Deepak Chopra: redefining "wrong"

By Phil Plait | December 1, 2009 1:55 pm

I am no fan of Deepak Chopra. For years he has gone on TV, in print, and in his books, peddling all manners of nonsense. Here’s a quick reality check: if his claims of "quantum healing" are correct, why is he getting older?

Anyway, he has gone to the very font of new age nonsense, the Huffington Post, to spew more woo: he’s written an article about why skepticism is bad. It’s almost a bullet-pointed list of logical fallacies.

About the "poison darts" of criticism:

Most of my stinging darts come from skeptics. Over the years I’ve found that ill-tempered guardians of scientific truth can’t abide speculative thinking.

<sarcasm>Yes, because scientists have no imaginations and cannot come up with original thoughts.</sarcasm>

But wait, he’s not done! Pandering to religious people:

Since the skeptics who write venomous blogs trust in nothing, I imagine that God will outlive them.

Oops. He’s confused trust and faith. Not surprising, since he’s confused about a lot of stuff:

No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others. Typically they sit by the side of the road with a sign that reads “You’re Wrong” so that every passerby, whether an Einstein, Gandhi, Newton, or Darwin, can gain the benefit of their illuminated skepticism.

That first line trembles on the very edge of being a blatant and gross lie. Given that Einstein was a skeptic, Darwin was a skeptic, Sagan was a skeptic, Feynman, Gould, and thousands of other scientists are skeptics, what he said is simply ridiculous. Edward Jenner, I think, could arguably have advanced the welfare of others, having invented the vaccine, which has saved hundreds of millions of lives over the years. How many has Chopra saved? And, in fact, almost all advances in science are done by skeptics; true believers are the ones who don’t have the motivation to innovate.

But the moonbeam spinning continues:

It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists.

Yes, thankfully he informed me of my lack of a sense of wonder. Sheesh. Go to any blog post I’ve written in the "Pretty pictures" category and be stunned by my lack of wonder and awe at the natural universe around us.

And then he makes his biggest mistake, one that is all-too-common by people who think skepticism is the same thing as cynicism:

Skeptics know in advance — or think they know — what right thought is.

Bzzzzt! WRONG. We don’t know necessarily what the right thought is. But we do know when we see a failure in the process of thinking. And in the case of one Deepak Chopra, that failure is lit up like a neon sign and draped in the open for all to see… if they’re willing to think about it.

Comments (117)

Links to this Post

  1. The Sun from the ISS « Micro Black Holes | December 2, 2009
  2. Morning Links | The Agitator | December 3, 2009
  3. Links for December 4th « /home/me | December 4, 2009
  4. Deepak Chopra | Debunktion Junction | December 26, 2011
  5. Deepak Chopra | Debunktion Junction | January 1, 2012
  1. It’s because of people like him (and Jenny McCarthy) who go around and say things that their faithful readers will gobble up that we have movements like antivax and, in general, a continued embrace of blatant falsities.

    I’m a skeptic.. here’s my sense of wonder: it’s a wonder that somebody as illogical as Deepak Chopra is a success.

  2. Crux Australis

    I’d correct you on your typo in that last paragraph, but I can understand how your brain was fried by reading that tripe.

  3. Reading the comments, it looks like he’s been hammered pretty hard for this article…deservedly so…my faith in America is slightly restored ;)

  4. Dave Giancaspro

    I don’t think that this statement …

    “No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others ..”

    can be a considered a logical fallacy or a factual error. He clearly states “to my knowledge” which in my book is just a admission of his ignorance.

  5. Deepak Chopra seems to have confused skeptics with whiny 4th graders.

  6. AdamK

    Someone needs to close the italics.

  7. Evil Eye

    People need to be taught the difference between true Skepticism and common debunkers. The problem is that skeptics look for available falsifiable evidence and work from a null hypothesis, while debunkers start with a premise of “wrong” and then look for facts that back it up.

    Great article Phil!

  8. Andrew

    Based on the biography “Einstein: His Life and Universe” by Walter Isaacson, Einstein was not as skeptical as I used to think. While he wasn’t religious as an adult, he was deeply devout as a kid (even though his family wasn’t and actually discouraged it), and he claimed not to be an atheist later in life.

    Also, while I am not one, some religious people (including clergy) have made great contributions to science in the past. A catholic priest proposed the theory that all the matter in the universe was once together (the big bang). Mendel, of genetics fame, was a priest as well.

    It would be just as bad to label all true believers as non-innovative and incapable of scientific advancements as it is to label all skeptics.

    (Disclaimer: I was raised in a semi-religious household and am now agnostic)

  9. Woof

    Chopra is suffering from Reality Deficit Disorder.

  10. Sarcastro

    And then he makes his biggest mistake, one that is all-too-common by people who think skepticism is the same thing as cynicism:

    As a Cynic I am offended…. but what else should I expect?

    Seriously though, let’s not let the term ‘skeptic’ be debased like ‘cynic’ has become. I don’t even own a dog.

  11. Mike

    Isn’t being a skeptic always thinking that there’s stuff we don’t know yet?

  12. Chopra babbled:

    No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others.

    I know plenty of doctors who are active in the skeptical movement. Doctors. You know, the people who save lives? I’d like to see Chopra say that to their faces.

  13. Ken

    “Go to any blog post I’ve written in the “Pretty pictures” category and be stunned by my lack of wonder and awe at the natural universe around us.”

    Wrong kind of wonder. Yours is the wonder that says, “Wow! I wonder what caused that, and how it works, and if there are other things like that, and what they look like, and what the differences tell us about the universe, and…” His is the wonder that says, “Wow!” and stops dead.

  14. Mike

    What a clown. Someone get him off my tv please. >.<

  15. Andrew (#8): When I refer to believers, I mean anyone who blindly believes something is right no matter what. It doesn’t need to be religion, it could be antivax, or any of the garbage Chopra peddles. Without conflict, there is no advancement.

    And Einstein was most certainly a skeptic about many things, including religion. He clearly did not believe in a personal god, and stated so in no uncertain terms.

  16. This Walt Whitman poem always annoyed me:

    “When I heard the learn’d astronomer;
    When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
    When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and
    measure them;
    When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much
    applause in the lecture-room,
    How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
    Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself,
    In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
    Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.”

    Yes, yes, only poets and the spiritual can appreciate the wonders of the heavens. Naff off.

