*"The researchers found that adherents to conspiracy theories are highly
receptive to claims that support their views and rarely engage with
social media pages that question their beliefs."
Of course the same can be said for those who believe their version of
"the truth" is the correct one. And much of the time those who've been
tricked into calling anyone questioning of an "official story" a
"conspiracy theorist" haven't even bothered to explore the so-called
"conspiracy theories" mostly because they're afraid of what they might
learn. Otherwise they just desire to be an average Joe who believes
what their leaders say for some reason.
There are over 7 billion versions of "the truth" out there. Which one is
the "correct one?":-D
*
On 06/05/2015 12:54 AM, TurquoiseBee [email protected]
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
*/THIS is why Chopra and other nutcases like him (including several on
this forum) still exist. The audiences they preach to don't have the
intelligence to figure out they're being preached to (and taken
advantage of) by idiots. (cf. recent bogus "research" about light)
/*
*/
/*
*/Facebook conspiracy theorists fooled by even the most obvious
anti-science trolling: study
<http://www.rawstory.com/2015/02/facebook-conspiracy-theorists-fooled-by-even-the-most-obvious-anti-science-trolling-study/>/*
*/
/*
image
<http://www.rawstory.com/2015/02/facebook-conspiracy-theorists-fooled-by-even-the-most-obvious-anti-science-trolling-study/>
Facebook conspiracy theorists fooled by even the most ob...
<http://www.rawstory.com/2015/02/facebook-conspiracy-theorists-fooled-by-even-the-most-obvious-anti-science-trolling-study/>
Man learns amazing lesson in irony after mocking Caitlyn Jenner’s
‘bravery’ in viral Facebook post
View on www.rawstory.com
<http://www.rawstory.com/2015/02/facebook-conspiracy-theorists-fooled-by-even-the-most-obvious-anti-science-trolling-study/>
Preview by Yahoo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* salyavin808 <[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Friday, June 5, 2015 7:49 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Good Ol' Deepak
---In [email protected], <s3raphita@...> wrote :
What Deepak is promoting is a philosophy - a theology, maybe - or
perhaps "a metaphysics" is a better term. I don't have any problem
with that. His views could be wrong of course but to demand that all
explanations of life, the universe and everything must conform to
scientific methodology is simply scientism. In fact, the very idea
that all explanations must conform to scientific methodology *is* a
metaphysical assumption! How could you prove that assumption using the
techniques of science? How falsify it?
Yes, if you're talking about evolution or quantum physics you have to
accommodate the latest thinking of scientists who have specialised in
those fields but it's legitimate to tease out the implications for our
worldview.
By the way: I've only ever read one of Deepak's books and it was
pretty tedious and shallow. But that's a different issue altogether.
Why would he release only one shallow and tedious book do you think?
"His views could be wrong of course but to demand that all
explanations of life, the universe and everything must conform to
scientific methodology is simply scientism."
Isn't "scientism" that thing that creationists invented to try and
turn the demanding of proof into an optional extra?
Like you, I don't think there's anything wrong with speculative
thinking, we simply wouldn't have an ideas at all without it. Where
Deepak goes wrong is that he can't be bothered to check whether his
ideas have any sort of validity. And by that I mean whether they fit
in with what is known to be possible in the physical world and if they
don't, how come? Any rewriting of majorly well tested ideas requires
an understanding of those ideas and a demonstration of where they are
inadequate. I don't think it's just a case of accepting things because
they might be possible anymore.
I know it's the "vedic" way, as is misappropriating other people's
research to repackage religious ideas in the hope that your audience
is familiar enough with the terms to recognise them but not familiar
enough to know they are being used incorrectly. Anything he says with
the word "quantum" in it for instance.
He just doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.You simply can't
have a worldview whereby something that is known to happen, or to have
happened is contradicted by your metaphysical outlook. Not and remain
credible. It has to all fit together doesn't it? Otherwise our theory
of everything will be a theory of nearly everything and some other
stuff that doesn't fit. So Deepak is either hopelessly ignorant or
wilfully misleading - unless he knows something fundamental to the
running of the universe that no one else has worked out and he
acquired the knowledge somehow instinctively rather than via the usual
methods of trial and error testing and refining. Given our shared
opinion of him, I wonder which is most likely?
'This is what drives people nuts about the new quasi-religious quantum
nutjobbery of the internet. Without an editor it's a dangerous place
to try going to learn things. Every idea should stand or fall based on
it's evidence but too many people are forgetting to do the background
checks. It's actually interesting watching the speed with which memes
evolve on the net. I used to work for a company that could track press
releases via webpages, be interesting to watch how far and fast an
idea like some of Deepak's or say, the Maharishi Effect, could travel
in a given time and what is needed as a framework for people to
recognise it as a possibility and pass it on.
Maybe the next step in advertising is seeding the social media
background with stupid ideas and then tailoring a campaign to exploit
them. Or is Facebook already doing that?
---In [email protected], <mjackson74@...> wrote :
Scientist: Why Deepak Chopra is driving me crazy
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/05/15/scientist-why-deepak-chopra-is-driving-me-crazy/>
image
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/05/15/scientist-why-deepak-chopra-is-driving-me-crazy/>
Scientist: Why Deepak Chopra is driving me crazy
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/05/15/scientist-why-deepak-chopra-is-driving-me-crazy/>
'Chopra promises proof for his outlandish claims that Darwin was wrong
and that consciousness drives evolution, but I’m not going to hold my
breath.'
View on www.washingtonpost...
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/05/15/scientist-why-deepak-chopra-is-driving-me-crazy/>
Preview by Yahoo
