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.
Vitale is out of his coconut tree. The Law of Attraction is improperly stated. It should read,
"Whatever a person focuses their mind upon, they will find themselves attracted to that thoguht or thing"
Simply, we "see" what we pay attention to in our lives. The reality of wish fufillment is another extension of the "lose weight overnight" scam or any number of get rich quick schemes.
I keep expecting the publishers of the Secret to issue a correction, indicating that the book is missing a chapter. The one in which people take action to pursue their wishes!
Yarg!
Posted by: Citizen Deux | February 23, 2007 at 11:21 AM
This is philosophy, not physics. What the hell is wrong with these people? And that's a totally rhetorical question BTW.
Posted by: mouse | February 23, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Citizen Deux:
If you focus your mind upon the correction with the missing chapter on how you need to take action etc, perhaps the chapter will appear.
Or perhaps not.
Posted by: Skeptico | February 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM
I am an old friend of Joe's but have a real disagreement with him about all this "Law" of Attraction stuff.
I'm pretty sure I wrote the post that inspired him to write his. In case you are interested, here is the link to what I had written:
http://blairwarren.com/blog/item/does_loa_work/
My argument made sense to me. But after thinking about what Joe wrote, it still does.
Love your blog, BTW.
Posted by: | February 23, 2007 at 03:23 PM
I know the Law of Attraction is true and I can prove it. It is also scientifically sound in that it does make predictions, like:
I predict Joe Vitale will never fail to attract $97 from every sucker who is stupid enough to believe the drivel he puts forth in his book.
Now prove me wrong!
Posted by: Ugo Cei | February 24, 2007 at 01:06 AM
Reality exists -- even on the internet! WHEW! I've discovered people who actually understand science & critical/analytical thinking on the internet, outside of my own circle of friends. My hope for humankind is totally revived now.
I've read so much pure drivel on boards about "the secret to losing your mind" (particularly Oprah's two sites -- GAG) that I was ready to sue the posters' parents for setting them free into the world after their lobotomies.
Great site you have here!
Posted by: Dee Bunker | February 28, 2007 at 11:44 PM
You've missed the point. He's saying that the Law of attraction works EVERYTIME, and when it does not its because it was IMPROPERLY APPLIED. His analogy holds. In his examples, gravity works perfectly, it just didn't work in the manner we anticipated or wanted. This was because of bad aim or wind currents or something. Joe says that if we don't get what we want, its because we didn't visualize properly, or we weren't positive, or we focussed on what we didn't want.
This is the *really* pernicous thing about the LOA...if you don't get your result, its your fault.
Posted by: Joe Smith | March 02, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Yah... completely retarded.
"He's saying that the Law of attraction works EVERYTIME, and when it does not its because it was IMPROPERLY APPLIED."
The law of gravitation does work every time. The law doesn't state anything about where a fucking book hits when dropped from a building. Why don't you jackasses read a few REAL books. You can start with Physics and Calculus for dummies. After you're more educated, you'll look back and realize how stupid you're making yourselves out to be.
Posted by: | March 03, 2007 at 03:43 PM
Anonny, are you so dense that you can't spot a dishonest ad hoc hypothesis?
At least when we drop a book from a building, we know it'll go downward. Throw in knowledge of the wind currents, terrain, and so forth, and we actually can make reasonable predictions of where the book will land.
The "law" of attraction can't predict anything whatsoever.
If anyone needs to crack open science and math books, it's you.
Oh, and while your here, want to get called out on your ignorance of quantum mechanics by Tom Foss or Infophile?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 03, 2007 at 06:08 PM
Let's not forget the total idiocy about neurology presented by John Vincent.
"You only use 10% of your brain, no wait... I meant your mind!"
What a maroon.
Posted by: HCN | March 03, 2007 at 07:23 PM
I just realized I messed up on your/you're. I sentence myself to 100 baps with a rolled-up newspaper.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 03, 2007 at 10:00 PM
The Law of Attraction is bullshit and I wasted my personal time to actually watch it (was I attracting bullshit at that time? hmm...); This "Law" is an unfalsifiable empirical claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability), meaning we cannot think of a case where it can be proved false (which is not a good thing) and this is only one of the criteria that is used to test any empirical claim, check out that link. In example, if we come up with the case that the law did not work, the blame goes on US! WE didn't apply the law correctly; It is therefore impossible to think of or observe a scenario whereby the "law" is false and therefore it fails as an empirical statement.
Posted by: Intrigue | March 04, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Excellently put, Intrigue. That's exactly the problem Anonny would like to pretend away.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 04, 2007 at 11:44 AM
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/
Posted by: Johan | March 07, 2007 at 09:46 AM
Listen...... I am not a scientist, but I do have an engineering degree. I don't know if the "Law of Attraction" is real or just a theory. What I do know, is that even if you don't believe in "The Law of Attraction" there is nothing wrong with inspiration, hope, positive thinking, good thoughts or great feelings. Last time I checked nothing negative came from any of these. You can argue about the "science" of it all you want, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you better your thoughts and visualize what you want out of life (some of us call these goals) that your life will naturally get better and move in a positive direction!
Posted by: Passion4Life | March 07, 2007 at 01:22 PM
there is nothing wrong with inspiration, hope, positive thinking, good thoughts or great feelings. Last time I checked nothing negative came from any of these.
No, the problem is thinking these feelings "attract" something. You really think that if you worry about being late to work you will wind up in a traffic jam? If so you're a moron. If not, then you understand where the problem in this fallacious thinking lies.
Posted by: Rockstar Ryan | March 07, 2007 at 02:59 PM
This statement seems to imply that you think your engineering degree makes you somewhat qualified to speak about the topic at hand. Sorry, it doesn't. Science and engineering are two different fields. They use and understand the method of science to generate results. You use the results of that method in sort of a plug-and-chug way. Not only that, you go on in the rest of your comment to show how illiterate, or at least apathetic, you are when it comes to science and truth.
No offense to those engineers out there who are scientifically literate.
I hear this a lot and I don't think it's true. There are way too many things in life that are out of our control for simple "positive thinking" to necessarily make things better. It will probably make you feel better, and you can't argue with that, but I can think positively about and work tireless toward my goals, but unforeseen circumstances, like a car crash or a bout with cancer, could get in the way. More likely, some asshole would get in my way and all my work and positive thinking would be for nought. That being said, being positive and setting goals aren't bad; they just aren't a guarantee of success.
Let's assume for a moment, though, that positive thinking and goal-setting do work a good chunk of the time. This still is not the same as the message of "The Secret," which states that positive thinking has the power to change realty. They are not making a feel-good statement about a positive life philosophy. They are making a causal statement about the ability of thoughts to affect physical reality. "Think positively about getting a pony, and you will get a pony," they say. Not "Think positively about getting a pony, then work hard to save up the money, then go buy a pony."
You're right when you say that positive thinking and goal setting are not a bad thing, but this is not what "The Secret" is selling. The people responsible for this blather are selling a ridiculous claim about the nature of physical reality and your ability to alter it with your thoughts, and they are bilking people out of millions of dollars. To borrow a line from Tom Foss, life is not a game of Mage: The Ascension, no matter how much I might want it to be.
Don't come here pretending that we're just a bunch of curmudgeons who are so wedded to science that we want people to be miserable. You don't understand the core message of "The Secret," you don't understand or care about science, and you don't understand (or you intentionally misrepresent) our point of view. We do not, however much you might want to think, want to disprove love.
Posted by: Akusai | March 07, 2007 at 04:03 PM
Akusai said: "No offense to those engineers out there who are scientifically literate."
:p ... Though some types of engineering do require a better backing in math and science other than some of the boiler plate or design by the book disciplines.
Passion4Life said "You can argue about the "science" of it all you want, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you better your thoughts and visualize what you want out of life (some of us call these goals) that your life will naturally get better and move in a positive direction!"
Since I used to be a rocket scientist (as I said, some engineering disciplines do require a good science background), I can say this is full of baloney.
Actually, no matter what you do there will be setbacks. One of the reasons I am a FORMER rocket scientist is because I gave birth to a child with disabilities. This was definitely not something I tried to attract... but it happened.
There are things one can do when hit with setbacks. You can go through life cursing the world just like the guy who runs the "hatingautism" blog --- Or, you can adjust and find the good in the bad, learn from the experience and then carry on with life.
Posted by: HCN | March 07, 2007 at 05:09 PM
Johan said:
You've got to do the "work" if you want to bring something info your life.
Holy crap. 'Genius'. Who would have thought? If you want something, you have to 'work' for it. My god, its so 'original' and 'thought provoking'. You're 'right', I'm a 'believer'. All I have to do is 'work' hard. So I don't really need a 'secret' or a 'law' of attraction at all, do I?
People like Joe Vitale are out working. Bob Proctor is out working. James Ray is out working.
Sorry, I think you meant '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.
Wow. I guess you don't have to 'work' for everything after all. You got 'understanding' for 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.
Ok. How about we just argue he's a moron who is full of shit, then? Still, he seems to be attracting the sort of idiots he wants to so maybe there's something to it after all.
Passion4Life said:
Listen...... I am not a scientist, but I do have an engineering degree.
Oh well I'd better take your word for it then. I'll see your engineering degree and raise you a BA in History and Philosophy and studying for a masters in GIS. And I'm a qualified shooting coach. And a certified first aider. And I have my bronze swimming certificate. And an RAF swimming proficiency. See, my qualifications don't matter here either. But I can wave my willy with the best of them.
I don't know if the "Law of Attraction" is real or just a theory.
It's neither. It's closer to 'nonsense that gullible people believe'.
What I do know, is that even if you don't believe in "The Law of Attraction" there is nothing wrong with inspiration, hope, positive thinking, good thoughts or great feelings.
And while we're at it, just give peace a chance. If it feels good, then its ok.
Last time I checked nothing negative came from any of these.
You're right, I'm sure that none of the worst people in history ever felt 'inspired'.
You can argue about the "science" of it all you want, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you better your thoughts and visualize what you want out of life (some of us call these goals) that your life will naturally get better and move in a positive direction!
What's with the explosion of False Quotes Syndrome in woo posts? So all I have to do is visualise my goals, and my life gets better? What happened to 'working' for them? Do I have to actually do anything, or just think about it in a nice way?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 07, 2007 at 08:18 PM
Hey! Right now I'm visualizing a completed basement bathroom. So this morning I picked up the sink and base, ordered the hand shower (spouse changed the criteria from previous request), arranged to get on the plumber's schedule, and then went to a salvage store to get a discounted towel rack ($15 instead of $150, woo hoo!). Then I researched cabinet options for the limited square footage.
Previously I have received bids from plumbers, ordered the sink (truly awesome, a cast iron laundry sink... good for hobbies), bought the faucet and discussed shower options. We have also arranged for an estimate from a tile contractor for the shower. I have also removed some wallboard to see what surprises are there, and am now removing part of a 2 by 4 so that the hot water supply can reache the showerhead (there is funny framing with a dropped ceiling for the existing wallboard can cover the heat ducts).
Along with visualizing finally completing this bathroom (that was roughed in when the house was built 14 years ago... where I worked on the design with Generic CADD that I handed over to the architect, who made it legal and got the permits from the city) --- I have written some large checks... with more to checks to write on my home equity line of credit account.