  17. Jon B

    Wow. Chopra is so removed from reality here that he’s not only nowhere near right, he’s not even wrong. Thanks for reminding me again what an incoherent danger he is as he spews his New Age bullchips. [/ad hominem]

  18. Brian

    While Phil’s astronomy picture posts certainly permit me to indulge my sense of wonder, in truth it pales in comparison to the stunned amazement I feel when I read the drooling weeble that that man is capable of producing.

    Thank you, Deepak Chopra, for restoring my sense of wonder.

  19. I’m sure, if I send a letter to Mr. Chopra asking him to send me his bank account information with the promise that I will never share or use it, he won’t be at all skeptical of my honesty or motives.

  20. Sean

    It is my sense of wonder, indeed, awe, that leads me to skepticism. How can something so marvelous as this universe be easy to understand?

  21. @Matt P: Wow, I forgot about that poem. I always assume that spending so much time outdoors among the trees and the starlight would have made Whitman wiser (or at least more curious) about nature than other poets. Apparently not.

    As for Chopra, well he’s just a lying sack of spuds. No offense to actual tubers.

  22. SplendidMonkey

    Shorter Deepak Chopra – “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

  23. Zak

    Phil,

    Please, write to the huffington post and offer to write a counter-article for them.

  24. Shakes my head in disgust at Deepak Chopra. And to think, I used to like that guy. Where was my mind.

  25. And, in fact, almost all advances in science are done by skeptics; true believers are the ones who don’t have the motivation to innovate.

    Do you have evidence of this, or are you stating it as a tautology such as “by definition skeptics are any people capable of new thought, therefore anyone who has a new thought is a skeptic”? It sounds to me like you’re using circular logic to define “skeptics” and “true believers” as mutually exclusive.

  26. Jeff

    To Andrews statement I would add Joseph Priestly and Isaac Newton among devout Christians who were scientists. Anthony Flew is a former atheist philosopher turned believer in theism. Jefferson was a fair scientist in his day who embraced a Unitarian form of Christianity…space and time don’t permit a more extensive list.

  27. Larry

    Once again, one of the god-soaked liars-for-jesus uses projection and strawmen as their arguments for why everybody should believe what they believe.

    Move along, nothing to see here.

  28. tacitus

    Someone can be both a true believer and a skeptic, just not of the same thing at the same time. Obviously, Einstein could have been a true believer in a god of some kind, and still be skeptical of the prevailing scientific wisdom concerning the laws of physics. But to acheive that skepticism he first had to work hard and learn enough about the Newtonian physics so that he could see it’s possible shortcomings.

    But if he had been a true believer in Newtonian physics as the be all and end all of existence, then he would have had no desire or impetus that would have led him to discover the laws of relativity. Without some level of skepticism, Einstein would have not been the world-renowned genius he became.

  29. Daniel J. Andrews

    Open a textbook, zandperl. Any science-related subject. Then read. Perhaps you are new to science blogs and misunderstand what Phil (and others) mean when they says “true believers”. They are people who are so sure they are right that they ignore, twist, and distort any evidence that contradicts them. They also make up their facts. Nothing will ever be enough to convince them. They’re close-minded as they come.

    What have “true believers” done (note Phil’s reply to Andrew, in that I’m not necessarily including religious people when I talk about “true believers”)? E.g. what advances have any antivax true believers done? Which of them helped eradicate smalpox, and bring a number of others to the edge of extinction? Which flat-earth true believers set out to prove the earth was flat demonstrated that the earth was round after all so changed their minds? Which HIV deniers came up with medications that slow the progress of AIDS? Which moon-landing hoaxers advanced science so they could disprove or gain evidence for the moon-landing?

    The list could go on. True believers don’t make too many advances in science. They’re more interested in defending their belief against evidence rather than changing their belief to match the evidence.

    Chopra’s statement is so obviously wrong he must know he’s lying providing he isn’t just stupid.

  30. JT

    Hey Phil, what’s up with you always criticizing liberal news organizations like HuffPo? Why don’t you ever criticize Fox News?

    Such blatant conservative bias just sickens me. I’m never reading your blog, or any science blog, or anything written in the English language ever again!!!!!

  31. SHM

    First of all, faith and trust cannot be so easily compartmentalized:
    “He’s confused trust and faith.”
    “Belief implies faith without evidence…”

    This is simply not true. Most of the evidence for people believing in something is that an authority figure told them to. Is this good evidence? Not really. A better description of this sort of evidence would probably be reasoning. If evidence is going to be empirical and observationally observed (by you first person), then let’s go ahead and define it as that. But then most of what we do in the scientific community is trust or believe what authority figures say. We cannot re-do every single little experiment or observation along the way to new science, so we have to believe and trust others. The reasoning is key. They must give reasons we feel confident in believing. If someone explains their experiment’s recent findings, but they lack quantitative descriptions or confident analysis, then it is much harder to believe, and you are tempted to re-do the experiment yourself, if you can afford it. They have got to show their proof in figures and plots, but again, this could all be made up (and occasionally is).

    On the completely other hand, if someone feels like they have had a direct experience of God, who are you to tell them they are wrong? When you tell someone that your dream had a clown in it last night, how can you prove that? Maybe one day we will, but right now, personal, first-person experience are tough little cookies. When you explain your reasoning for proposing to your future husband or wife, why should you demand observational or experimental proof? It comes through living your lives together on a daily basis, trusting each other and having faith in one another, and it’s hard to disentangle what all of those things mean and pin-point what is evidence and what isn’t.

    We all work off of a number of beliefs that we hold inside our minds on a daily basis. Some of those we are much more rigorous with in terms of observational evidence than others. Some things are actually impossible to get observational evidence of, both practically and necessarily. Founding principles of mathematics, philosophical basis that allow us to get on with the scientific process, what you read on the arXiv, etc. and all these great things we can’t practically or fundamentally find proof of are serious challenges to the eternal skeptic. Some have a working model of a higher consciousness that helps them through their lives. Their evidence or proof is that they feel like they live better lives because of it, even if it’s difficult to get good data on that reasoning. If you feel like you live a better life without God, then you probably have your own reasoning, but that is no less something to call belief. You believe in atheism. If you are REALLY a skeptic, then you are an agnostic and don’t feel comfortable holding fast to either option of theism or atheism.

