A edição da semana passada da e-Skeptic, publicou um artigo que já tinha aparecido na revista Skeptic em 1998.
No artigo, Phil Molé examina os dogmas dos ensinamentos filosóficos do famoso Deepak Chopra, mostrando que os seus argumentos que convencem tanta gente, na verdade estão cientificamente errados.
Deixo aqui alguns excertos:
“Through much of history, religious faith was a strong component of medical practice. Diseases were often thought to result from blockages in the body’s ﬂow of vital forces, or from possession by malevolent spirits. Eventually, scientiﬁc medicine far surpassed efforts of faith healers, so the latter was made to yield authority to the former.
Occasionally, however, vestiges of the old system creep back in. The current attention given to mind-body medicine — and its most prominent practitioner, Deepak Chopra — testiﬁes to this fact. (…)
The content of Chopra’s philosophy is often obscured by logical inconsistencies, but it is possible, nonetheless, to identify its key components. First, he views the body as a quantum mechanical system, and uses comparisons of quantum reality with Eastern thought to guide us away from our Western, Newtonian-based paradigms. Having accomplished that, he then sets out to convince us that we can alter reality through our perceptions, and admonishes us to appreciate the unity of the Universe. If we allow ourselves to fully grasp these lessons, Chopra assures us, we will then understand the force of Intelligence permeating all of existence — guiding us ever closer to fulﬁllment. Each component of this philosophy has serious ﬂaws, and requires individual analysis. (…)
All mystics believe in sudden insight — a revelation of irrefutable knowledge unavailable to the senses (…)
Chopra is saying the Newtonian-based image of our bodies is wrong, and the quantum-mechanical image of our bodies is right. (…)
But this “either/or” business of choosing paradigms is patently absurd, because modern and Newtonian physics are both perfectly valid theories in their own rights and within their own applications. (…)
One of Chopra’s chief problems is his inability to realize that a limited theory is not quite the same as an incorrect theory. (…)
Chopra (…) saying perception is what really matters. (…) He makes this transition in terms—from “observation” to “perception,” quite rapidly, as if they meant the same thing. They don’t. Observation pertains to what we see, and perception pertains to our interpretation of what we see. This is an important distinction, because the results of quantum mechanics experiments bear no relation to our ideas, after the fact, of what happened during the experiment. The wave functions are collapsed by the act of taking a measurement itself. Chopra confuses his terminology further in other parts of his books, talking about perceiving when he seems to really be discussing visualizing. His reliance on the Copenhagen Interpretation has now been completely shattered. If we merely visualize what we think will happen in a quantum mechanics experiment, without taking a measurement, we won’t collapse the wave function, and we will play no role in the experiment at all! (…)
Chopra relies heavily on the Copenhagen Interpretation, and seems to imply to his readers that it is the only quantum mechanical model in existence. This was true for quite a long time, but it is certainly not true anymore. Physicist John Cramer has developed a “transactional” model using the Wheeler-Feynman theory of electromagnetic radiation, and it predicts the results of quantum mechanics experiments just as well as the “old” model does. It’s even more attractive, however, because the observer has no special role in the model’s explanation of quantum mechanics—so objective reality exists, after all! (…)
Chopra, extending the logic of his rally for a new paradigm shift, wholeheartedly endorses the unification of medicine and spirituality. (…)
As Stephen Jay Gould has pointed out, holistic worldviews in pre-Newtonian Europe were often used to justify social inequalities (…) “PreCartesian holism was more than a bucolic perception of nature’s fundamental unity, it was also a dandy doctrine to enforce a status quo not blissful for everyone” (Gould, 220). (…)
A recurring theme in Chopra’s books concerns the Intelligence of the Universe— the notion that all of existence preserves its own order through a form of consciousness. (…)
The idea of a consciously evolving universe is quite similar to the strong anthropic principle in cosmology. Some researchers have attached deep meaning to the fact that the four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong, and weak) seem to have been “fine tuned” to allow life to develop. (…)
This argument is ultimately rather circular. (…) The universe may just appear tailor made for us because we are here to see it. (…)
(…) it’s also completely wrong, and potentially very dangerous, to think of the universe as a benevolent Field seeking to make us infinitely happy. This notion, with absolutely no basis in fact, absolves us of responsibility for our own life, and leaves us vulnerable to every imaginable calamity. (…) We lose the ability to control our fate, and avoid life’s assorted snags and pitfalls, if we automatically assume things will just work out for the best. (…)
When your claims and practices cannot be logically defended, it’s imperative to stay clear of damning evidence. This is something Chopra does with undeniable skill (…)
(…) the fate of David Flint, a leukemia patient treated by an Ayurvedic “physician” endorsed by Chopra. After spending $10,000 over nine months, Flint was allegedly pronounced cured. He died shortly thereafter. (…)
To Chopra, the scientist’s world may not seem as magical as the mystic’s, but it provides us with something not even Merlin could have conjured up: the power to control our own fate. If we heed this lesson, and give figures such as Chopra the required analysis, we’ll truly be heading down the Path to Enlightenment.”
Leiam todo o artigo, aqui.
Ainda ligado a isto, gostei deste texto do filósofo Stephen Law com tradução do André Rabelo sobre os segredos da pseudo-profundidade: afirmar o óbvio e esperar que a audiência concorde, usar expressões e palavras não compreendidas popularmente, falar de “energias” e “equilíbrios”, definir os jargões com outros jargões não compreendidos, usar algumas ideias verdadeiras para dar a impressão que se sabe do que se está a falar, usar frases que contenham palavras com significados opostos para dar um ar enigmático que possa ser interpretado de modo a aplicar-se a toda a gente, etc. Tudo isto, cria a ilusão de profundidade.