…and this is a 
What I’m reading right now is Top Secret
Category: Books • Religion • Skepticism
Posted on: August 10, 2008 1:43 PM, by PZMinion
Sastra here.
I'm about halfway through, and really enjoying, Robert Price's new book, Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today's Pop Mysticisms.
Bob Price has an interesting background: he started out as a roaring Pentacostal Minister, gradually grew into a high-end Christian theologian, and eventually evolved to his present form as secular humanist. He's currently teaching classes in comparative religion -- and also happens to be an expert on HP Lovecraft and science fiction. I think this wide-ranging perspective gives him a particular advantage when dealing with religious topics. He's been into almost everything, and can compare, contrast, and understand different mindsets with apparent ease. His analogies are often original, and spot on.
Even atheists are still influenced by the religious beliefs they once held. I was raised "freethinker." Nobody at school knew what that meant, and I had a hard time explaining it, since I wasn't sure what the alternative was. I wasn't taught any particular religion, but it seemed to be a cultural prerequisite for having a "meaning," so I would pick up bits and strands of things that seemed interesting to me, and try them on. I remember deciding in 5th grade to worship the Greek gods, since they would clearly be available, and very grateful for the attention. It seemed odd that they had so few current fans. But, by the time I was a teenager, I became enamored of the "psychic sciences," and got into New Age.
Having since gotten myself OUT of New Age, I am particularly interested in books and articles that address and critique these self-proclaimed more enlightened, sophisticated, "holistic" forms of spirituality. My interest is not merely personal: such views are still held by many intelligent, well-educated, liberal-thinking people - and many of them take it all very seriously, and yield the power to have it taken seriously in secular arenas. These are not really marginal beliefs. As Price writes:
"Chopra and his fellow travelers are doing nothing essentially different from the tactics of Scientific Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates who seek to translate religious dogma derived from scripture into cosmetic, seemingly "scientific" terms so as to smuggle dogma into science classes, or at least to win for it the prestige of science." (pg. 51)
Witness the success of So-Called Alternative Medicine, which justifies itself through pseudoscience, and rests on magic and mysticism. Creationists can only drool over how well it's been doing in mainsteam academic circles - what's been recently termed "quackademic medicine."
There are a lot of popular new forms of spirituality out there, and Price tries to hit them all. He thoroughly fisks that reincarnation of New Thought "we create our reality" nonsense, The Secret; deals satisfactorily with A Course in Miracles and The Celestine Prophecy; and takes on other new versions of old ideas, from neo-Buddhism to neo-gnosticism, giving them due credit for valuable insights and useful techniques, and excoriating them for narcisstic excesses and simplistic panaceas when called for.
"Every religion diagnoses a problem, to which it then prescribes a single solution. One often feels the problem has been derived from the solution so as to provide a felt need for it, in the manner of Madison Avenue."
Go, Bob. I think he has a gift for phrasing difficult concepts in ways that make sense - in case, like me, you think it may be important to know the difference between nondualism (Only God exists), pantheism (All is God), and panentheism (All is IN God), and you have a bit of trouble keeping them straight.
He's also funny - though it's hard to beat some of the stuff he cites:
"(Rhonda) Byrne recalls in The Secret: 'I never studied science or physics at school, and yet when I read complex books on quantum physics I understood them perfectly because I wanted to understand them." (p. 156) This is why we don't let students grade their own papers."
Well, I give Price a very good grade. My cosmic life energy is probably vibrating on a very low and materialistic level in the hierarchy of spiritual development, but I don't care.
Comments
Posted by: Michael | August 10, 2008 2:11 PM
Bob Price is the man. My favorite is "The incredible Shrinking Son of Man"
Posted by: Rik | August 10, 2008 2:15 PM
You know, in middle (high? US school system confuses me...) school, I always thought I understood my physics books too, until the tests came along...
(First time I'm posting here, so hi Pharyngulites)
Posted by: Iain Walker | August 10, 2008 2:17 PM
Price's own Cthulhu Mythos fiction is worth checking out - it's kind of like Gnosticism 101, only with tentacles. Weird fiction in every sense.
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 10, 2008 2:20 PM
Simple question. Is everything that you can't measure and quantify through several repetitions invalid?
Posted by: Ames | August 10, 2008 2:24 PM
Simple answer to #4 (OwlBear): not necessarily, but it sure isn't science.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 10, 2008 2:26 PM
I think my comment disappeared--or I clicked something I didn't intend to. (Another book to read!)
Sastra, I'd be interested in hearing--if you're comfortable talking about it--what brought you into New Age. The getting out would be interesting as well. But, I'm kind of wondering what draws people to these things. Once I left Christianity, I accepted being an emotional being, dropped the "spiritual" language and just moved on. But I love hearing other folks' experiences.