    What’s going on here is negative associations with the word “belief”, which is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to words with religious connotations. Get over it. You believe. We all believe. It’s part of being human and constructing a reality for yourself for your mind to work off of. It doesn’t mean you are an idiot and that you will believe any little thing that comes along and catches your fancy. It definitely doesn’t mean you believe in God. It just means you are human, and us scientists would do well to not always try to transcend our humanity in every aspect of our lives. It will mean bad science at the end of the day, because all we have is our own perspective.

  32. jorge c.

    dear mr.phil plait: we all know that Deepak Chopra is a very clever man that with all his intelligence, he is pulling (stealing) thousands of dollars from less intelligents and more gullible humans beings. it is nothing new…
    but i must confess that i like a lot what you said: “When I refer to believers, I mean anyone who blindly believes something is right no matter what. It doesn’t need to be religion (…)” it is a very good definition of your position in A.G.W.!!!
    happy to see you again (and alive!) in post number 15, but we are all awaiting you eagerly, after only 323 post in your article “the global warming emails non-event”. We think that chopra is less important than the mess you have wrote in that article. by the way: do you know that prof jones has stepped down from his post in CRU and is investigated by the “non-event”???

  33. DaveH

    Chopra is a mountebank.

    Would it really be illegal to put him in a big rocket with all the global warming conspiracists , homeopaths, and creationists – and blast them all on a one way trip into deep space?

    Would it even be immoral?

  34. North of 49

    Perhaps there’s a simple explanation for Chopra’s attack on skeptics: we’re cutting into his customer base. I, for one, compare him to Dr. Phil every chance I get (universal response: “No he’s not! He’s much nicer.”) But the seed is planted.

    Chopra’s got a new book out just recently; I wonder how its sales are doing compared to his previous eructations?

  35. Bill

    To expand on one of the quotes that Phil used from Chopra’s article:

    Statistically, cynical mistrust is correlated with premature sudden death from cardio vascular disease. Since the skeptics who write venomous blogs trust in nothing, I imagine that God will outlive them. In the interests of better health, these people should read scripture, or at least a poem, twice a day. Doctor’s orders.

    Wow.
    Just…wow.

    In the face of that kind of stupidity, it hardly seems worthwhile to point out that correlation causation. This is wrong on a much, much deeper level.

    Edited to add:
    Dr. Chopra: since you seem fond of using Google alerts to seek out any mention of your name, you are almost certainly reading this post. If your lofty intellect should, by chance, grace my poor, cynical comment, know this:

    I read poetry.

    I read literature.

    I frequently hike. Outside. Where I can marvel in the wonder of nature.

    I live in Arizona and visit the Grand Canyon at least twice a year. I defy anyone to look into the depths of the Canyon without experiencing a nearly overwhelming sense of awe.

    I own a telescope and enjoy observing objects in the night sky. I also enjoy simply laying on my back during the dark of a new moon and taking in the wonder of the visible universe.

    And I’m a skeptic.

  36. Andrew

    Phil: You’re correct about Einstein. I did not mean to imply he wasn’t a skeptic. I had always thought he was an atheist and I was surprised that he claimed not to be one. He did not believe in a personal god (outside of childhood), only in an underlying unobservable order to reality in the face of quantum theory’s claim of randomness and chance.

    I understand what you mean about “believers” now. Thank you for the clarification.

    PS: Since I have your attention, as a middle school science teacher in Texas, I have appreciated your coverage. I’m happy to report that 4 out of the 4 sixth grade science teachers at my school accept and “teach” evolution.

  37. jorge c. (#32) Jones has not stepped down (that is, resigned), he is stepping aside while the investigation is ongoing. Do you know the difference? The ability of deniers to exaggerate and spin everything is precisely why this Swifthack is a far bigger deal than it has any right to be.

  38. NewEnglandBob

    Deepak Chopra IS the definition of wrong. See also George W. Bush.

  39. Niles

    Yeah hi. I’m a Seminarian, which means in a few more years I’m gonna be an honest-to-God (heh) Pastor. Lutheran, specifically. Any rate, just wanted to pipe up and say that one of the whole reasons I got into this crazy, wacko religious thing was because religious people desperately need more science, and they need it from a source they feel like they can trust. Folk like Deepak Chopra annoy the everlovin’ heck out of me because they do a disservice to science *and* religion. One of the major themes I’ve been exploring is just how the two realms can co-exist and even complement each other.

    I guess I’m really just trying to wave my arms above my head and shout “We’re not all like him! Honest!”

    May I suggest, if anyone’s interested, taking a look at some of Philip Hefner’s writings?

  40. Giles

    (…) a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists.

    Well… I know a scientist cum skeptic who shows an evident sense of wonder: Dr Plait.

  41. Can we remember that Chopra has a radically different cultural background than a Westerner, and people on the Asian subcontinent would find nothing wrong in his philosophy? Yes, he has realized that some Westerners have been overcome by shallow values, weak spirituality, a feeling of pointlessness, etc. and have accepted his thoughts as a kind of placebo they need to make sense of a world they can’t cope with. With all renumeration to him, of course. We all have a crutch to get us through the night. What’s yours?

  42. I really hope he teams up with Oprah and they rule the world together…

  43. jorge c.

    dear mr. phil: i beg you pardom, but i’m not a english speaking person, so i did not equate “stepped down” with “resigned”. i equated with “on leave”. in my country when someone is investigated, “debe dar un paso (step) al costado” he must go “on leave”. and of course she/he can be innocent!!
    as the news says: LONDON (AP) — Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.”
    wowwwww that’s a non-event!!!! by the way have you read what Dr.Judith Curry says about climate tribalism in andy rivkind dot.earth???

  44. JJ

    Dana Carvey mocking Deepak Chopra: “If you want happiness, let go of happiness…If you want to be rich, give me all your money…”

  45. Molly, are you saying we should go easy on Chopra’s mendacious bafflegab because it’s popular and he’s from a different culture?

  46. DaveH

    Can we remember that Chopra has a radically different cultural background than a Westerner, and people on the Asian subcontinent would find nothing wrong in his philosophy?

    Nonsense.

    There is no excuse for an intelligent person to misuse the word “skeptic” and mischaracterize science so badly.

    Get in the rocket with jorge c!

  47. Bruce the Canuck

    PHIL: You have to respond to this:

    ‘Show Your Working’: What ‘ClimateGate’ means

    No matter what you or any of your regular readers think of climategate/swifthack, the two post-modernist jokers behind that article have written a suicide note for the scientific method. I think the po-mo’s are seeing this as their chance to kill off the ideal of objectivity. They appear to be calling for public hearings to determine what science is acceptable, aka Galileo’s inquisition. The content of that essay makes me physically ill.

