Skeptico

Law of Attraction not working for Joe Vitale

Yesterday I posted The “Law” of Attraction (Not) – a response to Joe Vitale’s blog post, Is Attraction a Law?  Short version – The Law of Attraction (LOA) is not a law like the Law of Gravitation that has predictable, repeatable (no exceptions) results. I posted a brief comment on Joe’s blog, linking back to my post.

Now, Joe is one of the luminaries who appears in “The Secret”, and he has clearly stated the “LOA does work every time - no exceptions”. If this is true, Joe must have attracted my attentions, and my skeptical responses and questions. Strangely though, Joe doesn’t practice what he preaches with regard to the LOA. Specifically, he resorts to the decidedly non-LOA method of holding all comments on his blog until he can read them and decide which ones he will allow to be published. Why does he need to do this? Surely if you can use the LOA to make checks appear in your mailbox instead of bills (one of the specific claims made for the LOA), you can use the LOA to make only complimentary comments appear in your blog? Or doesn’t Joe really believe in the LOA?

Check out the actual exchange of comments (reproduced below), and remember that Joe is not just some random LOA believer – he is one of the main proponents of The Secret and the LOA, and he actually appears in the film:

Skeptico: Joe, I don’t think you understand what a Law is and what it isn’t. I just posted a reply: The “Law” of Attraction (Not).

Joe Vitale: Ah, you might want to re-read my post. :)

While people are arguing if LOA is a law or not, others are using the principle/law/insight/method (choose what makes you feel ok) to create lives of happiness and abundance.

The choice is yours.

Note the avoidance of the issue. I point out the LOA is not a Law. Joe ignores this, and equivocates by saying many people are benefiting from it. Remember, his claim was that the LOA is a Law like gravity. I try to pull him back to what was, remember, the subject of this post on his blog:

Skeptico: Maybe they are. And I re-read your post. The Law of Attraction is still not a law, for the reasons I gave in my post.

Joe Vitale: The next time a cop pulls you over for speeding, be sure to tell him you don't have to obey that "law," either.

Joe avoids the issue again – this time equivocating to a different (lesser) kind of law – speeding. But a speeding law (made up by man) is not the same as a scientific Law: you can break a speeding law; you can’t break the laws of the universe. Remember, Joe is the one who, in his own post, compares the LOA to gravity. He can’t justify that and so he has to try to pretend this is now the same as a traffic law.

Skeptico: A Scientific Law is a precise description of how the universe works. A speeding law is a rule written by lawyers – it says if you break the law you get a fine. The universe can’t “break” the law of gravitation – that’s the difference.

The math for Newton’s laws works every time. That’s why it’s a law. The Law of attraction does not work every time, if at all – that’s why it is not a law.

Joe Vitale: Again, LOA does work every time - no exceptions.

Again, re-read my post.

Note – Joe again ignores my arguments for why the LOA is not a law like the Law of Gravitation that he compared it to. He just asserts he is right, with no evidence, and not one word to refute what I had written. Clearly the LOA is not working to Joe’s benefit, as I am still responding to his original post, making points that refute his claims - points he can’t refute. Here’s where Joe gives up on the LOA that he has just said, “does work every time - no exceptions”, because clearly it’s not working for him now. What is this non-LOA method for getting rid of me? Easy - he doesn’t allow my next comment to be published. This is the comment Joe didn’t want anyone to see:

Skeptico: No it doesn't. It's not a Law. And read my post.

That’s it. Those were the eleven words Joe was frightened you would read. The eleven measly words that the oh-so-powerful LOA couldn’t make disappear. This is the best that one of the main proponents of The Secret can come up with. Remember that when anyone tells you how profound The Secret and the LOA are.

I’m not going to comment any more on Joe’s blog – I’m not going to waste time on someone who holds comments for review and then won't publish those he doesn’t like. (You can see some other critical comments now after mine.  Did Joe attract those, I wonder?  Remember, some of those people might have replied to Joe with comments he didn’t allow.) But I’m going to ask him two open questions about this LOA that “does work every time - no exceptions”:

1. Suppose there is a traffic jam. Some of the people caught in that jam had been worried about being late, and so possibly attracted the jam. What about the other people caught in the jam who had been positive, and had been thinking about being on time? How is the LOA working for them?
2. Imagine two people with identical bicycles. One locks up his bike because he is worried about theft. The other one is not worried about theft, and leaves his bike at the same place, unlocked. If the bike thief steals the unlocked bike, how is the LOA working for these two people? Or are you saying the bike thief will only steal the locked bike and ignore the unlocked one? If you are saying this, what studies have been done to show that this actually happens?

