Tom Foss? Is that kinda like way back when "the world is round" was not proven, not provable garbage? Skeptico?

Interesting observation ... clueless to what?
Your point of view?

Clearly his concept of the universe has flown over your head like the Stealth at mach.
So what?
You both have opposing viewpoints ... so what?
Just because YOU THINK he is clueless does not make that a reality other than in your own mind now does it?
Usually when someone starts calling someone else names in a debate they do so because they have exhausted any valid comeback ... that means they (you in this case) lose.

Kat

Posted by: | March 23, 2007 at 01:56 AM

No, because "the world is round" is a testable hypothesis which is easily verified. The fact that the world is round was discovered by early scientists through the scientific method of observation and inquiry. Why do woos always bring up the flat Earth? They never understand it, and it always ends up biting them in the ass. The idea that the Earth was flat was asserted based on cursory observation and dogma, kind of the way that the Law of Attraction was just asserted based on no observation and dogmatic new-age psychobabble. Science. Scientific law. The scientific method. The fact that the universe doesn't grant your wishes. Reality. Need I go on? No, Joe Vitale is clueless because he claims that the Law of Attraction is a "scientific law" like gravity, and that it works 100% of the time. This is demonstrably false. He is clueless because he promotes a childish fairy tale about how the universe is a magical genie that will grant all your wishes. This is demonstrably false. It's not a matter of opposing-but-valid worldviews. It's a matter of fairy tale delusions vs. reality. That would be true if Skeptico's argument were "Joe Vitale is clueless, therefore the Secret is wrong." What you fail to grasp, or refuse to grasp, is that Skeptico presents several reasons why Vitale is wrong, here and in other posts. Calling Vitale "clueless," even if it weren't supported by the facts, is incidental to his argument. Calling Joe Vitale "clueless" does not invalidate all the other paragraphs of reason that Skeptico wrote in the initial post. Ad hominem is only a fallacy if it makes up the bulk of the argument; this insult is not the substance of the argument, and the argument stands without it.

Posted by: Tom Foss | March 23, 2007 at 03:11 AM

No, because "the world is round" was never an unprovable hypothesis. It was provable by measuring shadows in the ancient classical world, and Eratosthenes calculated the circumference to within 500 km using nought but a couple of sticks and the sun. It didn't take fancy spaceships or measuring devices to prove it. In fact, it's pretty self-evident. The shadow of the Earth on the moon is round, the mast of a ship is visible on the horizon before the rest of the ship, etc. No, clueless about the nature of reality, clueless about science, clueless about quantum theory...Here's a hint: not all opinions are equally tenable. Sometimes people are just wrong. No, we get it. He says that the universe is a magical machine that grants wishes if we just will hard enough, but punish us for being negative. That is what makes it (1) unproveable, because it is inherently unfalsifiable as any instance where someone wishes for a pony but instead gets a stab wound can just be ad hocked into "You didn't will it hard enough" and (2) completely out of touch with reality. According to Joe Vitale and "The Secret," it should, if we think it hard enough.

When someone's name is "Kat" and she posts nonsense, that means she (you in this case) lose. See, I can make up non-sequiturs that lead to my victory, too! Here's another: When someone wears green on a Sunday, that means that person loses. It's fun for the whole family!

Here's a hint: Coming to a website expressing a viewpoint with which you disagree and ignoring all the substance and arguments in lieu of quote-mining a few short passages that are logically neutral isn't really the best way to prove your point. In fact, throwing around irrelevancies is about the worst way to do it.

If you're not going to post anything of substance, kindly go away.

Posted by: Akusai | March 23, 2007 at 04:04 AM

Tom Foss?

Why do the skeptico's of the world always miss the point and follow with a statement like yours above?

No one gives a flip if the world was flat or round.
The point IS a vast majority of the people on it believed what was NOT YET proven.
Why did they believe that? ... because science had not yet closed the gap.
Are you closer to GETTING IT NOW (the point that is)? How about considering dogmatic age-old psychobabble ... since this thought process was around long before the world was flat.
Not a history buff huh?
psychobabble? You a Rush Limbaugh fan? Tom can we face the truth here?
Your No is no better than his Yes.
If he is clueless so are you.
YOU can not prove he is wrong and he can not prove he is right.