    SOKAL WHERE ARE YOU?

  48. Bahdum (aka Richard)

    Hey, Phil, off topic here:

    You should come to Central California, just a hop, skip, and a jump away. Thanks to a very stable climate for which man couldn’t change, we no longer have much of a winter. Maybe 2 of highs in the 40′s but usually it’s more like autumn/spring from about mid-October to about late-February.

    Why, when I was a kid in the ’70s we had a much colder winter season when frost would hit the ground almost every morning starting in October. Mostly, we have fog. Yup, our “White Christmas” means fog.

    Anyway, since there is no way that humans could have altered the climate in any way, shape, or form, I’m wondering how I could remember leaves falling in late-September and bare trees at this time of the year when clearly that isn’t the case anymore.

    Surely it’s not because of that “global warming” thing since clearly the 1 or 2 scientists who disagree with the consensus can’t possibly be wrong and are therefore right when they say there’s nothing wrong with our climate. And of course, jorge c brings up a very valid point.

    Anyway, Phil, you’d like the weather over here right now: You can still walk around in shorts and a tank top, if you so desire. I mean, it’s only 60 degrees F. We haven’t gotten our week of California winter yet, though I keep expecting it any minute.

  49. Bahdum (aka Richard)

    *cough cough* Sorry, the dust flying from the word “post modern” made me cough. Oh, please don’t move it again, you’re throwing dust around…. *cough cough cough cough* *achoo*

  50. Unfortunately, Deepak’s words don’t just resonate with with New Age believers, but with most people in general. I don’t see anything new here, he’s just rehashing the same old stereotypes that are plastered all over the word “skeptic” in the public consciousness. Skeptic seems to equal naysayer, not “one who accepts based on evidence” and all the good stuff that goes with it. I think it’s up to those of us who self-identify as skeptics to explain that difference when confronted with those stereotypes in our personal lives and everywhere else we can say it. And, yeah, I agree with Zak, a counter article from Phil would be fantastic.

  51. Jeramyk

    @ jorge c.

    I understand you want to get Phil’s attention but this article is about Deepak Chopra, not AGW. Please stop spamming here. Also, George Monbiot is a journalist, not a scientist. Why should we care what he has to say about AGW?

  52. True story:

    I was working on a museum exhibit for a very large science museum in a very large American city (notable for its windy inhabitants).

    One of the other consultants brought on was a woo-woo producer who was a devoted Deepak Chopra follower. We would be sitting in meetings with very smart sciency types, including a couple of molecular biologists from Ivy league schools, and she would inevitably bring up some idiotic Deepak Chopra woo in response to whatever actual science these guys wanted to be in the exhibit.

    Not only was it painful to listen to, but it was doubly embarrassing that an otherwise smart adult would be spewing such nonsense.

    Some months later, this same person had a very serious illness. Needless to say, she didn’t trust herself to Mr. Chopra’s woo, but rather checked herself into Cedar-Sinai hospital.

    Oh, the irony. (Lost, most likely.)

  53. James B

    It perpetually infuriates me that the committed open-mindedness of a skeptic is not enough for spiritualists, and leads the term closed-mindedness being bandied about. A skeptic is open minded enough to look at any actual evidence and evaluate his opinions based on available evidence. A noble stance that is not always easy to live up to. And yet skeptics aren’t open minded enough because we don’t seriously consider propositions which are completely without evidence and without even a possible means of testing. To quote Richard Dawkins

    “If you’re too open minded, your brain will fall out”

  54. ND

    Bruce the Canuck,

    I read your link and the following bullet point from the article is vague enough to be scary:

    “To be validated, knowledge must also be subject to the scrutiny of an extended community of citizens who have legitimate stakes in the significance of what is being claimed”

    “who have legitimate stakes”. This statement is vague enough to introduce ideologically driven judgement into the scientific process. Exon and creationists have stakes in the outcome of scientific research. I interpret this proposal to mean turning science into a democracy. Am I overreacting?

  55. zhaphod

    As an Indian I am ashamed of Deepak Chopra.

  56. Jon B

    @56: “To be validated, knowledge must also be subject to the scrutiny of an extended community of citizens who have legitimate stakes in the significance of what is being claimed”

    So, according to that article… if someone whacks me in the face with a board, they’re saying that we have to have a vote on it before I can decide whether it hurt?

    The authors of that article might want to brush up on Galileo’s story, where the knowledge he discovered was intentionally not validated by an “extended community” of religious leaders with “legitimate stakes” in its significance. (I assume the definer of “legitimate” and the “extended community” are always one and the same.)

    To quote our beloved BA: “The stupid. It burns.”

  57. Bruce the Canuck

    >Am I overreacting?

    No, it’s much worse. This is the spearpoint of postmodern philosophy, looking for weakness. If you want an issue that should split the AGW “skeptics” from “deniers”, this is it. If any skeptic thinks Mike Hume is an ok ally, they’re actually just straight anti-science.

    Read this article, commenting on a 2007 article by Hume in the Guardian. The writer is an AGW denier/skeptic, a conservative Czech physicist, but he’s got Hume’s number.

    As I was starting to suspect, the swifthack issue is not simple. There are not two sides; there are at least three. If the debate becomes wider it will be important to figure out which “skeptics” are partially allies.

    Hume isn’t stupid – he’s evil.

  58. ND

    Jon B,

    It’s not stupid, it’s insidious. It smells of populist rhetoric.

  59. Jon B

    ND: Perhaps a portmanteau is in order here. It’s insipidious — insipid and insidious.

  60. ndt

    26. Jeff Says:
    December 1st, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    Jefferson was a fair scientist in his day who embraced a Unitarian form of Christianity.

    Jefferson’s deism was a sign of his skepticism. Phil’s post is about skeptics, not atheists.

  61. Nigel Depledge

    Andrew (8) said:

    Based on the biography “Einstein: His Life and Universe” by Walter Isaacson, Einstein was not as skeptical as I used to think. While he wasn’t religious as an adult, he was deeply devout as a kid (even though his family wasn’t and actually discouraged it), and he claimed not to be an atheist later in life.

    Also, while I am not one, some religious people (including clergy) have made great contributions to science in the past. A catholic priest proposed the theory that all the matter in the universe was once together (the big bang). Mendel, of genetics fame, was a priest as well.

