Report on the Perversion of Science to Support Mysticism – PDF Download
For more info on debuking pseudoscience please visit the James Randi website and also the Skeptic Society with Michael Shermer that hosts regular educational seminars at CalTech Pasedena (Mr. Shermer is a regular contributing writer to Scientific American magazine)
. This is a report I put together in April 2005 detailing a small iceberg’s tip of misinformation and New Age pseudoscience that has crept into the New Thought movement. At the time of the report I had thought I was doing a great service to New Thought and specifically the Church of Religious Science by looking into these subjects more carefully.
I was astonished at the time to find virtually no support whatsoever for what I was doing. In time I came to realize that I myself was the outsider for bringing up these subjects, and that path led to discovering a multitude of twisted ideologies and theologies coming to light.
The powers that be are well aware of this work, which I think is actually a very small beginning and really not even a “report”, more of a compilation of the obvious.
I had contacted James Randi of the James Randi Institute about some of these issues and he quoted me on his site. Shortly thereafter I was contacted by Ann Druyan, widow of Carl Sagan, co-producer of Cosmos and of the movie Contact. She encouraged me to keep the path, and that in time my voice would be heard.
Then e-mails from all over started trickling in, people thanking me for speaking out. Most of them had a funny feeling that something wasn’t quite right about what they were hearing in Religious Science churches, or in New Thought groups where discussions were suddenly turning a little too New Age. These people looked for more info online and found my report.
Here’s the catch: YOU WILL NEVER FIND OUT THIS INFORMATION IF YOU DON’T THINK TO LOOK! Sound too obvious? It wasn’t for me – I watched my whole life fall apart, not knowing why anything wasn’t working – and never ONCE did it occur to me I was on the wrong path. The tools I was using were similiar to sweeping dirt under a rug – I was working on changing my outlook, my vision, on co-creating with spirit on and on…..but nothing was changing.
Well that’s enough on that for now. If things aren’t working, consider at looking to your belief systems.
Oh, another good friend I’ve made after the report release was Michael Shermer, head of the Skeptics Society. I have attended several of the lectures he sponsors down at Cal Tech in Pasadena. These lectures have been worth their weight in gold. Getting the REAL low-down on science research from world renowned scientists at a very reputable college.
All the e-mails I get, only a very few can I post. People are scared. They are scared of making waves, of being confronted within their church, for whatever reason. I do respect that so I don’t repost them. But it’s too bad, because there are a lot of rich stories in those emails and you can feel their pain at realizing they have been deceived.
It’s nice to be able to look back a bit and see that my own personal pain was for a greater good, and that my voice is being heard more and more. Actually, it’s not my voice, it’s the voice of the academic community that has done so much research in these areas. Unfortunately, the general public is not educated strongly enough in these areas to know what information is correct. We rely on our sources for this info.
My discovery is that what the established body of scientific research says in these areas, and what New Thought ministers SAY that the scientific community says, are often two entirely different and opposing viewpoints.
I choose to stand with the science community, as Religious Science has apparently and inescapably veered off into the dangerous realm of the New Age and by all indications I have seen; have no intention of correcting that course.
Why is it important? When people base their life off bad information, they make bad decisions. It very much has dire affects on individual lives and no, I do not think I am taking these areas too seriously. To me, the implications of doing otherwise are sinister, suppressive and devious.
Science is not supposed to be a community of believers. It is not supposed to be a set of dogmas handed down like stone tablets from Mt. Sinai. It is instead an approach to investigating reality, based on asking questions instead of already knowing all the answers, and conducting experiments and observations to find out things.
The James Randis and Michael Shermers of the world do not speak for “Science”. They speak for their own biases and beliefs on what Science should be.
I like Rupert Sheldrake’s formulation on how science should be conducted:
“I am skeptical of people who believe they know what is possible and what is not. This belief leads to dogmatism, and to the dismissal of ideas and evidence that do not fit in. Genuine skepticism involves an attitude of open-minded enquiry into what we do not understand, and this is the approach I try to follow.”
My blog, Science is a method, not a position, covers scientific evidence that James Randi and Michael Shermer would pretend does not exist, is bogus, fraudulent, or poorly done. But of course that is because they believe they already have the lock on reality, and they find the results of these experiments cannot be integrated with their belief system in reductionistic materialism.
http://amethodnotaposition.blogspot.com/
Nice post, but I do not find it valid.
1) I see on your blog that it makes it appear that Emoto’s work has been double blind tested with positive results. Very misleading. Explore is not a mainstream widely accepted scientific source for published, peer reviewed work. Let’s see Emoto’s work published in a mainstream magazine. That’s all we’ve been asking – he’s been making money for seven years now – let’s see it published in a mainstream journal and peer reviewed. Then, he can soundly make the claims he states, and can also probably claim the one million dollar JREF prize. Nothing has changed from when my report came out 18 months ago – nothing has changed in the advancement of his work. All that has changed is additional squirming outside the scientific community, to give his pseudoscience validity. Make me eat my words, get him published in a mainstream journal. Until then, back down cowboy.
