A friend of mine recommended that I read a book called The Field by Lynne McTaggart, and referred to the subject matter as thought-provoking, if not life-changing. A cursory examination of the book on Amazon.com revealed overwhelmingly positive reviews and similar "life-changing" testimonials. So I obtained The Field for myself, as well as McTaggart's more recent book, The Intention Experiment.
The moment I read the back cover of The Field, I knew what I was getting myself into:
Science has recently begun to prove what ancient myth and religion have always espoused: There may be such a thing as a life force.
Naturally, I become suspicious of a book that demeans and cheapens science by putting religion on a pedestal, and claiming that "ancient myth" knew something all along that science is just now discovering.
The idea of "uniting science and spirituality" is nothing new. Whenever a new buzzword gets coined in science (especially physics), within a month or so, someone will publish a book relating the buzzword with auras, spirits, energy fields, and how anyone can harness the new buzzword to improve their health, marriage, and credit rating. The hot topic in this case is the zero-point field, or more generally, quantum mechanics.
Essentially, both of McTaggart's books are opinions on various studies and articles published over the years that, according to McTaggart, show a connection between the will (or "intention") of the mind, and physical reality. With the logical agility of an acrobat (albeit a retarded one), she concludes that, through the effects of quantum mechanics, it's possible to influence the world around us using nothing but our intentions, hence the "life-changing" reviews associated with the books.
To begin, it doesn't help that McTaggart is an "investigative journalist" (instead of, perhaps, a physicist?), with no formal training in physics or biology, which are the very subjects she's writing about.
Nevertheless, McTaggart digs up an impressive handful of studies whose results are certainly curious, as long as we interpret the results the way she wants us to. But then, like most other authors in the genre, she blatantly disregards the vast, overwhelming body of evidence that proves that people do not have psychic powers, that we cannot move objects with our minds, and that we cannot change the world through our intention alone.
Even if we suppose that the results cited by McTaggart are in some way anomalous, there's no reason to assume that ESP or some other paranormal influence was involved. This kind of assumption would only be made by someone who is predisposed to believe in such things to begin with. A competent researcher would instead look for more plausible factors that may have skewed the results, and inevitably such a factor will eventually be found.
Appeal to Vanity
People like to feel smart. And books like this appeal to this desire. The average casual reader who is intrigued by quantum physics would love to understand the staggering complexity of the science surrounding it. If only there was a shortcut to understanding quantum physics at the same level as the researchers at Cambridge or MIT....
Unfortunately, there is no such shortcut. Anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics without any formal training is either misinformed, deluded, or has an agenda. Quantum physics is an extremely complicated subject. It's quite possibly the most hard-to-understand theory in all of science, ever. To even begin to grasp it, one would require several years of advanced mathematics beyond the undergraduate level, as well as a very firm grasp of classical physics.
But then, a book like this comes along and suggests that it can make you understand quantum physics in a paragraph! And not just quantum physics, but how it relates to any number of completely unrelated topics. It makes the reader exclaim, "Wow, I can understand quantum physics in a day! Sucks to be the losers who spent so many years actually studying the subject!"
People also seem to like the fuzzy, addictive feeling of "understanding" or "enlightenment," even if the feeling is completely false and unwarranted. Well, books like this do just that -- provide the reader with a feeling of enlightenment without presenting any actual science or any useful information. The best analogy for this would be mental masturbation -- tell the readers who are likely to believe this stuff exactly what they want to hear, and they'll eat it up like candy.
But in the end, after reading this type of book, all the reader "understands" is just a cleverly-worded regurgitation of the same old pseudo-intellectual nonsense that has no bearing in reality. It is certainly not quantum mechanics.
Recall Richard Feynman's famous quote, "If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory." McTaggart (the investigative journalist) thinks she understands quantum theory.
Taking Analogies Too Far
Now, to be fair, a lot of scientific concepts, including aspects of quantum theory, can be easily explained to a layperson using analogies with commonplace objects and phenomena. But any analogy is liable to be taken a bit too literally.
For example, in electrical engineering it's a highly useful analogy to compare an electrical circuit to a system of pipes with water. The flowing water is electrical current, a pump is a battery, a one-way valve is a diode, a very thin pipe is a resistor, and a tank is a capacitor. However, if taken too literally, the analogy falls apart. If a pipe cracks, water will leak out of it; this does not happen in an electrical circuit. Also, the motion of water in a pipe is caused by the physical pressure of water molecules on each other; in an electrical circuit, the energy is propagated by fields produced by each electron.
Taking analogies too literally is dangerous, and ultimately paves the way towards pseudoscience and voodoo. As you may have guessed, McTaggart takes quantum analogies to the extreme, and beyond.
The biggest error anyone can make in trying to understand quantum mechanics is to make the extrapolation that, since quantum effects occur on quantum scales, they must also occur on large scales. They don't!
For example, in quantum mechanics, the position of a particle is defined by a complex wave function, the square of which represents a probability density -- the "chance" of finding the particle in a given area of space. A naïve interpretation of this would be that "there's always a slight chance of finding any particle at any point in the universe."
As profound as that may seem, it only applies on a quantum scale. It does not mean that something as large as a watermelon, or a baseball, or a blood cell can suddenly blink out of existence and reappear somewhere else in the universe!
Similarly, the concept of quantum superposition refers to the idea that, before a particle is observed, it exists in a "superposition" of possible states, and only "collapses" to a certain state once it's observed. From this, McTaggart makes the generous extrapolation that, since our mind is "the observer," we can choose which state something will be in when we observe it, thereby creating our own reality!
And finally, the zero-point field refers to the nonzero energy of pure vacuum, the existence of which is a requirement of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. But just because the zero-point field isn't fully understood doesn't mean that it must be the unifying force of all things in the universe (whatever that means)! And it takes an even greater leap of logic to suggest that our intentions (patterns of tiny electrical impulses) can have an effect on the zero-point field anywhere outside of our brain.
Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, and Planck must all be spinning in their graves -- I doubt that any of them intended for their theories to be so grossly misinterpreted and misapplied. There is nothing in quantum theory that states that any quantum effects occur on a macroscopic scale. To state otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Here's where I get a little personal. To an actual scientist, this kind of book is more than just innocent fun and games -- it's actually insulting; it's a slap in the face to anyone with the slightest scientific background. Some say that religion is the enemy of science -- well I think this is way more dangerous than religion. At least religion doesn't claim to be scientific in nature. But these "theories" go out of their way to show how they're "backed up" by science!
So then, what should we tell the thousands of children in the war-torn countries of Africa who are dying of starvation and disease? Surely they "wish" for food and medicine every minute of their miserable day; surely they "intend" for a world of love, joy, and prosperity for themselves, so... where is it? Are they not intending hard enough? How can we, in good conscience, even entertain such a despicable idea? McTaggart apparently can. The message in her books is clear: you can intend your world into existence; and if it's not working, you're not intending hard enough.
But did McTaggart "intend" her own prosperity into existence? Of course not! She simply wrote a bestseller that happens to appeal to the wants, needs, and fears of suckers gullible enough to believe her.
All that The Field and The Intention Experiment boils down to is the age-old quest for the genie in a bottle, or rather the embodiment of human laziness: "you can get whatever you want by wishing for it." Sadly, this is not how the world works.
Resources
The articles that McTaggart cites in her "amazing" exposition are either studies done by people who already believe in this stuff, or simply articles that talk about actual studies and reinterpret their results as they see fit, much like McTaggart has done, to a second degree.
It's sufficient to examine just one of McTaggart's sources to see the quality of data she's working with:
F. Sicher, E. Targ et al., "A randomised double-blind study of the effect of distant healing in a population with advanced AIDS: report of a small scale study," Western Journal of Medicine, 1998; 168(6): 356-63
This was a study where 40 patients with advanced AIDS were selected, some of them randomly chosen to receive "remote healing" treatments, while the rest continuing their course of regular treatment. According to the study, subjects who were "healed ... acquired significantly fewer new AIDS-defining illnesses," plus other positive effects, although there were "no significant differences in CD4+ counts" (darn).
Upon reading the abstract of this paper, numerous glaring red flags emerge. The most obvious of these, I think, is that the healers who performed the "psychic healing" were "located throughout the United States during the study," meaning that the healing was completely uncontrolled.
Furthermore, if the healers and the subjects "never met," how did the healers know where to direct their "intention for health and well-being"? Did they direct their intention at a photo of the subject? And if so, how does "The Field" know to redirect the intention from the photo to the real person? Wouldn't this be a line of bullshit that's even crazier than McTaggart is willing to push?
Curiously enough, there is a note from the editor of the Western Journal of Medicine (Linda Hawes Clever) at the top of the paper:
...Does the paper prove that prayer works? No. The authors call for more research, as do we and the reviewers, for a number of reasons. We note that the study was relatively short and analysed rather few patients. No treatment-related mechanisms for the effects were posited. The statistical methods can be criticized....
We can tell from the editor's tone that she was being charitable by publishing this paper in her journal, and inserted her note to avoid embarrassment. If studies like this are the "definitive evidence" that McTaggart uses to support her claims, then her theories don't have a leg to stand on.
Return to Reality
On the other end of the spectrum (the rational one), here is a brief list of studies that I have found that show conclusively that prayer, intentions, and "distant healing" do not work, as well as papers that show why studies attempting to measure effects from prayer are fundamentally suspect:
- Abbot NC, et al. Spiritual healing as a therapy for chronic pain: a randomized, clinical trial. "...there were no statistically significant differences between healing and control groups..."
- Astin JA, et al. The efficacy of distant healing for human immunodeficiency virus--results of a randomized trial. This one is especially relevant, since it has Elisabeth Targ's name as one of the authors! "Distant healing or prayer from a distance does not appear to improve selected clinical outcomes in HIV patients..."
- Aviles JM, et al. Intercessory prayer and cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care unit population: a randomized controlled trial. "As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit."
- Benson H, et al. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. This study actually showed a reverse effect: "certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications"!
- Cleland JA, et al. A pragmatic, three-arm randomised controlled trial of spiritual healing for asthma in primary care. "Spiritual healing does not appear to have any specific affect [sic] on patient asthma related quality of life."
- Gaudia G. Searching in the Darkness: About Prayer and Medical Cures. "We scientists make a great mistake when we agree that there may be value in investigating the potential of prayer as a cure."
- Harkness EF, et al. A randomized trial of distant healing for skin warts. "Distant healing from experienced healers had no effect on the number or size of patients' warts."
- Hobbins PG. Compromised ethical principles in randomised clinical trials of distant, intercessory prayer. "...many studies did not meet basic ethical standards required of clinical trials of biophysical interventions, making application of their results ethically problematic..."
- Matthews DA, et al. Effects of intercessory prayer on patients with rheumatoid arthritis. "Supplemental, distant intercessory prayer offers no additional benefits."
- Matthews WJ, et al. The effects of intercessory prayer, positive visualization, and expectancy on the well-being of kidney dialysis patients. "The effects of intercessory prayer and transpersonal positive visualization cannot be distinguished from the effect of expectancy."
- Sloan RP, et al. Science, medicine, and intercessory prayer. "...these studies claim findings incompatible with current views of the physical universe and consciousness..."
- Walker SR, et al. Intercessory prayer in the treatment of alcohol abuse and dependence: a pilot investigation. "Intercessory prayer did not demonstrate clinical benefit in the treatment of alcohol abuse..."
- Wirth DP, et al. Complementary healing therapies. Once again, in this study the opposite effect was observed: the people being "healed" got worse: "Results showed significance for the treated versus the control group but in the opposite direction from that expected."
