Deepak Chopra: Woo Woo Is a Step Ahead of (Bad) Science

I had no idea that Shermer was a former Christian Fundie - it all makes sense now.
Deepak Chopra: Woo Woo Is a Step Ahead of (Bad) Science

Woo-Woo vs. Poo Poo

From Dr. Chopra's tweets:

Dear Friends Michael Scermer professional skeptic , king of Poo Poo, has accepted to debate. Looking forward to educating him. Stay tuned

I like the idea of calling the debate Woo Woo Vs Poo Poo ! What do you think? ( Divine vs Diabolical ha ha)

You know that I am very much looking forward to it. :-)

King of Poo Poo came about due to Shermer calling Chopra a Master of Woo Woo. What else would you expect from Shermer?

That settles it!

LesleyinNM@DeepakChopra I very much enjoyed your short debate with Shermer! He is not a skeptic, he is a fundamentalist.

DeepakChopra @lesleyinnm you are right :)

See! If Dr. Chopra agrees with me then I can't possibly be wrong. :-)

BTW, you can read the Larry King Live transcript here.

With a rebel yell, they cried Maher, Maher, Maher

Just in case you needed it, Phil Plait gives more proof of the fundamentalism of the debunkie bots. If you dare to go against them on even one point you will be labeled a woo-woo. If you need that kind of treatment -- join a church. At least then you can be labeled something more exciting -- a sinner!
Skepticblog » With a rebel yell, they cried Maher, Maher, Maher

How to Talk to a UFOlogist (if you must)

UFOlogists claim that they have tens of thousands of UFO sightings, as if this is a good thing, but Shostak notes that this actually argues against UFOs being ET, because to date not one of these tens of thousands of sightings has materialized into concrete evidence that UFOs = ETIs. It’s counterintuitive, but more sightings equals less certainty because with so many saucers zipping around we would have captured one by now, and we haven’t.

Apparently the governments of the world share their secret knowledge with Shostak and he knows things the rest of us don't -- like we have never captured a spaceship.

He also knows that people who write fiction can't be taken seriously when they write non-fiction. Guess I will throw away all my Sagan books -- except the fiction.

Skepticblog » How to Talk to a UFOlogist (if you must)

KNOWING, …or NOT?

So hurray! Along comes “Knowing” and gives the non-skeptical world a whole new reason to believe in precognition, clairvoyance and the supernatural. Not to mention another number conspiracy theory to freshen up any ancient Pythagorean, sacred geometric, alchemical or numerological hoodoo that may have been on the wane since “The Di Vinci Code” or “The Number 23.” In this movie it’s all neatly rolled into one little bundle. As a mentalist I can now use effects that utilize numbers and predictions and be assured of a whole new audience! All I can say is, “…Woooooooooooooooo!” Thank you mass media for another validation! We may grit their teeth at this fairytale, but falling for this yarn for anybody but us skeptics is not so preposterous when you see the way the writers and director pulled this all off. The acting is compelling, the story tight and the special effects utterly smashing - in more ways than one.

I wrote about this a couple weeks back in Grey Matters after seeing the film, but why is it that skeptics/debunkers and fundamentalist Christians both think the non-skeptical world or non-believers are going to take this seriously? I found it to be an entertaining fictional film that had me thinking about what ifs for about 10 minutes or so and then I went on with my life.

It is something that skeptics and fundamentalists Christians have in common -- anyone who doesn't think exactly like them will take such things seriously. Everyone other than them is mislead and dumb. Hogwash!

No wonder the aliens would rather save the rabbits. :-)

Continue reading --
Skepticblog » KNOWING, …or NOT?

Rupert Sheldrake and Scientific Fundamentalism

Such a great article, you can find it here.

Some quotes:

The same is true of controversies about telepathy. Sceptics like Rutherford, who accused me of "crimes against reason", rely on the claims of other skeptics, like Michael Shermer, who rely on yet other skeptics such as David Marks, who ignore any evidence that goes against their beliefs.

Their beliefs. That is true and it totally excludes them from being considered skeptics and tags them as debunkers.

Science is our best method for exploring what we do not understand. But for some people science has become a religion. They need authority and certainty, and want to believe that the fundamental answers are already known.

Scientific fundamentalism serves deep emotional needs, but it is counter-productive for the progress of science itself. It inhibits scientific exploration, gives science a bad name and puts young people off. Science advances through questioning dogmas, by considering new possibilities, and through open-minded enquiry.

That is also completely true.

Certain people need certainty because they are afraid of the unknown. If there is an unknown that means that they really have no control. They are afraid of having no control.

In fact, it does inhibit science as well. I know several people who have come up with great inventions and patents simply by not following "scientific laws." Yes, by trying something new. By trying something that others told them would never work.