You can reply in the comments, Joe. I don’t hold replies for moderation.

They never heard of Stargate?

Readers Kim, Jeremy and Tyler each emailed me a story of how the UK Ministry of Defence has spent £18,000 ($35,000) on experiments to discover if psychic powers exist and if they could put to military use:

Subjects were blindfolded and asked if they could "see" the contents of sealed brown envelopes containing pictures of random objects and public figures.

[…]

More than a quarter – 28 per cent – of those tested managed a close guess at the contents of the envelopes, which included pictures of a knife, Mother Teresa and an "Asian individual". But most subjects were hopelessly off the mark.

[…]

The MoD last night refused to discuss the possible applications of such a technique, but said that the study had concluded there was "little value" in using "remote viewing" in the defence of the nation.

Have they never heard of Project Stargate – the US government’s failed attempt from the 1970s through 1995 to look for exactly the same thing? They spent $20 million before they realized it doesn’t work and gave up. (At least the UK government only wasted $35K.) The PsiTech organization supposedly purchased the “technology” from the US government, and are having a similar consistent lack of success in being able to remote-view anything correctly.

One thing in the article caught my eye:

Defence experts tried to recruit 12 psychics who advertised their abilities on the internet, but when they refused they were forced to use "novice" volunteers.

Typical. As Randi knows, as soon as you want to test any “psychic” to see if they really can do what they say, they run for the hills. They must hate freedom.

Of course, if remote viewing really worked, we’d have captured bin Laden years ago.

The “Law” of Attraction (Not)

Cosmic Connie alerted me to a blog posting by Joe Vitale, apparently one of the stars of “The Secret”. Joe asks rhetorically, “Is Attraction a Law?”, and answers in the affirmative using this example, comparing the Law of Attraction to gravity:

The people who say attraction is not a law cite examples such as, "I know gravity works. When I drop a book off a skyscraper, it will hit the ground. That's proof of the law of gravity."

Agreed.

They then go on to say, "When I try to attract something, sometimes I get it and sometimes I don't. So it isn't a law."

Not agreed.

Here's why.

Saying you tried to attract something and failed is like saying you tried to drop a book from a skyscraper to hit a particular spot and you missed. Because you missed the spot, you say gravity doesn't exist.

Oh boy. Not agreed Joe – not even close. Your argument is a false analogy. Newton’s Laws of Gravitation do not say that when you drop something (like a book, for example), it will land on a particular spot. What the Universal Law of Gravitation actually says is:

Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

This force of gravitational attraction between the two bodies acts along the line joining their centres. This force is hence mutual.

And there are precise specific mathematical formulae that describe these relationships, for example:

Consider two bodies of masses m 1 & m 2 with their centers separated by r. let F be the force of gravitational attraction between two bodies. According to newton's law of gravitation,

[snip]

F = G Mm/R²

These formulae (and others I have omitted), describe gravitation, and they always work every time – that’s why they are Laws. As I wrote before, if you replicate Newton’s experiments, you will find that gravity accelerates objects at exactly the rate predicted by the Law. The so-called “Law of Attraction” simply does not work like this. Actually, it doesn’t work at all – simply wishing for something will not make it appear, and pretending that it does and that this is a Law like gravity, is naive childish gibberish.

SETI finds something

Here’s a reason to run SETI@Home on your laptop. Via JREF I learn that someone was able to retrieve a stolen laptop using the SETI software running on it. When the stolen laptop called into SETI, the IP address of the thief was recorded on SETI’s servers:

Melin monitored the SETI(at)home database to see if the stolen laptop would "talk" to the Berkeley servers. Indeed, the laptop checked in three times within a week, and Melin sent the IP addresses to the Minneapolis Police Department.

After a subpoena to a local Internet provider, police determined the real-world address where the stolen laptop was logging on. Within days, officers seized the computer and returned it.

Finally, proof there is intelligent life in Minnesota.

The Secret

I wasn’t going to bother with this, but numerous people have emailed me to ask when I’m going to review The Secret, and as it seems to be everywhere I decided I should give it a look.

