Karla McLaren on bridging the gap between the New Age and Skeptical cultures.

Posted by Les on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 at 10:46 AM. Read 3289 times. Tags:
{name} pic

While checking in over at DOF’s blog The Ballpoint Sketch, something I’ve been meaning to do for awhile now, I came across his entry on an essay by former New Age guru Karla McLaren that was printed in the May 2004 issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine. The essay is a fascinating read on Karla’s journey away from her New Age beliefs to becoming a skeptic and it makes no bones about what a gut wrenching and painful process such a shift can be. This is especially so if you happen to be, as Karla was, a leader in the culture you are leaving behind. Do a search for “Karla McLaren” on Amazon.com and you’ll see some of her work which includes titles like Healing Your Aura & Chakras: Accessing Your Energetic Wisdom and Becoming an Empath: How to Develop the Power of Your Emotional Intuition. Now imagine embarking on a journey where you open up to the possibility that all these things you’ve published best selling books are all so much cotton candy and fluff.

Yeah, that’d be rough.

Karla’s essay is also a plea as she believes she understands why the New Age culture and the Skeptical culture are unable to speak to each other and she’s hoping to bridge that gap.

Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures (Skeptical Inquirer May 2004)

It is possible that our two warring cultures will never build a bridge across the deep rift that divides us. I know that in my own case, the transition from my culture to yours was long, arduous, and deeply painful. It was not an easy traipse across a well-constructed bridge. In essence, I had to throw myself off a cliff. I had to leave behind my career, my income, my culture, my family, my friends, my health care practitioners, most of my business contacts, my past, and my future. I say this not to garner sympathy but to show what the leap truly entails. The New Age is a complete culture with its own rules, ideals, infrastructure, and social life. When I finally realized that my cultural training had me teetering on a foundation of candyfloss and dreams - and worse, that my work had encouraged others to teeter alongside me, I was inconsolable, yet I had absolutely no one to turn to.

I’ve made it, I think, through my rage and horror at my own complicity in helping people remain susceptible - and perhaps through my grief and despair (though that’s more cyclical) about my own miseducation. Now I’m considering what to do from here. I’ve discovered in just the few (less than ten) conversations I’ve had with faith-based people that skeptical information is absolutely threatening and unwanted. What I didn’t understand until recently is that when you start questioning these beliefs, there’s a domino effect that eventually smacks into your whole house of cards - and nothing remains standing. Opening the questioning process is a very dangerous thing, and people in my culture seem to understand that on a subconscious level. In response to their extreme discomfort, I’ve become completely silent around believers - which is hard, because they make up most of my friends, family, and correspondents.

The essay definitely gave me some stuff to think about and I think it’s a worthy read for anyone who considers themselves a skeptic who wants to make a difference. I’m short on time at the moment so I can’t say everything I want to, but go check it out and let me know what you think.

Comments:

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Alfred Heath United States Posted on 08/30/2005 at 01:41 PM

Alfred Heath pic

Point taken that I didn’t address (and don’t argue with dismissing) “snake-oil"-type remedies that promise to cure everything.  It is much less irresponsible to make claims of a “wonderdrug” (really what I was referring to) than a “miracle cure.”

Thank you for the clarification on your comments on “magnetic therapy.” NIH isn’t quite as categorical as you http://nccam.nih.gov/health/magnet/magnet.htm#2

Scientific thinking is supposed to be parsimonious.  (BTW, Pulsed elecromagnetic fields, which are low-energy, have been shown in several studies to accelerate bone healing.
http://www.papimi.gr/PEMFapplwide.htm)

It is certainly possible to “prove” something false if the technology is not advanced enough to identify mechanisms or effects.

While I take my coffee by the usual route, thanks, and agree that it is charlatanism to suggest it will “cure cancer,” I also know that caffeine stimulates peristalsis in the large intestine, and that “coffee enemas” actually do work to clear out a constipated bowel because of this fact. Chronic constipation can result in carcinogenic toxins in the bowel, so… Here again, exagerrated claims should always be identified and dealt with, but there is a finer line with some of this than some of you seem open to considering.

Les United States Posted on 09/01/2005 at 09:36 PM

Les pic

I’m backing up a bit here to address some of the points raised to me by Alfred earlier in the thread…

Les, this is the whole point. You’re asking me to prove something that is experiential, qualitative and subjective in nature. Even “proof? of pain relief and accelerated healing is often put down to the placebo effect (actually the placebo effect is quantifiable: one of the ways Dr Norm Shields concluded that Quantum Touch produces results beyond placebo effect).

I’m not asking you to prove anything. What I am asking for is some statistically significant evidence that supports the claims being made.

If you’re going to come to me and claim that something like Quantum Touch—which is easily one of the sillier concepts out there—produces better results than the placebo effect then you should have something worthwhile to back it up. A link to said research paper, for starters, would help. I’ve just done a Google search for “Dr. Norm Shields” and “Dr. Norman Shields” and came up with nothing. Not even adding on the words Quantum Touch or Therapeutic Touch resulted in anything that appears to have been authored by that gentleman.

I’m all for looking further into any topic, no matter how strange it might sound, that has at least some credible evidence supporting it beyond the merely anecdotal.

This brings up an important point. Both sides also this is If you are asking about the religious aspect of the New Age, then you should already know better than to ask, and are wasting mine.

I’m not sure, but I think your paragraph here got somewhat garbled. I have no idea what you’re trying to say other than the religious aspect of the New Age movement isn’t worth discussing, on which I agree.

If you are asking about alternative health, consciousness studies, and the like, I’d first recommend some of the research on Therapeutic Touch, the Spindrift group (cited in Healing Words by Larry Dossey).

I’m ahead of you there. I’ve already read up quite a bit on Therapeutic Touch and the arguments both for and against it being real. It probably goes without saying that I find the arguments against it much more credible.

The problem, though comes back to my original point: either side will tend to consistently overlook or discount any supporting information which either disagrees with their conscious or unconscious assumptions, or which falls outside its frame of reference.

Indeed some folks on either side will do just that, but not all folks and certainly not me. Being a skeptic doesn’t mean closing off one’s mind to any new experiences that don’t immediately jive with your understanding of how the world works, but it does mean not accepting a claim until you have good reason to do so. The maxim that if it sounds too good to be true it probably is is well founded, but that doesn’t mean it’s always the case. There are always exceptions to the rule.

If you would like to come up with an experimental design for remote healing that satisfies you, I’d be happy to play along.

Don’t have to. Better minds than mine already have. It’s just a shame no one wanted to take up the challenge:

    In one of my initial posts, I proposed a test to be conducted at the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida in June 1997. The producer of PBS’’s Scientific American Frontiers TV program had agreed to officiate. The test would use a fiberglass construct with two sleeves to allow for the insertion of a subject’s arms. The TT practitioner (TTP) would assess the energy emanating from the construct to determine whether the right or left sleeve was occupied as determined by a randomizing coin flip. Following some preliminary trials, a score of 15 or greater out of 20 would be considered a positive result and would allow that practitioner to advance to the final test. This final test would be done the following day and a score of 20 out of 20 would win the $1,100,000 award. For the most part, the invitation wasn’t’ well received.

    Francis C. Biley, R.N., Ph.D., of the University of Wales College of Medicine is a contributing author of The Theory and Practice of Therapeutic Touch (Churchill Livingstone 1995) and coordinator of the International Region of the Society of Rogerian Scholars. She is also the listowner of the Nurse Rogers e-mail discussion group. “"After spending some time on formulating a critique of the methodology for the following quasi-experiment, I have decided that it really isn’t’ worth doing,"” said Biley. ““Although I applaud Glickman and his associates for spending time on the subject, it is quite obvious that they need to expand their methodological understanding beyond ‘’if you can’t measure it, it doesn’’t exist.’”

Perhaps you could step up and offer to take the test? There’s $1 million up for grabs if you can pull it off.

My real point is not that its important per se whether you believe similarly to me or anyone else, but how rigorously you approach examining to what degree your beliefs, attitudes and assumptions influence your beliefs and perceptions before you even get started. If you don’t manage that (and if I don’t), then your (and my) conclusions are far more likely to meet your expectations, and will end up contributing very little to any conversation with anyone except those who have the same prejudices.

Now here is something we can agree on. I’ve said the same thing myself on occasion. I try very hard to keep my assumptions in check and I have no illusions about my own fallibility. I’ve had my opinions changed many times over the course of my life, but not without good reasons.
’”
This is already running long so I’ll stop here. Most of the rest of your comments so far have been handled pretty well by the other regulars.

 Signature 

All I know is the wine lasts longer when you don’t gotta share it with someone
All I know is my steak tastes better when I take my steak tastes better pill
-- I Feel Fantastic, Jonathan Coulton

eArThLiNg United States Posted on 02/21/2007 at 12:14 AM

eArThLiNg pic

Believe what you want, and move on.

Last_Hussar Great Britain (UK) Posted on 02/21/2007 at 12:27 PM

Last_Hussar pic

I read this thread because it was flagged recent, so sorry for opening an old thread.  It was

Believe what you want, and move on.

that made me comment.  the answer is “Why?” That’s fine as long as your faith doesn’t affect anyone else, but as we see in “Teach the Controversy” it does.

Someone said they thought Karen was going over the top.  I don’t think so. She did the equivalent of a ski instructor moving to Hawaii- all her primary skills meant diddly squat. She may have been a good writer, but she had nothing to write about- the seconadry skill were no good with out the Primary skills.

The primary arguement to be used against the crystal powered community- who alldege their truth is supressed- is if it worked the Big Business would be into it in a big way- if wearing a $600 watch could replace £’000s of treatment then this would be the natural prescription of those picking up the bills. (i.e what KPG said grin )

The only problem I have with some skeptics is they feel they have to disbelieve everything.  Unfortunately with things like Global Overheating this has mede mankind slow to react. Sometimes we have to take insurance, not wait for the catastrophy before planning.

 Signature 

I’d rather be liberal than illiberal.
I’d rather be progressive than conservative.

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Early morning updates.

Previous entry: This is August?

<< Back to main