Much has happened since I last wrote. I will fill everyone in soon. The first web site to have Lifton's criteria applied to Hawkins should be online within a week or two I am told. I will post the link.
I also wanted to bring to attention Marilyn Gang's criticism of the "DH cult." It is wonderful. [www.dowsers.info
I'm far from the only one disenchanted with this cult. It is difficult to uncover disagreement with the DH cult as the group de groupies work hard to suppress any dissent or any seeming criticism of their guru. The guru is also self deluded. Why does everyone accept David Hawkins' calibrations as cast iron truth? Quite often, he is wrong… Don't you realize this is a cult? If you want to talk with them, you have to converse in their vocabulary, their jargon. This group seems to think it is the only group on the planet with the right to make decisions and to have opinions. Judgmentalism runs rampant, however their own mirror is broken.
The beginning of his first book is hilarious because it starts out asking something like: What if you were to find a simple technique where you could tell truth from falsehood... and he goes on and on, just like an adolescent who thinks he is the first one to discover sex. Guess what David, this technique has been around for thousands of years. Hundreds of people in Arizona practice it, too, as well as thousands across North America and more around the planet. It's called DOWSING! …
Unfortunately I have lost interest in David's work. I have been unable to separate the man from his work. I can't see myself buying Truth vs. Falsehood because the man has demonstrated to me that he is not capable of discerning one from the other…From what I hear, he is creating many enemies with his heavy handed tactics that threaten and use force -- and demonstrate no knowledge of power.
Dr. Hawkins has a new section on his web site titled "Critics." [davidhawkins.info
] I would like to respond to it.
Firstly, Hawkins claims that his books are published in "all the world's languages." Hay House publishes his book in only English and Spanish. Where are the other languages?
I will quote from Hawkins' web site:
Skepticism is a form of a (rather grandiose) negative approach and calibrates at 160, as does The Skeptic’s Dictionary. It is also associated with thinly disguised animosity towards God, religion, and spirituality. Its main defect is that it is unable to comprehend nonlinear reality, which is the consequence of context as well as essence. Perception is a projection of bias, as noted by Descartes (res interna vs. res externa) as well as Socrates. All the skeptic’s arguments (disproved by Plato, Socrates, et al. centuries ago), as well as criticism and correspondence, calibrate from 160 to 190. Alas, skeptics are unable to perform consciousness calibrations because it requires that both of the participants as well as the intention of the question calibrate over 200. (None have done so thus far.) The subject is addressed in an entire chapter of a forthcoming book (Spiritual Reality and Modern Man).
The inability of skepticism to discern the nonlinear reality of essence and its intrinsic truth is a consequence of the brain physiology that is concordant with consciousness levels below 200 (as per lectures and book diagram). Thus, it scorns faith and the Reality of Divinity and ignores, for instance, that millions of people have recovered from hopeless, incurable illnesses via the Spiritual Reality of the twelve-step programs (AA). Skepticism itself has been roundly criticized and exposed as fallacious by recent studies reported in the Journal of Consciousness Studies and the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Eisenstein, “Skepticism As a State of Being.” 19:3, 2005). It was proven to be fallacious by the greatest minds over the centuries as explained by the authors of The Great Books of the Western World.
Skepticism is a part of science itself, which Hawkins calibrates in the 400’s. It is erroneous to separate the two. The best representation of skepticism in my opinion is that great scientist Dr. Carl Sagan. Calibrating skeptics and [u:d2b8b0ce3d]The Skeptic’s Dictionary[/u:d2b8b0ce3d] at 160 is simply [i:d2b8b0ce3d]ad hominem[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] and does not address their information. It is like saying to a Catholic, “Of course you oppose abortion, you are a Catholic,” rather than addressing the reasons that the person is opposed to abortion. Why this is not considered judgment by sincere spiritual seekers is beyond me.
It is no secret that Dr. Carroll is not a religious person. It might be well to remember that Hawkins was also an atheist before he called out to God one night, without much expectation, while he was an alcoholic. Helen Schucman who wrote the [u:d2b8b0ce3d]Course[/u:d2b8b0ce3d] was also an atheist. Many people involved in the Unitarian Universalist movement are also atheists or agnostics. Many scientists still maintain a sense of spirituality, though technically are atheists. Einstein is a famous example, as is Stephen Hawking. The popular authors and scientists Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are openly atheistic, yet Harris supports meditation and Buddhist concepts, and Dawkins has a definite love for the truth of the universe that can only be considered spiritual; as does Neil deGrasse Tyson, the famous skeptic Michael Shermer, and the archetype for the love of science and skepticism, the great Carl Sagan, among many others. Atheism is not actually counter to spirituality in many regards, as even Hawkins has admitted. Most importantly, the Buddha, who Hawkins calibrates at 1000, was a non-theist. It is a bad argument to say that because one has skeptical sense in them and does not accept every hypothesis served up due to lack of evidence, one is therefore anti-spiritual. Please associate criticism of applied kinesiology as representing science, the scientific method, and common sense, rather than an anti-spiritual position.
