I don't particularly know anything about the writer/interviewer of this, and I watched this because someone else made me aware of its existence. Here, superstition is investigated, and science praised. Religion is not mentioned much at all beyond the very beginning, and I understand that it has already been explored in a prior effort by the same man who made this. Dawkins delves into the world of psychics, chakras and the like, and both undergoes treatments, readings and such, and talks with the spokespeople of them. He asks all the right questions, and comes across as quite respectful, considering his obviously differing opinion. He is notably less aggressive and overbearing than Michael Moore, who, I'm afraid, is really the only person I can think of to make comparisons to in this regard(I openly admit to not watching that many of these). Rather than attacking with accusations, Richard debates intelligently, and presents the facts, from what I can tell, entirely without bias. He exposes tricks used by some of those who claim to see beyond. He puts into perspective. Even if I did disagree with what he is saying, I'd find it a feat to argue points so logical. What he believes can be proved, and does not require faith, as a stark contrast to a large portion of what he takes a close look at herein. He and his approach are not really condescending, either. I am not aware of multiple versions of this, but what I watched was two parts, each of about 45 minutes, so an hour and a half of highly informational and revealing documentary. It points out that while some of it is harmless, certain of the practices can be harmful, to varying degrees. The production values leave little to be desired. The tone is serious, without being heavy, and allowing some irony. I recommend this to anyone who do or wish to value the tested, and/or tend to meet the opposite with skepticism. 8/10
7 Reviews
Good stuff
sarastro729 November 2007
It's great to see that science and reason has its own Michael Moore in Richard Dawkins. It's not just cool and amusing, but downright triumphant to see him ridicule and expose "alternative" medicine and other wholesale hoaxes. More power to him.
And yet - I'm not really that big a Dawkins disciple. I think he focuses too much on reason in his own reasoning. Now, I'm certainly an atheist and a science-minded person and all that, but Dawkins' critique of religion almost exclusively hinges on how irrational it is. Well, sure it's irrational! Religion is about emotion. It's about fear and insecurity, much of which is very understandable in the life situations of the faithful, who frequently have very tough lives (esp. in earlier historical periods, but also today). Yet Dawkins doesn't address this at all. He doesn't really cut to the heart of the matter; he only talks about what's rational. So it's kind of only addressing half the issue, but, all right, that's entertaining too.
As for something like homeopathy; well, it's certainly a bunch of nonsense, but, what's at work there is the placebo effect, and maybe this actually helps a lot of people. People who're insecure and have a deteriorating health because of it, might react well to assurances that this substance or that will help them, and their very belief in it will make it work - at least to some degree. I agree that it would be better if their problems could be solved in better ways, but as long as they can't be, the placebo effect is a useful and good form of medicine. Once social circumstances start improving (as we have to hope they will), maybe such things won't be necessary anymore, but can be replaced with real medicine (if needed).
Still, despite Dawkins' uncompromisingly rational outlook, I think he's on the right path and I hope he does more programs like this. He needs to look into emotion, though.
9 out of 10.
And yet - I'm not really that big a Dawkins disciple. I think he focuses too much on reason in his own reasoning. Now, I'm certainly an atheist and a science-minded person and all that, but Dawkins' critique of religion almost exclusively hinges on how irrational it is. Well, sure it's irrational! Religion is about emotion. It's about fear and insecurity, much of which is very understandable in the life situations of the faithful, who frequently have very tough lives (esp. in earlier historical periods, but also today). Yet Dawkins doesn't address this at all. He doesn't really cut to the heart of the matter; he only talks about what's rational. So it's kind of only addressing half the issue, but, all right, that's entertaining too.
As for something like homeopathy; well, it's certainly a bunch of nonsense, but, what's at work there is the placebo effect, and maybe this actually helps a lot of people. People who're insecure and have a deteriorating health because of it, might react well to assurances that this substance or that will help them, and their very belief in it will make it work - at least to some degree. I agree that it would be better if their problems could be solved in better ways, but as long as they can't be, the placebo effect is a useful and good form of medicine. Once social circumstances start improving (as we have to hope they will), maybe such things won't be necessary anymore, but can be replaced with real medicine (if needed).
Still, despite Dawkins' uncompromisingly rational outlook, I think he's on the right path and I hope he does more programs like this. He needs to look into emotion, though.
