This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Deepak Chopra reviews Richard Dawkins

Deepak Chopra reviews Richard Dawkins - Comments

Marc Country's Avatar Comment 1 by Marc Country

I laughed at "Deepak Chopra...": no further punchline necessary.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:34:40 UTC | #879888

Metamag's Avatar Comment 2 by Metamag

When will this crackpot finally fade away, does he really have so much following that he is deemed media worthy, even on such a horrible drag as Huffington Post?

And I watched one of his videos on youtube, I can still vividly remember the waves of embarrassment which one feels when somebody makes a fool of himself so thoroughly. I actually thought the man was mentally retarded.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:43:47 UTC | #879892

UGAtheist's Avatar Comment 3 by UGAtheist

I think he has the backing of 'The Oprah,' so I doubt he's going anywhere.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:11:34 UTC | #879899

alf1200's Avatar Comment 4 by alf1200

In a recent panel discussion with Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins and others Chopra stared directly into the camera. He reminded me of someone who was trying to sell something or intimidate.

I believe he is loosing grasp with reality.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:21:35 UTC | #879905

helena!'s Avatar Comment 5 by helena!

Comment 4 by alf1200

I believe he is loosing grasp with reality.

You mean losing? Actually he lost his grip on reality long ago.

Deepak is a spiteful conman and is clearly jealous. He can't just stay in his area of woo he's got to encroach and claim every area of woo for himself. Also he's good at jumping on someone else's tails to generate more publicity and fame for himself. His choice of the word obnoxious is pure projection and quite ironic.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:37:20 UTC | #879914

Metamag's Avatar Comment 6 by Metamag

Comment 3 by UGAtheist :

I think he has the backing of 'The Oprah,' so I doubt he's going anywhere.

At least that shit is over with...he can't find a more powerful platform than that.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:50:29 UTC | #879920

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 7 by Alan4discussion

One doesn't ask for advanced genetics in a primer for young adults, but one does ask that the writer know his field before adopting a tone of authority.

As was pointed out about this comment from CHOPRA in the article:

Ha! ha! ha! - Spoken with the "authority" of a true muppet!! - Irony meter explodes ¿¿!!☼♦☼!!??

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:56:53 UTC | #879922

I Deny's Avatar Comment 8 by I Deny

Remember! As Deepak Chopra tought us.. Quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason!

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:25:15 UTC | #879929

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 9 by Mr DArcy

Maybe PZ's prose has made me think "laterally", but I couldn't help but go the following route:

Tupac Shakur, - Gangsta rapper

Lurpak Shakar, - Danish rapper

Deepak Chopra, - WooWoo Rapper!

(I will really have to stick to Beethoven and Steve Miller. This modern music is SO confusing!)

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:39:07 UTC | #879937

genjokoan's Avatar Comment 10 by genjokoan

Dear Deepak, I do not think "quantum" means what you think it means.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:45:36 UTC | #879944

Andres Heredia's Avatar Comment 11 by Andres Heredia

"What is obnoxious about Dawkins' version is his tone of absolute authority about matters that he shows complete ignorance of."

I could go on and on about the stupidity of Deepak's review — every paragraph is like the evacuations of an elephant with diarrhea — massively feculent and slimy, of a quality that will not even appeal to the neighborhood dung beetles. But I do have to mention one more sentence that left me laughing.

"One doesn't ask for advanced genetics in a primer for young adults, but one does ask that the writer know his field before adopting a tone of authority."

That's rich coming from a quantum quack who is demonstrably deluded about medicine, biology, evolution, physics, chemistry, and the entirety of science, yet manages to pretend to be an authority every day.

WOW THAT JUST MADE MY DAY!!! thank you PZ MYERS! :)

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:57:09 UTC | #879948

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 12 by Alan4discussion

Maybe I'm naive, but aren't reviewers of science books supposed to understand some science? - Even have recognised qualifications in relevant subjects perhaps!

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:58:11 UTC | #879950

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 13 by prettygoodformonkeys

Chopra clings to dualism as if it explains itself; he should be embarrassed.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:12:59 UTC | #879954

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 14 by Mr DArcy

Chopra's view of quantum tunnelling:

A drunk attempts to walk through a lampost and succeeds.

As we all know the drunk actually had to be carted off to hospital for suspected brain (and liver) damage!

But don't let reality interfere with your world view!

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:22:51 UTC | #879956

Vitalic's Avatar Comment 15 by Vitalic

If you haven't seen the video of Sam Harris destroying Deepak Chopra and him getting humiliated by a quantum physicist present in the crowd you simply have to go and watch it.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:32:10 UTC | #879960

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 16 by Neodarwinian

Deepak Chopra's ranting underlines one of my favorite mantras with many lines of converging evidence.

A scientist may be a physician, but a physician is not necessarily a scientist.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:36:14 UTC | #879963

brighterstill's Avatar Comment 17 by brighterstill

Thank goodness! An endorsement from Chopra is like the kiss of death for scientific credibility.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:39:18 UTC | #879964

ridelo's Avatar Comment 18 by ridelo

Still waiting for Deepaks production of the Higgs particle. For somebody who's so good in quantum physics this should be a no brainer. CERN needs him badly!

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:54:36 UTC | #879972

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 19 by alaskansee

@Comment 12 by Alan4discussion

Maybe I'm naive, but aren't reviewers of science books supposed to understand some science? - Even have recognised qualifications in relevant subjects perhaps!

Yes, you're correct, 12th grade science in this case.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:05:52 UTC | #879979

Sjoerd Westenborg's Avatar Comment 20 by Sjoerd Westenborg

Comment 5 by helena! :

Comment 4 by alf1200

I believe he is loosing grasp with reality.

You mean losing? Actually he lost his grip on reality long ago.

Well, unless Alf means it in the same sense as 'loosening'. Impying that Cheepra... Choprak... that guy is loosening his grasp on reality on purpose, which I don't find that hard to believe.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:10:53 UTC | #879981

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 21 by Stevehill

Deepak?

Tee hee, titter.

New age trendy waste of space.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:12:50 UTC | #879982

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 22 by Steve Zara

I blame physicists. I really do. The idea of mind having a role in quantum mechanics always was not just extremely silly but a complete non-starter logically. It's a form of supernatural belief, that mind is something beyond physics that can have magic influences. Some of the greatest physicists fall into this trap. We have Roger Penrose asking why, if there are parallel quantum worlds, don't we experience them? Well, it's because no matter what happens in the quantum reality we each still end up with one brain, and not two (like Steve Martin, in that great film).

A physicist should have enough scientific knowledge to know that minds arise when brains do things. They are a product of the workings of a biological organ. There can no more be a fundamental role for the product of the brain than there is for the product of the kidneys.

Physicists like Dyson, Stapp and Penrose need a good dose of modern neuroscience and philosophy, although it seems that the damage has been done, and Chopra is a symptom.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:32:48 UTC | #879991

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 23 by Carl Sai Baba

Comment 9 by Mr DArcy :

Maybe PZ's prose has made me think "laterally", but I couldn't help but go the following route:

Tupac Shakur, - Gangsta rapper

Lurpak Shakar, - Danish rapper

Deepak Chopra, - WooWoo Rapper!

Shake N Bake, - Chicken wrapper

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:38:09 UTC | #879994

hemidemisemigod's Avatar Comment 24 by hemidemisemigod

These willful distortions will likely remain invisible, to both his untutored young audience and popular culture in general.

Yeah, but you can see them Deepak.

You would never suspect reading The Magic of Reality that many reputed scientists with credentials far above Dawkins' are seriously asking if the universe is conscious, if mind creates action at the subatomic level, if purpose can be understood as a property of the cosmos, if "soft inheritance" allows for evolution without classic gene mutations, and so on.

Yeah, because that would explain a lot. Like why wrong numbers are never engaged, how homeopathy works, how crystal healing works, and so on. It's the Cosmic Consciousness Deepak! Wooo-ooo-ooo!

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:39:52 UTC | #879996

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 25 by Dhamma

Why - the hell - has Mlodinow agreed to put his name on the same book as Chopra?

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:55:43 UTC | #880002

decius's Avatar Comment 26 by decius

Comment 22 by Steve Zara :

I blame physicists.

Although not blameless, they are more easily excusable than dualist neuroscientists and other cognitive sciences' flaming quacks. Knock yourself out, these people manage to draw attention and support from organisations like the UN, where they pass for cutting-edge specialists.

Link

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:08:42 UTC | #880006

AnthropicConstance's Avatar Comment 27 by AnthropicConstance

linkYouTube The Nightline Face-Off: Does God Have a Future? (2 of 12) text

at 9:30 in video "...orthodox science which is not relevant anymore."

Bingo! Deepak buddy, that right there is why I can't support your belief.

Because whether there were ever a "non-locality universe" or a conclusive way to study the "observer effect", or whether we could prove pigs can only fly when you're not observing them, you have in one blow precluded their discovery since it is only science that could have found them out.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:22:25 UTC | #880012

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 28 by Richard Dawkins

Deepak Chopra wrote:-

To discover what is real, we use our five senses, Dawkins writes, and when things get too big or far away (distant galaxies) or too small (bacteria), our senses are augmented with devices like telescopes and microscopes.

One anticipates that Dawkins will add a caveat that the five senses aren't always reliable, as when our eyes tell us that the sun rises in the sky at morning and sets at twilight. But no such caveat is offered; the reader is already being guided incorrectly.

A pity Chopra didn't read on, at least as far as the chapter that actually talks about such matters:-

The illusion that the sun moves across the sky is just that – an illusion. It’s the illusion of relative movement. You will have met the same kind of illusion often enough. You are in a train, standing at a station next to another train. Suddenly you seem to start ‘moving’. But then you realize that you aren’t actually moving at all. It is the second train that is moving, in the opposite direction. I remember being intrigued by the illusion the first time I travelled in a train. . .

The illusion of relative movement works the other way, too. You think the other train has moved, only to discover that it is your own train that is moving. It can be hard to tell the difference between apparent movement and real movement. It’s easy if your train starts with a jolt, of course, but not if your train moves very smoothly. When your train overtakes a slightly slower train, you can sometimes fool yourself into thinking your train is still and the other train is moving slowly backwards.

It’s the same with the sun and the Earth. The sun is not really moving across our sky from east to west. What is really happening is that the Earth, like almost everything in the universe (including the sun itself, by the way, but we can ignore that), is spinning round and round. Technically we say the Earth is spinning on its ‘axis’: you can think of the axis as a bit like an axle running right through the globe from North Pole to South Pole. The sun stays almost still relative to the Earth (not relative to other things in the universe, but I am just going to write about how it seems to us here, on Earth). We spin too smoothly to feel the movement, and the air we breathe spins with us. If it didn’t, we would feel it as a mighty rushing wind, because we spin at a thousand miles an hour. At least, that is the spin speed at the equator; obviously we spin more slowly as we approach the North or South Pole because the ground we’re standing on has less far to go to complete a circuit round the axis. Since we can’t feel the spinning of the planet, and the air spins with us, it’s like the case of the two trains. The only way we can tell we are moving is to look at objects that are not spinning with us: objects like the stars and the sun. What we see is the relative movement, and – just as with the trains – it looks as though we are standing still and the stars and the sun are moving across our sky.

A famous thinker called Wittgenstein (the W is pronounced like a V) once asked a friend and pupil called Elizabeth Anscombe, ‘Why do people say it was natural to think that the sun went round the Earth rather than that the Earth turned on its axis?’ Miss Anscombe answered, ‘I suppose because it looked as if the sun went round the Earth.’ ‘Well,’ Wittgenstein replied, ‘what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the Earth turned on its axis?’

You try and answer that!

Did Chopra read the book at all? The rest of the review suggests that he followed the religious convention of reviewing the book he presumed the author WOULD write, rather than the book he actually wrote.

Richard

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:44:23 UTC | #880018

alf1200's Avatar Comment 29 by alf1200

AnthropicConstance,.....Pigs can fly!.........Take one up in an airplane, push it out,.........Flying?

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 23:00:00 UTC | #880023

alf1200's Avatar Comment 30 by alf1200

No Sjoerd, I did really screw it up. Can't seem to get the loosening, loseing thing right.

Comment 20 by Sjoerd Westenborg :

Comment 5 by helena! :

Comment 4 by alf1200

I believe he is loosing grasp with reality.

You mean losing? Actually he lost his grip on reality long ago.

Well, unless Alf means it in the same sense as 'loosening'. Impying that Cheepra... Choprak... that guy is loosening his grasp on reality on purpose, which I don't find that hard to believe.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 23:03:43 UTC | #880024