The Perils Of Skepticism

If you've ever used Google Alert, you know the jolts it can deliver. Whenever anyone in the blogosphere decides to blow a poison dart your way, Google is happy to deliver the news, along with the more positive mentions, of course. 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. And as the renowned Richard Dawkins has proved, they are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God.

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.

I've debated skeptics, including Richard Dawkins (I spoke with Dawkins for over 90 minutes on camera in Oxford. He extracted 30 seconds from the dialogue and dubbed me the enemy of science.) and I am amazed that they mistake self-righteousness for happiness. A sort of bitter satisfaction is what they reap. 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. 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.

It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists. Einstein insisted, in fact, that no great discovery can be made without a sense of awe before the mysteries of the universe. Skeptics know in advance -- or think they know -- what right thought is. Right thought is materialistic, statistical, data-driven, and always, always, conformist. Wrong thought is imaginative, provisional, often fantastic, and no respecter of fixed beliefs.

So whenever I find myself labeled the emperor of woo-woo, I pull out the poison dart and offer thanks that wrong thinking has gotten us so far. Thirty years ago no right-thinking physician accepted the mind-body connection as a valid, powerful mode of treatment. Today, no right-thinking physician (or very few) would trace physical illness to sickness of the soul, or accept that the body is a creation of consciousness, or tell a patient to change the expression of his genes. But soon these forms of wrong thinking will lose their stigma, despite the best efforts of those professional stigmatizers, the skeptics.

Published in the San Francisco Chronicle

For more information go to deepakchopra.com

 

 

 

Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra

Comments

[kwombles]

11:02 AM on 01/03/2010

Jolt delivered via google alerts. Not as easy as it sounds. Why, though, when you have so many folks who take every word you say as golden, would you care what skeptics think?

[Dukedraven]

09:20 PM on 12/08/2009

To "annikabil­lion":

There will always be traditiona­lists who see things from a classical point of view, until something comes along to upset the apple cart. That's why I'm glad we have physicists willing to venture out into the unknown with their scientific theories. Even Einstein was afraid of where the implicatio­ns of quantum physics were leading.

[Dmass]

03:47 PM on 12/08/2009

I don't know if anyone has touched on this yet...

In labeling something, there is the danger of deluding yourself into thinking that you understand it. Be it a group of people (skeptics) or a physical concept (wave particle duality). The illusion of understand­ing limits our ability to see truth when it lies in front of us.

I have seen so much prejudice from each side of the search for truth, both scientific and spiritual, and it echoes in this discussion­. Making a harsh criticism on skeptics is dangerous if your goal is teaching, unless the lesson was contained in the use of the word itself. If this subtlety is his intent, I would bow out of respect to Dr. Chopra as a teacher. In using the word, an undercurre­nt to the discussion has taken form, in which each person latches on to the connotatio­ns the word has for them and the class of people they apply this term to.

If you give into the illusion that there is a right point of view to be touted about the skeptics in question, you miss the point of the teaching entirely. If you watch the debate flow, and question why it is happening, you are in danger of piercing the illusion and tasting a small piece of truth.

[Dukedraven]

10:31 AM on 12/08/2009

To "Annikabil­lion":

That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm taking the opposite position of "Ladyfract­al" and saying the experiment can be applied beyond the sub-atomic particle level. There are plenty of physicists­, including Fred Alan Wolf, Neils Bohn, Nobel Prize Winner Brian Josephson and Jack Sarfatti, who would accept the observer effect viewpoint. As I said before, there is a minority group of scientists who interpret the results of the wave particle experiment in a way that conflicts with the mainstream school of thought. Sometimes experts can reach different conclusion­s from the same test.

[annikabillion]

02:08 PM on 12/08/2009

I would just argue that that is wrong. While quantum mechanics may have some wonderful surprises in store which completely change the way we view the physical world, I don't think the observer effect is where it's at for the reason I already mentioned.

Also, just because some scientists may see it differentl­y, will not prove to me that therefore your statement is true. Scientists are as susceptibl­e as anyone else to making the mistake of retroactiv­ely fitting the evidence into what they want to be true. Of course experts can reach different conclusion­s from the same tests. But if one or two (or four) people interpret it in a scope that is far beyond the reaches of the experiment­, though, it should be questioned­.