9 out of 10.
A Fine Successor to Root of All Evil
gavin694228 February 2009
In this documentary, Richard Dawkins goes after alternative medicine and explores how it stands up to reason and critical thinking. While some of the things he explores are fairly obviously bunk, he is sure to give each theory fair attention.
I recently watched "Root of All Evil?" and enjoyed it. This follows a similar style, with Dawkins interviewing people he believes are practicing and pushing questionable beliefs. He steers clear of religion (for the most part) and his confrontational attitude is mellowed down, which I think is good -- the people he stands against have more of a chance to explain themselves, and it is their own words -- not Dawkins -- that makes them look smart or foolish.
Astrology (specifically horoscopes) are attacked, as is cold reading and homeopathy. Each of these could be explored further, but Dawkins gives a good introduction to these beliefs and in my opinion debunks them in a fairly legitimate way. He even has Deepak Chopra explain himself, which is great considering Chopra's high level of respect amongst many people. When called out, he actually seems almost rational.
Perhaps this would have been better as a series, with each week focusing on a different kind of medicine or alternative theory -- sort of like Penn and Teller's show, or a more serious version of "South Park" (they did a fine job attacking cold reading). But then, I guess that's been done. But I just can't get enough of that Dawkins, and my lady friend thinks he's a hot piece.
I recently watched "Root of All Evil?" and enjoyed it. This follows a similar style, with Dawkins interviewing people he believes are practicing and pushing questionable beliefs. He steers clear of religion (for the most part) and his confrontational attitude is mellowed down, which I think is good -- the people he stands against have more of a chance to explain themselves, and it is their own words -- not Dawkins -- that makes them look smart or foolish.
Astrology (specifically horoscopes) are attacked, as is cold reading and homeopathy. Each of these could be explored further, but Dawkins gives a good introduction to these beliefs and in my opinion debunks them in a fairly legitimate way. He even has Deepak Chopra explain himself, which is great considering Chopra's high level of respect amongst many people. When called out, he actually seems almost rational.
Perhaps this would have been better as a series, with each week focusing on a different kind of medicine or alternative theory -- sort of like Penn and Teller's show, or a more serious version of "South Park" (they did a fine job attacking cold reading). But then, I guess that's been done. But I just can't get enough of that Dawkins, and my lady friend thinks he's a hot piece.
Important Ideas
wikipediacabal29 September 2013
I agree 100% with the positions that Richard Dawkins defends in this film. It is focused on the UK where there has been a broad acceptance of homeopathy even up to Prince Charles. In the USA we need a Dawkins to take up the task of identifying our irrational, fraudulent products and movements. This film should make the viewer wonder: why are these nonsensical snake oil ideas finding an audience today?
I think Westerners are increasingly open to appeals that are fake and easily disprovable because of shifts in our culture. The rise of academic fields that oppose Enlightenment principles: feminist study, black study, anti-colonial study, and postmodern criticism provide intellectual cover for arguments from personal experience. Our free market tolerates commercial appeals regardless of their rationality or lack thereof. Our popular mistrust of all institutions has disarmed the natural predators of irrational bunk: the academy, government, journalists. Thus the New Age people can promote their ideas without getting the public intellectual thrashing they deserve.
Also, we have misapplied helpful ideas about the right of minorities to exist and the importance of understanding all sides of an issue. There is a reluctance to simply state that when a proposition about the world has been investigated vigorously and no strong support had been found, we are obliged to adopt the simplest conclusion that there is very likely nothing there and we should put our effort elsewhere. Instead we demand absolute proof of nonexistence of an effect, not realizing that this is impossible. And so we carry on insisting that ideas like cell phone cancer, vaccine autism and even creationism are still viable.
Be sure to check YouTube for uncut versions of all the interviews in this film. They are fascinating and they will expand the viewer's sense of who the interview subjects are, how sincere and open they are, and whether they understand their own ideas well.
Deepak Chopra comes across in his full interview as well informed and equally open to Western and Eastern medical traditions. In the film, his edited interview is more one-sided: confrontational and less thoughtful.
The Nicholas Humphrey interview gets into Darwinian medicine, a fascinating topic that gives us a very different perspective on paranormal ideas. He talks about placebos in detail and about how belief in a nonexistent soul may well be part of our healthy evolved psychology.
I think Westerners are increasingly open to appeals that are fake and easily disprovable because of shifts in our culture. The rise of academic fields that oppose Enlightenment principles: feminist study, black study, anti-colonial study, and postmodern criticism provide intellectual cover for arguments from personal experience. Our free market tolerates commercial appeals regardless of their rationality or lack thereof. Our popular mistrust of all institutions has disarmed the natural predators of irrational bunk: the academy, government, journalists. Thus the New Age people can promote their ideas without getting the public intellectual thrashing they deserve.
Also, we have misapplied helpful ideas about the right of minorities to exist and the importance of understanding all sides of an issue. There is a reluctance to simply state that when a proposition about the world has been investigated vigorously and no strong support had been found, we are obliged to adopt the simplest conclusion that there is very likely nothing there and we should put our effort elsewhere. Instead we demand absolute proof of nonexistence of an effect, not realizing that this is impossible. And so we carry on insisting that ideas like cell phone cancer, vaccine autism and even creationism are still viable.
Be sure to check YouTube for uncut versions of all the interviews in this film. They are fascinating and they will expand the viewer's sense of who the interview subjects are, how sincere and open they are, and whether they understand their own ideas well.
Deepak Chopra comes across in his full interview as well informed and equally open to Western and Eastern medical traditions. In the film, his edited interview is more one-sided: confrontational and less thoughtful.
The Nicholas Humphrey interview gets into Darwinian medicine, a fascinating topic that gives us a very different perspective on paranormal ideas. He talks about placebos in detail and about how belief in a nonexistent soul may well be part of our healthy evolved psychology.
As reasonable a critique as scientific materialism can be
take2docs16 June 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Whereas in "Root Of All Evil?" it was organized religion as Dawkins' main focus of criticism, here it's alt-spiritualities & -medicine which are held up to Richard's penetrating yet somewhat narrow-minded, intellectual microscope.
Granted, since the release of THE ENEMIES OF REASON, Dawkins' popularity has certainly waned, but it's interesting to be able to go back in time to when this former Oxford biologist and 'new atheist' was not quite the has-been that he is today, to the period during his heyday, as a culturally influential and outspoken nullifidian.
So beloved was this secular humanist among many non-academics, that many took to practically deifying the fellow, regarding him as a persuasive, wise pundit and articulate spokesperson for their own godless (not necessarily nihilistic) worldviews. Despite my not being among this idolatrous following, admittedly, there is I think as much to be gleaned from Dawkins as there is worth discarding.
As to the latter, anyone who has ever experienced paranormal activity or had an intrinsically unprovable mystical encounter is likely to find Dawkins' offhanded dismissiveness of otherworldliness off-putting, not to mention his smugness as a staunch proponent of scientific materialism/scientism, which to me is a stance just as irrational as, say, much of the uncritical thinking found among the more credulous adherents within the New Age -- as it is, one of this would-be debunker's favorite targets. In such cases as these, Dawkins is without question his own worst enemy.
Nonetheless, for all his unreasonable opining, as one counted among the so-called intelligentsia, Dawkins remains and will go down in modern history as one of the world's most treasured infidels. Quite so; Dawkins may be forgiven his rose-colored views on vaccines, for example, on account of all the good he has done over the years in speaking out against fundamentalist monotheism in particular. So it is that his own worldview is, in all likelihood, one steeped in pseudo-science itself (i.e. Darwinism); still, I would rather spend time with a level-headed humanist than a pious theocrat any day of the week.
Dawkins, in this, makes for a charming host, as we accompany him to various settings common to the alternative community, often with him shown sitting as the sole skeptic in an audience of unquestioning believers; attendees whole-heartedly into what he considers to be absolute bunk.
In THE ENEMIES OF REASON, we watch as Dawkins has his aura supposedly photographed, as well as receive what is called 'crystal light therapy.' He visits a New Age fair, a homeopathic center, a dowsing event, and attends a Spiritualist service, among other investigative adventures. The conclusions he reaches are not all that surprising, as one whose dogmatically naturalist perspective paints all forms and expressions of spirituality with the same broad, cynical brush, but at least Dawkins is to be commended for his subtle attempts to expose charlatans and frauds whenever he suspects he has encountered one. One cannot help but chuckle in the scene that has Richard receiving a (cold) reading from a self-professing psychic medium, all the while smirking, amused by the convenient vagueness of the communications allegedly being transmitted to him from the great beyond or ether.