That scientifically makes you standing on equal ground SO FAR.
Well sort of on equal ground because YOU will never be able to prove him wrong.
Why?
You do not have the tools and probably never will.
That does not bother me and hopefully it does not bother you either ... it is simply fact.

Akusai? You are a scientist?
What do you know about quantum theory?
Anything other than a wisp of what you have been told?
Are you in the trenches working on a project of any kind?

Are you familiar with the "string theory"?
Do you know some of the most brilliant scientists of today are busy trying to PROVE that THEORY?
Do you know the research of a young woman is the most promising to prove "the string" along with the "existence of parallel dimensions"? She will have an opportunity to test her theories when the Large Hadron Collider comes online this summer?

It does not surprise me if any/all of this is foreign to you.

The point is: (since "the point" seems to be obscure to a few of you) we are dealing with an unknown ... NONE of us can PROVE the rightness or wrongness of any of this ... AT THIS MOMENT ... that does not mean tomorrow will not change things.

If you can prove your point (again let me make the point clear ... there is no "law of attraction") ... bring it on.
I personally want to SEE your PROOF.
In fact the WHOLE WORLD wants to see your PROOF.
The scientific community would be totally thrilled with YOUR PROOF.
I am not interested in what you think ... because frankly the YOU (plural of) here have no status on the believability meter. My Goodness!
Interesting ... so much pseudo-intellectual jabber.

I do not recall saying I disagreed with YOUR concept of "the law of attraction".
Wait let me guess you are a so called "woo" in disguise and secretly have a crystal ball tucked under your left arm pit?

Do you just make stuff up as you go along to suit your argument?
Maybe you are just a little "reading comprehension" impaired?
At worst you are pawing the ground looking for a fight because you have nothing better to do in your day?

Substance?

Relative to whose definition?
Ohhh let me guess yours of course ... well that makes a real impact doesn't it?

Kindly go away?

Thank you for the biggest chuckle of my day ... so this is how you treat people who just happen onto your playground and make a comment "you don't like" about your flawed methodology?

You are right I do need to go away ... trying to keep a logical dialog (of any kind) going with anyone who is so mired in the "rightness of self" that they see NO bigger picture (no matter what that picture might be) ... is totally fruitless and a waste of time.

Perhaps you might want to consider that and then just maybe this thread will attract some REAL intellectuals :)

Have a good one guys and gals,

Kat ;)

Posted by: | March 23, 2007 at 01:29 PM

Kat: And they believed something that science showed to be wrong, and the theory that showed it to be wrong was available as was the evidence.

So to take your analogy and fit it to this discussion:

Many people believed the earth (the secret) was flat (granted you what you wished for). The scientific evidence to dispute this was available but the people didn't believe or didn't understand it. People continued to promote the erroneous view that the earth (the secret) was flat (worked). Science then showed that the earth (the secret) was round (did not work) and that the early theories that had been available were correct.

Actually, your analogy was a big help in getting the skeptical point across, thanks.

Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 23, 2007 at 01:45 PM

Again, a post filled with nothing but empty personal attacks and appeals to "science was wrong before" and "science doesn't know yet." You're not doing "The Secret" any favors by acting like an arrogant ass.

Because I am not a quantum physicist or a string theorist (which I might advise you to leave out, because string theory has made no real significant progress for most of its existence and isn't really a fantastic theory) doesn't mean The Law of Attraction is true or even close to it. Besides that, we have actual scientists around here who really understand (as far as it is possible) quantum physics, and have explained many times why it does not support The Law of Attraction. You merely attack

It's trivial to show that The Law of Attraction is false. All you have to do is look around at the world where people are constantly not getting what they want. Of course, "The Secret" says that this is just evidence that they didn't wish hard enough. That is what makes The Law as stated unfalsifiable, and that unfalsifiability is what makes it unscientific. It cannot be tested in any meaningful way. It differs from the old "flat earth" canard because the concept of a flat earth was not unfalsifiable in principle even if for a short (very short) time, Western culture believed it was the truth. The LoA is stated so as to be unfalsifiable in principle. You cannot falsify a "law" for which there are no possibilities for failure, and the LoA is such a "law." Any result will be taken as evidence for its truth. Sorry, but that's not how science works. No, relative to the conversation. Your post lacked any substance, evidential or logical. None of your "points" were true and your arguments were fallacious. That is what one generally means by a substanceless post. A post that basically says "You're all stupid and mean and you don't know what you're talking about" is lacking in substance. Attacking my perceived knowledge while offering no evidence of your own is substanceless. Arguing semantics? Also generally substanceless. Cripes, you're arrogant, and still wrong.

Both of your posts are textbook examples of the ad hominem fallacy. You make irrelevant personal statements or attacks and then claim that we are wrong based on those statements or attacks. This is all you've done so far, excepting this statement: A point which is patently false, and has been shown to be false repeatedly in the various Secret-related threads here. The LoA is not "an unknown," it is a ridiculous assertion that does not at all fit with the known nature of reality and is little more than feel-good drivel marketed toward those that favor wishful thinking over the scientific method and reason.

Your statements make it clear that you have an abysmal understanding of both of those things. And let's make this crystal, here: I am not saying, like you "Kat isn't a scientist so she's wrong." I'm saying "Kat has repeatedly made statements that show she is totally ignorant of science and reason, specifically what constitutes a valid scientific hypothesis, what science has to say about the world, and how to avoid logical fallacies."

You're not the first person here to spout the same damned drivel. You're not novel or special. Everything you said, and I do mean everything, has been dealt with ad nauseaum and I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only one who is sick of it.

Posted by: Akusai | March 23, 2007 at 05:37 PM

Kat: How about telling us the name of this young woman, what university she's with, what papers she's written, who she's working with, and so on?

Posted by: sophia8 | March 24, 2007 at 07:42 AM

Uh, no. The majority of people believed that the world was flat without any proof. People started believing the world was round when folks like Eratosthenes showed them proof, namely the shadow made on the moon and the fact that the mast of a ship approaching on the horizon appears before the rest of the ship does, something which only would happen on a round Earth.

Get the progression there? People believe something stupid (Earth is flat) with no proof -> A hypothesis is made (Earth is round) based on observation -> Evidence shows that the hypothesis is true -> People believe the conclusion (Earth is round).

That's the scientific method, lady. You believe something after proof is shown to support it, not before. Yeah, I get the point: the law of attraction is like continuing to believe the Earth is flat. There's no proof for it, there's plenty of proof against it, and it's flipping stupid. You don't seem to understand: the world was never flat. Nor do you understand the problem of newage, mainly that it dresses up ancient stupidity in colorful new language. The term "newage" (rhymes with "sewage") is as much ironic as it is descriptive.

psychobabble? You a Rush Limbaugh fan?

No, I think he's a fat conservative butthead with the face of a horse's ass. But when people start spouting off shit about "positive thinking" and "actualization" and whatnot, terms that are intended to sound psychological and scientific, but actually aren't, "psychobabble" describes it pretty well. Only if you have absolutely no understanding of the scientific method. In science, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. Science assumes the null hypothesis--that X does not exist--until some proof is shown to support a positive hypothesis--that X does exist. It's not up to me to disprove him, it's up to Joe Vitale to prove his claims. Scientifically, he has no standing and his claims have no validity until he demonstrates some proof for them. The cornerstone of science is falsifiability. Essentially, you've just said that Joe Vitale's claims are unfalsifiable. Guess what: if something is unfalsifiable and has no positive evidence to support it, then it is not science. There goes that equal footing.

And all that ignores the centuries and millennia which show that the Law of Attraction is simply not true, that the universe doesn't just grant your wishes, and that it actually functions according to knowable, constant, objective laws which do not depend on the thoughts of individuals. The evidence on my side just keeps piling up. I guarantee I know more about quantum mechanics than you do. I guarantee that by reading some of what I've written, Akusai has a better understanding than you do. Tell me, Kat, what value is represented by the expression < a | a >? Are you familiar with the fact that, until such proof is shown, String Theory is still a hypothesis? Are you aware that there are several different variations on the theory being proposed? Are you aware that other theories, such as Loop Quantum Gravity and Supersymmetry are currently just as valid and likely as String Theory (and M-Theory)? Are you aware that equally brilliant people (including Lee Smolin, author of "The Trouble with Physics") think that String Theory is a waste of time, because it makes too many assumptions with too few testable predictions?