I’m not going to watch the entire movie, though. As I wrote here, I’ve seen enough to get an idea if something is worth bothering with before I even start. And I don’t have to read every book or watch every film someone tells me about if I don’t think the book or film’s premise makes sense. However, I found the first 20 minutes online for free (I’m definitely not paying to see this film), and I’m basing this review on that initial 20 minute segment. If you think I’ve missed some crucial part of the film by only seeing 20 minutes, you can tell me what I missed, in the comments.

So, what is the big Secret?

The Secret is what they call the Law Of Attraction – the idea that you become or attract what you think about the most. Or as one person expressed it:

“Thoughts become things.”

This is presented as a literal truth – a law just like the laws of gravitation. And it is stated that this:

“Always works every time”

Note: always. And every time. No exceptions. It’s a Law, you see.

Examples are given. A man is shown worrying about being late, and so he gets stuck in a traffic jam. Another man is shown locking up his bicycle, presumably because he is worried about it being stolen; he returns later to find it has been stolen. The absurdity of these examples should be obvious. Are we supposed to believe the traffic jam wouldn’t have happened if it were not for this one guy worrying about being late? And what about the other people in the traffic jam? Were they all thinking negative thoughts about being late? Were there no positive-minded people in the area, thinking about being on time? And if there were, doesn’t that debunk the “always works every time” mantra? And what about the guy getting his bike stolen? Are we to assume that if another guy had left an identical unlocked bike at the same location, the bike thief would still have stolen the locked bike of the person worried about theft? Has anyone done a controlled study on this? (Hey, these were the examples used in the film – don’t blame me if they make no sense.)

As with What The Bleep, it is implied that there is science behind these revelations. For example, there was this from the self-proclaimed "visionary" Rev. Dr. Michael Beckwith:

"It has been proven scientifically now that an affirmative thought is hundreds of times more powerful than a negative thought."

Really? Proven by which scientists? And written up where? Because I couldn’t find it.

Not a Law

Of course, the basic flaw in all this is that the Law Of Attraction is not a Law like the Law Of Gravitation that they compare it to. Newton’s Law’s can be demonstrated by anyone – drop an object and its acceleration will be exactly as the Law predicts. And this really does “always work every time” – that’s why it’s a Law. The “Law Of Attraction” as they call it just doesn’t work that way. Although having a positive attitude, being confident, believing in your own success etc is a definite advantage, and should be encouraged, having positive thoughts will not send out magic brainwave frequencies that change reality around you. This brainwave “magnetic signature” as one person called it, never goes out, any time. Not in the real world.

Equivocation

As with What the Bleep, you should watch out for equivocation. Expect believers to point out that being positive, confident etc will make people react more positively towards you, will tend to make you more successful etc. And it will. But they are equivocating about a lesser version of The Secret – a lesser version that does not support the “thoughts become things” and “it always works every time” woo version.

The film featured some of the same luminaries as in What the Bleep. I noticed John Hagelin and Fred Alan Wolf. And the “you literally create your day with your thoughts” nonsense is pretty much the same as What The Bleep was trying to sell. It wasn’t in the first 20 minutes, but I’m sure that before the end, quantum mechanics would have been evoked to justify all the mystical conclusions.  Unfortunately, Quantum Mechanics, and even the Copenhagen Interpretation, does not say this is the way the universe works.

And that’s no secret.

Other articles

Mike’s Weekly Skeptic Rant has an amusing review.

Karin Klein in the LA Times - another amusing review.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary on the law of attraction.

The Secret of Delusion from The Second Sight.

Newsweek article Decoding “The Secret”.

Skeptico's follow-up post Feb 23, 2007 - The “Law” of Attraction (Not).

Skeptico's follow-up post Feb 24, 2007 - Law of Attraction not working for Joe Vitale.

Salon on Oprah's ugly secret .

The Secret of The Secret - A cult self-help DVD fleeces the credulous from ReasonOnline.

The Onion gets it right as usual.

The Village Voice on Shopping with The Secret.

Oprah's 'Secret' Could Be Your Downfall from AlterNet.

The Wrath of the Secretrons from the Skeptical Inquirer.

The Secret of The Secret's Success, by Steve Salerno in The American Spectator.

Think Negative! Oprah, it's time to come clean about The Secret.

RFK a true believer?