I greatly enjoyed THE ENEMIES OF REASON (it has excellent entertainment value, if nothing else), however much I consider Dawkins to be in large part misguided, whether it be on such matters as the Apollo 11 mission or conspiracy theories in general, both of which he refers to in passing, either mindlessly or suspiciously adhering to the party line, in effect wearing his ignorance/agenda on his sleeve.
One learns that Dawkins is/was a member of the Royal Society, a fact which for many a conspiracy researcher is enough to raise a red flag right there. Indeed, what Dawkins in his absolutist defense of allopathic medicine curiously fails to take into consideration, for instance, are the factors of human greed and corruption on the part of a ruling elite and the countless well-meaning useful idiots obliviously working for this elite who operate within various scientific (including medical) professions.
Dawkins rightly exposes astrology for what it is (a lot of hooey) while in the same breath making casual references to ancient dinosaurs in his championing of Enlightenment (read: Illuminati) astronomy, a field of science in which what is taught the masses is accepted hook, line & sinker by hundreds of millions as gospel truth -- knowledge, in fact, based on faith or trust in a secular priesthood. Which leads me to wonder: When it comes to the big questions and even many little ones, might each one of us be as lost in the dark as we think others of being?
Granted, since the release of THE ENEMIES OF REASON, Dawkins' popularity has certainly waned, but it's interesting to be able to go back in time to when this former Oxford biologist and 'new atheist' was not quite the has-been that he is today, to the period during his heyday, as a culturally influential and outspoken nullifidian.
So beloved was this secular humanist among many non-academics, that many took to practically deifying the fellow, regarding him as a persuasive, wise pundit and articulate spokesperson for their own godless (not necessarily nihilistic) worldviews. Despite my not being among this idolatrous following, admittedly, there is I think as much to be gleaned from Dawkins as there is worth discarding.
As to the latter, anyone who has ever experienced paranormal activity or had an intrinsically unprovable mystical encounter is likely to find Dawkins' offhanded dismissiveness of otherworldliness off-putting, not to mention his smugness as a staunch proponent of scientific materialism/scientism, which to me is a stance just as irrational as, say, much of the uncritical thinking found among the more credulous adherents within the New Age -- as it is, one of this would-be debunker's favorite targets. In such cases as these, Dawkins is without question his own worst enemy.
Nonetheless, for all his unreasonable opining, as one counted among the so-called intelligentsia, Dawkins remains and will go down in modern history as one of the world's most treasured infidels. Quite so; Dawkins may be forgiven his rose-colored views on vaccines, for example, on account of all the good he has done over the years in speaking out against fundamentalist monotheism in particular. So it is that his own worldview is, in all likelihood, one steeped in pseudo-science itself (i.e. Darwinism); still, I would rather spend time with a level-headed humanist than a pious theocrat any day of the week.
Dawkins, in this, makes for a charming host, as we accompany him to various settings common to the alternative community, often with him shown sitting as the sole skeptic in an audience of unquestioning believers; attendees whole-heartedly into what he considers to be absolute bunk.
In THE ENEMIES OF REASON, we watch as Dawkins has his aura supposedly photographed, as well as receive what is called 'crystal light therapy.' He visits a New Age fair, a homeopathic center, a dowsing event, and attends a Spiritualist service, among other investigative adventures. The conclusions he reaches are not all that surprising, as one whose dogmatically naturalist perspective paints all forms and expressions of spirituality with the same broad, cynical brush, but at least Dawkins is to be commended for his subtle attempts to expose charlatans and frauds whenever he suspects he has encountered one. One cannot help but chuckle in the scene that has Richard receiving a (cold) reading from a self-professing psychic medium, all the while smirking, amused by the convenient vagueness of the communications allegedly being transmitted to him from the great beyond or ether.
