethical person, I would start a newage self-help program simply called "Magical Thinking" and make millions from people who don't understand either anthropology or irony.
Posted by: dzd | March 5, 2007 9:07 AM
@ Goldstein:
I don't think it's necessary to point out PZs well known and documented bias against the living, or "Breathies" as he calls them.
Posted by: Mick | March 5, 2007 9:13 AM
Apparently, 'positive' is a euphemism for 'good'. I'm troubled by anyone perceiving a need for such a thing.
Oprah also had Dr Oz, a new-agey quack with some actual medical training, who goes way beyond his training into stone-cold whacko nonsense. One of his howlers was that he said that earwax is essentially sweat.
Oprah may have started out with good intentions, but it never occurred to her to hire fact-checkers or debunkers (James Randi?). Hucksters see her as a tool for instant weath, so now she owes her wealth to the fact that she's been reduced to a tool.
Posted by: Roy | March 5, 2007 9:16 AM
wolfa said:
And of course this turns into my least favourite concept ever: everything happens for a Reason. You got cancer so you could learn something! Your brother was murdered so you could learn something! Now not only is there a reason that things happen (you're poor, you're sick, whatever), it's also because of the energy *you* put out into the universe, so it's really all your fault.
You made my day! My biggest pet peeve is, "it happened for a reason." Ugh! Yes, like you said, it happened because of x, but x isn't some big mystical guidance.
Posted by: ordinarygirl | March 5, 2007 9:19 AM
Roy said:
Oprah may have started out with good intentions, but it never occurred to her to hire fact-checkers or debunkers (James Randi?).
James Randi refuses to go on her show due to a sandbagging he received by her in the 90s. The latest article on his website details another horrible encounter a skeptic received on her show. Oprah is definitely anti-skeptic because that's what is profitable.
Posted by: dynaboy | March 5, 2007 9:25 AM
dzd, I used to the same thought every time I walked through the big tourist market near my work and saw the Chinese Medicine shop offering herbal big-dick pills (or big-breasts, should you be female). "If only I had no morals whatsoever," I would say to myself, "I could be coining it in here." FWIW, this nonsense has been getting a major airing in the UK, as TV host Noel Edmonds credits something similar for a recent revival in his career.
Posted by: Joe | March 5, 2007 9:30 AM
My biggest pet peeve is, "it happened for a reason."
Hey, everything *does* happen for a Reason. Lost your job? It happened for a Reason - perhaps you are a lazy slacker who finally got found out, or perhaps you and your coworkers are being unreasonable in your demands for a living wage so the bosses decided to outsource to the Ukraine. Those are both perfectly viable Reasons.
What is not perfectly viable, however, is the Reason most of these twits would prefer to believe: that a better job is Just Around the Corner, so God got you fired.
Why he couldn't just have you see an ad in the newspaper and make your own decision is beyond me, but then again, I'm a born-again heathen, so what the hell do I know?
Posted by: spencer | March 5, 2007 9:37 AM
If I really truly with all my heart and soul visualize a world without religious nutballs peddling superstitious nonsense to gullible schmucks, do you think they'd all just go away?
If only it were so easy...
Posted by: Wes | March 5, 2007 9:43 AM
dynaboy, your link does not work. Try this link to Randi's latest article on Oprah instead.
Posted by: llewelly | March 5, 2007 9:49 AM
PZ, sometimes it's like you and I were separated at birth.
I saw a bit of this and I was similarly appalled, albeit for slightly different reasons. Oprah and her panel kept referring to 'the Universe'. 'If you send THIS out to the Universe, the Universe gives its back'.
The beauty of this rhetoric is that is sounds at once both science-y and religion-y, when in fact its baloney-y. On the one hand, 'the Universe' could be an appeal to some sort of physical law, but its also sufficiently vague and all-embracing to serve as a succedaneum for deity, a phony version of Spinoza's 'ground of infinite being', of Einstein's 'dear Lord'.
From what I saw, this show went far beyond discussion; by the middle of the program, which is when I stumbled upon it, Oprah was speaking as a fully-fledged advocate, with sufficient investment that you could tell her mascara had smeared a bit---a good metaphor for what now passes for her reputation, in my mind.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | March 5, 2007 9:51 AM
inre: Mr. Goldstein, it seems PZ doesn't like any vowels.
