« People ignore facts when making decisions | Main | Where’s the journalism? »

January 27, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ah, the stench of the post-modernist's verbal dysentry. The most sensible thing to do with Mr Chopra is to have his name printed on toilet paper.
We could of course use his name for anagrams. It can't be his real name, surely. It seems somehow fake-mystical, just like him.
How about he changes his name to something equally mystical but more appropriate - Hako Deepcrap?

For a new world view to emerge it must be coherent. It cannot be built up from entirely personal experiences, because sometimes these experiences are so intense that we can't see beyond them.

Did Hako Deepcrap just give me some possible ammunition to use against Fore Sam, the guy who expects me to accept his chelation anecdote at face value?

Couldn't be.

The temptation to post some rational reply to Chopra over at Hogwashington evaporated the instant I actually contemplated wading into that swamp.
So -- insisting that we all inhabit the same objective reality is a foible of scientists, and something to be overcome? A cheap poke, Doctor.
Hey, wait ... A CHEAP POKE DR is an anagram for Deepak Chopra.
Wow, is that heavy.
Everything happens for a reason, man.

Scratch that; reverse that:

There are reasons for everything that happens.

I'm pretty sure there are an infinite number of reasons for each happening, so we're all living in a luxurious universe - which, by the way, is no accident, since such a luxury of reasons happens for a luxury of reasons...

Chopra's pseudointellectual borrowing of scientific words to make his bullshit sound "authentic," along with his abysmally stupid "science is mean" kind of talk, reminds me of this gem from Ethan Allen (I remembered just reading it in Sagan's Demon-Haunted World):

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.

That Chopra guy really burns my ass. He's been spouting the same codswallop for twenty years now. Gee, I wonder how that 'not aging' thing is working out for him. He'll probably say that he chose to let his physical body grow old for some bogus reason.

'the Huffington Post blog, that haven for anti-science screed'
Apart from the Chopra article, there isn't any 'anti-science' that I can see, the vast majority of the stories dealing with political issues. Obviously the author of the anti-Chopra article above (where is his/her name, by the way?) is not very familiar with this site, and has pre-judged it.

To anonymous:

You obviously haven’t read the numerous vaccinations-cause-autism and other general anti-evidence based medicine posts. The majority is about politics, that is true, but when science is involved the huff post is pretty much in the woo camp.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site