I greatly enjoyed THE ENEMIES OF REASON (it has excellent entertainment value, if nothing else), however much I consider Dawkins to be in large part misguided, whether it be on such matters as the Apollo 11 mission or conspiracy theories in general, both of which he refers to in passing, either mindlessly or suspiciously adhering to the party line, in effect wearing his ignorance/agenda on his sleeve.
One learns that Dawkins is/was a member of the Royal Society, a fact which for many a conspiracy researcher is enough to raise a red flag right there. Indeed, what Dawkins in his absolutist defense of allopathic medicine curiously fails to take into consideration, for instance, are the factors of human greed and corruption on the part of a ruling elite and the countless well-meaning useful idiots obliviously working for this elite who operate within various scientific (including medical) professions.
Dawkins rightly exposes astrology for what it is (a lot of hooey) while in the same breath making casual references to ancient dinosaurs in his championing of Enlightenment (read: Illuminati) astronomy, a field of science in which what is taught the masses is accepted hook, line & sinker by hundreds of millions as gospel truth -- knowledge, in fact, based on faith or trust in a secular priesthood. Which leads me to wonder: When it comes to the big questions and even many little ones, might each one of us be as lost in the dark as we think others of being?
Even Pigeons Are Superstious
Theo Robertson20 March 2014
After describing Professor Richard Dawkins as " The most misquoted and slandered public figure of the 21st Century " I thought take a look back at one of his documentaries . Dawkins as you'll probably know is the world's most prominent anti-theist . He's not someone who'll ever win a popularity contest . Despised by figures on the left such as the inconsequential Owen Jones and Rebecca Watson and hated by figures on the right such as the conservative Christians from the Bible Belt Dawkins seems to upset everybody . I do know people who are professional scientists who don't like him either and are forever referring him to " The man who brings out the exact same book every two years " which indicates a fair amount of jealousy for someone who is a celebrity scientist . Despite this Dawkins has popularised the field of science to the masses even though he seems to have broken an unwritten rule that it's only truly great scientists like Newton , Darwin and Einstein who should become household names . Much of his popularity might actually be down to being exactly how a fictional scientist might be . Like Professor Stephen Hawkings who ticks the boxes of a sci-fi villain in that he's all brains and no body Dawkins comes across as a sci-fi good guy who could easily be cast in the title role of classic DOCTOR WHO or the 1950s QUATERMASS serials . In this documentary he takes time out of putting the boot in to God and concentrates on something that does exist - alternative medicine . It comes in two parts
Part one ) This centres around superstition in all its diverse forms . We're all superstitious to degree. Even to someone like me who finds the concept of karma impossible on an intellectual level does feel on an emotional level that it does exist at some point in my life . I do something wrong then destiny will screw me over . Apparently this stems from survival characteristics where a species needs to weigh up probabilities . We're shown fascinating archive footage of an experiment in America featuring pigeons . When a pigeon looks over its left shoulder it is fed hence the pigeon constantly looks over its left shoulder thinking this is the prime reason it is being fed rather than any other factor . It's the exact same thing with human behaviour which is delusional to a degree even if you can understand the logic behind the delusion
Part two ) Dawkins investigates pseudo-science involving faith based medicine . Quantum physics , black holes you name it and someone is selling it in an industry making billions as Dawkins listens to all these modern day snake oil doctors with barely disguised contempt . Perhaps Dawkins main target is homeopathy which is effectively watered down water which is used to cure ailments . . He also makes a striking explanation as to just how diluted these supposed active ingredients are .What seems to rankle with Dawkins is that the British NHS uses homeopathy which in turn is funded by the taxpayer . You can at least understand Dawkins point of money being spent on a technique that has no basis in scientific reality . At least drugs which are prescribed have been proved to work
A very interesting documentary that once again demolishes the myth that Dawkins is only interested in putting the boot in to religion . As a scientist he's more than happy to tear apart any popular culture that is self promoting itself as an alternative to science , especially when it has no basis in reality . As Professor Quatermass nearly said " Breen get these alternative medicines out of here "