:-D :-D :-D
Posted by: The Science Pundit | March 5, 2007 9:54 AM
Scott Hatfield:
Nice point, and well put.
This is one reason why I've started pulling out other deities' names when I'm tempted to make some Spinozan or Einsteinian remark. Thus: "I cannot believe that Loki plays dice with the Universe," or, "The good Lady Isis is subtle but not malicious." The ironies of such statements are often built in, which is also a good thing.
There is a model of the early Universe called string gas cosmology, in which the reason why the Cosmos has three dimensions is essentially the same as the reason why knots can exist in three dimensions but not more or less. (In 2D, there's not enough "room" for a string to overlap itself, and in 4D or higher, there's too much room, and a knotted loop can always "slip free", returning to a simple circle.) If we wish to anthropomorphize this idea, we could perhaps say, "Maybe Isis likes to be tied up in knots."
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 5, 2007 10:10 AM
So, I guess that Turkish Armenians in the 1910s, landowning Russian peasants in the 1930s, European Jews in the 1930s/1940s, and Rwandan Tutsis in the 1990s must have been about the most negative-thinking people in history.
"Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Jesus were not only prosperity teachers, but also millionaires themselves, with more affluent lifestyles than many present-day millionaires could conceive of."
I call BS. I wouldn't trade my middle-class American lifestyle for a millionaire's lifestyle 100 years ago, much less the lifestyle of some obscure Middle Eastern gentry from 2000+ years ago. Besides, wasn't Jesus supposed to be poor?
Posted by: MJ Memphis | March 5, 2007 10:10 AM
PZ:
What is your beef with Dr. Phil? Beyond my dislike of watching people's psychodrama's on TV I don't know much about him.
Posted by: AgnosticOracle | March 5, 2007 10:15 AM
Blake: Oh, ho! Some GUTs and superstring theories propose the existence of magnetic monopoles, which are exactly analogous to "magnetic charge".
Not that that means anything, since they're all unproven, but still.
Posted by: Joshua | March 5, 2007 10:15 AM
Re: Emanuel
PZ Meyers doesn't like black people?
Posted by: Jewbacchus | March 5, 2007 10:22 AM
AO: Wikipedia is a good start.
But the bigger beef is that he's the other side of the same coin as the fake healers of the world. He's just the psychologist version of He preaches a load of malarkey to people in distress, whatever advice can fit into the format of his TV show, and they go away thinking they're "cured" when they probably need to build a good relationship with a real psychologist rather than a quack TV personality. And that's when there are actual problems. He also tends to go the other way and build up problems that aren't problems. You know, the typical "ZOMG TROUBLED TEENS" schtick.
I don't watch enough to give concrete examples, unfortunately, but I'm sure Google can help.
Posted by: Joshua | March 5, 2007 10:25 AM
Oprah lost the little respect I had for her when she gave Arnold Schwarzenegger an entire hour of free political advertising before the gubernatorial recall election, fawning over him and Maria Shriver when very credible accounts of his womanizing behavior were in the news.
Not *one* challenging question. Basically, three celebrities gossipping and back-slapping in front of an adoring crowd.
Posted by: notthedroids | March 5, 2007 10:27 AM
My wife is all over this. She listens to the audiobook in the car a lot, so I've heard a bit of it. The book says all you need to do is think positive thoughts, and positive things will happen. So theoretically, according to the book, you can cease all physical activity -- like going to work and eating -- and still benefit in health and finances as long as your thoughts are strong. Have the 'believers' demonstrated this?
I didn't think so.
Posted by: David W. | March 5, 2007 10:49 AM
"You can do it, Duffy Moon!
"You can do it, Duffy Moon!
But don't forget to speak with a robotic voice...
Posted by: PMembrane | March 5, 2007 11:04 AM
It's just another get rich quick scheme. While the only people getting rich are the purveyors of this tripe. The people who buy this stuff don't want to have to work, they just want the riches to magically fall into their hands.
Let me think really hard, my mortgage will be forgotten by the bank. Now I'm debt free. It's so easy.
