, you’re missing a lot….|
|
|
On the NBC-TV Today show last Saturday we saw yet another foray into woo-woo land – and only Part One! – a silly report on Feng Shui – the ancient notion that furniture and window arrangement in an environment can magically influence the occupants through such elements as “energies,” magnetic forces, water flow, astrological effects, numerology, color influences, and geological orientation. Jayme Barrett, author of “Feng Shui for Life,” twittered on about her plans to “align” the office of Campbell Brown, a co-anchor on the Today Show Weekend Edition. Agreed, what we were shown of Ms. Brown’s office certainly cried out for re-organization, but it hardly seemed necessary to call in Asian claptrap to do the job.
First, Ms. Barrett assured us, “There is nothing mystical about Feng Shui.” Pardon? Is there anything about it that’s not mystical? As if to prove her point, Jayme suggested that the clutter in Campbell’s office should be cleared away. Duh. This is ancient wisdom? Said the “expert,” that should be done “so you’ll feel a lift in the energy.” Ah! The first of the magic buzz-words: “energy.” This gives the whole picture an overall flavor of science and philosophy; who can argue with getting more energy? Let’s ignore the radical idea that clearing away the clutter just might make things more efficient.
“Every object has a perfect place to live,” purred Ms. Barrett, and Campbell nodded in agreement. (Remember, there’s nothing mystical about this!) “Every object either increases or decreases your energy,” she continued. Then, prompted by the rapt Campbell about how important color is, she assured us, “Every color actually has a certain vibration or energy.” Ah! The second big buzz-word: “vibration.” This is science, obviously.
Ms. Barrett was concerned, she said, that Campbell had allowed herself to be placed “facing a wall,” which obviously blocks good vibrations and “flow” of “qi,” as we all know. How that could be solved, in this tiny 30 Rockefeller Plaza office, with a window on one wall and a door to the hall on the facing wall, I could not imagine.
We got lots of “First of all,” “actually,” and “basically” – the assuring “fillers,” freely thrown in by Ms. Barrett when she needed to plump up an inane statement. And of course Ms. Brown gushed on cue, declaring that she just couldn’t wait until next week, when the magic would be revealed to us all. Now, I’ve no doubt that her office will be much more inviting than it was when we first saw it, and Jayme no doubt will improve its appearance, its appeal, and its arrangement – but almost any coat of paint, any change of hardware, any adding of decoration or re-alignment of furniture in the drab little room, would be an improvement. No magical Asian formulas are needed to bring about that change.
I just can’t wait until next week!
(NOTE: the forgoing was written on Saturday, following the broadcast. I hadn’t gathered that Ms. Barrett would do an overnight office-renovation for Ms. Brown, but to my surprise the denouement of this event appeared on the Sunday morning broadcast of Today. “Next week” became “now.” I taped it, and then prepared what follows. The Saturday text remains exactly as I originally wrote it.)
Sunday morning, smiling broadly, Campbell Brown re-introduced Jayme Barrett to the viewers. Jayme began with a vapid summary of why she was applying her baffling art of Feng Shui to this situation:
…what is your intention for your career and your life, and does your space represent where you’re going in your life, and who you are?
Well, that about covers everything but tight shoes, lunch, and the lottery. Jayme then showed us how she’d straightened up the Brown office by putting everything away and organizing books and papers. Okay. That seemed like a good move, but where was the Feng Shui in there? Said Jayme:
You really need a place to live for all of your stuff.
So these books and papers are alive, are they? Or is this just cutesy language designed to appeal to those who haven’t yet abandoned Tinkerbelle as a reality? No, Jayme, putting stuff in drawers and on shelves is called “organizing” and “tidying up,” procedures that don’t only date back into medieval China; they’ve been around since Mrs. Neanderthal urged her husband to toss out those old bison leg-bones and entrails. And, though I hate to shock you, Jayme, books and boxes and papers aren’t alive….
Concerning the un-Feng-Shui situation of facing-the-wall, Jayme opted to solve this problem by sticking up various photos of seascapes and landscapes – taken from a calendar – on the offending wall. Campbell’s mouth was literally agape with delight at this clever ploy. And around the rest of the office, colorful pictures and a red couch-cushion completed the improvements, along with a coat of light blue wall-paint. Is that it?
No, there was more. A sliding curtain had been hung across the solitary window. Said Jayme:
Basically, from a Feng Shui standpoint, you want to bring nature indoors, so I put this great curtain here so you can open the curtain and have a lot of sunlight.
Duh. Before you arrived, Jayme, the window was already unblocked, so sunlight could come in all day. If I seem dense about the claimed improvement here, forgive me. But to continue: revealing two pots of what appeared to be grass or chives on the desk, Jayme declared:
You also have plants that give a lot of oxygen and create a really good air quality.
Let’s get real. It’s true that those pretty plants produce oxygen, and on this planet Earth we depend on that happy fact for our renewed supply of this vital element. But if the amount of O2 produced by a few potted plants in Campbell’s office could even be detected, let alone contribute measurably to her atmosphere, that would surprise me. After all, one-fifth of the air delivered by the Rockefeller Plaza air-conditioning system is already oxygen….
Another surprise straight from ancient China: Jayme mentioned that the “main Feng Shui enhancement” she’d made to this office was the introduction of a water fountain. It was shown on camera. Folks, this was by far the ugliest, kitschiest, most inane yet intentionally-placed piece of junk I’ve seen in a decade – and I get to see lots of bad taste at work. A trickle of re-circulated water from an electric pump ran over tacky ceramic umbrellas to bring prosperity to Ms. Brown, for as Jayme assured her:
In Feng Shui, water represents money, so you’ll have money in your career!
So move to Niagara Falls and get rich. Is that it? Or have I again failed to understand this “science”?
As on the previous day, Ms. Barrett’s running banter on Sunday was chock-full of “actually,” “basically,” and “what we need to remember.” I could not count the number of times she used the word “basically,” and was particularly struck by at least one use of this prize-winner: “actually, you know, basically….”
Am I making too much of a fuss about this insult to viewers of the NBC-TV Today Show? I think not. This was a direct, strong, endorsement of Feng Shui, an ancient form of claptrap we told you last week had been originally planned as a subject for study at China’s Nanjing University, but is now off the curriculum. The NBC treatment was uncritical and shallow, pandering to those who seek easy and romantic solutions to problems and questions in their lives. And, it has sold tens of thousands of the author’s books, I’m sure. The shows added to the misinformation of the American public, and NBC-TV appears not to care, at all.
Granted, Jayme Barrett cleaned up a messy office, and with the exception of that dreadful electric fountain, made the place much nicer in the process. But she did it by common sense and a feeling for what looks and works best in a cramped office; she only referred to those mysterious forces and primeval “secrets” so that she could bring about a better respect for her talents, and charge much more than a simple interior decorator. I don’t doubt that Ms. Barrett actually believes what she preaches; though she appears to be reasonably aware of the real world, she could also be honestly deluded, as any of us can.
I would remind readers that my friends Penn and Teller, in the Season One issue of their Bullshit! series, called in three leading, highly-paid, Feng Shui “experts” to independently design positive alterations in what all three agreed was a poorly-arranged environment. They found that none of them agreed on what should be done, each suggesting different arrangements, changes, and additions.
If you don’t have that DVD
I’ll end this item with Ms. Barrett’s closing remarks, following her re-arrangement and tidying of Campbell Brown’s office:
Anything that brings you happiness, that makes you feel inspired and motivated, that’s what you should have in your office.
Again, is this such an Earth-shaking revelation, and do we need an amateur mystic to reach into esoteric annals to tell us that having nice things around us can cheer us up? I don’t think so…
I must mention that in their enthusiastic introduction to that Sunday’s show, the Today co-hosts told us that one feature – besides Feng Shui redux – would be, and I kid you not: “Interesting, creative things to do with peanut butter.” Sounds kinky, but in any case, I managed to avoid it.
Canadian reader Neil Rowe expresses alarm:
We have a Digital broadcasting television station (www.clt.ca) which advertises itself thus:
Canadian Learning Television
Canada's only national educational television specialty service offers a unique blend of enlightening and entertaining programming designed to challenge and inform, enrich and educate. Many CLT programs are connected to credit courses at universities across Canada.
Learn as you watch some of the best programming TV has to offer in the areas of Careers, Film and Media Studies, War and History, Science and Nature and more.
I have enjoyed many quality programs from this station in the past but was surprised to tune in one day and find the program, "Antiques Psychic." This show has a person bring in an antique and a psychic will than relate the history about the object and the previous owners’ thoughts and feelings from "beyond."
I sent the following email to CLT on 2005/09/03, not expecting any reply, and I was not disappointed.
Attention Programming Director, Canadian Learning Television:
I am writing in regards to the program, Antiques Psychic, which airs on Saturdays, 12:00 p.m. Mountain time.
You’re a broadcaster that advertises itself as Canada's only national educational television specialty service, so I find it disheartening that you would try to pass off the above mentioned program as "educational." There is no scientific evidence to show that anyone has any psychic abilities. So-called psychics prey on the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens, those that have lost loved ones and are often in emotional turmoil.
Your "psychic" Kim Dennis uses a technique (and not very well) known as “cold reading.” She is either a fraud, or deluded, if she truly believes that she has a paranormal ability. If the latter is true and she can verify her "power" scientifically, by a mutually agreed upon protocol, Dennis can claim a million dollar prize from the James Randi Educational Foundation. Information is available at www.randi.org/research/index.html. This prize money can be utilized anyway she sees fit, personally or perhaps for a charity such as the Red Cross, seeing the difficulties the folks in the southern U.S.A. are experiencing right now.
You advertise that, "Many CLT programs are connected to credit courses at universities across Canada." I have viewed many programs on your channel that are educational and of high quality. Antiques Psychic, can easily be described as "Quackery," and certainly not anywhere near the high standard of many of your other programs. A truly educational program, scientifically investigating any paranormal ability, including psychics, would be more in line with a broadcaster that is a National educational channel and aligns itself with Canadian Universities.
I am by no means an expert on cold reading but I have read enough material at your site and others that I was confident enough to email the broadcaster after watching how the so-called psychic performed her reading on a couple of episodes. I was upset and mad at how the vulnerability of some of the elder guests was exploited.
Neil, I have a number of antiques here about which I have comprehensive data and history. I’d be willing to have “psychic” Ms. Kim Dennis try her skills on any of these – but she will have no interest in doing so, I assure you, even though the reward would be a million dollars if she were to succeed. My protocol would be to provide the artifacts and the data-sets describing each one, and she would be required to match each article with its own data-set. All of that would be monitored by any experts anyone would care to assign….
Are you out there somewhere, Ms. Dennis? Hello? Anyone at Canadian Learning Television interested? Anyone at all?
No, both Neil and I thought not.
Reader “Belz” says:
I'd like to congratulate you on your very enlightening (and very funny) website. I've had lots of fun browsing through your commentary archive and seeing how weird some (read: a disturbingly large percentage of) people can be. I've never quite understood the "magical thought" process, and sometimes I find my peers', colleagues' and family's lack of critical thought frustrating in the extreme. In fact, I have a short anecdote, if you'll allow me.
You see, I was raised as a Catholic, up here in Québec, but I've always had problems with some of the premises of that faith: the trinity, the fact that God is "everywhere," the fact that Jesus "saved" us by "dying" on the cross, though he didn't "die" and we're still not "saved.” It just never quite worked with me. As the years passed I began to espouse a more and more liberal view of scripture.
One day, when I was about 17, I was describing a friend of mine's odd UFO cult beliefs to my mother. After hearing my description, she said: "Then he doesn't believe in God?" "Well, no," I answered. Then she looked at me, somewhat fearful, and asked: "Do you believe in God?" Well, I didn't expect that question. It had never occurred to me that I had a choice in that matter. We never discussed it per se, so even now I wonder how she came up with it. Anyway, after a few seconds reflecting upon it, I had the answer: "No."
Her world seemed to be sundered at that point. I was forever damned, and she had failed to do her duty as a good Catholic. I learned a few years later how she managed to cope with it. You see, according to her, I'm not really an atheist. I still believe in God, but I deny Him in some sort of adolescent rebellion. Rebellion against what? How did she reach that conclusion? That's easy! First, it's obvious that everyone feels the presence of God, so I can't not know about Him. Second, I'm still a moral man, and we all know there can be no morality without God. Never mind the laws of Hammurabi, the Bible was there first!
Argh! As I said, very frustrating. Since then I've basically heard it all from her, and she's got this impregnable fortress against logic. I've also read a lot on CSICOP, on the Council for Secular Humanism and on Infidels.org – and now JREF – about quackery and religion, and everyone seems to have the same ways of avoiding reason when confronted to it. Well, at least fallacy is consistent and universal! And at least my friends are pretty much all atheists (or agnostics) with one exception. Oh! And that friend I mentioned no longer believes in that UFO thing.
Anyway, I'll stop ranting now. I just had to get that one off my chest. Again.
My friend, you’re threatening the comfort and security of such listeners when you ask them to apply reason to their beliefs. They’re told, early on, that these matters are not to be questioned, but merely accepted. I recall that I got thrown out of Sunday school when I was just a wee tad, because I asked questions that broke the stride of the teacher. However, I’m continuing to ask those awkward questions. I guess I’m a slow learner….
An anonymous reader tells us:
The article in [last week’s] commentary about the Baylor student whose experiment in parody landed him in the hands of the police rang a bell with me – not because I'm on the run from the law, but because it highlighted the density of some people where humorous social comment is concerned.
I run a number of Web sites, most of them falling within the realm of parody, and I get e-mail on almost a daily basis from people who don't understand what they are reading online.
A few sad examples:
1. My www.HighestSchool.com site is a demand that if intelligent design becomes part of public education, then other alternative theories (astrology, aliens built the pyramids, the Holocaust never happened, etc.) should also be taught. I haven't received any nasty e-mails to that particular site, but I have received several from people who applaud the suggestion, apparently sincerely. In one case, a woman wrote asking where she could find more information on these subjects because she was writing a home-schooling curriculum and wanted to teach a variety of viewpoints. She was very nice and realized her mistake after taking a second look at the site, but still it worried me.
2. I have one site – www.iamanatheist.com – that claims to make anyone who visits it an atheist. I thought the concept was ridiculous, but judging from my e-mail, some people are quite concerned that it might be possible.
3. This is my favorite story. One of my most popular sites deals in nothing but incorrect descriptions of attractions and events at Disneyland. On one page, I discuss how Snow White threatened to sue Disney when an apple she was given turned out to be poisonous. A while back, I received an e-mail from a producer at NBC asking how she could get in contact with the person mentioned on my site because she was working on a news story about food poisoning at amusement parks. I swear – NBC wrote to me for Snow White's phone number. I will never watch television news the same way again.
As I said, I get this kind of stuff all the time. It makes me worry that at least some significant part of this country has completely lost its sense of irony. Or that my writing is just really bad. (Nah – couldn't be that...)
Nah….
A word of caution: the danger here is that parody sites can appear, to the incautious, logical. This is the danger into which Jonathan Swift – one of my all-time heroes – immersed himself by his writings. Readers tend to extract from such sites just what they like, and they ignore the rest. Let us hope that those who go there, will not be misled….
Reader John Michalski, a science teacher with the East Hanover Middle School in East Hanover, New Jersey, writes:
I'm a big fan of you and your work. I teach 7th grade Life Science and begin each year with the Scientific Method, via a lab investigation of psychic phenomena, using taped episodes of "Crossing Over." The kids love it and I do get the message across to young minds on an annual basis – best of all, I don't have to tell them, they figure it out by themselves, without me putting words in their mouths. We also view your NOVA special, which goes over very well. The parents have it all explained to them on "back to school night," and the response is very good here.
Attached are the lab guidelines, and a newsletter article we've put in our Board of Ed flyer this month.
John attached this and I responded:
John, I see a distinct lack in your documents. You seem to be accepting that what is broadcast, is what was recorded. Not so. We have endless examples of quite wrong readings that were taped, but never used. You also don't allow for editing, the cutting out of denials and other comments, and the use of assertive nods to statements that just might have been dropped into place to provide agreement with certain guesses.
He assured me:
As for the "lack" in my documents – yes, I make sure to suggest to my students that what we see is merely what is chosen for TV presentation. My students also read your column that appeared in TV Guide a year or so ago – and then they see you again in Bill Nye's episode on Pseudoscience. When your face appears on the screen, they are delighted to recognize your countenance on yet another entertaining feature.
See how smart my readers are?
Reader Lennart Bjorksten reminds us:
Your mention of the mayor of St. Louis proclaiming "Sri Sathya Sai Baba day" instantly reminded me of an earlier resolution passed by the Texas legislature.
(Lennart refers here to the event that Sai Baba's followers have been gleefully advertising and circulating all over the Internet.)
Yes, I recall that earlier official – and embarrassing – resolution. The whole story is to be found at www.snopes.com/legal/desalvo.htm. Briefly, in 1971, when Texas State representative Tim Moore wanted to demonstrate that his fellow legislators in the House of Representatives often passed resolutions – and even bills – without fully reading or even understanding them, he did so by a means that I myself might have used, in his position. This reminds us of Project Alpha – to which readers will find many references in our archives. In that project, I found that the only way I could show that a parapsychology lab was performing in a naïve and unscientific fashion, was to actually flummox them. Representative Moore, to demonstrate his contention, used a similar ploy. He sponsored a bill praising Mr. Albert Salvo, a man who he said had exhibited
unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology
– which he certainly had! – and Moore mentioned that this fact had already been recognized by the state of Massachusetts, which encouraged his fellow Texas politicians to unanimously pass a resolution praising Albert Salvo. This is the man who is better known as The Boston Strangler.
Adds Mr. Bjorksten, since that this is the usual careless process for issuing such resolutions:
I think it's likely that mayor Slay of St. Louis never even heard of Sai Baba before issuing his proclamation.
I would hope so.
An “Anonymous” nursing student (RN BSN) brings us his/her plight:
I thoroughly enjoy your web site and find it both illuminating and entertaining. Thank you for your efforts. I believe that while science doesn't have all the answers, it also looks for them and doesn't make up spur-of-the-moment "facts" out of whole cloth.
I am a graduate student at the University of California here in San Francisco. Living and studying here is very interesting, to say the least. I am currently taking a class on “complementary” healing methods, which is actually a required component of my curriculum, Fair enough. My major gripe is that while all of my other coursework is based on rational scientific methodology and evidence, this one contains such gems as an explanation of how homeopathy "works" by dragging in quantum theory, and connecting it to how homeopathic preparations are made – making the link by some extremely vague and buzzword-filled explanations. I know what Dr. Max Planck theorized, since I have a basic self-taught background in physics, but how this applies to "vibrations" and "energy memory" in homeopathic preparations, escapes me entirely.
We also have a “complementary healing center” on campus. This really amazes me to no end.
Anyway, thanks again and keep up the good work!
I’ll just add that science never claims that it has all the answers; it merely comes up with statements that express discoveries about how the world works, explaining a very tiny percentage of the puzzles that still remain….
Aussie reader Dave Marini:
I have just read your commentary this week and was particularly interested in the letter from George Sime to our Minister of Education Brendan Nelson. I am sorry to say that I am here to burst your bubble, so to speak.
I am currently employed as a teacher in Queensland, and have to tell you that things don't exactly work the way which the response suggests they should. Technically, the guidelines set out by the Queensland Education Department state that all religions must be given time to engage students if there is one single student in that school who is a member of said religion. So, if we happen to have a Jewish/Buddhist/Shinto/Catholic/Breatharian student enrolled in our school, an ordained leader from that “religion” must be allowed time to come in and speak to the students.
Now, in order to avoid such an embarrassing loophole in the system to be used in such a way, there are a number of checks and balances in place, the very least of which is that parents or guardians must give written permission for their child to attend such a talk, and of course one would expect that this alone would mean very few, if any, students would attend. It is interesting to note that there is no mention at all in the documentation of how to go about distinguishing exactly what constitutes a religion.
But here is where it gets interesting. When it comes to "Jesus"-based religions, the rules are applied according to the decision of the school. In the case of a visiting Christian religious group, the students at my state school are required to bring written permission if they do not want to attend! On top of this, because students are under 18 they are not allowed to exercise their own right not to attend, so having no letter from home means you're in with the loonies for an hour. Also, parents are given one day warning – by-word-of-mouth – that the talk is going to happen, so the odds are that most will simply not even know it's happening.
It really sends shivers up my spine to watch my students get marched in for an hour of nonsense totally against their will and usually without their parents' knowledge. The topics covered in these talks have ranged from mathematical formulas to "prove" the existence of Jesus; from memory it was based on the ridiculous notion that the fact that Jesus was the actual son of God was sooooo impossible, it must be true – go figure.
A multiple choice question taken directly from the literature –
Q: What did God think when you were born?
a) He loved you and cherished you.
b) He was glad to see his plan fulfilled.
c) He didn't care.
Where's “d”? There ain't no proof at all for a God, so go back to class, kids.
For the record, I take the twenty or so students who do not attend these talks, and we use the time to deconstruct the literature that those in the talk are handing around.
I have made my complaint to the school, arguing that at the very least we should include religion, all religion, as a valid avenue for academic enquiry, and not allow these traveling circuses into town every time they come looking for more converts to join the show. I am sorry to say that so far, nothing has changed. They use the fact that so many students fail to opt out, as being proof that most parents want their children to do religion.
Reader Peter Nothnagle tells me:
In your discussion of Carl Sagan's wonderful TV series Cosmos, you mentioned in passing how much you enjoyed the theme music. That music is on the album "Heaven and Hell," published in 1975 and composed by the Greek pop music/synthesizer virtuoso Vangelis, who also did the soundtrack to the film "Chariots of Fire," which was very popular in the early '80s.
I checked amazon.com
Our friend Antonios Liolios, MD of Belgium, has suggested that a website is worth mentioning here, and I agree: www.rickross.com. Look in….
We’ve received an update on the Ryerson/Q-Ray matter of last week: no response.
