Quantum shight

The Browser

I had a conversation last night with someone who I know is having a tough time emotionally for the past couple of years. She is educated, intelligent, articulate. But, like many an emotionally troubled person, has taken to reiki, crystals, having her fortune told, and latterly, quantum mysticism -- particularly what sound to me like Chopra-esque notions about quantum theory and "how it proves that we're all energy and that if you think about something and visualize it, it will come to you".

I'm wondering how best to converse with someone who clearly cannot tell good science from pseudoscience. How do you get through to them that they're being fooled? And how do you do it without hurting their feelings? And, importantly, how do you show them them that the Chopra-perspective is not the intellectual equivalent of the real scientific method? How do you show them, whhile in the middle of what is an intense but enjoyable conversation, that all of the research they've done is bogus and that they were reading the wrong stuff all along?

I said that this person is educated, and she is -- but obviously only to a point; that point being marked by a complete ignorance of the scientific method and a failure to acknowledge that "reality" isn't just something that everyone can have their own unique take on and still be right.

It's sad to witness. She also went to a psychic recently who told her the following things:

"someone close to you will soon get married"
"I can see you grandmother. I see knitting needles...she liked to knit (yes). I see a stove (yes)...and fields (yes)...with animals (yes!)"

I found it hard to keep a straight face. But I was also demoralized that otherwise intelligent people can be suckered so willingly and so easily. I was thinking of Sam Harris's conversational intolerance and applied it to the psychic's predictions/observations.

But when it came to the quantum gibberish, it was hard to convince her that the stuff she was reading was less meritorious, shall we say, than a Feynman lecture.

We both happen to be Irish and live in Dubai. I'm surrounded by blatant religiosity every day and have to bite my lip when my colleagues sincerely tell me that Arabic was the first language, that homosexuality is a terrible sin, that Arabic is spoken in heaven, and when particular lines from the Koran apparently reveal what can of course only be a divine knowledge of black holes and embryology. So I was looking forward to chatting with a similarly aged non-Muslim for a change -- and then she started with the quantum baloney. It got me down, so I came here to vent with kindreds and to ask for your points of view.

Thanks.

Cork boy 55

Reserve your energy for the real enemy
Target the humans, institutions and systems that produce the irrational content not the victims of it this will be the key to victory and the awakening

As for how to deal with the Irrational and religious victims of cults and liars you encounter on a day to day basis well only you can decide this on a case by case basis. No point picking leaves off a tree cut the ****ing tree down and poison its roots.

Obliq

The Browser wrote: »

So I was looking forward to chatting with a similarly aged non-Muslim for a change -- and then she started with the quantum baloney. It got me down, so I came here to vent with kindreds and to ask for your points of view.

Thanks.

Oh jaysus, hard luck! I come here to vent all the time....... Your situation of being surrounded by this stuff would be enough to get you down alright :eek:! Makes you immediately feel like a big bully unless you go very softly softly and be untrue to yourself by not vehemently disagreeing with the claptrap.

Only today I wrote a post in the "fear of death" thread that's in a similar vein.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84024581&postcount=126
(Not sure how you do those little links to post numbers, but there it is!)

Anyhow, I feel your pain What do you say when this decent intelligent and thoughtful person believes something because it makes them feel better, rather than face the fact that the scientific evidence just isn't there? I usually (when for example, I'm asked by a sick person's wife whether I have a belief in angels just after the "angel man" has told the extremely sick person that they're getting better) say that I'm a very empirical person who has great difficulty believing anything that isn't in evidence in front of me. I say that I'm such a skeptic that because I can't understand how a scientific study works for myself, I have to see it peer reviewed by a whole group of independent scientists before I'll believe in something. I also say that being skeptic doesn't mean I'm right.

I say "You're asking the wrong person", meaning that you really need to ask someone else who actually believes in angels already to have this supportive conversation you need, because anything I say will stomp on your feelings......sigh. It's crap. I'd like to support them, and I do in other ways - *real ones, that they properly benefit from, but not in that way.

*actually, rereading that: I'm sure it would be real support to them that they'd properly benefit from if they had a big long supportive chat with someone who agreed with them, but that's not me. They're adults. Who am I to tell them they're wrong, unless they're hurting someone?

Give her a basic introduction book to quantum physics

Obliq

Ah, there ya go. Useful advice from someone else, sympathetic waffle from me
Good one - as you give her the book, say "cos I know you're into this cosmic stuff an all that....."

smokingman

Awaits JC/DeadOne equivalent to appear to espouse the fact that "we can't know!" what it all means and doyouwannabuysomemagiccrystals...

ManMade

The Browser wrote: »

1.I'm wondering how best to converse with someone who clearly cannot tell good science from pseudoscience. How do you get through to them that they're being fooled?

2.We both happen to be Irish and live in Dubai. I'm surrounded by blatant religiosity every day and have to bite my lip when my colleagues sincerely tell me that Arabic was the first language, that homosexuality is a terrible sin, that Arabic is spoken in heaven, and when particular lines from the Koran apparently reveal what can of course only be a divine knowledge of black holes and embryology.

1. You can't!
Just look at the creationism thread on here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056402682&page=85

2. What's Dubai like for religious freedom. How do their authority's react to "blasphemy". What's internet freedom like?

nagirrac

The Browser wrote: »

I said that this person is educated, and she is -- but obviously only to a point; that point being marked by a complete ignorance of the scientific method and a failure to acknowledge that "reality" isn't just something that everyone can have their own unique take on and still be right.

Except for the irratating problem that there is no accepted view of "reality", in particular in the scientific arena. In terms of your overall post, the problem with applying judgement to anyone else's views or beliefs is we all suffer from belief blindness to some degree (and yes, I include myself in "we"), scientists are as vulnerable to confirmation bias as anyone else. Regardless of how much we want to think otherwise, the scientific method, although the best method we have to examine our observed "reality", is not without its problems. The attached article outlines the "decline effect" in scientific studies which most scientists would prefer not to think about but is very real.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

An example given in the article is acupuncture, which many people in the West regard as pseudomedicine. There were a large number of clinical trials done between 1966 and 1995 and the results are fascinating. 47 trials were done in China, Taiwan and Japan and 100% reported acupuncture as an effective treatment based on therapeutic benefits observed. 94 trials were done in the US, Sweden and the UK and only 56% reported therapeutic benefits. Note these are scientists reporting the therapeutic effects. Obviously the placebo effect has been demonstrated sufficiently to accept it exists, but the irratating question remains; even if you believe acupuncture is a placebo effect, how does it result in a therapeutic benefit?

The conclusion of the article is that although publication bias and selective reporting are serious issues in science, the largest issue is that nature is fundamentally random. How the apparent order and complexity of our macro world emerges from a random, probability based micro world is a complete mystery at present, and the reason why we have so many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

Absolutely there is a lot of nonsense written about quantum mechanics, and some would say I have written quite a bit of it myself:o, but again the irritating fact is that we have no agreed interpretation of QM after over a century since its discovery. There is not much point giving her a book on QM, as it is most likely to raise many more questions than answers for her. QM is counterintuitive and if you apply how you expect things to behave in nature from the classical macro world to the quantum micro world you are in for quite a surprise. What QM appears to be telling us is that the limitations of our senses, and our detectors as extensions of our senses, simply do not allow us to perceive the true nature of reality directly.

As an example, one of the early mysteries of QM was wave-particle duality, the fact that light for example seems to sometimes behave as a wave and sometimes as a particle. It was later found that electrons and other subatomic "particles" had the same behavior. Modern thinking is that there is no duality, "particle like" and "wave like" observed behavior depends on what we are measuring, and in QM "reality" there are only waves, a particle is just a special localized case of a wave. In other words, we cannot apply our macro concept of particle to the quantum world.

The problem most people have in thinking about QM is that they expect nature to make sense, based on their experience of the macro world. Perhaps there is no reason to expect nature to make sense, perhaps it is just "non local" and/or "non realistic" as QM suggests. In fact, the more we look at the quantum world the more it suggests that there is no physical underlying "reality" at all, as in something that exists independently of our senses. It is a bit unsettling but the ultimately reality may be that there is nothing at the "bottom" of our observed physical world. This would suggest that our assumptions regarding reality are incorrect and rather than being bottom up, the world is actually top down. This is outlined in the "Pondicherry Interpretation of QM" by Ulrich Mohrhoff. Whether you choose to seriously consider his interpretation or not, he is a well published scientist in peer reviewed journals and his interpretation has been received favorably by some contempory physicists I have read online. There is a non mathematical ouline of his interpretation on his website (this quantumworld.com).

What is interesting about Mohrhoff's philosophy, (heavily influenced by the Indian mystic Sri Aurobindo) is that he does not believe in an extracosmic creator, something that obviously atheists would agree with. The following is a summary from his website:

"We should not be surprised that nature gives us answers we do not understand, when we are asking questions that nature does not understand. QM is incomprehensible to us becaue our assumption of reality is an incorrect assumption. The wrong assumption is the bottom up materialistic approach i.e. a reality consisting of a multitude of particles, space-time, etc. QM does not make sense if you ask questions about particles and how they interact and combine, it only makes sense in terms of a top down approach i.e. how the One Ultimate Existant takes on the aspect of a multitude and manifests the world".

His interpretation is not that there is a "God" outside our universe but that there is a "One" ultimate reality and this One created all of space and matter from itself. In that sense everything, including ourselves, is part of that One.

smokingman

smokingman wrote: »

Awaits JC/DeadOne equivalent to appear to espouse the fact that "we can't know!" what it all means and doyouwannabuysomemagiccrystals...

Told ya

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

Except for the irratating problem that there is no accepted view of "reality", in particular in the scientific arena. In terms of your overall post, the problem with applying judgement to anyone else's views or beliefs is we all suffer from belief blindness to some degree (and yes, I include myself in "we"), scientists are as vulnerable to confirmation bias as anyone else. Regardless of how much we want to think otherwise, the scientific method, although the best method we have to examine our observed "reality", is not without its problems. The attached article outlines the "decline effect" in scientific studies which most scientists would prefer not to think about but is very real.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

An example given in the article is acupuncture, which many people in the West regard as pseudomedicine. There were a large number of clinical trials done between 1966 and 1995 and the results are fascinating. 47 trials were done in China, Taiwan and Japan and 100% reported acupuncture as an effective treatment based on therapeutic benefits observed. 94 trials were done in the US, Sweden and the UK and only 56% reported therapeutic benefits. Note these are scientists reporting the therapeutic effects. Obviously the placebo effect has been demonstrated sufficiently to accept it exists, but the irratating question remains; even if you believe acupuncture is a placebo effect, how does it result in a therapeutic benefit?

The conclusion of the article is that although publication bias and selective reporting are serious issues in science, the largest issue is that nature is fundamentally random. How the apparent order and complexity of our macro world emerges from a random, probability based micro world is a complete mystery at present, and the reason why we have so many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

Absolutely there is a lot of nonsense written about quantum mechanics, and some would say I have written quite a bit of it myself:o, but again the irritating fact is that we have no agreed interpretation of QM after over a century since its discovery. There is not much point giving her a book on QM, as it is most likely to raise many more questions than answers for her. QM is counterintuitive and if you apply how you expect things to behave in nature from the classical macro world to the quantum micro world you are in for quite a surprise. What QM appears to be telling us is that the limitations of our senses, and our detectors as extensions of our senses, simply do not allow us to perceive the true nature of reality directly.

As an example, one of the early mysteries of QM was wave-particle duality, the fact that light for example seems to sometimes behave as a wave and sometimes as a particle. It was later found that electrons and other subatomic "particles" had the same behavior. Modern thinking is that there is no duality, "particle like" and "wave like" observed behavior depends on what we are measuring, and in QM "reality" there are only waves, a particle is just a special localized case of a wave. In other words, we cannot apply our macro concept of particle to the quantum world.

The problem most people have in thinking about QM is that they expect nature to make sense, based on their experience of the macro world. Perhaps there is no reason to expect nature to make sense, perhaps it is just "non local" and/or "non realistic" as QM suggests. In fact, the more we look at the quantum world the more it suggests that there is no physical underlying "reality" at all, as in something that exists independently of our senses. It is a bit unsettling but the ultimately reality may be that there is nothing at the "bottom" of our observed physical world. This would suggest that our assumptions regarding reality are incorrect and rather than being bottom up, the world is actually top down. This is outlined in the "Pondicherry Interpretation of QM" by Ulrich Mohrhoff. Whether you choose to seriously consider his interpretation or not, he is a well published scientist in peer reviewed journals and his interpretation has been received favorably by some contempory physicists I have read online. There is a non mathematical ouline of his interpretation on his website (this quantumworld.com).

