The Law Of Attraction Gibberish


The Law Of Attraction Gibberish

Part I

This was the article I wrote

The Law Of Attraction is a pseudoscientific metaphor extracted from quantum mechanics and legitimized as a form of scientific truth, not based on inferences but on pseudo anecdotal empiricism. The success of these anecdotal appeals are contingent on two factors: the appeal to authority and the compartmentalization of personal biases.

Deepak Chopra, one of the prominent hallmarks of vaguely inexplicable pseudoscientific gibberish; conversely enough, a sensationalistic appeal, giving rapport to the masses lauded appeal to an external divine intervention, one riveted on emotions and not evidence.

Trailing the evidence and dealing with the consequences regardless of personal biases, tends to protrude objective reasoning rather than subjective appeal to emotional desires. Conversely enough, the former has propagated generations of rapacious gullibility. A credulity riveted on emotions and viable to nothing more than prejudice of ideology.

There’s nothing esoteric or arcane about “The Law Of Attraction,” it’s inextricable interlacing with quantum mechanics is a forced juxtaposition; hence the reason there’s an opinionated dichotomy in terms of their interpretations, discrepancies only derive because it’s the subordination of quantum mechanics. And Ofcourse the perpetual abuse of semantics; “The Secret,” “The Universe,” etc………

Carl Jung, the Swiss Psychologist promulgated synchronicity and tangled its analogical attributes with quantum mechanics; it’s enigmatic notion begs much bigger question; questions that usually fade into oblivion simply because the proponents of such ideologies are comfortable with their already established preconceived notions; external-divine-interventions, oracles, predestinations, purpose, fairies and ghost.

Excluding the arbitrariness of existence is quite comforting, an appeal that holds quite a brevity of luxury. There’s no scientific correlation between quantum mechanics and the law of attraction, other than it’s analogical implications, which is finding commonality between two different forms of existence.

One similar to the application of metaphors, similes and other forms of aesthetic devices. A syndrome synonymous to astrologist extracting astronomical analogies of the movement of the solar-system and celestial bodies, and correlating these attributes to human behavior and experience.

Share you views and opinion, please leave a comment below

Article Written By: Atelston Fitzgerald Holder 1st

Stage Name: Mr Pregnant

Please do not distribute without written approval
Feel free to contact me:
Copyright 2013

Part II

Posted By: Anonymous Professor responds

The perception that existence is “arbitrary” is as much pseudo-scientific gibberish as is D. Chopra’s extrapolations. Throughout history one certain characteristic of the scientific observer remains true, and this is that discoveries are made slowly by ignorant observers whose ignorance is only changed through discovery. A neutrino appears to spontaneously appear to the observer, but this observation does not mean the appearance of spontaneity was actually arbitrary. Arbitrary is the word used for lack of a better one.

To this day, experiments made in both classical mechanics as modeled by General Relativity, and QM both keep bearing out predictions, but both, as they are modeled, can’t be right. Some deeper understanding is missing. This is why the quest for a grand unified theory has been as futile as translating spirituality through the model of QM. The bankrupt nature of science is most evident when someone, whether it be you in this article, or Bill Nye “debating” Creationists, take place.

Why Bill Nye didn’t debate an Intelligent Design proponent instead of a Creationist, should be clear. Nye wouldn’t have come off looking “smart” had he debated ID instead of the low hanging fruit of creationism. Similarly, here in this article, no effort is made at all to accurately describe the tenets or principles of “the law of attraction”, nor are there any efforts made to describe the converse in terms of scientific method and hypothesis leading to testable theories.

The irony of this article is that it relies greatly upon faith. The author takes it upon faith that people know what the law of attraction is and what it purports. This requires much faith given that this spiritual movement is on the fringe of religiosity. Of course, it could be less faith and more laziness, but a certain amount of faith is implied by declining to explain what the law of attraction is.

If one does not understand a philosophy, or religion, the criticisms being made of that philosophy are not borne of critical thought. Further, there are few in the scientific field that would disagree with your generalizations of the law of attraction, and accusations of pseudo-science, but many of those who would accept your argument without support, inexplicably accept, indeed lavish upon the psychiatric field the high praise of “real science” and yet, psychiatry is every bit as pseudo-scientific as the law of attraction.

One philosophy of the mind, not coincidentally the one that pushes arbitrary existence, manages to escape the criticism of pseudo-science, while the much more innocuous philosophy of the mind, the one where pharmaceutical companies have little to profit from, is vilified for its “pseudo-science”. Psychiatry has, however, contributed much to the understandings of propaganda and manipulation of peoples minds. This article is arguably a product of that manipulation and propaganda.

There was no effort made to study the subject under attack in this article, only musings based upon, and ironically so, anecdotal observations of the author himself. In order to critically look at a subject, one must consider all sides of the argument. That no effort at all was made to acknowledge whatever positive aspects of the law of attraction cult invariably brings is the strongest clue that critical thought was eschewed in favor of stylized criticism diarrhea.

There are many fields within science that would fairly qualify as pseudo-science. There are relatively so few physicists, mathematicians and scientists who are even remotely praising the law of attraction as some kind of spiritual interpretation of QM. On the other hand, there are an inordinate amount of physicists, mathematicians and scientists who don’t even consider applying the same criticisms to a profession like psychiatry, and more recently the “climate change” profession.

The “climate change” professionals, have made countless failed predictions. At some point, when prediction after prediction fails, its time to question the model and stop treating anomalies as puzzles to be solved and start seeing for the counterinstances they probably are. Science has a big filthy back yard of its own that needs the lawn mowed and the yard kept clean, before it wastes its time pretending its something different from religion.

If you take it on faith that existence is arbitrary, you’re not being scientific, just dogmatic. Conversely, if you take it on faith that existence is by design, you’re not being scientific, just dogmatic. The flip of that coin is still in the middle of its toss and no one knows one way or the other, whether existence is arbitrary or if it is by design. Biocentrism, by the way is a relatively new scientific hypothesis. Not sure if it is testable, and if not, it’s not a theory.

Science means nothing at all if it ultimately becomes just another big book of facts people use to thump others on the head with. Bible thumper’s are bible thumper’s whether it is the Book of Exodus, or The Origin of Species. Those who treat evolution as a scientific fact are not scientists they are adherents to scientism. A church is a church regardless of what it preaches.

Part III

My Rebuttal

Written By: Atelston Fitzgerald Holder 1st

The perception that existence is “arbitrary” is not pseudo-scientific as D.Chopra”s mediocre debris; his extrapolations are anecdotal and doesn’t stand up to the rigors of the scientific method. Discoveries are made slowly by ignorant observers, to which is the exact equivalent to “Chopra”s” ignorant observations.

The irony between scientific-ignorant-observers and pseudo-scientific-observers are the fact that the former deviates where the inferences lead; whereas the pseudo-gibberish-observers are adamant and obstinate regardless of how explicitly anecdotal their ideas are. Regardless of if a neutrino appears spontaneous or not, discrediting the term “arbitrary” as a synonymous definition seems like a play on semantics. Then we should discuss the correlation between words and their attributes, which is arbitrary in the non correlative sense.

Saying science is bankrupt when it’s the best and only method we have for understanding the universe is truly roguing in irony; your entire response is contingent on the rigors of science to which you find fallible; so how can one argue using the tenets of a method they’ve already preconceived as flawed? You’re saying that no efforts are made to accurately describe the principles of “The Law of Attraction,” but you’ve provided non, because your tenets are “anecdotal.”

This articles does not rely on faith because I’m not proposing any form of hypothesis; what I am stating explicitly is the inextricable correlation between the law of attraction and it’s analogical castration of the laws of physics. It’s an anecdotal appeal rather than objective reasoning. What it purports is the contrast to the rigors of science, and the laziness actually lies in its ubiquitous appeal, not in my declination to define such a trivial notion.

(If one does not understand a philosophy, or religion, the criticisms being made of that philosophy are not borne of critical thought)
This pseudo-feces was not promulgated by the masses of critical thinkers, and it’s gullibility and credulity derives from emotional biases. This article is not a product of manipulation neither is it rhetoric or propaganda; it’s pointing out garbage philosophy, one equivalent to the mediocrity of astrology and it’s correlation to human behavior, another pseudo-gibberish.
You have no evidence for “The Law of Attraction,” other anecdotal evidence, you can only extract analogies from the laws of physics and correlate those minuscule phenomenons to us and our intrinsic connection to everything in the universe. “Anecdotal.
You’ve not presented a single iota of information to describe, nor define “The Law of Attraction,” and if you do, it’ll be based an analogy or metaphor extracted from physics and theorized.

Physicist, mathematicians and scientist do condescend the raping of science for pseudoscientific agendas; the irony of all these ideological gibberish actually rely on some form of analogical extraction of science. Science is not bankrupt, the real bankruptcy is these spiraling chains of propagating ideas that appeases to emotions rather than facing a reality that’s objectively discomforting. (Am I intelligent or what!)

Share your views and opinion, please leave a comment below

Article Written By: Atelston Fitzgerald Holder 1st

Stage Name: Mr Pregnant

Please do not distribute without written approval
Feel free to contact me:
Copyright 2013

Be Sociable, Share!
The following two tabs change content below.
The Crossdisciplinary, Multidisciplinary, Transdisciplinary & Interdisciplinary Analysis - Metaphysics, Linguistics, Physics, Esoterism, Psychopathology, Pathophysiology, Theoretical Music, Parapsychology!

Comments are closed.