An interesting read on this sort of thing is Jon Ronson's "The Men Who Stare At Goats." Kind of funny, yet very sad. These mysticism/gnosticism fads keep popping up, and have a curious durability.

A good dose of James Randi or Penn & Teller has very little effect on True Believers, though. They seem to retreat into the "if it feels true to me, it must be true" stance. I'd like to blame the post-modernist movement (and, to a large extent, I can), but this phenomenon appears to impact folks equally. Left or right, religious or secular,young or old.

Weird.

I think that the power of paying me lots of money for no particular reason would be particularly effective at curing cancer and fighting terrorism. I think the proper scientific approach is to have a long-term trial of my theory to see what results it produces.

Where do I sign up for a grant?

Where do I sign up for a grant?

Just stamp "For Homeland Security" at the top of a sheaf of papers and you'll get funded by pretty much any agency these days.

Still, one would hope that in the 21st century, we would use defense research dollars on actual science, not witchdoctory.

Keep in mind that astronomy started as astrology, chemistry as alchemy. Science has inevitably been born out of "witchdoctory."

Does that mean that every new age fad has use? No of course not. But it does mean that there are almost certainly many areas of life in which we currently have such a limited understanding that they are dominated by mysticism.

Those areas very much should be rigorously investigated to be better understood.

Biofeedback is an example of a field that just a few decades ago was thought to be superstitious mummery and now has a strong credible scientific basis.

While it is gullible to buy into the latest crystal fad it is ALSO gullible to assume that our current array of scientific fields cover all that is, and I say that as a physicist working in what is with no exaggeration one of the finest materials analysis laboratories in the world.

Keep in mind that astronomy started as astrology, chemistry as alchemy.

Astrology did not become Astronomy, Astronomy evolved as a better mechanism to explain observations of Astrology, just as Chemistry evolved as a better mechanism to explain parts of Alchemy. In both cases, the mysticism didn't create the science, the skepticism did.

In both cases, the mysticism didn't create the science, the skepticism did.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying the mysticism created the science. What I'm saying is that in both cases a general field of knowledge evolved. This field was heavily polluted with false ideas but it was only after the field had some critical mass that it could change from the mysticism burdened general field into a sceptical scientific enterprise.

Same thing with astrology. Without the millions of measurments of star and planetary positions, often made for ludicicrously bad reasons, there is no foundation upon which to start astronomy.

The mysticism comes first because anything we don't understand generates mysticism, it's one of our charming foibles, but it is only afterwards (and consequently) that a new science can evolve.

Just stamp "For Homeland Security" at the top of a sheaf of papers and you'll get funded by pretty much any agency these days.

Gee, I wish it was this easy at LANL, where we're being threatened with a RIF of 2,500 staff due to budget uncertainties.

Are you sure you have a clue?