Baloney Detection Kit: Testing The Secret

In 1995 Carl Sagan, American astronomer and astrobiologist wrote:

"Pseudoscience ripples with gullibility.

Superstition and pseudoscience keep getting in the way of understanding nature, providing easy answers, dodging skeptical scrutiny, casually pressing our awe buttons and cheapening the experience, making us routine and comfortable practitioners as well as victims of credulity.

Those who have something to sell, those who wish to influence public opinion, those in power, a skeptic might suggest, have a vested interest in discouraging skepticism”

In his book "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark", Carl Sagan presented a set of tools -- which could be used by anyone -- for testing arguments and detecting fraudulent claims which are purportedly based on science.

He called these tools the 'baloney detection kit'.

Carl Sagan used these principles to provide a skeptical analysis of several kinds of superstition and pseudoscience including belief in gods, witches, UFOs, ESP and faith healing.

Interestingly, Carl Sagan used his baloney principles to question the validity of J.Z Knight's channeling of Ramtha (J.Z Knight is the force behind the other quantum flapdoodle movie What the Bleep Do We Know!?).

Since those who promote and teach The Secret --a.k.a the law of attraction -- claim it's based on the scientific principles of quantum mechanics, I thought it would be the perfect candidate for baloney detection.

Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine formulated several straightforward questions based on Carl Sagan's baloney detection principles.

Let's apply some of those questions to The Secret and see what happens, shall we?

But first, here are a few of the profound assertions you'll find in The Secret:

"When you think of the things you want, and you focus on them with all your intention, then the law of attraction will give you exactly what you want, every time." -- Lisa Nichols

"What most people don't understand is that a thought has a frequency. We can measure a thought." -- John Assaraf

"Basically put, the law of attraction says that like attracts like. But we're really talking at a level of thought." -- Bob Doyle

"This is really fun. It's like having the Universe as your catalog. You flip though it and say, "I'd like to have this experience and I'd like to have that product and I'd like to have a person like that. It is You placing your order with the Universe. It's really that easy." -- Joe Vitale

"The Universe will start to rearrange itself to make it happen for you." -- Joe Vitale

"Food is not responsible for putting on weight. It is your thought that food is responsible for putting on weight that actually has food put on weight." -- Rhonda Byrne

"If you turn it over to the Universe, you will be surprised and dazzled by what is delivered to you. This is where magic and miracles happen." -- Joe Vitale

Okay, ready?

Baloney Detection Question #1 - How reliable is the source of the claim?

Last week I referenced Matt Cale's Ruthless Review of The Secret. In that review, Matt said:

"First, no philosophy, even one so seemingly benign and “instructive,” could ever hope to pass the smell test when its primary advocates are people with titles such as “Visionary,” “Philosopher,” and “Metaphysician.” It’s a dead giveaway as to the efficacy of a belief system when its most fervent champions are those who secured their positions either from online universities, or had them “bestowed” upon their persons in moonlit ceremonies involving chanting, laying of hands, and at least one person beating a drum."

But let's be fair. There are two quantum physicists in The Secret, aren't there?

Here are some interesting facts about Dr. Fred Alan Wolf and Dr. John Hagelin (the two physicists in The Secret):

In a recent blog post Fred wrote:

"Spiritual techniques advocated by people who have never made a serious study of spiritual teaching or base their books on quantum physics principles without studying the subject at length and who really don't know enough to teach others techniques based upon these deeper "secrets" make me really wonder why such people write such books other than the obvious one to make some money."

"A quantum field consciousness-spirituality and growth book may sound wonderful but it is possibly misleading if you think that this field can give you anything you desire.. First of all the quantum field is not really an energy field and secondly consciousness can not exert a force. Nor is consciousness energy. Consciousness and energy are not the same things at all."

Hmmm ...does Dr. Wolf think The Secret is baloney?

Rest assured Dr Wolf's co-star, John Hagelin, does not entirely* believe The Secret is baloney.

In a March 25th, 2007 Des Moines Register article, reporter Mike Kilen writes*:

"A scientific basis exists for the ideas in "The Secret" but was simplified for the masses, counters John Hagelin, a professor of physics at Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield who is featured in the DVD.

Hagelin said his research has shown that thoughts can affect the physical environment,but advanced training in mind techniques is needed. Advanced practitioners of Transcendental Meditation are currently involved in mass meditation in Fairfield to create world peace.

'The Secret' sells because people don't have to do anything," Hagelin said. "They just have to want a necklace and it will come to them. But so weak an influence is working at the time that they are better off getting a job and buying a necklace."

However Incidentally*, as a follower of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, many of Dr Hagelin's fellow physicists and researchers have accused him of distorting science to fit his own guru-like agenda.

So, while Dr Hagelin may not think The Secret is complete* baloney, his fellow physicists sure think it is may have reason to disagree*.

Baloney Detection Question #2 - Have the claims been verified by an independent source?

So far, the answer to this question is no. No one independent of the film has verified the claims made in The Secret.

There have been, however, several well qualified experts who've dismissed some of what The Secret claims, including one of The Secret's own teachers.

Last Friday night, March 23, ABC News Nightline interviewed Bob Proctor one of The Secret's co-stars.

Unlike CNN's reporting of The Secret, ABC was prepared with some tough and poignant questions.

Prior to the show, Nightline had asked one of the United States' top physicists, Professor Brian Green what his opinion was of The Secret.

Professor Green had apparently even watched The Secret. He referred to it as "scientific poppycock."

When asked what he thought of Professor Green's statement, Bob Proctor said he didn't even know who Professor Green was, among other things.

Here's why I think the whole connection between quantum physics and The Secret is a fraud...

Brian Green is one of the top physicists in the world.

He's researched and written several books discussing subjects such as non-local particle entanglement, special relativity, spacetime and cosmology, origins and unification, and including an exploration into reality and the imagination.

He's also one of the best known string theorists in the entire world.

Anyone who claims to be a student of quantum physics or who says they've read extensively about it, knows who Brian Green is.

Yet Bob Proctor doesn't know who he is?


(Visit this link for a complete .PDF transcript of the Bob Proctor Nightline episode).

Bill Harris, Director of Centerpointe Research Institute, creator of Holosync neuro audio products, also disputes some of the claims and methodology explained in The Secret.

(By the way, I respect Bill Harris. In my opinion, he's not only credible, but he's also the only Secret teacher who makes any sense).

In a recent article Bill explains:

"I know a lot of very successful people, including nearly every teacher who appears in The Secret, and believe me, none of them sit around waiting for a miracle to land on them.

Even the few of them who actually, and in my opinion mistakenly, teach that focusing on what you want is magic, when you watch what they're actually doing, they are taking action. How they can miss the fact that they are is beyond me, but a few of them—who shall remain nameless—do teach people to just "put it out to the universe" and that no action is necessary. They too, though, take action, but I guess they somehow fail to see the connection between the action they take and the results they get."

...I see the connection Bill. It's called the law of "extraction."

Baloney Detection Question #3 - Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?

To my knowledge, not one person associated with The Secret has used any kinds of scientific methods to justify the validity of the law of attraction.

Instead, we only hear about cases of subjective experience.

For example, on CNN's Larry King Live, when asked what he thought about what the critics were saying about the law of attraction, John Assarf stated:

"Well, you know, it's not even worth reacting. You know, this morning when I knew that I was going to be on the show, we had about 200 of our business owners on -- on a call. And I asked them to send us an e-mail about how the secret of the law of attractions worked in their life.

Within 10 minutes, we had 57 people who e-mailed us saying here's what's happened in my life. In my business we have raised money. We've had more clients. We've had better health.

And so I've got to go to the results as opposed to what the critics are saying, because it's worked in my life and I know it works in people's lives."

Those who claim the law of attraction works because they’ve seen it work in their own life or the lives of others are simply mistaking coincidence for evidence or magic.

Bill Harris writes:

"Scientists have a name for this. It's called a coincidence. People who believe in magic turn coincidences into evidence, but that doesn't make it so, and you can easily prove this to yourself by thinking of lemonade the next day, and the day after that, and the day after that, and finding out what happens. What will happen is that no lemonade will manifest the next day, or the next, or the next, unless you get up out of your chair and take action to find some."

Baloney Detection Question #4 - Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation?

Michael Shermer explains:

"This is a classic debate strategy--criticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe to avoid criticism. It is next to impossible to get creationists to offer an explanation for life (other than ``God did it'')."

When criticism of The Secret hit critical mass Joe Vitale, a Secret teacher, referred to its critics as ...

"...flying out of their dark hiding places."

Joe even had a brief exchange with Skeptico in which he completely sidestepped the heart of the matter:

Skeptico: Joe, I don’t think you understand what a Law is and what it isn’t. I just posted a reply: The “Law” of Attraction (Not).

Joe Vitale: Ah, you might want to re-read my post. :) While people are arguing if LOA is a law or not, others are using the principle/law/insight/method (choose what makes you feel ok) to create lives of happiness and abundance. The choice is yours.

Skeptico goes on to say: "Note the avoidance of the issue. I point out the LOA is not a Law. Joe ignores this, and equivocates by saying many people are benefiting from it. Remember, his claim was that the LOA is a Law like gravity."

Critics of The Secret have been referred to as negative, naysayers, unenlightened, fanatics and more.

They've even been compared to the zealots who chastised and condemned Galileo, Copernicus and Newton.

Yet virtually no one involved with The Secret has actually answered any of the legitimate questions posed by the skeptics.

As I said earlier, Bill Harris appears to be the only voice of reason in the whole presumptuous lot.

Baloney Detection Question #5 - Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?

As I wrote in a March 12, 2007 blog post:

When asked by a caller if he had done any research that was published in peer reviewed journals to support his claims that the law of attraction actually works, John Assaraf stated the following on Larry King Live:

"I was retired for the last six years and I did my own research on books that were published, reports published, white papers that were published to understand what was happening in my life, what was happening in the lives of our clients and how we were able to achieve the success we were achieving. I studied other people's works. I read voraciously, I research voraciously other people's works. And there is more than enough evidence, scientific evidence at a quantum physics level or physics level and neuroscience level to suggest this is true."

In other words, no --Assaraf could not point to a particular piece of evidence or research finding to back up his assertions. Instead, what he really said was that he basically read a whole bunch of documents and white papers and simply drew his own conclusions.

And this "fuzzy science" seems to be the prevailing consensus among teachers and supporters of the so called "law" of attraction.

Unfortunately such a consensus is meaningless in the realm of scientific research and John Assaraf's conclusions would have been tossed in the rejection bin by peer reviewers.

---

Although there are other questions and factors to consider when trying to detect scientific baloney, clearly The Secret fails even the most basic of Carl Sagan's detection criteria.

I think Dr. Fred Alan Wolf was absolutely right when he said that some people are mixing spirituality with science for the sole purpose of making money.

The law of attraction is obviously not a law. Not even close.

The Secret is hugely successful for many reasons, the most important of which is the fact that it tells people what they want to hear instead of what is real.

And in any industry, that's a recipe for success.

As one book publisher recently revealed in The Toronto Star newspaper:

"Burman sees The Secret's success as easily explained. "Basically, human beings are lazy. If you tell them you can get rich just by thinking about it, obviously, they're going to buy it." But he knows a cash cow when he sees one: Riding The Secret's success, he's projecting sales of at least 400,000 for each of Vitale's and Diamond's books. "It used to be, if we sold 20,000 copies of anything, we were lucky," he said."

Like Harry Potter, The Secret sells magic and fantasy.

...And that's no baloney.

* After I published this post, I became aware of the fact that Dr. John Hagelin does not entirely agree with The Secret either.

-----------

"If drudgery is not found somewhere in a book or course, it isn't worth reading. Of all great works nine tenths must be drudgery." -- Russell Conwell

Calista McKnight
http://www.thesecretlie.com/