I now need to find where I can buy a bead curtain that I am visualizing to seperate the bathroom from the furnace room (it cannot block airflow).
Posted by: HCN | March 07, 2007 at 09:52 PM
HCN-
I feel bad for my sort-of generalization about engineers earlier, so I'll give you a hand: I'm currently positively visualizing your bathroom. I'm using my positive life-energy to attract like positive energy, but going by the theory of homeopathics, I'm only making my positivalicious visualfications a tiny bit of the time, because less is more. It sure is a pretty bathroom. Oop! Now it's gone again.
I hope it helps.
Posted by: Akusai | March 07, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Akusai, I will forgive your generalization... but only if you will stop visualizing on my basement bathroom.
Oh, my Ed! How dare you think such colors for my domicile! The homeopathics have made them too diluted. They are so washed out it looks more like a death warmed over. ;)
Now it is time to visualize a nice eight hour slumber. Good night.
Posted by: HCN | March 07, 2007 at 10:44 PM
I lost something on eBay I really wanted last week. I guess it was nothing to do with the fact that the winner trumped my last bid with about one second to go, or that he has deeper pockets than me - he just wanted it more than me.
Hey, if we're invoking this homeopathic principle, doesn't that mean the less positively we think about something, the more likely we are to get it? So life-threatening diseases, divorce and bankruptcy must be shoo-ins!
Gotta love those diseases...
Posted by: Big Al | March 08, 2007 at 02:36 AM
I am a simple high school science teacher. Not a rocket scientist. But here is something I don't understand. Basic Chemistry, electrons and protons, opposites attract. Basic physics, magnets, south poles and north. Do they discuss this at all in "The Secret"?
Posted by: science teacher | March 08, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I suspect the answer will involve gravitation (every bit of mass attracts every other bit of mass), or some incoherent blather about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
I predict that the magic words "quantum", "energy" and "frequency" will also make an entrance.
Posted by: Big Al | March 09, 2007 at 01:13 AM
The loa is an old con from as far back as people. Religions use the same line: You'll see God if you believe. If you're not seeing God you must not be believing. The Bible makes sense to believers. If it sounds like fairy tales to you, you must not be a believer.
Every con uses heaping spoon fulls of the truth. Rush Limbaugh uses the truth to sell his attitude. Yes, it's true that the media could be better (he and his ilk never mention that we ALL have noticed this) and when he says this we think, "gee, he's a truth teller" and then he sells his bias... The Bible says, "as a man thinks, so he is". Yeah, sure, any of us could agree with that. Doesn't mean the Bible isn't a collection of old manuscripts put together in the year 90 at the council of Jamnia meant to manage people through superstitious feeling. Positive thinking gurus say, if you think the right thoughts, things will happen. It must be "the universe" doing it. Well, sure, we can look at that and think, gee, seems to be true. Orrrrr, perhaps we all know that self pity results in you sitting on the couch all day and perhaps we all know that not much is going to happen for you, except a lot of unpaid bills. And if you don't sit there feeling sorry for yourself and you go out and do something, well, gee, the probability that things will happen you your life just shot way up! Must be "the universe", sometimes pictured as a giant, muscle bound Geni... The loa sellers are right, if you go after what you want with a good attitude, rather than an attitude of, "why am I bothering?", then the LAWS OF PROBABILITY are such that it's almost a guarantee, (but not quite), that something will come of it. The laws of probability is something we already know about, but we can't say we can explain why some things don't make sense, like children getting their hands hacked off in Rwanda. We can't say, "they didn't play probability right". We can't explain it. Sometimes bad things happen. Did the toddlers in Rwanda think bad thoughts? Maybe Rhonda Byrne fell on hard times and, like some xian fundies, needed, I mean psycho needed, the universe to make sense; for their to be an EXPLANATION for this sh*t. I noticed that the positive thinking gurus, and Rhonda Byrne, are growing old. Gosh, they really must try not to focus so much on aging and death.
Posted by: Winston Smith | March 10, 2007 at 01:47 PM
hey guys I know you dont believe that is for you to decide but the mind cannot produce solutions if you are blocking the mind from exploring so being blind will not allow you to see the picture, so if you want to understand the truth you must first unblock your mind and let it see for itself not your false ideas of how it does not work if you are to scared to try it. What do you have to lose besides your bad attitude you do it and it makes you a better person that is reward in itself......
when you cast negativity you get what you cast...... As Jesus once said do unto others as you would have them do unto you. when you are an rude so is the rest of the world when you cast doubt so does the rest of the world. Jesus also said to live ubundatly..... these are the rules of religion and the rules of the secret maybe jesus left us this secret when he said search for gods purpose for you this is what he was talking about...
Lucas Caine
Awakening Records
Recording Artist
Posted by: Lucas Raleigh | March 21, 2007 at 05:06 PM
So much woo, so little time. I'm sure Bronze Dog has a doggerel entry for almost every sentence you utter here, but we have the usual woo:
1. You're all closeminded.
2. You just don't see it because you don't want to.
3. Skeptics all have a bad attitude.
4. Believing will make you a better person.
5. Jesus did it.
6. You're all negative.
7. You're all rude.
And to top it off the abundant use of ellipses, poor punctuation and grammar, and the odd spelling mistake, sorry typo.
Do you bleevers all get your ideas from some sort of central woo repository and just use the cut and paste function?
Unless you have some real evidence to back up your assertions, you really are wasting your time here.
Here's just one tiny example of what you get wrong though.
You say:
when you cast doubt so does the rest of the world.
So, I doubt what you say, does that mean you do as well? Why say it then? If everyone else in the world doubts what you say but you, what do you think that tells you?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 21, 2007 at 06:22 PM
Oh FSM, another one.
Look, we're all about treating other people the way we want to be treated. In fact, I'd say, in general, we're better at that than most religionists.
But that's not "The Secret." "The Secret" is anything but community-oriented like the golden rule; it's solipsistic. It's saying that the universe will cater to every individual's personal desires, no matter what. And ultimately, it's saying that you're responsible for everything that happens to you, as opposed to the people who "do unto" you, because you're the one who attracted those behaviors or those problems. That's crap, and it's not "negativity" to say so. It's not negativity to say "the universe isn't a magic genie that grants you your every wish, you have to work for things." It's not negativity to say "it's not a victim's fault that something happened to them."
We have unblocked our minds, Lucas. We look at the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. We examine reality through a methodological system of obtaining knowledge, where we constantly evaluate our preconceptions and our theories in light of new evidence. That's the very opposite of having a blocked mind. It's people who put blinders on and see the world the way they want it to be, as opposed to the way it actually is, who filter their perceptions through dogma, who are "blocked off." And that's a fairly precise definition of the supporters of "The Secret."
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 21, 2007 at 06:25 PM
"when you cast negativity you get what you cast...... As Jesus once said do unto others as you would have them do unto you. when you are an rude so is the rest of the world when you cast doubt so does the rest of the world. Jesus also said to live ubundatly..... these are the rules of religion and the rules of the secret maybe jesus left us this secret when he said search for gods purpose for you this is what he was talking about..."
This does not generate insight, nor will it cultivate compassion. It also fails to initiate a relationship to depth. In fact the central idea of The Secret decreases ones compassionate and curious relationship to oneself, other people and the world at large, by reducing everything to the magical relationship between thoughts and “the universe.”
Posted by: Dobbs | March 21, 2007 at 07:18 PM
The idea that through merely focusing one's intention, one can have and do anything without limit, while inspiring-sounding is actually delusional, regressive and perpetuating of what both Buddhism and Psychotherapy see as an unhealthy relationship to reality.
The failure to include a discussion of the limits of intention and to introduce people to the concept of depth, of practice, of being in the kind of feedback loop with reality, is disastrous. It ends up unwittingly pinning adherents between the rock of surface level intention and the hard place of a world that actually doesn't work that way. Without a methodology for interpreting meaning and assessing depth, for coming to terms with feelings, disappointments and bringing expectations down to earth, one is left with a vicious cycle:misplaced faith in a grandiose, but erroneous magical belief coupled with a self-blaming response when it turns out, time and time again, not to work.
Posted by: Dobbs | March 21, 2007 at 07:39 PM
I would list the relevant Doggerel entries, but I get the spam filter. You'll see a lot of those on the list.
Think I may go over a few of these posts, since I imagine there's a lot of inspiration to be found.
Of course, I can do a little tu quoque and argue that our latest troll has obviously never dealt with a real skeptic: Just the parodies in his head, after he makes sure to put nonsense in between our lines.
One of the most celebrated skeptics, Carl Sagan, was one of the people who really opened me up to the sheer wonder of the universe. Woos want to kill that by convincing me the universe begins and ends with their flavor of the month.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 21, 2007 at 08:30 PM
Most of you guys that say the Law of Attracton doesnt exist are wanting to be right not just want to know the truth. You guys need a life
Posted by: zms | March 22, 2007 at 07:59 AM
Dear zms... I have a nice life, thank you very much.
I also have a pretty good grasp of English grammar, including the proper and actual use of punctuation.
One of the reasons for being able to live pretty well is because I was one of those annoying kids in high school who took all the hard courses like trigonometry, chemistry and physics. Plus I studied more than partied in college to get an engineering degree that allowed me to get a pretty good paying job.
That was from "doing"... not from wishing.
Now if you will excuse me, I have finished visualizing the wall color of the new bathroom. I am about to mix it up and apply it to the walls in time before going to volunteer at youngest child's school.
Posted by: HCN | March 22, 2007 at 08:19 AM
Most of you guys that say the Law of Attracton doesnt exist are wanting to be right not just want to know the truth.
OK. I really, really, really want you to come back and show us "the truth" with mounds of evidence, including double-blind studies.
If you don't, does that mean the "Law" of Attraction doesn't work?
You guys need a life
Please elaborate. Are you saying that I'm undead? I have proof that I am not:
While I am weak against fire, I am not weak against curative/restorative items.
Posted by: Rockstar Ryan | March 22, 2007 at 09:47 AM
"Please elaborate. Are you saying that I'm undead? I have proof that I am not:"
I would be interested in seeing that "proof". No one (including science) even knows what life is. No one as even been able to explain it...Yet, you say that you have proof?
zms, you are 100% correct. But if they did get a life, they would not know what to do with it...haha.
Have you noticed the continuing claims by many on this Blog, that spelling errors, poor grammar, typos etc, make theories WRONG? According to many here, a theory that is expressed in writing and that writing contains errors, then the theory is wrong. So I am going to cause us all to drift off into space....Watch this..
Gwavetee! According to some here, that should cause gravity to no longer exist.
If you want a real giggle, zms, have a read of the "about" section of this site. The un-named webmaster (skeptico) claims that the World sometimes seems mad. It is the rest of the World that is mad...not him! Any reputable psychiatrist can tell you that such a belief indicates a mental illness.
Posted by: What-The? | March 22, 2007 at 02:48 PM
Some moron said:
You guys need a life
I said:
Please elaborate. Are you saying that I'm undead? I have proof that I am not:
While I am weak against fire, I am not weak against curative/restorative items. (Final Fantasy joke)
Your retort:
No one (including science) even knows what life is. No one as even been able to explain it...Yet, you say that you have proof?
You, my friend, are definitively a complete moron now. You are seriously saying I need to prove I'm alive? Well, you may not think science has proven it, but Sesame Street has:
Well, a phone's not alive (no-no-no-no-no!), and a rock's not alive (no-no-no-no-no!).