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 10, 2008 2:30 PM
But "not being science' isn't justification enough for the insults and derision.
You set up a VERY rigid schema for gathering information that lends itself to select types of information.
Things that can't be easily measured are dismissed out of hand.
I am atheist, but I don't preclude ideas just because its hard to figure out how to Measure and Quantify them.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 10, 2008 2:36 PM
Here in the UK we are far less plagued (and use the term intentionally) with fundamentalist religion than you are in the US.
However we do seem to suffer more from new-ageism and "alternative" medicine. There is a government funded homoeopathic hospital for example, and the Royal Family espouse some stupid ld,ideas in that fie especially Chucky. However it gladdens my heart when I read the NHS homoeopathic hospital is suffering from funding problems as fewer and fewer health authorities (the people who decide who they will pay to treat patients in their area) are willing to allow patients to be referred to the hospital.
We also suffer from new-age, crystal type woo. I sued to live near what is consider the new-age capital of the UK, Totnes, Devon. My girlfriend at the time and I sometimes used to visit the town as they had some nice food shops. In the end she had to ban be from going into any of the new age shops as I used to ask the sales staff just what they meant by "quantum" or "resonance". I also used to mutter about what a load of crap it all was.
I was religious for a period of my life, between 14 and 16. I was cured when we had a new physics teacher who also taught astronomy. I enrolled in the astronomy class and had ceased being religious within a few weeks.
Posted by: ScienceBot | August 10, 2008 2:38 PM
Owlbear, for all intents and purposes science sets out to define reality by what can be perceived and measured. Thus if it cannot be measured, it is considered, until proven, not to exist. As we all know, believing in things that don't exist often is frowned upon in all walks of life.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 10, 2008 2:38 PM
Owlbear1: Congratulations, you've found the difference between philosophic and scientific materialism.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 10, 2008 2:39 PM
owlbear1,
can you (yourself) be measured and quantified through several repetitions ?
Does the question make sense ?
Are you valid or invalid ?
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | August 10, 2008 2:39 PM
No. There are many things that can't be measured or quantified and are still held as valid. Some random examples:
- The idea that all human beings have the same rights.
- The legal doctrine that the punishment should befit the crime.
- The meaning of the biohazard symbol.
- The convention that English verbs end in 's' in the third person.
- The international borders.
- A whole lot etc.
Posted by: amphiox | August 10, 2008 2:44 PM
Owlbear #4: I am more militant on this point that Ames #5.
Everything that is real MUST be measurable and quantifiable. That is, only things that are theoretically observable can be said to exist in any meaningful way.
Now WE may not be able to observe all such things, at this time. We may be lacking in technological ability or biological capacity or both. But that's just us.
This means of course that all of reality lies in the purview of science. Though of course, not everything is accessible to human science, right now.
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 10, 2008 2:52 PM
Ampiox, you hit on my point. We can't measure everything now. That doesn't mean we won't be able to do so later.
Big Bang
Plate Tectonics.
Laughed at...
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 10, 2008 2:55 PM
I never got the New Age thing.
And then it dawned on me.
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 10, 2008 2:57 PM
and just to be clear, I don't think we'll eventually be able to measure everything, just more of everything.
Posted by: amphiox | August 10, 2008 2:57 PM
owlbear #7:
"hard" doesn't mean "impossible"
Somethings may be very hard to measure or quantify, but no matter how difficult, there is still some way to do it, even if that way may be beyond our own abilities at the moment.
If something is "impossible" to measure or quantify, in any conceivable way, that it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way.
Andres Diplotti #12:
All the things you list can, in fact, be measured and quantified, in many different ways. They are all concepts created by human minds. They exist as ideas so long as human minds exist to hold them. And when human brains think about them, events occur within those brains which can be measured and quantified.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 10, 2008 2:59 PM
Sastra,
I don't know what you include or not in "Alternative Medicine".
Take Osteopathy. I can tell you, I have once in a while really bad back pain, and gee, I visit my Osteopath and it works, he gets rid of it in a few sessions and much better than any drugs or visit to my regular MD.
Posted by: amphiox | August 10, 2008 3:00 PM
owlbear1 #16:
Hard to keep up when you post again before I finish typing my reply!
I agree that most likely human beings will never be able to measure and quantify EVERYTHING. But just because humans won't be able to do it doesn't mean it can't possibly be done.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | August 10, 2008 3:00 PM
#14, well, as Sagan put it:
Posted by: JM Inc. | August 10, 2008 3:01 PM
Owlbear1, #14:
Except, of course, that all this new-agey stuff is tested for and found to be lacking. The problem isn't reality, it's methodology. It's not closed-minded to say, as you put it, "set up a VERY rigid schema for gathering information" That's the way it should be done, the problem lies with people who credulously accept things they shouldn't do, and then think the problem is with people who demand a serious look.