    It would be just as bad to label all true believers as non-innovative and incapable of scientific advancements as it is to label all skeptics.

    I think you’re conflating two different types of scepticism. There is a global (if you will) kind, in which the sceptic questions pretty much everything for which they have not seen good evidence and / or reasoned arguments. OTOH, there is a more local kind, in which people who aren’t sceptical about every aspect of their lives are nonetheless sceptical (in a good way) about some things (whether this is a few or many). I think most scientists who are also religious would fall into this latter category, and most of the priests who historically made significant contributions to science would also.

  62. Nigel Depledge

    Mike (11) said:

    Isn’t being a skeptic always thinking that there’s stuff we don’t know yet?

    Not exactly.

    Scepticism is partly about demanding good evidence before accepting a claim or an explanation of a phenomenon. It is also partly about accepting an explanation for which there is a preponderance of good evidence and moving on.

    So, for example, not even the most pedantic sceptic questions the germ theory of disease, because it is supported by so much evidence and there isn’t any contrary evidence (although prion diseases came as a big surprise, but that’s more an elaboration of the existing theory than an overturning). However, if contrary evidence were suddenly to come to light, sceptics would be at the forefront of investigating it.

  63. Nigel Depledge

    Jon B (17) said:

    Wow. Chopra is so removed from reality here that he’s not only nowhere near right, he’s not even wrong. Thanks for reminding me again what an incoherent danger he is as he spews his New Age bullchips. [/ad hominem]

    That’s not an ad hom.

    An argument ad hominem is one where you say a person is wrong because of the kind of person they are.

    Chopra is wrong because his effusions pay no regard to reality. If you said he was wrong because he drinks orange juice in a funny way (or whatever), that would be an ad hom.

  64. Nigel Depledge

    Jeff (26) said:

    To Andrews statement I would add Joseph Priestly and Isaac Newton among devout Christians who were scientists. . . .

    But these people, nonetheless, were sceptical of the existing explanations for why and how the world was the way it was, and that gave them the motivation to investigate and make progress.

    Newton is a particularly interesting case, because most of his best advances were descriptive, not explanatory (i.e. he described how gravity behaved, but not why; and the same goes for his work on optics and calculus). However, he did make a huge leap of understanding when he realised that, because of the action of gravity and the laws of mechanics, god didn’t need to hold all the planets on their courses. I believe that required scepticism of the prevailing “wisdom”.

    Of course, Newton was as credulous as a fruitcake when it came to alchemy.

  65. Nigel Depledge

    Tacitus (28) said:

    Someone can be both a true believer and a skeptic, just not of the same thing at the same time. Obviously, Einstein could have been a true believer in a god of some kind, and still be skeptical of the prevailing scientific wisdom concerning the laws of physics. But to acheive that skepticism he first had to work hard and learn enough about the Newtonian physics so that he could see it’s possible shortcomings.

    But if he had been a true believer in Newtonian physics as the be all and end all of existence, then he would have had no desire or impetus that would have led him to discover the laws of relativity. Without some level of skepticism, Einstein would have not been the world-renowned genius he became.

    Yeah. What (s)he said.

  66. shawmutt

    I first heard of this tool on a Speaking of Faith episode. He explained an anomaly where a Jehovah Witness refused a blood transfusion and still got better. That explaination, and the weight that he as a medical doctor gave it, told me all I needed to know about him.

    Sometimes even smart, sincere people go down the rabbit hole.

    @Molly #41 “We all have a crutch to get us through the night. What’s yours?”

    Does this justify the perpetuation of fraud and justify the careers of charlatans?

  67. I just saw Jenny McCarthy has a new Wii game out.

  68. This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 12/2/2009, at The Unreligious Right

  69. Gary Ansorge

    ,,,and of course, there is the Gold Standard for Skeptics:

    “I’m from Missouri. Show me!”

    Then of course, there’s the cynics lament:

    “It could be worse. It could be raining.” Cut to lightening, thunder and sudden downpour.(stolen from Young Frankenstein)(Thank you, MArty Feldman)

    @Molly #41 “We all have a crutch to get us through the night. What’s yours?”

    Oh, I don’t know. How about a J and a good woman.

    GAry 7

  70. Brown

    Cross-reference to discussion at the JREF forum:
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=160919

  71. Rob

    “It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists.”

    Despite the fact that some of the science is out of date, many people STILL watch Cosmos for the overwhelming sense of wonder, awe, and reverence with which Carl Sagan treats the subject matter. I don’t think it needs to be mentioned here that Carl Sagan is not just a skeptic, it could reasonably be argued that he is one of the fathers of the modern skeptic movement we see today. The Universe is so much grander and more mysterious than any of the mystical nonsense that could be dredged up by a million Deepak Chopras — why would I feel awe and wonder at any of that crap, even if it were true?

  72. Japhy

    Phil, I posted something similar on HuffP, but I want to thank you and Steven Novella, Orac, Randi, and all the other modern day skeptics for advancing the welfare of others by educating people not to waste their money on charlatans like Chopras.

  73. holastefan

    @39 Niles:

    “One of the major themes I’ve been exploring is just how the two realms can co-exist and even complement each other.”

    They do not complement each other. A great video was posted by Brando above (#3) http://illuminatingreality.com/?p=394 and has a quote from Ricard Dawkins: “In my view, religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural, non-explanations, and blinds them to the real explanations that we have within our grasp.”

    “Any rate, just wanted to pipe up and say that one of the whole reasons I got into this crazy, wacko religious thing”

    You are on the right path there… Beliefs that have no basis in reality (and are even contrary to observation) *should* be considered crazy and wacko.

    “because religious people desperately need more science, and they need it from a source they feel like they can trust.”

    If you are implying that religious people will trust science more because it comes from a religious person? Not if it contradicts any part of their sacred doctrine. Incidentally, we already have a trustworthy source for science: They’re called scientists. If the “observe-hypothesize-test-theorize” method isn’t trustworthy, not sure what else would be better.

    “I’m a Seminarian, which means in a few more years I’m gonna be an honest-to-God (heh) Pastor. Lutheran, specifically.”

    It’s very depressing to know you will become a professional in showing people how use religion as a guide for their lives and the nature of the universe. Even if you someday provide comfort and/or hope for someone, it’s still based on fantasy, just like any unscientific “teaching” of Deepak Chopra. This is especially sad when reality-based facts exist that could provide the same guidance.