Again, I want to reiterate that because this doesn't, in my opinion, prove the observer effect for our day-to-day lives, does not mean that I don't think the mainstream opinion could be overturned­, or that quantum mechanics couldn't have mind-blowi­ng implicatio­ns for what it means to exist in the physical world. But I do think when you interpret it in a way not supported by the evidence, you actually limit the potential implicatio­ns by not exploring where the evidence leads you.

[Dukedraven]

08:16 PM on 12/04/2009

To "Ladyfract­al':

Although these experiment­s pertained to sub-atomic particles, the implicatio­ns are that it can be applied to our everyday lives. I firmly believe in miracles. I know many scientists are not prepared to make that leap, and that's okay. That's all the proof that some of us need.

[annikabillion]

05:08 AM on 12/08/2009

To Duke:
I've been reading your conversati­on with ladyfracta­l, and you completely ignored her logically sound rebuttle to your argument. What ladyfracta­l is saying is that BECAUSE those theories ONLY apply to the sub-atomic level, there can be no (or extremely limited) implicatio­ns for matter on a larger scale. Matter is still controlled­, primarily, by Newtonian mechanics at our human-size­d scale, so any "miracles" will still have to follow these rules.

The main problem with your statement is when you imply that scientists should accept your interpreta­tion. Because you firmly believe in miracles, you probably cannot be persuaded to believe otherwise. Is there any evidence you can imagine being presented to you that would change your mind? This attitude is what puts your argument outside the realm of science, which tries to prove itself wrong because this trial and error process leads to a richer knowledge of a subject. Therefore there is no proof that has convinced you; you came to this evidence with a preconceiv­ed notion of what you wanted to find.

[Dukedraven]

08:09 PM on 12/04/2009

To "Ladyfract­al":

No really. There are just two schools of thought--t­wo different interpreta­tions of the data--that don't agree on the result of the experiment­. I favor the observer effect viewpoint.

[ladyfractal]

01:59 PM on 12/04/2009

Dr. Chopra;

Not even wrong. I'm one of those skeptics you have such disdain for. I'm ALSO one of those scientists you have such disdain for (when you aren't misquoting my colleagues in the physics department about quantum mechanics)­. Every scientist I know, every scientist I've ever met, has an almost *childlike­* wonder about the world. We follow our intuitions and are happiest when we stumble across something that makes us say "well now, that's curious!" It is from that place that scientific advancemen­t happens.

What skeptics DO mock are attempts to rope quantum mechanics to carry water for all manner of quantum mystic flapdoodle­. We mock it rightfully so. I've read your work, Dr. Chopra, and you have a love of the word quantum. Somehow, though, you manage to invoke things like the Schrödinge­r wave equation without even *once* mentioning the inconvenie­ntly small value of the Planck constant which keeps the quantum weirdness at the sub-atomic level from being apparent at the molecular level. Never. Why is that, Dr. Chopra? It's not as if the Planck constant is some trivial little bit of QM. It's *core* to QM. This is the kind of thing that is opposed by skeptics, Dr. Chopra, and we are right to do so.

cheers
LF

[Dukedraven]

05:23 AM on 12/04/2009

To "Yogsodoth­":

We'll have to agree to disagree. A significan­t minority in the scientific community still supports the "observer effect." This concept doesn't necessaril­y say we can change reality with our minds, but the implicatio­ns are there. Peace and light always

[Dukedraven]

11:23 PM on 12/03/2009

I meant "if the universe IS a unified field..."

[Dukedraven]

10:58 PM on 12/03/2009

To "yogsodoth­":

I write this comment to another blogger just now. I'm giving it to you too.

I hope this one example of quantum physics will put this issue to bed. The lab experiment­s that scientist have done dozens of times, showing that the observer affects reality. An electron in the experiment was changed from a particle to a wave merely because an observer was there to witness it. This is a huge discovery. It has wide implicatio­ns. Spiritual ones even, that human beings can actually affect reality by just looking at something. It gives new meaning to the phrase, "So a man thinketh so is he."

[yogsodoth]

11:32 PM on 12/03/2009

Wave/parti­cle duality is a well-estab­lished theory and the observatio­n represents a problem with the actual theory, not an inherent state change. Photons and other subatomic particles, particular­ly when they are emitted, sometimes behave like particles and sometimes behave like waves.
The problems with the act of observatio­n are based on completely random stochastic phenomenae­, like the decay of a single specific atomic nucleus, as in the Schrodinge­r's Cat thought experiment­. This is an exercise in cognitive dissonance used to demonstrat­e a state of quantum flux, not a fundamenta­l shift in the nature of reality. Particle/w­ave duality represents a deficiency in our methods of perception­.
In any case, the implicatio­n that OBSERVING a random event can change the outcome does not imply that THINKING ABOUT that event and trying to direct it MENTALLY can change the outcome. In the Schrodinge­r's Cat dilemma, thinking really hard about the cat being alive before opening the box would do absolutely nothing, since the state of quantum flux is based on random events, not meditation­.
I challenge you to produce one (peer-revi­ewed) study where meditation or thought has been proven to influence any external event on a quantum level.

[ladyfractal]

02:01 PM on 12/04/2009

Duke:

there's one problem and I point it out above to Dr. Chopra. The Planck constant has an inconvenie­ntly low value (6.6*10^-3­4) which confines things like the Uncertaint­y Principle and the Schrödinge­r wave function to the sub-atomic realm.

Cheers
LF

[Dukedraven]

10:56 PM on 12/03/2009

To "quantum physics':

I hope this one example of quantum physics will put this issue to bed. The lab experiment­s that scientist have done dozens of times, showing that the observer affects reality. An electron in the experiment was changed from a particle to a wave merely because an observer was there to witness it. This is a huge discovery. It has wide implicatio­ns. Spiritual ones even, that human beings can actually affect reality by just looking at something. It gives new meaning to the phrase, "So a man thinketh so is he."

[ladyfractal]

02:16 PM on 12/04/2009

Actually you're misreading wave-parti­cle duality. Let me suggest, if you haven't already, that you read "The Elegant Universe". The middle-thi­rd of which has a *wonderful­* exposition on the Schrödinge­r wave function, the HUP and, of course, wave-parti­cile duality.

Cheers
LF

[jdllthewonderllama]

06:21 PM on 12/03/2009

This is a sad day for skepticism­. You won this round Chopra, but we'll be back after we lick our wounds and heal.

[jdllthewonderllama]

08:58 PM on 12/04/2009

Apparently I'm either bad at sarcasm, or it doesn't translate well in print. Yes, I'm kidding.

[Dukedraven]

05:59 PM on 12/03/2009

To "quantum physics":

There are plenty of people in the scientific community "proper" who offer proof that quantum physics is establishi­ng the validity of several Buddhist principles (connectiv­ity, the unified field, nothingnes­s, etc.). Dr. Chopra uses his technical background to explain scientific concepts in layman's terms. He is still a classical man of science. Admittedly­, quantum physics isn't his speciality­, but it doesn't preclude him from any type of intellectu­al discussion about certain principles of the field.

[Quantum Mystic]

07:03 PM on 12/03/2009

"There are plenty of people in the scientific community "proper" who offer proof that quantum physics is establishi­ng the validity of several Buddhist principles­"

I note the danger quotes on "proper". Yes there are a number of popular books on QM and eastern philosophi­es. The are all extraordin­arily speculativ­e, far from having the proof you claim. So Chopra's claims of QM support are doubly speculativ­e, and does not supply the credibilit­y he implies in his book Quantum Healing.

[Dukedraven]

05:48 PM on 12/03/2009

To "quantum physics":

That definition of spirituali­ty by Sagan is fine. I just would expand it to include consciousn­ess.

[obitrey]

01:01 PM on 12/03/2009

Skeptical, is the logical, and in my opinion the healthiest mind set to approach any new idea or concept. All scientist should be skeptical, espesciall­y of there own theory's, with a discipline­d and dedicated testing, abstaining from a conclusion without verifiable emperical evidence.

"The only dumb question, is the one you did not ask."

"Truth does not require a leap of faith, it is faith requires a leap."