Putting the best face on it, Chopra might have a legitimate gripe against faux skeptics. Faux skeptics would be those who are much like John Cleese in the "The Argument Clinic Sketch," saying "No, it isn't!" automatically to every proposition that is proposed, regardless of merit.
I have encountered a few faux skeptics. They say, "Well, I'm not convinced!" in response to evidence, without actually disclosing a basis for their convictions, nor producing any evidence in rebuttal.
Such people are not true skeptics, but they seem pretty close to those Chopra has in mindd when he says: "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."
The legitimacy of such a gripe fades, however, when Chopra attributes this sort of conduct to folks like Dawkins. As far as I know, there is not one mote of evidence that Dawkins applies a knee-jerk reaction to every proposition, regardless of merit. As far as I have seen, the hostile reactions are ENTIRELY merit-based. In particular, Dawkins is quick to point out that when certain--say we say--unusual ideas are proposed, that the truth of such ideas would indicate the falsity of a wealth of knowledge acquired through the scientific method.
Suppose I were to propose the following: Within the next fifty years, there will be a twenty-five percent increase in the number of comets entering the inner solar system (inside the orbit of Mars), and that a mathematical model indicates that purturbations from motions of three nearby stars will increase the likelihood of cometary dislogement from the distant clouds, thereby resulting in increased cometary encounters in the inner solar system. Would Dawkins tell me: "You're wrong!!"?? I doubt it.
I doubt he'd even give a qualified "You're PROBABLY wrong." He might want to see my evidence, or my mathematical model, or perhaps he'd refer my idea to others who are more skilled in astronomy. He might ask, with reason, whether I had published this thesis and the support therefor in a scientific journal, and subjected it to scrutiny. If I didn't pony up with some evidence, then he would be quite right to conclude that--regardless of my sincerity--there was nothing of substance to my claim.
Contrast this with someone who proposes that chanting three times a day can kill cancer cells in a chanter's body. The proposition is not impossible, but it's highly improbable. For the proposition to be true, over a century of medical learning would have to be called into question, if not totally invalid. The evidence would have to be there. If the evidence were not there, a summary disposition would be totally in order.
Some of Chopra's assertions are of this kind. They COULD be supported by evidence if they were true, but they are not. (I'm reminded of Thomas Paine's remark in "The Age of Reason--Part I": "If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such a miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is,--Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.")
But there are other assertions that Chopra makes. These are the ones for which there cannot be any evidence. These assertions, like those pertaining to some sort of deity or the nature of consciousness or other such (ahem) musings, are put forward without the slightest tittle of evidence, and yet Chopra childishly takes offense that such propositions are subjected to query by those party-pooping skeptics. Why do they have to tear down his fantasy world merely because he cannot prove its existence according to the rules of science?
Chopra is childish. He wants to play with the big boys and the big girls in scientific circles but he doesn't want to play by the rules. His essay is the rant of an immature brat who bawls that the other kids call him names, when in fact the other players basically tell him, "Look, kid, you don't know what you're talking about."
Kinda cute for an older guy.
