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!
March 10th, 2012 at 12:39 am
DB;
Terrific article; thanks! I pretty much share the same (?) revulsions, particularly vis-a-vis blaming the victim, i.e., people who just can't seem to "intend" skillfully enough to keep from starving/living through war/pick a disaster, any disaster. It's an infantile and narcissistic mindset, and people who promulgate and exploit it are scum-sucking maggots. [I feel I'm being charitable here...]
On the other hand, re: post #25, any "evidence" in the affirmative is not dispositive; a hypothesis can only be disproven. The most positive thing one can says is, "Hypothesis not disproven."
And here we needs must come, alas, to a true parting of the ways. I have a bit of difficulty with your seemingly out-of-hand dismissal of anything "paranormal," although a definition of the word might come in handy. ? But moving on...
Some years ago my Lab developed what looked to me like an impingement of a lumbar nerve. [I have some years of experience with such things professionally.] He went from hind leg hyperreflexivity to hyporeflexivity. I took him to the vet. Yup, she said, looks like a lumbar nerve impingement. She gave me a steroid pack, which took care of things until the pills were gone. The hyporeflexivity reappeared, we went back to the vet, and repeated the steroid pack with identical results. I called a Reiki Master about 100 miles away and left a voicemail. I never heard back from him but three days later my dog was completely free of neurological symptoms from that time until his death some years later.
I could tell you any number of similar anecdotes (and if memory serves, anecdotal evidence has a place in science even if it's not, perhaps, at the pinnacle), but it's essentially more of the same. Here's where I should come up with a catchy closing, but it's late and I've had a long day. I'll take my leave with a gentle murmuring of babes and bathwater, and a suggestion that there are more things in heaven and earth, Dmitry, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Regards.
March 10th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Thanks for your comments DB - A couple more thoughts if you will permit.
I cannot cite the research unfortunately as the person who gave an account of this to me has past on. Almost anyone would consider this person as very reliable with both feet planted solidly on the ground. He held a PhD. I have no trouble subscribing to this account because I believe (and I have plenty of company here) that the mind is very much linked to the body beyond what the eyes see. The welt is simply a placebo effect which has its basis in belief. On the other hand, it wouldn't destroy my world, if in further testing different results were achieved. I don't cling that hard usually.
As far as being watched, I would buy what you say in a heart beat except; I am NOT constantly looking around to see if I am being observed or stalked. It's just not something I do. But I do catch people observing or "staring" if you like. You've been subject to the same thing. And to put the shoe on the other foot, I've done the same thing to other people as well (experimental) to see if my stare of which they are consciously unaware, begins to disturb them at a subconscious level and trigger them to have a look around to see who is looking at them or stalking them. I do not consider this to be a "special ability" for me, or you or anyone else. It's something that we all possess.
Reminder also, that science (as much as I love it and place some of my hope for mankind in it) is far from infallible; in fact what is true in science today, will often be tomorrow's lie. Eg. Einstein said nothing can travel faster than the speed of light - solidly accepted for generations... but now, well, we're not totally sure about that anymore. And on it goes.
If a claim is made (hypothesis for example) but to date no evidence exists that the claim is true or accurate, doesn't necessarily mean it is true or isn't true, it just has not been proven yet.
Everyone believed that the world was flat; and until otherwise proven or dis-proven, it is neither true nor untrue. But let us always remember that sometimes it turns out to be round. The scientist (and others) say "The world looks flat to me - that's all the evidence I need. You say it's round, where is your evidence?" Well, maybe at the time there was none - but it still proved to be ROUND in the final analysis, even while no proof existed at the time.
March 11th, 2012 at 2:46 am
@hag,
If only your Reiki master would submit to a double-blind study, or publish a paper in a respectable journal...
You're right -- anecdotal evidence can sometimes be important in science; it can be the starting point of profound discoveries. Unfortunately, things like Reiki (especially the "distant" variety) are so blatantly, laughably ridiculous, that it's not worth anyone's time to study them. (There have, in fact, been some studies of "distant healing" which I have cited in the article above, and you can guess what the results were.)
Regarding my 'philosophy', with all respect, I have dreamt of things that your 'heaven and earth' can't come close to. I have dreamt of a future where the human mind has transcended its Bronze-age crutches of magical thinking, spirits, and gods.
March 11th, 2012 at 3:13 am
@MoeJoe,
My objections to your response are too numerous to count... but I'll try to summarize them:
- Again, you're probably referring to an experiment where the subject believed that he felt pain (which is quite plausible), instead of developing an actual welt from a cold object (which is not possible).
- Again, with "being watched", if you look at people long enough, they'll look around to see who's watching because that's what people do, not because you're actually watching them. If you're still not convinced about this, we could design a blinded experiment with test subjects whom you will observe at random intervals, and asking them to report their sensations at those times. I promise you, the 'special ability' will disappear.
- I'm very much aware that science is fallible. But guess what -- your brain is a million times more fallible! It's only when you take your subjective mind out of the equation that you can truly understand the real world. This can only be done with repeatable scientific experiments.
- Einstein's theory of relativity is still very solidly true. Are you referring to the recent experiments involving neutrinos? Have you not read the latest press release that there was a cabling error that caused the neutrinos to 'appear' to travel faster than light? Rest assured, no earth-shattering revolution in physics has occured.
- You seem to have some things backwards. Historically, it has been the scientists who were open-minded. It was scientists who theorized about a round Earth (and had to deal with fierce opposition from the Church and other imbeciles) and then performed experiments to prove it. It was scientists, with their open minds, who created every technological advancement since the Dark Ages.
Sorry, if I keep writing, I'll have an aneurysm.
March 11th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
- Again, you're probably referring to an experiment where the subject believed that he felt pain (which is quite plausible), instead of developing an actual welt from a cold object (which is not possible). DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A PLACEBO IS?
- Again, with "being watched", if you look at people long enough, they'll look around to see who's watching because that's what people do, not because you're actually watching them. If you're still not convinced about this, we could design a blinded experiment with test subjects whom you will observe at random intervals, and asking them to report their sensations at those times. I promise you, the 'special ability' will disappear. I WOULD TAKE UP THIS CHALLENGE ANY TIME.
- Einstein's theory of relativity is still very solidly true. Are you referring to the recent experiments involving neutrinos? Have you not read the latest press release that there was a cabling error that caused the neutrinos to 'appear' to travel faster than light? Rest assured, no earth-shattering revolution in physics has occurred. YOU MISSED THE POINT - FOR A LITTLE WHILE, THEY ACTUALLY CONSIDERED THAT EINSTEIN MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG! AND HE YET COULD BE PROVED TO BE WRONG - WHO KNOWS.
- You seem to have some things backwards. Historically, it has been the scientists who were open-minded. It was scientists who theorized about a round Earth (and had to deal with fierce opposition from the Church and other imbeciles) and then performed experiments to prove it. It was scientists, with their open minds, who created every technological advancement since the Dark Ages. NO, I DON'T. MOST SCIENTISTS AND INSTITUTIONS BELIEVED THE WORLD WAS FLAT, EXCEPT FOR ONE RENEGADE SCIENTIST, WHO TOOK A LOT OF ABUSE FOR HIS IDEA. THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY OF THE DAY, DID NOT SUPPORT HIM. YOU SOUND A LOT LIKE MOST SCIENTISTS AND INSTITUTIONS - YOUR MIND DOES NOT OPEN TO POSSIBILITIES AND THAT'S SAD. IT'S NOT SO BAD TO IMAGINE AND TO DREAM - THAT'S WHERE ALL PROGRESS COMES FROM - YES, EVEN SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS. THE MIND AND PARACHUTES HAVE TO BE OPEN TO WORK.
March 11th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
@moeJoe,
Sorry, I can't continue this line of discussion. Please direct any further questions to your local community college.
March 26th, 2012 at 1:10 am
Oh drat, I forgot to mention that I'd told my dog about calling the practitioner. Obviously, he experienced the dreaded placebo effect.
Sorry, your philosophy is still pretty limited. Goodbye.
March 26th, 2012 at 10:58 am
@hag,
Bravo! Yet another knock-down argument against my hopelessly limited worldview.
April 13th, 2012 at 8:02 am
>>"For all your long-windedness, you still fail to address a fundamental point: intentions simply do not influence reality. If they did, then everyone would win the lottery, there would be no starving children in Africa, and bank executives would die in horrible accidents."
The reason for this apparent failure is due to extreme incoherence in the human organism, something that affects the majority of humanity at present.
The following might provide insight: http://www.releasetechnique.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/lester-levenson-story.pdf
>>"You can manipulate the language of quantum mechanics all you want, and pretend to understand it better than actual physicists, but the world will remain stubbornly outside of your mind's control."
David Bohm understood the implications of it, and put that understanding forth in a chapter of "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" entitled "The Rheomode".
April 17th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
hi db, i'm interested to hear your view on biologist Bruce Lipton - basically he reached a similar conclusion as Lynne McTaggart looking at the power of thoughts from a biological point of view.
His book "Biology of Belief" reaches a very similar conclusion to Lynne's The Field/Power of Intention.
And they both extrapolates their respective theory to a macro level and reaches similar conclusion as well - with Bruce's Spontaneous Evolution and Lynne's The Bond.
Do you think Bruce is a fraud as well ?
April 18th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
@bd,
I haven't heard of Bruce Lipton until now, and I haven't read "Biology of Belief," but I'll try to formulate a comment based on my cursory research of this person over the last 10 minutes...
This seems to be a surprisingly common trend: a scientist who spends most of his professional career doing real and useful science, and then, later in life, goes off the deep end with wacky pseudoscientific theories or claims. Perhaps the best such example is Nikola Tesla. And it looks like Dr. Lipton has also joined these ranks.
Again, I haven't read his writings, but yes -- I'm prepared to call him a quack, until proven otherwise. I won't call him a "fraud," because that would imply that he's knowingly deceiving his readers. I'm sure that Dr. Lipton truly "believes" that there's merit to his theories, but they're certainly not backed up by science.
Here are the reasons to believe that Dr. Lipton is a quack:
- His theories are at odds with well-established knowledge in biology (namely his theory that our "beliefs" can alter our DNA).
- He doesn't seem to explain how our beliefs alter our DNA without a lot of hand-waving, which is an enormous red flag.
- His book was published in 2005, and no follow-up research seems to have come from it (I've never heard of it, after all).
- If his work is so groundbreaking, where is his Nobel Prize in medicine? Why don't we see people spontaneously healing themselves purely from having read the book?
I have no doubt that the book uses a lot of profound-sounding terminology and inspirational platitudes, but that's a far cry from a workable scientific theory that actually adds value to our current understanding of biology or anything else.
Does that answer your question?
May 15th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
I'm not sure where to even begin. Having read the book, I found it interesting. The author constantly talks about how small the numbers are in any of the research, saying its enough to look into even more. You assume that because you simply dont agree, all of the research listed is quack. Of course no scientific data or research has ever been falsified by "reputable" scientists. It doesnt matter the argument you can find 'reputable' scientists to dispute it. Global warming anyone? I love it when people believe that we have it ALL figured out, that there couldnt be more to it than what we see. That for thousands of years, millions of people have just been delusional. As far as science goes, people never make sure that results are presented the way they want them to. They wouldnt mislead anyone to keep research money coming or their position, not a scientist. After all, they are perfect beings right? Of course we dont know all of the details of any of these studies so we cant do anything but blab our opinions like has been done here. I'm not saying the book is accurate or not, but as long as people are involved, results can be manipulated and it seems that you only think that could happen in these type of studies. I do believe that there is a lot we simply dont understand and I know next to nothing. All of these posts are your opinions based on your current beliefs, bottom line, so you spout a study or two that makes YOU feel right. At least I dont pretend to know everything, you like geniuses are. You guys understand far less than you think you do, that is for sure.
May 15th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
And God himself knows that if you havent heard about something, it cant be true.....wow. Talk about a whackjob delusional amount of self confidence.
May 15th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Sean,
Calm down, buddy, no need to pop an aneurysm. Since I'm pretty sure you won't be back to read this response, I'll be very brief.
I never claimed to have it "all figured out," and I don't know where you got that from. But guess who does have it all figured out: Lynne McTaggart! She's figured out how to manipulate gullible minds to the point where you leap to her defense with foam-at-the-mouth fervor.
If you really believe in what she writes, why not demonstrate how you can bend reality to your will, instead of whining about it on some crappy blog? Win a few lotteries! Cure a few diseases! Solve the middle-east crisis! Find a new source of energy! Anything. Note that Lynne McTaggart has done none of these things herself. All she's done is make a lot of money from suckers like you.
May 15th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
I didnt claim to believe what she writes. I just have issue with people who talk like they really are an expert when all they are doing is blabbing their opinion. No you didnt actually say you have it all figured out but you implied that everything she said was crap. Im no more gullible than you are as smart as you think you are. Its presumptuous for you to say its all quack because you dont agree. Just as it is for me to assume you are a personality challenged wanna be know it all with a severe personality disorder based on your posts.
May 15th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
I do believe that there is a lot we dont understand, and I feel like about anything is possible, and you don't seem to at all. Just a difference in opinion, not saying anyone is right or wrong in that.
May 15th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
I do apologize for coming off so rudely, it was not my intention.
May 15th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Sean,
Again, if you really believe that "anything is possible," then why not demonstrate something to that effect? (I gave you a list of possible choices)
You can believe something without evidence if you like, but then you shouldn't get upset when someone questions it. Personally, I prefer to have evidence as a basis for beliefs.
I'm not saying it's necessarily harmful to believe that anything is possible. What I'm saying is that it's harmful for McTaggart to tell people that there's actual science that supports such a belief, which is simply not true.
This has the effect of turning good, ordinary people against real science. Look how vehemently you speak against scientists who "know everything." Why? Scientists only know what they observe. And the idea that "anything is possible" has not been observed.
Believe me -- if there's ever an experiment that actually shows that "anything is possible," scientists will be all over it! There would be a Nobel Prize in it for someone (which, curiously, McTaggart hasn't won!).
May 15th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
So off all of the scientists and research she mentions in 2 books, none of it is science? None is reputable? My issue is not with science, its that people are people and they will misrepresent the facts as easily as anyone else will. I'm not going to believe or not believe just anything because someone who is a scientist said so. They are a person which means they have the potential top be misleading. You are just choosing to believe what you want and using studies that back up your opinion, everyone does that. In saying that anything is possible, Im merely saying that anything is open to investigation. There are 2 books you referenced that have experiment after experiment doing that, you simply dont believe it. I dont know if any of its true but because of your belief about it, it wont matter what study you read about, youll look for holes and try to rip it apart and Id bet that if it were along with your ideas those studies would not get the same scrutiny.
May 15th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
The fact of the matter is MOST of what you believe you dont have any evidence of, you are simply reading what someone else has done and believing it. In terms of actual research and experimentation you(as with most of us) know very little. I'd bet that you have evidence on less than .05% of what you believe. Again you are simply referring to work others have done that line up with your opinion.
May 15th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
See, this is where your misconception of science arises:
Regarding "finding holes" in theories -- scientists try to find holes in all theories all the time, including their own! They're not biased towards finding holes in only certain "kinds" of theories.
Some theories, however, survive that kind of scrutiny, like General Relativity, evolution, plate tectonics, electricity, and so on. Lynne McTaggart, on the other hand, doesn't even have a "theory" that is open for testing.
I assure you, the moment we get any kind of evidence that supports McTaggart's claims, scientists will take it seriously! But it has to be evidence that is repeatable, and not massaged by an investigative journalist to fit into your preconception of a fantasy world.
You're correct that we place a great deal of trust in "experts" to provide us with correct information about the world. Which is why it's all the more important to scrutinize the experts from whom we get our information! McTaggart is not even a scientist, and her writing is patent nonsense disguised in the language of science, most of which she uses incorrectly (you'll have to "trust" that I'm qualified to speak on this subject!).
I would ask you, yet again, to demonstrate something, anything, that supports the idea that "anything is possible." (refer to my aforementioned list of suggestions)
May 15th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
You are fun to talk to. There are many reasons other scientists wouldnt jump into some of this stuff. If it went against everything they had been working on and meant losing their livelihood, do you really believe that they would, because they are a scientist, not try to keep things the way they are. Perhaps give out false information because people like you just believe them because they are a scientist and after all, you LIKE what they say. I'm sure that many of the people mentioned in the books are far more educated in their respective field then you are and yet, because you disagree, its all crap. You have proven that you are going to believe what you want. You are choosing to give far too much credit to the people you are. When reputations and money and things of that sort are on the line, the person inside of the scientist can show up. You are patently believing everything that one of your people says and Im telling you that in certain situations, fairness, honesty, being unbiased etc, goes out the window. Again, since you love to rehash, Im not saying I believe a word of the books, its your I know more than everyone else attitude I have issue with. You are talking in circles, have you thought about politics. And again, about the anything is possible, I said you shouldnt automatically count things out because they dont line up with your beliefs. 25 years ago if I told you Id have a computer in my phone more powerful than anything at the time, that anything was possible, youd said I was crazy. The author, is just that. But she quotes many PhDs in the book and you are saying anything they say is quack.
May 15th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Im laughing at this whole thing, you talk in circles rehashing stuff that I answered, yet you still havent acknowledged that you only have actual evidence of nothing and that what you think is nothing more than you choosing one opinion over another. Keep up the good work. By the way, repeat the same thing a couple more times, especially about anything is possible. All I ever said was it was wrong of you to count it all crap, when YOU don't KNOW anything. This is for sure, there is a lot that goes on or has, that we have not been able to explain.
May 15th, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Sean,
Thanks for your insightful contributions, and for chipping away at my faith in the human race!
May 17th, 2012 at 12:41 am
God damn it Science! Why must you always ruin the good stuff!!!!!!!!!!! Can't there at least be one cool sounding scientifically proven thing in the planet. Is the god damn Kozyrev mirror real or not because if its not i'm gonna be fucking pissed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!