What's the most important thing about Skeptoid? New Age EnergySkeptoid #01 |
|
||||||
I'm feeling a little low today, so let's tap into a source of energy from a neighboring dimension as a quick upper.
Faith in pseudoscience is rampant. Everywhere you turn, intelligent people fully accept the existence of anything from psychic phenomena, to angels, to new age healing techniques, to ancient health schemes based on mysterious energy fields not understood by science. Most of these paranormal phenomena rely on "energy," and when the performers are asked to explain, they'll gladly lecture about the body's energy fields, the universe's energy fields, Chi, Prana, Orgone, negative energy, positive energy, and just about anything else that needs a familiar sounding word to explain and justify it. Clearly, there are too many loose interpretations of the word energy, to the point where most people probably have no idea exactly what energy really is.
I believe that if more people had a clear understanding of energy — and it's not complicated — there would be less susceptibility to pseudoscience, and more attention paid to actual technologies and methods that are truly constructive and useful.
A friend told me of her ability to perform minor healings, and her best explanation was that she drew energy from another dimension. She had recently rented What the Bleep Do We Know, so she was well prepared to explain that alternate dimensions and realities should be taken for granted, since science doesn't really know anything, and thus those things cannot be disproven. That's fine, I'll concede that she can make contact with another dimension: after all, the latest M theories posit that there are probably ten or eleven of them floating around, and I'll just hope that my friend's is not one of those that are collapsed into impossibly small spaces. What I was really interested in was the nature of this vaguely defined energy that she could contact.
I asked what type of energy is it, and how is it stored? Is it heat? Is it a spinning flywheel? Is it an explosive compound? Is it food? These are examples of actual ways that energy can be stored.
In popular New Age culture, "energy" has somehow become a noun unto itself. "Energy" is considered to be literally like a glowing, hovering, shimmering cloud, from which adepts can draw power, and feel rejuvenated. Imagine a vaporous creature from the original Star Trek series, and you'll have a good idea of what New Agers think energy is.
In fact, energy is not really a noun at all. Energy is a measurement of something's ability to perform work. Given this context, when spiritualists talk about your body's energy fields, they're really saying nothing that's even remotely meaningful. Yet this kind of talk has become so pervasive in our society that the vast majority of Americans accept that energy exists as a self-contained force, floating around in glowing clouds, and can be commanded by spiritualist adepts to do just about anything.
There is well known authority for the simple, concrete, scientific definition of energy. Take Einstein's equation, E=mc2, that every schoolchild knows but so few spend the 30 seconds it takes to understand. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Simplify it. Mass can be expressed in grams, and speed can be expressed in meters per second. Thus, an object's energy equals the amount of work it takes to move a few grams a few meters in a few seconds. Energy is a measurement of work. If I lift a rock, I'm inputting enough potential energy to dent the surface of the table one centimeter when I drop it. The calories of chemical potential energy that my bloodstream absorbs when I eat a Power Bar charge up my muscles enough to dig two hundred pounds of dirt in my garden. Nowhere did Einstein discuss hovering glowing clouds, or fields of mystical power generated by human spirits.
When spiritualists discuss energy, don't blindly accept what they're saying simply because energy is a word you're familiar with, and that sounds scientific. In many cases, their usage of the word is meaningless. When you hear the word "energy" casually used to explain a mystical force or capability, require clarification. Require that the energy be defined. Is it heat? Is it a spinning flywheel?
Here's a good test. When you hear the word "energy" used in a spiritual or paranormal sense, substitute the phrase "measurable work capability." Does the usage still make sense? Are you actually being given any information that supports the claim being made? Remember, energy itself is not the thing being measured: energy is the measurement of work performed or of potential.
Take the following claim of Kundalini Yoga as an example: "The release and ascent of the dormant spiritual energy enables the aspirant to transcend the effects of the elements and achieve consciousness." This would be a great thing if energy was indeed that shimmering cloud that can go wherever it's needed and perform miracles. But it's not, so in this case, we substitute the phrase "measurable work capability" and find that the sentence is not attempting to measure or quantify anything other than the word "energy" itself. We have a "dormant spiritual measurable work capability," and no further information. That's pretty vague, isn't it? For this claim to have any merit, they must at least describe how this energy is being stored or manifested. Is it potential energy stored in the chemistry of fat cells? Is it heat that can spread through the body? Is it a measurable amount of electromagnetism, and if so, where's the magnet? In any event, it must be measurable and precisely quantifiable, or it can't be called energy, by definition.