  74. Dear Bruce the Canuck,

    good points. Hulme is surely evil in some sense and he is actually a key player behind the politicization of climate science. He thinks it’s OK for climate science to follow political orders. Some CRU documents show that he has shared grants with Phil Jones. Most e-mails shows that they’re not the closest friends in the network.

    It’s a complicated thing. But for ClimateGate to transform into a full-fledged revolution, I feel that various people will have to appreciate certain values that they share with unusual and unexpected allies, and even Hulme can be one of them. In the past, he has done bad things but he has also criticized “climate porn”, a term he borrowed from others.

    It’s sometimes difficult to see inside these people.

    Similar comments apply to Keith Briffa. He may be one of the heroes who really suffered under the alarmist system governing the climate departments and who helped to abolish it (well-known speculations I can’t write explicitly). But otherwise he looks as a key contributor to the deception.

    At any rate, the players have to be re-allied wisely, otherwise we won’t really move from the place where we are right now.

    Best wishes
    Lubos

  75. I just finished listening to an interview with Ann Druyan on Little Atoms, and after hearing her talk about Carl Sagan I don’t understand how anyone can possibly think scientists don’t have passion. People like Chopra who are going to scientists and skeptics like this really ought to start looking into what scientists and skeptics actually say and do.

    It’s unfortunate that someone who is so anti-science has such a public platform. Chopra is friends with celebrities and for some reason people think that gives him credibility. I love Ellen’s talk show, though I’m becoming disillusioned with it as she’s always promoting Chopra, she often has Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey on, she pushes Oprah big time, recently she was talking about her chiropractor…she’s spreading all kinds of woo and people love her so she’s very influential. Once Oprah’s off the air the charlatans will still have Ellen.

    What’s with this thread being derailed by a climate change denier? It’s funny that all of a sudden now that these emails have come out the deniers are coming out of the woodwork. Like they’re so excited that they can keep driving their hummers. I subscribe to a google alert for “skeptic”, and it’s loaded with climate change deniers who feel like they’re vindicated. It really shows what low quality evidence they require just so they can feel better about themselves.

  76. Larry Hastings

    I’m happy to point out Chopra was right on one count:

    For make no mistake, the skeptics of the past were as eager to shoot down new theories as they are to worship the old ones once science has validated them.

    Well, half a count. The skeptics of the past, and indeed the present!, are eager to shoot down new theories. Because… that’s how science works! The poor theories falter under this critical onslaught–and the good ones survive. It is only because of this prickly hostile environment that science remains so sure-footed as we explore our universe. And it’s why the good theories demand such respect. Unlike the woo-woo nonsense theories, which deserve their fate when they get laughed out of town. And unlike Chopra himself, when he espouses this nonsense as if it were fact.

    So, sorry Chopra, but there’s only one way to get respect from the scientific community. And writing peevish blog postings isn’t it.

  77. Here’s the output of a new Deepak emulator app for the iPhone: “We must not forget that forgiveness is a quantum possibility, and that true healing flows from the universal consciousness. Your skepticism is like ripples on the karmic pond; small distrubances upon a deep ocean of truth. Only by freeing one’s self of the shackles of logic and reason can one achieve true enlightenment.”

    Deepak Chopra is a gibberish machine that scrambles religious imagery and logical fallacies, then sprinkles it with scientific terms used in completely non-senscal and out of context ways. He does this to make a populist appeal to those who are science ignorant as a means of selling his products.

    Modern snake oil, hucked by a very slick propagadist.

    Nothing new about that…

  78. Klaus

    Deepak and his pseudo-religious claptrap have been a burr under the saddle of us folks with a fondness for traditional spiritual yearnings, too — although our deep-seated contempt for his psychobabble is based on religious grounds, not scientific grounds. ;-)

    There is no problem with being both a person of faith and a person of science, but this guy ain’t gone none of either.

  79. Bruce the Canuck

    >76. Luboš Motl Says:

    >Hulme is surely evil in some sense and he is actually a key player behind the politicization of climate science. He thinks it’s OK for climate science to follow political orders….[re] Phil Jones. Most e-mails shows that they’re not the closest friends in the network.

    I do not agree with your general opinions about this “scandal”. In fact if you seek a “revolution” in climate science on any other front than the valid goal of better publicizing methods and data, then you are yourself seeking to bias the science. Likely out of anger that its conclusions may undermine your political or personal ideology (you must admit that AGW is extremely inconvenient for materialist-libertarian ideology).

    So on that note re Hulme I think you missed my point, which I will try to put as politely as possible:

    * If Phil Jones went overboard with politicization, you can expect that he himself will see that as a failing. It’s almost pure speculation, but it may well be that Jones isn’t close to Hulme *because* he sees Hulme as a person who does not believe in the ideals of science.

    * In contrast, Hulme actively promotes the politicization of science. He is in conflict with the stated ideals of both sides of the AGW debate. He believes the search for truth about the natural world via the scientific method is primarily a power struggle between competing values. (google “sokal hoax”)

    Hulme is a person who allies himself with post-modernist attacks on the scientific method, and indeed science itself. Phil Jones may be an imperfect scientist, with his own biases, as are Lindez et al. But such persons do seem to believe in and strive to meet the ideals of science. Wheras Hulme is not a scientist at all, except by title.

    (I have years of experience in politics, and having targeted adversaries only to wind up working with them later, it seems that people who are actually consciously corrupt seem to be rare. Motivations based on pure $ are also rare in academics and politics, IMHO. People’s primary motivation seems to be peer approval and self-image)

  80. steeleweed

    “… if they’re willing to think about it…”
    But they’re not, you know.

    5% think (I’m being generous), 95% don’t know what thinking is.

    I think :-D

  81. Gary Ansorge

    81. Bruce the Canuck:

    Back in Grandmas day, they’d have included in your list of primary motivators,,,sex.
    How can any attempt to understand and,,,motivate,,,people exclude this simple drive to pleasure, to expressions of dominance, etc.

    GAry 7

  82. Something’s pretty deeply packed in Chopra’s brain and it ain’t fact.
    ;)

  83. Davros

    2 Farks in a row
    cool

  84. Snoof

    Pretty standard MO for Chopra, really. He’s realized his claims don’t stand up to scientific inquiry, so instead of reworking the claims, he’s attacking science.

