“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.
“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.
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.
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.
Joe Vitale, former Amway executive
Um humm.
And look. Legion the troll has made an appearance. The dungeon is calling your name(s).
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.
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.
Hmmm, “negative thoughts attract negative events.” Sounds like something Tony Snow might use in defense of the Cheney Misadministration.
um… who’s your president?
(sorry, couldn’t resist!)
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.
Emanuel Goldstein,
I’m having trouble understanding what you’re getting at. Could it be that PZ dislikes people whose names start with “O”?
Let’s face it: shopping became a religion in America in the 80s. I just see this as the formalisation of doctrine.
Huh. I thought it was an accusation that PZ doesn’t like people whose names start with O. Sure, I have no evidence of this, but the fact that pretty much all the usual creationist suspects are white apparently didn’t stop that accusation, if your interpretation is to be preferred. Sadly, the elaboration that D names are favoured here seems promising through Darwin and Dawkins but takes a definite nose-dive with Dembski and DaveScot.
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.
“Positive thoughts attract positive events and negative thoughts attract negative events”
Sounds like Masaru Emoto’s fallacy!
Poor Oprah!
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.
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!)
Fortunately, a reader has already commented about the physics error:
My parents fell for this. *facepalm*
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.
Huh. I thought everybody knew “The Secret”. After all, W.C. Fields and H.L. Mencken let the cat out the bag years ago…
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!
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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…
dynaboy, your link does not work. Try this link to Randi’s latest article on Oprah instead.
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.
inre: Mr. Goldstein, it seems PZ doesn’t like any vowels.
:-D :-D :-D
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.”
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?
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.
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.
Re: Emanuel
PZ Meyers doesn’t like black people?
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.
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.
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.
“You can do it, Duffy Moon!
“You can do it, Duffy Moon!
But don’t forget to speak with a robotic voice…
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!)
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.
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”
I’d love to see what Oprah would make of Derren Brown.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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”.
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!”.
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
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.
Gaaaah. I wonder what this counselor would have made of this classic geeky T-shirt design.
ColoRamber’s link doesn’t work. :-(
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.
Grumble. OK, try this one.
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?
Vox trying to increase his site traffic again?
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
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.
We’re just not huge fans of Vox. We never have a problem with off topic posts really.
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.
It’s Ted Beale. The guy with the flaming sword is Teddy Beale.
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.
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. As my mother used to say, “you can’t always change your circumstances, but you can always change your attitude.”
That’s it. That’s the secret. Nothing happens to the Universe when you send out positive thoughts and there is no God who hears and answers prayers. Everything does not happen “for a reason” or purpose which has to do with you and your personal development (I hate that one too!) All it really comes down to is deciding to see the bright side, and pretending you’re the main character in a novel.
Big honkin’ deal.
What amazes me in “The Secret” is how it’s basically dressed up as some massive historical secret hidden by the ages, Da Vinci Code Necronomicon crap etc. All it is is the same positive-thinking stuff we’ve seen for 30 years.
She just dressed it up a bit more with some mystic past BS, which makes it not only crap, but crap that also deals with re-interpreting history.
I’ve got a panel I’m doing on occultism, history, and pop culture with an eye towards BS and ahistoricism. Looks like she’s going to have to go on the program.
Sastra, That’s it. That’s the secret. Nothing happens to the Universe when you send out positive thoughts and there is no God who hears and answers prayers. Everything does not happen “for a reason” or purpose which has to do with you and your personal development (I hate that one too!) All it really comes down to is deciding to see the bright side, and pretending you’re the main character in a novel.
Well its ok with me for sure if you don’t believe in God. But in my own work I pray for guidance, and have faith in his word. You guys can call me a kook, but it works for me, and if there is no God as you say where is the harm in humbling myself, before a greater power? God has never guided me to hurt anyone or even pull a girls hair. Sometimes when I say things that hurt people it is my conscience that bothers me and makes me feel bad so I apologize.
Gods word says his law is written into the heart of man. You can say that an evil man has rejected his own conscience, I would say by doing so he has rejected God, no big deal. In my post about Pastor John Hagee once again I would say he has rejected God, for has has indeed rejected his word, and is an evil man.
notthedroids:
“there is a grain of truth in there, namely, optimistic people tend to be more successful than pessimistic people”
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc”?
Maybe successful people just tend to be more optimistic than unsuccessful ones.
Or maybe there’s no causal relationship at all.
First define “optimistic” and “successful”…then comes the peer-reviewed study.
Physicist,
You guys can call me a kook, but it works for me…
Ah yes, the “it works for me” defense. It may comfort you to believe your irrational fantasies are true, but they’re still irrational fantasies.
And why do you call this a definition, when it introduces the term “scientific method” and doesn’t define that?
For a very short definition, I can recommend the following: if you can answer the question “If I were wrong, how would I know?”, you are doing science. Otherwise you aren’t.
That’s the falsifiability part. Add Occam’s Razor (if several hypotheses explain the data equally well, those that require the smallest number of ad hoc assumptions must be preferred), and you should be all set.
Methodological naturalism is just a consequence of Occam’s Razor. (I’ve seen the term “Occam’s Aftershave”; maybe that’s what it means.)
And why do you call this a definition, when it introduces the term “scientific method” and doesn’t define that?
For a very short definition, I can recommend the following: if you can answer the question “If I were wrong, how would I know?”, you are doing science. Otherwise you aren’t.
That’s the falsifiability part. Add Occam’s Razor (if several hypotheses explain the data equally well, those that require the smallest number of ad hoc assumptions must be preferred), and you should be all set.
Methodological naturalism is just a consequence of Occam’s Razor. (I’ve seen the term “Occam’s Aftershave”; maybe that’s what it means.)
Physicist,
You guys can call me a kook, but it works for me…
Ah yes, the “it works for me” defense. It may comfort you to believe your irrational fantasies are true, but they’re still irrational fantasies.
Posted by: Jason
Not a defense at all, just that if I am the biggest thing there is, then there is nothing to look to for guidance. For if I will not bow to something much larger than me, then I would surely not bow before any man. And if I am larger than all things, then everything is nothing. It is in not any more irrational than non belief.
Excellent point David
The Physicist:
“in my own work I pray for guidance, and have faith in his word.”
“God told me to do it” –Peter (“Jack the Ripper”) Sutcliffe
“God asked me to bring my family to heaven.” –Joseph Ganshert (killed his family)
“God has a reason. Sometimes the things that happen in this life are so that we can learn from them” — Miguel Angel Ordonez (after raping his stepdaughter)
“God told me to” — Philip Badowsky (dismembered parents with a chainsaw)
“I felt it was an act of obedience.” — Edwin B. Baxter (killed son by circumcision with a hunting knife)
You can talk to god all you want. If he talks back, you’re in trouble.
One quick question David, when you use the term “naturalism” just so I am absolutly clear on what you are saying, what exactly do you mean, I assume a meaning, but am not for sure how you are using it.
Oh great OZ, I have never heard God speak to me, and I am tone deaf anyway, now worries. I ask for guidance that I do the things that he aproves in the virtues of his word, like faith, hope, charity, love, patience, ect…
Physicist- (which I’m skeptical of by the way)
How about your fellow human beings which in the end is likely what your doing anyway.
Sure you would. If he was bigger or stronger or forced you to do so. But that aside if you do so to an idea or an invisible being you definetly would to one standing in front of you.
Pure baloney. But you just made an impressive insult to God. Seeing how he is larger than everything you must be nothing to him. Likewise if that isn’t true it wouldn’t be true if you where in the same scenario.
Yes it is. Look I may believe or not, I’m not going to trumpet my personal beliefs here. But if I believe in an invisible being it is most definetly irrational. I may do so for a host of reasons but none of them are rational.
My brother’s been heavily into Robert Anton Wilson’s “quantum philosophy”, which basically says the same thing, and he’s been reading a lot of Alistair Crowley and Carlos Castaneda and such-like. He’s also discovered Grant Morrison’s “The Invisibles” comic. To be fair, all those books were mine. I don’t think he really believes it so much as he just likes the idea of being able shape reality because of his connection to reality.
It is a neat idea, but of course, one has to realize that no matter how positive your thoughts, the universe doesn’t give a damn. It astounds me so many people fall so hard for such a poorly thought-out scam like “The Secret”. It reminds me of the scam Patrick Swayze’s character was pulling in Donnie Darko, it’s that ham-handed.
That all being said, I do think it’s helpful to go through life with as positive an attitude as possible. That doesn’t mean going through your day with an impenetrable grin, convinced everything that happens is peachy keen. It’s more of the making lemonade out of lemons sort of thing. Deal with life as it comes, get as much good out of it as possible, avoid or eliminate as much bad as possible, and find out how to differentiate between the two for next time. That just seems like common sense to me, though, as a shitty attitude about things in general just seems to make things in general that much shittier.
Granted, I smoke a lot of pot, so there’s that to consider. I sometimes wonder how much that’s influenced my general skepticism about religions, superstitions and other woo, just the recognition of how malleable brain chemistry really is. It’s hard to take someone’s claims of “thinking positive got me a good parking space” when I can get some little mushrooms out of a cow pasture and see the curve of space-time. It’s pretty neat, actually.
Answer: Yes.
Solution:
Step 1: Open a physics book
Step 2: Read it.