But a plant is alive (yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah!), and a person is alive (yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah!)
Breathe in! Breathe out!
Make sense?
According to many here, a theory that is expressed in writing and that writing contains errors, then the theory is wrong.
Not so much. The fact that you make egregious claims with no evidence means your drivel is wrong; the fact your grammar and punctuation suck is just fodder to make fun of. Like Skep said - present evidence or go away.
Posted by: Rockstar Ryan | March 22, 2007 at 03:30 PM
In any case, no, you're wrong, we can say quite easily what "life" is.
If that weren't a strawman, you'd be right. You'd be accusing us of a non sequitur. However, no one has said "because you make mistakes, you are wrong." Plenty have said "because you make mistakes, you're probably stupid. Also, your theories are wrong, for the following reasons: X, Y, and Z." And there's nothing fallacious about that. Are you qualified to make such a diagnosis? Any reputable psychiatrist can tell you that trying to diagnose someone you've never met based solely on some of their writings is unethical, impossible to be reliable, and would get your license revoked.Incidentally, I imagine that if I asked a reputable psychiatrist what it meant if I believed that the universe would automatically give me anything I wished for, I'd probably be prescribed some very fun medication.
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 22, 2007 at 03:56 PM
What-The?
I was wondering how you would try avoiding all the questions asked of you this time, now that your conditions for answering them had been met, and here we have it. You've moved to another thread, stuck your fingers in your ears and started chanting 'Lalalalalalalalala'.
Words fail me. Or at least words that I could use here and not have Skeptico understandably upset.
Have you noticed the continuing claims by many on this Blog, that spelling errors, poor grammar, typos etc, make theories WRONG?
Please show where this is stated specifically.
According to many here, a theory that is expressed in writing and that writing contains errors, then the theory is wrong.
Again, please show where this is stated specifically.
zms, if you want a real giggle, read whatever What-The? says.
ZMS:
Most of you guys that say the Law of Attracton doesnt exist are wanting to be right not just want to know the truth. You guys need a life
You score two in the category 'Unoriginal comments that woos make about skeptics that we've already heard and disproved before.'
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 22, 2007 at 04:34 PM
To us SKEPTICS:
I remind you of experimental conditions. I remind you of controlled experimental conditions.
There hasn't been a controlled study of law of attraction. Until somebody does a robust, well planned experiment of law of attraction, it is un-scientific to claim that it is false. Where is your scientific proof that it is false?
If you philosophically deduce that it is false, then you are no different from those who philosophically deduce that it is true.
If you don't find it a waste of time, and you haven't already made 'your' mind about this theory. I suggest you act like a real scientist; take the hypothesis, follow the method under 'controlled' experimental conditions and let us know of the results.
I also suggest that if you would like, be active in your experiments and not wait for 'somebody else' to do it for you. A real scientist is active not passive.
Some are scientists; they create real science. Some are consumers; they don't create, they make use of real scientists' creations. Consumers often abuse too.
If you are a real scientist, a real skeptic, then have the guts to do the experiment under 'controlled experimental conditions'. Act like who you believe you are.
If you find proof that the hypothesis doesn't hold. Then you may choose to empty your anger and frustration on people who you perceive inferior to yourself.
Posted by: Omitis | March 22, 2007 at 05:45 PM
Omitis:
Is it unscientific to claim that unicorns don't exist?
Or to put it another way, is it unscientific to claim that the hypothesis that unicorns exist is false?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 22, 2007 at 06:57 PM
I remind you of falsifiability. I remind you of the null hypothesis. I remind you of the very basis of the scientific method: the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, in this case, the people behind the Law of Attraction. It is up to them to define it and show that it is true, it is not up to us to show the contrary. Test what? The people behind the Law of Attraction have proposed no mechanism by which their law works. They have proposed dozens of outs and equivocations and caveats to explain why it doesn't work the way it's expected to, they have proposed fallaciously that quantum mechanics supports their claims, and they have proposed that it is 100% true without any controlled tests or scientific method. Until they, at the very least, define the law in such a way that it may potentially be falsified, it cannot be tested, and cannot be anything more than pseudoscience. You have already demonstrated a terrible misunderstanding of the scientific method. What makes you qualified at all to say what a "real scientist" is? I can say with certainty that several of the people who frequent this blog are "real scientists," and every one of them recognizes that "real scientists" do not accept positive claims without positive evidence. What does this even mean? You don't "create" science, you "do" science. And science is a collaborative effort; without 'consumers' to check and review the work of their scientist peers (perhaps you've heard of this process, "fellow skeptic," it's called peer review), the field would not progress, and bad experiments or fallacious conclusions would not be disproven. I think we've all performed the "if I wish for something, it will come true" experiment under conditions with as much control as suggested by The Secret. I haven't yet seen a positive conclusion.
But it's not the job of a "real scientist" to entertain and test every possible hypothesis. If I hypothesize that unicorns exist, what controlled experiment can I perform to disprove it? Science assumes the null hypothesis, that 'X does not exist,' until positive evidence can be shown to disprove that hypothesis, whether we're talking about phlogiston or leprechauns or the Law of Attraction.
There's no matter of superiority/inferiority here. But until the people making the claim that the Law of Attraction exists and is scientifically valid can produce some evidence to back up their claim, I'm afraid I'll have to stick to the usual skeptical scientific method, and the wealth of evidence, experimental and anecdotal, which shows that there is an external, objective universe which operates according to natural laws that couldn't care less what I think or wish for.Posted by: Tom Foss | March 22, 2007 at 07:01 PM
"There's no matter of superiority/inferiority here."
I beg to differ with you. One does not need to look far around this site to see that any person that poses a valid, reasonable question or comment is instantly labelled an "idiot", "moron", "f-ing this" or "f-ing that". The webmaster even states that he thinks the World is "mad". This does not validate your stance that everything is wrong until "proven" right. All it does is lower you to the gutter.
Try this experiment to disprove the Law of Attraction:- Call the police and tell them that your car has been stolen and you need help. Then tell the police that you think the World is Mad and that any person that does not abide by your thinking paterns is an Idiot. Ask them to send an Officer that is not a Moron. Ask them to ensure the Officer is not a F-ing Lunatic. Then simply monitor the results...Which, of course will most likely be, your car will remain stolen.
Posted by: What-The? | March 22, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Wishing that Skeptico said "the whole world is mad and I'm the only sane one" doesn't make it so. Recognizing the prevalence of irrational beliefs in our society, and the fervor and protectiveness exhibited by the believers regarding those beliefs, is not the same as solipsistically claiming that everyone else is insane.
No, reality validates that stance. All logic and human knowledge validate that stance. Or, do this experiment to disprove the Law of Attraction: 1. Engage in an online debate 2. Make claims, but refuse to present any supporting evidence for those claims. 3. Continue to repeat those claims. 4. When evidence is requested, make shit up. 5. When you're called on your bluff, say you're ignoring everyone until they answer some question. 6. Once that question is answered, continue to ignore everyone. If necessary, switch threads. 7. Construct a laughable strawman of your opponent. 8. Wish really hard that this strawman actually represented your opponent's tactics and viewpoints.Then, simply monitor the results. Which, of course will most likely be that your strawman will remain just that, a laughable caricature of what you wish your opponent was acting like, so you wouldn't have to own up to the fact that you have no evidence to support any of your claims, except what you made up out of whole cloth.
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 22, 2007 at 08:28 PM
It's taken me nearly two days to read all the comments here.
Can't we just stop feeding the trolls?
We've established to the point of no return that What-The? is doing this, and I'll quote Tom here:
Seriously, can't this idiot just be ignored?
Posted by: dikkii | March 22, 2007 at 08:46 PM
Tom. At least unlike some people you don't rant. You have behavioral control over what you write and don't let anger and other emotions get into your posts. This might sound like I'm a psychologist. I also do a lot of research on the field of para-psychology and study why people believe what they believe. How some make money etc. I'm also a C# programmer.
I watched this movie six month ago. I didn't believe it, I still don't, but I did further research on law of attraction.
The movie has not made clear the distinction between two well known mystically believed laws: The law of Attraction and The law of Manifestation. The movie for some reason has assumed that attraction and manifestation are the same.
Having the universe treated like a catalog makes use of the law of manifestation, which includes holding the image, visualizing and feeling (as they say). I have not been able to replicate this.
But I have been able to replicate law of attraction. ONLY when it comes to emotions but not THINGS.
There is extensive research on Depression and Anxiety. They all say the same thing, it is the affirmation of the negative thoughts that creates more depression and anxiety. If you study people with major depression disorders and their thought form, you will quickly see the negative thought pattern among these individuals. The latest research shows that Rumination (the art of self-blame and negative self image) mediates depression.
On the other hand research shows positive attitude and thinking is correlated with self-esteem, positive outlook to life and happiness. Furthermore in legendary works of Carol Dweck on children's academic abilities, children who perform better at school have positive thinking patterns. And doing better at school is correlated with higher SES and a happier life. As you have probably guessed positive thinking is correlated with success.
It is known that people who habituate positive thinking feel better in life and people who habituate negative thinking/rumination feel worse. If you are interested I can spend some time and put a list of these studies together for you.
The law of attraction may not be a universal paranormal law. But it is definitely - I wouldn't say a law - but a phenomena in human mind. You think more of what you think of often. For example, the more you think about football, the more you want to talk about it, you research about it, you read about it. When you think football, your mind thinks football and it attracts football (as thought).
A depressed person becomes what he/she thinks about most; self-blame, bad self-image. They repeat it so much in their mind that they really believe they are a vegetable. And yes it is the thoughts that create depression with genetic dispositions playing a small roll; making the mind vulnerable to this type of thinking.
I'd also like to mention that the fundamental of cognitive behavioral therapy is based on changing negative thought patterns to positive logical thought patters. CBT also tells us that the victims are responsible for how they feel; the external world playing a small roll. For example if somebody punches you in the face, you have two choices: you become emotionally vulnerable (upset, scared, angry) or you turn around and punch the person back and feel good and proud (not a good example probably).
So when it comes to the law of manifestation I am on the same side as you. But with the phenomena of attraction I stand on their side. Research in psychology provides extensive support for the power of positive thinking and destructive power of negative thinking.
I hope I managed to explain the phenomena of attraction in human mind well. I hope you guys appreciate this.
Posted by: Omitis | March 22, 2007 at 08:48 PM
Tom. I should have read more of your posts. Sorry for making a false unscientific unexperimented statement:
"You have behavioral control over what you write and don't let anger and other emotions get into your posts."
Posted by: Omitis | March 22, 2007 at 09:00 PM
What-The? advised us to " Call the police and tell them that your car has been stolen and you need help. "
Please explain in detail how this will prove the "Law of Attraction". Especially since if one's car has NOT been stolen the caller would be committing a crime.
I have not called you any names. I will, however, point out that sometimes a person's use of the English language will show a lack of understanding of the language. The reasons for misusing the language could be a learning disability, English being a second language, a lack of education in the use of English, or for lack of using it often. For the latter it could be someone who does not read for pleasure on a regular basis.
Many of us "skeptics" are big on reading just for fun. Not only does it help to remind us of how to use English, it helps us to understand and evaluate information.