What is interesting about Mohrhoff's philosophy, (heavily influenced by the Indian mystic Sri Aurobindo) is that he does not believe in an extracosmic creator, something that obviously atheists would agree with. The following is a summary from his website:

"We should not be surprised that nature gives us answers we do not understand, when we are asking questions that nature does not understand. QM is incomprehensible to us becaue our assumption of reality is an incorrect assumption. The wrong assumption is the bottom up materialistic approach i.e. a reality consisting of a multitude of particles, space-time, etc. QM does not make sense if you ask questions about particles and how they interact and combine, it only makes sense in terms of a top down approach i.e. how the One Ultimate Existant takes on the aspect of a multitude and manifests the world".

His interpretation is not that there is a "God" outside our universe but that there is a "One" ultimate reality and this One created all of space and matter from itself. In that sense everything, including ourselves, is part of that One.

Could you identify the point you're making here?

Are you saying science is complex and has it's own pitfalls so we should be open minded to other things and not invest everything in science?

Edit: Also, you are preaching ignorance. A poistion that should not be tolerated as far as I'm concerned.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

Could you identify the point you're making here?

Are you saying science is complex and has it's own pitfalls so we should be open minded to other things and not invest everything in science?

The point I am making is we should be cautious about judging other people'e beliefs. If somebody believes praying to a God or wearing a crystal or "thinking positively" has a positive effect on their lives, who are you or anyone else to judge them or tell them they are wrong?

I'm not making any specific point about science. The article I posted is making a very good point however, which is to be cautious about what is conventionally regarded as "proof" or "truth", neither of which science is concerned with.

Of course we should invest heavily in science, however there are many other areas of study and personal development to also invest in.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

Edit: Also, you are preaching ignorance. A poistion that should not be tolerated as far as I'm concerned.

Care to actually engage in debate rather than mud slinging?

Where is the "ignorance" in my post and who are you to say it should be tolerated or not? Debate the issues raised, if you are capable.

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

The point I am making is we should be cautious about judging other people'e beliefs. If somebody believes praying to a God or wearing a crystal or "thinking positively" has a positive effect on their lives, who are you or anyone else to judge them or tell them they are wrong?

I thought as much.

There's an interesting point made by Quentin Meillasoux in After Finitude where he says that because science has said that religious belief cannot be critiqued because it doesn't follow general rules of rational thought that this very angle gives rise to the worst forms of religious thought. This "anything goes" thinking actually allows for fundamentalism of the highest and most dangerous kind. With that in mind I am weary of this inability to judge what people think.

I think we should rightly judge all thought because to do any less will lead to stagnant and potentially dangerous forms of thought. And people shouldn't be afraid to have there beliefs judged. An important part of thinking is to be able to judge and think about thinking, whether that be ones own thought or those of others. Obviously this should be conducted in a rational and respectful manner if possible.

To conclude, we should be judgemental, in a positive sense.

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

Care to actually engage in debate rather than mud slinging?

Where is the "ignorance" in my post and who are you to say it should be tolerated or not? Debate the issues raised, if you are capable.

No problem.

There is not much point giving her a book on QM, as it is most likely to raise many more questions than answers for her.

Your point here is to not try and deepen someone's understanding of the topic because it is counterintuitive or difficult material. That is promoting ignorance.

Edit: And who am I to say it should be tolerated or not? Well I have free reign over what I will tolerate or not tolerate. A basic freedom. And I chose to speak out against the promotion of ignorance. As it seems to be a common strand of thought that crops up the odd time.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

nagirrac wrote: »

If somebody believes praying to a God or wearing a crystal or "thinking positively" has a positive effect on their lives, who are you or anyone else to judge them or tell them they are wrong?

That's pretty much the bottom line. Ironically, that point is pretty much the only conclusion to be drawn from atheism.

There is not much point giving her a book on QM, as it is most likely to raise many more questions than answers for her.

This is a good thing. A very good thing. Asking more questions is what people should do.
Presenting someone with something that claims to have all the answers is the problem in the first place

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

Your point here is to not try and deepen someone's understanding of the topic because it is counterintuitive or difficult material. That is promoting ignorance.

No, my point was whether a textbook on QM would help the specific individual described by the OP, and in my opinion it would not if she is as stated emotionally troubled and looking for meaning in her life which is what is suggested.

I would normally encourage anyone to read as much as possible on any topic to educate themselves. Reading a textbook on QM in my considered opinion would be of no assistance to someone who is emotionally troubled. What exactly do you think study of the mathematical probabilities associated with the states of subatomic matter would illuminate for her that all the most brilliant physicists for over 100 years have missed?

nagirrac

bluewolf wrote: »

This is a good thing. A very good thing. Asking more questions is what people should do.
Presenting someone with something that claims to have all the answers is the problem in the first place

An emotionally troubled person is looking for answers not questions. QM only provides currently unanswerable questions, not answers.

Nobody has all the answers, anyone claiming to have is a fraud.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

An emotionally troubled person is looking for answers not questions. QM only provides currently unanswerable questions, not answers.

Nobody has all the answers, anyone claiming to have is a fraud.

Seriously?
People don't learn or understand stuff by just being handed the answers. Questions needs to be encouraged. An your generality about an emotionally troubled person is a little disturbing. I don't claim to know what they're looking for so I'm incredibly curious to know how you do?

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

No, my point was whether a textbook on QM would help the specific individual described by the OP, and in my opinion it would not if she is as stated emotionally troubled and looking for meaning in her life which is what is suggested.

I would normally encourage anyone to read as much as possible on any topic to educate themselves. Reading a textbook on QM in my considered opinion would be of no assistance to someone who is emotionally troubled. What exactly do you think study of the mathematical probabilities associated with the states of subatomic matter would illuminate for her that all the most brilliant physicists for over 100 years have missed?

I don't see what harm it would do to be honest. It needn't be a textbook.

There are two separate issues here.
Knowledge and emotional well-being.

I agree that learning about QM probably won't sort out the emotional side of things. But I don't think that means she should get answers from anywhere and accept them simply to stabilise her emotions. The best advice for emotional well-being would be to go and see a professional, psychotherapist or somesuch.

The best advice for improving on one's knowledge would be to read up on the topic. And who knows, maybe she will gleam some personal insight from the workings of subatomic particles. Just because she is not one of the great scientific minds of our century doesn't mean she should simply abandon all efforts. That is a strange argument. One that promotes futility. And surely this is not an attitude that will promote a sense of self-worth and independence!

And there's no reason why both these things can't be pursued simultaneously.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

To conclude, we should be judgemental, in a positive sense.

..but again, who is to judge what is positive and what is negative in the context of what was asked by the OP. If you want to expand the conversation to fundamentalism that is a different discussion, and one where you have to consider all fundamentalism as potentially dangerous.

We shouldn't judge something that has benefits because we do not currently understand why it has benefits. Studies demonstrate conclusively that people who have a positive outlook to medical treatment will respond better to treatment. In every clinical trial ever done on any medication, significant numbers report alleviation of symptoms from a placebo. We can see the effects say with pain reduction where endorphins are released by the brain even though a placebo was administered. We have no clue why this happens.

The only dangerous thinking that matters is thinking that results in someone's rights and freedoms being removed. This includes the freedom to believe whatever you like as long as you are not harming others.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

I agree that learning about QM probably won't sort out the emotional side of things. But I don't think that means she should get answers from anywhere and accept them simply to stabilise her emotions. The best advice for emotional well-being would be to go and see a professional, psychotherapist or somesuch.

Why would you go to a therapist, if not to look for answers? I happen to agree this is the best approach, and the one most likely to improve her well being, even though many would disagree.

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

..but again, who is to judge what is positive and what is negative in the context of what was asked by the OP. If you want to expand the conversation to fundamentalism that is a different discussion, and one where you have to consider all fundamentalism as potentially dangerous.

We shouldn't judge something that has benefits because we do not currently understand why it has benefits. Studies demonstrate conclusively that people who have a positive outlook to medical treatment will respond better to treatment. In every clinical trial ever done on any medication, significant numbers report alleviation of symptoms from a placebo. We can see the effects say with pain reduction where endorphins are released by the brain even though a placebo was administered. We have no clue why this happens.

I agree to an extent. I think we are using the word "judge" differently. If something has benefits we don't understand we should judge it, test it further, open it to criticism. These are all things I mean when I say we should judge things. I don't mean be a relentless critique and scepticism. Edit: i.e. what you generally think of as judgemental in the negative context of a judgemental close-minded position.

I'm curious as to why you are placing so much importnance on this question of "who has the right to judge"? Everyone has the right to judge anything for themselves. Would I be right in saying that you are touching on the idea that when someone makes a judgement that it is universally vaild? Because I totally agree, no one can do that. But they can and should make individual judgements about whatver they want. Everyone has that right.

The only dangerous thinking that matters is thinking that results in someone's rights and freedoms being removed. This includes the freedom to believe whatever you like as long as you are not harming others.

Yes, you can believe whatever you want, but you better be prepaired to defend your position when you inevitably get judged by others. You have that freedom to believe whatever you want, but as to whether that's a good or bad thing, I'm leaning more towards it being a bad thing.

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

Why would you go to a therapist, if not to look for answers? I happen to agree this is the best approach, and the one most likely to improve her well being, even though many would disagree.

Yes, you initially go to therapy to find answers. But that is not usually where you end up after successful therapy. The therapist doesn't give you answers. The process of therapy itself is based on questioning and getting to the bottom of things and then probably realising that there is no "bottom" of things and how you deal with that. This is a huge topic in itself.

Then you yourself become the questioning therapist for others and become an annoying Socratic asshole.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

Seriously?
People don't learn or understand stuff by just being handed the answers. Questions needs to be encouraged. An your generality about an emotionally troubled person is a little disturbing. I don't claim to know what they're looking for so I'm incredibly curious to know how you do?

Of course questions need to be encouraged. Without questions there are no answers, but most of what we learn in life comes from others who have either studied or experienced something more than we have.

The OP described his aquaintance as being emotionally troubled and turning to crystals, reiki, and Deepak. In my experience that is a person looking for meaning in their life.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

In every clinical trial ever done on any medication, significant numbers report alleviation of symptoms from a placebo. We can see the effects say with pain reduction where endorphins are released by the brain even though a placebo was administered. We have no clue why this happens.

Every clinical trial ever done? That's some meta-analysis you've done there. :eek:

And there's no need for (or value in) your dramatic "we have no clue why this happens", because it's not true. There is a documented placebo effect of medicines, even when the patients know they are being given a placebo, and we have a very good idea of why it happens. Aside from the issue of the complex interplay between psychosomatic symptoms and the release of endorphins because of expectations of symptom relief, a key factor is that the placebo effect is almost always shown to work where it can be applied to self-reported symptoms, rather than symptoms that can be externally measured or assessed.

This "quantum spirituality" malarkey is just mumbo jumbo - it's the religious equivalent of the half-baked "sciencey bits" you see in ads for shampoo and face cream.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

Yes, you initially go to therapy to find answers. But that is not usually where you end up after successful therapy. The therapist doesn't give you answers. The process of therapy itself is based on questioning and getting to the bottom of things and then probably realising that there is no "bottom" of things and how you deal with that. This is a huge topic in itself.

I agree, but I would also say a good therapist gives someone the tools to deal with their issues. Not always succesfully mind, but the outcome seems to depend on whether you use the tools and your attitude to the treatment.

nagirrac

Deleted User wrote: »

Every clinical trial ever done? That's some meta-analysis you've done there. :eek:

In clinical trials involving the use of placebos. All clinical trials need controls and placebo controls are not just the most common but are mandated by most government regulatory agencies.

I stand by my assertion that we do not understand why the placebo effect occurs, we see its effect but do not understand its fundamental cause (unless you want to get into the realm of mind over matter).

I agree some quantum spirituality is malarkey. However, interpretations of QM are largely philosophical rather than scientific, you have to separate the science of QM from the interpretations which are largely speculative. Atheists just go a step further and exclude any interpretations have a spiritual flavor.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

In clinical trials involving the use of placebos. All clinical trials need controls and placebo controls are not just the most common but are mandated by most government regulatory agencies.

And? That's still some leap to saying that in every trial ever done significant numbers reported symptom alleviation from a placebo. But good luck to you with that one.

nagirrac wrote: »

I stand by my assertion that we do not understand why the placebo effect occurs....

Just as I stand by my conclusion (based on evidence) that we do. Get some evidence that we don't and we'll have a discussion - but simply asserting that something is true does not make it so.

nagirrac wrote: »

However, interpretations of QM are largely philosophical rather than scientific, you have to separate the science of QM from the interpretations which are largely speculative.

You have to? Why? Are you not just saying something that sounds vaguely "sciencey" to justify your position? What "interpretations" of quantum mechanics are "largely speculative"?

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

This is a good thing. A very good thing. Asking more questions is what people should do.
Presenting someone with something that claims to have all the answers is the problem in the first place

Yes, but.......



