Fantastische claims

Deliberate Vagueness

Source: Wikipedia.org

Obscurantism: a new defense mechanism?

Usually pseudoscience is criticized because of its blatant falsehoods and absurd claims. But some of these ideas have peculiar properties that make them harder to criticize. In this blog post I will examine one of those properties that I think is the worst (i.e. has the biggest impact). That property is the vagueness of the idea that is proposed (or simply obscurantism). I will pose that (I) this is a very smart adaptation for ideas to have and (II) it makes it harder to oppose.

What is obscurantism?

To illustrate what obscurantism is, I will use two examples of pseudoscience: one with very precise claims and one that obscures its claims by using, among other techniques, vague language and sciencey-sounding words. Creationism is the most used exemplar of pseudoscience. It is the idea that the earth is created in six 24-hour days and that it is about 6,000 years old (this is actually Young-Earth Creationism). These are precise claims and are easily countered with scientific evidence. For instance, dendrochronology (laying tree rings back-to-back) makes it possible to go back more than 10,000 years. Thus, falsifying the precise claim put forward by Young-Earth Creationism. But Intelligent Design obscures the fact that it is Creationism in new clothes. Those new clothes are sciencey-sounding words and vague claims. By using big words and vague claims, ID is both more credible (through layman's eyes) and more difficult to critique. Trying to criticize a vague claim is like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands.

Memes & pseudoscience

If we look at this issue from a memeticist viewpoint, the obscuring of claims is a smart adaptation. Ideas are more vulnerable to critique when they use precise language and good definitions. So when an idea changes, it might come across an adaptation that makes it less vulnerable to critique. The rate by which this idea is transferred is now increased, because of the defense mechanism it has gained. Thus, this creates a recipe for effective pseudoscientific ideas: no precise claims and a lot of vague language. The picture above is the cover of a documentary-style propaganda DVD that might be the best example there is of how these two characteristics work together.

Quantum mechanics & consciousness 

The What the Bleep DVD exemplifies the newest trend in pseudoscience: the use of quantum mechanical terms to 'explain' spirituality and consciousness (when actually it is just mumbo-jumbo).  The interview above of Deepak Chopra with Richard Dawkins in Enemies of Reason shows how Deepak time and again misuses quantum mechanical terms. Theoretical physicist Leonard Mlodinow has even asked him if he would like some lessons on QM because of his pertinent misuse. As shown in this video below Deepak continues to use vague terms when in dialogue with Leonard. The sentences are typical of Deepak Chopra and it has even been said that his sentences are nothing more than a string of meaningful-sounding words randomly put together. To prove it there is a website where they randomly combine words from Deepak's tweets and you can test your ability to identify the real and fake quotes (http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/). 

Deliberate?

A harder issue is to examine whether these ideas are deliberately obscured or that self-deception is involved. As a lot of money is made by selling books, videos, etc., on these topics I find it difficult to believe that all these people are sincere in their belief. But then again, self-deception is a powerful thing. Also, intelligence is not an antidote to self-deception as people like Rupert Sheldrake, Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose show. There is no denying that these people are intelligent, still they continue to peddle woo by linking quantum mechanics to consciousness. 

I guess the famous cartoon by Sidney Harris hits the message home and at the same time states the question I would like to pose to all the quantum-consciousness advocates: please be explicit! Without it ideas cannot be tested and criticized; arguably the most important element of science.