Skip to main content

Bullshit alert

I am very irritated by this, and have commented....

Comments

Graham said…
I particularly like the way that the long-winded response to your comment basically dismisses your point because you're not thinking about it from the point of all-seeing, universal, transcendental wossname.

Honestly, this is Deepak Chopra territory.
The best part of her response is: if people can levitate--as has been demonstrated--then why shouldn't they be able to fly?
[face in palms]
Anonymous said…
So until you reach this "state of awareness", you cannot understand how people can survive standing next to a nuclear explosion, cure themselves of heart disease (really, they told him TYING HIS SHOE would kill him!!??), and fix household appliances. But once you reach the state, this all is possible!

Wow. Even writing it made me feel stupid.
dsks said…
Ugh.

Makes me think of this Tim Minchin animation

It's frustrating that she claims to be against rankism (Orwellian term if ever their was one). The promise of "Secret Knowledge" has been used to keep the plebs in check for centuries. Critical thinking is something anyone can try. But secret knowledge... well, that's something you can only get from the right priest, or shaman, or Jedi Master, or for the bargain sum of $269 plus shipping + taxes.
Paul S. Jenkins said…
Pamela Gerloff obviously lives on another planet. A planet without air, but surely that's not a problem for someone with the right frame of mind.
Anonymous said…
There is a cult of positive thinking in the medical profession, Barbara Ehrenreich take down of it is particularly entertaining in “Smile or Die”, almost as enjoyable as your recent book. I’m surprised the editors of Psychology Today aren’t embarrassed to be associated with such rubbish.
Paul Southworth said…
Wow. The article was irritating enough, but her responses to your comments were possibly the most condescending writings I have ever read. But then apparently I don't understand because I'm thinking with my mind.
Edward Ockham said…
>>I'm thinking with my mind

An interesting idea. Another question: when people say things like this, do they really believe what they say? The philosopher David Hume thought that even apparently religious people don't really believe their religion.

And if they don't, how do we explain their apparent denial? Is it

(a) they are mentally ill
(b) they are consciously lying
(c) they are unconsciously lying or 'in denial'
(d) something else.

The philosopher Harry Franfurter has a 'theory of bullshit' according to which the bullshitter is 'indifferent to truth', but I wonder if that's possible. My experience of bullshitters is that they are pretty expert at steering you away from the exact area they are bullshitting you about. This suggests they are conscious of it in some way (and so not indifferent to truth at all).

I would recommend the commenters here (and Stephen also) not to get upset about this. See it as a psychological (or psychiatric) phenomenon worthy of serious study.
daz365 said…
Are her qualifications really from Harvard or an adjoining building? Is there any way of checking?
Ryan M said…
This stuff is nonsense. I've decided not to bother dealing with people who argue that there are higher "Levels of awareness" and that every person has the passive potential to be a jedi if they expand their awareness.
Tony Lloyd said…
We may have got to meta-nuclear on Edward Ockham's blog (http://ocham.blogspot.com/).

Lester's "nuclear comment" probably cannot even be entertained as *possibly true* unless you are willing to engage with the game at a rather high level, and unless you first have some direct personal experience that suggests that higher-order impossibilities might possibly be true.


I can't quite make out her point but she seems to be using Going Nuclear to deny Going Nuclear.
Anonymous said…
I've commented on the article, but it seems to me that Pamela is suggesting something much stronger than that her "possibility paradigm" is merely a kind of brainstorming technique. Otherwise, why include all that stuff about Lester Levenson? it's misleading at best. Anyway, it'll be interesting to read her response.
Bruce Wright said…
Isn't this like one of those things where we can blame starving people for not positively visualizing a tuna sandwich?

I mean, c'mon starving people, it's your own damn fault, idiots. Also, why are you so stupid that you keep visualizing AIDS and Malaria?

I guess if Lester Levinson can just keep up the happy thoughts, he'll live forever. Which makes me wonder, why does she start the article with "there was once a man named Lester Levinson"? Did he eventually succumb to the dreaded disease called a frowny face?

This is dangerous quackery bullshit. I know people who never quit smoking, as cancer was something that was "easily visualized away".

What trash. Someone PLEASE sue her.
I saw your comment quoted on Unreasonable Faith: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2011/09/29/i-believe-i-can-fly/

It doesn't worth the effort...
Anonymous said…
I came across a review by a long-time user of the release technique. Ok, it's just one anecdote, but it does give some insight into what the technique actually consists of.
http://lawrence-crane-enterprises.pissedconsumer.com/the-release-technique-avoid-20090731151634.html

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist