The Deepak, part I: Chopra goes after Professor Ceiling Cat

November 18, 2013 • 12:07 pm

I have deeply affronted The Deepak with my recent piece in The New Republic criticizing him and Rupert Sheldrake.  Chopra has written an outraged letter to the magazine, flaunting his impeccable scientific credentials, and I have replied. You can read the exchange at TNR‘s online piece, “Deepak Chopra responds to pseudoscience allegations. Jerry Coyne fires back.”

I must say that I quite like my response. It will make the old quack even more peevish.

What I like about Chopra is that despite his air of amiability, he’s really got a thin skin and can’t help responding. And that just gets him in more trouble. He also angers very easily when criticized, as we saw in his recent debate with Dawkins.

95 thoughts on “The Deepak, part I: Chopra goes after Professor Ceiling Cat”

  2. I recently saw a tweet Deepak made in response to the debate they had with Richard Dawkins saying he “didn’t expect him to understand – willful ignorance”, to which I responded “a shame because Richard had the perfect opportunity to observe willful ignorance during debate.”!

    Your response in the link is great, Jerry, really nail on the head type stuff!

    1. Chopra has arrogance in spades! I’ve seen him tweeting physicists as well trying to push is ridiculous “quantum” ideas. I mean really, he is telling physicists they are wrong, which would be fine if he backed it up but he publicly confronts them with woo crap!

  3. Love this assessment: “that despite his air of amiability, he’s really got a thin skin and can’t help responding. And that just gets him in more trouble.”

    I see this ALL the time in certain folks, particularly withIN certain demographics … … AllYA’all already KNOW who YOU are.

    Yours quoted here, Dr Coyne, for these genrés of folks: such the perfect descriptor thereof.

    Blue

  4. Chopra: “Consciousness is the driver of evolution. Every time you eat a chicken or a banana it transforms into a human.”

    Chopra is right. His arguments clearly illustrate that some humans are operating with the consciousness and mental faculty of a banana.

    1. Who else but Chopra could have the imagination to link digestion with evolution? Why not the reverse? Every time Chopra eats a nut he becomes a little more…oh, never mind.

  5. Hahahahaha! I laughed through all 4 paragraphs of Chopra’s indignant listing of his credentials. He spent the whole article being haughty & trying to show he is in a position of authority so ergo, we should take his woo as fact.

    I loved your response and yes he has a very thin skin – this is apparent every time he engages in debate with real scientists.

  6. Chopra quacks and quacks and quacks. He shows himself as a quack every time he opens his mouth and spews nonsense.

    Hoisted by his own petard!

    3. Actually it looks like Mlodinow was highly critical of Chopra’s bullshit arguments: http://advaita-academy.org/books/War-of-the-Worldviews.ashx?m=a

      He constructs many straw men misrepresenting what science is and what it stands for – science is reductionist, science builds boundaries, science separates, science dehumanizes emotion etc. etc. He then goes about shooting down his imaginary paradigms. Leonard very ably and with evidence disproves the constructs of Deepak and educates him on the scientific method of unbiased investigation. …

      Deepak writes as if scientists believe that genes only decide the behavior. He says, ‘There is supposedly a love gene, a criminal gene, even a faith gene’ (p: 104).

      Leonard, time and again, page after page, painstakingly and patiently explains the method of science to Deepak. Deepak even had to be reminded that he was a Physician.

      And so on.

      1. Mlodinow _really_ should have remembered Richard Dawkins’ dictum on refusing to debate William Lane Craig: “Look good on your CV, not so good on mine”.

  8. Jerry – Your reply to Chopra was spot on, and you should, as you say, like your response. A job well done!

  9. Sure, I can understand the Deepster’s point of view. If you disagree with him and point out problems with his thought, that’s bullying. The basis of woo is “let a thousand schools of BS contend (but everyone agree with everyone else!)”

  10. Well done Jerry, I’m glad that you and Steve Novella are so well articulating what most of us are thinking when we hear and read all of these completely unsubstantiated claims from people like Chopra, who should be ashamed of themselves for being so arrogant when real scientists are putting in the hard yards to conduct their science properly and without all the ego massaging attention

  11. You absolutely nailed it.

    The funny thing is it would be so trivially easy for a real scientist to defend themselves and Chopra utterly fails at it. I doubt the public would have recognized the failure without Jerry’s response, but IMO to any scientist its going to be obvious: the fact that his defense includes not one single peer-reviewed publication pretty much says it all.

  12. Thank you Jerry for challenging. Chopra (and Rupert) has been a destruction for science teachers in some developing countries; young, un-matured students watch his non-sense propaganda and reject their teachers.

        1. What a waste of human potential…hopefully they’ll develop some better bullshit-o-meters as they grow older.

  13. Twitter Exchange Today:

    Troy of Is: @SamHarrisOrg PLEASE read where @DeepakChopra and I address you in this new article: (Link) #science #spiritual #RT

    Sam Harris: @troyofis @DeepakChopra I have dutifully read your article. Your confusion is as gorgeous as a Faberge egg — and half as useful.

    1. Sam Harris’s comparison of Chopra’s confusion to a Faberge egg is off base. I’ve seen Faberge eggs (and other pieces). Though they were basically baubles for the hyper-rich of the day, the meticulous attention to detail makes them something every human can be proud of. And hence, about 10⁶ times as useful as Chopra’s nonsense.

      There aren’t many man-made things that one can say are perfect, but the output of the Faberge atelier qualifies. Chopra’s b.s. doesn’t; in fact, it’s such a joke that it’s a model for imperfection.

      1. I think Sam means it in an “impressive” and/or “exquisite” sense. “Impressive” because you don’t encounter confusion like that every day, and “exquisite” because of how thorough and intense the confusion is.

        I kind of like it. It’s high-brow snark.

  15. The Deepak quotes you provided are choice!

    If the Moon exists in consciousness “only,” then that must also be true of the Earth. But he says that the Earth IS conscious. So an artifact of consciousness is itself conscious? Conversely, the Moon must also be conscious. But wait–there’s no life on the Moon. . . . Hmmmm. Deep deep deepity deep deep.

    2. I think Derp-ak is pulling a bait-and-switch there.

      “Everything exists in consciousness and nowhere else” could be reasonably interpreted as noting that if no conscious entity exists to experience reality or receive sensory input, that would be tantamount to nothing existing; iow, we can only experience reality because we are conscious.

      But he tries to force another interpretation on it: therefore, everything is conscious.

    3. We don’t see or really sense the entire RF spectrum so does that mean it doesn’t exist.

      Also, I wish we could see the whole spectrum because things would be really shiny!

      1. The night sky would be fantastic. There are lots of radio frequency sources spread across the sky and then there’s UV, X-ray and gamma ray sources.

        This NRAO tour shows some of what we unaided humans are missing out on.

        Deepak is yet another proof that a lot of people are willing to pay to be lied to. He has a talent for it.

        1. Yes & the day would be a lot brighter! Plus we’d be able to avoid harmful X-rays & gamma rays because we’d see them 🙂

          Also, people would understand how wifi & microwave ovens are not nuclear technology & not ionizing radiation which would stop this silly anti wifi activism.

      2. Excellent point. I guess bees can see ultraviolet, so it exists. But we’d have to ask them, to be sure.

        1. They’d probably deny ever seeing any such thing and sue our asses off for honey theft.

  16. Unfortunately, when I try to watch the debate between Chopra and Dawkins, youtube says that the video is not available in my country. Does anyone know of any copies anywhere?

  17. Fantasimo! I think you’ve really pissed him off this time.

    I just loved your response. In a few short paragraphs you’ve literally ripped his clothes to shreds. The man is pantsless! I wonder if he’s even conscious of his nakedness. I doubt it. He’ll just harden up even more and start using his word salad technique to try to insult your intelligence even more.

    Oh, I’m makin’ more popcorn and waitin’ now for scene #2!

    What a clown.

  18. If you want to see an example of “educated” people failing to understand science, read the comments at the New Republic piece (which is linked to).

    OMG, it is depressing. Mind you, almost every comment is given by someone who considers themselves to be smart and educated. This is a version of Dunning-Kruger among those with degrees.

    1. “How have people come to be taken in by [this bullshit]? We must not underestimate the size of the market for works of this kind, for philosophy-fiction. Just as compulsory primary education created a market catered for by cheap dailies and weeklies, so the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.”
      Peter Medawar (1961), Mind 70: 99-105.

      1. Indeed, and from what I have been able to learn this “no child left behind” stuff does not help develop analytical thinking.