Part one ) This centres around superstition in all its diverse forms . We're all superstitious to degree. Even to someone like me who finds the concept of karma impossible on an intellectual level does feel on an emotional level that it does exist at some point in my life . I do something wrong then destiny will screw me over . Apparently this stems from survival characteristics where a species needs to weigh up probabilities . We're shown fascinating archive footage of an experiment in America featuring pigeons . When a pigeon looks over its left shoulder it is fed hence the pigeon constantly looks over its left shoulder thinking this is the prime reason it is being fed rather than any other factor . It's the exact same thing with human behaviour which is delusional to a degree even if you can understand the logic behind the delusion
Part two ) Dawkins investigates pseudo-science involving faith based medicine . Quantum physics , black holes you name it and someone is selling it in an industry making billions as Dawkins listens to all these modern day snake oil doctors with barely disguised contempt . Perhaps Dawkins main target is homeopathy which is effectively watered down water which is used to cure ailments . . He also makes a striking explanation as to just how diluted these supposed active ingredients are .What seems to rankle with Dawkins is that the British NHS uses homeopathy which in turn is funded by the taxpayer . You can at least understand Dawkins point of money being spent on a technique that has no basis in scientific reality . At least drugs which are prescribed have been proved to work
A very interesting documentary that once again demolishes the myth that Dawkins is only interested in putting the boot in to religion . As a scientist he's more than happy to tear apart any popular culture that is self promoting itself as an alternative to science , especially when it has no basis in reality . As Professor Quatermass nearly said " Breen get these alternative medicines out of here "
Multiple problems
floyd-5217 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
(1) dousing. A farmer neighbor, one of the most modest people I've ever known, used dousing to find running water.
The douser walked a field and, when they walked over flowing water, their douse dipped. If you kept walking, it dipped again. And both the depth and flow rate of the water could be determined. He also cited numerous examples of people who used dousing to select a water well site, drilled there, and got water.
Here the water was not flowing, not a stream or flow to be crossed. Here people, sacks of 135 pounds of water, were trying to find 2 or 3 pounds of static water.
As to the douse, our neighbor cut a switch, a branch from a fruit tree on our property. He then demonstrated and, before our eyes turned the switch into a living thing, as he walked over a covered part of a stream that flowed through our property.
The douse tugged at the ground, and bent to a tremendous degree.
The swinging Bar-B-Que tines used in this film could not pull downward, but only swing in a plane parallel to the water.
The farmer even showed us how relaxed was his hold of the switch. By the way, my father ran the Instrumentation dept. at B.C.I.T., and I'm a chemical engineer.
(2) readers. There are sensitive people, who can read others Edgar Casey is perhaps the most famous example. It is important to emphasize that he did not like doing it. And with good reason -- being sensitive to and picking up the thoughts of others is a "negative" thing to do, opens the door to obsession and is very draining.
(3) astrology may be rubbish, but that doesn't prove there are not cycles, just that Astrology is flawed.
(4) vaccines. Some STILL include mercury. And did you know the average child gets about 100 of them now vs the handful given to children fifty years ago. Check out the documentary "The Greater Good" for more on this.
etc.
The douser walked a field and, when they walked over flowing water, their douse dipped. If you kept walking, it dipped again. And both the depth and flow rate of the water could be determined. He also cited numerous examples of people who used dousing to select a water well site, drilled there, and got water.
Here the water was not flowing, not a stream or flow to be crossed. Here people, sacks of 135 pounds of water, were trying to find 2 or 3 pounds of static water.
As to the douse, our neighbor cut a switch, a branch from a fruit tree on our property. He then demonstrated and, before our eyes turned the switch into a living thing, as he walked over a covered part of a stream that flowed through our property.
The douse tugged at the ground, and bent to a tremendous degree.
The swinging Bar-B-Que tines used in this film could not pull downward, but only swing in a plane parallel to the water.
The farmer even showed us how relaxed was his hold of the switch. By the way, my father ran the Instrumentation dept. at B.C.I.T., and I'm a chemical engineer.
(2) readers. There are sensitive people, who can read others Edgar Casey is perhaps the most famous example. It is important to emphasize that he did not like doing it. And with good reason -- being sensitive to and picking up the thoughts of others is a "negative" thing to do, opens the door to obsession and is very draining.
(3) astrology may be rubbish, but that doesn't prove there are not cycles, just that Astrology is flawed.
(4) vaccines. Some STILL include mercury. And did you know the average child gets about 100 of them now vs the handful given to children fifty years ago. Check out the documentary "The Greater Good" for more on this.
etc.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