    …just out of interest, what’s with the current spate of “OMG what about AGW/climategate/whatever it’s called this week?!” comments I’ve been seeing on a bunch of different skeptic/science blogs lately? They’re turning up in places I wouldn’t normally expect, and are usually off-topic.

  85. Bruce the Canuck

    >…just out of interest, what’s with the current spate of “OMG what about AGW/climategate/whatever it’s called this week?!”

    Because it’s looking like it will become a new Inquisition targeted at modern science, by reactionaries. My own off-topic posting was to bring Phil’s attention to the fact the po-mo’s are trying to get a punch in.

    Scientists already represent secular expertise that constrains what people can plausibly believe. This time the results of science may constrain people’s behavior as consumers to an equal degree. So it’ll get worse before it gets better. Reactionary blogs are loaded with comments hateful of science in general, and questioning everything from evolution to what the sun is made of. It’s unreal. The target isn’t greens any longer, it’s independent science.

  86. Pareidolius

    Oprah Chopra. Hey, it could have happened . . .

  87. Yes, scientists are 100% trustworthy. They don’t fudge temperatures are anything like that.

    Makes all of you researchers look bad.

  88. BubbaBoBob

    I fell into a skeptic tank once. It was terrible. I stank for weeks.

    BubbaBoBob

  89. Interestingly enough, when I opened this message, the affiliated advert was for “Super anti-oxidants”, apparently made of pommegranite in pill form. Pommegranites in pommegranite-form are fairly readily available–they literally grow on trees.

  90. Bryan

    Part of the problem is because any idiot with an agenda can legally call himself a “skeptic”. Don’t believe that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the USA? Call yourself a “skeptic”!
    Don’t believe that vaccines actually prevent disease? Call yourself a “skeptic”!

    Likewise, people who like to brag about how “skeptical” they are aren’t skeptics at all. They’re as dogmatic as the dogmatists they oppose. However, they tie their dogmas to the coat-tails of respectable science and throw out a lot of scientific jargon to impress themselves.

    A skeptic is not someone who says “It is not true”–that’s just another flavor of dogmatic. A skeptic is someone who says “How can I be sure it is true?” and lives honestly according to that fundamental uncertainty. This is why science is so closely associated with skepticism. It is not the handing down of dogmas about what does exist (NOR about what does not exist). It is a method for trying to attain certitude in a universe wherein certainty might not be possible.

  91. Vance

    Chopra’s a fool.

    @16: And Emerson trumps Whitman.

    “Science does not know its debt to imagination. Goethe did not believe that a great naturalist could exist without this faculty.”

    (I found this quote serendipitously in “The Lost Notebooks of Loren Eisely” – who was both an anthropologist/paleontologist and one of the 20th Century’s most honored poets and writers.)

  92. RamblinDude

    Wow, what a smarmy charlatan. Almost everything he wrote is wrong.

    Years ago I read a page in one of Deepak’s books in the store, and I thought it was the dumbest thing I’d ever read. Then later I saw that the science bloggers were down on him, too, and felt better about not giving him more of a chance. I’ve since read bits and pieces of silliness from him, but this article is disgusting.

    There are lots of people who live in backwards land, and he’s one of their leaders.

  93. Anna Miren

    Why do you guys sound as if you need people to believe in what you believe in? It’s every person’s free will to choose what they want. You claim to know it all but this blog is all about hateful words.

  94. SHM:

    “On the completely other hand, if someone feels like they have had a direct experience of God, who are you to tell them they are wrong? When you tell someone that your dream had a clown in it last night, how can you prove that?”

    Surely the difference here is clear: if I say “I dreamed about a clown” or “I felt like God was talking to me”, no-one can disprove that because I’m talking about my feelings and thoughts. If I claim that these are indicative of any property of the world outside my own brain – a clown was in my house last night, or god exists in any but the fluffiest of deistic senses – then I immediately open myself to criticism of claiming more than the evidence justifies.

    Unless I’m mistaken, Phil hasn’t said anything about the former case.

    I agree with you about Phil’s non-standard use of the word belief, though. In English as she is spoke ‘belief’ does cover our relationship to the Big Bang and evolution (the examples he quotes in his previous post which you’re referring to).

  95. Mike K

    BA,

    I think you misinterpreted Chopra’s last point.

    Chopra: “Skeptics know in advance — or think they know — what right thought is.”

    BA: “Bzzzzt! WRONG. We don’t know necessarily what the right thought is. But we do know when we see a failure in the process of thinking.”

    Note that Chopra says “right thought” not “_the_ right thought”. Chopra is making a statement about the process of thinking, while you appear to be attributing to him a statement about conclusions. The full context in Chopra’s article makes it clear that he’s attacking the scientific method itself (“material”, “statistical”, “data-driven”), not merely bemoaning the idea that skeptics reach foregone conclusions.

    That doesn’t make him any less wrong; he’s just wrong in a different way than you’re claiming he is :-)

  96. I cannot stand Deepak Chopra. His condescension is breath-taking. Everything out of his mouth is either an insult to thinking people or downright dangerous (I even hate his India tourism commercials, though I love India). As for Dr. Dean Edell (who lauded this blog), he gave the best advice I’ve ever gotten from the radio: put moisturizer on your finger nails frequently and they won’t crack! And, verily, my nails were healed! (takes about two weeks to take affect).

  97. bob

    Nice ad holmium attacks… I guess I expected logic and reasoning!

    I see our greatest modern scientist are working hard in the realms of awe by coming up with things like “Global Warming”… …Shheeesh!

  98. TJ

    Chopra is winning the maturity category in this contest.

  99. Dr T

    I don’t buy most of what “scientists” say these days as they are motivated by making money.

    Case in point: “Global Warming”. What a crock.

    As for people like Deepak Chopra and uncle Phil, they are ear ticklers. They tell people what they want to hear and they tap into that human need to find out that “I’m Ok and You’re Ok”

    Junk science and pop psychology are a lot alike. The more BS they generate, the more money they make.

  100. Oh for Pete’s sake!

    Dr. Chopra just goes on and on and on; he doesn’t understand the science he discusses, he fails to concede that other people have thought about these issues more deeply and more critically than he has, he has allowed his ego to balloon to enormous volume and pumped himself up to ridiculous heights.

    Enough, Deepak–you are making a colossal fool of yourself. Let it go. Go sit in your “woo-woo”-New Age mutual masturbation circle with Gary Zukav and let the rest of us wonder and marvel about the majesty of our universe without you purposefully misleading the uneducated and unthinking about the nature of science.

