People are always telling me I have to check out this or that book or this or that film that will change my worldview, prove skeptics wrong or whatever. It’s usually backed by some claim that “scientists” support or have produced the information they want me to look at. It started years ago with Gregg Braden. A friend told me it contained all this amazing stuff, all confirmed by scientists etc etc and I shouldn’t criticize it unless I read it. Well OK, so I read it and it was the worst book of its kind I have ever read. Worst in that not only was it nonsense, but the manipulative style of the author made it clear he knew he was writing pseudo-scientific drivel to impress the scientifically naïve. It was so dishonestly bad it compelled me to write a review of Gregg Braden’s book – a review that I think has stood the test of time.
Then I was in a debate with someone about reincarnation. This guy said I should read the works of Ian Stevenson – a doctor who had documented cases that were very strong evidence for reincarnation, and I shouldn’t criticize it until I had read some of his work. So, I bought one of Stevenson’s books and I found it to be very unconvincing. His work is merely a collection of anecdotes: all the “past life behavior” had been witnessed before the author met any of the “reincarnated” children and so the veracity of the stories was hard to determine. In addition, in the later chapters Stevenson made several statements and drew conclusions that cast doubt on his ability to evaluate these kinds of claims critically. I thought this book was so bad that I wrote a review of Stevenson’s "Children Who Remember Previous Lives” and a general overview of Stevenson’s credulous outlook. I have since read skeptical reviews of Stevenson’s other work in Skeptic magazine and elsewhere, that mirrored my thoughts.
I then had a discussion with a Reiki practitioner who said I should read Candace Pert’s Molecules of Emotion that somehow proved Reiki worked (except it did no such thing). The same person said I should read another book called “Spiritual Healing” (ditto and ditto). Later still, various people told me I must see What The (Bleep) Do We Know!? What a waste of nearly two hours that was.
There have been many other examples.
Now, don’t get me wrong. It was interesting reading all those books and films, and it certainly gave me something to write about. And I learned a lot. For example, I think I can say with some degree of confidence that Ian Stevenson’s work is not good evidence for reincarnation. And since his work is considered to be some of the best evidence there is for reincarnation, I can say with some confidence there is probably no good evidence for reincarnation. I wouldn’t be able to say that if I hadn’t read his book. Likewise, while deconstructing What The Bleep for my review I became pretty clear about the flaws in each part of that absurd film. It’s comical now listening to true What The Bleep believers twittering to each other over dinner about the amazing things they found in this film. I can say this sure in the knowledge that I have seen it and examined it carefully with an open but critical mind and found it seriously wanting.
But enough is enough. I’ve seen enough now to get an idea if something is worth bothering with before I even start. I don’t have to read every book someone tells me about any more, if I don’t think the book’s premise makes sense. I was prompted to write this post after reading this comment apparently from Daniel Pinchbeck, after I wrote about Pinchbeck’s book here. (I wrote something on what his book appeared to be about, and how it looked like a load of 2012 / Mayan Calendar woo.) He made the point in his comment that he’s not going to defend his book if I’m not prepared to read it. And he’s quite right – why should he? But likewise, I see no need to invest time in a book that appears on the surface not to be worth the effort.
Don’t get me wrong. There may well be woo-ish books or films that I decide to look at, and maybe write reviews of in the future. It depends if the material looks interesting enough and if enough people are talking about it to make it worth the effort. But don’t expect me to read every book you found fascinating that you’re sure proves skeptics wrong, unless there is a very good reason for me to potentially waste days of my time. Sorry. No offense but been there done that.
As for Pinchbeck’s book – I haven’t read it so I can’t say for sure if it’s any good, but a book that (according to amazon.com) centers “around the Mayan prophecy that 2012 will bring about the end of the world as we know it”, comes under the heading of “this book’s premise makes no sense”. But don’t take my word for it – read it yourself if you want. Just don’t blame me if you think it’s woo.
You poor man. If anyone ever tries to talk you into the Celestine Prophecy, run screaming the other direction. Actually it's good for a laugh. But that's about it.
Posted by: mouse | June 22, 2006 at 02:26 AM
Without spending a penny (if that is what concerns you), you can find excerpts of my book at Disinfo and in Sub Rosa (the downloadable magazine of the Daily Grail). There are also a number of podcasts with me chattering away, including two at matrixmasters.com from previous Burning Mans. Also, interviews with ID Magazine and RU Sirius, and elsewhere.
I am not convinced by Braden either, but I find Ian Stevenson's work very compelling. What is your problem with it?
"The world as we know it" ending in 2012 is flap copy - but it is probably true in any case, Mayan Calendar or not, when you combine the effects of climate change, resource depletion, and the increasing toxification of the environment, plus proliferation of WMDs etc. Species extinction is also passing a critical threshold, so that if we don't make an ecological u-turn in the next few years, it may be irreversible.
My hypothesis (and I take care throughout the book to note that I am offering it as "thought experiment" with no desire to convert anyone to a new system of belief) is that some of us are now undergoing, as a nondual process that is meshed with the destructive effects of industrial globalization, an accelerated evolution of consciousness - and this presages a global transformation that will soon affect everyone. This shift in the nature of the psyche involves, as one of its aspects, an increase in synchronistic and psychic phenomena. This is simply, for those who have been experiencing it personally, something that cannot be denied. I can't even begin to enumerate the number of events in my own life that defy statistical possibility, compared to a number of years ago.
One possibility I consider is that psychic energy is becoming more apparent and available - in the same way, in the 1750s, people knew about lightning but did not know how to convert electrical energy into a transformative force that could radically alter the planet in two centuries. At the moment, an increasing number of people are becoming aware of psychic effects, but there is still no means of utilizing this energy for purposes of global transformation.
This is only one of many strands in the book.
Posted by: daniel | June 22, 2006 at 05:30 PM
Daniel:
Re: Without spending a penny (if that is what concerns you) …
Partly. But it was more the time involved to read another book. (And write the inevitable review.)
Re: I am not convinced by Braden either, but I find Ian Stevenson's work very compelling. What is your problem with it?
I provided the links in the post above (and in the left hand column), to my two pieces on Stevenson.
Re: "The world as we know it" ending in 2012 is flap copy - but it is probably true in any case, Mayan Calendar or not, when you combine the effects of climate change, resource depletion, and the increasing toxification of the environment, plus proliferation of WMDs etc. Species extinction is also passing a critical threshold, so that if we don't make an ecological u-turn in the next few years, it may be irreversible.
But why should it all happen in 2012? Either you are linking this to the end of the Mayan count or you aren’t. If you are – that’s 100% woo. The Mayans didn’t even predict the end of anything then – it just means the start of a new count (like reaching a new millennium). If you’re not, then why 2012? What evidence specifically shows something happens in 2012? I think you’re trying to have it both ways here, which (sorry to say this) is a standard woo technique.
Re: My hypothesis (and I take care throughout the book to note that I am offering it as "thought experiment" (snip)… accelerated evolution of consciousness
The evidence for this is… ?
Re: - and this presages a global transformation that will soon affect everyone. This shift in the nature of the psyche involves, as one of its aspects, an increase in synchronistic and psychic phenomena. This is simply, for those who have been experiencing it personally, something that cannot be denied.
Those who have fooled themselves into thinking they have experienced psychic phenomena might not deny it. But humans fool themselves easily. Where is the evidence? Will it be here pretty soon?
Re: I can't even begin to enumerate the number of events in my own life that defy statistical possibility, compared to a number of years ago.
Well, if you “can’t even begin to enumerate” these things you’ll excuse me for thinking I don’t need to take any notice of this claim.
Re: One possibility I consider is that psychic energy is becoming more apparent and available - in the same way, in the 1750s, people knew about lightning but did not know how to convert electrical energy into a transformative force that could radically alter the planet in two centuries.
A false analogy, because there was evidence that lightening did exist in the 1750s: it could cause measurable damage, for example. OTOH there is no good evidence that psychic phenomena exist. Unless (to repeat myself here), you think this will be available pretty soon.
Re: At the moment, an increasing number of people are becoming aware of psychic effects, but there is still no means of utilizing this energy for purposes of global transformation.
No. A correct statement would be:
At the moment, an increasing number of people are fooling themselves into believing in psychic effects, but there is still no means of utilizing this supposed energy for purposes of global transformation – most likely because it doesn’t exist.
Sorry Daniel, but what you wrote here is just the usual credulous shtick about psychic phenomena etc, backed just by anecdotes. We’re still looking for evidence of psychic phenomena. We’ve been looking for it for centuries. Real science progresses and produces benefits while parapsychology is still playing guessing games for no benefit whatsoever.
Posted by: Skeptico | June 22, 2006 at 06:18 PM
I might feel better about "events that deny statistical possibility" if I saw a statistical analysis of these events over the whole sample population.
In a world with getting on for seven billion people, million-to-one coincidences are peanuts. Even billion-to-one coincidences are on the cards. Since the population is growing by the second and people are living longer, this gives ever more opportunities for apparently strange things to happen.
Richard Dawkins talks about "PETWHAC" in his book, "Unweaving The Rainbow". PETWHAC is the Population of Events That Would Have Appeared Coincidental, i.e. not only the numer of people but also the number of opportunities for coincidences to occur.
Dawkins tells how he bought an antique watch for his mother, and he was stunned to see her very initials on the back when he got it home.
However, he didn't stop there. With the aid of a London telephone directory, he did an a statistical survey of the frequency of appearance of those initials. It turned out that the probablility was pretty reasonable compared to the population of London.
Dawkins mentioned that he had just remembered a boy at his school with the name of de Havilland, and that if a de Havilland aircraft were to fly by the window at that moment, it would seem pretty amazing...
It didn't happen. That non-event was still part of the PETWHAC, but it wouldn't "count".
Every second, there are millions of events, but say that there is only one. Every day, there are 86,400 seconds. Every week, there are 604,800. There are about 6,600,000,000 people in the world. That would mean that every week the PETWHAC would consist of 3,991,680,000,000,000 person-events. In other words,one-in-a-million events would happen to more than half the people in the world. Nearly four billion people might come across one-in-a-BILLION coincidences.
One in a trillion? Four thousand every week. This is assuming that only one event happens every second for each person.
I believe that most people who bandy probability numbers actually don't have much experience with real statistics.
Posted by: Big Al | June 23, 2006 at 02:27 AM
Sorry, a mere 4 million people would be privileged to see those one in a billion coincidences. Say the population of a large city.
Posted by: Big Al | June 23, 2006 at 02:29 AM
Reply to Mr. Pinchbeck:
Citizen of Black Rock City, make way for the Lamplighter (um, me, although I haven't been a Lamplighter since 2004):
Not to dogpile on you, but I have the same concerns as others - the main one being the "events that defy statistical probability," which was explained far more brilliantly than I can do by Big Al above.
And I have further doubts about the increasing number of people who are experiencing psychic phenomena: What, exactly, is it that they are experiencing? How do we know that this number is increasing? Is it increasing at the same rate as the population increases? Is there some index of people who have experienced psychic phenomena that we can look at? Just what IS a psychic phenomenon anyway? Are we talking about "I was thinking about my mom and right then she called me on the phone," or what? Mostly I just want to know that there is some evidence of this, not just that some people have told you that they have experienced some sort of psychic phenomenon.
I am a skeptic, yes. But I don't think that wanting to see some evidence of your claims makes me, as you said in another post, a "believer in skepticism." All I can say to that is "careful with that canard, it's an antique."
Also it avoids the real issue, which is that if you want me to believe in what you believe in, please provide me with some evidence that what you believe in is true. This shouldn't be such a huge problem, and yet it provokes all kinds of responses, none of which are simply providing evidence. But it does produce the "skepticism is a religion and you're closed-minded" stuff. That is merely a distraction, and has been debunked since the Middle Ages at least.
All I or any other skeptic ask for is this: Show me the non-anecdotal experience. That's all. Somehow, up until now, it hasn't happened, but I eagerly await your response.
Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2006 at 02:08 AM
A Dutch writer/comedian named Wim Schippers coined the phrase "ongezien kut"; the most literal translation, while not losing any of the meaning, is "sucks unviewed." More freely translated, it means that there are certain books, television programs, films, etc. which you don't have to read or see to know they suck. The only purpose actually served by doing is to enable you to determine in what manner, and to which degree, they suck.
I acknowledge that it's not in the best skeptical tradition to reject material without having investigated them fully, but who has the time? I think a reasonable response to someone who says "oh, you should read this book, it'll totally change your worldview" is to ask two questions.
