deepak chopra picks a fight with darwin’s ghost
Truly there’s no woo quite as insipid, nonsensical and self-serving as that of Deepak Chopra. After giving his critics a tongue lashing because they dared to point out his numerous errors and must therefore be cynical, arrogant jerks, the high priest of quantum pseudoscience unleashed yet another opus of inanity. Despite an alarming lack of education in physics, Chopra and his fellow cranks are going to upstage Newton and Darwin by revealing the doctrine of biocentrism. What’s biocentrism you say? Why it’s the power of wishful thinking on a cosmological scale. Apparently the universe we know was created by our conscious efforts and to prove the concept, he’s ready to trot out New Age fluff and creationist arguments seemingly stolen from Ray Comfort.
One wonders why peddlers of woo always want to take issue with long dead scientists whose work has been significantly updated by efforts of later researchers. Darwin’s natural selection was merged with genetics and produced a far more complete and elaborate theory. Newton’s work was greatly expanded by Einstein’s ideas about time and space. Why not go after modern theories? It is a little too hard for Chopra? Regardless, after a posturing match with the scientists’ ghosts, he lets fly with his first gem of imbecility.
In short, the attempt to explain the nature of the universe, its origins, and what is really going on, including evolution, requires an understanding of how the observer – consciousness – plays a role.
Ah yes, the old routine of collapsing the wave function on quantum randomness trick. In quantum mechanics, observing and measuring a particle reduces the number of its probable states to the observer. Note however, that it does not change the system itself. Whether you observe the system or not, it will still exist and do what it normally does. So where does the conscious part come in? Chopra doesn’t explain. Instead he goes straight into irreducible complexity arguments so broad, they would make even Behe cringe. Here’s a little snippet with a bit of light editing for style. Editing for sense would’ve been a futile effort.
There are over 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact, it strains credulity to propose that they are random – even if that is exactly what contemporary physics boldly suggests. These fundamental constants are not predicted by any theory – all seem to be carefully chosen, often with great precision, to allow for existence of life.
What are those 200+ precise parameters exactly? And why only a few hundred? If we’re going to start tossing out random numbers of supposedly fine tuned parameters for life, why not go for a thousand or ten thousand? It’s not like he actually gives us a list, so he can throw out any number he wants. What about alien life? Is that in the parameters too or are we limiting ourselves to only one planet while talking about the setup of the entire universe? And if those mysterious fundamental concepts aren’t predicted by any theory, from which cavity did he extract them and how does he know he measured them correctly and they really are calibrated?
Consider the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs — if its trajectory had been slightly different, or the asteroid had been slightly larger, we might not be here. The odds are astronomically against everything happening exactly right. So the question is, is it dumb luck? But if you say something is an accident, it usually means you don’t understand the reason for it.
This is the part where we come to the snag in Chopra’s deterministic mindset. He assumes that because we evolved and we’re here, it means there must be a purpose to our existence and a process that created us. To back this idea, he needs to prove that we’re somehow required to be alive and evolve as we did, or the whole universe falls apart. We didn’t have to be here and if we were to be wiped out tomorrow, the universe would go on as per usual. Until he proves there’s a reason for our existence with something more than wishful thinking, wild claims that he made up on the spot, and appeals to vanity, his entire argument is a non sequtur.
It’s time to step back and take a look at the big picture. Evolution reminds us that we evolved in the forest roof to collect fruit and berries, not to ponder the nature of life itself.
So he’s transcended evolution because he can now ponder the complexity of life? Really, this vapid tripe with ridiculous claims, zero evidence and a complete and total lack of understanding of how basic physics work is the stuff that’s going to help us grow as a species and the kind of information deserving to be printed and sold to the tune of millions of dollars? No wonder Chopra cranks out three or four books a year. Those tomes don’t require even a smidgen of thought, research or coherence. They’re just a rolling record of blithering nonsense as it leaks from whatever’s left of his mind and those who buy them are in effect reading the brain dump of an ignorant, vain man who might as well have tossed his medical degree in the trash can and set it on fire since the last time he used the skills and knowledge which allowed him to earn it was a very, very long time ago.
[ illustration of gates to the netherworld by James Ng ]
Hmmm. Is Chopra saying that the values of these parameters are improbable? With which other universe does Chopra make his comparison?
Also, if the role of the observer is so important, can we deduce that the Universe didn’t exist (at least, in its present form) before humans existed to observe it? Without humans, what would have been different? Is that difference observable?
Of course, the fact that Chopra practices advanced rectolocution is beside the point. His target market simply find affirmation in the fact that that the soul-dead scientists are outraged by this drivel. Unless you can get him to admit on TV that he he finds his public hilariously gullible and that Ms Huffington and he have competitions to make up the most ridiculous assertions, he’ll just continue to make his bank manager a very happy person indeed.
Nice work if you can get it.
Great post! I’m just clicking though your the back links to your other posts on Chopra. It never ceases to amaze me the traction his nonsense gets with the public. It has lot’s of scientific-sounding jargon but not a shred of real science to back his speculations on life which he literally sells as facts. The guy’s a con artist and has made him self rich with gullible but well-meaning folks who are looking for answers in the wrong places.
I think the problem with con artists in general, and Chopra is a good example, is that they know how to package complete BS as something believable and give an air of credibility to things that are completely outrageous otherwise. Chopra has made a very comfortable living selling BS and if he ever goes down, we can expect to see him scratch and claw all the way.
Great post….Ecellent use of the top five most abused words in science!!!!
… the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs — if … the asteroid had been slightly larger…
The terminology here is, surprisingly, almost correct – once an asteroid enters the atmosphere, it can accurately be called a “meteor” (and a “meteorite” when it reaches the surface), but this does raise the question – to me, anyhow – as to what’s the difference between an asteroid and a meteoroid.
… we evolved in the forest roof to collect fruit and berries…
I dunno if any of our ancestors can be shown to have inhabited the topmost (“roof” levels of a forest canopy, but I seriously doubt there is much fruit, or any berries, to be found there.
“…what’s the difference between an asteroid and a meteoroid?”
In this context, it’s a case of semantics. An asteroid is basically a leftover from the process of planetary formation. If it’s pushed or nudged out of its orbit and enters the atmosphere of a planet, it becomes a very big meteor. In the case of the K-T event, scientists refer to the actual body rather than the impact itself when they talk about the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Of course it could’ve also been a comet. Or even a combination of an impact and the flow from the Deccan Traps which were the impact’s antipodal point and might have been a result of the Chicxulub event.
“… we evolved in the forest roof to collect fruit and berries…”
As gfish pointed out, we didn’t evolve to do anything. We just evolved. This obsession with human existence having a specific purpose or even multiple purposes is nothing more than egocentric garbage, but it works because most people identify with the idea that life has meaning beyond what we create for ourselves.
It’s nice to know there are people out there who think like I do, but it’s terrifying that so many buy into perspectives like Chopra’s so eagerly.
I don’t know when I’ve read the words of someone with whom I SO agree. I didn’t know you exist, but I was delighted to find your blogs on Roadrunner.
You manage to convey intelligence without sounding pompous, debunk utter nonsense without clobbering the spouters (too much…) and in general, just make sense to me. It would be wonderful if all of your blogs were available in book form.
Perhaps they are? Thanks for some sanity among the increasing insanity “evolving” among our fellow planet inhabitants.
I was born in India and moved to Pakistan in 1947 at the age of four where, after graduating from a Catholic school, I came to the US in 1966 to attend Vanderbilt university. Finally, I thought, I’m away from the stagnant mindset of the general populace who were never able to equate their pathetic lives to the acceptance of a profound philosophy made obscure by a long line of Yogis and Maharishis—and then came the Beatles invasion and everything Zen! Since then, and continuing to this day, these destructive Eastern meditative practices have, like dope, destroyed the motivation and drive of millions of American youth, and rendered the language of countless intelligent adults to one, long, echo of Chopra’s brand of drivel.
The first time I saw and heard Deepak Chopra I was incredulous—no intelligent person, I thought, could possibly take this charlatan seriously-but they did, by the multitudes. Yours has been the first open criticism (that I’ve read,)of this fake, who has found in America’s genuine thirst for a more spiritual dimension, a very gullible admiration society. I sincerely hope that your article triggers a flood of like minded outrage to run this guy out of businees…this is not what the free market is about; thievery of the soul is no less a swindle then B. Madoff’s ponzi scheme.
Deepak Chopra is the man… ITS FUNNY BECAUSE HE LOVES YOU ALL STILL. NOW WHO CREATES A BETTER WORLD. HIM OR YOU.
“… its funny because he loves you all still”
I’m sure. This is exactly why he’s penning rebukes and has a Google alert about the next blog to say something negative about him. Doesn’t everyone do the same thing when he loves every critic or skeptic and holds no grudges?
“now who creates a better world. him or you.”
Considering that Chopra doesn’t actually create anything, just floats with his head in the clouds and pontificates on life using random technobabble, I think those of us who actually make things have an unfair advantage in answering that question…
Figures you would remove my reply to your insepid article. It is you who is the charlatan broiling in his own technobabble stew. Truth hurts so much, you couldn’t allow anyone seeing an argument against your larceny. You are a squid.
Figures you would remove my reply to your insepid article.
First off, it’s “insipid.” Secondly, I only remove spam that manages to slip through the filters, or random gibberish which has nothing to do with the post in question. I don’t see how you could argue that I’m so afraid of your “truth” that I remove your rants on this thread, and yet keep them on another post about Chopra and respond at length. Methinks that you a) have a very short tempter, b) don’t know to which post you made your reply, and c) lack the patience to see whether you might be mistaken.
Finally, I really think you need to take a look at a dictionary because accusing me of a larceny, or theft, when you probably mean to accuse me of slander, and calling me a squid doesn’t speak well of your debate or vocabulary skills.