Personally, I think the most likely of these various "Theories of Everything" is James Gates's team's version of String Theory, which doesn't require an extra half-dozen dimensions for the math to work. I haven't heard much about it since I saw him speak on it a few years back, so I'd be curious to see what progress they've made. Even so, until there's something more than a mathematical model, they're all just ideas.

What young woman? Does she have a name?

A lot of things are being promised by the LHC. I'm still waiting for the Higgs Boson, and recent experiments at Fermilab suggest that maybe the Higgs isn't quite what they thought it was. And that's all well and good. But what it means is that until tomorrow does change things, it's unscientific to believe that these things are true. Besides, again, the simple observable fact that the universe doesn't just respond to your every whim and wish, the scientific community would much rather see the proof for the existence of the Law of Attraction. Such proof, should it exist, would require major changes in all scientific models across all disciplines, because it would suggest not only that the universe does not work according to constant universal laws, but that there is some unknown mechanism by which the human brain can alter the very fabric of reality.

So far, Joe Vitale and his cronies have shown no such proof. As such, science doesn't care about their claims. Like the millions of perpetual motion machines, claims of psychic phenomena, solipsistic claims that you create the universe with your thoughts, and other unscientific mystical bunk that get thrown out every year, the Law of Attraction simply asserts itself as "scientific fact" with no supportive evidence, no testable predictions, no falsifiability, and no scientific validity. My irony meter done broke.

"Rightness of self"? "Rightness of Self"? Girl, "rightness of self" is the basic building block of the Law of Attraction! It's reducing the entire universe down to the will of the individuals, while ignoring the bigger picture of a universe where laws apply objectively and universally, and don't give a flying pony's cojones what you think.

Oy gevalt.

Posted by: Tom Foss | March 24, 2007 at 09:28 AM

You know, you can be very skeptical about a movie like this, but i look at it from a different angle, if it helps people to achieving their dreams by just doing it and keep persisting on doing their actions, it will payoff. It is not really what you think that is essential, it is your attitude that sincerely does perform something when other folks noticing it. I'ld rather hang around with someone who believes in The Secret than someone who likes to call up Murphy's laws every dang situation.

Posted by: Vince | March 24, 2007 at 12:23 PM

If "The Secret" were about how positive thoughts and a positive attitude, coupled with hard work, optimism, sticktoitiveness, and persistence, could help you achieve your dreams, I'd totally agree. But it isn't. It's about how you can get whatever you want by just sitting back and wishing really hard for it. And I'd much rather work with a dour pessimist who quotes Murphy's Law than someone who's going to sit back and try to "attract" positive effects while I do all the real work. As far as Murphy's Law goes, it really is the dark mirror of the Law of Attraction: it's not empirically proven but is asserted as a law without evidence, it's essentially untestable and unfalsifiable, and it's all about mindset affecting reality. The difference, of course, is that no one seriously believes that Murphy's Law is a scientific law of the universe.

Posted by: Tom Foss | March 24, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Vince, if you only look at a short-term range of possibilities, you are right in saying that the Secret (tm) isn't that bad. By the same token, the Nazis weren't all that bad: Hitler's immediate influence on Germany's economic prospects was so impressive to the Volk that they believed he was the right Ubermensch for the Fatherland. I have a feeling that the people ~*inspired*~ by the Secret (tm) would be better served by Cognitive-Behavioral therapists, but hey, maybe shimmery fairies are playing with my mind.

Posted by: Autumn Ellison | March 24, 2007 at 06:40 PM

I just turned 20 and I have read the secret. I use to feel hopeless and not have faith. I had deep depression. I felt like no one liked me. Then I got help for the depression. Then a while later, my Mom gave me the best gift ive ever got. And it was the book "The Secret". You guys can bash it all you want. But it worked for me. Girls find me attractive again, Im in the best shape of my life, I am confident, I am free of my depression, I love Life again, I love everything. The book gave me so much hope, I put the things in it to practice and most of them have worked. Becuase I am not perfect at using this "law" yet.

