Michael Shermer/Ben Stiller (Sam Harris) vs. Chopra/random bird

Six. More Harris please.

Harris is so awesome.

In the second part when Deepak Chopra was talking....WTF was that? He just spews utter nonsense and gets applause from the crowd. Does he actually think what he is saying makes any sense whatsoever? Sometimes I wonder if there are two species of humans, we may as well be living in an alternative universe to such people. Makes me depressed a little. But then awesome people like Harris balance it out I suppose.

Screenshotted Shermer's reaction to Chopra because it was so hilarious:

Deepak was hilarious as always however Shermers choice of the FDA as a body that utilizes empiricism when classifying new drugs was odd. As a skeptic I'd imagine ones skepticism should be applied evenly across the board but it seems to me like Deepak has got a small point in that Harris and particularly Shermer are quite staunch and traditional in their backing scientific empiricism. Quantum physics does open the door for many possibilities but these are not as easily understood as Deepak seems to think they are and certainly they are not something that he can just seamlessly connect into his own spiritual teachings as if the quantum science was invented just to back him up.

However listen to someone like Michio kaku and you get an idea of what Deepak is trying to communicate with 'wishy washy woo woo' (stop using fuzzy words!:D) as Shermer called it.

Of course Shermer holds the higher ground but to my mind it's not that black and white particularly when he uses Governmental bodies as questionable as the FDA as examples of scientific empiricism in action.
My question is that if Shermer and co. are as this easily persuaded and impressed by bodies like the FDA; are they really applying their skepticism evenly? I don't think so, I think there is far too much credit given to bodies who are classified as 'regulated bodies' and I find it extremely odd that they can be used as good examples when they constantly make the pages of our newspapers as being embroiled in yet another fiasco or controversy.

If Shermer doesn't see this I can't really buy into his other ideas, particularly his dismissiveness of anything non clinically scientific? A skeptic has to be a skeptic in relation to all things not just the easy targets. I'd like to see more skepticism pointed at corporations and government and less at the obvious fakery and spiritual mumbo jumbo that Deepak pushes. I feel I could trust them more if they had a genuinely broad ranging skepticism that wasn't compromised by any other agenda.
As it is I really like Harris because he has a no bullsh1t approach to ideas of a non clinical nature but is prepared to discuss them whereas others seem to fall into the mode of
'if it can't be tested then there's no point in discussing it'.
Can't imagine the latter view really getting science anywhere.

Note:
please don't misinterpret this post as

a) a go against Shermer because I agree with virtually everything he says
or
b) a go against scientific procedure or empiricism as the best route to resolving new ideas

it is a go against the reliability of mainline skepticism perhaps being short sighted in relation to more difficult targets and accepting a certain status quo provided by organizations in power?

Deepak Chopra's talking about "the perineal wisdom of traditions" ... or is that 'perennial'? Hmmm.:P

I agree. I felt like I was drowning in bullshit and vagueness with almost every word they said. Let it be noted that the religious side doesn't always make me feel that way.

Jean Houston seemed smart enough (and rather humanist), but far too content with talking in the vaguest way about love and compassion and a harmonious new world. The ratio of relevant discourse to irrelevant discourse was very disappointing.

stevejazzx wrote: »

As it is I really like Harris because he has a no bullsh1t approach to ideas of a non clinical nature but is prepared to discuss them whereas others seem to fall into the mode of
'if it can't be tested then there's no point in discussing it'.
Can't imagine the latter view really getting science anywhere.

But isnt that latter view one of the fundamentals of how science works? If science cannot be used to test for something, then science generally ignores it, no? (eg unfalsifiable hypotheses are considered bad science because they cannot be tested for)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But isnt that latter view one of the fundamentals of how science works? If science cannot be used to test for something, then science generally ignores it, no? (eg unfalsifiable hypotheses are considered bad science because they cannot be tested for)

Ah yes indeed.
But I was referring to notion that something wouldn't even be entertained on any level if it wasn't testable. Seems like an overly dogmatic approach and too traditional. I feel we have to avoid the vagueness of the spiritualists but still be open to possibilities, a tricky road I admit.

robindch wrote: »

Spiritualists and the religious believe that their spirits, demons, gods etc make things happen in the physical world. As such, their claims certainly are testable, though most religious people will deny this, since they're worried that they'll be shown to be wrong.

Exactly. They're worried that we'll find out about things like the .0000335% success rate at Lourdes and maybe come to the conclusion that there is something other than divine intervention going on. Religious claims work much better in isolation, ie with faith vision turned on

robindch wrote: »

Something is declared "scientific" if it's amenable to the scientific process, meaning that it's testable to see if it fits in with observable reality or not. If an idea can't be tested, then the idea has no observable consequences, so there's little point in worrying about the truth or falsity of the idea to start with. In which case, the idea is reduced to the level of a thought-experiment, or philosophical idea -- possibly interesting in and of itself, but of no practical use to anybody.

So where would string theory or alternate universes fall in that assessment? Testable?
Worth investigation? Even if we use data from quantum mechanics to back up alternate universes and string theory their origins required a great deal of outside of the box thinking, right? And this is really all I'm saying; an overly traditionalistic approach can limit the scope of thought?

Spiritualists and the religious believe that their spirits, demons, gods etc make things happen in the physical world. As such, their claims certainly are testable, though most religious people will deny this, since they're worried that they'll be shown to be wrong.

Well yes and no. I mean we've often said that God isn't testable despite the fact he's meant to do be doing stuff left, right and center. We can only say that it's unlikely. Clinically we say either God is or isn't 'moving a mountain' but not so when an individual claims that they've been 'healed'. Again we can simply say that's it's incredibly unlikely?