Longer term readers will remember Robert F. Kennedy Junior’s rather absurd articles in Salon about how autism is caused by mercury in vaccines and the CDC etc is covering it all up. In June 2005 I covered RFK’s manipulation of the facts and quote mining, as well as a more detailed review of his quote-mining of the Institute of Medicine report. Many others blogged about it too. I wondered aloud if Kennedy really believed the nonsense he was spouting, or if he just hadn’t read the reports he was writing about.

Reader Kim just sent me this link to the Going All the Way blog where blog owner Gabolicious described how she was present recently at a talk given by RFK. And it seems RFK is still spouting the same old nonsense, judging by this response to a question from the mother of an autistic child:

[RFK’s] response was a good ten-minute rant about how our vaccines are making kids autistic because of the mercury in them, how American pharmaceutical companies introduced autism to China because of the vaccines they sent over, how more and more kids are being diagnosed with autism every year because there is so much mercury everywhere, that the Amish don’t have autistic kids because they don’t vaccinate their babies, the Christian Scientists and Scientologists don’t have autistic kids, either, for the same reasons…

Same old nonsense. (Incidentally, I also wrote in August 2005 how Kennedy was wrong about the Amish claim and his conclusions. Nothing has changed and Kennedy is still just as wrong about this as he was then.)

Later at the same meeting, Gabolicious got to meet RFK as he worked the room, and she asked him what he would say to a family who has just learned their child was autistic:

He said yes, chelation is a tough issue, you know, our bodies don’t produce as much of this hormone/ chemical anymore, and it is one of the big things we need to process and extract mercury…

As Gabolicious points out, this doesn’t even make sense.  If autism has increased because of increased mercury in vaccines, then why is our supposed recent inability to produce as much of a hormone as before, even an issue?

Obviously I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the above report, but Gabolicious, as an apparent admirer of RFK in other areas, seems genuine in how she reports these events. So it seems that RFK probably really does believe the nonsense he spouts about autism. Although autism numbers are not falling, despite the removal of mercury from childhood vaccines, RFK is apparently still a true autism conspiracy believer. Ho hum.

54th Skeptics’ Circle

The 54^th Skeptics' Circle has just been posted at Action Skeptics – a day in the life of "Jack Bixby, Skeptical Investigator". It’s a good read - click the link for the best skeptical blogging from the last two weeks.
For additional interesting reading, the 48^th History Carnival has just been posted at Aardvarchaeology.

The Atheist Delusion

And yes – this is a parody.

Equivocation on acupuncture

Do you ever notice how alternative medicine proponents like to quote science when it supports of their brand of woo, but hope you won’t notice the science doesn’t support the woo explanation? I wrote about equivocation before – how woos get you to accept a reasonable story or explanation for something, as a Trojan horse to bring in the woo explanation. I was reminded of this today when a friend sent me this link to Oprah’s introduction to acupuncture:

Dr. Oz explains the science behind acupuncture. Everyone knows that acupuncture involves sticking needles into your skin, but how might that cure what ails you? Dr. Oz says the needles stimulate endorphins and serotonin in your brain—natural chemicals that regulate pleasure and mood.

I’ll ignore the fact that this is really speculation – I don’t think stimulation of endorphins has actually been shown conclusively, but I accept it might be true. It’s not that extraordinary a claim to say that that sticking needles in someone might stimulate the body’s own pain moderation system. But the obvious fact is that stimulating endorphins is not what acupuncture claims to do. Acupuncture is supposed to stimulate the flow of “qi”:

When Chi flows freely through the meridians, the body is balanced and healthy, but if the energy becomes blocked, stagnated or weakened, it can result in physical, mental or emotional ill health. [Snip]

To restore the balance, the acupuncturist stimulates the acupuncture points that will counteract that imbalance. So, if you have stagnant Chi, he will choose specific points to stimulate it. If the Chi is too cold, he will choose points to warm it. If it is too weak, he will strengthen it. If it is blocked, he will unblock it, and so on. In this way, acupuncture can effectively rebalance the energy system and restore health or prevent the development of disease.

Dr. Oz seemingly admits that the “science” shows acupuncture merely stimulates endorphins. But note that, now he has mentioned science, and used scientific terms (endorphins, etc), he morphs seamlessly to include the woo explanation with the scientific one, hoping you won’t notice the next bit has nothing to do with science:

Alternative medicines, Dr. Oz says, deal with the body's energy—something that traditional Western medicine generally does not. "We're beginning now to understand things that we know in our hearts are true but we could never measure," he says. "As we get better at understanding how little we know about the body, we begin to realize that the next big frontier … in medicine is energy medicine. It's not the mechanistic part of the joints moving. It's not the chemistry of our body. It's understanding for the first time how energy influences how we feel."