...but what do I know. After all, I'm not a fancy investigative journalist!
October 4th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Wow Dimity - you seem such a miserable cynical person - every now and then when I am searching for hope for my very ill son - I will come across your site. You seem so miserable and sarcastic - I wish that someone or something would cheer you up - this is a special life - full of beauty and wonder - it just depends who is doing the looking. I wish your heart will open up one day - what works for people is belief in what they are doing - that is the most powerful ally we have in healing and happiness. What makes you this way I wonder? Rockin the suburbs? Hmmm ...... why don't you put all that energy into something positive - we can all be ante - what do you believe in?
January 15th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Thank you for your comments.In my opinion you are very negative .I wonder wether you have anything positve or constructive to give people.I deal with suffering pain and death ,I have read Mc taggarts books,I may not agree with her conclusions , however at least she brings a freshness, and other perspectives to light, also her language is not crude !!
February 21st, 2009 at 3:11 pm
'Intend' is really just another word for 'focus'. By putting our intention on things we focus on them and when we focus on 'positive' or 'good'outcomes and give little time to 'negative' or 'bad' outcomes (and brush them to oneside as we await the next positive outcome to arrive) our world can very easily change. But the world that changes is not the scientific world but merely the world of personal perception. I can break a glass by accident first thing in the morning and either view that as a small disaster or a good sign to be careful for the rest of the day and avoid breaking anything else. Although I laregely agree with the author of this article, I think the manner in which it is written is unhelpful. Our thoughts have a HUGE impact on our own body for example. Take patients with very real problems with their knee joints for example. An incision with a scalpel as part of a placebo experiment not only makes the patient feel better but it often has a physiological effect too, triggering the body into healing the affected joint. So in the comments above, when the commentator states 'what works for people is belief' she is of course right. Without wanting to sound cold, I would add that believing in things does not always make them TRUE. The response to which might be 'does it matter if it is true as long as it makes me feel better/happy?'. Personally, I am more interested in finding the truth than living a life where i invent my own make-believe world. But if that made me miserable then i would perhaps rethink! As far as Lynne McTaggart's remote healing experiments etc are concerned, they seem to be extremely unscientific and she is clearly working to fit her own agenda.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Johanna if you come back across this page may I suggest you take a look into Jim Humbles Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS) found at miraclemineral.org or Don Crofts Zapper for your son. Jim doesn't sell the MMS he discovered so no one can call him a Snake Oil salesman, a year supply runs under $20. Both of these work very effectively at wiping out most illnesses on the planet including AIDS, Cancer, Malaria and all the others that big pharma keeps around. As per Dmitry the pessimist, as someone who does 'Psychic Healings' on people, not that you're willing to be open minded or anything, next time you get sick or injure a body part, go to a Reiki circle and tell me that you don't feel markedly different before and after. I'd get into scientific evidence on healing's i've done on people before and after with x-rays that show things like kiddney and gall bladder stones there one day and gone 2 days later with no passing of the stones and nothing done differently except energy healings, but honestly, whats the point? I wish you compassion, love and awakening my friend.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
It's doozies like that which make me the "pessimist" that I am. Thanks!
Oh, now who's the pessimist?
Indeed, what's the point of showing evidence that someone is desperately begging for? What's the point of backing up your ridiculous claims with a modicum of reproducibility?
Where is your Nobel Prize? Where are your publications that document this?
As do I, for you. Especially the awakening part.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Hey, this is a beautifully written article, DB. (Although perhaps not the most tactful.) You obviously put a lot of time into something most critical thinkers wouldn't even begin to give consideration (i.e., opening the cover of the book).
Isn't it funny how people interpret realistic accounts as pessimistic simply because it's not something they want to hear or accept? And isn't it funny too that the same people who plead for you to keep an open mind are themselves among the least intellectually honest?
Self-criticism -- there's a unifying force, if ever there was one, that needs to be promoted and circulated as broadly as Oprah...
April 15th, 2009 at 1:19 am
I can't believe who many people are posting about how dmitry is "crude" or "miserable". No he's not. He's honest. There is no panacea, there is no "miracle" waiting to save you from whatever is troubling you. Faith is not a scientific concept. Knowledge supported by falsifiable evidence is science. There is no falsifiability in any of the crap McTaggart tries to sneak by her readers. The only people who would see criticism of this new-age hocus-pocus as misery are going to be those so willfully ignorant that no amount of knowledge can save them, as they've already damned their rationality to a hell of tyranical mysticism. That sort of poison leaves no room for tact or quarter. It has to be wipe out with extreme prejudice.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I think you're missing the entire point of the subject of this book. It is simply a discussion of applying the scientific method to a theory that is 'outside the box'. If this is never done, scientifically based knowledge will never grow. There is no scientific proof anywhere that the theory of intention is false, so criticizing it so harshly only discredits you as a researcher. Take this work for what it is, and constructively criticize if you must, but you can't deny the possibility that this is a subject which can be scientifically researched producing a valid conclusion.
Those who view science so conservatively and try to keep it in such a strict regimen are like those close minded people who thought that the sun revolved around Earth, or that the Earth was flat. Some day you will be proven wrong, and it is with the help of people like McTaggart who are brave enough to challenge modern scientists to prove her wrong.
July 16th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
@Reese,
Observe how easy this is:
You're the one who's missing the entire point of my article and McTaggart's book!
Why are you coming to her defense so readily? McTaggart wouldn't need you to defend her if she only had the slightest bit of results to show. The only result McTaggart has attained is to make a fortune by selling her book to a severely undereducated public. Don't you see this?
There is no such thing as a "theory of intention." McTaggart never gives any theory that can be tested scientifically. She doesn't have a theory, just vague pseudo-spiritual platitudes. Unless you count this as a theory: "If you wish for something, it will come true." Of course it would be terrific if the world worked like that, but it doesn't! If you can make something appear just by thinking about it, there's a million dollars in it for you.