The first is: "Have you actually read the book yourself?" Many people are aware of the existence of a particular work because it purportedly provides evidence for an implausible belief, but haven't actually bothered to read it. And if they haven't, why should you be expected to?
If the answer to the first question is affirmative, however, the second question is whether the recommending party can give a coherent summary of what is supposedly so convincing about the work in question, and especially point to specific passages which provide the crucial evidence. In my experience, wooish ideas are next to impossible to paraphrase coherently without resorting to demonstrable untruths or gibberish (mainly to sidestep some really obvious objections), whereas at least the basic premise of an idea that has some basis in reality can be expressed in terms comprehensible to the layman. For example, I never took physics beyond secondary school, but I've had the premise of string theory explained to me in a way I could understand; I can't tell whether or not string theory is correct--nobody can--but at least I can understand the idea behind it without having to read a whole book about it first. I have yet to encounter a wooish belief that could be explained concisely and not sound implausible.
Posted by: | June 25, 2006 at 01:23 PM
"One possibility I consider is that psychic energy is becoming more apparent and available - in the same way, in the 1750s, people knew about lightning but did not know how to convert electrical energy into a transformative force that could radically alter the planet in two centuries. At the moment, an increasing number of people are becoming aware of psychic effects, but there is still no means of utilizing this energy for purposes of global transformation."
Woolly and confused thinking at its best. It's completely devoid of definition and meaning. Words, such as "energy" are used freely in the manner of Humpty Dumpty without any thought as to their actual meaning. It's insulting to any vaguely intelligent soul with a functioning, enquiring mind. Just the word "psychic" is a give-away, so why would any self-respecting, reasonably informed human being (with an awareness that time is limited) want to waste their time reading such mindless drivel - especially when the real world is infinitely more complicated, wonderful and interesting.
Posted by: pv | June 25, 2006 at 05:22 PM
Maybe I've missed something here, but what was wrong with 'What the Bleep?' Admittedly they did try to cram too much diverse information into too short a time-frame, and the latter half of the documenary/film where they made the daft claim that everything we do and think is just a response to chemical stimulation of the brain (yeah, right), but apart from those shortcomings...
Actually, where they talk about the natives of the Caribbean not seeing the ships of Columbus because it was outside their worldview sounds plausible if only because I've had the same thing happen to me (and it still does happen) MANY times. There will be something right in front of me that I am looking for, but I will just, quite literally, not see it. Only when someone with a funny look on their face points it out to me will it, almost like magic, appear.
I know, 'anecdotal evidence' doesn't count for you, but it does for me! It happens!
Posted by: | June 25, 2006 at 06:32 PM
Peter Ambrus (for it was indeed he):
Re: Maybe I've missed something here, but what was wrong with 'What the Bleep?'
Er, yes you did miss something. You missed my lengthy review of What The Bleep Do We Know. (Er – click on the link to the left Peter – it’s the highlighted underlined bit. It’ll take you to the review.)
Re: Actually, where they talk about the natives of the Caribbean not seeing the ships of Columbus because it was outside their worldview sounds plausible if only because I've had the same thing happen to me (and it still does happen) MANY times. There will be something right in front of me that I am looking for, but I will just, quite literally, not see it. Only when someone with a funny look on their face points it out to me will it, almost like magic, appear.
Talk about synchronicity. Read my post today on the logical fallacy you are relying on now - Equivocation.
Posted by: Skeptico | June 25, 2006 at 08:48 PM
"More people are experiencing strange phenomena" - or is it just that more people are loooking for coincidences since "WTBDWK" and its kin were released?
Did the first travellers to Australia fail to see the kangaroos and koalas? Did uneducated people in the early 1900s fail to see those new-fangled aircraft spluttering through the sky? Did Isambard Brunel's workers fail to see the enormous, unprecendented "S.S. Great Eastern", which was 7 times bigger than any ship in the world and about the first iron-hulled ship?
I might be more impressed by the Columbian myth if other well-attested "culture shocks" produced similar reactions. So far, we seem to have a sample population of 1.
I find it more probable that the native Americans got their scales confused, assuming that the distant ships were small canoes or the like, and no threat.
Posted by: Big Al | June 26, 2006 at 02:18 AM
"There will be something right in front of me that I am looking for, but I will just, quite literally, not see it."
This means you aren't looking as carefully as you think. You might be distracted, for example, thinking about having your eyes tested maybe, or how you are going to afford the next lobotomy. It happens.
The idea that one doesn't see some large material object because it is outside the sphere of one's experience is, quite simply, mind-numbingly stupid. Sure, one might not know what something is, or the significance of it even. But to contend that something is invisible because it has never been seen before is, to put not too finer point on it, taking the piss.
Everything is outside the sphere of experience of a newborn baby so, according to the "logic", they can't possibly see anything. So, how do they progress from there? How do things ever fall into one's sphere of experience?
Posted by: pv | June 26, 2006 at 02:55 AM
There will be something right in front of me that I am looking for, but I will just, quite literally, not see it. Only when someone with a funny look on their face points it out to me will it, almost like magic, appear.
Wait, are you my son? Matthew, what are you doing posting here? Get back to your breakfast!
Posted by: Paul | June 26, 2006 at 04:59 AM
Hang on - this must be why so many people didn't understand the full ramifications and derivation of Einstein's proof of E=mc^2!
It wasn't because the mathematics were hard to follow, but because they couldn't [i]see[/i] the equations!
Wait - I never thought of that before. That must mean I never thought of it at all. Damn!
Posted by: Big Al | June 26, 2006 at 08:24 AM
Excellent. If I encounter massive factual errors present in an author's work I refuse to read them. Checking credible sites online is a good way to screen a potential reading list. For example, in Dan Brown's Digital Fortress he claims that "vodka and cranberry juice is the national drink of Spain" (from Wikipedia, of course I didn't PAY for his crap). I'm an 18 yr. old female whos heading off to a prestigious women's college in the fall. I don't drink, but I do know for a fact that vodka is an EASTERN European drink and that cranberries are NOT native to the Iberian peninsula. Even if I wasn't aware of these basic facts I was able to find them in about 5 min. worth of searching on Wiki. The most pathetic aspect of this error is that Mr. Brown has a degree in Spanish from Amherst college. As such, shouldn't he be aware of the culture of Spain/Latin America, esp. if he's writing about it? Wouldn't Madeira or Sangria be a more intelligent guess for the national drink, or dry red wine? Is it that difficult to find a single book on Spanish cuisine? So that's why I don't read Dan Brown (partly, not mention that Nabokov is a much better writer, and that there's more interesting and fun ways to piss of the Vatican).
Posted by: Ingrid | June 28, 2006 at 10:07 AM
AAARGH! Please excuse my spelling errors, I'm not very adept with the keyboard. I'm also hopped up on Diet Coke and sunny weather.
Posted by: Ingrid | June 28, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Hey, Ingrid, don't talk to me about "Digital Fortress"! I confess to buying this when I was hanging around at Heathrow Airport. I read it with sick fascination. I will say that it kept me reading, but the cardboard-cutout characters, deus ex machina and ludicrous portrayal of Spain as some third-world slum were of little import compared to the slew of laughable titanic technical misconceptions and mistakes.
I do expect someone writing a techno-thriller to do at least a teeny bit of research. For example, Brown thinks a 128-bit number is twice as large as a 64-bit number. No, Mr. Brown, a 65-bit number is twice as large as a 64-bit one. And 66 bits is four times bigger... and so on.
It was so outside my realm of expectations that I'm amazed I saw it at all! ;)
As for Nabokov being a better writer than Dan Brown, it's like saying that Mother Theresa was a nicer person than Jack the Ripper.
Posted by: Big Al | June 29, 2006 at 01:49 AM
"like saying that Mother Theresa was a nicer person than Jack the Ripper"
Well, was she? From what I understand she was a bit of a cunt...
Anyway, without wanting to defend Brown (who would?) I'm immediately wondering if the particular criticism is not misplaced. Was Brown really asserting that Vodka and Cranberry juice is 'the national drink of Spain' in guidebookese, or was it (supposed to be) hyperbole or insult? I can imagine it as being a bit like saying 'cheap gold and Kappa tracksuits are the National Dress of the British', or something...
Posted by: outeast | July 10, 2006 at 07:23 AM