There certainly are lots of things we don't know about now, and can't learn about yet because we don't have the instruments to capture them, but that's beside the point. The point is that you don't get any closer to what's really true by reducing your standards of rigour, or, as Richard Dawkins puts it, "we should be open minded, but not so much that our brains fall out", or, as I would add, not so much that anybody can reach in and take them.
Posted by: SeanH | August 10, 2008 3:03 PM
owlbear1,
Are you talking about things that can't easily be quantified or things that can't be quantified, period?
I ask because it's an important distinction. For instance human conciousness or the mind can't easily be measured or quantified, but few here would claim they were invalid or nonsense concepts. On the other hand, human souls can't be measured, quantified, or distinguished from make-believe nonsense in any way. The nature of our minds is a deeply important puzzle. Talking about souls, "The Secret", or Chopra's gibberish is, at best, useless as speculating about invisible pink pixies.
Anyone know which physicist it was that said thinking you understand quantum mechanics is proof that you don't?
Posted by: amphiox | August 10, 2008 3:03 PM
Someone, somewhere, at some time, has laughed at every idea ever generated by the human brain.
Some of those ideas were right. Some were wrong. Some were partly right, and some were just damn funny.
Since they were all laughed at, the fact that they were laughed at doesn't mean anything, except for the funny ones.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 10, 2008 3:04 PM
I am not sure I would go along with "laughed at", but I will accept both were regard as being wrong when first proposed. Of course there was not much evidence to support either when first proposed. In both cases it was not really until the 1960's that the evidence became strong enough that scientists could accept both as being correct.
The important thing to note is that it was science that first dismissed those hypothesis for lack of evidence and science that then embraced them when the evidence was found.
Both are excellent examples of science working as it should. Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, freely admits that at first he favoured the steady state theory as put forward by Hoyle and others. He also admits that as there was not enough evidence at the time to tell which, if either, of Steady State or Big Bang was correct he did so on aesthetic grounds. Once the evidence began to support Big Bang he changed his mind. Science working as it should.
Posted by: hubris hurts | August 10, 2008 3:08 PM
Thank you for the book recommendation, Sastra. I will definitely pick this up.
I was quite the "New Ager" myself when I was younger. I even considered becoming a Wiccan, because I like their basic philosophy (And it hurt none, do as you please) and the reverence for nature that they exhibit. I never did join a group though, because the silly costumes and rituals felt, well, silly. I did learn to read Tarot cards about 25 years ago and used to read for friends and family often.
I was raised as an evangelical Christian but in my early twenties became an Agnostic, then an Atheist. Even though I didn't (and don't) believe in a god, I guess I felt a need for some sort of spirituality in my life. Well, I got over that.
Up until very recently I used to read Tarot cards at the local All Hallow's Eve event at our local living history Civil War Era village. Part of this event includes several fortune tellers who "read the future" for the attendees using numerology, palm reading, sand casting, etc. It's supposed to be all in fun, but I began to realize in my second year that these people were taking me far too seriously.
I was only allowed three minutes with each person, so it's not as if I could go into anything in-depth anyway. On top of that, I always removed the "scary" cards (any showing death, violence, loss, or sadness) from the deck prior to this event - so I wasn't even playing with a full deck, so to speak. (hehe)
However, by the fourth year of reading Tarot at this event, my booth had the longest line, with repeat customers who had come to see me in previous years. I heard over and over again how on the spot my readings were and how much they appreciated what I had to say. I was told that some people wouldn't come and see me because I had freaked them out too much the year before. That's when I decided that I had to stop volunteering for the event. No one should be planning their future around a psychic reading, let alone a 3-minute off-the-cuff reading done for fun.
Honestly, it was scary to see how these people reacted to my generic comments. I used to tell teenaged boys that they were fighting with one or both of their parents (duh!) and teenaged girls that they enjoyed shopping and hanging out with friends (double duh!) and they would be AMAZED at how well I read them!
Anyway, I just thought I'd share this, since most of you seem to be far too rational to have ever been involved with this much woo.
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 10, 2008 3:08 PM
I am not trying to defend "supernatural" claims here. I am not defending "fortune tellers" or "Ghosthunters".
I am not even really defending any of them. I am trying to say the arrogance of insulting anything science hasn't figured out out to measure is actually very un-scientific in and of itself.
Posted by: amphiox | August 10, 2008 3:11 PM
The human mind is fine-tuned for pattern-finding and pattern-making, external validity be damned.
The rise of New Age thinking correlates to the decline in general trust in the traditional purveyors of pattern-narrative woo. Humans have an innate need/tendency for this stuff, so we just replaced the one with the other.
