• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chopra on Skeptics

Maia said:
Well, I did an image search on Chopra, too, and my profound conclusion is that between the two, I think I'd rather be stuck on a desert island with Dawkins. ;) Kinda cute for an older guy.
Click to expand...

And folks say that I look exactly like Dawkins! ;) ;)

I have improved since my avatar photo was taken. Well aged anyway. :o
 
plumjam said:
Just as, today, the JREF-type skeptics defend the currently accepted orthodoxies.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to be impatient with such a post, but how old are you? About 15? If so I'm sorry for saying so, but you've been around here long enough to know what is expected of extraordinary claims and I would think that you would know by now more about the JREF skeptics. Yet it seems that you don't.

And what do you mean by "orthodoxies?" Evidence? Credible evidence? Gee, how unreasonable. :rolleyes:
 
plumjam said:
You seem to have turned things around here.
In those examples the naysaying skeptics were the ones defending the currently accepted orthodoxy.
Just as, today, the JREF-type skeptics defend the currently accepted orthodoxies.

I think Chopra is quite right to say that people of that cast of mind haven't made any major scientific discoveries. I certainly can't think of any.
They're much more about defending accepted theories and thereby perhaps having a bit of that prestige rubbing off on them. Certainly they enjoy the sense of power to dismiss and ridicule they think it's given them.
It's an eminently safe approach to take, but nothing much new gets discovered by keeping your ship within the harbour walls.
Click to expand...

pj - I would respectfully argue that this is not really the full story! Sure, at the micro-level, most of us scientists are worker drones, moving within the confines of currently-accepted theory, but on the greater level (the forest and not the trees, if you will), it is this very system of consistency that allows for advancement. We have to agree upon a certain framework (which includes all of our language, terms, operations, etc.) within which we will operate in order to get anything done on the grander scale (that is, as a team), and only when we work on this larger scale do we find the large anomalies in our theories, which, of course, are the places where the real innovations and discoveries take place. Science is mutable, but we only adapt our theories when we 1) have reason to, i.e. our current theory is not working accurately, or consistently, or universally, and 2) when we have something better to replace our old theory with.

So, in a way, while scientists bear the burden of being constantly considered mindless and conformist drones by the more "liberated" folks, it is good that someone is holding the fort up so that all of this progress can take place.

On a side note (not directed to pj specifically, but just out to the ether (haha) in general), as a student and teacher of science - it so bugs me that folks think scientists aren't creative. For example, my background is in physics, and yes, learning, say, the rudiments of classical mechanics is very rote indeed, but when you are up late trying to derive some godawful relationship or other, trust me, your skill at finding and conjoining abstract and divergent ideas (in other words, your creative skill), or, conversely, your lack thereof, becomes readily apparent!

P.S. Chopra = Jack + Ass
 
Last edited:
The mere fact that Chopra is up to his buttocks in the woo economy ought to set off alarms. Of course he's going to criticize anyone who calls into question the very basis on which he depends for his existence.


M.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Why thank you. :th:

Though my wife seems to feel that I am well on my way to becoming a strong vinegar. :(
Click to expand...

Hah! That doesn't mean she intends to use you as a household cleaner, does she? Carpet deodorizer? :D

Maybe she doesn't like wine? I adore it!


BTW, as for Chopra, I once had a bunch of tapes called a Quantom Workshop, or something like that. He made claims like putting your own saliva into your eyes will cure cataracts, and that attitude causes cancer. I don't know about the properties in saliva, he may be correct (altho it would be unsanitary) but I cannot believe that just having a positive attitude will prevent cancer, cure cancerous tumours and have one live to be about 120 years old. As good as it sounds I smell fish...
 
Brown said:
And skeptics never have a sense of wonder, he says. Apparently he never listened to Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov or Phil Plait (well, that one's probably understandable) or for that matter, Richard Dawkins.
Click to expand...
This is what Phil Plait had to say:
Yes, thankfully he [Chopra] 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.
Click to expand...
Sheesh indeed.

Looking at the issue the other way, I do not have any sense of wonder about the stuff that Chopra preaches. This is because it strikes me as having no relation to reality, and therefore not "wonderful." Fanciful, maybe. Amusing, sometimes. Illogical, quite a bit of the time. But mostly nonsensical. As I noted in my previous essays about Chopra, I tried--I really tried--to understand his view of reality, but his points simply made no sense.

Bewilderment is not the same as wonderment.