No girls were interested in me for some time, like 5 months, not one new girl came along. Then all of the sudden after practicing some unique stuff of my own based off the secret, it just seemed as though every girl wanted me. I had like no good friends left. and then i used the secret and bam, i gained back my good friends, and even added more. The only way I found this negative site, is from a google search about "The Secret." Skeptics are negative thinking people in a great sense. They spend more time thinking about what is not, or what could possibly not be, rather than thinking and doing what they believe in. It's very sad, I know how it can be, since I too use to be a pessimist like you guys when i was depressed. I just hope you'll all find your real selves again, and become full with hope and love and not worry about petty things like whos right and wrong, but to accept everything for what it is and to move on to live and enjoy another day.

Posted by: Gary | March 24, 2007 at 07:52 PM

Funny, I never thought of myself as being a pessimist, nor as being a negative person. Just a person who believes in working towards a goal, not one who appeals to a wish fairy. Why do "The Secret" folks feel they need to project attributes to us without any evidence?

Posted by: HCN | March 24, 2007 at 10:39 PM

Gary, here's a word of advice. If you want to portray yourself as somebody who feels sexually confident and successful, drop bigballerguy as your email nick.

Posted by: sophia8 | March 25, 2007 at 06:33 AM

Gary: You sure you didn't just get a Bowflex gym? No way?!?!11>?!? 5 whole months. And you a stud like that as well. Now that I am skeptical about. 5 months. Jeez. Horrifying. Come on, stop pulling our legs. Guys look, the secret does work because Gary didn't have any interest from new girls in like, 5 months, and then he did. What I like most about your average secretoid, is their unassuming modesty. Boring. Heard it from absolutely every secretoid who has posted here already. It's still wrong. I've posted why on the site several times, I'm not going to post it again. Wrong again. Said before. Answered before. Thanks for playing. Wrong again. You are so not, like, original. What the hell does that even mean? If doing this isn't my real self, then how can I be doing it? Oh.My.Frakking.god. Thank you Oprah. So, deciding what is right and wrong is petty? Tell that to everyone who died in the concentration camps in Bosnia and Serbia. Tell that to those dying in the Darfur. Tell that to those who died on 9/11/01. Hey, as long as you're getting the girls, right Gary?
Do bleevers even read what they cut and paste from the Woo Central Repository? At least we know why the secret is so popular, there's one born every minute. How do people like this even manage to reach adulthood?

Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 25, 2007 at 06:49 AM

I swear, there's a script somewhere.

Posted by: Tom Foss | March 25, 2007 at 09:44 AM

Due to the excessive vitriolic and uncivil nature of this comment I have deleted it. I have also instigated comment moderation and it will stay on until people such as this unnamed poster learn to be more civil.

This is not your playground. If you want to rant and insult freestyle - get your own blog.

- Skeptico.

Posted by: | March 25, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Tom Foss?

I'm sorry you guys are just to much fun and so predictable. I simply could not stay away.

You know you guys are simply to easy.
You are so played like a fiddle.

Love the pony balls statement Tom ... cute!
No doubt that is exactly what the LOA world thinks about all of you skeptics.

Here is the thing ... you don't have a clue what you are talking about when you talk trash about LOA or how it works. So not in the next million years will you be able to prove or disprove it.

Here is a simple law that you should understand ... you have to know something before you can even approach explaining it or in this case trash it. You should have enough common sense to at least do that before you leap on your pedestal and preach against. YOU do not have the time, inclination or capacity to discuss the subject. So every comment on this thread by all of you skeptics is foolish at best.

Here is the real ringer that will cause you to cringe, weep and wail.
Why is the statement above true?
You do not have the capability to think outside the box.
How do I know that?
I have read EVERY COMMENT you have made here and its as clear as day (in fact I have read all 109 pages of commentary on this thread)
I hate to keep explaining my meanings but you are STUNTED THINKERS. I take it then you are a fat liberal butthead with the face of a horse's ass ... who steals someone else's phrases? My god young man are you truly dense or are you just acting that way because have nothing more creative to say. You know as well as you breath the meaning of my statements. Do you think your cronies here think you are cute and funny? No doubt they do ... your mentality is to denigrate other who do not agree with you over something you totally do not know/understand.

Tell me you understand what you are talking about in regards to the LOA and I will flat call you a liar.

What does that make you other than a sour grape curmudgeon?
What do you care?
Why is it so important for you to be right?
Do you have a little ego problem here? Who do you think you are my man?
You are no authority on any of this ... can you admit that even to yourself?
I would certainly hope so. You mean like the explorers had to prove the round world hypothesis to the flat world scientists? ... lol

Are you pulling your hair out yet? :)
Do you have any hair to pull out? My dear young man that is the understatement of the century I know NOTHING about "quantum mechanics" nor do not have a clue how it works nor do I care. I do however know things most quantum mechanic scientists would give their first born to prove. Do I really care if they ever validate that knowledge? Not any more than I care that you are a "flat world thinker". Yes I absolutely do know the above ... does it surprise you that someone who does not care how it works is interested in the study of?

Do YOU have to know how to sew a wedding gown to appreciate the beauty of it?

If you are interested in the field of quantum mechanics then I would imagine you know how truly competitive it is ... any one of these people would love to break new ground. Who knows maybe he will catch a lucky break. Yes she does ... lol ... sounds like you kinda thought I did a "woo woo" and just made/thought her up?
For the sake of argument? LOL
I know what I am talking about before I leap into the middle of a fray and keep my mouth shut otherwise.

I can hardly wait to see what kind of crappy comments you and a few of your cronies come up with for her so far life's accomplishments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Randall Sorry guy ... my world does not revolve around what science has yet to prove. If that is the way you want to operate yours? ... absolutely great!
However you might want to condiser using the other 95% of your brain capacity ... it is a definite shame to waste it. :)

You guys who insist you are absolutely right about something you know less than squat about irritate me as much as an atheist would be irritated by a religious zealot foisting his perspective on them.

I do expect you to get the point without it having to be clarified. So now we have 2 groups who don't give a flying flip about the others claims and neither group hinges operation on the other ... so let me ask you about the 20th time ... what do you care?
What really irritates the hell out of you about all of this?
Because it is clear you are irritated ... do you even really know why? Building blocks, smilding blocks AGAIN you do not know what the hell you are talking about ... you might want to consider that with your rant from your pulpit.

So far what I get out of reading all of your posts is you are bitching that someone has come up with a self help idea.

1. Apparently not ONE of you knows squat about the LOA or how it really works or why others might be attracted to it.
2. People seen to be pea green that someone is making a few million off the concept. Do you guys all work for free?
3. Anyone who challenges your argument you ask to leave your sandbox.
4. The people who come here telling you it works for them you kick sand in their face.

Shame on you!
You are acting like little kids fighting over who is better at a marble game.
This young man ... Gary came here and told his story and almost every single one of you put him down.
What on earth is wrong with you?
You all owe him an apology but I doubt any of you have the "pony cojones" to fess up and offer it.

Akusai?

You are kidding of course ... you astound me with what you come up with from what I have said. Please tell me you have English as a second language and you are translating from Chinese. What made you think AGAIN I am promoting you or anyone else here take up the study of either "the secret" or "LOA". Let me say this in very simple terms ... I don't care what happens to "the secret" or "LOA" it will rise or fall on it's own merit without ANY INPUT from any of us.

What I DO CARE ABOUT is you guys are kicking everyone in the teeth over something you know NOTHING about.
You are acting like pseudo-intellects on subject matter that you should look into rather than open your trap and let some foolish bull crap come rolling out.
Just to set the record straight I would be where ever I saw someone kicking you guys in the teeth over something they did not understand ... have done it long before most of you guys were in pampers. I am sorry if I am judging your maturity level at around 30 but some of the trash I have seen tossed here is about 12.

When will it creep into your head your opinion is simply your own opinion ... it does not make the reality of the world change. Sooo: I have already dispatched your "still wrong".
I will definitely cop to the "arrogant as hell" and proud every day of my life for it.
Does that bother you?
Well try this on for size ... "Mediocrity ALWAYS attacks superiority" (Michael Beckwith)... how does that suit your fancy ... roflmao

Ohh that is ALOA (a law of always)

Kat