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.