Physicist- (which I’m skeptical of by the way)
I graduate North Texas State University 1984 with a BS in physics and minored in mathematics.
How about your fellow human beings which in the end is likely what your doing anyway.
Not to be combative, but I look for guidance in men all the time, but that’s not the guidance I’m speaking of, but guidance of virtue.
Sure you would. If he was bigger or stronger or forced you to do so. But that aside if you do so to an idea or an invisible being you definetly would to one standing in front of you.
Surely I wouldn’t in my base nature, I would die first. I am an independent southron, I don’t Vote and do not accept the authority of this illegitimate government, I obey the rules as I am commanded to by God, unless those laws violate his law.
Pure baloney. But you just made an impressive insult to God. Seeing how he is larger than everything you must be nothing to him. Likewise if that isn’t true it wouldn’t be true if you where in the same scenario.
Apples and oranges I believe is the clique if I may. God created the universe therefore if there is a God he must care for the things he creates, I created nothing of the world an If I am the biggest thing there I have no real reason to value anything that does not please me.
And we just have a difference of opinion on what is rational, if there is no God who are you to define what is rational and not me? Why are your rational thoughts the only ones that are rational?
I’m really not looking for a fight, I work closely with a geologist and an engineer who are both atheist’s and have these discussions with civility. They understand me I and I understand them, and none of us thinks the other irrational.
And as write these things, I ask the Lord that he might lead me to understand your perspective and not judge you from my perspective alone.
I’m personally all for tying up Isis with knots. Just as long as there’s a safe word.
I heard about this stuff through a friend, who commented to me “You can look at it any way you want to, it’s still true.” I haven’t brought it up since, though I suppose it’d be for the best if I did.
Thank Tzeentch! This was my first beef with this tripe, and it’s still the one thing that bugs me the most. I failed Intro to EE, and I still understand electricity better than these morons. Makes me want to kick babies, so it’s a good thing I don’t hang around nurseries.
It looks like my invocations of Isis worked pretty well. :-)
Physicist, I can’t tell what your heart is, so I won’t judge you. You should know, however, that non-believers are likely to find your posts offensive for at least two reasons that leap out at me:
1) The idea that morality or conscience must have its source in God, which you’ve clearly implied;
2) The suggestion that the merits of belief vs. non-belief are entirely in the eye of the beholder.
The many atheists who follow the Golden Rule, yet are uncompromising and passionate in their devotion to reason are likely to take exception to anyone who gives them that impression. Peace…SH
Brendan
I recently quit watching anything but sports, weather, and local news along with the Catholic channel, I have tuned out as well to all the crap on the TV. Hey, does anybody know if Anna who the hell cares what her name is, is still dead, or did she rise on the third day? Blaaaah, pisses me off to no end, I hate that crap.
Scott, I’m sorry if I offended you, it was not my intention. And if by personal beliefs offend people here, please just ask me to leave, because offending people knowingly is against virtue.
Which comes from men. Men who you just happen to think have special powers.
Funny, funny, funny. You won’t vote which in my view is rather said given what this nation has afforded you. And instead follow God which is fine I guess EXCEPT for the fact that the version you follow is perhaps the most corrupt and morally bankrupt version on the planet.
And your not commanded anything by God. He hasn’t spoken to you. Your listening to men. You have willfully submitted yourself to other men. You are anything but independent.
They likely do on this angle. They just like you personally. I might as well if I knew you. They are more rational simply because they are not believing something minus evidence and you are doing so. Embrace it.
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?”
so the translation of “the secret” is:
ignorance is strength
?
Uber
You couldn’t be more wrong about me, and I have studied American History, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution of the United States, and I know that the government is is an unorganized criminal organization. While it does afford me some protection, it mostly harasses me. The police don’t protect me they solve the crime after it happened, a relative of mine wifes mother was shot here in Fort Worth today, and I’ll bet it will be on the 10 O clock News tonight. All this BS here in the police state we live in is a lie as far as I am concerned,
I have been thrown in Jail 3 times in past 5 years and the “Crime” I committed, had no victim. The other two times I was caged my lawyer, had me out and made them apologize to me and return my bail money. They didn’t like the fact that I didn’t accept their illegal authority. And they thought they could do to me as they wished, because they are fascist neo-con loving police state lovers, and how can they jack off at night to their self importance unless I grovel before them.
You know, since hearing about this thingie I’ve been sending out positive vibes to get a copy of Teh Secret all day, and nada!
I guess I won’t get one then. :-) Hey! It works!
Just think of the opposite of what you want!
