Andrew P., editor of EnergyGrid Alternative Media, also gave Hawkins a rating of "Stay clear" in EG's "Rough Guide to New Age Teachers":

Quote

[b:82c3df4f79]David Hawkins -[stay clear rating][/b:82c3df4f79]
Kinesiologist who has several books on the calibration of truth using simple muscle testing.
[b:82c3df4f79]Pros:[/b:82c3df4f79] Seems to give simple and pat answers to life's complex questions and concerns. Hawkins seems loving.
[b:82c3df4f79]Cons:[/b:82c3df4f79] His teaching is just religious fundamentalism dressed up as New Age spirituality, and relies on the erroneous assumption that kinesiology can be infallibly objective.
[b:82c3df4f79]Conclusion:[/b:82c3df4f79] Not recommended. Hawkins' pseudo-scientific fundamentalism is counterproductive to spiritual evolution.
[b:82c3df4f79]Website:[/b:82c3df4f79] www.veritaspub.com
[b:82c3df4f79]EG Article:[/b:82c3df4f79] Dowsing for God: A Critique of Power vs Force
[b:82c3df4f79]Wikipedia:[/b:82c3df4f79] [en.wikipedia.org]

[www.energygrid.com]

Note how he rates other teachers as well:
[www.energygrid.com]

(for example, he still states that AK gets generally universal results, and refers to his exponential scale incorrectly as "logarithmic".)

I'm uncertain what this means but I'll attempt to give my understanding.

Anything that can be expressed exponentially can be expressed logarithmically.

A small value is negative (i.e. below the level of integrity), larger values cover a larger area (i.e. as in an avatar counterbalances humanity or whatever). At some happy value the make-break point of "integrity" is achieved; from there positive areas greater than zero are covered, in this case levels of consciousness above integrity.

In this way not only is the scale measuring negative and positive levels of integrity but it is measuring the area of effect on the human populace, i.e. power.

The Richter scale is a logarithm. Low Richter values are undetectable to human senses and located in a tiny area. The largest number covers thousands of miles and is experienced catastrophically. In this way the physical area of the quake and the overall intensity are simultaneously measured. Being below the threshold of human senses would be "negative" in this measurement on up to a full-blown quake that knocks one on their duff. Then it measures the physical area covered.

From this I would infer that the author is stating that conscious levels that are low have a small area of effect, or "no/limited power" and are "negative" or below the level of "integrity"; those conscious levels that are higher in value have a corresponding "positive" level on the scale but cover an ever increasing area of effect or "more/unlimited power". Being below the threshold of integrity is "negative" and achieving and surpassing this threshold would be "positive". Then it measures the "power" of each level of consciousness.

Merely look up wikipedia and read "logarithm", "logarithmic scale" and "Richter scale" and see how this applies as these examples explain this.

The logarithm is a perfect analogy for this scale.

Thanks for the source of Hawkins evaluating Scientology.

Quote
everest
The logarithm is a perfect analogy for this scale.

I disagree. I appreciate that you use the word "analogy" (i.e., "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar"), rather than presuming the scale to reflect mathematical accuracy. Please refer to the second page of this thread where the mathematics of his scale is clearly debunked. It just gets back to "Truthiness", rather than actual fact. Truthiness indicates the scale being logarithmic is a good analogy, while mathematically it is inaccurate.

"Wal-Mart is the way to God." -David Hawkins

Couldn't find it. In fact, I cannot find anything that "clearly" debunks anything. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Maybe you can tell me why the logarithm is wrong and should be expressed exponentially instead? I may've mistakenly assumed that people were talking without understanding.

For instance, people may assume that a geometric progression must be expressed exponentially if a value is raised by a base power of, oh say 10 or something, but they are mistaken. Therefore I would like to see who is stating that "the mathematics are incorrect" and then why; i.e. let's see the reasons.

I believe that it was you that stated the "he incorrectly calls it a logarithm when it should be an exponential" which immediately gave me a double take of "what!?". Therefore if you disagree with the logarithm then you contradict yourself and disagree with the "exponential scale" or whatever terminology used - or you do not understand either.

I would like to see the clarity of this refutation and the reasons why.

Thanks!!

[b:499333f9d3]4truth[/b:499333f9d3][i:499333f9d3](iness)[/i:499333f9d3] [ [en.wikipedia.org] ] wrote:

Quote

These [2 prayers] seem to capture the essence of what Dr. Hawkins teaches and is pointing to. These are the point and while everything else can be debated (if that is one's choice), the essence of his teachings stand there, - - stark naked.

The Wizard of Oz stated:

Quote

[i:499333f9d3][b:499333f9d3]"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"[/b:499333f9d3] -The Great and Terrible Wizard of Oz[/i:499333f9d3] [en.wikipedia.org]

Given some of the facts that have come to light regarding David Hawkins, I am not sure that a person would want to say a prayer of Hawkins' stating that they "surrender all", including "all personal will" and their very "existence", and asking to be a "servant of the Lord"; especially when Hawkins' own words indicate that he believes he is the "Lord" (e.g., "I am all that is Nature, I am that which is life" - Hawkins).

Andrew P. of EnergyGrid in the UK noted in his introduction to "A Rough Guide to New Age Teachers":

Quote

Many of the emperors are strutting around in the buff...We need to have discernment, and not be afraid to point out naked emperors. [www.energygrid.com]

[en.wikipedia.org]

Specifically regarding Hawkins, Andrew observantly wrote:

Quote

The first clue to the shortcomings of Hawkins' calibration theory is his intellectualism: Force vs Power is a very dry read. Whenever something relatively simple is presented in an intellectual and scientific manner way beyond what is necessary or justifiable, you know that [b:499333f9d3]you may well be staring at a nude emperor[/b:499333f9d3]. Gregg Braden did it with his new work the God Code, and Hawkins does it with his simple muscle testing implications. What happens is that the overly intellectual and scientific context in which a theory is presented ends up giving it a high standing in the eyes of ordinary people, because it is so easy for the authority of the scientific context to bleed into the unsubstantiated nature of the content. So you get a situation whereby the only criticism for works like these comes from those conversant in science — which is mostly the scientific establishment. And "they" would criticise such cutting-edge alternative research, wouldn't they!...[b:499333f9d3][i:499333f9d3]It is time that all of us in the spiritual and New Age movements start seeing that this emperor really is wearing no clothes[/i:499333f9d3][/b:499333f9d3].

Quote
everest
Couldn't find it.

1)The mathematics in this book is a joke. If a doctor were to tell you that your backache was caused by "halitosis of the femural artery located in the sternum", you would know that he doesn't know what he is talking about. This is exactly what Dr. Hawkins does with mathematical terms.

Dr. Hawkins rates everything in the universe on a scale of 1 to 1000 based on how good or bad it is. To explain this scale he uses a lot of technical-sounding mathematical terms, but he uses those terms incorrectly- to the point of being gibberish. Since he knows his discussion would be above most readers' heads Dr. Hawkins can get awy with it.

He claims that the scale is "logarithmic" and base 10, but in his explanation of what a logarithm is, he confuses logarithmic functions with exponential functions and repeats this mistake throughout the book. Essentially,someone at level 201 has ten times the power of someone at 200, someone at 202 has 10 times the power of someone at 201 and so on.

This "logarithmic progression" is then completely contradicted by his chart which states how many people at one level counterbalance someone at another level. One of the statements on this chart is that "12 people at level 700 equals one avatar at 1000". On his "logarithmic"(actually exponential) scale it would take 10^300 people at level 700(that's a one with 300 zeros in front of it) to equal the power of one person at level 1000. Since when does 12= 10^300?

He uses the calculus term "critical point" and claims that his scale has a critical point at 200. In mathematics a critical point is the point where the derivative of a function equals zero. On a graph, it is the point where the tangent line is flat-the point where you are neither rising nor falling. What Dr. Hawkins didn't realize was that neither logarithmic functions nor exponential functions have critical points. Their derivatives are always positive. In this case, he just threw in a mathematical term without bothering to find out what it means.

He discusses chaos theory, because it is new and trendy, but he misses the point entirely. He seems to think that chaos theory implies that the world is more orderly and easily explained than previously thought, when in fact chaos theory implies just the opposite.He does this because he likes the word "attractor" which he overuses throughout the rest of the book

In other cases, bad math like this could be overlooked. He is after all a psychiatrist, not a mathematician. In this book, however, the technical terms are used to impress the readers with how scientific the system is, and the claim is that it is based on research. If you can understand what these mathematical terms actually mean, it becomes clear by the gibberish that he is just making this stuff up. If his "mathematical" system was revealed to him through muscle-testing (as opposed to outright fiction), then it shows just how unreliable this system is.

Perhaps the most blatently incompetent statement he makes is that a loving thought has the energy of " 10^-35 million megawatts"(I'm using the symbol ^ because this this font won't allow superscripts) and claims that the quantity is "so enormous as to be beyond the capacity of the human imagination to comprehend" The truth is that this quantity is so miniscule as to be beyond our capacity to comprehend. 10^35 million is a one with 35 million zeros in front of it- a huge number indeed, but 10^-35 million is 1/10^35 million -- a mind-bogglingly tiny fraction. If you were to multiply the mass of the entire galaxy by a fraction that tiny, you wouldn't even have enough mass for a single electron. If the minus sign was a typo, without it the energy level described would be great indeed -probably be along the order of the big bang and our heads would have exploded (and caused a supernova) a long time ago. In this case, he just threw together the most confusing notation he could think of, without a clue as to what it meant. He did this to make it appear scientific. He figured that his readers would be too dumb to know the difference. I don't think this can be written off as a mere honest mistake

Other laughable statements are that organically grown tobacco is actually healthy, and that taking one gram of vitamin C per day will counter all of the harmful effects of smoking.

He also states that adrenaline causes the muscles to go weak. Adrenaline is the stimulant hormone associated with the fight/flight response and its entire purpose is to give you EXTRA strength and energy in an emergency. As a doctor, he should know this
This book would be funny if it wasn't so scary.This man claims to be an MD and as far as I know still has a license.
If you have a degree in math, physics, engineering or something similar, this book can pretty entertaining. It is fun to pick apart,but as a source of truth it is worthless.

2) Numerous people have pointed out to me that Hawkins completely abuses the mathematics and physics in his book. He consistently refers to his calibration scale as "logarithmic" when it is in fact "exponential"; he uses the term "critical point" when referring to his exponential scales, when an exponential graph by definition cannot have a critical or "flat" point; and he uses leading-edge scientific terminology such as "chaos theory" and "attractors" in contexts that only demonstrate undeniable scientific and mathematical ignorance… which is rather strange considering that he calibrates his own books as the most "truthful" ever published.

Quote

In fact, I cannot find anything that "clearly" debunks anything. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Indeed. His Ph.D., knighthood, applied kinesiology, mathematics, physics, orthomolecular psychiatry, Who’s Who vanity articles, scorpion knowledge and various other qualifications, spiritual and scientific “truths” have been clearly debunked.

Are you a student of Hawkins’?

Thanks,

Phoenix

Although wikipedia may be a questionable source due to its consortium authorship I'm going to use it as it's accurate in this case.


- (He uses the calculus term "critical point" and claims that his scale has a critical point at 200. In mathematics a critical point is the point where the derivative of a function equals zero. On a graph, it is the point where the tangent line is flat-the point where you are neither rising nor falling. What Dr. Hawkins didn't realize was that neither logarithmic functions nor exponential functions have critical points. Their derivatives are always positive.) -

This is a false statement. Here's a verbatim quote from wikipedia: [en.wikipedia.org]

On most logarithmic scales, small values (or ratios) of the underlying quantity correspond to small (possibly negative) values of the logarithmic measure. Well-known examples of such scales are:

Richter magnitude scale for strength of earthquakes and movement in the earth.
bel and decibel and neper for acoustic power (loudness) and electric power;
cent, minor second, major second, and octave for the relative pitch of notes in music;
logit for odds in statistics;
Palermo Technical Impact Hazard Scale;
Logarithmic timeline;
counting f-stops for ratios of photographic exposure;
rating low probabilities by the number of 'nines' in the decimal expansion of the probability of their not happening: for example, a system which will fail with a probability of 10-5 is 99.999% reliable: "five nines".
Entropy in thermodynamics.
Information in information theory

Here's a nice graph: [en.wikipedia.org]

Notice the blue line is the graph of the logarithm. Also note that the "x" line of the graph would be the critical point - in this case "200" or "Integrity". Therefore the critical point referrence quoted above is false.

wikipedia once again: [en.wikipedia.org]

Richter magnitude test scale (or more correctly local magnitude ML scale) assigns a single number to quantify the size of an earthquake. It is a base-10 logarithmic scale obtained by calculating the logarithm of the combined horizontal amplitude of the largest displacement from zero on a seismometer output. Developed in 1935 by Charles Richter in collaboration with Beno Gutenberg, both of the California Institute of Technology, the scale was originally intended to be used only in a particular study area in California, and on seismograms recorded on a particular instrument, the Wood-Anderson torsion seismometer. Richter originally reported values to the nearest quarter of a unit, but decimal numbers were used later. His motivation for creating the local magnitude scale was to separate the vastly larger number of smaller earthquakes from the few larger earthquakes observed in California at the time. His inspiration for the technique was the stellar magnitude scale used in astronomy to describe the brightness of stars and other celestial objects. Richter arbitrarily chose a magnitude 0 event to be an earthquake that would show a maximum combined horizontal displacement of 1 micrometre on a seismogram recorded using a Wood-Anderson torsion seismometer 100 km from the earthquake epicenter. This choice was intended to prevent negative magnitudes from being assigned. However, the Richter scale has no upper or lower limit, and sensitive modern seismographs now routinely record quakes with negative magnitudes.

Here's another great graph: [en.wikipedia.org]

Factually, both logarithms and exponents deal with geometric progressions; hence my earlier statement that anything that can be expressed exponentially can be expressed logarithmically. A logarithm is the inverse of an exponent expression.

On a side note logarithmic scales are often employed when measuring magnitude - which is exactly what the "scale of consciousness" is or whatever its name is. They are particularly adept for giving fixed increments to evaluate magnitude - therefore the Richter scale.

Review the table under wikipedia's Richter scale entry. The Richter scale is a geometric progression. The plausible correlation to a critical point would be perceptible to human senses. The absolute VAST amount of quakes are below that critical point. The VAST amount of the people are below integrity. Very few quakes occur at the "top" of the scale; very few people are above 900. The VAST majority of quakes cover minute areas; the conscious levels below integrity have little "impact" due to power. As a quake's rating goes "up" the Richter scale it's area covered and devastation increase geometrically; as people ascend the conscious level they counter-balance an increasing area and their "power" grows - each geometrically.

Notice that each of the examples of wikipedia are measuring two quantities simultaneously (as in strength of earthquake and movement in the earth). The consciousness scale, or whatever it is, is measuring power of consciousness and number of those affected by that power.

- (2) Numerous people have pointed out to me that Hawkins completely abuses the mathematics and physics in his book. He consistently refers to his calibration scale as "logarithmic" when it is in fact "exponential"; he uses the term "critical point" when referring to his exponential scales, when an exponential graph by definition cannot have a critical or "flat" point) -

Numerous people are incorrect. The scale is logarithmic, it does have a critical point.

- (He claims that the scale is "logarithmic" and base 10, but in his explanation of what a logarithm is, he confuses logarithmic functions with exponential functions and repeats this mistake throughout the book. Essentially,someone at level 201 has ten times the power of someone at 200, someone at 202 has 10 times the power of someone at 201 and so on.) - I'm uncertain what is being said here but I'm taking it that since each level is 10 times greater than the prededing level that you're stating that this is mistakenly termed "logarithmic" when it should be "exponential". If that is the case then once again this is false. Please see wikipedia once again: [en.wikipedia.org]

Here is the quote from said link: "In mathematics, the common logarithm is the logarithm with base 10."

In short, Hawkins is straight forward and not confusing in describing the simplest most common logarithm scale. The logarithm scale usage is right on the money as described. It is not confusing or ambiguous. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. That makes these statements false:

- (To explain this scale he uses a lot of technical-sounding mathematical terms, but he uses those terms incorrectly- to the point of being gibberish.) -

- (In this case, he just threw in a mathematical term without bothering to find out what it means. ) -

- (In other cases, bad math like this could be overlooked. He is after all a psychiatrist, not a mathematician. In this book, however, the technical terms are used to impress the readers with how scientific the system is, and the claim is that it is based on research. If you can understand what these mathematical terms actually mean, it becomes clear by the gibberish that he is just making this stuff up. If his "mathematical" system was revealed to him through muscle-testing (as opposed to outright fiction), then it shows just how unreliable this system is.) -




- (Are you a student of Hawkins’?) - No.

- (Other laughable statements are that organically grown tobacco is actually healthy, and that taking one gram of vitamin C per day will counter all of the harmful effects of smoking.) - Can you give us the exact quotes on these?

Wow, gotta love that wikipediea:

[en.wikipedia.org]

Here's the quote I'm referring to and then I'll give the wikipedia quote:

- (He discusses chaos theory, because it is new and trendy, but he misses the point entirely. He seems to think that chaos theory implies that the world is more orderly and easily explained than previously thought, when in fact chaos theory implies just the opposite.) -

wikipedia: In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos. Among the characteristics of chaotic systems, described below, is the sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, exhibiting an exponential error dispersion, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters.

Emphasis is mine. Once again, the first quoted statement is false. As further wikipedia quotes state: "Systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense; this technical use of the word chaos is at odds with common parlance, which suggests complete disorder. (See the article on mythological chaos for a discussion of the origin of the word in mythology, and other uses.) A related field of physics called quantum chaos theory studies non-deterministic systems that follow the laws of quantum mechanics.

As well as being orderly in the sense of being deterministic, chaotic systems usually have well defined statistics. For example, the Lorentz system pictured is chaotic, but has a clearly defined structure. Weather is chaotic, but its statistics - climate - is not."

Here's another definition easily obtained:

Photonotes.org
dictionary of film and digital photography

Logarithmic.

A type of exponential progression.

from:

[photonotes.org]

Here is a definition of "Hawkinazi" at the Urban Dictionary. Please visit this page and give it a "thumbs up"! Thank you.
[www.urbandictionary.com]
An example of the word in a sentence, and also a true statement: A link to this discussion forum was deleted at Wikipedia by a Hawkinazi today.