Also helps to have a basic understanding of science. One does not have to have a graduate degree in physics, but just a good grounding. A couple of good basic books to start would be _Bad Astronomy_ by Phil Plait, and several of the non-fiction books by Isaac Asimov (I have a book on physics by him, it is very interesting and easy to read).
Another thing you might do is to become familiar with your local community college. They often have some good adult education classes, plus real college science classes where the only requirement is to pass a basic math and English test (my 16 year old son took biology last summer at a community college, he enjoyed it immensely and was impressed with the quality of the teacher compared to his high school science class).
I personally do not think that those who wish to believe in a "Law of Attraction" are lacking in intelligence, but are more likely lacking in education. That is something that can be remedied. All it takes is a will to learn, doing some work, and come cash for tuition. BUT getting more education may actually provide a benefit in improving one's employment options.
Because in the end it is not the wishing, but the doing that will accomplish more.
Posted by: HCN | March 22, 2007 at 09:04 PM
"What-The? advised us to"
No. I did not. I did not give any "advice". Nor have I made any "claims" although many here keep asking me to "prove" my "claims".
I respect your comments. I believe that education has little or no relevence to knowledge and itelligence. To support this, I name but just a few examples...(exusing spelling)
Einstien - Little education
Ford - Almost no education
Edison - Little education
Jesus - No education
That is just a few.
Posted by: What-The? | March 22, 2007 at 09:27 PM
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 22, 2007 at 09:32 PM
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 22, 2007 at 09:57 PM
HCN. You are right education is very important in the use of English language. Excuse me, English is not my first language but I'd like to point out a few of your mistakes (not all):
"I personally do not think that those who wish to believe in a "Law of Attraction" are lacking in intelligence, but are more likely lacking in education. That is something that can be remedied. All it takes is a will to learn, doing some work, and come cash for tuition."
When you write a sentence in present tense you should keep it in present tense and not change it to continuous present.
likely lacking in intelligence --> likely to lack intelligence
likely lacking in education --> likely to lack education
Be careful with spelling:
come cash --> some cash
Please don't be offended, I'm not personally attacking you, I'm making a point;
I think a university degree, with extensive education in research design and statistics is vital to being a skeptic. Having written many many essays, reports and hands on experience is the key to being a real skeptic. Being skeptic is hard work, it is not for everybody.
Please forgive me for having English as my second language, please further forgive me if my language ability does not represent my education. Even further please forgive me for being a skeptic and challenging pseudo-skeptics that have all their knowledge just from hard work of others and easy to read books.
A real skeptic is useful in extension and expansion of science and makes major contributions towards it. A pseudo-skeptic just plays around with words and real skeptic's original thoughts, theories and ideas.
Being a skeptic does not just mean that you don't believe in magic and bizzare paranormal phenomena. A skeptic is useful, not a person that lives his/her life with criticizing, victimizing, judging and making fun of non-skeptics.
A real skeptic only criticizes if he/she has better explanation or a substitute that can positively contribute. A pseudo-skeptic criticizes just for the sake of criticizing and the self-fulfilling feeling of proving himself right and others wrong.
Being a skeptic is an art. It is the art of education, understanding and wisdom. Not everybody can master this art.
Posted by: Omitis | March 22, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Tom. You just confirmed what I said!
I also said this attraction happens in the mind not with THINGS.
"Of course we tend to interpret the world in terms of the things we know and enjoy. When I see the number 42, I immediately chuckle and think about the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
It is not only the para-psychologists that make a lot of mistakes, other scientists also make mistakes.
Science is not stable; it constantly changes, things we took for granted few years ago do not hold now. I think the classic example is the classical physics versus modern physics and theory of relativity. Or how we thought electrons orbit around the nuclei but they actually don't...
Posted by: Omitis | March 22, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Omitis:
Is it unscientific to claim that unicorns don't exist?
Or to put it another way, is it unscientific to claim that the hypothesis that unicorns exist is false?
Why would you avoid this very simple question?
What-The?
Still going 'lalalalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalalala.' then?
Nor have I made any "claims" although many here keep asking me to "prove" my "claims".
Really?
1. So you didn't claim that people who thought they were fat became fat?
2. Or then claim that people thinking they were fat became fat in their minds?
3. You didn't claim that people who thought they were ugly became ugly?
4. You didn't claim that the Dead Sea scrolls talk about the secret and law of attraction?
5. You didn't claim that the word god used to mean law of attraction?
6. You didn't claim that the word poverty can mean political power or ability to influence people?
7. You didn't claim that leaving something unlocked makes it less likely to be stolen?
8. You didn't claim that the law of attraction really works?
9. You didn't claim you'll answer all our questions once we answered your one?
10. You didn't claim the law of attraction is part of evolution?
11. You didn't claim that the law of attraction explains why giraffes have long necks?
12. You didn't claim that the world is 'manifestly' identical?
13. You didn't claim that evolution made the world 'manifestly' identical?
Boy, I must have really misread your posts in 'The Secret' thread.
Answer the questions posted in that thread please, your conditions for doing so have been met exactly.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 22, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Actually, I'm with HCN on this one. Your substitutions don't sound right to native English speakers, and when it comes down to it, especially in informal writing, the rules of grammar are "do what sounds right."
I could go into myth rules and unnecessary rules and all the other stuff you learn when training to be an English teacher, but I'm going to have to deal with that again in class tomorrow, and I'd prefer to avoid it for tonight.
Although, I could see "I personally do not think that those who wish to believe in a "Law of Attraction" lack intelligence, but more lack education." If I were editing HCN's posts, I probably would have made that change, on the basis of a preference for active rather than passive language.
Bollocks. Skepticism is a method, and absolutely every human being on the planet employs it in certain ways and situations, much like the scientific method (in its broadest sense). Anyone can be a skeptic; all it requires is a willingness to question things, and an understanding of how to ask the right questions and how to recognize valid evidence and judge valid arguments. All it really takes is applied logic. So far, I've seen little from you to suggest that you're anything but a "pseudo-skeptic." Your profound misunderstanding of the scientific method in the first post, and your elitist comments in this post, only bear that conclusion out further. No, but believing in magic and bizarre paranormal phenomena is usually a good sign that you're not a skeptic. Anyone else smell straw? Bzzzzt! I'm sorry, that's incorrect. But you'll get a lovely copy of our home game.No, skepticism doesn't mean that you criticize only the things you can explain better. The corollary of that is that we should accept any explanation of a phenomenon, no matter how crazy that explanation is, unless we have something better. That's not skepticism, and it certainly isn't science. Science doesn't fill in the gaps in its knowledge with untested tentative explanations, it recognizes the gaps for what they are: gaps. Sometimes skepticism and science demand that you say "I don't know right now."
But just because I don't know, for instance, how to reconcile quantum gravity and relativistic gravity doesn't mean I have to accept the explanation that magical gravity leprechauns unite the two theories together with rainbows, because I don't have a better answer. Skepticism and science require an explanation (what you might call a "theory") to be supported by positive, verifiable evidence.
So a skeptic and a scientist would be absolutely right to criticize an explanation if it had little or no evidence to support it, regardless of whether or not they had a better one at the time. After all, if they had a better explanation ("better" in science meaning "more supported by the evidence" and "conforming to Occam's Razor"), then there wouldn't be a gap in the knowledge.
I'd say that a "pseudo-skeptic" claims to be a skeptic, but then tries to tell actual skeptics that they aren't contributing to society, spouts a little Doggerel, and caps it all off with a terrible misunderstanding of the scientific method. No, skepticism is a method, not an art. And while being good at it might require some education (mostly on the basics of logic, the common tactics of woo-types, and the scientific method), it's sadly not the sort of education you'll find in the modern American public school. And I'd argue that everyone can master it, many just choose not to. Some people prefer comfortable delusions to reality.Posted by: Tom Foss | March 22, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 22, 2007 at 11:03 PM
"your conditions for doing so have been met exactly."
Really Jimmy ?
You are the "scientist"...You are the one that puts himself above others...Are you sure that "exactly" is the right word to use?
From this site I have been met with abuse, insults and contempt...You cannot have your cake and eat it too...Do unto others, as they say...!
Posted by: What-The? | March 22, 2007 at 11:25 PM
The condition that Jimmy is talking about is this:
You have received several answers to this question. Your condition has been met, and yet you have not stopped ignoring our questions.
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 22, 2007 at 11:38 PM
"sadly not the sort of education you'll find in the modern American public school."
There we have it !!
How does that saying go?...Believe what I believe or I will kill you...Or words like that.
You are "American" and therefore correct. Aren't you? No wonder such stupid, irrelevant and childish questions have been asked. No wonder normal intelligent and FREE thinking reasonable people like me have ignored those ridiculous questions...It's because they are being asked by those..well, less than 'normal' level Yanks!
BTW...It is "Ockam's Razor". He was an "English Monk"...So your Yankified slang as no barring. In fact, your Yankification serves only to further reduce your intellect! You dare to ridicule use of English, when you are a Yank? Give me a break!
Where is the "science" in 'if it sounds right it is'???? Or would you like to state that YOUR phonetic system is WRONG?...or should I say fownetik?
No wonder that all LOGIC is beyond understanding in most of what is said here...It's because this non-logic is comming from Yanks!
Again, BTW. Ockam's Razor would suggest that you Yanks are wrong...Remember? The simplest...But then again, you are the "simplest"
Posted by: What-The? | March 23, 2007 at 01:39 AM
??? ...No, I'm American, and therefore I'm only qualified to speak about the quality of education in American schools. They may very well teach logic and critical thinking in other nations, other countries may actually put a premium on scientific literacy, but in America that's sadly not the case. No, despite your feeble attempts at elitism, you've ignored our questions because you cannot answer them and because you cannot back up your claims with facts. BTW, there are multiple spellings. The theory is credited to William of Ockham, a 14th-Century monk. Now, as I'm sure a well-educated non-"Yank" like you is aware, the 14th century was well before the English language was standardized. At the time, it was still mostly an oral language (the printing press wasn't even invented until the next century), and it would be hundreds of years before the first dictionary was published. You may recall other authors in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Age whose names have multiple spellings, such as one guy who signed his name "William Shackspere," "William Shackper," and "William Shakespeare." What the flying hell are you talking about? Barring? Doesn't matter what country I'm from, I can recognize bad grammar when I see it. And I can recognize an insane argument too--my use of "yankified" words reduces my intellect? Well, gawrsh, if I knew strayin' from duh queen's English would take points away from mah I.Q., I'd'uh stopped a-doin' it way back. Sadly, languages don't follow scientific rules. And where the hell did phonics come into play here? What I'm talking about is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar, and the perpetuation of "myth rules" of grammar, which came into the English language back in the 18th and 19th centuries, when grammarians tried to make English conform to the rules of Latin. It's why older grammar texts tell you not to split infinitives or end sentences with prepositions--because in Latin, that's a no-no (well, actually, the former is impossible, since the infinitive is one word). The problem with those rules is that English isn't Latin, and the rules don't reflect how people use the language. The great shift in grammar instruction over the last century has been moving away from the classical rules which were adapted from Latin, and toward a set of rules which reflect how English works in practice.
Of course, those rules vary a bit from dialect to dialect, and grammar instructors throughout the discipline have no consensus on what the rules are, what they should be, or how to teach them. In fact, the only real consensus is that the traditional instruction methods are ineffective and unrealistic, and that they should have been changed decades ago.
But I'm sure you already knew all that.
Only your "logic" has been beyond understanding, Mr. "the word poverty meant something else 2000 years ago." That being said, the validity of an argument has nothing to do with the arguer's nationality. Yet again, you're trying to use a non sequitur to avoid addressing any points whatsoever. Non sequiturs are logical fallacies, What-The, and basic ones at that. You're in no position to criticize anyone's logic. Actually, the idea that Occam's Razor says "the simplest answer is usually the correct one" is an oversimplification of what he actually said, which was "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" (except he said it in Latin). What this means is that you shouldn't propose hypothetical entities to explain phenomena, and that all other things being equal, the explanation with the fewest hypothetical (that is, unproven) entities is probably the correct one.And if I'm the "simplest," and I can see your ad hominems and non sequiturs for what they are--a diversion tactic because you lack any comments of substance--then what does that make you, What-The?
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 23, 2007 at 02:15 AM
And one more thing...even with your (common) misunderstanding of Occam's Razor, how would "us Yanks" be wrong? How is "your thoughts can directly affect the external universe through an unknown, hypothetical mechanism that is totally unproven and undefined" simpler than "your thoughts can only indirectly affect the external universe, through the brain's interface with the rest of the body"?
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 23, 2007 at 02:18 AM
WOW...I must give it to you, Tom. You might be a Yankabilly but you sure got me there...
Translation...WOW...yo moost jiv yt yooy, Tom. Yooy myyt bee a Yankabilly boot yooy shoor giit mee ferr...
WOW...did you see that folks? Oh, of course, "folks" is a Yankabilly word...I made an error!! "God Damn" as the Yanks would say...mind you, should be dammed to be fenatic...anyway, I dropped me H ?? Would you beleeve? Yep Should be Ockham's !!!
Amway, Tom Foss, My Yankabilly frend, could you please show where I said...oops..sed:-
"your thoughts can directly affect the external universe through an unknown, hypothetical mechanism that is totally unproven and undefined"
And
"your thoughts can only indirectly affect the external universe, through the brain's interface with the rest of the body"
You have tried to make it look like you are quoting me! Being a higher being, namely, a Yankabilly, it should be easy for you to explain your misquotes and inuend..inyou..inuean...inyaendo...Oh God Damn, making things up!
Posted by: What-The? | March 23, 2007 at 03:58 AM
Now, maybe you'd like to reciprocate by posting something with content, preferably addressing some aspect of the evidence you've fabricated for the doctrine you were defending. But I predict you'll just let loose with another increasingly unreadable mash of non sequiturs, elitist insults, and mangled punctuation. If you're going to criticize me for my usage of scare-quotes, you really ought to learn how to properly use exclamation marks and ellipses. And capital letters.
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 23, 2007 at 04:16 AM
"Funny you should bring up pyramid schemes in a conversation about The Secret."
My Dear Yankabilly Frend,
Please note this "thread" is about the so called "Law of Attraction". The thread about "The Secret" to which you refer is else where.
Please do not let that worry you. I have noticed that many other Yankabillies have also not been able to tell the difference between a "movie" and "reality"...So you are not alone.
Kindest Rergards
Your ONLY sane Frend.
Posted by: What-The? | March 23, 2007 at 04:32 AM
Anyway, nice capitalization. Clean up that errant ellipsis, and you'll be grammatically coherent. Now if only you could work on that problem of posting absolutely nothing of substance and continuing to ignore all but the most insignificant parts of any response.
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 23, 2007 at 04:47 AM
Dear Elitist Person Not From America,
"The Law of Attraction" is a fabricated line of newage bullshit created by those that created "The Secret." It does not exist outside "The Secret," and therefore any discussion of said "Law" must include discussion of the ignorant and ridiculous film/book that gave life to said "Law." It's like trying to discuss Frodo Baggins outside the context of Tolkein. "We're talking about Frodo, not The Lord of the Rings!"
Skeptico, is there any way to ban this fool?
Posted by: Akusai | March 23, 2007 at 04:54 AM
I feel like a cat, playing with a spastic mouse. I can't count the times he's changed direction. Not two sentences after accusing me of American elitism, he's invented the term "Yankabilly" and has turned into what some would call "Eurotrash."
And he still can't post anything of substance. It's easy to be elitist when you don't have anything to back it up, I guess.
Gotta wonder what he's compensating for, though.
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 23, 2007 at 05:02 AM
"Skeptico, is there any way to ban this fool?"
Yes...I have heard this before. Let me think. How does it go? When one must resort to words like "bullshit" one puts himself in the gutter and the only way out is to ban the rat catcher!
Posted by: What-The? | March 23, 2007 at 05:08 AM
It gets crazier and crazier in here. Predictable misuse of Occam's Razor, check.
Love that What-The? is so desperate to pretend he never said what he said.
Oh, and another counterexample to LoA: Was worried about a project, convinced I'd get a low grade. So I started earlier and double checked everything. Got a 95.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 23, 2007 at 05:08 AM
What-The?: You're almost the equivalent of a troll I know named "Weapon of Mass Instruction". That's why you're ban-worthy.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 23, 2007 at 05:11 AM
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 23, 2007 at 05:15 AM
The funny thing about this is that you could, if you wanted to, make some intelligent comments.
I understand that you have somethings against you...like being Yank. But hey, I didn't evoke the Law of Attraction to make you the laughing stock of the World...You did!!
Now lets see...Will the webmaster "ban" me? Or will he answer my question?...
Posted by: What-The? | March 23, 2007 at 05:29 AM
Taking all bets!
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 23, 2007 at 05:38 AM
The image that comes to mind when I think of What-The?: Guy with two black eyes, coated with bruises, and hanging on the ropes asking "had enough, yet?"
We've got plenty of evidence, counterexamples, etcetera, in our favor, even though we don't need it (after all, What-The?'s the one making the claims easily viewed by the public above), and all he can do is ignore it, change the subject, change his claims, accuse us of relying on stuff that's extraneous to, or even sometimes nonexistent in, our arguments while building the vast bulk of his case on those sorts of things (language, ad homenims, elitism).
So, are anorexics fat or not? We say "not". What-The? can't seem make up his mind.
Of course, the fact that we've talked about anorexics is counterevidence to his claim that we don't have counterevidence to The Secret.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 23, 2007 at 06:03 AM
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 23, 2007 at 06:24 AM
Or like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail after he's been cut to pieces.
Posted by: dikkii | March 23, 2007 at 06:56 AM
What-The:
Your posts have now crossed the line from being merely content-free and irritatingly ignoring of questions asked and counterpoints made, and have now progressed to being purely insulting for the sake of it. You claimed you came here for a real discussion, to help you form an opinion about The Secret, but with that latest recent series of insults you have proven you are just an immature troll with no interest in anything except trying to score points in some way that pleases your adolescent mind. That is not why I set up this blog or why I encourage comments.
I asked you several days ago to provide evidence The Secret and the LOA are correct but you haven’t even tried to do so, and clearly you never intended to do so. Many other people do read these comments to try to learn something, and to debate honestly, but unfortunately I have been informed that your negative trolling style puts people off posting here and/or reading this blog. Consequently it ends now. You are now banned. Do not try posting here again. If you do, I will delete any posts you make and I will have to implement comment moderation. Do not make me implement comment moderation with the attendant reduction in the free flow of ideas amongst the other people here.
You have been allowed free speech now for nearly two weeks. In that time you have offered nothing but have instead been destructive to honest debate and the exchange of ideas. You were warned. You had your chance. Now piss off.
Posted by: Skeptico | March 23, 2007 at 08:24 AM
What-The? wrote:
Really Jimmy ?
You are the "scientist"...You are the one that puts himself above others...Are you sure that "exactly" is the right word to use?
Yes, really.
I am not a scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be. I do not put myself above others, unless of course you can cite a post where I say that specifically.
From dictionary.com:
ex·act·ly /ɪgˈzæktli/
–adverb
1. in an exact manner; precisely; accurately.
2. in every respect; just: He will do exactly what he wants.
3. quite so; that's right.
You said:
Do you have any factual information (if you like, proof) to support your opinion? Yes or No?
I asnwered 'Yes'. So 'exactly' is the right word. No doubt you'll tell us it meant something else 2000 years ago though.
So, what would be the latest evasion technique? Well, it's getting desperate now:
You are "American" and therefore correct. Aren't you? No wonder such stupid, irrelevant and childish questions have been asked. No wonder normal intelligent and FREE thinking reasonable people like me have ignored those ridiculous questions...It's because they are being asked by those..well, less than 'normal' level Yanks!
Well I am not American, I am English. So you'll have no trouble answering my questions then, right? You can do it here or over in the thread on the secret, it's up to you.
Since I've reached the conclusion that you don't really believe the nonsense you claim you do and that you are simply a mindless troll, I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 23, 2007 at 08:30 AM
Sorry Skeptico, I was writing my response as you were.
I promise not to feed the troll anymore.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 23, 2007 at 08:31 AM
Jimmy.
"Is it unscientific to claim that unicorns don't exist?"
This is a lame question in my opinion. That's why I didn't answer.
If a sane group of people that come together and make a movie about how there are unicorns living in area X. Then it is un-scientific to blindly ignore their point and claim that unicorns don't exist without actively going to the area and searching for unicorns.
But if there are no sane groups who have experienced seeing unicorns. There is evidence to prove it and there is no reason to doubt. Then it would be scientific (in your definition) to say they don't exist.
You are well confusing the matter of casual reality with scientific explanations. Common sense is common sense, science is science.
Learn to ask smarter questions. Also refrain from asking loaded questions. You know what type of people ask questions like this??
Posted by: Omitis | March 23, 2007 at 02:14 PM
If a sane group of people that come together and make a movie about how there are unicorns living in area X. Then it is un-scientific to blindly ignore their point and claim that unicorns don't exist without actively going to the area and searching for unicorns.
Wrong. It would be the job of the claimant to prove there are unicorns living in area X. If they do not do so, then it would be a waste of time to go searching.
Just like the piss-poor job the proponents of the "Law" of Attraction have done.
For instance, I have a 10" penis. Is it your job to come to my house and check my penis or do you just laugh and ignore me?
Skeptics don't waste time debunking every claim that comes our way.
Posted by: Rockstar Ryan | March 23, 2007 at 02:20 PM
Hey! a new sarcastic take on the Secret at Village Voice:
http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0712,yaeger,76128,15.html
pretty cute. madaha
Posted by: | March 23, 2007 at 02:28 PM
Okay, so we should spend all of our time looking and not finding unicorns, leprechauns, goblins, Harry Potter, Oni, Inuyasha, Zeus, the Grays, the hollow center of the Earth, orgone energy, the preferred music of daisies, fairies, mokele mbembe, witch doctors who can voodoo a doll, a living Elvis Presley, the chupacabra, Santa, rakshasas, djinn, Urza, the Photon Belt, and many, many, many, many other things. It should only take seven and a half million years, assuming no one makes up any more stuff for us to look for.
Yeah, that's much more productive than asking them to perform a handful of tests using the scientific method.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 23, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Ok Ok Tom. Make excuses. First you complain about bad English and grammar then you justify bad use of it with 'do what sounds right'. Is this how you tackle other things that you are challenged with?