Oh, and I get off probation on the 8th of this month. My Blog will hammer their asses shortly afterwards, thay are evil power hungry people. I don’t do drugs, but it is certianly illegal for the state to throw people in Jail because they do so, there is no Constitutional authority for the war on drugs, otherwise why was it necessary to pass an amendment to regulate booze. Where is the amendment to regulate drugs
I’m sorry to hear someone died today. Exactly how is that the police’s fault or the governments? Perhaps the actual killer is to blame.
You know Physicist both my brothers are police officers who work very hard to protect others. The fact you have been thrown in jail 3 times in 5 years and your ranting here make you seem like a pretty unstable individual.
But a picture of you is becoming pretty clear. If you don’t mind I really don’t think there is anything to say here anymore.
They didn’t like the fact that I didn’t accept their illegal authority.
neither did Kent Hovind.
(psst: he was wrong, too)
(amused, but genial) Physicist, you didn’t offend *me*. I don’t have a dog in that fight. I’m just telling you that others here can be pretty quick to take offense if they feel you are saying things that demean skepticism or non-belief. Good luck…SH
… why has nobody gotten up and said “hey! What she’s talking about, Like Attracts Like and Visualising What You Wish For and You Receive What You Send Out…”
… “isn’t that basically the principle behind witchcraft”?
(correct me if I’m wrong, it’s been a LONG time since I read anything about that stuff, isn’t there something about the Threefold Return or whatever the hell it’s called?…)
Can you imaging what’d happen to 60% of Oprah’s audience if you managed to get THAT statement called out in front of Oprah’s cameras?
… why not fight woo with woo? Why not let them consume and wipe out each other?
Scott, I almost never use Torpack, but the admin has banned me without warning. I would like to talk to you via private emeail I am at ru4cowboys@yahoo.com. Admin. please don;t delete this until scott says he has my address. Thanks. I won’t post here again unless the admin emails me and says it is OK for me to do so.
Add Occam’s Razor (if several hypotheses explain the data equally well, those that require the smallest number of ad hoc assumptions must be preferred), and you should be all set.
I’m incredibly skeptical of Occam’s Razor, here’s why:
If we assume that the most parsimonious theory is correct then doesn’t that lead us to a sort of Berkeley (the bishop not the city) type conclusion that the only thing that is real is God. I mean, that’s only one entity in existence and thus is the most parsimonious theory.
If we assume that the most parsimonious theory is correct then doesn’t that lead us to a sort of Berkeley (the bishop not the city) type conclusion that the only thing that is real is God. I mean, that’s only one entity in existence and thus is the most parsimonious theory.
No. The metaphysical view that there is only one kind of fundamental substance or essence or reality is monism, not theism. Monism is compatible with theism but does not require it. Materialism is also a form of monism.
Wait a second. I wasn’t going to post to this thread again but did this Physicist fellow just have a complete meltdown?
I missed post 109. Wow!
“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.”
Someone is in desperate need of a vowel movement.
“If we assume that the most parsimonious theory is correct then doesn’t that lead us to a sort of Berkeley (the bishop not the city) type conclusion that the only thing that is real is God. I mean, that’s only one entity in existence and thus is the most parsimonious theory.”
uh… what?
The idea that everything that has ever been observed, measured, and tested, and the results of the tests.. and the tests themselves… and the testers… and their cats… don’t exist, that there’s some mechanism by which all of this appears to be true but isn’t, that that mechanism leaves no trace of itself… and that it’s controlled by a being so incredibly powerful and complex as to be able to create this, all the while being completely unnoticable, unmeasurable, and untraceable, and contradicted by much if not all of what we can test and know?
That’s parsimonious?
The most complicated possible explanation is the simplest?
As far as the “only one entity in existence” bit, well, I’m no Sixpack Chopra, but it seems to me that that’s all in how you define it. As far as I know, there’s only one existence in existence.
But even so that’s not as simple as it could be. Given your way of thinking, the most parsimonious theory is that there is NO entity in existence. Nothing exists – what could be simpler than that?
Offhand I can’t think of a sensible way to explain this simple theory, but give me a few days and a dime bag and I can probably come up with something at least as good as this God dealie.
I’m not saying that Occam’s Razor is perfect, but it makes a fairly decent emergency pocket tool. If you use it right.
Have I shown mercy as God has shown me? Have I judged others as others have judged me. When I put on Christ, it is my duty to show mercy to others. As a Catholic, I hope, yet I know hope is sometime futile.
If I am banned, I would like to ask my brother, why you strike me, what did I do?
Well I was wrong, I have not been banned. Sorry for judging otherwise.
I wish to understand you, nothing more, I want to know, not proselytizes. I want to know you all, you are worth much and care what you think.
No melt down, I want to know you, nothing more, i accept you the way you are, and what you believe.
Welcome back then Physicist. But I guess you never left. :-)
The Physicist: turn off your computer, go to bed, and sleep it off.
Listen guys, I am completely sober, I believe what I do about government and God, not out whimsical wishful thinking, only because what I see, good night, it is well past my bedtime.
The true secret was reveled to me in a divine vision. I saw this form of transportation, it might have been a train. In any event, it talked. And kept telling me “I think I can. I think I can!”
There’s nothing even slightly simple — by any definition of the word — about omnipotent, omnipresent, invisible, completely undetectable entities. In fact, that’s by far the most complicated solution anyone has ever come up with to any problem that has ever been posed.
I’ll admit that it’s a pat answer, but it’s certainly not a simple one.
DominEditrix, you said: “the trick would be to start a magical-sounding thing… then… announce it had all been absolute bullshit”
Thing is, people wouldn’t believe you that it wasn’t real…
Wow you can be extremely stupid and extremely arrogant and extremely egotistical all in one sentence. “No one knows how electricity works?” Yes I do douche bag. Don’t tar me with ur ignorance brush.
Big celebs like Oprah sometimes need to justify their obscene wealth so they can enjoy it without guilt. This kind of “thinking” about the world is an easy way to do that. The rest of us, well, we are getting what we deserve or don’t deserve, it’s our choice.
Another grain of truth in The Secret is the idea of a news fast. (And nowadays, add the internet to that.)
Getting away from the TV, computer, and newspapers can yield almost immediate improvements in one’s life.
“DominEditrix, you said: “the trick would be to start a magical-sounding thing… then… announce it had all been absolute bullshit”
Thing is, people wouldn’t believe you that it wasn’t real…”
A certain “Carlos” comes to mind…
There’s methodological naturalism, and there’s metaphysical naturalism.
Methodological naturalism means that we ignore everything that’s not testable. This includes almost all religions in the wide sense: once a deity or something else supernatural, such as karma, is ineffable enough, it’s untestable. In short, methodological naturalism means that if we can’t explain something, we can’t say “well, that must be a miracle” — because we could say the same if the opposite of the observation had happened; saying it’s a miracle doesn’t explain anything. Methodological naturalism is the assumption that reality is consistent with itself — that miracles don’t happen often enough to make experiments unrepeatable. If we have to choose between “intelligent falling” and the theory of gravity, we choose the theory of gravity; if we have to choose between “intelligent design” — never mind the blatant design failures in every organism, which render ID testable — and the theory of evolution, we choose the theory of evolution. That’s parsimony: if we have to choose between a law of nature or a law of nature plus any number of miracles, we chose the law of nature alone because that requires the fewest additional assumptions.
Note that claims can be true without being testable. It is true that vanilla icecream tastes better than chocolate icecream, but that’s not testable — every test subject will tell you something different, so you can’t repeat the experiment reliably. Science is a narrow discipline. You could say it only cares about reality — that which can be measured or at least calculated in some way — and ignores truth.
Then there’s metaphysical naturalism. That is the position that, even though it’s not testable*, nothing supernatural exists: no miracles, no deities, no spirits, no karma, nothing. In other words, it is the idea that truth and reality are in fact the same.
Methodological naturalism is part of the scientific method.
Metaphysical naturalism is not, it is outside of science (though it is of course easily compatible with it).
* I must mention that I haven’t read Stenger’s book “God: The Failed Hypothesis”, which claims it is in fact testable and has been disproven. However, I can’t imagine how Stenger can do anything against the concept of ineffability, the ultimate science-stopper, the ultimately unparsimonious hypothesis.
Any more questions? :-)
There’s methodological naturalism, and there’s metaphysical naturalism.
Methodological naturalism means that we ignore everything that’s not testable. This includes almost all religions in the wide sense: once a deity or something else supernatural, such as karma, is ineffable enough, it’s untestable. In short, methodological naturalism means that if we can’t explain something, we can’t say “well, that must be a miracle” — because we could say the same if the opposite of the observation had happened; saying it’s a miracle doesn’t explain anything. Methodological naturalism is the assumption that reality is consistent with itself — that miracles don’t happen often enough to make experiments unrepeatable. If we have to choose between “intelligent falling” and the theory of gravity, we choose the theory of gravity; if we have to choose between “intelligent design” — never mind the blatant design failures in every organism, which render ID testable — and the theory of evolution, we choose the theory of evolution. That’s parsimony: if we have to choose between a law of nature or a law of nature plus any number of miracles, we chose the law of nature alone because that requires the fewest additional assumptions.
Note that claims can be true without being testable. It is true that vanilla icecream tastes better than chocolate icecream, but that’s not testable — every test subject will tell you something different, so you can’t repeat the experiment reliably. Science is a narrow discipline. You could say it only cares about reality — that which can be measured or at least calculated in some way — and ignores truth.
Then there’s metaphysical naturalism. That is the position that, even though it’s not testable*, nothing supernatural exists: no miracles, no deities, no spirits, no karma, nothing. In other words, it is the idea that truth and reality are in fact the same.
Methodological naturalism is part of the scientific method.
Metaphysical naturalism is not, it is outside of science (though it is of course easily compatible with it).
* I must mention that I haven’t read Stenger’s book “God: The Failed Hypothesis”, which claims it is in fact testable and has been disproven. However, I can’t imagine how Stenger can do anything against the concept of ineffability, the ultimate science-stopper, the ultimately unparsimonious hypothesis.
Any more questions? :-)
No. No untestable statement is true. And that is not an example of an untestable statement.
In short, I should have said, scientists act as if metaphysical naturalism were true, but they are by no means required to actually hold it. Methodological naturalism, however, is a prerequisite for science — we can always dream up any number of supernatural explanations for any observation, so if we allow supernatural explanations, we can’t explain anything (because we can explain everything and its opposite).
Now to other topics:
We can take the heat, we stay in the kitchen. In science we always fight to the death of all except at most one of the competing hypotheses. :-)
Firstly, why “biggest”? Why (if there’s nothing supernatural) assume “size” differences at all?
Secondly, I smell a logical fallacy. For the sake of the argument, assume that there is nothing supernatural, and that you are “the biggest thing”. Then maybe you do in fact have no reason to value anything that doesn’t please you. The argument from undesirable consequences is a logical fallacy: if you want something to be true, that doesn’t prove it is true.
Now, for the real question. I’m an apathetic agnosticist — “I don’t know, and I don’t care”*. Why, then, haven’t I pulled off a chainsaw massacre yet?
1. Because I wouldn’t find that fun. I’d find it horrible, revulsive, what have you. Why don’t I find it fun? Empathy appears to be innate. Abraham Lincoln said “if I do good, I feel good; if I do bad, I feel bad; that’s my religion”; I don’t see a reason to call that a religion, but apart from that, I feel the same. It is easy to come up with explanations for why empathy should have evolved. Reciprocal altruism has evolved several times, for example among the vampire bats, not to mention primates and plenty of other animals.
2. This brings us to the second point: my long-term self-interest. Even if I were a sadist, what would I gain, in the long term, from a chainsaw massacre, and what would I lose? A very easy calculation. Think about it. :-)
* BTW, that’s just the definition of methodological naturalism in other words.
I’m pretty sure they do think you’re irrational. Just keep in mind that “irrational” and “false” is not the same, even though everything irrational is unscientific.
Guess what — living in the EU, I agree that the USA have too little police, too many secret services, too many and too full prisons, and so on, and I also agree that the War on Drugs is a complete and very expensive failure. How that is an argument for anarchy, however, completely escapes me.
Why don’t you vote? Sure, the electoral college makes it frustrating, but if you don’t vote, you automatically vote for the winner, no matter if you like to.
In short, I should have said, scientists act as if metaphysical naturalism were true, but they are by no means required to actually hold it. Methodological naturalism, however, is a prerequisite for science — we can always dream up any number of supernatural explanations for any observation, so if we allow supernatural explanations, we can’t explain anything (because we can explain everything and its opposite).
Now to other topics:
We can take the heat, we stay in the kitchen. In science we always fight to the death of all except at most one of the competing hypotheses. :-)
Firstly, why “biggest”? Why (if there’s nothing supernatural) assume “size” differences at all?
Secondly, I smell a logical fallacy. For the sake of the argument, assume that there is nothing supernatural, and that you are “the biggest thing”. Then maybe you do in fact have no reason to value anything that doesn’t please you. The argument from undesirable consequences is a logical fallacy: if you want something to be true, that doesn’t prove it is true.
Now, for the real question. I’m an apathetic agnosticist — “I don’t know, and I don’t care”*. Why, then, haven’t I pulled off a chainsaw massacre yet?
1. Because I wouldn’t find that fun. I’d find it horrible, revulsive, what have you. Why don’t I find it fun? Empathy appears to be innate. Abraham Lincoln said “if I do good, I feel good; if I do bad, I feel bad; that’s my religion”; I don’t see a reason to call that a religion, but apart from that, I feel the same. It is easy to come up with explanations for why empathy should have evolved. Reciprocal altruism has evolved several times, for example among the vampire bats, not to mention primates and plenty of other animals.
2. This brings us to the second point: my long-term self-interest. Even if I were a sadist, what would I gain, in the long term, from a chainsaw massacre, and what would I lose? A very easy calculation. Think about it. :-)
* BTW, that’s just the definition of methodological naturalism in other words.