2) Your post on bias confirmation was very good – let’s both read that a little more carefully, shall we?
3) You are doing what creationists often do: Define the opposing side, wrongly of course, then answer it. The sound response to Emoto’s work, in my not so humble opinion, is that he should back up what he claims in a mainstream journal with double blind studies and peer review. That stance has never changed. I said 18 months ago, and I say now, I do not believe Emoto will be able to accomplish that to prove what he said he could do in his original published “photo essay”. Back then, people said I would be proven wrong within a couple months, now it’s been a year and a half. I will wait as long as it takes and gladly eat my words if shown to be wrong.
My has also been that Emoto will “prove” his work, but change drastically what it is he says he can do. Because people seem to not care to look into the root of things. For instance, his initial published report was merely a “photo essay” – it was not submitted as an experiment to be peer reviewed. All that was peer reviewed were the “photos” – good spin marketing on his part.
I am always careful to say “peer reviewed in a MAINSTREAM journal” – because the obvious next misleading step is to publish as “peer reviewed in a journal” that is on the fringe and not academically accepted by mainstream science.
The scientific community is often painted as have sneaky dark motives, in fact I was taught that for many years and believed it. As I looked more and more into what the scientific community as a whole is accomplishing, I find this is not the case. I was a victime of confirmation bias, biased towards pseudoscience. What changed my mind? Having access to more data from more sources.
Are these facts really lost on you?
I would love for these things to be true, I truly would. But the information put forward is faulty at best. It strikes a chord with me because I think it is very misleading to the general public. I also think it does great harm.
And here is a response to your post from James Randi himself:
Point by point:
#1. Science is not supposed to be a community of believers. It is not supposed to be a set of dogmas handed down like stone tablets from Mt. Sinai. It is instead an approach to investigating reality, based on asking questions instead of already knowing all the answers, and conducting experiments and observations to find out things.
Absolutely, 100% agreed.
#2. The James Randis and Michael Shermers of the world do not speak for “Science”.
Correct. Though Michael has a degree in History of Science, I most certainly cannot and do not speak for science.
#3. They speak for their own biases and beliefs on what Science should be.
I will not speak for Michael, though I probably could. My “biases†were generated by experience; sitting by the chimney awaiting the arrival of Santa Claus, decidedly biased me against belief in Santa Claus. Further thinking about the claim – for which all evidence was very bad and non-checkable, then convinced me that Santa Claus was a myth. The same process took place as I was presented with other supernatural/paranormal claims. My “belief on what science should be,†is adequately expressed in point #1, above.
#4. I like Rupert Sheldrake’s formulation on how science should be conducted: “I am skeptical of people who believe they know what is possible and what is not.â€
Yes, I agree with that statement of Sheldrake. The only way to decide “what is possible and what is not,†is to reason, and experiment – always bearing in mind that your conclusions are arrived at with the present state of science in mind. Not too long ago, a tiny computer chip with a few gigabytes capacity would have seemed impossible, given the then-known parameters of technology. Presently, it has been shown to be possible, and is commercially available at a reasonable price. “Belief†about what’s possible and what’s not, can be tested.
#5. “This belief leads to dogmatism, and to the dismissal of ideas and evidence that do not fit in.â€
Agreed. If that belief were to be held by Shermer and by me – it’s not – it could easily lead to dogmatism, and dogmatism belongs in religion, not in science.
#6. “Genuine skepticism involves an attitude of open-minded enquiry into what we do not understand, and this is the approach I try to follow.”
Understood, and the intention is applauded; the performance of Sheldrake, however, needs more of a controlled “try†rather than of a frenzied, careless, approach.
#7. My blog, Science is a method, not a position, covers scientific evidence that James Randi and Michael Shermer would pretend does not exist, is bogus, fraudulent, or poorly done.
Please don’t assign beliefs and opinions to us; we pretend no such thing. Those methods do exist, and they’re poorly done. Yes, they are bogus. Sometimes, they are fraudulent. The JREF million-dollar prize – as well as a Nobel Prize, in all probability – awaits Sheldrake or any other scientist or layman who can establish the existence of any paranormal ability, force, or power. Why, for example, will Sheldrake – not to mention Josephson, Browne, Geller, and so many others – continue to avoid taking the prize?
#8. But of course that is because they believe they already have the lock on reality, and they find the results of these experiments cannot be integrated with their belief system in reductionistic materialism.
None of these “experiments†have ever been independently replicated by scientists outside the parapsychological community, so they remain in limbo. Why? The answer is evident.
James Randi