Hawkins believes that skepticism represents a grandiose approach. Why he does not consider his approach to be even more grandiose I do not think I will ever understand. Skeptics look at the evidence and draw conclusions. Yes, some are grumpy when they do so. But you will never find as much humility in Hawkins’ claims as you will find in the work of a person such as Carl Sagan. Humility is part-and-parcel of the scientific method and skepticism. Science makes claims devoid of human bias and frailty; Hawkins’ work supports all of his own conclusions about everything in the universe, by pressing on his wife’s arm.
Why Hawkins uses Descartes and Socrates in his arguments is also difficult to understand. Socrates was put to death for not worshipping the gods of the state. Descartes, according to Hawkins’ work, should also not be able to tell the “linear” from the “nonlinear” as he is in the 400’s per Hawkins. Hawkins perhaps should take up a serious study of these philosophers rather than a hobby. All the skeptic’s arguments were not “disproved by Plato, Socrates et al. centuries ago.” It would be most interesting if for once Hawkins actually backed up his claims with evidence rather than grandiose and bold statements. Socrates was a skeptic, and was considered the wisest in ancient Greece because he knew that he did not know, while everyone else had opinions that were unsubstantiated when subjected to his dialectical process, the “Socratic Method.” Hawkins on the other hand seeks to squelch questioning with his argument from authority. Hawkins knows that he knows, which is not a spiritual or intelligent position, especially when it comes to applied kinesiology, a technique routinely falsified by scientific testing. I contend that it is spiritual and wise to drop most opinions; for example, the [u:d2b8b0ce3d]Tao Te Ching[/u:d2b8b0ce3d] states, “The master teaches without a teaching so the people will have nothing to learn.” Hawkins gets half way there, by teaching that one should give up one’s opinions. Yet he then fills all of his followers with utter gibberish and claims it is science. This is not spiritual, and it is not science; it is pseudoscience and grandiosity, and nothing more. When the absolute science of pressing on your wife’s arm reveals that you are the new Jesus Christ essentially, and that your books are more truthful than all the geniuses of history and the Bible, you might ([i:d2b8b0ce3d]might[/i:d2b8b0ce3d]) be having a bit of a confirmation bias; it could be a serious case of Garrison Keillor’s “Lake Wobegon effect” ( [en.wikipedia.org
If Hawkins believes that the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health calibrate between 160 to190, then his arrogance knows no bounds.
Hawkins makes a number of claims with no supporting evidence. For example, if Hawkins is truly enlightened, imagine what good it would do for real science if we could study his and others’ brains such that this phenomenon can be known and explained scientifically. That would actually contribute to human knowledge; yet it also opens his bold claims up to falsification, his biggest fear apparently (ergo, the endless [i:d2b8b0ce3d]ad hoc[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] hypotheses to rescue his pseudoscience from refutation).
I am a skeptic, and I do not “scorn faith and the Reality of Divinity;” this is a false dilemma. I would contend that the Buddha, Descartes, and Socrates were all skeptics, among many others. To me skepticism is a spiritual process because, as with the Socratic Method, it questions and peels back the layers of false “understanding” (opinions) and reaches that place of emptiness, [i:d2b8b0ce3d]sunyata[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] – What Is. One needs to be able to not cling to their opinions, such as Hawkins does with regard to applied kinesiology, to reach enlightenment.
I am sure if Hawkins were being honest about this, he would agree with Dr. Carroll’s rejection of the concepts of god that are the idols that stand in the way of the Truth. It is quite erroneous to discount Carroll’s criticism due to his atheism, as I am positive that Hawkins would agree with all of his conclusions regarding the “god of religion” rather than the God of Reality. True, Carroll has not apparently come to recognize the true God; but this is not important in regard to his criticism of applied kinesiology, Columbia Pacific University, and Dr. Hawkins. Even Freud, who Hawkins calibrates at 499, was an atheist. Why Freud is 499 and Carroll is 160, I can only attribute to the fact that the latter criticized Hawkins’ work. Were Freud alive, does anyone really think this great mind would accept Hawkins’ applied kinesiology method? I highly doubt it. For that matter, would Einstein, Socrates, Newton, etc., accept his methods? Would Christ, the Buddha, Huang Po? I leave this question to whoever reads this.
This is the primary reason for disagreement. Criticisms come from (1) atheists, (2) political bias, (3) people who calibrate below 200, (4) people who are upset by findings, and (5) relativists who reject the confirmable Reality of Absolutism. Note that skepticism, relativism, and cynicism all calibrate far below the critical level of 200. In contrast, Absolutism calibrates at 650, and the reality of the Absolute itself calibrates at 1,000.
