Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Topic: New Age Energy
no photo
Mon 11/24/08 01:28 PM
Great Article I read recently about this popular New age fad.

I'm feeling a little low today, so let's tap into a source of energy from a neighboring dimension as a quick upper.

Faith in pseudoscience is rampant. Everywhere you turn, intelligent people fully accept the existence of anything from psychic phenomena, to angels, to new age healing techniques, to ancient health schemes based on mysterious energy fields not understood by science. Most of these paranormal phenomena rely on "energy," and when the performers are asked to explain, they'll gladly lecture about the body's energy fields, the universe's energy fields, Chi, Prana, Orgone, negative energy, positive energy, and just about anything else that needs a familiar sounding word to explain and justify it. Clearly, there are too many loose interpretations of the word energy, to the point where most people probably have no idea exactly what energy really is.

I believe that if more people had a clear understanding of energy — and it's not complicated — there would be less susceptibility to pseudoscience, and more attention paid to actual technologies and methods that are truly constructive and useful.

A friend told me of her ability to perform minor healings, and her best explanation was that she drew energy from another dimension. She had recently rented What the Bleep Do We Know, so she was well prepared to explain that alternate dimensions and realities should be taken for granted, since science doesn't really know anything, and thus those things cannot be disproven. That's fine, I'll concede that she can make contact with another dimension: after all, the latest M theories posit that there are probably ten or eleven of them floating around, and I'll just hope that my friend's is not one of those that are collapsed into impossibly small spaces. What I was really interested in was the nature of this vaguely defined energy that she could contact.

I asked what type of energy is it, and how is it stored? Is it heat? Is it a spinning flywheel? Is it an explosive compound? Is it food? These are examples of actual ways that energy can be stored.

In popular New Age culture, "energy" has somehow become a noun unto itself. "Energy" is considered to be literally like a glowing, hovering, shimmering cloud, from which adepts can draw power, and feel rejuvenated. Imagine a vaporous creature from the original Star Trek series, and you'll have a good idea of what New Agers think energy is.

In fact, energy is not really a noun at all. Energy is a measurement of something's ability to perform work. Given this context, when spiritualists talk about your body's energy fields, they're really saying nothing that's even remotely meaningful. Yet this kind of talk has become so pervasive in our society that the vast majority of Americans accept that energy exists as a self-contained force, floating around in glowing clouds, and can be commanded by spiritualist adepts to do just about anything.

There is well known authority for the simple, concrete, scientific definition of energy. Take Einstein's equation, E=mc2, that every schoolchild knows but so few spend the 30 seconds it takes to understand. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Simplify it. Mass can be expressed in grams, and speed can be expressed in meters per second. Thus, an object's energy equals the amount of work it takes to move a few grams a few meters in a few seconds. Energy is a measurement of work. If I lift a rock, I'm inputting enough potential energy to dent the surface of the table one centimeter when I drop it. The calories of chemical potential energy that my bloodstream absorbs when I eat a Power Bar charge up my muscles enough to dig two hundred pounds of dirt in my garden. Nowhere did Einstein discuss hovering glowing clouds, or fields of mystical power generated by human spirits.

When spiritualists discuss energy, don't blindly accept what they're saying simply because energy is a word you're familiar with, and that sounds scientific. In many cases, their usage of the word is meaningless. When you hear the word "energy" casually used to explain a mystical force or capability, require clarification. Require that the energy be defined. Is it heat? Is it a spinning flywheel?

Here's a good test. When you hear the word "energy" used in a spiritual or paranormal sense, substitute the phrase "measurable work capability." Does the usage still make sense? Are you actually being given any information that supports the claim being made? Remember, energy itself is not the thing being measured: energy is the measurement of work performed or of potential.

Take the following claim of Kundalini Yoga as an example: "The release and ascent of the dormant spiritual energy enables the aspirant to transcend the effects of the elements and achieve consciousness." This would be a great thing if energy was indeed that shimmering cloud that can go wherever it's needed and perform miracles. But it's not, so in this case, we substitute the phrase "measurable work capability" and find that the sentence is not attempting to measure or quantify anything other than the word "energy" itself. We have a "dormant spiritual measurable work capability," and no further information. That's pretty vague, isn't it? For this claim to have any merit, they must at least describe how this energy is being stored or manifested. Is it potential energy stored in the chemistry of fat cells? Is it heat that can spread through the body? Is it a measurable amount of electromagnetism, and if so, where's the magnet? In any event, it must be measurable and precisely quantifiable, or it can't be called energy, by definition.

There's a good reason why you don't hear medical doctors or pharmacists talking about energy fields: it's meaningless. I think it's generally good policy to remain open minded and be ready to hear claims that involve energy, but approach them skeptically, and scientifically. The next time you hear such a claim, substitute the phrase "measurable work capability" and you'll be well equipped to separate the silly from the solid.


http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4002

SkyHook5652's photo
Mon 11/24/08 05:36 PM
Thanks Billy, this is a very good article.

It is an excellent example of refuting a position by “defining it away”.

The basic argument is that, because the word used to refer to something does not agree with a specific definition, then the thing it refers to cannot exist. In other words, because the map doesn’t use the right symbol for mountain, the territory cannot contain a mountain.

The problem is not that the thing doesn’t exist. The problem is, literally, that there are no words to describe it. And one of the reasons there are no words to describe it is that articles like this come along and say effectively, “You’re not allowed to use that word because I already own it.” (“I’m gonna take my word and go home. Nya!”) This “semantic elitism” does not refute anything any more than telling your opponent to shut up would refute anything. What it does do is polarize people into oppositional groups. And the saddest thing of all is that it is a mental straightjacket for the semantic elitists. It does nothing to increase their understanding of anything. It just shuts them off from the people who do understand what the speaker meant when they used the word.

<end rant>

drinker

warmachine's photo
Mon 11/24/08 05:53 PM
Whether or not you buy into the New age theories or anything in the vein that folks claim to be able to tap into alternate dimensions ( which I don't) Science, through string theory, has proven that there are alternate dimensions, that our universe is apart of a vast multiverse that continues to expand.


"it must be measurable and precisely quantifiable, or it can't be called energy, by definition. "

So how does this explain Dark Matter?

no photo
Mon 11/24/08 11:29 PM
I think the fact that we use less than 10% of our brain should have us looking deeper for answers. The only thing standing in our way could simply be our egos telling us it's not possible.

river_of_love's photo
Tue 11/25/08 12:59 AM
Actually, string theory has yet to produce a single testable hypothesis. Until this happens, string theory is no more science than is this new age talk of "energy."

"Dark Matter" is the term used to represent the mass in the universe that we have yet to explain. We see objects moving through space as if there were far more matter present than we're capable of seeing--according to our existing theory of gravity. Since we have no reason to believe the theory of gravity is incorrect, we deduce that there must be additional mass somewhere that we can't see. Its effects are measurable and precisely quantifiable. Other than this, we haven't actually found it, so we call it "dark matter." ;)

Oh, and the notion that we use less than 10% of our brains is a myth, too.

river_of_love's photo
Tue 11/25/08 01:13 AM
SkyHook: The problem *is* that the thing doesn't exist. If it existed, we'd find proper ways to describe it through scientific experimentation. If people *could* interact with this "medium," it would be verifiable.

The problem is that people are wonderful at finding explanations for what they want to believe. This is why peer review is so important to the scientific process. If results can't be replicated, then the original claim is suspect.

Example: I know a woman that says she can talk to trees--they want her to sing to them. She also has friends that say they can talk to plants. I suggested that she tell the tree something to tell the other person and then we can see if the other person gets the message. She just poo-pooed the idea because it proved that I didn't believe it was really happening.

But if it really *is* possible to communicate with plants, that would be a major major scientific breakthrough! Unfortunately, it's easier to believe that these people are hallucinating than it is to believe that plants are capable of communicating telepathically with people. It's also far more likely.

Nathan_W's photo
Tue 11/25/08 07:41 AM

Science, through string theory, has proven that there are alternate dimensions


Was I asleep when we proved string theory? Thought it was still a pretty poor candidate for M-theory.

Anyway, I don't agree with that article's author's comment that a majority of Americans believe in a floating blob of "energy" that can be tapped. I've only ever heard people who believe that referred to as "kooks" or "crazies," so it's definitely not a widely-accepted and normal belief.

Also - that movie was speculative and silly, completely full of pseudoscience. The article's author needs to buy his friend a book on quantum theory.

no photo
Tue 11/25/08 09:27 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Tue 11/25/08 09:29 AM

I think the fact that we use less than 10% of our brain should have us looking deeper for answers. The only thing standing in our way could simply be our egos telling us it's not possible.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

10% of our brain is a myth . . . . Perfect example.


Nathan just take a representative sample from these forums. I think you will find that most people can relate to the new age energy . . . and no very little about what energy actually is or does.

SkyHook5652's photo
Tue 11/25/08 01:34 PM
Example: I know a woman that says she can talk to trees--they want her to sing to them. She also has friends that say they can talk to plants. I suggested that she tell the tree something to tell the other person and then we can see if the other person gets the message. She just poo-pooed the idea because it proved that I didn't believe it was really happening.

SkyHook: The problem *is* that the thing doesn't exist. If it existed, we'd find proper ways to describe it through scientific experimentation. If people *could* interact with this "medium," it would be verifiable.
This is a perfect example of exactly what I meant by “defining it away”. All you’ve said is that “Existence is defined as: that which can be described through scientific experiment.”

Ok, so what?

How does that help the lady talking to the tree? All thet definition has done so far is, at the least, upset her and justify ridicule and condescension on the part of others, and at the worst, justify incarceration and torturously brutal treatments in the name of “curing her of her delusions”. Big help.

The problem is that people are wonderful at finding explanations for what they want to believe.
That’s not a problem for them. It’s only a problem for those who want them to believe something else. Talking to trees is not a problem for the lady who talks to trees. It is (ironically) only a problem for the people who don’t believe her.

This is why peer review is so important to the scientific process. If results can't be replicated, then the original claim is suspect.
Ok, if one desires to have their claim validated, then one should go for the peer review. And more power to them. But the tree talker doesn’t care if her claim is validated by peer review or not. She’s not the one who is suspicious of the claim and she doesn’t care whether anyone else is suspicious or not. Unlike those who depend on a peer review, she knows full well that others don’t agree with her and continues to believe as she chooses, without the slightest concern for what other people think she should believe. So who is closer to truly having free will? huh

But if it really *is* possible to communicate with plants, that would be a major major scientific breakthrough! Unfortunately, it's easier to believe that these people are hallucinating than it is to believe that plants are capable of communicating telepathically with people.
So go ahead and believe they’re hallucinating if that’s easier for you. You’ve just as much right to believe she’s hallucinating as she does to believe she’s doing it. And I might even agree with your beliefs. But I have no need for proof of it either way. And contrary to your definition of “existence”, I don’t hold the opinion that she cannot do it. Only that I have not yet seen any useful purpose in it.

Nathan_W's photo
Tue 11/25/08 02:04 PM
Edited by Nathan_W on Tue 11/25/08 02:05 PM

Skyhook: I know a woman that says she can talk to trees--they want her to sing to them...

... how does that help the lady talking to the tree?


This woman doesn't need open-minded friends justifying her delusions. She needs a doctor because she's borderline schizophrenic.

And stop bringing free will into every discussion. It's not even related to the discussion on energy. :smile:

You make this lady sound like a saint. I can say with 100% certainty that, in our experienced reality here on Earth, that tree is not talking to that woman. I would bet my life on it. If she says (and even if she truly believes) that the tree is speaking with her, then she is malfunctioning. And if you believe her, you might be too.

(no offense! laugh)

Nathan_W's photo
Tue 11/25/08 02:16 PM
Ohh and Skyhook - you should read "The Untethered Soul" by Michael Singer. Some of your ideas on free will and the "self" are very well discussed in that book. I'll admit I didn't agree to it and my soul remains tethered, but I like exploring both sides of the argument.

I really didn't mean offense above - I can be open minded about a lot of things, but I draw the line at self-deprecating delusions that are clearly false. You might say, "How do you know they are false?" and I will say, "You know they are, too, you're just not willing to admit it."

:smile:

no photo
Tue 11/25/08 03:51 PM
Thank you for not being shy on this topic nathan.

Bottom line Sky, if someone doesn't want there claim to be checked out, then make no claims.

If you tell me you can talk to trees, I WANT TO KNOW HOW. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

Does that not make sense. Does it not make sense that we could find this information relevant?

To take it seriously is what its all about, and to take something seriously you have to find ways to discover the true nature of it . .. then only way is to work out tests.

We HAVE to test our reality, we HAVE to know what is true to make strides in our exploration if you are satisfied at taking everyone word for it FINE.

Do not make claims you cant back up is the moral to the story. Keep your delusions to yourself if you do not want a critical thinker to try to discover the veracity of the claim.

Ruth34611's photo
Tue 11/25/08 04:17 PM

Keep your delusions to yourself if you do not want a critical thinker to try to discover the veracity of the claim.



Seems a little harsh to call something a delusion just because the person can't prove it to your satisfaction.

Ruth34611's photo
Tue 11/25/08 04:20 PM
Aren't there examples of scientists who were thought to be crazy for their ideas and theories....until they were later proven to be true?

Ruth34611's photo
Tue 11/25/08 04:26 PM
As far as your original post....if you don't want to call it energy than don't. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you don't want to accept that it exists because it hasn't been proven, then don't. But, what do you care if other people do? If the personal spiritual beliefs of "people in these forums" are so annoying to you, why don't you just ignore them and not worry about what they believe? I want to know why it bothers you so much?

no photo
Tue 11/25/08 05:06 PM


I think the fact that we use less than 10% of our brain should have us looking deeper for answers. The only thing standing in our way could simply be our egos telling us it's not possible.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

10% of our brain is a myth . . . . Perfect example.


Nathan just take a representative sample from these forums. I think you will find that most people can relate to the new age energy . . . and no very little about what energy actually is or does.


I have never really taken the percentages seriously....I always saw it as more of a figure of speech, meaning that the brain is a complex organ and it's power and potential is beyond the knowledge of science.

SkyHook5652's photo
Tue 11/25/08 05:56 PM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Tue 11/25/08 05:56 PM
Skyhook: I know a woman that says she can talk to trees--they want her to sing to them...

... how does that help the lady talking to the tree?


This woman doesn't need open-minded friends justifying her delusions. She needs a doctor because she's borderline schizophrenic.

And stop bringing free will into every discussion. It's not even related to the discussion on energy. :smile:

You make this lady sound like a saint

I can say with 100% certainty that, in our experienced reality here on Earth, that tree is not talking to that woman. I would bet my life on it. If she says (and even if she truly believes) that the tree is speaking with her, then she is malfunctioning.
Very compelling rhetoric. You have quite a talent there. And I understand there are many people who hold the same opinions as you. Even I agree with many of them.

MirrorMirror's photo
Tue 11/25/08 06:06 PM
:smile: Using an E-Meter that I bought from the Church of Scientology, I have managed to clear over half of my body thetans.:smile:

SkyHook5652's photo
Tue 11/25/08 06:17 PM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Tue 11/25/08 06:19 PM

Thank you for not being shy on this topic nathan.

Bottom line Sky, if someone doesn't want there claim to be checked out, then make no claims.

If you tell me you can talk to trees, I WANT TO KNOW HOW. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

Does that not make sense. Does it not make sense that we could find this information relevant?

To take it seriously is what its all about, and to take something seriously you have to find ways to discover the true nature of it . .. then only way is to work out tests.

We HAVE to test our reality, we HAVE to know what is true to make strides in our exploration if you are satisfied at taking everyone word for it FINE.

Do not make claims you cant back up is the moral to the story. Keep your delusions to yourself if you do not want a critical thinker to try to discover the veracity of the claim.

Billy I keep trying to get the idea across that, regardless of what anyone tells you, or what you read, or what the peer review concludes, or what you observe, it is you that makes the final determination as to veracity. You can choose to accept the claims of the peer review board. You can chose to accept the claims of the guru. You can choose to make your own claims and accept those. You can compare any claims you want against any other claims you want. The bottom line is always that you are the one who makes the final determination for yourself. If that is not the case, then there is no point in concerning yourself with a subject in the first place.

drinker

no photo
Tue 11/25/08 10:22 PM


Thank you for not being shy on this topic nathan.

Bottom line Sky, if someone doesn't want there claim to be checked out, then make no claims.

If you tell me you can talk to trees, I WANT TO KNOW HOW. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

Does that not make sense. Does it not make sense that we could find this information relevant?

To take it seriously is what its all about, and to take something seriously you have to find ways to discover the true nature of it . .. then only way is to work out tests.

We HAVE to test our reality, we HAVE to know what is true to make strides in our exploration if you are satisfied at taking everyone word for it FINE.

Do not make claims you cant back up is the moral to the story. Keep your delusions to yourself if you do not want a critical thinker to try to discover the veracity of the claim.

Billy I keep trying to get the idea across that, regardless of what anyone tells you, or what you read, or what the peer review concludes, or what you observe, it is you that makes the final determination as to veracity. You can choose to accept the claims of the peer review board. You can chose to accept the claims of the guru. You can choose to make your own claims and accept those. You can compare any claims you want against any other claims you want. The bottom line is always that you are the one who makes the final determination for yourself. If that is not the case, then there is no point in concerning yourself with a subject in the first place.

drinker

Sky, but does choosing to accept the fact that I can levitate make it true? Can accepting the reality of sausage make air taste like sausage . . . or ohhh ohhh can I make tofu taste like sausage emmm, that would be good . . . .

Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10