The only thing about Chopra that does cause a modest amount of wonderment is that this guy is famous and some people regard him as in some way authoritative.
 
Minarvia said:
Hah! That doesn't mean she intends to use you as a household cleaner, does she? Carpet deodorizer? :D

Maybe she doesn't like wine? I adore it!
Click to expand...

I have a suspicion she intends to turn me into salad dressing. So if you don't see me posting next week, call the cops and tell them to look in the 'fridge. ;)

We both love wine. Maybe I bribe her with an expensive bottle. :cool:


BTW, as for Chopra, I once had a bunch of tapes called a Quantom Workshop, or something like that. He made claims like putting your own saliva into your eyes will cure cataracts, and that attitude causes cancer. I don't know about the properties in saliva, he may be correct (altho it would be unsanitary) but I cannot believe that just having a positive attitude will prevent cancer, cure cancerous tumours and have one live to be about 120 years old. As good as it sounds I smell fish...
Click to expand...

As far as the spit in the eyes thing goes, it worked for Jesus, so I suppose it would work as well for any other immortal being. :boggled:
 
Brown said:
We're "Equal Opportunity Douchebags" here at JREF. We make fun of Dawkins, too:
Click to expand...
That's making fun in the same sense that me complaining about how my over-sized genitalia makes it difficult to buy pants is self deprecation.
 
aerosolben said:
That's making fun in the same sense that me complaining about how my over-sized genitalia makes it difficult to buy pants is self deprecation.
Click to expand...

Like the man that complained about having five penes. His pants fit like a glove.
 
plumjam said:
You seem to have turned things around here.
In those examples the naysaying skeptics were the ones defending the currently accepted orthodoxy.
Just as, today, the JREF-type skeptics defend the currently accepted orthodoxies.

I think Chopra is quite right to say that people of that cast of mind haven't made any major scientific discoveries. I certainly can't think of any.
They're much more about defending accepted theories and thereby perhaps having a bit of that prestige rubbing off on them. Certainly they enjoy the sense of power to dismiss and ridicule they think it's given them.
It's an eminently safe approach to take, but nothing much new gets discovered by keeping your ship within the harbour walls.
Click to expand...
Boy, I thought you at least understood what skepticism was all about even though you have a god belief you can't let go of. This post reveals that thought was wrong.

A skeptic is not a cynic or always disbelieving of any and everything. A skeptic in the sense we see ourselves is a critical thinker. That means if the evidence supports a paradigm shift, we'll be first on the block.

But we don't just buy into magical thinking because it is enticing.


It is a common psychological defense mechanism to think people who don't believe as you do have flawed thinking. But it also means one or the other who thinks the other's thought process is wrong is correct. I'm sorry, but I think your thought process here is flawed. It's not because I am closed minded. It is because you cannot support your god belief with any evidence and more importantly, all the evidence supports the conclusion god believers only believe in mythical gods. There are no real gods.

But I did not come to this conclusion from lack of wonder or lack of openmindedness. And that is where you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
ExMinister said:
He also had a best selling book called Grow Younger, Live Longer about how to reverse the aging process. Seems to me he's aging right along with the rest of us. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Only because he chooses to age in that way.

The ways of the Bodhisattva are not always comprehensible to unenlightened beings such as ourselves. :slp:
 
plumjam said:
I think Chopra is quite right to say that people of that cast of mind haven't made any major scientific discoveries. I certainly can't think of any.
s.
Click to expand...


Just to be specific to the claim here...From my understanding...Einstein himself was very skeptical at times...and his skepticism directly resulted in further experimentation and discovery in the field of Quantum Mechanics. According to some recent reading...Einstien, Rosen and one other famous physicist where constantly throwing out skeptical challenges to the Quantum crowd. His challenges led directly to future experiments....disproving Einstien. So Einstein's skepticism led directly to discovery. And of course Einstein himself has made major scientific discoveries. So Einstein has been on both sides of the coin regarding skepticism...and directly contributed to making "major scientific discoveries" from both ends.

Of course this example likely applies to nearly everyone in science at one time or another.
 
Last edited:
Dr H said:
Only because he chooses to age in that way.

The ways of the Bodhisattva are not always comprehensible to unenlightened beings such as ourselves. :slp:
Click to expand...

But they never cease to expound them.
 
Dr H said:
Only because he chooses to age in that way.

The ways of the Bodhisattva are not always comprehensible to unenlightened beings such as ourselves. :slp:
Click to expand...

Til he shakes off the mortal coil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom