Orac Defends Skepticism From Choprawoo

While I’ve often criticized the rejection of science which has become common on the right, I have also pointed out that there is also some pseudo-science on the left. This has included numerous posts on Deepak Chopra. Chopra has recently pointed out how he monitors all the posts which mock him using Google Alerts.  He then replied to criticism of his writings with an attack on skepticism.  Orac, who coined the term Choprawoo, summarized the error in Chopra’s attack on skeptics:

It’s not speculative thinking that skeptics and scientists dislike, nor is it speculative thinking that brings the contempt of skeptics down on Deepak Chopra. Really. We speculate all the time; I speculate about my research, about science in general, and about specific areas of science and skepticism that I’m interested in. What we don’t like is “speculative thinking” that is related to thinking by coincidence only. We can’t stand “speculative” thinking that demonstrates an incredible ignorance about science; for instance, Chopra’s attacks on evolution in which he tries to imbue DNA with intelligence, or at least portray it as an agent of the “consciousness” of the universe, and misrepresents some very basic aspects of genetics and molecular biology as he tries to argue that DNA can’t account for human intelligence. There’s informed speculation, which can be fascinating, educational, and fun, and there’s pulling it out of your ass. Guess which of these is what Chopra favors? It’s also interesting to note that, even now, three years after he attacked Richard Dawkins for The God Delusion, Chopra still seems to have a bug up his butt over atheists as well.

Chopra equated failing to believe his nonsense with lacking a sense of wonder. Orac responded:

No sense of wonder? Come on! Wonder at the marvelous complexity of the human body and biology was part of what led me to become a physician and a scientist. Grudging awe at the seemingly indestructible complexity of cancer is what led me into cancer research. Moreover, skeptics’ don’t think they know what right thought is, at least not in terms of what that thought is. We do, however, recognize errors in how to analyze data and come to conclusions. We recognize where reason goes wrong. Chopra seems to think that anything goes when it comes to thought. Maybe it does, but all thought is not equal. In science, conclusions based on sound evidence and reasoning trump conclusions based on a self-proclaimed sense of wonder that probes no more deeply than what the woo-meister wants to believe. In art and poetry, the fantastic and creative can trump data. Chopra seems to think that it should be the same in all realms, but science is not art or poetry. Science is a means of understanding the principles by which the universe functions.

Chopra also attacked skepticism in a previous post where he falsely claimed, “skeptics take pride in defending the status quo and condemn the kind of open-minded inquiry that peers into the unknown.” Orac responded to this argument:

And there’s Chopra’s problem. He thinks that questioning the status quo is a good thing, and so it often is. However, he does not understand that just questioning is not enough. Anyone can come up with a half-baked “challenge” to the status quo. I could make up a half dozen challenges to various scientific theories in the next couple of minutes without breaking a sweat. Does that mean my speculations should be taken seriously, particularly if I have no evidence to back them up and little understanding of the issues involved? No! But Chopra engages in nothing but special pleading, apparently thinking that his views and those of woo-meisters like him, should be held to a different standard of evidence and taken seriously because they challenge the status quo. He thinks his pseudoscientific or even unscientific views of medicine and science should be considered on par with science-based medicine and existing science because…well…because he does.

1 Comment

  1. 1
    Eclectic Radical says:

    This is the perfect critique of Chopra.
     
    My big problem with Chopra (and many other people who think like him in areas of quasi-scientific metaphysical philosophy, not to mention most of the religious right… though I realize that is entirely related) is that he essentially holds the same view as atheists on a key point:
     
    Chopra does not believe critical thought to be compatible with faith. Dawkins, Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and other ‘proselytizing atheists’ believe critical thought and faith to be entirely incompatible. So they dismiss faith in order to protect critical thought. While I think this foolish, Chopra and others like him are far worse. They dismiss critical thought in order to protect faith-based assumptions.
     
    While I believe that one’s quality of life suffers without faith, and that a total lack of belief in anything but critical thought is ethically dubious (throw out the argument that all morality is based on religion, one must still accept George Carlin’s fundamental statement that our concept of rights and morality is an idea in which we have faith… not a scientific fact we can establish by critical thinking…), dismissing critical thought is bloody dangerous. It leads to George W. Bush.
     
     

Leave a comment