I honestly don't understand how you have taken for granted that I have very little understanding of scientific method? Just because I don't agree that "the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim" and suggest that the people rejecting the claim are as responsible for their claim as those that make the claim doesn't make me a troll. I also believe you 'create' science. With every discovery you create something new. And yes you can also 'do' science.
And I guess we have different points of view on the definition of skepticism. Your definition of a skeptic is nothing but any ordinary smart person: They don't believe everything and ask the right questions. These smart people are only useful in their own circle of life and do not positively 'contribute'.
It is important to draw a fine line between a skeptic and a smart person. Otherwise, anybody who thinks he/she is overly smart can step forward and make a comment about something they have not even studied in depth yet.
I define myself in my definition and you define yourself in yours. Our opinion is relative.
Posted by: Omitis | March 23, 2007 at 02:49 PM
I review articles every week, I give presentation and contribute (and no not in para-psychology).
I'm interested in para-psychology because I'd like to know why people believe in it. How it affects their day-to-day lives. The latest replicated research shows people who do believe in god experience less stress in their daily lives. And for your information research shows strongly that people who do natural sciences are BIGGEST group that believe in god. This is the sort of things I study. I study academic abilities of children, stress, and depression. I also read physics and chemistry books in my free time. And I call myself a real active skeptic. And I work as a C# .NET programmer too.
I don't just sit there judging the right or wrong. I'm active in finding out why people believe what they believe. What causes it and what effects their beliefs in their daily life. I know many people like this, high ranking university researchers, assistants, doctors and engineers. Not mentioning those who fund the studies. I'm sometimes a scientist but most of the time a skeptic, asking the 'right' questions and actually actively trying find out the answers.
Posted by: Omitis | March 23, 2007 at 02:52 PM
I don't make fun of anybody. I don't call anybody a moron because they lack education. I don't verbally abuse anybody and when they complain I don't respond with "you are non-sense".
I don't all day write negative comments in these blogs. It is funny that you are complaining about TROLLs, I wonder why you keep attracting them to a SKEPTICs blog. Doesn't that tell you something? When the number of TROLLs - sorry I meant people who challenge you and you can't stand it - you stop allowing anonymous comments.
Get a life people. Be a real skeptic. Not an ego-centered smart ass, victimizing ordinary people - oops sorry I meant to say family and friends - and satisfying your self-fulfilling prophecies.
I wouldn't be wrong to guess, that you people, that I call pseudo-skeptics don't have a stable relationship. I really feel sorry for you spouses. Nobody in the world would want to put up with you. You are not skeptics, you are just a bunch of smart people who feel good about thinking that you are right and others are stupid and moron compared to you.
I'm pretty sure, you were quiet un-popular in your school days and were subject to victimization of cool people. Now you are paying it back.
You have this altered sense of self-positivity about yourself and so much filled with pride. It is not a bad thing, it helps you feel good, but at the same time it stops you from seeing. The same way you can't see radio waves, you can't see other truth about life.
What do you get out of these blogs? No, answer this question to yourself? What DO YOU GET from posting comments like this? What do you get out of calling people moron? Isn't it just the good feeling of "I'm smart and you are stupid?". Get a life people. What is your usefulness in science?
Ask any scientist whether your existence is useful in the field of science. That would all say NO. (I apologize to any real skeptic that is here)
Posted by: Omitis | March 23, 2007 at 02:58 PM
I explained the mechanism of phenomena of attraction in the human mind and I backed it up with proof. I explained to you that the movie for an unacceptable reason has merged attraction and manifestation together. And you still say The Secret is The Law of Attraction. If you just do a little bit of study, you will see that The Secret has combined many many mystical laws (there are 101 claimed laws) into one motion movie and each of those needs to be studied separately. This is the nature of a scientific study, you control for variables. Remember?
Right at this very moment, real scientists are testing these laws. Some have come with positive results and same have come with negative results. With the help of real skeptics the flaws of these studies are found and they are replicated. Real skeptics look for proof, no matter if it is pro or against.
Don't judge people on their beliefs; look beyond that, like a real skeptic.
Posted by: Omitis | March 23, 2007 at 03:00 PM
See I agree that not everything can be scientifically experimented. And I'm sorry if I over generalized. But for sake of science, what kind of a lame example is this? Is this what an educated person says?
"I have a 10" penis. Is it your job to come to my house and check my penis or do you just laugh and ignore me?"
How smart are you? You really can't answer thit question and you want me to answer that question? Get a life man!
The pseudo-skeptic answer to your question is:
Ignore you and laugh. Make fun of you and make you feel stupid.
The real skeptic answer to your questions is:
You don't ignore. You don't laugh. You don't make fun, You don't abuse. But try to explain like a real gentleman. With manners and care for others emotions and feelings. You act like a teacher and patiently try to answer the person. You back up your claims with real hypothetical answers and behave like a sane person. A real skeptic.
With questions like this, I am more and more convinced that you are not real skeptics and only a bunch of people who find joy in scrutinizing others. I shall have nothing more to do with you. I have a wife, beautiful family, a lot of friends and a huge positive life that I rather interact with. But I hope at least some of you have come to understand yourselves better.
I have made my point and I shall say goodbye to you all. And wish you well with your abuse behavior. I also wish you don't attract any more TROLLs in your blogs.
Posted by: Omitis | March 23, 2007 at 03:21 PM
Skeptico replies to Omitis
Re: When the number of TROLLs - sorry I meant people who challenge you and you can't stand it - you stop allowing anonymous comments.
When have I stopped allowing anonymous comments?
Re: I wouldn't be wrong to guess, that you people, that I call pseudo-skeptics don't have a stable relationship. I really feel sorry for you spouses. Blah blah
Spare us the psycho-babble. Although it is noted that you have now descended into personal attacks. A bit like how John Vincent went into meltdown. It’s strange – two critics of my “The Secret” and LOA posts have now – after running out of actual arguments – had to resort to “my life is great / you must all be losers” types of argument. Doesn’t it seem to anyone else that these Secretoids have an overwhelming need to prove that their lives are so much better than anyone else’s? And isn’t it likely that this is because deep down they know that their lives really aren’t that great?
Hey – psychobabble’s fun. And easier than actually having to provide any ecidence.
Re: Right at this very moment, real scientists are testing these laws. Some have come with positive results and same have come with negative results.
Citations to these studies, please.
Posted by: Skeptico | March 23, 2007 at 03:40 PM
The only reason I answer this is just to prove another point about the real difference between a real skeptic and a pseudo-skeptic.
If you had been active and done a basic search on parapsychology in the journals search engine that you pay x-amount of money to subscribe every year you would have found 3295 articles.
I make it clear again, that some of these studies have found positive results and some have found negative results. The role of a real skeptic is to review these and question them.
There many other studies under way. Please note these are all recent studies.
Here are just to name a few:
Title Of two minds: Sceptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology
Author Schlitz, Marilyn1; Wiseman, Richard2; Watt, Caroline3; Radin, Dean1
Source British Journal of Psychology. Vol 97(3), Aug 2006, pp. 313-322
Title Experimental facilitation of the sensed presence is predicted by the specific patterns of the applied magnetic fields, not by suggestibility: Re-analyses of 19 experiments
Author St -Pierre, L S1; Persinger, M A1
Source International Journal of Neuroscience. Vol 116(9), Sep 2006, pp. 1079-1096
Title Belief in psychic ability and the misattribution hypothesis: A qualitative review
Author Wiseman, Richard1; Watt, Caroline2
Source British Journal of Psychology. Vol 97(3), Aug 2006, pp. 323-338
Title Reexamining Psychokinesis: Comment on Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller (2006)
Author Radin, Dean1; Nelson, Roger2; Dobyns, York2; Houtkooper, Joop3
Source Psychological Bulletin. Vol 132(4), Jul 2006, pp. 529-532
Title Human radiations: Concepts of force in mesmerism, spiritualism and psychical research
Author Alvarado, Carlos S1
Source Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. Vol 70(884)[3], Jul 2006, pp. 138-162
Title 20 years at the Koestler Parapsychology Unit
Author Watt, Caroline1
Source The Psychologist. Vol 19(7), Jul 2006, pp. 424-427
Title Does Psi Exist and Can We Prove It? Belief and Disbelief in Parapsychological Research
Author Etzold, Eckhard1
Source European Journal of Parapsychology. Vol 21(1), 2006, pp. 38-57
Title "The Effect of Weak Magnetic Fields on a Random Event Generator: Reconsidering the Role of Geomagetic Flutuations in MicroPK Studies": Erratum
Author Stevens, Paul1
Source European Journal of Parapsychology. Vol 21(1), 2006, pp. 88
Title Dream homes: When dreams seem to predict real estate sales
Author Kasian, Stefan J1
Source Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. Vol 67(1-B), 2006, pp. 582
Title Physics vs paraphysics
Author Guttman, Norman1
Source PsycCRITIQUES., 2006, pp. [np]
Title On Even Keel through Parapsychology
Author Scriven, Michael1
Source PsycCRITIQUES., 2006, pp. [np]
Title Skeptics and selective reporting
Author Rao, K Ramakrishna1
Source PsycCRITIQUES., 2006, pp. [np]
Title 'It's still bending': Verbal suggestion and alleged psychokinetic ability
Author Wiseman, Richard1; Greening, Emma1
Source British Journal of Psychology. Vol 96(1), Feb 2005, pp. 115-127
Title A further consideration of the sender as a PK agent in ganzfeld ESP studies
Author Roe, Chris A1; Holt, Nicola1
Source Journal of Parapsychology. Vol 69(1), Spr 2005, pp. 113-127
Title Participant Variables Associated with Psi Ganzfeld Results
Author Goulding, Anneli1
Source European Journal of Parapsychology. Vol 20(1), 2005, pp. 50-64
Title Parapsychology: The Rodney Dangerfield of Science
Author Hyman, Ray
Source PsycCRITIQUES. Vol 49 (Suppl 14), 2004, pp. [np]
Title The PK Zone: A Cross-Cultural Review of Psychokinesis
Author White, Rhea A1
Source Journal of Parapsychology. Vol 68(2), Fal 2004, pp. 433-436
Title Must the 'Magic' of Psychokinesis Hinder Precise Scientific Measurement?
Author Pallikari, Fotini1
Source Journal of Consciousness Studies. Special Issue: Parapsychology. Vol 10(6-7), Jun-Jul 2003, pp. 199-219
Title The psychology of the "psi-conducive" experimenter: Personality, attitudes towards psi, and personal psi experience
Author Smith, Matthew D1
Source Journal of Parapsychology. Vol 67(1), Spr 2003, pp. 117-128
--------------------
Just to make clear, these are not all on law of attraction, but some are. You need more education to understand the nature of these studies and how they relate to 101 mystical laws.
You see for hundreds of years no body could proof the presence of atoms until technology became more advance, or that the Earth is not flat, or humans can to the moon. For hundreds of years no body has been able to robustly proof parapsychology. Only time will tell, not me, and not you either. All it takes is an open mind to be able to see both sides of the story. Not just one.
There are real people out there, doing real work. Not babbling.
Ok now go and have a real think about who you are and what contributions you are making.
Posted by: Omitis | March 23, 2007 at 04:46 PM
And as I think you understand from this, until there is positive evidence for the existence of some thing, it is unscientific in any sense to claim that it exists.