If we “could never measure” this, how did the ancient Chinese ever figure it out? And how do we know it is true now? Of course, he can’t explain that, because we have now moved away from science. And remember how endorphins “regulate pleasure and mood” (and pain)? Look at the range of things acupuncture can supposedly treat:

"Acupuncture treats any condition from allergies to, obviously, pain to gastrointestinal issues—a wide range of chronic diseases," Daniel says.

(My bold.)

Acupuncture treats any condition. Any condition! Apart from the mind-blowingly bold claim, isn’t it funny how virtually all the “evidence” that acupuncture works seems to refer only to pain reduction. If it cures any condition, why are we always shown only pain reduction successes (including in this Oprah segment)?

But here’s the bit that really caught my eye:

Oprah doesn't suffer from those particular ailments, so Daniel recommends a wellness acupuncture treatment, which will help boost Oprah's immune system.

First, where’s the evidence acupuncture will boost the immune system? Secondly, surely, the immune system is part of “the chemistry of our body” – ie the mechanistic parts that “energy medicine” is supposedly above? Does acupuncture “boost the [chemical] immune system”, or does it release “energy” or “qi”? And how do we know?

But the thing that really struck me about the above is that these people are apparently recommending acupuncture treatment for people who have nothing at all wrong with them. Considering acupuncture probably doesn’t do very much, perhaps that’s not too bad a thing. But isn’t it a little unethical to treat people (and presumably charge them) unnecessarily? They’re giving acupuncture to someone who has none of “those particular ailments” that acupuncture is supposed to cure. And they claim that modern medicine is all about making money (as if that were a bad thing, or as if it showed the therapies were no good), but what is the purpose of a therapy for someone who is not sick? Aren’t they just making money?

You had me at endorphins

The trouble with the woo “energy” explanations, is that this covers any alternative therapy you like the sound of, including Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, Chakra Tuning and the like.  Once you accept the truth of something without evidence, then you are in freefall – you have no basis to reject anything so you will accept anything. You might as well send off for your copy of What The Bleep and The Secret. And I know a gentleman in Nigeria who wants to send you millions of dollars – you just need to front him a few thousand for costs. If you’re interested, I have his email address.

God a little slow – helped by science

I couldn’t help rolling my eyes at this story (with my bold):

Daniel Walker was on his final lap jogging in his high school gym class when he collapsed, his flawed heart giving out on him.

More than four days later, his heart at a standstill, kept alive by a bypass machine, it began beating again. The 17-year-old's parents called it divine intervention. His physicians were no less amazed.

[…]

Walker's father described his son's recovery in spiritual terms. "God turned around, put His hand on my son, and recharged him," said William Walker, 58, a retired sanitation worker.

[…]

Two days after it began to beat on its own, surgeons were able to fix the flaw in Walker's heart, increasing its capacity to 60 percent.

Let’s review. God allows this kid to have a faulty heart, and the kid collapses. And the kid would have died but for the bypass machine. After four days of indifference, God decides to step in and start the kid’s heart. Lucky about the bypass machine, or God would have been too late – kid would have died. Even then, God can’t be bothered to actually fix the heart, he leaves that to the surgeons. And the parents credit God, not modern medicine, for the recovery.

Seems it would have been easier all round if God had just fixed the kid’s heart at the outset. Ah - he was probably too busy fixing a football match, or something.

World Sound Healing Day

As Orac wrote here, Wednesday February 14^th has been designated World Sound Healing Day. For five minutes on Valentine’s Day, “sound healers” and other Newage bozos will send “a Sonic Valentine to the Earth with the heart sound "AH" filled with the intention of Peace and Love!”. Note, it’s the “intention” that makes the difference, since:

Sound coupled with intention has the ability to heal and transform.

The sound alone is not enough – you have to have the “intention” to heal too! Now, I find this a little surprising. I could believe that certain sounds might be soothing, could perhaps reduce stress and the like. But why is “intention” needed? What would the mechanism be? “Intention” is basically just a wish. So how does this wish create healing? What is the mechanism that transfers this wish into action? It doesn’t say, so it must be magic.

And does everyone have to do this at the same time for it to be of any use? Well, no, because:

We have found that creating a Global Sacred Sound any time within a 24 hour period on the planet will create a coherent waveform that will affect the entire Earth.

Found how? And can I see your work? Aha, it looks like he’s referring to the pseudoscientific drivel of Masaru Emoto. See the slide of polluted water (right) “after Buddhist monks had offered a prayer over it. Through the monks chanting they were able to purify the water”. Yeeees – well, when Emoto can do this double-blinded, I might sit up and take note. Until then, I am under whelmed.

At least World Sound Healing Day is free. Check out the Healing Sounds Store – “Reiki chants” etc. I especially like the chakra tuning forks for $188.95. Hey, I think I finally get what their intention really is.

Our intention is to sell this crap for nearly $200.

Woo Spotting

Orac will like this one. From Moonflake (“Caution: this blog contains opinions. Comments may contain nuts.”), I give you How to spot a cuckoo. A couple of my favorites:

1. They use terms like ‘Big Pharma’, ‘the Man’ and ‘the Establishment’ in all seriousness

20. They have the only known cure for cancer, HIV, autism or death but can only administer it in Mexico

The rest at the link. Reminds me a bit of Five Apples.

Don’t put my codswallop under the microscope

I was reminded of that Michael Shermer quote recently while engaging in a debate in the comments of this post on the Whirled Musings blog. The exchange below demonstrates that just because someone laughs at one form of woo, he or she can still believe in another form of woo if they don’t apply critical thinking uniformly. The method by which you arrive at your conclusions is, if anything, more important than the conclusion itself.

I became aware of the Whirled blog post via my Google alert for Gregg Braden. Whirled seems to exist to make fun of new age bozos such as Braden, Deepak Chopra etc, and so I posted a comment supportive of the Braden post, with a link back to the Skeptico site. A couple of people checked out my site and chose to post comments critical of my posts on acupuncture. Critical and a little snippy, I might add. Well, they have a right to do that, I suppose, although I wasn’t looking for a debate on acupuncture when I commented about Gregg Braden. Still, if they’re going to criticize me, I’ll respond, as you’ll see if you click the link.

The trouble is, although the owner and regulars at the Whirled blog like to make fun of Braden, Chopra etc (and posts they don’t like at Skeptico), it’s clear that you’re not supposed to question their irrational beliefs. A poster called RevRon’s Rants, apparently the “life partner” of the blog owner Connie, posted that my “summary dismissal of acupuncture just doesn't wash”, and that “it would be advisable to ensure [your] "science" stands up to scrutiny, IMHO”. Ron subsequently (after being asked by me) posted links to some studies. I explained why these studies did not invalidate my original posts, and posted links to scientific studies that had led me to my conclusions about acupuncture. Ron ignored my criticisms of his studies, ignored the studies I linked, and instead fell back on the fallacious reasoning we’re all used to seeing from the numerous woos who post here and elswhere. For example, in short order I was presented with:

• An appeal to Science was wrong before.
• Criticisms of my “objectivity” (without justifying why I was not objective).
• An appeal to Science doesn’t know everything.
• An appeal to personal experience and anecdote.
• An appeal to closed-mindedness.

Just about everything but any science that “stands up to scrutiny”, as Ron had put it. Clearly “stands up to scrutiny” really just means “supports my prejudice”. Fair enough – he’s free to say what he wants and I‘m free to explain the fallacies he’s relying on.

Or not. Unfortunately the blog owner refused to allow my reply to the latest piece of drivel from Ron, with the justification (via email) that her blog is “a mostly lighthearted, humorous blog”, and that the discussion had turned into “a pissing contest”. The blog owner was apparently especially annoyed at my comparing Ron to Deepak Chopra, because apparently Ron is not like that. Well sorry Connie, Ron is like that when it comes to his belief in acupuncture. And he started the pissing contest, not me.

See below, my final comment that Connie didn’t want to publish. Ron’s comments are indented. My censored replies follow.  Ron's first sentence is in response to my comment, "I don’t see any reason to believe “qi” even exists":

Spend a week in a classical dojo and see if you can say that.

Oh come on, personal experience does not make data, and the easiest person to fool is yourself – that’s why the double-blind study has proven priceless. Before double blind studies we used to think a lot of things were true that we now know are not. Wake up.

…or that matter, do some research somewhere besides sources devoted to perpetuating your own preconceptions.

Advice you would do well to take yourself.

But there's a big difference between skepticism and closed-mindnedness, and between believing everything and believing nothing at all. It's in that place where objectivity - and human growth - exists.

Oh no, not the fallacious appeal to be open-minded.  An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. It is not closed-minded to reject claims that make no sense, but if you can’t accept the possibility that an idea such as qi might be false, then you are the closed minded one.

Closed-mindedness indeed. You have now used just about every lame argument I have heard over the years from new agers, creationists and other miscellaneous anti-scientists defending their drivel – you’re no better than any of them. I wrote my fallacies section because I got sick of refuting the same tired arguments again and again. The trouble is, you’ve got it fixed in your head that acupuncture has worked for you and you can’t even begin to think rationally about it. Read this article by Michael Shermer - he was writing about major new age bozo Deepak Chopra, but he could just as easily have written it about you:

“… another refrain we often hear in the form of “I’m a skeptic too, but…,” where skepticism is fine as long as it is someone else’s codswallop under the microscope.”

Precisely.

[Censored comment ends.]

Confrontational? Sure. But no more than was I was receiving. And in an argument I didn’t start,remember.

Sadly, it seems we have here a group of people who are happy to make fun of Deepak Chopra when they want, but who presumably didn’t arrived at their views on Chopra through the application of critical thinking. I’m not surprised they are teed-off at my comparing them to Chopra. I’d be annoyed too. But the correct response would be to reevaluate your own arguments, and re-couch them with valid arguments in place of the dopey rationalizations of the kind favored by Chopra and his followers. Readers of Whirled would apparently prefer simply to disallow arguments against them they don’t like.

The method by which you evaluate claims is as important as the conclusions you arrive at. Maybe more so – if you have the wrong method, you will come to the wrong conclusions on some questions.  Sadly, Whirled may be an anti-new age blog, but it’s clearly not a critical thinking blog.

Of course, anyone may disagree by commenting below. I don’t hold comments for evaluation or censor people purely because they disagree with me. But I do call out fallacious reasoning.

Sylvia Browne – the bullying starts

It didn’t take a psychic to see this coming. Self proclaimed psychic spiritual teacher Sylvia Browne is trying to get the StopSylviaBrowne website closed down. Get a load of the absurd threatening letter the site owner just received. It seems all the spiritual love goes out the window the moment her money-making scheme is exposed for the sham it is.

Clearly Sylvia is feeling threatened, and sending a bullying letter from her lawyer is easier than just taking Randi’s challenge and proving she can actually do what she claims she can do. (Something she still refuses to do.)  Like all bullies, she’s a coward. You’ll note, the letter just refers to a supposed copyright infringement of Sylvia’s name – nothing that even suggests the Stop Sylvia site is wrong or that Sylvia can really do what she claims.

God comes from a broken home

He broke most of it himself.

Perhaps he was angry because there were too many gays in the congregation or something. Yeah, that must be it.

(Yeah I know – fish in a barrel.)

Carnival of the Godless

The 59^th COTG has just been posted at Aardvarchaeology.

Why did the chicken re-cross the road?

Tomorrow, February 3^rd, will be the two-year anniversary of this blog. Skeptico is still going after two years, although not posting at the same rate as the first year. I’m currently getting 1,000 to 1,500 visitors a weekday, and just over half a million visitors in total (as of last Monday). Admittedly, that’s not as many as some people, but it’s not bad. The most read post is still my review of What The Bleep Do We Know!?, from April of 2005.

At the one year anniversary last year I posted Why did the chicken cross the road? – a retrospective of the bozos liars and frauds we met during that year. As this turned out to be a popular post, I decided to do the same again this year. I haven’t repeated the first year’s names, although many of their answers still apply. (If you want to read last year’s list, just click the link above.) There are a few who, through their continued stupidity, warranted revised entries. Most of them are new though.

So again, in honor of Skeptico’s blog birthday, and for your Friday amusement, I present Why did the chicken re-cross the road?

Islamic extremist

It is forbidden to draw pictures of the chicken crossing the road – kill infidels.

Islamic moderate

It is forbidden for the chicken to convert from Islam – cut off its head.

Christian nut

To protest blasphemers.

Islamic, Christian and Jewish leaders

To ban a gay parade.

The Pope

To decide whether it feels like believing in Limbo today or not.

Deepak Chopra

It comes as a splash of cold water to realize that science doesn't really know what the answer to this question actually is.  This sounds like a rash claim, but the mystery is there for all to see. This proves we should be using our own mind and body as healing agents. (Buy my book.)

Isaac Hayes

I have stopped answering this question due to the show's "inappropriate ridicule" of chickens crossing roads.

Shell

A chicken only uses 10% of its brain to cross the road.

The New York Times

Why do chicken’s cross road’s? Who know’s?

Rupert Sheldrake

Because someone was staring at it on this side of the road.

Allison Dubois

To take dictation from a dead person, or to make some lame-ass psycho-babble guesses about the killer (you choose).

Pat Robertson

To drink a protein shake and bench-press 2,000 pounds.

The Society for Psychical Research

The Society continues with its aim of understanding events and abilities commonly described as 'crossing roads' by promoting and supporting important research in this area. One day we’ll have an answer. Give us time - we’ve only been working on it for 125 years.

Daniel Pinchbeck

I’m not interested in your idea of why the chicken crossed the road; buy my book that describes my idea of why the chicken crossed the road.

Mark and David Geier

We’ve just set up our own Institutional Review Board to review our studies into why chickens cross roads. This isn’t unethical.

Astrologer Lynne Palmer

Here is a list of 130 days in 2001 when chickens should avoid terrorist acts while crossing roads.

Astrologers

To divine the astrological meaning and significance of the new planet Eris.

Ann Coulter

To fart and create the vast variety of life we see on Earth.

Adam the Dream Healer

To download complex scientific information about the universe from a blackbird.

Mel Gibson

Because of the Jews. Are you a Jew, sugar tits?

Gentle Wind Project

To set up a new website that’s not about making money, oh no.

Madonna

To neutralize nuclear waste with Kabbalah water.

Andron company

To threaten bloggers with legal action unless they remove an expose of their useless Shield Me product.

HIV/AIDS deniers

To make up a list of phony logical fallacies and (when caught out) pretend it was only joking.

Helene Frisch (psychic)

To see its new baby brother sister.

The Discovery Institute

It’s a secret.

Casey Luskin

To make a design inference, just like real scientists do. No, really.

Brian Rohrbough

The public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak without moral consequences, and so chickens cross the road for no inherent reason.

German Lawyer

To sue the government for being abducted by aliens.

Patricia Diane Cota-Robles

To be held in the embrace of an ultraviolet pulse beam from higher dimensions.

David Kirby

Chickens are only crossing lanes, not roads. It’s only a road if it’s at least a three lane highway, consequently there is no epidemic of chickens crossing roads and thimerosal causes autism.

Sylvia Browne

To find Shawn Hornbeck’s dead body “in a wooded area”.

James Van Praagh

To find Shawn Hornbeck’s dead body “in a railway car”.

Linda Rossi

Randi is an atheist and a magician, so I don’t have to answer this question.

And now for some bloggers:

Radar

To get some more anti-biotics (sic) for its cold/virus thing.

Kennesaw Williams

To get a blog name that isn’t already taken.

And some commenters on this blog:

Peter Ambrus

The truth of the matter is that there is simply no NEED for chickens to cross roads. Why? Because there is currently more than enough food on this side of the road, and if not the rest can starve anyway.

Darrell Brown

To truly look deeply at the work of Gregg Braden, past all the scientific analysis, the left brain analytical details and past its own scepticism, to reach a place we call compassion. Why are you so angry?

Cassini

To give you the same old list of dopey rationalizations for astrology that have been debunked numerous times before.

Gregory

You speak as if you claim to know exactly why chickens cross roads, or why they don’t, or even that you can know. You don't, anymore than me. You call things proven, because they cross a road. I have room in my mind for mystery, for that which is intangible, and has none of your proof.

John

The chicken is right .... you people are uninformed voices. I am very pleased that the chicken is smart enough not to engage with those who do not want to know the truth about crossing roads.  Do some reading and become informed - just don’t expect me to explain what you are uninformed about.

That’s it for another year.

53rd Skeptics’ Circle

The 53^rd Skeptics' Circle has been posted at Slicing with Occam’s Razor. Click the link for the best skeptical blogging from the last two weeks.