RB
Posted by: Rick | March 5, 2007 11:08 AM
Joshua:
Yeah, but the experimental upper bounds on the magnetic monopole density are so damn low that any theory which hopes to explain the physical world has to account for why we don't see monopoles, and in a pretty fundamental and robust way. This is, so I hear, a nice feature of inflationary cosmology: monopoles may get made in the earliest epochs of primordial time, but they get whisked away, separated by great distances as the expanding fabric of spacetime carries them off, like damsels on flying carpets.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 5, 2007 11:09 AM
Why is it that we listen to millionaires and billionaires about how easy it is to get what they want. From what I understand Oprah got where she is from working really hard and never giving up. It's the antithesis of willing it to happen with positive thoughts. They have the luxury of promoting this tripe and patronizing a public that for the most part will never ever achieve what these famous people have.
They just use a gullible public to sell more magazines and books. And make more money.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 5, 2007 11:12 AM
The book says all you need to do is think positive thoughts, and positive things will happen.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
The Pope will convert to atheism.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 5, 2007 11:18 AM
I think the pope is already an atheist. What we really need is for him to admit it. But then he'd have to give up his life of luxury.
RB
Posted by: Rick | March 5, 2007 11:26 AM
I presume many of the people who will rush out and by "The Secret" are churchgoers.
Perhaps someone should point out that the "Law of Similarity" and the "Law of Contagion" are properties employed in the practice of Witchcraft.
A practice for which their big book of rules demands capital punishment.
Posted by: Crosius | March 5, 2007 11:31 AM
Yes, there are reasons in the little sense for everything. I mean, I don't know why someone specific gets some specific disease, but sure, there's some reason behind it. But there's not a Reason, like, that person had to Learn A Life Lesson, or whatever. I'll say it to people that I know it comforts, when appropriate; comfort is a fine thing, and if you're going to feel worse when I say "things just happen", I won't say it. It would be nice to get the same in return, though.
Blake Stacey, I love your examples.
Posted by: wolfa | March 5, 2007 12:57 PM
Let's face it: shopping became a religion in America in the 80s.
Are you kidding? Religion has become shopping itself.
Megachurches are megamalls. Worship is a cine multi-plex. Sermons are glorified cooking shoss, and the service is a pep-rally, complete with people jumping around and cheering like they're in a stadium.
Because they are.
Posted by: Kristine | March 5, 2007 1:02 PM
Just to point out that PZ is an equal-opportunity critic of woo, another frequent target of PZ's pen, Scott Adams, has been pushing this same nonsense for years.
Posted by: Sonja | March 5, 2007 1:03 PM
I've been thinking about this, too. But honestly, this kind of squishy "name it and claim it" thinking is already entrenched in the evangelical/fundamentalist mindset: look at the popularity of the Prosperity Gospel movement... or, in a more biblical tone, consider the fate of Job's children.
(It was a heated conversation with my father-in-law over whether it was fine and dandy for God to slaughter Job's innocent kids in order to prove a point that led directly to my realizing I could no longer accept anything in the Bible as either moral or factual. Hence, atheism. Hence, hanging out at Pharyngula far too much. So, you see, Job's children's suffering really did have a Higher Purpose... increasing PZ's already-massive hit count! Wow! I'm going to run out and buy The Secret right now!)
Posted by: RedMolly | March 5, 2007 1:05 PM
It was only a matter of time before they turned consumerism into a religion.
Now all they have to do is find a way to make everyone a celebrity and they'll have it all sewn up.
with Paris Hilton as High Priestess.
Posted by: craig | March 5, 2007 1:08 PM
The Sydney Morning Herald ran this story about trouble in Secret paradise. If these gurus can't agree what can us mere mortals do?
http://tinyurl.com/yud7qr
I like these quotes -
"The couple were advised to sue for breach of contract, but they did not do so because suing was against their law of attraction philosophy."
"The DVD also claims that through the centuries "they" have sought to suppress The Secret because of its awesome power. Both Ms Byrne and Paul Harrington, the Australian co-producer of The Secret, declined to comment yesterday.
The Herald asked the universe for interviews, but it didn't respond either"
Posted by: coz | March 5, 2007 1:16 PM
I'd love to see what Oprah would make of Derren Brown.