  19. Professor of Pseudoscience, Keepda Crap,oh… Do Americans use the word pillock? Nice article Jerry.

  20. Perhaps this is just another example of the quantum phenomena that Deepak is so fond of – his woo exists in an indeterminate state between insightful and nonsensical until observed by a real scientist at which time his wave function collapses to being full of —.

  21. I don’t know if he should, but Chopra makes my skin crawl every time I read his nonsense. He’s either a charlatan, or a fool who has made millions from saying foolish things. Either one makes me angry.

    He’s one of those people I fantasize about locking in a room with some reputable physicists and biologists, while they systematically tear apart all of his woo, and broadcast the entire thing on network TV. Make him directly own up to his absurd statements, to people who won’t be cowed by his profound-sounding gibberish.

    2. Do you think that he would ever concede to a room full of experts? I have my doubts. Chopra uses the same tools used by all the sophisticated theologians- they all insist that there is something beyond the realm of the observable that’s pulling all the strings. This cosmic ‘whatever’ (god, quantum intelligence, matrix, etc.) can rig the game so all of us silly materialists simply don’t get to see the whole picture. That requires a healthy media budget in order to purchase all their metaphysical insights.

      In the end it all comes down to them saying, “you can’t disprove my magical theory!” My response has just become, “maybe, but if it’s so well hidden that it doesn’t affect observed reality at the subtlest level, then why should I even care?”

  23. Great response to his mediocre response.

    There’s a lot of money (and thus a lot of incentive) for academic forums which are willing to push airy-fairy ideas like Quantum Spirituality and Alternative Medicine. Non-scientists often mistake this for scientific legitimacy, a genuine controversy or a cutting-edge discovery. So Deepak is playing into his strength: smart people like what he says. So does the general public.

    I’ve asked people who sincerely buy into this science-of-spirituality crap why there has been no Nobel Prize for what must surely be the most game-changing discoveries of all time. Their answer? It’s coming real soon.

    And until then there’s a conspiracy against the ideas because they are too frightening and humbling for established scientists to bear.

      1. They apparently expect that some tests for ESP, precognition, healing energy, vitalism, prayer, or some other version of irreducibly mental supernaturalism will be validated and get the Nobel Prize. Materialism is overthrown. They then expect mainstream scientific recognition — and an abject apology from manmy skeptics.

        They also expect the atheists to keep denying it even when the evidence is so overwhelming that one would have to be positively perverse to fail to recognize defeat. They think we are on the cusp of that now — if not over that line.

        1. Unbelievable. If only all those resources were spent on actual science instead.

          I think fear of death are at the core of many people’s need to believe, but still I wonder what it is about some fairly intelligent folks that makes them susceptible to certain kinds of woo?

          Maybe I’m just underestimating the power of good feelings…

          1. I’ve started watching the new JJ Abrams series, Almost Human. Last night the human (played by Karl Urban) explained to his synthetic human that you tell someone that a loved one has died by saying they’ve gone to a better place. They synth asks why you would say that if it is unknown what happens to living beings when they die & the human explains that it’s to make them feel better. He then goes on to say that humans have to believe that to make things better for them.

            A little bit of atheism seeping into prime time! 🙂

          2. I’m already exited to see his version of star wars and it’s not due until late 2015…. it’s gonna be a long wait. 🙂

          3. I think it is precisely because one is intelligent and independent of mind that some people fall for stuff. (I have had friends like this, which is why I started to wonder.) In my view, critical thinking and science also have to be taught even to the most intelligent. They are *skills*. Some people may also have some intrinsic ability in the skills, but they are also *not* intelligence broadly construed (just as the ability to be musical, for example).

  24. It seems The Deepak continues to have some die-hard fans, like this commenter:

    “Isn’t evolution by natural selection a marvelous example of intelligence inherent in nature?”

    1. Indeed!

      Isn’t disease evolution, leprosy, and the HIV a marvelous example of intelligence inherent in nature?

      Isn’t mutation such as trisomy 21 a marvelous example of intelligence inherent in nature?

      Isn’t the evolution of cooperation & conflict, fratricide, and warfare a marvelous example of intelligence inherent in nature?

  25. As Carl Sagan said, “They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

  26. Ah, that was lovely. You have a gift for clear science writing and cutting to the chase. Using an extended quote by Chopra was brilliant, as was your simple and effectively demonstrated thesis.

  27. This is gold! Excellent response.

    Sometimes I think Deepity & Co are so narky because it’s not the 1980s-90s anymore and anyone, anywhere can criticise them and call them on their bullshit instantly, thanks to the intertubes.

    Back in the day they could publish an article or book or leave the Oprah studio feeling smug and awesome because noone stood up and said “bollocks!” or because bad reviews were buried in newspapers and easy to avoid but now, every time they appear anywhere or write anything, they have to know in the back of their mind that someone, somewhere is composing a response designed to shred them.

    Woo might have found a happy home on the ‘tubes, but it’s also a happy hunting ground for those of us who oppose snake-oil and conmen (even if Deepity actually believes what he peddles, he’s merely proven that the best conman is the one who first cons himself).

  28. It’s an interesting phenomenon that sometimes bad ideas often get started with articulate advocates but as they get discredited the diehard defenses of them get increasingly worse.

    The notion that consciousness was a driver of evolution was made in an articulate (though largely unconvincing way- lots of airy speculation) by R.M. Bucke in his tome “Cosmic Consciousness”, but as evidence piled up against it, defenders of the same idea become increasingly inarticulate and confused.

  30. Wow! Well said Jerry!!

    Coyne 2, Deepity 0

    I’m sure he ears are burning. I don’t think you left him any holes to wriggle into!

  31. Jerry,

    What a champion you are – to continue to confront these woo carriers. Chopra is a hideous example of someone who wants a foot in both camps – and ya just can’t!!!

    Thanks always.

  33. Great response Dr. Coyne.

    After reading the long list of Chopra’s credentials, there is one thing that puzzles me: why do respectable institutions like Columbia University and Northwestern University have this woomeister as faculty? Interestingly in both of these universities Chopra is teaching courses in the business school. Having fleeced the gullible to enrich himself he certainly knows the ways of good businessmen. The “Update in Internal Medicine” conference – associated with Harvard University also has Chopra as keynote speaker. His talk is supposed to be about “Superbrain: Using the Brain to Go Beyond the Brain”. That’s got to be some woo laden talk about “universal consciousness”.

    I was surprised when physicist Leonard Mlodinow co-wrote a book with this guy and not surprisingly Chopra lists “…books co-authored by full professors, researchers and scientists at Harvard Medical School, Mount Sinai Medical School – New York, Duke, and Chapman University.” as one of his credentials. Like they say, these look good on Chopra’s resume but probably not so good for his co-authors?

    I’m sure that these people and these institutions know that Chopra is a quack. So what gives?

    1. Sameer, now that is an important point, for he is being supported by card carrying credentialers. Why are these people in his camp at all? Perhaps someone should ask them……like Jerry perhaps?!

  36. “I must say that I quite like my response.”

    I read those exchanges, yes totally agree.
    You’re concise, to the point. Not all chili and pepper, but with lean but adequate body .. quite excellent!

    (add a bit of bitter sweet maybe? – there might be a niche for fifth horsemen?)

    😀

  37. What, no response from Rupe? Maybe he’s getting soft in his old age; it used to be such great fun to rile him and watch him blather.

  38. Jerry your response was par excellent. Yup, Chopra must be red with rage. A real scientist employs clarity and simplicity of language against the hoity-toity of a wannabe. If one can be succinct, use plain english, and for good measure have a strategic re-cap of one’s main point, and yet pull it off, such a honed message gets delivered with devastating penetration.

      1. I always visualised this as the person with the gun standing beside the barrel and the fish swimming around inside it. It seems to me it would be a mistake to get into the barrel with the fish and then start shooting at them.

        Unfortunately this catfish has nine lives and one incidence of being shot down will not dissuade him, not while there are still suckers out there willing to bite a quantum hook.

        1. The gun would need a wide dispersion of shot too, like a shotgun, to catch them all.

          Using a standard rifle to shoot a small number of fish in a barrel could be quite tricky if the barrel was full of water and the fish moving.

          We may be overthinking this simile.

          1. Well no, if you use a sufficiently heavy calibre the shockwave will account for the fish in no uncertain terms.

            And in Deepak’s case, he supplies so much ammunition you could use a Minigun and still not run out.

  41. Hmm.

    Excoriate: to skin or flay.
    Coruscating: sparkling or scintillating.

    Your word choices are interesting and somewhere between exoteric and esoteric.

Comments are closed.