.....leaving aside any other considerations, there is a very significant factor that needs to be taken into account. Is there any point in giving someone a book about QM if they're not going to be able to read it? Not everyone could, even if it was an introduction to the subject. And in fairness, giving an incomprehensible book to a troubled person is probably not going to be of any great help to them.

nagirrac

Deleted User wrote: »

Just as I stand by my conclusion (based on evidence) that we do. Get some evidence that we don't and we'll have a discussion - but simply asserting that something is true does not make it so.

You have to? Why? Are you not just saying something that sounds vaguely "sciencey" to justify your position? What "interpretations" of quantum mechanics are "largely speculative"?

Please provide the evidence for how a thought (this sugar pill will make me better) results in a chemical change in the brain.

All QM interpretations are speculative, some more so than others. Where is the evidence for MWI for example, or the CI which effectively dodges the question.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

Please provide the evidence for how a thought (this sugar pill will make me better) results in a chemical change in the brain.

Wow. Just. Wow. :eek:

(And I hope the sugar reference was intended ironically)

nagirrac wrote: »

All QM interpretations are speculative, some more so than others. Where is the evidence for MWI for example, or the CI which effectively dodges the question.

The MWI was dreamed up when my mother was a kid. The CI was developed before Ardnacrusha was built, and Gribbin (my own favourite writer on the subject) reckons it has fallen out of favour for more than 30 years. But so what? That's the nature of these things. Our Earth has been around for an astonishingly long time (about what? 4.5 billion years?), yet it is only in the last 100 years or so that anything has lived on the planet that can even begin to grapple with the reality of how the universe came into being. And we are only at the beginning of that process of discovery.

Interpretations of what happened at the outset of the creation of the universe are inevitably speculative, and will remain so for a while yet. Analyses of what happened shortly thereafter are less so. At a point about a hundred billionth of a second afterwards we have a decent sense of what was happening, while by the time the universe was a millionth of a second old we have a very sound picture of what was going on as the formation of the first atomic particles took place. Considering that the events in question took place more or less 13.8 billion years ago and that we have to rely primarily on the equations (for the time being at least), that's not bad - the rest will follow over time.

It's not as romantic a story as the notions peddled in theist literature, but it is nonetheless fascinating. I doubt I will see the full answer in my lifetime, but future generations will. And why should we doubt that they will? It is humans who are putting their minds to work on finding the answer, and humans have the most powerful minds in this part of the universe. They must have - for the human mind is powerful enough to give life to gods, and where would those poor creatures be without us?

nagirrac

Deleted User wrote: »

Interpretations of what happened at the outset of the creation of the universe are inevitably speculative, and will remain so for a while yet. Analyses of what happened shortly thereafter are less so. At a point about a hundred billionth of a second afterwards we have a decent sense of what was happening, while by the time the universe was a millionth of a second old we have a very sound picture of what was going on as the formation of the first atomic particles took place. Considering that the events in question took place more or less 13.8 billion years ago and that we have to rely primarily on the equations (for the time being at least), that's not bad - the rest will follow over time.

It's not as romantic a story as the notions peddled in theist literature, but it is nonetheless fascinating. I doubt I will see the full answer in my lifetime, but future generations will. And why should we doubt that they will? It is humans who are putting their minds to work on finding the answer, and humans have the most powerful minds in this part of the universe. They must have - for the human mind is powerful enough to give life to gods, and where would those poor creatures be without us?

Gribbin is an astrophysicist and what you have described regarding the onset of our universe is astrophysics or cosmology. I agree Gribbin is a decent popular science writer but he is most famous for his "Jupiter Effect" predictions than any original work in Quantum Mechanics. I live on the San Andreas fault so thankfully his predictions proved incorrect, in that regard I have to place him in the same category as Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce, whose predictions also fell by the wayside.

Quantum Mechanics relates more to the here and now than the beginnings of our universe. It resists all experimental efforts to refute it and all intellectual efforts to interpret it. I would not be as confident as you regarding our ability to understand what QM is telling us, it may well be that it is outside our comprehension. Unfortunately for this species of storytelling apes, the limitations of our senses may not allow us see the true nature of reality.

Obliq

After reading all the comments since last night, I'm beginning to think a science book is going to be very specific and possibly not this woman's cup of tea at all at all. It definitely won't be tuned in to the vagueness of connecting the universe and searching for meaning in your life.

HOWEVER help is at hand! A godless philosophy book that helps you to question yourself and everything, and come to terms with "this is it, and then you die". My fella has a copy, and I had a look at it - could be just the thing for this woman, especially if she's into all that mind, body, spirit and the mystery of life and death stuff. I think this is a really nice little book, and very helpful.

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy
by William B. Irvine http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-good-life

One of the great fears many of us face is that despite all our effort and striving, we will discover at the end that we have wasted our life. In A Guide to the Good Life, William B. Irvine plumbs the wisdom of Stoic philosophy, one of the most popular and successful schools of thought in ancient Rome, and shows how its insight and advice are still remarkably applicable to modern lives......................

Readers learn how to minimize worry, how to let go of the past and focus our efforts on the things we can control, and how to deal with insults, grief, old age, and the distracting temptations of fame and fortune. We learn from Marcus Aurelius the importance of prizing only things of true value, and from Epictetus we learn how to be more content with what we have.

Finally, A Guide to the Good Life shows readers how to become thoughtful observers of their own life. If we watch ourselves as we go about our daily business and later reflect on what we saw, we can better identify the sources of distress and eventually avoid that pain in our life. By doing this, the Stoics thought, we can hope to attain a truly joyful life.

Beruthiel

I think everyone should read Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Maybe you could give her a copy?

Zombrex

This is a good, fun easy to read book about mumbo jumbo thinking and particularly the business that have grown up around it to take advantage of the gullible. I think as soon as a lot of people realize someone is making a lot of money of your "harmless" superstition they get a lot more skeptical and critical in their thinking.

It is a lot easier to read than a science book, but deals with the philosophical issues around a lot of pseudo-science and the tactics proponents of said pseudo-science use to justify their belief in it (topical for this forum the "We don't know anything therefore you can't prove me wrong" fallacy is dealt with)

HOW MUMBO-JUMBO CONQUERED THE WORLD: A SHORT HISTORY OF MODERN DELUSIONS

As an introduction to the author you might also want to point her to this Guardian piece he wrote in 2004

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/feb/03/top10s.modern.delusions

Ultimately the most practical lesson anyone can learn is to question the motivations of the person telling you an idea. What do they get out of the idea being true, be it actually money or simply emotional or mental satisfaction or excitement, and could this be clouding their judgement. When you learn to start doing that with others you eventually turn the lens of critical analysis on yourself and start questioning the emotional and mental satisfaction you gain from accepting these ideas, and questioning is that in turn clouding your own judgement and pondering how would you know the difference.