That's why we had to create science, and formalize its rules, to overcome this inherent weakness (well it isn't always a weakness, of course, which is why it has survived) in our thought process. If rational thought came naturally to us, we wouldn't need to have science. We'd just be doing it automatically, from birth.
Posted by: JM Inc. | August 10, 2008 3:15 PM
#26:
But science does measure these sorts of things and they come up empty. What does deserve ridicule is credulousness and the practical acceptance of things which aren't well-supported. Whether or not I'm fond of, say, String Theory, if I accept it as being de facto true before any evidence arises to support it, that does deserve scientific ridicule. It does deserve condemnation.
There's a very important methodological difference between legitimately not knowing something, and convincing yourself that you do know something which you cannot reasonably claim to. The New Age movement is predicated upon the latter, on pretending to already know the answer and on waiting for science to catch up.
Posted by: Chris | August 10, 2008 3:17 PM
Your religious experiences as a child sound very similar to mine. I was raised Methodist, but got over it fairly quickly (my mom tells me I used to argue theology with my grandmother when I was a child. My grandmother apparently loved and encouraged this). I developed a fascination for the Greek gods as well, though not to the point of having any desire to worship them. And like many, when I was college age (though not, sadly, actually in college), I developed an interest in things like Wicca and tarot cards and stuff like that. Eventually I drifted into Bhuddism as a way to try and hook up with someone I wanted (didn't work), and finally wound up at my current position.
The book sounds interesting! I'll have to try and get a copy.
Posted by: amphiox | August 10, 2008 3:18 PM
I think there are two valid ways to react to the possibility of a phenomenon that cannot currently be measured.
One is to say "well, it can't be measured yet, so we can't say, right now, if it is real or not. Therefore we shall withhold all judgment on it for the time being."
The other is to say "since it cannot be currently measured, and does not have any effect upon us at the moment (since if it had such an effect that we could feel, it would by definition be measurable by us) then from a practical point of view, we may act as if it doesn't exist, until new evidence demonstrates otherwise."
What is definitely not valid is to say "well we can't measure it, and so we can't know for sure if it really exists, so, just to be on the safe side, we'll act as if it really does exist and has an enormous effect upon us!"
Posted by: Chiefley | August 10, 2008 3:27 PM
amphiox,
Too much logical positivism in your response. Science does not believe that theories are necessarily "the truth", even when those theories are astonishingly useful for hundreds of years.
And much of the human experience is unquantifiable and will probably always be so. That we can reduce emotion, for example, to brain chemistry is interesting, but only a devout reductionist would think that would lead to a satisfying explanation of the experience of emotions.
To All,
But more on the topic. I think the DI admission of ID not being a scientific theory is more useful than you might think. Don't forget that what we are fighting against is an attempt to affect public policy, not to replace Evolution with a better theory.
As such, there is a great body of "swing voters" who are not Christian fundamentalists, but tend to be in the gravitational pull of fundamentalists on issues like this. This is because they are not paying strong attention, nor are they adamant. They are simply influenced by the "sound-byte" oversimplified arguments that are shrilly put forth constantly by the extreme right. It is not that much different than a right wing republican winning voters by simply saying that the other guy will "raise taxes".
Rather than concentrating on deprogramming fundamentalists, we should really be concerned with what can win back the swing vote on issues like this.
For example, at a school board meeting where the subject of teaching ID might come up, you could make a big difference with the swing voters if you could show that the institutional homestead of Inteligent Design does not believe that it is a scientific theory. Naturally, it won't convince the fundamentalists in the group, but it will get the attention of the swing voters.
Living in Ohio, this is very evident to me. I know all kinds of intelligent reasonable non-fundamentalists who would gravitate towards "Teach the Controversy" simply because it seems fair to them. However, these people will actually sit still long enough to hear an explanation of why this is a sham, and they will respond favorabily because they also want a good education for their children. These people are not "immune" to more information in the same way fundamentalists are.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 10, 2008 3:29 PM
owlbear1,
Sure, where do you see this insulting happening ? Can you be specific ?
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 10, 2008 3:30 PM
Amphiox, we don't fully understand the functioning of our own brains. We certainly can't actually measure many of the things it performs thousands of times a day.
Does that means its ok to assume "Brains" don't exist?
Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 10, 2008 3:35 PM
I really like Bob Price a lot. However, he does think that global warming is a big lie invented by the liberal media in order to push their agenda. So it's always important to get different viewpoints and always remain skeptical about even the people you mostly agree with.
Posted by: BriansAWildDowner | August 10, 2008 3:41 PM
I haven't read any of the Price's books yet, but have listened to lots of interviews with him on various podcasts. I always enjoy listening to him. Fans of his should check out The Reason Driven Podcast. So far there's been 30 of them each one discussing a different chapter of Price's book The Reason Driven Life. They also usually have a guest, they've had Phil Plait, Michael Shermer and Steven Novella in the past.
Oh, i thought it was funny the other day when i saw Price's book Top Secret in the Christian section of the local Barnes & Noble.
Posted by: toddahhhh | August 10, 2008 3:52 PM
"Price's own Cthulhu Mythos fiction is worth checking out - it's kind of like Gnosticism 101, only with tentacles. Weird fiction in every sense."
When I got active in atheism a few years ago, and heard of Bob Price, I thought that name sounded vaguely familiar, this post puts the pieces together. I went and dug out my 4 book Chaosium set of Lovecraft mythos, and there it was plain as day, Robert Price editor and contributor. Thanks for linking this up for me.
Ia Cthulhu F'htagn!
Posted by: David L | August 10, 2008 3:53 PM
negentropyeater #18
"I don't know what you include or not in "Alternative Medicine"."
If it can be shown to work, by definition, it is just medicine.
Incidentally, does anyone know where homeopaths get the water to dilute their medicines?
Posted by: Kaiser | August 10, 2008 3:53 PM
I also did some cold reading for fun , but told the people (only did it with girls), that all I did was cold reading and that I didn`t have any psychic powers whatsoever.
Well, they didn`t believe me, because everything was so "true" (even some christian girls among them).
I told one girl what I was gonna say to the next person and that she can bring whoever she wanted, so she should have known that this was all a trick.
Well, after the "reading" both girls said that I knew who she`ll pick and that`s why I said all these things.
After that I refused to do any "readings" at all - just scary how people are willing to believe crazy stuff.
(btw. english is not my native language, so no comments about my grammar let alone spelling,please)
Posted by: BriansAWildDowner | August 10, 2008 3:57 PM
Are there any books i could read to learn to do cold readings?
Posted by: Jams | August 10, 2008 3:58 PM
And now, for my next trick, I will quantify everything.
[everything, nothing] = [1, 0]
Ta-Da! Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll be here all week.
Posted by: Benji | August 10, 2008 3:59 PM
negentropyeater #18
.
What I found funny enough is that osteopathy postulates that the body has all it needs to heal yourself. Maybe we should look that way first.
.
Despite the fact that this particular discipline doesn't inspire confidence to me for what I've seen, I find it interesting because it rises the problem of autosuggestion in medicine. I mean, it seems that autosuggestion can really work, as my doctor pointed it out to me recently. He said that to help children to get rid of plantar warts, he would ask them to draw them and then to destroy the drawings. It may have been just the autohealing of the body, as I've pointed out first hand.
.
But my point is : the osteopath seems to practice a looney medicine, but is the placebo effect powerful enough to give this medicine some value in some cases? And if you check on wikipedia, you'll ironically find that osteopathy seems to rely openly on the placebo effect :
.
"Many osteopaths see their role as facilitating the body's own recuperative powers by treating musculoskeletal or somatic dysfunction"
.
:P
Posted by: BriansAWildDowner | August 10, 2008 4:04 PM
But getting a real treatment creates the placebo effect as well.
Posted by: Tony P | August 10, 2008 4:06 PM
Even atheists are still influenced by the religious beliefs they once held. I was raised "freethinker."
So true, still am to some degree. What I took from Christianity is to love thy neighbor, and help those less fortunate than you. Can't say that's a bad philosophy at all.
But it's interesting you mention the move to spirituality. I would much prefer society to be more spiritual than religious.
Posted by: hubris hurts | August 10, 2008 4:07 PM
BriansAWildDowner #39 - any beginning book on Tarot will teach you basic layouts. In fact, every new pack of Tarot cards comes with a booklet that explains the symbolism of each card. Alternatively, you could just lay down cards and make it up as you go along, based on what you think the cards should mean. Just be prepared for the ooohs and ahhhs that will follow...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 10, 2008 4:13 PM
About a decade or so, I was given a Tarot deck. This is my basic attitude: The cards don't have any inherent meaning, but drawing particular combinations and taking the assigned meanings can provide an opportunity to think about connections. Sure, the dealing of the cards is a random procedure, but reflecting on "change" and "relationship" might not be a bad thing...as long as you keep in mind it's reflection about those connections that were randomly drawn and not magic. They can provide a reflective tool, I guess.
But, so can therapy or conversation with the person about which you thought when the relationship-related cards got drawn, or conversation with a good friend.
Posted by: opium4themasses | August 10, 2008 4:15 PM
Neils Bohr had the quote about thinking you understand quantum phsyics only proves how little you understand.
Quantum Mechanics has been abused and warped out of shape very badly by many a New Age mystic. They especially love some of the explanations that involve non-locality.
I imagine a lot of their explanations stem from people trying to explain quantum mechanics to them without following Einstein's guide on simplicity. "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Sadly some of this may be related to Bohm. I do tend to prefer his interpretation though I don't pretend to know if it is considered seriously any longer.
(I apologize to anyone not versed in physics. I am rambling anyway.)
Posted by: 5keptical | August 10, 2008 4:18 PM
Owlbear:
Owlbear:
Owlbear1, it appears you have a misconception of what science is.
It is a process by which we attempt to determine which of our hypothesis (beliefs, stories, techniques) are not reasonable (or the best so far) descriptions of reality.
Reality already exists - science doesn't define it. Science is a process - a set of techniques and a (hopefully self-supervising) social structure.
The brain exists. People form models about how brain processes work and the scientific method works from there. (Did I say it was a process not a noun?)
If somehow think science is dismissing, a priori, some important part of reality because it can't be measured - you're working at it from the wrong end.
What do you propose? What is your hypothesis? Does you hypothesis allow you tell if your hypothesis is incorrect? (i.e. is it falsifiable?) What does it predict?
If you can't measure the effect, and you can't propose a mechanism, are you just talking about magic? If not, what the fuck are you talking about?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 10, 2008 4:21 PM
When I studied some psychology a fair few years ago we looked at how people made decisions. One method that came up, and it struck me at the time as being rather useful, was to toss a coin.
Now I need to point out this was a strategy suggested for when someone was undecided, and it is not intended that you will go with the choice you give heads or tails. What the coin toss is intended to do is reveal your true feeling. A sense of relief or dread depending on the outcome can give insight into your true feelings.
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 10, 2008 4:29 PM
5keptical, that second quote isn't mine.
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 10, 2008 4:31 PM
And the first was a reply to an earlier post.
Posted by: Moses | August 10, 2008 4:37 PM
I haven't read that book, but I looked at the reviews on Amazon and I think it'll be a good one.
Posted by: melior | August 10, 2008 4:38 PM
I haven't read this particular woo pile, but it sounds very similar to one that was embraced by a high school acquaintance.
I don't recall the specific title, but the story revolved around a woman who could "channel" (i.e. speak in the voice of) an "entity" who she called Seth. The philosophy that this entity espoused was that reality was a consensual, collaborative construction, unconsciously created by some kind of mysterious backdoor communication between our consciousnesses. For example, that table over there only really "exists" to us because we have decided to (unconsciously) agree that it does.
Predictably, all manner of impressive-sounding "quantum" terminology was used to explain this process. In particular, the physical interpretation of QM through observer-mediated wave function collapse was repeatedly invoked. It's important to keep in mind that this so-called Copenhagen interpretation of QM is a fairly standard one that was accepted at that time by many, arguably most, reputable physicists, at least provisionally.
Because I was aware of this, even though I found it extremely hard to swallow the whole "channeling" silliness, it was difficult for me to dismiss the underlying philosophical ideas without a lot of thoughtful discussion and probing questions. It's also true that this is an area of physics where we don't yet have a single, unambiguous, clear theory, so it's like a local weak spot in our current understanding of the universe.
Quite clever, actually, and the whole thing only really started to fall apart when "Seth" failed miserably in his attempts to clarify how the mystery psychic communication worked. He danced suspiciously around the details way too long, until finally stumbling by making some testable predictions that were easily falsified by simple experiments we could do.
Flash forward to today, and here's an interesting report of an experiment that appears to cast doubt on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
A postdoc has been able to design and perform an experiment to successfully test an hypothesis by physicist Robert Jordan that a wave function can be collapsed only partway, and then "uncollapsed" back to its previous state. Very cool.
Posted by: Benji | August 10, 2008 4:38 PM
opium4themasses #46
I tought that statement was made by Richard Feynmann
BriansAWildDowner #42
Right!
Posted by: Craigp | August 10, 2008 4:43 PM
In replying to owlbear, people are making some weird assumptions. What is this assumption that there are things that may never be able to be measured?
When DNA was discovered, the idea that you could codify the whole thing was a ridiculous pipe dream. As time went on, it became merely horrifyingly difficult.
Then scientific progress went asymptotic, as it usually does, and now we can transcribe DNA faster than we can write random letters by hand. And it's only going to get faster.
The idea that we may never be able to scan all the processes of the brain as it operates is also crap. Right now, it's a pipe dream. In a few years, it'll be ridiculously difficult.
In twenty years, it'll be par for the course.
That's science.
Ref: http://www.liv.ac.uk/researchintelligence/issue32/DNA.htm
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 10, 2008 4:45 PM
I could someone point me to the post I made that said science is bunk?
I said "Arrogantly dismissing ideas" is un-scientific.
I did realize I was insulting anyone with the idea.
Posted by: melior | August 10, 2008 4:46 PM
Haha, whoops! I mistyped "Robert Jordan", who is a fantasy author, instead of "Andrew Jordan", who is the physicist.
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 10, 2008 4:48 PM
Gah, way past my bedtime.
'Didn't realize.'
Posted by: melior | August 10, 2008 4:50 PM
Your first word is a non-sequitur. Arrogance or humility is irrelevant to science.
Dismissing ideas that cannot be verified, and holding all theories provisionally, is the essence of the scientific method. Why do you care if something is "unscientific" if you don't know or care enough to learn what the word means?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 10, 2008 4:51 PM
Sastra,
Do you have contact info for Danio, LIsaJ, or I? We've been chatting off and on (mostly "How do you do this?" or "how do we want to organize this?" sorts of stuff) since starting, but none of us can find your email address, and we thought it would be good to bring you in on any conversations we have.
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 10, 2008 4:52 PM
Melior, I know what the word means. And YOU really made my point for me...
Posted by: craig | August 10, 2008 4:52 PM
As a person with PTSD, it's distressing how woo and pseudoscience has invaded the mental health field.
The predominant treatment for PTSD is becoming EMDR, which is a total load of bull... and there's this new "treatment" which is based on the idea that when a word that means something to you is spoken, your arm is easier to push down.
So the "therapist" essentially uses cold reading techniques to find out what's bothering you, while they are pushing your arm down DIFFERENTLY depending on what they themselves think.
They go over the words "angry," "depressed," "lonely," etc. until they find the relevant one, and then they go over time frames "birth," "ages 1 to 5," etc. to discover when you felt that feeling.
Once they have magically identified the fact that you felt "despair" at age 20, they tell you so close your eyes and "feel that feeling" for a few moments. Then they test you again, and magically your arm DOESN'T press down as easily. You're cured! You "processed" that emotion and your arm shows that you're OK with it now.
This bullshit from a psychologist with a Phd. Not a psychic, but a mental health professional.
Might as well use a Ouija board. And she comes out and says that "talking about things," (conventional therapy) is not going to help, you need either the magic arm therapy, or the EMDR. (Research EMDR to see what a crock it is.)
These are becoming the predominant forms of treatment for PTSD. Not fringe, but literally the standard forms of treatment in the US.
Press my arm down and see how much despair I feel NOW when faced with this bullshit as the only available treatment for my illness.
Posted by: 5keptical | August 10, 2008 4:54 PM
Owlbear,
My apologies about miss-attributing quote to you, and upon re-reading it looks like your quote is also taken out of context and could be read the wrong way - so that's a double mistake.
Posted by: Bluegrass Geek | August 10, 2008 4:55 PM
#54
Yes, there are things that cannot possibly be measured. Fairies, the soul, the "collective consciousness," etc. That's what this article is about.
#55
Hard to believe you didn't know such a dismissive and vague comment of your own would be insulting. First, by calling it "arrogant," implying people who dismiss such ideas are, well, arrogant. Second, stating that it's unscientific to dismiss things we can't measure with science. That's just bizarre.
Posted by: cory | August 10, 2008 5:00 PM
PZ was a New Age mysticism devotee?? Great Cthulu's ghost!
It is odd how it can bubble up anywhere. One of my oldest friends (since 1st grade) has a PhD in an actual science, but now is a professional "animal communicator." Since she is, as far as I know, totally without guile or dishonesty, I can only conclude she actually believes it.
I have to wonder if her upbringing as a Jehovah's Witness predisposed her to embrace the irrational.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2008 5:03 PM
opium4themasses:
It ain't. Bohmian mechanics doesn't mesh well with relativity and is therefore on unfriendly terms with quantum field theory. Just one more lost cause on the path of inquiry.
In order to have a scheme which accounts for all known observations as well as quantum mechanics does, you need something which is basically as fucked up as quantum mechanics is. You can try to push the fucked-up-edness off into the corner or invent some way that the world is more sensible on a deeper level, but when you try, you end up "replacing" QM with something which is either no more or considerably less useful than QM itself. Block the door, and Nature will come in the window.
Posted by: Craigp | August 10, 2008 5:03 PM
Bluegrass @ 63:
Oh, you mean stuff that DOESN'T EXIST...
I dunno, man, that's more stuff that science has specifically detected nothing, rather than something science has failed to detect. I count it as "nonexistent", but I'll be sure to change my opinion if real science detects them.
Posted by: melior | August 10, 2008 5:07 PM
#60:
Sorry, I should have been more clear. You have demonstrated that you do not know what the word "unscientific" means to scientists. You are, of course, just like Humpty Dumpty, free to use the word inside your head to mean whatever you like.
Posted by: opium4themasses | August 10, 2008 5:07 PM
Wikiquote for Niels Bohr Has a quote "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." which is probably what I was thinking of.