I’m pretty sure they do think you’re irrational. Just keep in mind that “irrational” and “false” is not the same, even though everything irrational is unscientific.
Guess what — living in the EU, I agree that the USA have too little police, too many secret services, too many and too full prisons, and so on, and I also agree that the War on Drugs is a complete and very expensive failure. How that is an argument for anarchy, however, completely escapes me.
Why don’t you vote? Sure, the electoral college makes it frustrating, but if you don’t vote, you automatically vote for the winner, no matter if you like to.
Here we see metaphysical naturalism. An entirely reasonable position — but not itself testable.
Not even if stated this categorically? Note I haven’t even defined “better”, and that I have made the implicit assumption that the truth of that claim is objective, whether or not (objectively) testable.
Here we see metaphysical naturalism. An entirely reasonable position — but not itself testable.
Not even if stated this categorically? Note I haven’t even defined “better”, and that I have made the implicit assumption that the truth of that claim is objective, whether or not (objectively) testable.
I tried to find the source of “science is a narrow discipline”, but Google doesn’t find Dr. Matthew Bonnan’s website (which had a long explanation of science theory and of evolution) anymore. On the other hand, Google found a mailing list post by me that contains a better explanation of methodological naturalism than what I’ve written above. Here goes:
Assuming that truth is reality is metaphysical naturalism.
Keep in mind that these meanings of “truth” and “reality” are largely confined to my usage. I haven’t invented them, but they are AFAIK rare out there. I just find them practical.
Confused yet, Physicist? :-)
(And… OK, a bachelor’s degree isn’t a doctorate, but still, someone should have taught you science theory when you studied a science.)
I tried to find the source of “science is a narrow discipline”, but Google doesn’t find Dr. Matthew Bonnan’s website (which had a long explanation of science theory and of evolution) anymore. On the other hand, Google found a mailing list post by me that contains a better explanation of methodological naturalism than what I’ve written above. Here goes:
Assuming that truth is reality is metaphysical naturalism.
Keep in mind that these meanings of “truth” and “reality” are largely confined to my usage. I haven’t invented them, but they are AFAIK rare out there. I just find them practical.
Confused yet, Physicist? :-)
(And… OK, a bachelor’s degree isn’t a doctorate, but still, someone should have taught you science theory when you studied a science.)
Physicist: You present me with a conundrum. On the one hand, you’d like to correspond. On the other hand, you give me the impression of being a little worked up by your circumstances, and I fear any correspondence will only end badly.
Oh, well. (gulp) I’ve given it out before. If you want to, you can send me email at:
epigene13@hotmail.com
Let’s be lucid, though, if we can.
With thoughts like these, you might already be an Ordained Minister of the Chuch of the SubGenius. You might want to get a certificate to commemorate the fact. It also looks good on business cards.
“How does it work? Nobody knows. Just like nobody knows how electricity works. I don’t, do you?”
This is just a test. If you answered “yes” please move along. If you answered “no” then I’ve got a line of shit … um, self-help program that is… for you.
Methodological naturalism is part of the scientific method.
Metaphysical naturalism is not, it is outside of science (though it is of course easily compatible with it).
* I must mention that I haven’t read Stenger’s book “God: The Failed Hypothesis”, which claims it is in fact testable and has been disproven. However, I can’t imagine how Stenger can do anything against the concept of ineffability, the ultimate science-stopper, the ultimately unparsimonious hypothesis.
Any more questions? :-)
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 6, 2007 09:25 AM
Very good David, and yes I have another question for you,PZ and the rest of the gang if you will indulge me.
Give me your best definition of Atheism, I wish PZ would make a post on it, but I know how busy he must be. I would like a place where we could all come to a consensus on exactly what atheism means to the atheist. Not being one myself, I would sure like to see it. And in all fairness and openness, I post as The Physicist over here and as Equus Pallidus over at Vox’s place. And it is my moniker at my blog, but since PZ is a scientist and really doesn’t care about the book of Revelation, I change it here.
I’m not here to harass or make fun of anyone, I do that over at Vox’s place. I like reading both blogs. So I am not some secret troll over here making hay for my own enjoyment.
Well, there’s more than one kind of atheist…
There’s the narrow sense, just not believing in any deities — that means that there are atheistic religions, like those kinds of Buddhism that don’t include any deities but nevertheless include supernatural affairs like a soul that gets reborn, karma, nirvana. However, most atheists today reject the idea that anything supernatural exists — this kind of atheism is identical with metaphysical naturalism, as far as I can tell. That’s the definition I recommend.
The argument is that we don’t have any reason to assume that there’s a difference between reality and truth (as I use those terms) and that, in addition, the idea that anything supernatural exists is not just useless (as in: not helping us to explain anything), but silly, childish like the Easter Bunny. I refrain from making that assumption because (…unlike the Easter Bunny) it’s not testable, which means we can’t actually know. That’s why I consider myself an agnosticist, even though there’s little or no difference in practice.
Well, there’s more than one kind of atheist…
There’s the narrow sense, just not believing in any deities — that means that there are atheistic religions, like those kinds of Buddhism that don’t include any deities but nevertheless include supernatural affairs like a soul that gets reborn, karma, nirvana. However, most atheists today reject the idea that anything supernatural exists — this kind of atheism is identical with metaphysical naturalism, as far as I can tell. That’s the definition I recommend.
The argument is that we don’t have any reason to assume that there’s a difference between reality and truth (as I use those terms) and that, in addition, the idea that anything supernatural exists is not just useless (as in: not helping us to explain anything), but silly, childish like the Easter Bunny. I refrain from making that assumption because (…unlike the Easter Bunny) it’s not testable, which means we can’t actually know. That’s why I consider myself an agnosticist, even though there’s little or no difference in practice.
No, it is not a position. It is merely a statement of fact. (Do we have a special name for the people who hold that two is the only even prime number? Of course not.)
And it is not merely “reasonable”, unless you use that term in the most specific and literal sense. It is a fundamental logical truth.
Two things…
1. If I had to sum the entire thing up, it’s that the Law of Attraction
is all about alignment. You’ve got to do the “work” if you want to
bring something info your life.
This is where I think people mess up, which gives the entire thing the
“MLM/Amway” kind of vibe. You can’t just sit around eating junk food
and watching reruns and expect to live on the beach…regardless of what
the infomercials say.
People like Joe Vitale are out working. Bob Proctor is out working.
James Ray is out working.
2. I found a FREE book (yes, FREE) that helped me figure out all of
this. http://www.receivethebook.com/ has it and it’s well worth the read.
And like I said, it’s FREE. So you can’t argue that the guy is trying
to take advantage of people looking for a “magic pill” or whatever else
I’ve been hearing over the last 2-3 weeks since this thing hit Oprah.
http://www.receivethebook.com/
What bullshit.
Just “sign up” to get the book.
What does that cost you?
Fucking spammer. I despise motivational books.
It all makes sense now. To get the things I want, I have to go out and get the things I want! It Really Really Works!(tm)
craig: Arguably, consumerism has been the state religion of the US for 50 years or more.
Sonja: Or we could use my “beauty paradox” – people are lovely when they do more interesting things with their lives. But if they are out doing stuff they aren’t spending any time with you. And so the most beautiful people are paradoxically (in a way) the least desirable, because they will never spend time with you.
Two things…
1. If I had to sum the entire thing up, it’s that the Law of Attraction
is all about alignment. You’ve got to do the “work” if you want to
bring something info your life.
This is where I think people mess up, which gives the entire thing the
“MLM/Amway” kind of vibe. You can’t just sit around eating junk food
and watching reruns and expect to live on the beach…regardless of what
the infomercials say.
People like Joe Vitale are out working. Bob Proctor is out working.
James Ray is out working.
2. I found a FREE book (yes, FREE) that helped me figure out all of
this. http://www.receivethebook.com/ has it and it’s well worth the read.
And like I said, it’s FREE. So you can’t argue that the guy is trying
to take advantage of people looking for a “magic pill” or whatever else
I’ve been hearing over the last 2-3 weeks since this thing hit Oprah.
http://www.receivethebook.com/
The guy behind this was on Larry King last night. I could not believe that anyone takes this guy seriously. His teeth aren’t even all that white…. Never mind that if you’re writing a book and doing presentations about it, then it’s not “the secret” anymore, is it?
Two things…
1. It’s a revelation that if you sit on your butt all day, nothing is likely to happen for you? Did we need a New Age guru to tell us this? It’s news that your attitude influences your life? Someone saying this impresses people?
2. Nothing wrong with getting a free book, and if it helps people, okay. But having a free edition doesn’t make any of this stuff worth paying for–or true. And having the free edition doesn’t make it *not* a rip-off when you do buy the book or pay hundreds to attend a conference…and why do I think that I’ll be urged to do both if I sign up to get the free download?
Great info.
I watched the Secret DVD a few months ago and got another book on Law of Attraction,
but it didn’t really start happening for me until I wrote down my intentions. I found that to be
VERY powerful.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0975436171/ is a book I just got, which makes
planning out your Law of Attraction goals easy. Just fill in the blanks and you’ve got a road
map to follow. Has been working well so far.
You didn’t read the article at all, did you?
“Self-Help’s Slimy ‘Secret'” in the 8 April Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601819.html