Not many people know this, but our cats, Mya and Twinkle, are certified new age gurus (as you can see in the photo, Mya is clearly in her psychic trance). Like all successful charlatans new age gurus, they now have their own website!
You are now just a click away from their on-demand new age wisdom service! Of course, some close-minded skeptics accuse them of being nothing more than simple random woo generators.
Sara E.M. | 
Movies & TV, New Age, Pseudo Science, Religion & Spirituality | 
03 30th, 2009| 
No Comments »
Hmm, hopefully I’ve mentioned here before that something I want to accomplish in my work is to create characters who are good role models as scientists and critical thinkers and to promote the use of reality-based reasoning and good skepticism. The movie “Knowing”, with Nicolas Cage, accomplishes the complete opposite. Scientists are drunken, miserable, lonely cranks that need to learn how to be happy from those who have blind faith in magic sky people.
The director, Alex Proyas, was quoted saying he wanted the movie to explore different viewpoints, “the scientific viewpoint of the logical construct of the universe and the one of faith, where people see this incredibly complex place we live in and go, ‘Well, how could this have all just happened randomly?’“ (my bold) This is one major annoyance with the film; it doesn’t even know what science is and what viewpoint it has. Again, audiences are getting the misguided message that science claims everything is random and stuff just happens by accident.
The irony is, unlike new age garbage like numerology, scientific theories actually do make accurate predictions for the world around us. Real predictions…not just after-the-fact pattern matching that happens with divination games like astrology, tarot, and psychic readings. You can use scientific theories to accurately launch a small rover into space and have it travel to another freakin’ planet and predict where it should land on that planet, hundreds of millions of kilometers away! Or you can have a theory like evolution, which predicted, about a hundred years before the discovery of genetics, that such a system should exist–it predicted the existence of an entirely new field of science!
Science is all about discovering how the world works and the cause behind the things we see and experience. It is faith that gives empty answers for why the world is the way it is; it’s faith that tells us that the big questions about the universe are infinitely mysterious and beyond our grasp.
And, frankly, it’s a little tiring to see the happy religious characters lecturing to grumpy miserable scientist characters in films and TV. The happiest people I know are scientifically minded and lead their lives free of faith and the supernatural. All the religious and new age people I know are quite unhappy, worry-full people, who always seem to be lost and unsure. Anecdotal, I know…
It’s not hard to see why such a horrible movie is doing so well at the box office. A lot of people are full of doubt, fear, and uncertainty about the future. It’s a comforting idea that there’s a magic solution that can warn us of danger and protect us against the unknown…and the only thing you have to do is keep believing, no matter what the facts tell you.
Just keep listening to the little voices inside your head–they know a lot more than the objective voice of reason coming from your MIT colleague.
Cage, you and your pseudoscience crapfest are forcing me to quote again:
For me, it is far better to understand the universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying or reassuring.
-Carl Sagan
CBC Newsworld is playing Doc Zone right now with an episode called “Fly Me to the Moon”; “NASA’s 50th anniversary is marked in this documentary celebrating humans’ fascination with the moon”. But what’s with the sudden spoonfull of woo I’m seeing? They’re talking to an astrologer from Toronto (apparently the Moon represents ‘the woman’ because INSERT HIGHLY GENERALIZED STEREOTYPICAL FEMININE QUALITIES) and some guy on a piano is singing “Age of Aquarius”.
Oh, nice…next they’re talking to and about police, nurses, ambulance workers, etc., who believe that crazy(er?) stuff happens during a full moon. They could at least mention confirmation bias. sheesh.
Shame on you, Doc Zone, shame on you…
Oh how I luvs the Bad Astronomer. I believe I first came across Dr. Phil Plait’s astronomy blog when I was searching the interwebs to check up on a claim by some astrology proponents. It actually wasn’t that long ago when I got my first taste of new agers trying to make astrology sound sciency. I was pretty amazed at how easy it is to disprove all the pseudoscience claims. Thus, began my journey into the world of scepticism.
Though I’m just a hobbyist astronomer, I can turn into a bit of an astronomonster when the subject of astrology is brought up. There is just so much that is wrong about astrology. The first major hint that there might be something wrong with this kind of model is that it was invented by humans who thought the universe was geocentric. That’s basically all it takes to shatter astrology: discovering that our solar system revolves around the sun. But new agers don’t trouble themselves with silly things like laws of physics. Too bad, because Dr. Phil does such a nice job of explaining!
If you do manage to convince them that astrology can’t possibly work (I’ve never been successful), the last argument is that their experience in using astrology works for them. Ah, mon amie, it’s confirmation bias and the Forer effect that create the illusion that astrology works. “The Forer effect refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.” The personality models of astrology are all highly generalized so that each zodiac has pretty much the same chance of describing anyone, regardless of when they were born. It’s simple; the personality models of the zodiac are highly generalized and the personalities of people are highly complex. Of course you’re going to get a match.
