That Bleeping Movie

slingblade · 23rd February 2006, 05:39 AM

I ran into another member of my college cohort at my school yesterday. She's doing her pre-internship, and will student teach in the fall.

She loves that Bleeping movie, and I have a painful admission to make: I saw part of it before I took my class on skepticism, and there was just enough "truth" in it to fool me. I also didn't have any baloney detection kit. As soon as I figured out it was a load of premium horse hockey, I told this woman, who was simply enraptured by the film and bought every word of it, that it was just so much bull. She rejected my argument completely.

Yesterday, she reminded me about the movie, and I sighed to myself. Then she asked if I remembered the part about the water crystals. Yes, I remembered. Well, she's getting ready to put a lesson plan together about it.

Imagine how thrilled I am that a teacher is about to spread this nonsense to a bunch of kids who don't have crit thinking skills, and will probably swallow every word.

I'm very sad. Here I am, trying my best to teach skepticism to my students, while she is teaching them to be gullible and accept nonsense.

I despair.

sophia8 · 23rd February 2006, 06:05 AM

Why don't you offer to help her put her lesson plan together? In particular, suggest that she demonstrates the "Emoto effect" practically with an experiment involving freezing various types of water - distilled, tap, stream water etc - with various labels on the bottle, then getting the students to decide which set of crystals came from which bottle.
That way, you might just persuade even her how silly the whole idea is! Certainly, it may kick-start some of the students into thinking critically, when they can see for themselves that thee's no difference in the crystals.

TV's Frank · 23rd February 2006, 06:15 AM

I feel your pain, but take heart; there is hope left in the world:

I'm currently teaching university sophomore-level physics. Last week, we had begun introductory Quantum Mechanics. During a discussion session (where students are arranged in groups of 4 to answer some non-trivial questions), one student asked me about That Bleeping Movie. I immediately told him that it was crap. Pure and total crap. This piqued the interest of some other students, and they began listening to me. I told them that it got the physics all wrong. I went on to explain the difference between Quantum Mechanics (mathematical description of reality) and the Copenhagen Interpretation (wordy interpretation of QM).

I went on for awhile, decribing how the Copenhagen Interpretation is useful in certain situations, while other interpretations exist but have their own uses. In the end, however, it doesn't matter: even if we don't "understand" QM on a wishy-washy philisophical level, it's still a correct theory.

To clinch it, I talked about some weird results of QM. The students always like hearing tidbits of advanced physics. I think that was the draw of the movie for most of them (they are engineers, after all).

But now they've heard The Real Scoop from a (hopefully) knowledgable and (even more hopefully) trusted source. From reading their faces, it looked like most of them took what I said to heart, and may think about that movie (and future incarnations) more critically.

The end.

slingblade · 23rd February 2006, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by sophia8

Why don't you offer to help her put her lesson plan together? In particular, suggest that she demonstrates the "Emoto effect" practically with an experiment involving freezing various types of water - distilled, tap, stream water etc - with various labels on the bottle, then getting the students to decide which set of crystals came from which bottle.
That way, you might just persuade even her how silly the whole idea is! Certainly, it may kick-start some of the students into thinking critically, when they can see for themselves that there's no difference in the crystals.

I frankly don't have time to do my own planning, much less help her, although it is a good idea. In fact, it's a very good idea, and I only wish I could do it.

I also can't figure out how she plans to work this into an English class. I can't see how she could make it fit into that context.

Jimbo07 · 23rd February 2006, 03:29 PM

A friend of our is a lawyer and an excellent cook. We had just finished consuming one of his fantabulous meals, when my wife noticed "What the..." from a movie rental place on his endtable. She asked what he thought. He said it was the best movie he'd ever seen.

Hoping for many more exceptional meal invites, I kept my big-fat trap shut.

Hindmost · 23rd February 2006, 03:40 PM

I have heard too much about this movie. I guess I am going to have to watch it just so I can respond to others. The fact that it has "Ramtha" on it makes me want to hork.

How bad is it???

glenn

jimbo07...was the food that good????

Jimbo07 · 23rd February 2006, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by glennmr78

jimbo07...was the food that good????

Some things in life just trump the heck out of skepticism.

He also throws really good parties (attended by doctors, crown prosecutors, etc. and l'il ol' me), at which he also serves good food.

He doesn't need to know how terrible I thought the movie was. I mentioned this to my wife later. Also, I no longer talk to my Dad regarding Crystals, the Knights Templar, etc. Fighting with woo-oriented middle-aged men hasn't been doing anything for me lately...

Math Maniac · 23rd February 2006, 04:30 PM

What movie are you talking about? Is the title "Bleeping" or are you just using a euphemism?

slingblade · 23rd February 2006, 04:31 PM

"What the BLEEP Do We Know?" or that Bleeping Movie, for short.

Arkan_Wolfshade · 23rd February 2006, 09:14 PM

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

ruach1 · 23rd February 2006, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by TV's Frank

I feel your pain, but take heart; there is hope left in the world:

I'm currently teaching university sophomore-level physics. Last week, we had begun introductory Quantum Mechanics. During a discussion session (where students are arranged in groups of 4 to answer some non-trivial questions), one student asked me about That Bleeping Movie. I immediately told him that it was crap. Pure and total crap. This piqued the interest of some other students, and they began listening to me. I told them that it got the physics all wrong. I went on to explain the difference between Quantum Mechanics (mathematical description of reality) and the Copenhagen Interpretation (wordy interpretation of QM).