Posted by: Don | March 5, 2007 1:25 PM
Blake Stacey:
Heh. Kinky.
Yeah. The only thing clever or original about The Secret is that the author got Oprah to shill for her. It's even got a built-in anti-criticism shield: If you're not getting results, you're doing it wrong. Although I suppose that goes along with the general victim-blaming tone of the whole thing.
Posted by: Dan | March 5, 2007 1:30 PM
Sounds alot like Scientology too.
Those people just aren't "clear". They'll never make it to the "bridge".
And on and on it goes.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 5, 2007 1:37 PM
Re: Scientology
Of course, "The Secret" is just the latest manifestation of a particular flavor of snake-oil.
And the reason that it succeeds (I think) is because there is a grain of truth in there, namely, optimistic people tend to be more successful than pessimistic people. Of course, *that* book would be about ten pages, so you have to dress it up in woo.
Posted by: notthedroids | March 5, 2007 1:51 PM
Narcissism - Anglophonic culture is drowning in it, probably the entire West. It's the same reason so many folks in the US are vulgar libertarians. They want the cake, and eat it too.
Posted by: frog | March 5, 2007 2:00 PM
My wife got a package in the mail last week. I asked her what it was, and she told me it was a video she had ordered from Amazon called The Secret. I tried to suppress my reaction, because I had already read about it and watched their own trailer for it. I told her that I had heard of it, so she asked what I heard, and I simply said "it wasn't very complimentary - it says you just have to imagine something that you want and the universe will provide it." She was unaware of this idea, thinking of it as a motivational video that emphasizes vision of your goals to help you achieve them.
So we watched it together. What's somewhat interesting is that even after seeing it, she still didn't get the impression I did, but she still got the message that you should visualize and focus on your goals, therefore she thought it was a great message.
Here's a mini-review. It features short snippets of interviews from a dozen or so people, authors, "visionaries," philosophers, a feng shui expert, and even a couple of loony quantum physicists. They keep repeating the same message that you need to visualize your goals, and often add that if you viusalize them, a signal goes out to the universe which then provides whatever you want.
Interspersed among these interview snippets are video dramatizations of the ideas, usually with no dialog except the experts droning on. These dramatizations include:
* A woman who sees a necklace in a store window, does the "visualization" thing (you can tell because a shockwave emanates from her head), then soon after is presented this very same necklace as a gift.
* A boy who sees a bike in a catalog (I think it's the new Schwinn Spyder bike, which from my bicycling experience looks to be a P.O.S.), does the head shockwave thing, then soon opens his door to see a grandfatherly figure standing there with that bike.
* A guy who kept getting bills in the mail until he visualized getting checks instead, and now he gets mostly checks. This dramatization was supposed to be about a real guy.
* A guy who visualizes getting great parking spaces for his BMW, and it works nearly every time. This also was about a real guy. He just visualizes a great parking spot, and 95% of the time it's waiting there for him just like he imagined. His friends are amazed. This one pissed me off because of the pettiness.
* A woman who was diagnosed with breast cancer, and visualized herself cancer-free (I don't know if she visualized MRI images or what). Next visit, her cancer was completely gone with no radiation or chemo. This one pissed me off because of the seriousness.
There were lots more - the video was very repetitive. Only in a small way did they imply that action would be a required step between visualization and realization, and that was just that you have to act when the universe presents you with these outlandish paths, and the example was some person who used a coincidence he noticed to be the excuse for going that direction. There is no overall message that after the visualization, work will be required, just "Ask, Believe, Receive." You ask for it, "the universe" delivers. It had frequent mentions of energy, frequency, vibrations, and quantum mechanics, which are in my field of expertise and I can verify that every sentence with one of these terms was demonstrably false.
But, I guess I'm just a negative person.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | March 5, 2007 2:38 PM
Is there some way we could start a subversive version of a snake oil movement like this? It would be pretty neat if we could come up with something magical-sounding that will attract the new-agers, but will gradually and subtly instill skepticism into its followers.
We'd make lots of money and be a positive force for clear thinking.
Posted by: Davis | March 5, 2007 2:44 PM
Davis,
Maybe we could wrap up the paradox of hedonism in woo and make a fortune.