Doctor Strange

This person is clearly seeking knowledge. So whack her over the head with a quantum physics text book until she understands the meaning of the word "quantum". I mean, if she believes stuff travels by energy, she'll sure believe this method will work.

PopePalpatine

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

This person is clearly seeking knowledge. So whack her over the head with a quantum physics text book until she understands the meaning of the word "quantum". I mean, if she believes stuff travels by energy, she'll sure believe this method will work.

Well, technically speaking, there's kinetic energy.

Turtwig

Sometimes it's not about understanding things precisely but just gaining a more appreciative insight to how complicated or nuanced something might be.

How to teach Quantum Physics to your dog is a a very nice one.
Also, you can never go wrong with Quantum Mechanics for dummies. But it's not great either.
There's also another one I can't think of it's a tiny pocket book written like a "Horrible Histories" but gives a reasonably good depiction of QM in a humours hitch hiker like fashion.


There's also the NewScientist Instant Expert series on Quantum Mechanics [Subscriber only]. It ain't half bad at all.

And if anyone wants a more detailed introduction to QM then the Oxford lecture series by Binney is a very good start. The textbook material and lectures are all free.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

<...>
A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy
by William B. Irvine http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-good-life
One of the great fears many of us face is that despite all our effort and striving, we will discover at the end that we have wasted our life. <...>

This is a key issue, well stated. The point is that many different systems will purport to give a worthwhile guide to life, but the problem in choosing between them is (to quote the Dixie Chicks) "I may get to the end of my life, and find out everyone was lying." No-one is an unbiased witness.

That's also why we can never really say the wrong approach is to follow a religion, no matter how loopy. If it keeps someone in a positive frame of mind for most of their life, then it's a good thing.

Beruthiel wrote: »

I think everyone should read Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Maybe you could give her a copy?

I've never read it, but I recall the TV series years ago. I find I'm put off by the quote ascribed to him that "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." That seems exactly wrong to me. If delusion is satisfying and reassuring, then it's worth persisting with. If it isn't satisfying and reassuring, then it will be discarded.

smokingman

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

.I've never read it, but I recall the TV series years ago. I find I'm put off by the quote ascribed to him that "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." That seems exactly wrong to me. If delusion is satisfying and reassuring, then it's worth persisting with. If it isn't satisfying and reassuring, then it will be discarded.

....I hear Heroin is the same.

The Browser

See, I think a key problem is that she doesn't know how to recognize a good position from a bad one. It's sort of an "everyone's-opinion-is-valid" kind of problem -- one that is exemplified by a lack awareness of what critical thinking actually is and what it involves. I'm not sure that she'd be able to tell the difference in quality between a peer-reviewed book on quantum mechanics and Chopra's woo-woo.

I don't think Cosmos would perturb her. Maybe The Demon-Haunted World would be a better starting point....

Her problem seems to be a very widespread issue. I'm sure we all know lots of university-educated people who have heard of the concept of critical thinking and who have an idea that they know how to think critically; yet they can't spot a dodgy argument when it hits them over the head and puts its hands inside their pockets.

I don't know whether it's an intellectual problem, an emotional problem, or both. Why is woo-woo so frickin obvious to some people, yet others are completely taken in by it? Is it a case of a little knowledge doing more harm than good? I mean, if someone is educated but not a very deep thinker, and they read something like Chopra's stuff, which is clothed in respectable-sounding language, is it a lack of depth of thought that causes them to be suckered? Is it an intelligence-related problem? I honestly don't know.

18AD

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's also why we can never really say the wrong approach is to follow a religion, no matter how loopy. If it keeps someone in a positive frame of mind for most of their life, then it's a good thing.

Just no.

We can say that the loopy religion is a right appraoch for happiness if it brings about happiness. (Without impinging on others etc etc...)

We can also say that the loopy religion is a wrong approach for knowledge if it is bringing about misinformation and ignorance.

This anything goes idea is ridiculous. Obivously you have the freedom to believe what you want but that doesn't just mean anything goes, because anything simply doesn't go, within the remit of rigorous thinking.

It is both right and wrong in different contexts and for different reasons.

It is a complex issue. Yet I think that thinking correctly (not that there is "a" way to think correctly) is better than being happy at the total expense of accuracy. And I am going to try and help people find this because I think that that's a more ethical appraoch than not discussing anything and just saying you can think whatever you want. But equally I'm not going to start having in depth theological arguments with my grandad in his old age over his beliefs that he is content with. And that's why context is important and there are no easy answers in either direction.

Also, this anything goes idea completely ignores the social nature of thinking and of truth and places it squarely within the realm of the private mind rendering discussion pointless. I don't think that this is how people attain happiness, by retreating into their inner fairground of ideas and whatever they please. It ignores the social aspect of people and of thought. It's the cowards way of not having to face being wrong.

Also, when you say if something makes someone happy that it's fine is somewhat misleading. Much of the time what someone finds to make themselves happy is a distraction and deleterious way of coping or ignoring a sore personal issue and therefore not going through a healthy process of acceptance and grieving.

kylith

The Browser wrote: »

I don't know whether it's an intellectual problem, an emotional problem, or both. Why is woo-woo so frickin obvious to some people, yet others are completely taken in by it? Is it a case of a little knowledge doing more harm than good? I mean, if someone is educated but not a very deep thinker, and they read something like Chopra's stuff, which is clothed in respectable-sounding language, is it a lack of depth of thought that causes them to be suckered? Is it an intelligence-related problem? I honestly don't know.

I know that in some ways it's intelligence related, in that people who consider themselves intelligent will 1) overestimate their actual intelligence and 2) will believe that they are too smart to be taken in by conmen. Perhaps they're just too trusting too; they find it hard to believe that a Doctor (never mind that they could have gotten their doctorate in acoustics*) would lie to them. Some of us are more jaded and cynical, I suppose.

It can be truly depressing though. The other day I had to convince my mother that her microwave can't damage her DNA, thanks to some fecker posting scaremongering nonsense on Facebook.

*Penn. State offers this course, apparently.

nagirrac

kylith wrote: »

It can be truly depressing though. The other day I had to convince my mother that her microwave can't damage her DNA, thanks to some fecker posting scaremongering nonsense on Facebook.