    I am glad that you have such a rich and fulfilled spiritual life…that’s very nice. I do too, but it doesn’t include the crap science and mumbo-jumbo you keep trying to ram down our throats.

    Just because you can rattle off 30,000 words on your Vaio every four or five days doesn’t make you a thoughtful philosopher, it makes you a typist.

    Just be quiet–your hordes of unthinking sheep-like fans, in lobotomized unison, have made, and will continue to make, you fabulously wealthy–be content with that. Not terribly spiritual, I admit, to pander after wealth as you do, but I assume you get at least some ego gratification out of all that money.

    But you’re just doing yourself and your reputation damage with this nonsensical flow of idiocies and pseudo-science; and you are making those of us who ARE scientists vomitous…stop it.

    Scientists aren’t skeptics? False to even the most causal of observers. Scientists have no sense of wonder? I guess you do not know many real scientists…what do you think drives us? Sure ain’t profit motive; unlike you who toils for money, most of us work 60-80 hours a week, for crap pay, relentlessly pushing back the frontiers of uncertainty exactly BECAUSE we are skeptical and we have a deep sense of abiding wonder at the majesty of the universe that surrounds us.

    I’ve got an idea, Dr. Chopra–give that Vaio (for surely someone as unenlightened as you cannot possible be in tune with Macs) a rest and try closing your mouth and opening your eyes and ears.

    Learn some of the science you’ve been pretending to understand, but badly misrepresenting…

    The more you write, the more you expose your inner hack, dude. Are you really nothing more than a helium-filled baboon?

  101. Sucralose

    Can we remember that Chopra has a radically different cultural background than a Westerner, and people on the Asian subcontinent would find nothing wrong in his philosophy?

    Chopra is a fake who fleeces gullible Westerners by parroting their own half-baked understandings of Indian culture back at them.

  102. Judy

    glad to hear others feel the same as I do about Deepak. The man has gone totally insane and I thought I was the only one who recognized it. After his book on depression and we should all prepare ourselves to die, having no guilt for the wealth he has earned while watching a world live in such poverty speaks volumes of his intentions. Then to hear he is writng about how bad doctors and scientiest are, does he realize he is a doctor in the science world? He contradicts himself constantly.

    has anyone else noticed how harmful Tony Robbin’s is actually using brainwashing techniques to manipulate people with statements like “if you want this to last you need to spend another $10,000″ after 2 days of no food or sleep? Then he teaches how to reprogram your brain to ignore your problems and focus on only the good. Or his recommendations to follow down the path of wealthy men who earned their wealth through war and dominating other countries.

    Or how about Wayne Dyer – live positively and you get cancer lol. I seen him actually say when your brain goes off down a direction of facing your problems your suppose to tell yourself “OPPS THERE GOES MY BRAIN AGAIN” LOL.

    These motivational speakers are teaching people how to be sheep, follow someone else’s path and not your own.

    Interesting posts,

  103. Simran

    It is true that in the East, the philosophy that Chopra espouses is nothing new and nothing strange. But this guy is taking it too far by claiming that you can heal your body with your thoughts, get rich by ‘manifesting’ money, become ageless?? So why is he hiding behind those fancy frames to hide his ageing face, those eye bags and dyed hair?? And if he has myopia, why hasn’t he cured it with his thoughts?

    Wow I cannot believe that people like this charlatan Chopra have become so popular in America and become so rich by selling their empty promises and untested, unscientific BS. Does nobody question his ridiculous claims? Its so exasperating! And while I’m sitting here getting annoyed, he’s laughing all the way to the bank! Somebody STOP him!!! Grrrrr..

  104. Marty

    Alright, so Deepak is high on his own zen state. Good for him. If I hung out at a Spa like his, in Carlsbad, I’d be equally loving the Sun and San Diego scene on a regular basis.
    What he’s trying to say, somewhat clumsily, is that the devil’s advocate in the crowd(s) are ruining the positive energy.
    Look at the state of our Country right now, every skeptic waiting for the intelligent black man to bail us out, or fail, even better (for the skeptics).
    Time to get off the blogs people, experience the own wonder of your power, give Deepak a break and quit dicing his words up.
    “Motivational speakers are teaching people to follow like sheep …” really, some of the posts are so off base they don’t even make sense.
    That’s like saying a Tony Robbin’s wants you to be a factory worker …
    huh?
    Skeptics. Unfortunately for you naysayers, Deepak’s message has obvsiously struck a chord with your loser, skeptic selves.

  105. Heidi

    Hi Andrew,
    Just to clarify, Einstein actually did say he was an atheist in the mid 1940′s. He only pulled back his rhetoric after bags of hate mail and death threats. While he continued to use the term “god” in his work, it was meant in the open ended way that many scientists use the term. He did not make a return to his early devout years, nor did he ever formally deny his earlier claim to be an atheist.

  106. reidh

    Whye is D.C. on the Huff ?

  107. adam

    Just chill out… Stop spending time throwing stones and just chill out…

  108. sun

    Hmmm the fantasy of getting one’s work published even one technical paper in a recognized journal seems to be usurped by Deepak 50 books in 30 years most best sellers bring s up your famous industry “jealousy”
    And we all know that in the scientific arena jealousy and backbiting is common among the peers

    Face it fellows you are NOT scientists but non published angry competitive and we the public do NOT care about your assumption of scidentific method Why not just call Deepak a fiction writer and leave it at that?
    Shapespeare put it so well
    “madam me thinkest thous protesteth too much

    Your “opinions ” here have not been proven but are simply your emotional opinions.
    No science there.
    And to rub it in NO publisher wants your works nor your opinions.
    why waste your time ranting your personal opinions when you should be deep at work researching the reearch of the research

    bad boys not back to your lab
    pullleeeeeze

  109. SkepManIndian

    ——
    TO ALL READERS AND WRITERS :
    Is there a way all of us can campaign to get this man Deepak Chopra on trial. I would like to see him prosecuted and all his wealth distributed to the beggars in India and the homeless in the US. Does anyone know if it possible to sign a petition and file a case against him ?

    mj.
    ————

  110. Kokoro

    Why is it so hard for you guys to believe that Deepak is so popular? He sells hope. Like all the churches and temples of the world. And you know the Catholic Church is the richest. He a small fish in comparison.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »