Hucksterism
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities." — Voltaire
A pragmatic fallacy occurs when something is presented as true simply because it appears to have a positive effect. Some examples:
-
God must exist because nature is beautiful.
-
Our vibrational frequencies are aligned because I feel good when you are around.
-
Meditation must work because I am more peaceful.
-
The banks need your bailout money in order to ensure you have a job.
More properly stated, a pragmatic fallacy infers a semantic property of an expression through use of said expression. It works best when:
-
the listener’s knowledge of the subject is limited,
-
the burden of proof can be shifted toward the tautological,
-
other logical fallacies are involved (notably appeal to authority and ad hominum),
-
and irrationality is couched in the semblance of rationality.
And so to the wonderful world of newage psychobabble, harmonious alignment, quantum healing, and the many
profiteers teachers profering their mix of pseudo-science and dumbed-down philosophy. You can probably name some of the better known ones rather easily - they are certainly all over television talk shows and infomercials. Do a quick internet or library search and you will find that there are quite a few folks, some with
actual knowledge of science, medicine, history, or philosophy who do not look favourably upon these peoples’ work. My own opinion after having heard some of them speak and having read some of their books, is that there may be a
tiny bit of an accuracy gap in what they say
. Just my opinion of course. Well, people have always loved fiction more than learning, “intuitive knowledge” more than true inquiry, feel-good narcissism (Esalen and its many clones) more than honest introspection, and pretty wrapping paper more than what is in the box. Again, just my opinion.
But this is not what interests me about so many of these folks on the lecture circuit. Rather I am intrigued by the fact that many newage folk seem to make use of the pragmatic fallacy almost as frequently as they do tautological argument.
An example: Many of these fine people talk about quantum mechanics... or at least appear to do so if you have no absolutely background in physics (or indeed scientific method, research, methods of inquiry, or fact based methodologies). They say things such as ’modern physics is rediscovering what ancient Indian mystics always knew - that everything is just vibrations’.
-
Umm - no. Firstly, there where as many purveyors of snake oil in ancient India as there are here in modern London. Many of these ancients did indeed talk about mystic vibration. The sound OM for example. But as always in these cases, they fixated upon power in the world, psychic light shows, success in the world, and other proofs of their spiritual virility. No. As ancients such as Adi Shankara and others of real learning and spiritual attainment so clearly indicated, spirituality is about freedom from a personal ’I’. Not better experience. Not an escape from pain or the pursuit of pleasure. Not about some gold-ring-on-a-carousel state called “enlightenment”. And certainly not about peddling one’s ideas concerning “personal power” on the lecture circuit.
-
And as for their use of ideas from quantum mechanics, ouch! You would not take swimming lessons from someone who told you he could swim but never offered to get in the pool and actually swim would you? But for some odd reason people accept bafflegab about physics with nary a whimper. Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory. Some factual evidence seems to be nicely predicted by certain aspects; other things, not so much (even when pulling strings - a physics joke, ha ha). It has nothing to say about vibrational frequencies underlying all objects in the universe. It has nothing to say about determanism and its role in everyday life. Claims to the contrary so commonly found in newage writing and on the lecture circuit are at best misunderstanding, and at worst pragmatic fallacy. (An example of this latter: talk of ’harmonic alignment’ in personal encounters being supported by findings in quantum theory.)
In other words, the claim that modern physics is rediscovering what the ancients knew about ’vibration’ and ’harmonic alignment’ is false; the claim that aligning and attuning to correct vibrational frequencies will benefit is pragmatic fallacy; the claim that someone can show you how to do this hucksterism. I might suggest too that talk about high energy physics, or attempts to link dharma cycles to multiuniverse theories (Penrose’s two circling black holes and the consequent boom de boom of inflation, for example) is a misunderstanding. What is misunderstood is that many concepts in theoretical physics (modifications arising from M theory, low-energy effective field theories, ideas regarding lambda-CDM, etc.) are mathematical phenomenology - not fact. They are models and lots of fun to play with, but not fundamental truths. All they can do is suggest where to point the radio telescope tomorrow night. To extrapolate anything from them as pertaining directly to concrete reality is questionable. To build a philosophical argument from them is incorrect and likely an antithesis of the pursuit of truth. It is rather, an appeal to religion guised as science. (Which may be why those espousing such beliefs to feather their own nests amongst the gullible do not debate with real scientists or even real philosophers?)
Or said another way: Claims of supernatural energies, sidis, karma, the power of the mind, levitation, and so on... all these are food for those with fertile imagination, little knowledge, and no interest whatsoever in Truth. Despite their fervent protestations to the contrary. For truth, real truth, eschews such trappings for the diversion they are.
There are four steps newage hucksters use to rope in the paying customers (I have included the names given to these steps by traditional hucksters in turn-of-the-century London):
-
Suggest that modern society is not personally fulfilling, that there must be another way to be happy (the bait).
-
Suggest that your claims are supported by science (the hook).
-
Suggest that following your claims will be of great personal benefit, and haul out a handful of examples to ’prove’ your point (the pragmatic fallacy).
-
Suggest that you can show (for a small fee, buy my book, come to my seminars) how to maximize the customers’ benefit by further accepting the premise offered by the pragmatic fallacy (the touch).
I am sure you can read between the lines here
.
Finally, for a bit of a giggle: Some people on the lecture circuit wear glasses with flashing L.E.D.s embedded in the frame. They give the argument, at least in the talks I have listened to, that the flashing lights have various neurological implications. It should be noted that missunderstanding the results of neuroimaging data is rather common not only amongst the general public, media, and medical practitioners, but also in the guru crowd. As common as is misunderstanding of the
implications of quantum mechanics. See my
disccusion of fMRI data here, and its associated look at neuro-quackery.