It is the opposite message of Oprah and says you can't just seek pleasure and get happiness. You have to have something to be happy about. And most of those things require effort and thought.
Posted by: Sonja | March 5, 2007 2:55 PM
Woo Oil! Makes you fabulous and increases your sexuality! Harness the power of Woo Oil to increase your Universal Energies! Now, more potent! Woo! Woo! WOO!
Posted by: Randy! | March 5, 2007 3:04 PM
Davis - the trick would be to start a magical-sounding thing, get a slew of Believers, appear on Oprah, then appear live on some show and announce it had all been absolute bullshit, done only to prove Barnum's Law of the Frequency of Parturition of Gudgeons.
Posted by: DominEditrix | March 5, 2007 3:07 PM
I think what our troll buddy is saying is that PZ is actually prejudiced against people from Illinois.
I've kind of come to think of people like Dr. Phil and Dr. Mehmet Oz as being Oprah's Usual Gang Of Idiots (pace Mad Magazine). Dr. Oz strikes me as being the second coming of Andrew Weil -- a legitimate doctor who likes him some woo. As for Dr. Phil, I carefully avoided developing an opinion on him until fairly recently when my parents took to watching him. I've still no definitive opinions on his beliefs and methods, but I find his show painfully exploitative and voyeuristic in a way that even Jerry Springer can't quite match. It's essentially bad reality TV disguised as an advice show.
So, yeah, not too high on Oprah.
Posted by: Brian X | March 5, 2007 3:08 PM
I read about this some months ago and I even debated them on their message boards. But it's a s futile as debating evangelicals ... They simply don't want to see the truth or the logical, negative consequences of their theories.
They prefer the dream world to the real world. And the authors keep laughing all the way to the bank!
Desperate people tend to be such morons.
Posted by: Markus | March 5, 2007 3:09 PM
reminds me a bit of "What the Bleep"...and that lovely Ramtha....
actually, I thought the movie wasn't all that bad, because I generally like Marlie Matlin....and the special effects were pretty interesting - but the concept of water changing shape because of words like "Love", and "Hate" written on the sides of them seemed a bit odd - and after I did a little research on the "science" behind it, I realized that I was indeed watching fiction.
However...I must say that while I don't support the cult mentality of Ramtha and her followers (I mean do we really believe that she's channeling ancient spirits?), I thought the premise of the movie was interesting. It reminded me of that horribly written Celestine Prophecy, about the energy around us, and "using our powers for good" - power of positive thinking anyone?
I suppose if it makes the world a more peaceful place, and we start to treat one another better, and solve our differences by respect and understanding vs. changing them to fit out own needs, then it might not be all that bad.
Posted by: Heath's Box of Hair | March 5, 2007 3:11 PM
"How does it work? Nobody knows. Just like nobody knows how electricity works. I don't, do you?"
That's great. I had a counselor try to convince me to believe in god with this.
He turned off the light, then turned it back on. He asked me if I had any doubt the light would come back on when he flipped the switch.
When I said no, he pounced. "Aha! That is faith! We can't see electricity and we don't know how it works, but still, you believed the light would come back on!"
Last session with that counselor.
I'm glad a couple people got the Randi link up before me. Oprah is a disgrace, but then so is Montel.
Posted by: Foster Disbelief | March 5, 2007 3:18 PM
This, sadly, is just good marketing.
Oprah's core audience consists of people who already believe that anyone can do anything given enough pixie dust, quiet afternoons spent daydreaming on the couch amid twinkie wrappers, and positive thoughts. This is because Oprah herself is always playing up the idea that her positive attitude, rather than hard work plus plenty of good luck, was chiefly responsible for making her a huge success as an overweight African-American woman in an entertainment-executive world of white males and sex symbols. So it makes sense that her fans would buy into this Secret bullshit, which is the same basic thing "backed up" by fuzzy pseudo-physics.
The "If I can do it, anyone can" shtick may have value when applied in certain ways, but when it's used to fleece people, it's pretty evil.
Posted by: kemibe | March 5, 2007 3:20 PM
I know how electricity works, and the Pope won't convert atheism. These are two facts that disprove the horse shit in the new age pagan beliefs of "The not so secret Secret".
Posted by: The Physicist | March 5, 2007 3:23 PM
Nothing new here. The earliest example I recall of this genre is Norman Vincent Peale's "The Power of Positive Thinking". Made him millions. Well. OK, the new testament does predate that somewhat. The shill that you only have to think it to get it reminds of the joke about the guy who continually prayed to win the lottery until he heard the great booming voice say "you have to buy a ticket!".
Posted by: AnInGe | March 5, 2007 3:25 PM
I got something really scary for you folks. As you know I'm Catholic and since the Reformation the Christian virtue has sprung into many differnt splinters. Virtue without tradition is dangerous, and virtue demanded, without tradition is very dangerous.
Check out a recent blog post of mine. Bush must be stopped.
http://catholicprophesy.blogspot.com/2007/03/despite-defeat-of-his-republican-party.html
Posted by: The Physicist | March 5, 2007 3:29 PM
Sigh--anytime Oprah hocks a book on her show, the customers at the library system I work for line up in droves. I was staffing the phones the afternoon Oprah had James Frey on for the first time--20 minutes after that show, there were 25 people in line for the one copy of A Million Little Pieces in the system (the book was 3 years old at that point and didn't amount to anything before Big O got to it). Now we have 50+ people waiting for The Secret--sigh. I console myself with the fact that Sam Harris's End of Faith circulated almost 50 times, and Dawkins's The God Delusion has a 20+ lineup.
Posted by: False Prophet | March 5, 2007 3:47 PM
Gaaaah. I wonder what this counselor would have made of this classic geeky T-shirt design.
Posted by: ColoRambler | March 5, 2007 3:54 PM
ColoRamber's link doesn't work. :-(
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 5, 2007 4:00 PM
It's really all about self-esteem. We've had this mechanism in place (called religion) that tells us we're a bunch of f***ked up sinners & that's it's all our fault we are. Now that religion's reeling, people are casting about for a new crutch, rather than standing on the weak foot.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | March 5, 2007 4:03 PM
Grumble. OK, try this one.
Posted by: ColoRambler | March 5, 2007 4:05 PM
PZ
I was over at Vox Days place, and he has written an open letter to you, just thought you might like to know. It is actually a good question, how does a scientist as yourself define science? Which definition do you find most compelling?
Posted by: The Physicist | March 5, 2007 4:33 PM
Vox trying to increase his site traffic again?
Posted by: Steve_C | March 5, 2007 4:37 PM
This is the one I like best: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
Posted by: The Physicist | March 5, 2007 4:38 PM
Steve, don't think so, but I hope PZ answers it, as a scientist myself I think it is a good question. I just do science and never found the need to find an all encomassing definition, which isn't an easy task.
OK I won't carry this OT discussion any further.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 5, 2007 4:42 PM
We're just not huge fans of Vox. We never have a problem with off topic posts really.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 5, 2007 4:46 PM
Tom Beale can kiss my hairy white ass. I could write better terrible sci-fi than that goofy turd.
I bet even Dragons: Lexicon Triumvirate is more coherent than Beale's sociopolitical ravings.
Posted by: stogoe | March 5, 2007 4:53 PM
It's Ted Beale. The guy with the flaming sword is Teddy Beale.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 5, 2007 4:55 PM
Now I understand Oprah Windbag's crash moment in Paris when the Hermes store didn't recognize her self-important ass and let her into the store after hours.
It wasn't that Oprah was shocked by the Hermes staff's bigotry, nor was she shocked by their failure to recognize that she is Oprah, Queen of American Daytime Television. No, Oprah was shocked because she realized that she must have had a negative thought that led to being barred from entering the closed Hermes store. I mean, how jarring! Usually, her thoughts are so purely positive that she walks right through lead-lined walls. Losing control over all of the forces of the universe, including the individual and collective wills of all human beings on the face of the earth must have been been an unbearable experience. No wonder it was her 'crash moment.' Thank goodness it was just a brief lapse from her state of total control.
Posted by: Dr X | March 5, 2007 5:04 PM
The "Secret" will always seem to work for the same reason prayer always seems to work. You make a commitment, in advance, to interpret everything that happens as somehow for the best.