Also, consider this. The book was published several years ago. Surely there were people who took her advice and trained day and night to make their intentions into reality. So where are these people? Why don't we see people in the media who can control their world through their intentions? Why do lotteries still exist? Why are casinos still in business?
At any rate, you can choose to find happiness in pretending that the world exists just for you and bows to your intentions, or you can choose to find happiness in understanding how the universe actually functions, and strive to make it better for everyone.
To me, the latter seems more meaningful.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
nicely written article, the internet really opened the bullshit floodgates eh.
or if you prefere......
"generic sob story"
"generic insult"
"generic hippy phrase"
September 26th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Thoughtful article about why we should be skeptical of McTaggart’s claims. Mike’s observation that our beliefs can play a larger role in creating our personal realities than we (especially those of us who believe in science) often realize is also true. I too am intrigued by the line between what is objectively true and what we make "true" by believing it. By the latter, I mean that beliefs (our own personal beliefs and others’ beliefs) have real effects for us whether the beliefs are objectively true or not. The line between our subjective and objective worlds is the subject of my site Two Realities (tworealities.org).
I think the objective world rules for the most part, but allows us to have "reality bubbles" in which we can believe whatever we want – until and unless those bubbles are burst. Some bubbles, like believing we can fly, can be burst quite quickly (by jumping off a building). Others, like believing a skillful charlatan is genuine, can last a lifetime.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:35 am
You do sound very personally effected by McTaggart. The anger is palatable.
January 1st, 2010 at 6:48 am
I downloaded a 2hrs and 20 min "summary"recording of The Field on iTunes. She, Lynne McTaggart, has not had any formal training since 10th grade, she says so in the beginning of the recording. Also she claims that since she had found out that acupuncture, some healing form etc did work she decided to find the "big one" reason behind this and then stumbled upon Quantum Physics. Based on this outset it is not likely that she has gotten many of her interpretations correct. However, a wrong interpretation might turn out to be right, but not on the basis of the interpretation but on the basis of progress in science.
And when it comes to beliefs, do you know anyone who goes around and intentionally asks for bad things to happen to them? Luckily I don't.
January 6th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
I'm currently reading the book after reading Dan Brown's latest fiction - I thought it was about new research to support such an idea but only to find out it is about already heard of reserach done since the 1940's. Most all of the stuff I remember from a an old show with Leonard Nimoy "In Search Of" which basically reported nonsense.
If the concepts presented in "The Field" were true - one of the most brilliant physicists who understands the concept of the zero-point-field better than McTaggart, Stephen Hawking, would not be trapped in a wheelchair with a body crippled with ALS: he could could just "will" his body to heal itself.
January 30th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
As a Reiki master and touch therapist for years I take offense to Lynne's comments in her latest news letter. Lynne is a wonderful journalist; BUT she is not a healer and not a scientist. She is now pretending to be a healer and this does a big dis-service to all the healers who truly have healing abilities. She says, "What is different about her work? She says all her material is scientifically validated. Just because it is scientifically validated does not make her a healer. The scientific research gives support to those who are healers not to make healers of journalists. For the benefit of those who are actually healers, Lynne has to stick with what she does best and that is writing. I guess she sees money potential in pretending that she is now a healer..
February 5th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Hi,
Great article just what I needed to help back me up when trying to explain that these sorts of books are a load of rubbish!
Thanks
Dan
April 2nd, 2010 at 4:36 am
Unfortunately, no matter what Dmitry says unless people willingly try to falsify their own beliefs by looking for evidence they'll never find the truth. I used to believe in all this intention stuff and I know people who still do. I actually set up experiments. I tried to move stuff with my mind. I did spoon bending experiments. I wrote lists of goals. I visualized. I did a lot more but you get the picture. Some of what I asked for came to pass but that doesn't prove those techniques made them happen. Most of what I asked for never happened. And I find that true of my many poor friends who are still thinking they can make magic with their minds. Since I gave up on magic, I've been able to understand real cause and effect and I've been able to build a great income for myself, build a great relationship and a great life. Knowing how things really work gives you great power. You don't need to believe in magic to be happy. You do need to believe that you you can find answers to how to make your life the way you want it to be. That's all.
April 19th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Since I'm being publicly critical of a popular belief system that is more religion than science, let me be clear that I support people's right to believe what they wish. The US 1st amendment guarantees that.
But when a group of people asserts that their view of reality - including how life and health works - is the correct view, and it is science, not religion (c.f. intelligent design), & that society should believe & practice it, then we have not only the right but the obligation to explain why they are wrong while simultaneously supporting their right to believe it if they wish.
One can hope that science really works - that the "truth" (or as close as we can get) will prevail. Further, we can hope that our species is intelligent & wise enough to listen.
_____________________________
______________________________
Dmitry, your article is a fresh breath of critical thinking, and - to borrow a phrase from Carl Sagan - a candle in the dark. Thank you.
I found this article while searching “Lynne McTaggert skeptic” after watching her latest bit of snake oil, the DVD “The Living Matrix”, given to me by a friend who found it compelling and asked for my opinion. When I looked at the DVD cover & saw who the "experts" are – including McTaggert, Bruce Lipton and Rupert Sheldrake, all of whom I’ve read enough of and about to distrust their ideas - I rolled my eyes, smiled and asked, “Really? You want me to watch this?”. He knows of my skepticism of their ideas, but said that it had a lot of stuff about systems in it, and that since I teach systems sciences, I should give it a chance. So, I agreed to do so.
It upset me enough that I couldn’t finish it. I will eventually, with friends & (advanced) students. But for now, I watched only about the first 20 minutes until I hit the first unbelievable set of ideas, then started skipping through the film, jumping from one dubious claim to the next.
They completely ignore huge, important components of systems sciences - most notably non-equilibrium thermodynamics, non-linear dynamics, self-organization, emergence, autopoiesis,& computational systems (Wolfram) - that go far to explain life and organization without invoking mysterious, quantum fields. (I hope you will write a review of "Living Matrix" as well. I intend to, and will link this article to it.)
We live in dangerous times. Several large-scale challenges – notably peak oil & climate change - are developing quickly, threatening to throw our civilization into chaos and collapse. My biggest fear is that bunk like McTaggert’s films and books will prevail, hurling humanity back into a dark age dominated by pseudo-sciences and a lack of critical thinking. In an age of Internet-anything-goes and dumbing down of the educational system, that’s not such a far fetched thought.
If that happens, then I have less hope for the survival of our species.
Keep up your good work.
April 19th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Well, as long as I'm editing my comments, I may as well offer one more. It's been kind'a quiet in here for a while, anyway - not much activity. Maybe this'll live'n up the discussion a bit.
I wish to clarify a paragraph from my post above. I'll just re-write it here the way it should have been written, *_with the added phrase underlined like this_* .
But when a group of people asserts that their view of reality – including how life and health works – is the correct view, & when *_they assert that_* it is science, not religion (c.f. intelligent design), & that society should believe & practice it, then we have not only the right but the obligation to explain why they are wrong while simultaneously supporting their right to believe it if they wish.
________
By the way, what's the code here for setting up a quote, as in post 5?
April 21st, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Only a journalist would have the audacity to assume something other than basic awareness of complex scientific theory. It's disgusting how McTaggart preys on an uneducated and depressed world, in need of the "mental masturbation" you liken it to.
I myself have not read this particular book of hers, but instead came onto the internet desperately hoping that people had totally discredited her after reading the shockingly poor "What Doctors Don't Tell You". With it, however, her assertions and "logic" is downright irresponsible and dangerous. She manages to call doctors "false shamans" by the end of the intoduction and bases the entire evidence for her argument on her own personal experiences that, with a modicum of intelligence and critical thinking, are utterly (retarded, but that's neither her or there) irrelevant to her argument.
It is quite literally a rollercoaster-through-the-retarded.
It contains fallacies a two year old could spot, including making definate conclusions on what are widely known as indicators in the medical world.
I highly recommend it to keep your fire burning next winter. Still, those of us with sense will enjoy a many good rages and chuckles with it. However, buying it means funding McT to keep producing this utter tripe.
You hit the nail on the heat db, good work. The sapient world is proud of you.
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 am
As someone with deep 'spiritual' tendencies of the Buddhist variety, I want to thank you for this well-written, and very necessary, article. After reading McTaggart's book The Field, I was very suspicious, but had neither the time nor intelligence, frankly, to know where to start poking holes. Except that in the studies on distant healing (as cited above) she gave no account(if I remember correctly) of who divided the case subjects into two groups, or how this was done. Talk about not accounting for human influence from the very start of a study! Since the start of the reality show Survivor, my mother has correctly chosen the winner each time from a group photo, before the first episode has even aired. I think that, on a subconscious level, her brains knows how to pick a likely winner, detecting small cues like facial expression and posture, etc. It's a little parlour trick that some would probably love to conclude is a sign of psychic ability. What I find most questionable about McTaggart's work (along with hogwash like The Secret and What the Bleep) is that it is not built on a spiritual foundation of profound acceptance for 'what is'. Dmitry Bryant's article is in no way too negative, cynical or miserable; in fact, I think he shows remarkable restraint in light of what's really called for. This piece is an eminently enjoyable and informative read. Well done, sir.
June 24th, 2010 at 12:48 am
Honestly, some of these comments are so outrageously stupid that it's sad. I understand why Dmitry doesn't pull any punches. If he's too nice, then people with twist his words just like this journalist McTaggert. I have a friend who's mother is a very famous motivational speaker and when I spoke with her about her recent interests (one of which was quantum theory), I was shocked at how she twisted things in her attempts to grasp a subject matter that was clearly beyond her. Some of her assertions were completely laughable and based on a faulty understanding and comprehension of the subject matter.
The problem is that all these people WANT to believe in some easy, miracle, quick-fix, hidden cure, or ancient esoteric magic to solve actual problems, but the world doesn't work that way. I'm sorry if the truth isn't what you would like to hear, but no matter how much you deny it, it is still the truth.
August 25th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Wonderful article, thank you. It is a shame that when presented with facts, believers refuse to accept them, instead launching ad hominem attacks on the author. These people just need to realise that the framework of rules that science has discovered cannot be bent or broke (unless of course new and groundbreaking evidence comes to light).
Instead, they would rather believe in flowery pseudo-science such as this. I think it gives them a form of hope and faith, where science may leave them cold. Echoing Sean's comments above, however much you want something to be true, it doesn't change if it is or not, as Sean says, the world just doesn't work that way.
September 1st, 2010 at 10:06 pm
So basically you're saying Quantum physics is complicated and its implications are impossible to understand... with the exception that it DOESN'T prove the existence of what you consider "paranormal phenomenon." By the way, where's YOUR degree in quantum physics - considering you yourself are pontificating about it.
Biased studies conducted by people with predispositions and agendas happen on both sides of the line. To believe otherwise, to assume the studies that support your personal belief are somehow above such deceit, is both naive and revealing. In fact you admit you already made up your mind about the validity of the book upon reading a review blurb, literally judging the book by its (back)cover... yet we are to believe you are being objective... Get real.
September 1st, 2010 at 10:24 pm
@RTL,
I did actually read McTaggart's books; sorry I didn't make that clear. And I have a degree in physics. However, it doesn't take a degree in physics to completely debunk everything written in these books. What's your degree in?
Quantum mechanics has nothing to say about paranormal phenomena. This is because paranormal phenomena don't exist. If you believe they do, then it's up to you to present evidence thereof, not up to me to disprove it.
I fail to see any point or argument in your comment. Do you have anything of substance to contribute, except ad hominem attacks?