There is a myth that microwave radiation is not harmful as it is non-iodizing radiation (unlike x-rays for example). While a microwave oven should be safe, assuming the radiation is contained by the device, the jury is very much out on what is now a much more common source of microwave radiation i.e. cell phones. Regardless of the conventional wisdom that cell phones are harmless, the reality is that evidence has been growing in the past decade that prolonged cell phone use can be harmful to human health. Based on the evidence the WHO in 2011 clasified radiation emitted by wireless devices as "possibly carcinogenic".

The Economist ran an editorial in 2011 effectively debunking the idea that cell phone usage could be harmful to human health. This is a good example of what Zombrex referred to in his above post regarding the motivations of the person telling you an idea. What motivation could the Economist have in running a piece full of misleading information? Why the lack of any balanced reporting, considering there is mounting evidence of the dangers of prolonged cell phone use? Could it have something to do with the very significant advertising revenue publications like the Economist receive from cell phone companies?

These issues are explored in the attached response piece to the Economist editorial by the non-profit organization called MagneticHealth.Org. It raisies some interesting questions regarding how the media informs public opinion, and how vulnerable the media is to commercially driven bias. As the authors point out; "history is replete with failures to control highly profitable carcinogenic materials, from tobacco, to asbestos, until proof of harm is irrefutable".

http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/the-economist/

Turtwig

The Browser wrote: »

See, I think a key problem is that she doesn't know how to recognize a good position from a bad one. It's sort of an "everyone's-opinion-is-valid" kind of problem -- one that is exemplified by a lack awareness of what critical thinking actually is and what it involves. I'm not sure that she'd be able to tell the difference in quality between a peer-reviewed book on quantum mechanics and Chopra's woo-woo.

I don't think Cosmos would perturb her. Maybe The Demon-Haunted World would be a better starting point....

Her problem seems to be a very widespread issue. I'm sure we all know lots of university-educated people who have heard of the concept of critical thinking and who have an idea that they know how to think critically; yet they can't spot a dodgy argument when it hits them over the head and puts its hands inside their pockets.

I don't know whether it's an intellectual problem, an emotional problem, or both. Why is woo-woo so frickin obvious to some people, yet others are completely taken in by it? Is it a case of a little knowledge doing more harm than good? I mean, if someone is educated but not a very deep thinker, and they read something like Chopra's stuff, which is clothed in respectable-sounding language, is it a lack of depth of thought that causes them to be suckered? Is it an intelligence-related problem? I honestly don't know.

There are several reasons, but the general one that applies to everything is that none of us want to accept or believe that we're being irrational about something. There is an automatic assumption that once you become an adult your opinion somehow carries a lot a weight. That if something makes sense to you, it's unlikely the people who wrote the piece are being dishonest, mistaken or ignorant about the facts. This is why con victims can remain in denial about being conned.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

This is a good example of what Zombrex referred to in his above post regarding the motivations of the person telling you an idea. What motivation could the Economist have in running a piece full of misleading information? Why the lack of any balanced reporting, considering there is mounting evidence of the dangers of prolonged cell phone use?
...
These issues are explored in the attached response piece to the Economist editorial by the non-profit organization called MagneticHealth.Org. It raisies some interesting questions regarding how the media informs public opinion, and how vulnerable the media is to commercially driven bias. As the authors point out; "history is replete with failures to control highly profitable carcinogenic materials, from tobacco, to asbestos, until proof of harm is irrefutable".

http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/the-economist/

First of all the jury is not out in relation to cell phones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/apr/26/health-mobilephones

The worst scientists can say about cell phones is that since wide spread use has only be occurring for 15 years they cannot say what the long term effects are. Not that there are long term effects, but simply that they don't know because they haven't been around long enough.

Now on to exactly the type of stuff that I was talking about.

As a general rule if you are refuting a well regarded international newspaper with quotes from a website that looks like it was designed by a grandmother taking her first course in HTML (back in 1996), there is probably something wrong.

You link to a web site that was created by Camilla Rees, who really likes putting "MBA" after her name when talking about the health risks of electromagnetic fields despite the fact that her training is in business management, not anything to do with medicine. I guess she is hoping that the people she is selling to think MBA sounds impressive but don't actually know what it stands for.

She runs Wide Angle Health, a "patient advocacy group" apparently and her current career choice seems to be going around America giving lectures about the dangers of "electromagnetic sensitivity" and then selling books about this to the people she has scared senseless, along with others who also sell information and "cures" to people who believe they suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (probably because she told them they do).

Or in other words, someone who makes a lot of money scaring people into buying her books and listening to her. And some what unsurprisingly the website you link to subtly brings you around to a page to buy her latest book.

Again just like the supposed link between cell phones and cancer, no one has been able to find a link between EMF radiation and the symptoms associated with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (which is basically a non-medical made up diagnosis)

That of course doesn't stop lots of "health advocates" making a lot of money peddling information to people who are genuinely suffering from undiagnosed symptoms and are desperate to know what is wrong with them.

* just read that Ms Rees believes she herself suffers from electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which adds another bias to her book.

nagirrac

I think there is a great distinction to be made between beliefs that are benign and beliefs that are dangerous, both at the individual and group level. I do think atheists tend to overstate the dangers of traditional religion, especially in today's day and age when materialism is the new religion. The whole question of spirituality and religion to me is a purely personal issue, actually a personal freedom issue. I am lucky to live in a country (US) which has a secular constitution and where freedom of religion and freedom from religion are protected. I always find it amusing when English "intellectuals" for example berate the US for its fundamentalism, while they live in a country which has a state religion, where the head of state is mandated to be a certain religion, and where religious leaders are undemocratically appointed to legislative positions.

The amount of "woo" we are subjected to from all quarters is staggering, with advertising in media by far the most significant and dangerous. I tend to view "New Age woo" as generally fairly benign, whether someone sleeps with a crystal under their pillow or reads a book by Chopra or Tolle is hardly going to do them much harm, and maybe some good. There's a lot to be said for living a healthy lifestyle as Chopra recommends and letting go of the past and not dwelling on the future as Tolle recommends.

Far more insideous and potentially dangerous to me are the beliefs that are foisted on people by large corporations and by the state, both of whom effectively control the media. At the end the day whose interest do they have at heart? People were told for decades that cigarette smoking was beneficial, and tobacco companies hid every bit of internal research and campaigned to suppress reports that highligted health risks. How many millions have died of lung cancer? The amount of dishonest labelling and advertising in the food industry for example is staggering, products full of preservatives, carcinogenic colorants, fructose, etc. are presented as having beneficial health value. How many millions are dying because of cancers brought on by crap food?

Broadly speaking we have far more woo to worry about coming from the sources that people tend to trust the most i.e. governments and the corporations that control them. Anyone who thinks such belief is a conspiracy theory needs to have a long hard think about it. Who was in control when the banking crisis hit Ireland? Who is in control now in Europe which is on the verge of another financial cliff? Who will end up as always picking up the tab for the reckless gambling of banks whose primary function in society is supposed to be a safe source of capital preservation and providing credit to credit worthy customers. An interesting belief / myth to question is "a bank is the safest place for your money", given the recent "solution" imposed on Cyprus. Is anyone so naive to believe the same solution would not be administered elsewhere?

We have to question all beliefs, regardless of personal bias. Everyone, whether they admit it or not, has a significant dose of personal bias.

Turtwig

Zombrex wrote: »

First of all the jury is not out in relation to cell phones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/apr/26/health-mobilephones

The worst scientists can say about cell phones is that since wide spread use has only be occurring for 15 years they cannot say what the long term effects are. Not that there are long term effects, but simply that they don't know because they haven't been around long enough.

Agree with all this, it's the next bit I'm a bit at odds with.

Now on to exactly the type of stuff that I was talking about.

As a general rule if you are refuting a well regarded international newspaper with quotes from a website that looks like it was designed by a grandmother taking her first course in HTML (back in 1996), there is probably something wrong.

You link to a web site that was created by Camilla Rees, who really likes putting "MBA" after her name when talking about the health risks of electromagnetic fields despite the fact that her training is in business management, not anything to do with medicine. I guess she is hoping that the people she is selling to think MBA sounds impressive but don't actually know what it stands for.

She runs Wide Angle Health, a "patient advocacy group" apparently and her current career choice seems to be going around America giving lectures about the dangers of "electromagnetic sensitivity" and then selling books about this to the people she has scared senseless, along with others who also sell information and "cures" to people who believe they suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (probably because she told them they do).

Or in other words, someone who makes a lot of money scaring people into buying her books and listening to her. And some what unsurprisingly the website you link to subtly brings you around to a page to buy her latest book.

Again just like the supposed link between cell phones and cancer, no one has been able to find a link between EMF radiation and the symptoms associated with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (which is basically a non-medical made up diagnosis)

That of course doesn't stop lots of "health advocates" making a lot of money peddling information to people who are genuinely suffering from undiagnosed symptoms and are desperate to know what is wrong with them.

This to me, smacks of poisoning the well.(See also this link.) You didn't really refute or even discuss any of the points made in Nagirrac's post. You just went on to go "Well this person associated with the website looks dodgy ergo the entire argument presented must be dodgy." She may very well be dodgy in more ways than we can imagine, or she might not be, either way none of it has any bearing on if what was said is accurate or inaccurate.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I think there is a great distinction to be made between beliefs that are benign and beliefs that are dangerous, both at the individual and group level. I do think atheists tend to overstate the dangers of traditional religion, especially in today's day and age when materialism is the new religion. The whole question of spirituality and religion to me is a purely personal issue, actually a personal freedom issue. I am lucky to live in a country (US) which has a secular constitution and where freedom of religion and freedom from religion are protected. I always find it amusing when English "intellectuals" for example berate the US for its fundamentalism, while they live in a country which has a state religion, where the head of state is mandated to be a certain religion, and where religious leaders are undemocratically appointed to legislative positions.

The amount of "woo" we are subjected to from all quarters is staggering, with advertising in media by far the most significant and dangerous. I tend to view "New Age woo" as generally fairly benign, whether someone sleeps with a crystal under their pillow or reads a book by Chopra or Tolle is hardly going to do them much harm, and maybe some good. There's a lot to be said for living a healthy lifestyle as Chopra recommends and letting go of the past and not dwelling on the future as Tolle recommends.

Far more insideous and potentially dangerous to me are the beliefs that are foisted on people by large corporations and by the state, both of whom effectively control the media. At the end the day whose interest do they have at heart? People were told for decades that cigarette smoking was beneficial, and tobacco companies hid every bit of internal research and campaigned to suppress reports that highligted health risks. How many millions have died of lung cancer? The amount of dishonest labelling and advertising in the food industry for example is staggering, products full of preservatives, carcinogenic colorants, fructose, etc. are presented as having beneficial health value. How many millions are dying because of cancers brought on by crap food?

Broadly speaking we have far more woo to worry about coming from the sources that people tend to trust the most i.e. governments and the corporations that control them. Anyone who thinks such belief is a conspiracy theory needs to have a long hard think about it. Who was in control when the banking crisis hit Ireland? Who is in control now in Europe which is on the verge of another financial cliff? Who will end up as always picking up the tab for the reckless gambling of banks whose primary function in society is supposed to be a safe source of capital preservation and providing credit to credit worthy customers. An interesting belief / myth to question is "a bank is the safest place for your money", given the recent "solution" imposed on Cyprus. Is anyone so naive to believe the same solution would not be administered elsewhere?

We have to question all beliefs, regardless of personal bias. Everyone, whether they admit it or not, has a significant dose of personal bias.

Any "woo" related to health is dangerous, as people often ignore or don't even look for serious medical diagnosis when they have a "it makes perfect sense" pseudo-science diagnosis.

Taking the topic from the above post, electromagnetic hypersensitivity would be a good example. Doctors agree that these people are actually suffering from real symptoms, but there has never been any evidence that they are caused by EMF radiation.

The link was made by people who came down with these symptoms and then looked for patterns to explain them. Or in the case of Ms Rees, who describes in an interview with the LA Times that she came down with symptoms after a new neighbor moved in and her "radiation monitor" spiked, panicking when you believe you are being exposed to something.

All of this self diagnosis and peddling of pseudo-science prevents people from seeking actual serious medical advice or treatment, and also contributes to them becoming stressed and panicked about the apparent health effects of these things.

Zombrex

Jernal wrote: »

You didn't really refute or even discuss any of the points made in Nagirrac's post. You just went on to go "Well this person associated with the website looks dodgy ergo the entire argument presented must be dodgy." She may very well be dodgy in more ways than we can imagine, or she might not be, either way none of it has any bearing on if what was said is accurate or inaccurate.

The link to the Guardian refuted it, though refuting it wasn't the central point. I then moved on to the motivations she might have for presenting a narrative contrary to the evidence. And unsurprisingly it turns out she has a strong interest in presenting the dangers of EMF radiation as a real thing. The idea that the biased Economist was being refuted by this balanced website was silly.