Wikiquote on Feynman has "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.". I'll google some more cause it's gonna bother me.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2008 5:12 PM
melior (#52):
Except that even in the Copenhagen Interpretation, the "observer" can't choose which eigenstate to collapse a wavefunction into. All the experimenter can do is compute probabilities and choose when to poke the system and force it to collapse. You don't get to be telekinetic; you just get to choose when to be an intrusive busybody.
Since about 1970, more and more physicists have been treating the "collapse of the wavefunction" as a pedagogical fiction, a sort of "lie-to-children" (in this case, it's more of a "lie-to-undergraduates"). Instead of saying that an "observer" or an "entity from the classical level" collapses a quantum system's wavefunction when the observer performs a measurement, the new habit is to treat the measurement apparatus as a quantum system in its own right, made up of lots of tiny quantum pieces; we then ask, what happens when these two systems are coupled? The result, as often happens with coupling, is a loss of innocence.
Posted by: Breakfast | August 10, 2008 5:14 PM
craig, #61: That hand-pressing therapy sounds...um...insane. The 'diagnosis' would be bad enough, but the 'curing' part just sounds pathetic.
Where are you that these methods are so predominant?
Posted by: craig | August 10, 2008 5:14 PM
"PZ was a New Age mysticism devotee?? Great Cthulu's ghost!"
PZ is away and has guest bloggers. Try to keep up. That's why the first words of the post are "Sastra here."
Posted by: craig | August 10, 2008 5:18 PM
Breakfast, specifically in NY state, though this crap is blanketing the whole country.
The arm thing is new to me (I forget the name, something like Neuro-Muscular Therapy or whatever)
But EMDR is quickly becoming the standard therapy across the whole country, and is almost as crazy. Do some research on EMDR and read about how the "therapy" was invented, etc.
Posted by: Zetetic | August 10, 2008 5:21 PM
Thanks for pointing this book out, Sastra. I've never read any of Robert Price's books, but they sound interesting so I'll have to give them a try.
A really short and simplified version of my spiritual history, because MAJeff says he's interested in such things and it seems there are other people here with similar histories:
I was raised Christian, but felt there weren't any satisfactory answers to the questions I was asking. Many of the Christians around me said that I shouldn't be asking questions and should just accept what they told me. One even told me that my questions were "from the devil". I was just a kid, so I didn't know that alternatives beliefs existed. When I was 12 I met someone who was into new age spirituality, and her answers seemed to make more sense to me. She also brought up even more questions that I had not yet thought to ask about Christianity. But after dabbling in new age woo for a few years, I found that I had questions about it as well. It was too subjective - in many cases if you believed it, than it was true - and people were claiming all sorts of things that I couldn't verify and saw no evidence of.
In university I took a bunch of religious studies courses on the side, including classes on Western, Eastern and comparative religion. I migrated back to Christianity as kind of a "default", and for a while was pretty successful at suppressing my doubts and ignoring tricky issues. I sincerely believed for a while. However, eventually I couldn't ignore the contradictions and absurdities any longer. I have also been fascinated with science for a long time, and the more I learned about the world through science, the more I realised how flawed and limited the religious world view is. Also, I realised how unnecessary it is to invoke God as a explanation. So now I'm leaning strongly toward atheism.
Oh, and Hubris Hurts: I've had similar experiences with the fortune telling stuff. I learned some basic techniques from a book and tried them out on some friends and somehow that turned into a reputation for being psychic, even though I didn't believe in it and TOLD people I didn't believe in it. A couple of years ago I created my own system of divination for a novel I've been toying with and tested it out on a few people to see if it gave believable results. It does. Far too believable, as once again I had people telling me it really DOES work. I told them I was just making stuff up and don't believe in it myself, but they were convinced that some mystical power was working through me in spite of myself. I suppose they're partially correct - it's the mystical power of suggestion.
Posted by: Breakfast | August 10, 2008 5:23 PM
I'm reading the EMDR wiki page now. The wiki has a pretty positive tone about it, whatever that means. The theory behind the therapy does indeed sound rather weird and hand-wavey (specifically the supposed connection between the eye motion or sensory stimulus and the effect on the memory).
Posted by: Breakfast | August 10, 2008 5:25 PM
Zetetic -- Even with the warning that you made the system up! That's pretty astonishing.
Confirmation bias is so powerful.
Posted by: craig | August 10, 2008 5:30 PM
Breakfast, here's the scoop on EMDR.
A woman with a degree from a non-accredited school which has since gone under was upset and walking through the park.
After her walk, thinking about the things that bothered her, she felt better.
She decided that the reason she felt better was because of her eye movements during the walk. She came up with the "theory" that eye movements somehow put the brain into a different state t