1) I am not an atheist. 2) I do not have a political bias, save the fact that I believe it is wrong to claim that a person who opposes war, such as the Buddha did, will have negative karma. I believe Bill O’Reilly is a good person, but I disagree with his politics because I think for myself. This is not a bias. Along with most sincere observers, I believe it is Hawkins who has a political bias. The recent U.S. election put Democrats back in control of the House and Senate; if because I also voted for Democrats this means I have a “bias,” I suppose the rest of the country has the same bias. 3). I do not calibrate below 200 because a) AK is a pseudoscience and so this statement is meaningless, and b) I have been calibrated by Hawkins’ followers, and while they (of course) contradicted each other’s calibrations, I was well above the 200 line. 4) I am not upset by findings; I care about the truth. If his system actually represented the truth, there would be no complaint on my part, regardless of the “findings.” In fact, I reject the entire system, not his findings, as being pseudoscience; the entire basis for his “findings” is fallacious. It is the fundamental attribution error to state that anyone who disagrees with the “findings” of his wife’s arm has a “bias.” If this were the case, then science is also biased, as is reality. Why is it not a bias to believe AK works at all, when it has been shown not to work repeatedly? All of Hawkins’ work, in sincerity, is a bias; a bias for himself, his opinions, and for pseudoscience over reason, logic, evidence, and the scientific method. Hawkins’ work is the epitome of a personal bias. 5) I am not a relativist, as I believe in Absolute Reality. I do not believe that Hawkins’ technique demonstrates this Reality at all. Hawkins’ work changes, contradicts, and has so far produced “250,000” calibrations with his wife’s arm; Absolute Reality is eternal, unchanging, not contradictory, and is One. If Hawkins believes that God really is revealed through his pseudoscientific judgment, he has no clue what he is talking about.
Additionally, I am not a “cynic” because I do not believe people are motivated solely by self-interest and my attitude is not habitually negative; to regard my particular support of evidence in this case as being habitually negative is the fundamental attribution error, as well as a misrepresentation of my intentions and character.
Isn’t it just amazing how any and all criticism of Hawkins’ work is somehow the error of the critic rather than anything Hawkins could have ever done. See Dr. Robert Lifton’s eight criteria again, particularly, but not limited to, “Doctrine over person.”
The test example given by Hawkins regarding Dr. Moon is quite far from a controlled experiment. If he wishes to be taken seriously, he will need to open his methods up to real testing. Thus far he has not done so. All he has is a PhD from a diploma mill, and adoring followers.
The single most hilarious comment by Hawkins is related to Wikipedia. Hawkins states that the article regarding him “rambles on” about dowsing and the unconscious. In fact, the word “unconscious” is not used once, and the word “dowsing” shows up only once in the context of an external link (i.e., not part of the article on Hawkins), Andrew Paterson’s “Dowsing for God” article from EnergyGrid Alternative Media in London.
Further, that Hawkins has been doing his work for “thirty years” is irrelevant. Astrology, for example, went on for millennia and was never true.
Hawkins states that his work is “peer reviewed.” This is not actually true in any meaningful way (i.e., “large audiences,” associates, or something similar does not count for a science). The criticism is that he has published in no peer-reviewed journals, a criterion to be taken seriously if a person’s work is actually scientific. Hawkins’ work is not actually science, and will never be published in a respected peer-reviewed journal. I will bet on it (literally, lol).
He frequently appeals to such things as “thousands of people,” “large audiences,” and his “worldwide” following (his grandiosity really shines through here). All of this is irrelevant. Many different masses of people have believed many erroneous claims for many millennia. Hawkins’ claims remind me of L. Ron Hubbard, for example, the founder of Scientology. Hubbard apparently is the most translated author in the entire world; but this still does not make his work true. It simply confirms, as Vicarion pointed out, the P.T. Barnum effect (i.e., “There is a sucker born every minute” and “we have something for everybody”), or that there is, as Hawkins often refers to us mortals, a “naïve public.” If nothing else, Hawkins’ work has indeed confirmed that there are a lot of naïve people.
Purpose of the work
As denoted in all writings, the purpose is to discern truth (essence) from falsehood (appearance, opinion) and thereby advance the level of consciousness to bring about greater happiness, success, spiritual advancement, and the relief of human suffering.
I believe that Hawkins’ work has increased human suffering in many people, and that his narcissism will not allow him to see this. And like victims of the Stockholm syndrome, many followers cling to their “savior.”
It is amusing that not a single critic thus far has actually read and comprehended any of the published works (most never even read one book)…
I have read most of his books (even including some of [u:d2b8b0ce3d]Orthomolecular Psychiatry[/u:d2b8b0ce3d] and that scorpion book he wrote), have seen him live, listened to all of his internet radio interviews, heard him on many audio recordings, and have seen him on many videos. If Hawkins or any of his supporters believe that I have not “comprehended any” of Hawkins’ work, it would be nice to see this bold and inaccurate claim backed up with evidence, and then I might be able to respond.
The primary animosity arises from the fact that Dr. Hawkins is an Absolutist and is critical of the rhetoric and sophistry of Relativism.
Hawkins is not an absolutist as I have heard him in an interview argue in favor of “situational ethics.” An absolutist like Kant, for example, taken to [i:d2b8b0ce3d]reductio ad absurdum[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] would prefer to not lie than to potentially save a person from being murdered. I doubt Hawkins supports this. Hawkins is meaning the same thing as Bill O’Reilly, I assume. To the extent that he is referring to the Absolute, every “critic” (how about “rational observer”) I know, with the exception of Carroll, is spiritual (Marilyn Gang, Shawn Nevins, Andrew Paterson, etc., including myself).
It is interesting that Hawkins thinks he is a Deist; this does not seem to be the case (see [etext.lib.virginia.edu
As noted in the article “Cosmic Conundrum” (Lemonick and Nash, 2004, Time, 29 November), “Dealing with cranks is an occupational hazard for most scientists. . . . Those who study the cosmos . . . tend to be bombarded with letters, calls and e-mails from would-be geniuses who insist they have refuted Einstein or devised a new theory of gravity or disproved the Big Bang. The telltale signs of crankdom are . . . consistent—a grandiose theory, minimal credentials, a messianic zeal [and] scientists can usually spot them a mile off.”
This quotation is perfect as it applies directly to Hawkins himself.
It is obvious that the critics are unable to discern truth (essence, nonlinear) from falsehood (appearance).
I am a critic, and this is not true.
The Relativist positionality [sic] is based on the premise that all viewpoints are equally valid (“One man’s terrorist is another man’s liberator,” etc.). Thus, if a relativist is integrous or honest, then they must therefore admit that Absolutism is an equally valid alternative to relativism itself.
Hawkins must be referring to Andrew Paterson’s critique. I think Paterson would agree with Hawkins on this point. However, I still feel that Paterson’s position is more spiritual, in the sense that it offers respect to others, and demonstrates humility rather than narcissism. Every spiritual teacher I am aware of I believe would be considered a relativist in this context, while still, of course, believing in the Absolute. I believe the confusion here is that Hawkins is making the relative absolute, which is quite a fallacy. For example, according to Hawkins it is [i:d2b8b0ce3d]absolute[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] that [u:d2b8b0ce3d]The Matrix[/u:d2b8b0ce3d] or some other film is negative. This is a [i:d2b8b0ce3d]relative[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] statement, and is rather silly. It is [i:d2b8b0ce3d]Absolute[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] that God is all that is. These are different claims, and he is taking them out of context. [i:d2b8b0ce3d]Hawkins is confusing the relative with the Absolute, the hallmark of cults and fundamentalists[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] (as Paterson and others correctly pointed out). I am always struck by Hawkins’ inability to hear criticism, and how he therefore is never able to accurately respond to his critics (a straw man fallacy; not to mention his other frequent fallacies, such as argument from authority, [i:d2b8b0ce3d]ad hominem[/i:d2b8b0ce3d], etc.).
Consciousness calibration is impersonal; it just denotes a number. Dr. Hawkins is not a proselytizer and is not interested in persuading people. He has no personal involvement in the calibration numbers. Thus, the criticisms that start with “You say,” or “How come Dr. Hawkins believes,” etc., are all projections of the questioner’s own narcissism.
The best response to this is still what Vicarion wrote:
[i:d2b8b0ce3d]So basically, this "calibration" nonsense is Hawkins' way of trying to lend some objective credibility to his own personal opinions?
Reading about his so-called "work" reveals that he passes personal judgment on everything from movies to churches to philosophies, disclaiming all responsibility for his choices and judgments, using a clearly disproven pseudoscience as his measuring tool. If he were a person of any credibility, he'd own up to his opinions. But he does the same thing that "chanellers" do, that is they make pronouncements and attribute them to "the Universe", "Ramtha", or whatever "higher" source will not be questioned by the readers or seekers.
Whoo-eeee! P.T. Barnum was right! [/i:d2b8b0ce3d] :roll:
If Hawkins believes in personal responsibility, his statement is rather odd. In lieu of believing it is Hawkins’ own bias and ideomotor effect that produces his results, we are meant to believe it is God’s pronouncements?
Hawkins’ narcissism knows no limits; his ego may indeed be the only thing “infinite” his work has discovered.
Gloria in Excelsis David!
Straight and Narrow is the Quack, Waste no Dime, :lol:
[i:d2b8b0ce3d]Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions… I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] – Thomas Jefferson