There's a good reason why you don't hear medical doctors or pharmacists talking about energy fields: it's meaningless. I think it's generally good policy to remain open minded and be ready to hear claims that involve energy, but approach them skeptically, and scientifically. The next time you hear such a claim, substitute the phrase "measurable work capability" and you'll be well equipped to separate the silly from the solid.
 |
References
© 2009 Skeptoid.com
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 22 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
I think you misunderstood Einsteins equation. It is proof that Energy and Mass are directly interchangeable. Or to put it simply mass IS energy. And it doesn't just take 30 seconds to fully understand that...So, for instance, it isn't wrong to say your whole body is equatable to energy.
That said it definitely doesn't prove any new age theories either. But it does open up a whole lot more options for what they could claim the "energy" is stored in and make it sound like it has scientific backing.
Personally I think this is the wrong sort of approach for disproving these things as there is too much wiggle room with specific definitions.
Chris, Scotland
November 30, 2008 7:07pm
Energy DOES NOT EQUAL mass at all and they are not interchangeable, if they were the the equation could quite happily read M=Ec2, when in fact M=E/c2 is true. Mass and energy are EQUIVALENT, not the same, and the equation simply points out that mass and energy are PROPORTIONAL. This says nothing about new age energy because every object exhibits this relationship, living or not.
I find it rather amusing the lengths people go to in order to explain purely biological and neurological phenomenon as somehow spiritual. Einsteins equation? Quantum mechanics? Come on.
Fred, Auckland, New Zealand
December 17, 2008 8:17pm
I fully agree with the statements about New Age Energy. But your interpretation of the formula E=mc² is far worse than what these people are doing:
"Thus, an object's energy equals the amount of work it takes to move a few grams a few meters in a few seconds."
First, it doesn't take any energy at all to move an object. Unless it moves through a force field and the start point is on a different level than the end point. For example it takes no energy to move a stone from the USA to Australia (force field present, but same potential line on start and end point), but it does require energy to move a stone from the USA into space, in which case the energy required to move it there gets transformed into potential energy.
But none of this is in any way related to E=mc². The mass-energy equivalence is about converting mass into (other) forms of energy.
Kai, Germany
December 25, 2008 8:43am
You are selecting one definition of the word energy and trying to debunk the new age usage of a word you want reserved for your purposes. One of the other definitions is any source of usable power. Would you be mollified if the word power was used? How about charge? Juice?
The point is that the phenomena of new age energy is real, regardless of the word used. I had an energy practitioner work on my knees for about 20 minutes. Before his work I was unable to ride in a car or plane for more than an hour without extreme discomfort. After this one session my knees have been fine, and that was almost seven years ago.
Since that time, and largely because of that experience, I have become an energy practitioner and have seen and been honored to assist people to rid themselves of myriad types of pain that have run the gamut from debilitating to annoying.
Forgive new agers for possibly improper wording, but do not condemn with a broad brush. There are too many instances of healing in this burgeoning field to ignore.
Bryce, Royal Oak, MI
January 06, 2009 6:40pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
There are lots of words that mean different things in physics and in colloquial speech.
"Work" in physics is force acting over a distance. But the work I do in my office all day has nothing to do with exerting a force over a distance.
"Power" is energy per unit time. Substitute that definition into discussions of political power, and it makes no sense.
"Momentum" is mass times velocity. But figuratively, an idea that is starting to catch on can be said to be gaining momentum, even though it has no literal mass or velocity at all.
"Impulse" is force acting over time. But if I'm browing in a bookstore and I buy the latest book on critical thinking as an impulse purchase, that has nothing to do with the physics meaning.
I happen to agree that new agers' use of the word "energy" is mostly nonsense. But this does not follow from the fact that they are using a word from physics to mean something other than what the physicists mean by it.
Johanna, College Park, MD
September 09, 2008 6:29am