September 25th, 2010 at 10:25 am
>> Naturally, I become suspicious of a book that demeans and cheapens science by putting religion on a pedestal, and claiming that “ancient myth” knew something all along that science is just now discovering. <<
Exactly! Thank you for the well-reasoned and entirely up-front and non-negative commentary. When I read the comments to the effect that you must be miserable and cynical, I had to shake my head.
One of the things that bothers me most about books like McTaggart's is the explicit challenge to "Prove me wrong!" Sorry, but proving a negative ain't my idea of a good time.
Thank you again for a compelling and edifying article.
Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI
December 9th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Great article, thank you very much!
Don't worry you have nothing of a "miserable cynical person" or a "negative person"
Though, I may understand why do people seem to be frustrated when someone say this is bullshit, it's so easy to believe in it and so nice: "Just think about something and it will become real". How can you imagine things are that easy?
That's just some desperate wishful thinking..
December 21st, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I think intention is often confused with just believing in yourself.
It speaks for itself that chances to become and get what you want in life get bigger if you are more confident. If you are confident in your goals you are more likely to persue your dreams with dedication and hard work. I think saying that mere intention is a sollution for your problems is dangereous, because it empowers people to depend only on their thoughts, while they should be taking steps themselves to develop those thoughts.
Sorry for my bad English,
Mat.
December 23rd, 2010 at 11:14 pm
In various cases it is the LACK of formal training that brings you to thinking outside of already established rules and creating a different methods and more of "outside the box" thinking. If you close yourself withing the box you may not perceive the world outside. This is also how science evolved too - otherwise we'd be still thinking we are the center of the universe and that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Somebody had to go forward to prove that the things are not like that.
Think of children - they are extremely creative in thinking of things grownups would never come up with. These ideas may not always be smart - but sometimes they are amazing.
Lynne is not a scientist but she does work with them all the time. They use scientific methods in their experiments. The fact is that these things CAN be scientifically examined and conclusions can be drawn. Whether you like it or not, they are doing it. And more scientist will do such experiments as well.
Honest skeptic is not the one that will hold his views and automatically disregard others. Instead he will tell - OK - I am skeptical but open minded - prove it to me it works. If you can come up with an experiment that gives you a proof - would you still hold your skepticism? In that case it becomes your dogma so how different you are then from religious dogma. The fact it is scientific doesn't make it any less dogmatic.
Anyone that believes that science evolved through the past in an elegant fashion where every scientist agreed with the other needs to do a serious reality check - science development was a real mess. And also, when you come up with a new idea in science, you also need to explain why the old idea was working so far so the new idea needs to fit the old one as well.
You should examine these experiments of Lynne from this perspective and see if conventional science can learn something new out of it and not disregard it right from the start.
December 24th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Not in this case.
January 20th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Intriguing article. I just finished "The Field" and I'm reading "The Intention Experiment." I have mixed feelings. Being an incredible avid reader of science and a skeptic who truly studies both sides of a topic (i.e. Carl Sagan and Rhonda Byrne) I've found that personal opinion taints all of our views on what is and isn't real. The scientific method is wonderful. But to say there aren't forces that are outside of what we know now is shallow thinking. I believe it is even crazier than what Taggart proports. Not all of the experiments she refers to were shabby. However, what Taggart does is look for evidence that proves her points and speculates. Not true science. But everybody (including scientists) tend to do it. As for the "formal" training. At times it doesn't mean diddly and at other times it means a lot. It's like saying you have to go to Berkley and get a music degree to compose great music. (Yes you do have to know the form which requires thousands of hours of work. But you do NOT have to have formal training.) I don't believe Taggart has spent that kind of time learning quantum mechanics but I do believe she is delving into something that is important to continue to research. That's why I don't think she is hurting science. Perhaps, it will lead to proof that something else we haven't even imagined yet is a unifying theory. (Who would have imagined e=mc2 even during the Renaissance!)
As for ancient religious knowledge and science today. Parts are simple foolishness but we have discovered that much of the wisdom (such as the helpfulness of meditation and taking care of your body) were ignored by western medicine/science until recently. I believe there is more to reality than just what seems to be here. No universal panacea. Just more to this world than "meets the eye." To say love isn't a force stronger than the workings of parts of our body (i.e. orbital prefrontal cortex) does not ring true.
Whichever side is "accurate" eventually it will open up. What's funny is everyone will jump on the bandwagon once it does. I'm reading Einstein’s biography. And boy did a lot of scientists think he was a quack. I love the fact that a young scientists got a brief audience with him in 1919 and showed him a manuscript about how his theory proved that you could take a small amount of matter and create a huge explosion.
Einstein said it was a silly idea.
So when someone writes that they are "positive" there is or is not (put your topic here) I just smile.
Thanks for the article. It made me ponder. A good thing.
January 30th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
"So when someonw writes that they are "positive" there is or is not (put your topic here) i just smile."
(as said by richard above)
A very wise statement. Always be wary of someone who talks in absolutes.
January 30th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
@Nick,
Are you referring to something specific?
February 13th, 2011 at 1:11 am
Mr. Brant misses a most key and fundamental point: scientific analysis observes a different object of consciousness than an individual experiencing a unitary state. Unitary experience lies unassailable to analysis, hence, we cannot study it. That may seem like an easy way out, but it is truth - in theory. The mind cannot stand outside of the universe to observe it (in theory), hence his analytical viewpoint merely adheres to and approves its own reality. Until he himself experiences a unitive state of awareness Mr. Brant will be talking Japanese. He also admits his prejudice prior to his investigation. Let's face it, there are people who make a business out of so-called spiritual experience. He's right about that. But this is something far more sincere and many a doctor and noted physicist supports the ideas involved here. At the same time, it strikes me as much too elaborate running all of these scientific field experiments when all one need do is simply study the realm of the artist musician, who daily encounters the unitary and the relationship of conscious intent to the physical world. Our true nature is much more fascinating a study that those scientific analysis which does nothing more than attempt to uphold its own crumbling edifice. The force, the field, the connection exists whether people choose to acknowledge or not. We need to simply get our heads together and work together to realize its further potential for humanity.
February 13th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Randy,
Can you enlighten us on what this "unitary state" of consciousness is? And regardless of what it means to you, why does it have to be outside the scope of scientific inquiry?
There seems to be a widespread misconception that, once we understand something scientifically, it necessarily has to lose all of its romantic or mystical properties.
As an example, consider the emotion of love. I feel love for my significant others, as I'm sure you do. However, let's suppose that tomorrow scientists will figure out the exact neural pathways and electrochemical processes responsible for "love." Will that somehow make my love any less genuine? I'll still have these emotions, just like I did before, and understanding them scientifically doesn't make them any less real. In fact, to me, understanding something scientifically makes it all the more real.
Why is it so important to cling on to the notion that we'll "never" understand certain things using science? Why is it necessary to reserve that little corner of ignorance in your mind where you stash things like "consciousness" and "soul", and protect them at all costs from rational scrutiny?
March 3rd, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Mr. Brant,
I am grateful for at least this much skepticism, where little or none seems to be present on the web. Someone mentioned this book to me, and used examples of at least two cited studies from this book that I had known were debunked very simply by placing some basic controls in attempting to duplicate the cited results. I have read books both mysticism and science for years, and each has it's uses, but forcing a marriage is not good for the bride or the groom. It seems there is no one else even voicing a question on the web, so you are a necessary voice.
I would not consider a sober opinion to be a pessimistic one, and I can tell you how this affects me in my own life. I have a son who is severely autistic, and am very active in a community of hardworking community of parents who are doing all they can to try to improve the lives of their children. Some of the most energetic, however, in their difficulty in living without answers, have resorted to some very severe treatments and therapies, some which I believe border on child abuse. The prime example of this is Jenny McCarthy, who in her insistence that vaccines caused her child's illness has done more to damage the fight against disease than almost anyone before her. Dr. Paul Offit does a wonderful job of spelling out the damage of an anti-vaccine crusade in his book “Deadly Choices, How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All,” but it seems being a celebrity and optimistic can combat science most days of the weak.
I don't know the cure (and I can guarantee you Jenny McCarthy does't either), if it's fair to even think of autism needing a cure. We muddle through because it is a part of our lives. We will do what we can to aid our son to become whatever person he may become, but this is no different than we do with our other "typical" child. Misplaced optimism is a procrustean bed for our efforts, and an unnecessary burden for our son.
We may need the answers to things, but it doesn't mean we will get them. Still gotta make the donuts.
March 14th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Hmmmm... interesting. You appear to have made an attempt to debunk one of the 400 scientific references.
Open-mindedness and critical thinking are essentially the same thing. The difference is that the second term is used by skeptics and the first by believers.
I should think that someone as dedicated to "critical thinking" as you would have read the book more carefully. You already began reading the book with the idea that it was "putting religion on a pedestal". If you do not interpret this as prejudice, you are mad.
You then attacked the book with the premise that Mctaggart is not a physicist. Perhaps you have not considered the physicists whom the book was written about, the people who dedicated more than half of their lives to the subject. Many of the scientists who conducted the research were highly respected as conventional scientists, but lost their careers and were alienated from the scientific community for the knowledge they brought. Is it "critical thinking" to assume that all of these scientists suddenly decided to, together, become involved in a giant pyramid scheme, when pursuing their science was in fact the most dangerous path they could take? Essentially, if you do not accept their results you are claiming deception. They are too clearly outlined and too decisive to be products of wishful thinking. (I'm assuming you read the paragraphs on remote viewing, REG influencing, water memory, and healing; the book basically). In conclusion, your assertion that the book should be written by a physicist instead of about physicists is analogous the claiming that a biography is not valid because the author is not the subject.
I might also add that by claiming that this science insults anyone with a scientific background you are insinuating that the people who developed these theories do not have a scientific background. This to me, seems much more insulting.
Your section about "analogies taken too far" is also flawed. On the contrary, you take Mctaggart's assumptions too far. If we can determine whether quantum particles act as matter or energy on a quantum level we can do so on a large scale. By influencing the building blocks we influence the whole. And if you "think critically about it" matter and energy behave very similarly. The nature of our world does not change perceptibly on a large scale because the particles of energy and the particles of matter are so similar.
Also, claiming that different rules apply in the subatomic world as opposed to the large world is a fundamental misconception of conventional science. If you had read the section where Mctaggart describes the alternative theory you would understand this. Hal Puthoff and his assistants discovered that gravity and mass are products of the zero point field acting on particles, and the new science constructed from this discovery enabled physicists to apply Newtonian laws to the quantum world, so long as they discarded mass and gravity as products of zero point field resistance. It is a theory that makes much more inherent sense than to claim that all matter possess a ghostly property called "mass". To quote Einstein: "Simplicity over complexity".
As for your claim that Mctaggart asserts that we can get anything we wish for...it reeks of idiocy. Your assumption inflates the evidence presented to ridiculous proportions. The studies claimed that people had an influence of roughly 52% on a random coin toss. Literally, 2.5 million studies were conducted on this phenomenon and the chance of this having occurred by probability alone are 1,000,000,000,000 to 1. Needless to say, the influence is small, but it is still there. This does not mean that the thousands of people in Africa will get food simply by wishing for it, and that if that does not happen then the whole theory flies off the hook. The effect that intention has on our lives is far too complex to measure, but by altering probability even slightly it makes sense that we could make it change for the better.
"This reminds me of a discussion among a group of French Scientists, vehemently arguing that meteorites do not exist. Their argument, of course, was 'rocks do not fall from the sky because there are no rocks in the sky." - Jaques Benveniste
I would like to end this by saying that I wrote this, not to convince you of "the Field's" validity, but to debunk your false observations in case others happen to be passing by. You, clearly, are not thinking critically enough for this to have any effect. Please digest these words. Maybe I'm wrong.