The question is plenty smart. What you have advocated is that we should not accept the null hypothesis; the unicorn question shows the logical progression of that stance. If we reject the scientific mindset and say "well, we have no proof, so it may be true" instead of "we have no proof, so at this time it appears to be untrue," then we must do that for all things that we have no proof of, unicorns included. I only complain about bad English and grammar when it interferes with the transmission of meaning. If the syntax and punctuation are so bad that I cannot understand the passage, then it is not wrong to complain."Do what sounds right" is quite simply a good rule of thumb when it comes to complex and esoteric questions of English grammar; there are very few hard-and-fast ruled for the language, and said rules are in flux. If you'd like me to tell you all about the history of grammar thought and instruction in the English-speaking world, I could. But right now the grammarians are trying to shift away from prescriptive grammar (somewhat arbitrary rules to tell people how to speak) to descriptive grammar (grammar rules which reflect how people actually speak). In either case, the core point is to allow meaning to be transmitted easily.
You just answered your own question. The idea that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim is central to the scientific method, yet you reject it. I haven't "taken for granted" that you lack understanding of the scientific method, you've shown that you lack said understanding by making comments that no one who is familiar with the scientific method would ever make. Except that discoveries, by their very definition, do not create anything. They reveal something that was already there; the only thing you could reasonably say they "create" is more knowledge. A "concern troll" is someone who claims to agree with a group (here, skeptics), but then proceeds to tell them that they're doing something central to the group dynamic horribly wrong (here, skepticism and science). It's a fairly transparent tactic. No, my definition of a skeptic is anyone who applies the skeptical or scientific method to different aspects of their life. And they are very useful, if only because they promote reason and rationality over credulity. And many skeptics actively promote skepticism to the masses, trying to show charlatans, pseudoscience, and other bunk for what they truly are.Your rejection of this definition would say that people like Harry Houdini, James Randi, Penn & Teller, Michael Shermer, and countless other skeptics do not positively contribute in their quest to educate people about pseudoscience, mysticism, and all-around woo.
First, I do draw a line between a skeptic an a smart person; not all smart people employ a skeptical method in their lives and studies. There's a whole chapter in Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things" which talks about why smart people get suckered into the same garbage as others. Second, skepticism doesn't mean "study every claim in-depth before accepting or rejecting it." It may be useful to study things in-depth, but I needn't read the Encyclopedia Leprechaunica before I can reasonably say that Leprechauns do not exist. See, that's the beauty of science and skepticism: they place the burden of proof right where it belongs. I don't need to read every book ever written on the subject of magic before I can determine that a cups-and-balls trick is illusion rather than sorcery; I don't need to conduct lengthy experiments on ESP in order to say "until there's some evidence for it, it can't reasonably be said to exist," and I certainly don't need to conduct in-depth research on every topic in order to be skeptical about it. Except that the definition I use is the one generally accepted and employed by the skeptical community. It's also the definition used in the dictionary. Much as you may like, you cannot redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean. And that is a hard-and-fast rule of grammar. For which journals? Citation? It's not a necessity for skeptics to "find out why people believe what they believe." It's interesting, it gives you an insight into the human mind and the propagation of unscientific ideas and illogical doctrines, but it certainly isn't a necessity for skepticism. Skepticism is, however, a necessity for good science. The fact that you draw a distinction between the two further casts doubts on your understanding of the basics of science. And none of us just "sit here judging right and wrong." We all have lives, in which we're actively doing our own things. I'm actively pursuing my teaching degree so I can actively help to train the next generation of scientists. Promoting skepticism here, in the classroom, and in my daily life, is just one way that I positively contribute to science. I judge "true" and "false" tentatively and based on the evidence, as any skeptic and any scientist does. No, you just call them "pseudo-skeptics." The reason we attract dissenters and trolls is because people don't like giving up their comfortable delusions. There are a number of reasons that people believe weird things, and no one likes having their beliefs challenged. As far as people who challenge us, the fact that you continue to post without having been banned or sanctioned, the fact that we continue to answer your questions and claims, shows you just how little we can "stand" being "challenged." And it's comments like these that mark you as a concern troll. You claim to belong to our group, but you have redefined the term into something unrecognizable, and then proceed to tell us that we're doing it wrong. Okay folks, show of hands: who's got a steady and stable romantic relationship? Yeah, I kind of figured. I'm approaching 5 1/2 years with my girlfriend, Omitis, and we're quite happy. Please, show me the evidence on which you base this claim.This is a nice non sequitur. I would have thought a "real skeptic" would know what logical fallacies are, and would take pains not to use them.
Doggerel all around. Ask any scientist if promoting skepticism and the scientific method, if fighting pseudoscience, is useful, and I highly doubt they'd say "no." Ask any scientist whether someone who is unwilling to take a position on the existence of any property until it has been researched in-depth and until it is "proven" not to exist, is useful to science. I imagine you'll get a response in the negative. The thing you fail to understand is that what you described as the 'law of attraction' and what the Secret described as the "Law of Attraction" are not the same thing. What you described is not called the 'law of attraction' by any psychologist, and is a generally understood psychological phenomenon. You redefine "law of attraction" to mean something completely different from what the film suggests, and then claim that the film is partially right about it. The phenomenon you described has a well-understood mechanism, the "Law of Attraction" in the film does not. There is no "law of attraction" and "law of manifestation" to confuse; so far as I know, you've invented those terms out of whole cloth. What scientists are testing the claims of The Secret? What laboratory do they work at? What journal do they plan to submit to? Every real physical phenomenon can be studied through experimentation or systematic observation.No. The real skeptic's answer is "prove it." If Rockstar claims to have a 10" penis, then it's up to him to show some proof of that. He can take a picture of it next to a ruler, or he can just whip it out, but in any case it's up to him to provide some evidence to back up the claim. That is a real skeptic's answer.
"How smart are you" is the answer of someone who doesn't understand logical fallacies.
No, I don't. I only need to see the names of the "usual suspects" of parapsychology, people like Dean Radin and Ray Hyman, whose studies are notorious for poor controls. I only need to see that the vast majority of those citations are not from scientific journals, from the peer-reviewed publications of real scientists, but from parapsychology journals. If these studies have real, verifiable physical or psychological effects, why are they only in journals of parapsychology? And all those things were proven through experimentation and observation, not through just assuming they were true. And until such proof was presented, it would have been foolish to believe any of those claims. I have an open mind, and I see that, despite all their claims, despite hundreds of years of research into those claims, parapsychologists are no closer to proving their claims than they were in the days when Houdini was debunking them. Just as it would be foolish and unscientific to believe in atoms until there were some positive evidence for their existence, it is foolish and unscientific to believe in ESP without any proof for its existence either.In other words, like any skeptic, my mind is perfectly open to the evidence. I see both sides of parapsychology: scientists saying that they have no proof to support their claims, and parapsychologists claiming that they need more time, and just wait they'll show us yet. Having an open mind doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence.
No, you go out and think about the contributions made by parapsychology. In the time since people started "scientifically" studying mesmerism and psychics, scientists have discovered proof of the atom, refined their models of its structure, built devices to test them indirectly, split it, built devices to view them directly through electron bombardment, discovered evidence of two more levels of subatomic particles comprising the atom, etc., etc. An idea that was in its infancy when people started studying psychic phenomena, today is generally-accepted, well-understood, and is at the heart of hundreds of different technological advances. Yet parapsychologists still have no proof that psychics are anything but charlatans. Exactly what have the contributions of parapsychology been?Posted by: Tom Foss | March 23, 2007 at 05:14 PM
Skeptico replies to Omitis
Re: The only reason I answer this is just to prove another point about the real difference between a real skeptic and a pseudo-skeptic.
The difference is this: the pseudo skeptic is the one who believes in some form of woo, despite the lack of evidence for it. Since he can’t show evidence for his claims, and is annoyed that the real skeptics keep pointing out that there is no evidence, all he has left is to claim that he is the real skeptic and those who point out the lack of evidence are “pseudo skeptics”.
In reality, the only thing of importance is: is there any evidence for your claims or not. If you concentrate on labels (as you do), you probably have no evidence for your claim.
Re: If you had been active and done a basic search on parapsychology in the journals search engine that you pay x-amount of money to subscribe every year you would have found 3295 articles.
Hey it was your claim pal. You make the claim, don’t whine that someone asks you to back it up. That’s what skeptics do. The real ones, anyway.
You list studies. Are any of these studies available online? And can you please take a couple and explain why you think they support your position? Again – your claim. Back it up.
Re: Just to make clear, these are not all on law of attraction, but some are.
Exactly. So pick out the ones that do support the LOA and explain why. Assuming you’ve actually read any of them and haven’t just copied a list from somewhere.
Re: You see for hundreds of years no body could proof the presence of atoms until technology became more advance, or that the Earth is not flat, or humans can to the moon.
Oh boy – don’t you woos ever read the numerous rebuttals already made to these lame arguments? I’ve debunked this one at least twice TODAY on a different tread. This is a fallacious appeal to “science doesn’t know everything”. The thing you’re not getting, and the massive flaw in your argument, is this: for hundreds of years nobody was speculating that atoms might exist or what knowledge of atoms could be used for. You are comparing the LOA and the knowledge of The Secret to the “atoms” that existed although no one knew about them. But that’s a false analogy. No one was making up stuff about atoms, radio waves, or any of the other items woos always bring into this false analogy. The true analog to the claims of this absurd film are humors that doctors thought caused illnesses, or daemons it was thought possessed people.
Re: All it takes is an open mind to be able to see both sides of the story. Not just one.
LOL. This is 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 might be false, then you are the closed minded one.
So, can you accept the idea that the LOA is not a scientific “Law” like gravity, or not? Because if not, you are closed minded.
Re: There are real people out there, doing real work. Not babbling.
Ok now go and have a real think about who you are and what contributions you are making.
I already have. And so far, you’re not making any contribution – just a load of whining about how you’re a “real” skeptic and we’re not.
Posted by: Skeptico | March 23, 2007 at 05:14 PM
Why is it that woos keep coming back after they promise to go away? What do you have to prove?
Anyway, I know I said I wouldn't feed the trolls but how can I ignore a hissy fit like that?
Omitis:
"Is it unscientific to claim that unicorns don't exist?"
This is a lame question in my opinion. That's why I didn't answer.
So why didn't you answer the other question:
Is it unscientific to claim that the hypothesis that unicorns exist is false?
Why is it lame? Why is claiming unicorns exist any different to claiming that the law of attraction exists?
Why is this question lame, rather than highlighting that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? This question highlights that when a claim is made the burden of proof is with the claimant, and that science should not waste time on claims that are ridiculous.
If a sane group of people that come together and make a movie about how there are unicorns living in area X. Then it is un-scientific to blindly ignore their point and claim that unicorns don't exist without actively going to the area and searching for unicorns.
It would be unscientific to consider the evidence they present first (which we have done), ask for it to be backed up (which we have done), and if it fails all initial scrutiny or they do not back it up (which has happened), still go and look for unicorns because someone still insists they exist.
Which is exactly what has happened here. Arguments in favour of the law have all failed initial scrutiny.
But if there are no sane groups who have experienced seeing unicorns. There is evidence to prove it and there is no reason to doubt. Then it would be scientific (in your definition) to say they don't exist.