It’s really simple to test astrology to see if it actually works in describing people’s personalities based on the month they were born. You simply take the traits each zodiac proposes, but then blind what zodiac (aka, birth month) the set of traits is from, and have people rate how accurately it describes them. If people end up highly rating or being matched with the ‘correct’ zodiac at a rate no better than chance, then it’s clear the model doesn’t work as it claims. This is exactly what happens each and every time astrology is tested.
Confirmation bias is the trick behind making most forms of divination, including astrology, ‘work’. Basically, it’s when we count the hits and not the misses. We do this often because we’re pattern seeking creatures. The example I use most often to describe confirmation bias is the myth that more accidents/births/craziness happens during a full moon. This is statistically untrue; when you compare lunar cycles to rates of crime/accidents/births etc. there are no relationships. But then why do so many reputable sources, like nurses and police officers, swear that this myth is true? It’s because they are just going by the memory of their own experience; they’re only recalling the times where a full moon matched up with a crazy night, and made no mental note of those crazy nights where there was a quarter moon or crescent. This happens in astrology too; we remember the times when the model did work, and don’t make a connection when it doesn’t. We may ignore the times when we met someone who didn’t match up very well with their zodiac, or just focus on the traits of their zodiac that do match with them.
Solipsism is the argument that nothing exists outside the mind or, at least, that you can’t prove the existence of anything outside your own mind. Of course, this is philosophical solipsism, which I’m discussing in this post, and not the psychiatric condition involving detachment from reality. I have no problem discussing philosophy; however, I rarely hear these types of arguments when actually discussing philosophy. I’ve only heard this kind of talk from people trying to create a loop-hole where their beliefs can escape scientific scrutiny-or any kind of criticism.
I’d like to share a little anecdote of a conversation I had which sums up quite nicely the typical response I receive as a skeptic talking to a believer. The conversation was with a very nice, friendly new age woman who ended the conversation by telling me that it was fine that I needed evidence for things, but that some people “can just have an inner knowing of how things work”. She thought it was arrogant and close minded to “…Believe in what we can only process with our 5 senses…” That sentiment has become quite commonplace in my experience with new agers and religious proponents. It is quite frustrating, indeed, to be called arrogant by those claiming to have privileged knowledge of the universe; a special viewpoint of nature that is inaccessible to outsiders and immune to any standards of evaluation. This position, like that of solipsism, seems to be the ultimate egotistical world view.
That’s not to say that because an idea is self-centered that it has to be wrong as well. Of course not, it’s simply that I have become very cautious of ideas that put humans or individuals at the center of the universe; the pattern of discovery, to date, continues to dismantle ideas that place us in a privileged position. Long ago, we had to give up the idea that the universe was geocentric and Darwin proved that we can’t hold on to the idea that humans are the center of creation either; we weren’t specially formed, separately from other life on this planet. And so, it seems to me that solipsism and similar ideas are another attempt to carve out a special place for ourselves.
If we remember that ideas we are emotionally invested in should be held to even higher standards of critical thinking, then the claim that anyone (or everyone) has privileged and inaccessible knowledge of the universe definitely needs to be treated with an extra dose of scepticism. It looks like even though people have given up on the idea that they are physically at a center of the universe, the desire still remains, and so it is replaced with the idea that we are at a non-physical center. I can’t help but feel very cautious of this thinking; given the incredibly good track record nature has for being indifferent to human concerns.
And I can’t help but see a streak of intellectual dishonestly in using forms of solipsism in discussions relating to scientific discovery. Dr. Phil Plait, aka the Bad Astronomer, recently posted this to his twitter account: “If the Universe obeys rules (the supposition in question) then it will do so whether we are here or not. There is an objective truth.” When I hear people argue against objective truth, it’s usually a last attempt to save a deeply held belief from evidence against it. In a universe with only subjective truth, everyone’s personal beliefs are protected from the very scary concept of being wrong. And if there’s one thing that science can do is be completely unambiguous about what is untrue.
So it doesn’t really surprise me that a typical response to the fact that science deals with what can be known is that nothing can be known. If something can be known, then it is in the realm of scientific inquiry. But if you can never truly know reality, only experience it then all ideas are conveniently defended from criticism. Again, I have nothing against that idea as a philosophical argument, but nearly every time I’ve heard this point brought up in conversation, its purpose seems to be to avoid the evaluation of a belief by the scientific method. If I needed to turn the universe upside-down, redefine reality and truth, and throw the concept of knowledge itself out the window in order to make sure what I believe isn’t wrong, I just might have to stop and reconsider why I believe it’s true.
Again, I think it’s important to consider carefully why we want to believe some things are true. The idea that the universe needs us-that nothing exists without our own thoughts and experience-is tempting. But regardless of how self-centered solipsist-type ideas seem to be, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. It’s irrelevant because the universe requires that you operate as if it were untrue.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
—