Good Luck!, - Johann
March 15th, 2011 at 9:54 am
Johann,
I doubt you'll be returning to read this reply, but I still feel compelled to respond to some of your points:
Spoken like a true believer!
The fact that they spent "half of their lives" on the subject doesn't mean that any of their research is valid. Many scientists spend their entire lives on research that leads nowhere. That's one of the realities of being a scientist. Most scientists also have the fortitude to admit when a certain research track is no longer worth following, instead of spending the rest of their lives beating a dead horse.
If the "knowledge" brought by these scientists were useful in any way, they wouldn't have been alienated from the scientific community. The scientific community really isn't as evil as you think! If any of their alternative theories actually produced meaningful results, the theories would become mainstream!
An undergraduate course in statistics will make you understand why this is not a valid conclusion.
It's interesting that you're quoting Einstein -- the man who replaced the "simplicity" of Newtonian mechanics with a vastly more complex and bizarre theory. In fact, the actual quote you're looking for is this:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -Albert Einstein
Think about the above quote, for it applies on a deep level to your reasoning.
The above sentence is meaningless. Hal Puthoff hasn't "discovered" anything. If he actually discovered something new or meaningful, he would have received an invitation to Stockholm by now. He might have theorized about alternative approaches to GR and QM, but he hasn't produced any actual results to that end. Again, the reason it's called fringe physics is that it hasn't produced any results or made any testable predictions.
Remote viewing doesn't exist. Water memory doesn't exist.
If you can demonstrate otherwise, there's a million dollars in it for you.
Good luck to you, too!
March 19th, 2011 at 7:19 am
Dmitry, I don't know why you waste your time responding; some people are unable to put their brain cell into gear.
July 4th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Dmitry,
Your article is excellent, but I think you misunderstood Malby (March 9, 2009) whose reply to Johanna was dripping with irony. The miracle drink he recommends is chlorinated water which indeed has saved more lives than homeopathy in its wildest claims.
In the last 10 to 15 years Christian fundamentalists, new age healers, business success seminarians and heaven help who else have latched on to the words "intention" and "intentionality" and peppered their book titles with them. They have conflated two different meanings and glommed on to prestige that the word "intentionality" acquired in 20th century philosophy, but in a sense that had nothing to do with "will power," which is what they mean by it. The philosophical sense goes back to a mistranslation from the Arabic of Avicenna into Medieval Latin: the word should have been translated as "intelligible" or "mental." Thomas Aquinas uses "intentio" equivocally both for a purely mental image and in the legal sense of the part of the will which is either blameworthy or praiseworthy: the words are only accidentally homonyms. Twentieth century German phenomenology and British analytic philosophy used the term "intentionality" to death. Mid-century the liberal theologian Paul Tillich said that "intentionality" should replace the word "spirituality." Rollo May gave Tillich's innovation to the hippies in his immensely influential but horribly misguided book "Love and Will." But the word didn't really catch on till the middle nineties. Now, as Lynne McTaggart herself admits, it is a new age buzzword. Too bad John Searle and Daniel Dennett, your favorite word has been reduced to tasteless mush in the mouths of mental midgets. Time to quit using the word all together.
Marxley
November 17th, 2011 at 2:55 am
Dimitry,
Not that I agree with Lynne McTaggart nor the full spiritual implications of Randy's post above but to comment on your question to him:
"why does it have to be outside the scope of scientific inquiry?"
I believe what he was implying would be that if something was greater or not of this universe (Unitary mind, GOD, etc) by definition couldn't be explained by tools,concepts,languages,etc built on principles from this universe.
If assumption one is taken (Unitary mind exists) AND it is implied that this mind is infinite and eternal, then by definition we can not describe nor test this mind that lies outside of space and time (because that is all we know both conceptually and physically). Therefore this statement is "outside the scope of scientific inquiry".
The statement in and of itself can not be proven nor dis-proven and derives its neutrality from the original position (ie; Do we start with the assumption or not?). No matter where we start we can NOT prove the other side.
JC
November 30th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
I admit that I have not read every single response to this article, however, I am compelled to respond in agreement with the author.
Several criticisms come to mind(your pardon if they've been discussed) and I will enumerate them here:
1) Psuedoscience has a tendency to think so little of its material that it must answer every possible criticism to be taken as truth, whereas the scientific method refines what we don't know by repetition of experiments. The scientific method encourages criticism rather than trying to quell it.
2) Psuedoscience refuses to acknowledge Occam's Razor, generally taking the more complicated/outlandish conclusion that fits the evidence, and ignores the (generally more)mundane conclusion that fits the facts.
3) Psuedoscience is always more about what one wants to be true rather than what the facts say, and include conclusions which far overreach the facts where proveability is concerned.
4) Cherry-picking is rampant. No scientist worth his or her salt would ignore the vast array of evidence to say something new without also allowing his or her own evidence to be rigorously challenged.
5) Standard scientific rigor is ignored in favor of conclusions that make good feelings.
6) It is not science if it asserts secret doctrine or personal energy.
Now I'm rambling and repeating myself. Suffice to say, claptrap like "The Field" shoots itself in the foot, and people generally prefer to delude themselves anyway. It's sad.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:19 am
Dmitry,
First of all, great article. The most important point you make is to stop believing in quackery and start determining one's own life through action, rather than 'thinking' that life will mystically happen through intention.
As a convert to reason and science (I was sucked into The Field at one point in my life because I was desperate and hadn't made the connection between my own effort and success) I fully agree books like this are a dangerous route to go down. They disempower the reader and make the world appear far more opaque than it really is.
January 29th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Dmitri - thank you - just what I was looking for! p.s. her knowledge of philosophy is just as full of holes and selective thinking!