There is no evidence to support it, and there is ample evidence to doubt it hence the scientific conclusion, the reasonable and logical one, is that they don't exist.
Also refrain from asking loaded questions. You know what type of people ask questions like this??
People like you, obviously. Oh silly me, was that supposed to be humour?
I honestly don't understand how you have taken for granted that I have very little understanding of scientific method? Just because I don't agree that "the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim" and suggest that the people rejecting the claim are as responsible for their claim as those that make the claim doesn't make me a troll.
We don't take it for granted. The fact that you don't agree the burden of proof is with the claimant is proof that you don't understand the scientific method.
And for your information research shows strongly that people who do natural sciences are BIGGEST group that believe in god.
Really? Because in 1998 a study of the members of the National Academy of Sciences published in Nature showed that 72.2% of the scientists who responded to a survey expressed disbelief in a personal god, 20.8% expressed doubt or agnosticism and only 7% expressed belief. Whereas a 2006 Gallop poll suggested 72% of the general population believe in god.
In 2005, Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at research universities and found that 38% of natural scientists do not believe in god, but only 31% of social scientists. She found that 41% of biologists don't believe whilst amonst political scientists the figure was just 27%.
Nevermind though. You just keep asserting things as if that makes them true.
This is the sort of things I study.
Really? Obviously you need to study a bit harder.
I don't make fun of anybody.
Really. So when you write this:
Get a life people. Be a real skeptic. Not an ego-centered smart ass, victimizing ordinary people - oops sorry I meant to say family and friends - and satisfying your self-fulfilling prophecies.
You're not attempting to make fun of anyone?
How about when you write this:
I wouldn't be wrong to guess, that you people, that I call pseudo-skeptics don't have a stable relationship. I really feel sorry for you spouses. Nobody in the world would want to put up with you.
Or this:
I'm pretty sure, you were quiet un-popular in your school days and were subject to victimization of cool people.
Or this:
How smart are you? You really can't answer thit question and you want me to answer that question? Get a life man!
Or this:
Tom. I should have read more of your posts. Sorry for making a false unscientific unexperimented statement:
"You have behavioral control over what you write and don't let anger and other emotions get into your posts."
Or this:
Being a skeptic is an art. It is the art of education, understanding and wisdom. Not everybody can master this art.
You are a hypocrite at the very least.
The rest of your posts are just the tired old fall back of the beaten bleever. 'Yeah well you skeptics are just sad lonely, miserable, bullied, cynical, depressed, inadequate, single, unloved, unimaginative, closeminded, boring, pathetic individuals and I am far better than you and have a better life so there.'
Yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnn. Been said before, been answered before, not going to type it again because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 23, 2007 at 05:54 PM
Are we at the point where we are now just "cupcake loser morons"?
(to a hint of what that means do a search of that phrase at http://forums.randi.org/ )
Oh, and for the record I've been married to the same person for the last 27 years. I am actually the only sibling in my family to be on Spouse Version 1.0, plus we are the only non-church going bunch.
This has been a very amusing thread. Thanks.
Posted by: HCN | March 23, 2007 at 05:58 PM
The observer, in the act of observing, changes the observed. Consequently, any one of you who claims that what you are saying is in any way true, whether you believe in the LOA or not, changes even what you are believing by stating it. Gobbledygook? Oh, yeah! But that's what "reality" is. Illusion. Not one of you knows what you're talking about. However, the results of your life, what your life is at this very moment, is a direct result of everything you have done or thought or been up to this point. You cannot refute that. So I guess it's false, right? Old HL Mencken says in essence, we are here and it is now. All the rest of human knowledge is moonshine.
Let the believers have their fun. They won't be around much longer anyway. After all, Armageddon is just around the corner, or the ice caps are melting, or an asteroid is heading directly toward Earth. Or some other crap.
Suggestion: Count your blessings, including your adversities; proclaim your rarity. You bring a special gift to the world. Use it; go the extra mile. Give a little more than you take. You'll see whether the Law of Attraction is real or false. And if it works for you, who care what anyone else thinks!!!
Posted by: Rev. Richard | March 24, 2007 at 07:54 AM
No, reality is the external, objective universe in which we all live. Cartesian solipsism may make for decent philosophy, but it ain't supported by the evidence. Plus, the parties really suck.
I beg to differ. Anyone who says that there is no such thing as reality has no idea what they're talking about. No, it's not false, because the evidence supports it. All psychological, anthropological, biological, and neurological evidence would support the claim that who a person is is based on their prior life experiences. H.L. Mencken is casually dismissing all those life experiences, both of individuals and for the entire human race, which not only goes against your point, but is scientifically worthless. And all the wishing in the world won't change the fact that the ice caps are melting. All the positive thought in the universe won't change the direction of an asteroid.The believers have every right to believe whatever they want to believe. Once they start promoting that belief to others and claiming that it's science, however, we have a responsibility to correct those lies and misconceptions.
"Completely disregard reality! If your delusions make you happy, who cares that they're not real?" I suppose we should just continue insisting on the reality of Santa Claus to our children once they're twenty-five.Eventually, people need to grow up and live in the real world, where wishes don't always come true. Continuing to live in a childish fantasy isn't good for anyone.
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 24, 2007 at 09:46 AM
This is a complete non sequitur. It is like arguing that since I like coffee, polar bears are white.
And then some.
An illusion, roughly, is when empirical data
of some sort indicates that the external world is not as it is. So how can you identify an illusion? Usually because you have a mass of other empirical data that overrules the illusion. An example: there are many ways of painting a wall so that it looks like it is moving. But you have a vast prior experience that walls do not move. So even when you see a wall that is a painted in such a way you conclude that it is not moving, and that it is causing a visual hallucination. Since you can only identify an illusion with reference to the totality of your empirical experience how can you conclude that the entirety of your empirical experience is illusionary?
A proposition is true if it cannot (truly) be stated to be false. You cannot refute something that is true. For a proposition to be testable (which is what I think you are driving at) there must be a counterfactual situation in which it is false (arguably). It follows that not all true propositions are testable. Most obviously analytic ones. eg: All bachelors are unmarried.
All that this shows is that the scientific method has limitations. I don't think that anyone would seriously dispute that but it isn't relevant to the present discussion. "The Secret" is testable, has been tested (informally) and is false.
Is this any different from plain nihilism?
All very warm and fuzzy but it doesn't bring us any closer to the truth.
Posted by: James | March 24, 2007 at 09:54 AM
I love it when people use the word "truth" as if it actually means something. And the idea that there is a truly demonstrable world "out there" has already been called into question by String Theory. If all is energy, as some quantum physicists claim, then what we view as a solid object is, once again, simply an interpretation--shared, perhaps--but interpretation nonetheless. The only reason we see anything is because of darkness, not just light. Truth? Guess again. . .
I do not believe in a literal god, though I am a minister. I do not believe that "positive thinking" will produce the results that the pushers of such a philosophy claim, though I teach positivity in my ministry. I do not believe the books are closed on any particular branch of truth--scientific or religious--though I present on Sundays certain "moral directions" that I believe if followed, will lead to certain results in one's life. And, I am not Unitarian.
I am a seeker, as you all are. And I teach from the perspective of my own experience. My experience has been that, if I remember how fortunate I am at this and most moments in my life, I am less likely to complain. If I consider my uniqueness and talents, I am more likely to share those talents with the world. And, if I take time to help this old world, rather than constantly berating it or its people, if I use this short period of time to be an asset rather than a deficit, then I feel I have done the best I can while here.
In order to really live that way, it takes a change of mind and a change of heart. When those changes take place, one's experience of the world changes. And when that experience changes, one walks a different way, participates differently, acts differently, serves.
A change of mind/heart attracts a different experience of the world. Not from the outside, but from within. That's the only truth I can know. You, too.
It ain't warm and fuzzy. It's the most difficult path one can choose. Ask Jesus, the Buddha, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr. And when you choose such a path, you begin to see new things, new strengths, new possibilities showing up in your life. Attraction? Maybe. . .
That is what I teach in my ministry. Change your mind, change your actions, change your life. "You must be the change you would see in the world." Ghandi
Is it all selfless? Hardly. It's the most self-centered path in the world! One does nothing without an agenda and personal motive, even service. Agree?
Posted by: Rev. Richard | March 24, 2007 at 02:04 PM
Kindly stop pretending to know things that you clearly don't understand.
I'd love to see a citation for the claim that some quantum physicists believe "all is energy." Now, anyone in the modern age will tell you that matter and energy are somewhat interchangable (some mass is converted to energy in an atomic explosion; as an object approaches the speed of light, it begins to gain mass), but this doesn't mean that matter is "an illusion." Energy and matter are both real things which exist verifiably, demonstrably, and objectively. A solid object is not some kind of energy construct, it's not a hard-light hologram (though both energy and holograms are also real things), it's a collection of very slow moving atoms arranged in a somewhat rigid shape. It's not a matter of "interpretation," shared or otherwise. It's a recognition of various measurable chemical and physical properties displayed by an object which verifiably exists.And what the hell is this darkness/light stuff?
I'm with you. Each person has an individual, subjective experience of the universal, objective world around them. One's experiences and attitudes may change their interpretation of this objective universe, but they don't directly change the actual objective universe.For instance, someone who has sat in a cold room for an hour may take a dip into a 70-degree (Fahrenheit) bath and find it comfortably warm. Someone who has been exercising out in the hot sun might dip into the same 70-degree bath and find it refreshingly cool. But the subjective experiences and judgments of these people do not change the fact that the bath is verifiably and objectively 70 degrees.
Right. Your attitude and mindset affect how you view the world. Totally true (inasmuch as anything is 'true'--science is a little more tentative about the term than you seem to be, Reverend. In science, things are only ever "true, unless" or "true, until," and never quite "True."). It's just that this has nothing to do with the Law of Attraction, which states that changing your mindset and attitude will attract different things from the external, objective, physical world, not just the subjective internal mental one. Maybe? Try 'not at all.' All the people you mention are folks who worked hard to bring about great things (well, except perhaps Mother Teresa, but that's another conversation entirely. And this is, of course, assuming that two of your examples actually existed, about which there is also some debate). They didn't merely sit around and wish for good things to happen. And at least two of them, despite a positive attitide and a positive outlook, "attracted" assassinations. And that's a fine philosophy, a nice combination of self-empowerment, the golden rule, and leading by example. And not a whiff of the solipsism, instant gratification, and effortless rewards promoted in The Secret.Also, and this isn't meant to be disparaging because I have problems with it too, it's Gandhi.
Disagree. Not only is it certainly not "the most self-centered path in the world," since you are helping other people and trying to make the world a better place (a more self-centered path would be having a positive attitude and whatnot but still only working to help yourself), but it's entirely possible to do good without an agenda or personal motive. Unless "wanting to do good" or "wanting to help people" or "wanting to make the world a better place" is an agenda. And if so, how can such an agenda be called self-centered? Sure, it feels good to help people, but I don't help people because it feels good, I help people because it's right to help people.Posted by: Tom Foss | March 24, 2007 at 02:54 PM
I counted 45 separate propositions in your last post. Rev. Richard. For someone who doesn't think that truth means anything you make rather a lot of statements with truth values.
There is also the implicit claim that there is no such thing as truth. Do you really assert that? Do you need me to point out the problem inherent in asserting it?
Posted by: James | March 24, 2007 at 04:01 PM