I went on for awhile, decribing how the Copenhagen Interpretation is useful in certain situations, while other interpretations exist but have their own uses. In the end, however, it doesn't matter: even if we don't "understand" QM on a wishy-washy philisophical level, it's still a correct theory.

To clinch it, I talked about some weird results of QM. The students always like hearing tidbits of advanced physics. I think that was the draw of the movie for most of them (they are engineers, after all).

But now they've heard The Real Scoop from a (hopefully) knowledgable and (even more hopefully) trusted source. From reading their faces, it looked like most of them took what I said to heart, and may think about that movie (and future incarnations) more critically.

The end.

So everything in the movie was all wrong?

What about all the information about renewing or reordering the mind by realizing that chemicals or neuron firings in the brain (?) flow in correspondence with past experiences and that we can shape our world and our attitudes more than we may be aware? What about these aspects of the movie?

thaiboxerken · 23rd February 2006, 09:31 PM

Give a lesson that debunks all the points that the "Bleeping" movie makes.

Quote:

So everything in the movie was all wrong?

Pretty much, yes.

TragicMonkey · 23rd February 2006, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

Wow. I just read the four "plot outlines"....quite a contrast! The ones favorable are so overblown I thought they were parodies.

sophia8 · 24th February 2006, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

I frankly don't have time to do my own planning, much less help her, although it is a good idea. In fact, it's a very good idea, and I only wish I could do it.

I also can't figure out how she plans to work this into an English class. I can't see how she could make it fit into that context.

I can - something to so with the transforming power of words/language, I imagine. Though how she's going to demonstrate it, I haven't a clue.

slingblade · 24th February 2006, 05:24 AM

Sophia, that may be what she plans. Funny thing: she almost took the skepticism class, too, since the class description said it was about magic and miracles, fairies, witches, and UFOs. She thought we were going to study those things, not debunk them.

She was glad later she didn't take it, as she would hate for anyone to disabuse her of her beliefs. In fact, several of the students in the class were unhappy with this, as they thought the same thing.

She also told me in one of our shared classes that she was psychic. "No, really!"

I have attached custom wheels to my eyes. Makes it easier to roll them.

TragicMonkey · 24th February 2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

She was glad later she didn't take it, as she would hate for anyone to disabuse her of her beliefs.

This is the aspect of the woo mind that I will never understand. It's like they pick what they believe and grow attached to that belief, and like it so much they don't care if it's really true or not. I just don't get that. I don't choose what I believe. My brain processes whatever data it gets and spits out a theory. My conscious will is not involved. How I feel about what I believe is irrelevant to whether it's true or not. I would never say "I'd hate for anyone to disabuse me of my beliefs", because if they were able to it would be because they had better evidence, and my view would alter to a more-likely-correct one, and I'd be wiser for it. It would be crazy to just refuse the opportunity to confirm or correct knowledge.

thaiboxerken · 24th February 2006, 11:34 AM

I always find it ironic when a believer tells me that my mind is closed.. it's usually after I've thoroughly given mundane explanations for every anecdote they've thrown at me.

Yep, my mind is closed, yet they ignore all explanations that don't support their beliefs.

TJ · 24th February 2006, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I always find it ironic when a believer tells me that my mind is closed.. it's usually after I've thoroughly given mundane explanations for every anecdote they've thrown at me.

Yep, my mind is closed, yet they ignore all explanations that don't support their beliefs.

Best article on closed mindedness:

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.p..._open_mind.php

Jimbo07 · 24th February 2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I always find it ironic when a believer tells me that my mind is closed...

Reminds me of IDers claiming that their position brings 'fairness' to science...

Chris Haynes · 27th February 2006, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by ruach1

So everything in the movie was all wrong?

What about all the information about renewing or reordering the mind by realizing that chemicals or neuron firings in the brain (?) flow in correspondence with past experiences and that we can shape our world and our attitudes more than we may be aware? What about these aspects of the movie?

They were probably oversimplified, you really cannot shape your world, just your reactions to it. I have not seen the movie, but I read this: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2...he_bleep_.html

I was also told by a "What the Bleep" fan that the natives literally did not see the ships Columbus sailed in because they had never see ships. The natives (Carib indians) were on islands, and they traveled between these islands in canoes... some which were large enought for 60, sixty! people. The idea that they did not see what would have been (slightly) larger canoes with bit sails coming ashore is totally ludicrous.

I tried to explain this to the person who told me this (also explaining I had spent a good portion of my youth living in Venezuela and Panama, which including learning some of the history, including the eventual genocide of the Carib... our "Venezuelan History and Social Studies" teacher did not hide any of the nasty stuff, and she was Venezuelan). There was no convincing her. She responded by taping it off of her cable service and giving me a copy because this movie makes her happy.

Vagabond · 27th February 2006, 11:11 PM

I actually thought the movie was pretty good. As you point out the part about the water crystals and the indians not seeing the ships was stupid, but most of the rest of it was pretty good. It had some profound things to say about the nature of reality and our senses and quantum mechanics. I had never heard of "Ramtha" before. She seems pretty thoughtful in the movie and afterward I looked her up and found out she was a woo head. But, she doesn't say anything "ramtha" like in the movie.

Chris Haynes · 28th February 2006, 09:59 AM

Ah... but you see, some us remember when Ramtha was a big deal here in the Northwest. A total loony bin, and I think there is a lawsuit somewhere in there.

I saw this: http://www.cultnews.com/index.php/ca...enlightenment/

Anyway, many years ago they provided some fun fodder for a local comedy show called "Almost Live", which happens to be where Bill Nye the Science Guy got his start.

As far as "quantum mechanics", uh.. no, not in your brain. Check up on neurology here: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/introb.html , plus there is lots of good reading out there. I personally like the Oliver Sacks books, and I read this one that is interesting on perception and brain structure in A Brief Tour of Human Consciousess .

Quantum mechanics is bounced around often without any regard to what it really means. Check out a recent comment on it:
http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot....ckery-and.html

Jimbo07 · 28th February 2006, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Vagabond

It had some profound things to say about the nature of reality and our senses and quantum mechanics.

It sure didn't!

I did like the wedding scene, tho.

drkitten · 28th February 2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Vagabond

It had some profound things to say about the nature of reality and our senses and quantum mechanics.

If by "profound" you mean "wrong, misguided, and ill-advised," then your description is pretty much spot-on..

NotJesus · 28th February 2006, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

I was also told by a "What the Bleep" fan that the natives literally did not see the ships Columbus sailed in because they had never see ships. The natives (Carib indians) were on islands, and they traveled between these islands in canoes... some which were large enought for 60, sixty! people. The idea that they did not see what would have been (slightly) larger canoes with bit sails coming ashore is totally ludicrous.

It's ludicrous even if they didn't have canoes.

Suppose these natives had lived all their lives in the interior and had never seen the ocean. One day they pack up and move and, after walking some distance, they come to the shore. Wouldn't they simply keep walking into the water and drown? After all, they couldn't possibly see the ocean because it was completely outside their prior experience.

The first time I saw someone talking on a cellphone, I couldn't see the phone. My experience told me that a phone was something attached to a wall by a cord and couldn't possibly be used by someone walking around in the open air. What I saw was a crazy person holding his hand to his head and talking to himself.

Pragmatist · 28th February 2006, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

They were probably oversimplified, you really cannot shape your world, just your reactions to it. I have not seen the movie, but I read this: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2...he_bleep_.html

I was also told by a "What the Bleep" fan that the natives literally did not see the ships Columbus sailed in because they had never see ships. The natives (Carib indians) were on islands, and they traveled between these islands in canoes... some which were large enought for 60, sixty! people. The idea that they did not see what would have been (slightly) larger canoes with bit sails coming ashore is totally ludicrous.

I tried to explain this to the person who told me this (also explaining I had spent a good portion of my youth living in Venezuela and Panama, which including learning some of the history, including the eventual genocide of the Carib... our "Venezuelan History and Social Studies" teacher did not hide any of the nasty stuff, and she was Venezuelan). There was no convincing her. She responded by taping it off of her cable service and giving me a copy because this movie makes her happy.

I dealt with that in detail here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...318#post950318 by referring to Columbus's original records. Of course there is no indication that the natives didn't see the ships. In one of the logs Columbus relates how the Taino islanders came out to meet his ships in canoes. If they couldn't see the darned things, then what were they rowing out to meet?

Anyway, if you want some actual facts to throw back at the woos, ask them to explain why Columbus's own logs contradict their claim!

Earthborn · 28th February 2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Suppose these natives had lived all their lives in the interior and had never seen the ocean. One day they pack up and move and, after walking some distance, they come to the shore. Wouldn't they simply keep walking into the water and drown? After all, they couldn't possibly see the ocean because it was completely outside their prior experience.

Just think of the military applications if this is true: all that is necessary to make something completely invisible is to make it look like nothing that has existed before. As soon as someone says: "WTF is that?!" it is entirely invisible.

Nobody has ever seen this museum:

I wonder though how long this invisibility lasts. No matter what the object is, you will once see it for the first time. Apperently after a while someone does manage form a concept of it or otherwise everything would forever stay invisible.

Quote:

The first time I saw someone talking on a cellphone, I couldn't see the phone. My experience told me that a phone was something attached to a wall by a cord and couldn't possibly be used by someone walking around in the open air. What I saw was a crazy person holding his hand to his head and talking to himself.

Now you are pushing it. I think that really could happen. That's pretty much what I still see.

varwoche · 28th February 2006, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Vagabond

I had never heard of "Ramtha" before.

A Ramtha thread

sir drinks-a-lot · 28th February 2006, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Earthborn

I wonder though how long this invisibility lasts. No matter what the object is, you will once see it for the first time. Apperently after a while someone does manage form a concept of it or otherwise everything would forever stay invisible.

W ll, b liv it or not, I'v n v r s n th l tt r " " b for . To t ll th truth, I'm not sur how long it lasts. I gu ss I'll just hav to wait and s .

sophia8 · 1st March 2006, 02:16 AM

Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

I was also told by a "What the Bleep" fan that the natives literally did not see the ships Columbus sailed in because they had never see ships.

Hang on a mo... These natives, descended from Atlanteans, had no contact with filthy Western civilisation and were living in a primal Eden; they were completely innocent and in touch with the many-dimensioned Universe, Conversing daily with spirit guides and devas, they possessed extraordinary wisdom and psychic capabilities that we modern materialists have lost.
So why the bleep couldn't they see the ships coming?

slingblade · 1st March 2006, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by sophia8

Hang on a mo... These natives, descended from Atlanteans, had no contact with filthy Western civilisation and were living in a primal Eden; they were completely innocent and in touch with the many-dimensioned Universe, Conversing daily with spirit guides and devas, they possessed extraordinary wisdom and psychic capabilities that we modern materialists have lost.
So why the bleep couldn't they see the ships coming?

I don't know, but that was the point in the film that I saw the bullpuckey coming.

Chris Haynes · 1st March 2006, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

I dealt with that in detail here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...318#post950318 by referring to Columbus's original records. Of course there is no indication that the natives didn't see the ships. In one of the logs Columbus relates how the Taino islanders came out to meet his ships in canoes. If they couldn't see the darned things, then what were they rowing out to meet?

Anyway, if you want some actual facts to throw back at the woos, ask them to explain why Columbus's own logs contradict their claim!

Wow!!! Thanks a bunch! I don't have time to check it out (I'm checking the forum and running), but I'll be sure to send this to the relative who does speak Spanish!

Chris Haynes · 1st March 2006, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

I dealt with that in detail here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...318#post950318 ...!

Thanks again. I have read it while dying fabric green. Now I know why I missed it. I find my sanity is better (and a better use of my time) if I skip threads started by certain people (I.I., jay gw, and now Paulisonne).

Stout · 26th January 2008, 07:57 AM

BUMP

Over on another board, we've been having a conversation about a couple of movies. This Bleeping Movie and The Secret. Now, I must comfess I haven't seen either one but I have spent way more time reading both here on the JREF and on other sites about these two movies than it would have taken me to watch both of them...twice.

The Secret I judge as being "harmful" in the way that some people have maxed out their credit cards with the intention of asking "the universe, or whatever" for the cash at the end of the month to pay off these debts.

OTOH I fail to find anything harmful in The Bleeping movie other than coming off looking like an idiot talking about emotions and ice crystals and quantum mechanics and consciousness. I suppose tossing the prescription meds could be the harm here. but it's my understanding that prescription meds are something one is "supposed" to get off after a while anyway. Let me add too, that I have no first hand experience with the mental health industry, in any capacity so I'm basically saying that out of ignorance and hearsay.

Am I off base as simply classifying this movie as harmless woo?

Lensman · 26th January 2008, 08:36 AM

I'm on a lifetime of "prescription meds", I'll never be weaned off them - they're for a minor heart attack I had a few years ago, Soluble Aspirin, Ramipril, Simvastatin & Bisoprolol Fumarate - they're for high cholesterol, blood pressure etc.

Stout · 26th January 2008, 08:49 AM

Thanks Lensman...I should have been more specific when I said prescription meds. In What the Bleep they were talking about anti-depressants, specifically.

Yikes !!! So there's no lifestyle changes you can make to lessen your dependency on those drugs? Such as more exercise, eating 'healthier" etc ?

calebprime · 26th January 2008, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Stout

Thanks Lensman...I should have been more specific when I said prescription meds. In What the Bleep they were talking about anti-depressants, specifically.

Yikes !!! So there's no lifestyle changes you can make to lessen your dependency on those drugs? Such as more exercise, eating 'healthier" etc ?

This is a complicated issue, and controversial.

But one thing's for sure. Anyone who watches this movie, and then says to herself "It's all in my mind" and quits the anti-depressants cold turkey is in for some real suffering. Especially for the SSRI's that wash out quickly, like Paxil and Effexor.

According to Peter Kramer, some British studies show that exercise is as effective, or more effective, than AD's for mild depression. Some severely depressed people are too far gone to start exercising, though.

Plus exercise has the benefits of physical fitness, endorphins, improved appearance, improved sleep.

As for the movie: One of the worst I've ever had the displeasure of shutting off several times in disgust. I tried watching it again and again--once to see the dancing gummy bears. The first part was like a bad Nova, then it went way down hill from there. It also taps into that part of the market of women who feel that they are victims--you know, of evil leering men.

Reducing meds, self-empowerment are potentially good things, if done right. Sometimes, people do the right things for the wrong reasons.

Stout · 26th January 2008, 09:34 AM

Calebprime. it's comments like yours about being of the worst I've ever had the displeasure of shutting off several times in disgust that have basically prevented me from going out and spending my time and money actually watching this movie. I've promised myself I'd watch it if it ever came up on the movie channel, but so far, no dice.

I might just crack today, go out to the DVD rental place, and just get it over with.

In my experience, with neighbours who are schizophrenics, and anecdotes I've heard about schizophrenics, just going off the meds for the heck of it is about one of the worst things they can do. As for anti-depressants, most people I've talked to about it, say they'd love to get off them however their doctors recommend adjusting the dosage rather than cold turkey.

Quote:

Reducing meds, self-empowerment are potentially good things, if done right. Sometimes, people do the right things for the wrong reasons.

Very well put.

calebprime · 26th January 2008, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Stout

In my experience, with neighbours who are schizophrenics, and anecdotes I've heard about schizophrenics, just going off the meds for the heck of it is about one of the worst things they can do. As for anti-depressants, most people I've talked to about it, say they'd love to get off them however their doctors recommend adjusting the dosage rather than cold turkey.

Yeah, and for people who are really bipolar, going off the meds is often something they want to do when they are feeling manic and expansive. Not a good idea.

IMO, psychiatric treatment for bipolar disorder is one of the successes of psychiatry--that is, it works, and saves lives. The only problem is, too many people are being diagnosed as bipolar--without proper justification. No figures to back that up.

As for What the (*&^, one snarky Amazon reviewer called it "New Age camp." So bad it was good. You might enjoy it for the laughs.

Tumblehome · 26th January 2008, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Stout

Am I off base as simply classifying this movie as harmless woo?

Yes. The Bleep was at the least an advertisement, at most a recruitment film, for The Ramtha School of Enlightenment. It wanted vulnerable, unhappy viewers to indentify with the vulnerable, unhappy Marlie Matlin character, and show them that they could find happiness and fulfillment, as Marlie did, through the film's hodge-podge collection of woo. Smart marketing on J. Z. Knight's part, but not harmless. I encourage people to find a copied DVD if they want to watch it, or they'll be contributing to her con.

The Indians not being able to see Columbus's ships was one of the highlights of the film. You'll notice that the ships would have remained invisible forever if the natives hadn't been given a magical shock by a shaman, which plays into the hands of Knight as shaman/spiritual leader.

And this has nothing to do with the movie itself, but J. Z. Knight struck me as having one serious case of penis envy.

23rd February 2006, 05:39 AM	#1
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	That Bleeping Movie I ran into another member of my college cohort at my school yesterday. She's doing her pre-internship, and will student teach in the fall. She loves that Bleeping movie, and I have a painful admission to make: I saw part of it before I took my class on skepticism, and there was just enough "truth" in it to fool me. I also didn't have any baloney detection kit. As soon as I figured out it was a load of premium horse hockey, I told this woman, who was simply enraptured by the film and bought every word of it, that it was just so much bull. She rejected my argument completely. Yesterday, she reminded me about the movie, and I sighed to myself. Then she asked if I remembered the part about the water crystals. Yes, I remembered. Well, she's getting ready to put a lesson plan together about it. Imagine how thrilled I am that a teacher is about to spread this nonsense to a bunch of kids who don't have crit thinking skills, and will probably swallow every word. I'm very sad. Here I am, trying my best to teach skepticism to my students, while she is teaching them to be gullible and accept nonsense. I despair.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

23rd February 2006, 03:20 PM	#4
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by sophia8 Why don't you offer to help her put her lesson plan together? In particular, suggest that she demonstrates the "Emoto effect" practically with an experiment involving freezing various types of water - distilled, tap, stream water etc - with various labels on the bottle, then getting the students to decide which set of crystals came from which bottle. That way, you might just persuade even her how silly the whole idea is! Certainly, it may kick-start some of the students into thinking critically, when they can see for themselves that there's no difference in the crystals. I frankly don't have time to do my own planning, much less help her, although it is a good idea. In fact, it's a very good idea, and I only wish I could do it. I also can't figure out how she plans to work this into an English class. I can't see how she could make it fit into that context.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

23rd February 2006, 03:29 PM	#5
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	A friend of our is a lawyer and an excellent cook. We had just finished consuming one of his fantabulous meals, when my wife noticed "What the..." from a movie rental place on his endtable. She asked what he thought. He said it was the best movie he'd ever seen. Hoping for many more exceptional meal invites, I kept my big-fat trap shut.
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419

23rd February 2006, 03:48 PM	#7
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	Originally Posted by glennmr78 jimbo07...was the food that good???? Some things in life just trump the heck out of skepticism. He also throws really good parties (attended by doctors, crown prosecutors, etc. and l'il ol' me), at which he also serves good food. He doesn't need to know how terrible I thought the movie was. I mentioned this to my wife later. Also, I no longer talk to my Dad regarding Crystals, the Knights Templar, etc. Fighting with woo-oriented middle-aged men hasn't been doing anything for me lately...
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419

23rd February 2006, 04:31 PM	#9
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	"What the BLEEP Do We Know?" or that Bleeping Movie, for short.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

23rd February 2006, 06:05 AM	#2
sophia8 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In the dark, dark forest.... Posts: 2,266	Why don't you offer to help her put her lesson plan together? In particular, suggest that she demonstrates the "Emoto effect" practically with an experiment involving freezing various types of water - distilled, tap, stream water etc - with various labels on the bottle, then getting the students to decide which set of crystals came from which bottle. That way, you might just persuade even her how silly the whole idea is! Certainly, it may kick-start some of the students into thinking critically, when they can see for themselves that thee's no difference in the crystals.

23rd February 2006, 06:15 AM	#3
TV's Frank Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Champaign, IL Posts: 265	I feel your pain, but take heart; there is hope left in the world: I'm currently teaching university sophomore-level physics. Last week, we had begun introductory Quantum Mechanics. During a discussion session (where students are arranged in groups of 4 to answer some non-trivial questions), one student asked me about That Bleeping Movie. I immediately told him that it was crap. Pure and total crap. This piqued the interest of some other students, and they began listening to me. I told them that it got the physics all wrong. I went on to explain the difference between Quantum Mechanics (mathematical description of reality) and the Copenhagen Interpretation (wordy interpretation of QM). I went on for awhile, decribing how the Copenhagen Interpretation is useful in certain situations, while other interpretations exist but have their own uses. In the end, however, it doesn't matter: even if we don't "understand" QM on a wishy-washy philisophical level, it's still a correct theory. To clinch it, I talked about some weird results of QM. The students always like hearing tidbits of advanced physics. I think that was the draw of the movie for most of them (they are engineers, after all). But now they've heard The Real Scoop from a (hopefully) knowledgable and (even more hopefully) trusted source. From reading their faces, it looked like most of them took what I said to heart, and may think about that movie (and future incarnations) more critically. The end.

23rd February 2006, 03:40 PM	#6
Hindmost Guest Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Draco Tavern Posts: 3,317	I have heard too much about this movie. I guess I am going to have to watch it just so I can respond to others. The fact that it has "Ramtha" on it makes me want to hork. How bad is it??? glenn jimbo07...was the food that good????

23rd February 2006, 04:30 PM	#8
Math Maniac Thinker Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Vermont Posts: 161	What movie are you talking about? Is the title "Bleeping" or are you just using a euphemism?

23rd February 2006, 09:14 PM	#10
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

23rd February 2006, 09:27 PM	#11
ruach1 Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 561	Originally Posted by TV's Frank I feel your pain, but take heart; there is hope left in the world: I'm currently teaching university sophomore-level physics. Last week, we had begun introductory Quantum Mechanics. During a discussion session (where students are arranged in groups of 4 to answer some non-trivial questions), one student asked me about That Bleeping Movie. I immediately told him that it was crap. Pure and total crap. This piqued the interest of some other students, and they began listening to me. I told them that it got the physics all wrong. I went on to explain the difference between Quantum Mechanics (mathematical description of reality) and the Copenhagen Interpretation (wordy interpretation of QM). I went on for awhile, decribing how the Copenhagen Interpretation is useful in certain situations, while other interpretations exist but have their own uses. In the end, however, it doesn't matter: even if we don't "understand" QM on a wishy-washy philisophical level, it's still a correct theory. To clinch it, I talked about some weird results of QM. The students always like hearing tidbits of advanced physics. I think that was the draw of the movie for most of them (they are engineers, after all). But now they've heard The Real Scoop from a (hopefully) knowledgable and (even more hopefully) trusted source. From reading their faces, it looked like most of them took what I said to heart, and may think about that movie (and future incarnations) more critically. The end. So everything in the movie was all wrong? What about all the information about renewing or reordering the mind by realizing that chemicals or neuron firings in the brain (?) flow in correspondence with past experiences and that we can shape our world and our attitudes more than we may be aware? What about these aspects of the movie?
	__________________ "I am an empiricist and as such I can demonstrate empirically the existence of a totality supraordinate to consciousness." C.G. Jung, Collected Works, X, p.463 Last edited by ruach1; 23rd February 2006 at 09:33 PM.

23rd February 2006, 09:31 PM	#12
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,995	Give a lesson that debunks all the points that the "Bleeping" movie makes. Quote: So everything in the movie was all wrong? Pretty much, yes.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

23rd February 2006, 10:15 PM	#13
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,114	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ Wow. I just read the four "plot outlines"....quite a contrast! The ones favorable are so overblown I thought they were parodies.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

24th February 2006, 05:08 AM	#14
sophia8 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In the dark, dark forest.... Posts: 2,266	Originally Posted by slingblade I frankly don't have time to do my own planning, much less help her, although it is a good idea. In fact, it's a very good idea, and I only wish I could do it. I also can't figure out how she plans to work this into an English class. I can't see how she could make it fit into that context. I can - something to so with the transforming power of words/language, I imagine. Though how she's going to demonstrate it, I haven't a clue.

24th February 2006, 05:24 AM	#15
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Sophia, that may be what she plans. Funny thing: she almost took the skepticism class, too, since the class description said it was about magic and miracles, fairies, witches, and UFOs. She thought we were going to study those things, not debunk them. She was glad later she didn't take it, as she would hate for anyone to disabuse her of her beliefs. In fact, several of the students in the class were unhappy with this, as they thought the same thing. She also told me in one of our shared classes that she was psychic. "No, really!" I have attached custom wheels to my eyes. Makes it easier to roll them.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

24th February 2006, 11:30 AM	#16
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,114	Originally Posted by slingblade She was glad later she didn't take it, as she would hate for anyone to disabuse her of her beliefs. This is the aspect of the woo mind that I will never understand. It's like they pick what they believe and grow attached to that belief, and like it so much they don't care if it's really true or not. I just don't get that. I don't choose what I believe. My brain processes whatever data it gets and spits out a theory. My conscious will is not involved. How I feel about what I believe is irrelevant to whether it's true or not. I would never say "I'd hate for anyone to disabuse me of my beliefs", because if they were able to it would be because they had better evidence, and my view would alter to a more-likely-correct one, and I'd be wiser for it. It would be crazy to just refuse the opportunity to confirm or correct knowledge.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

24th February 2006, 11:34 AM	#17
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,995	I always find it ironic when a believer tells me that my mind is closed.. it's usually after I've thoroughly given mundane explanations for every anecdote they've thrown at me. Yep, my mind is closed, yet they ignore all explanations that don't support their beliefs.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

24th February 2006, 11:55 AM	#18
TJ Amateur Rhythmatist Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Denver, Co Posts: 2,352	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I always find it ironic when a believer tells me that my mind is closed.. it's usually after I've thoroughly given mundane explanations for every anecdote they've thrown at me. Yep, my mind is closed, yet they ignore all explanations that don't support their beliefs. Best article on closed mindedness: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.p..._open_mind.php
	__________________ In most of the states of this union, I could not give testimony. Christianity has such a contemptable opinion of human nature that it does not believe that a man can tell the truth unless frightened by a belief in God. - Ingersoll My Blog

24th February 2006, 12:06 PM	#19
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I always find it ironic when a believer tells me that my mind is closed... Reminds me of IDers claiming that their position brings 'fairness' to science...
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419

27th February 2006, 08:46 PM	#20
Chris Haynes Perfectly Poisonous Person Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West Posts: 4,205	Originally Posted by ruach1 So everything in the movie was all wrong? What about all the information about renewing or reordering the mind by realizing that chemicals or neuron firings in the brain (?) flow in correspondence with past experiences and that we can shape our world and our attitudes more than we may be aware? What about these aspects of the movie? They were probably oversimplified, you really cannot shape your world, just your reactions to it. I have not seen the movie, but I read this: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2...he_bleep_.html I was also told by a "What the Bleep" fan that the natives literally did not see the ships Columbus sailed in because they had never see ships. The natives (Carib indians) were on islands, and they traveled between these islands in canoes... some which were large enought for 60, sixty! people. The idea that they did not see what would have been (slightly) larger canoes with bit sails coming ashore is totally ludicrous. I tried to explain this to the person who told me this (also explaining I had spent a good portion of my youth living in Venezuela and Panama, which including learning some of the history, including the eventual genocide of the Carib... our "Venezuelan History and Social Studies" teacher did not hide any of the nasty stuff, and she was Venezuelan). There was no convincing her. She responded by taping it off of her cable service and giving me a copy because this movie makes her happy.
	__________________ I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids "HCN, I hate you!" ( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )... What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

27th February 2006, 11:11 PM	#21
Vagabond Professor of Human Nature Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: St. Louis Posts: 818	I actually thought the movie was pretty good. As you point out the part about the water crystals and the indians not seeing the ships was stupid, but most of the rest of it was pretty good. It had some profound things to say about the nature of reality and our senses and quantum mechanics. I had never heard of "Ramtha" before. She seems pretty thoughtful in the movie and afterward I looked her up and found out she was a woo head. But, she doesn't say anything "ramtha" like in the movie.
	__________________ "Happy is he that has the pure truth in him. He will regret no sacrifice that keeps it." "Viewed from the summit of reason, all life looks like a malignant disease and the world like a madhouse." Goethe

28th February 2006, 09:59 AM	#22
Chris Haynes Perfectly Poisonous Person Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West Posts: 4,205	Ah... but you see, some us remember when Ramtha was a big deal here in the Northwest. A total loony bin, and I think there is a lawsuit somewhere in there. I saw this: http://www.cultnews.com/index.php/ca...enlightenment/ Anyway, many years ago they provided some fun fodder for a local comedy show called "Almost Live", which happens to be where Bill Nye the Science Guy got his start. As far as "quantum mechanics", uh.. no, not in your brain. Check up on neurology here: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/introb.html , plus there is lots of good reading out there. I personally like the Oliver Sacks books, and I read this one that is interesting on perception and brain structure in A Brief Tour of Human Consciousess . Quantum mechanics is bounced around often without any regard to what it really means. Check out a recent comment on it: http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot....ckery-and.html
	__________________ I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids "HCN, I hate you!" ( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )... What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

28th February 2006, 10:12 AM	#23
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	Originally Posted by Vagabond It had some profound things to say about the nature of reality and our senses and quantum mechanics. It sure didn't! I did like the wedding scene, tho.
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419

28th February 2006, 10:56 AM	#24
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Vagabond It had some profound things to say about the nature of reality and our senses and quantum mechanics. If by "profound" you mean "wrong, misguided, and ill-advised," then your description is pretty much spot-on..

28th February 2006, 11:02 AM	#25
NotJesus Unsaviory Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: LA Posts: 5,492	Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide I was also told by a "What the Bleep" fan that the natives literally did not see the ships Columbus sailed in because they had never see ships. The natives (Carib indians) were on islands, and they traveled between these islands in canoes... some which were large enought for 60, sixty! people. The idea that they did not see what would have been (slightly) larger canoes with bit sails coming ashore is totally ludicrous. It's ludicrous even if they didn't have canoes. Suppose these natives had lived all their lives in the interior and had never seen the ocean. One day they pack up and move and, after walking some distance, they come to the shore. Wouldn't they simply keep walking into the water and drown? After all, they couldn't possibly see the ocean because it was completely outside their prior experience. The first time I saw someone talking on a cellphone, I couldn't see the phone. My experience told me that a phone was something attached to a wall by a cord and couldn't possibly be used by someone walking around in the open air. What I saw was a crazy person holding his hand to his head and talking to himself.
	__________________ I have now reread what I've just written, and I see that I'm much more intelligent than what I've written. How does it come about that what an intelligent man expresses is much stupider than what remains inside him? -Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Adolescent

28th February 2006, 06:29 PM	#26
Pragmatist Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,529	Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide They were probably oversimplified, you really cannot shape your world, just your reactions to it. I have not seen the movie, but I read this: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2...he_bleep_.html I was also told by a "What the Bleep" fan that the natives literally did not see the ships Columbus sailed in because they had never see ships. The natives (Carib indians) were on islands, and they traveled between these islands in canoes... some which were large enought for 60, sixty! people. The idea that they did not see what would have been (slightly) larger canoes with bit sails coming ashore is totally ludicrous. I tried to explain this to the person who told me this (also explaining I had spent a good portion of my youth living in Venezuela and Panama, which including learning some of the history, including the eventual genocide of the Carib... our "Venezuelan History and Social Studies" teacher did not hide any of the nasty stuff, and she was Venezuelan). There was no convincing her. She responded by taping it off of her cable service and giving me a copy because this movie makes her happy. I dealt with that in detail here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...318#post950318 by referring to Columbus's original records. Of course there is no indication that the natives didn't see the ships. In one of the logs Columbus relates how the Taino islanders came out to meet his ships in canoes. If they couldn't see the darned things, then what were they rowing out to meet? Anyway, if you want some actual facts to throw back at the woos, ask them to explain why Columbus's own logs contradict their claim!

28th February 2006, 06:54 PM	#27
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 5,649	Quote: Suppose these natives had lived all their lives in the interior and had never seen the ocean. One day they pack up and move and, after walking some distance, they come to the shore. Wouldn't they simply keep walking into the water and drown? After all, they couldn't possibly see the ocean because it was completely outside their prior experience. Just think of the military applications if this is true: all that is necessary to make something completely invisible is to make it look like nothing that has existed before. As soon as someone says: "WTF is that?!" it is entirely invisible. Nobody has ever seen this museum: I wonder though how long this invisibility lasts. No matter what the object is, you will once see it for the first time. Apperently after a while someone does manage form a concept of it or otherwise everything would forever stay invisible. Quote: The first time I saw someone talking on a cellphone, I couldn't see the phone. My experience told me that a phone was something attached to a wall by a cord and couldn't possibly be used by someone walking around in the open air. What I saw was a crazy person holding his hand to his head and talking to himself. Now you are pushing it. I think that really could happen. That's pretty much what I still see.
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

28th February 2006, 07:23 PM	#28
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,234	Originally Posted by Vagabond I had never heard of "Ramtha" before. A Ramtha thread
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

28th February 2006, 09:37 PM	#29
sir drinks-a-lot Muse Join Date: May 2004 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 577	Originally Posted by Earthborn I wonder though how long this invisibility lasts. No matter what the object is, you will once see it for the first time. Apperently after a while someone does manage form a concept of it or otherwise everything would forever stay invisible. W ll, b liv it or not, I'v n v r s n th l tt r " " b for . To t ll th truth, I'm not sur how long it lasts. I gu ss I'll just hav to wait and s .
	__________________ "We all know that Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize, but none of us quite know what for." -Victor Davis Hanson

1st March 2006, 02:16 AM	#30
sophia8 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In the dark, dark forest.... Posts: 2,266	Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide I was also told by a "What the Bleep" fan that the natives literally did not see the ships Columbus sailed in because they had never see ships. Hang on a mo... These natives, descended from Atlanteans, had no contact with filthy Western civilisation and were living in a primal Eden; they were completely innocent and in touch with the many-dimensioned Universe, Conversing daily with spirit guides and devas, they possessed extraordinary wisdom and psychic capabilities that we modern materialists have lost. So why the bleep couldn't they see the ships coming?

1st March 2006, 05:04 AM	#31
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by sophia8 Hang on a mo... These natives, descended from Atlanteans, had no contact with filthy Western civilisation and were living in a primal Eden; they were completely innocent and in touch with the many-dimensioned Universe, Conversing daily with spirit guides and devas, they possessed extraordinary wisdom and psychic capabilities that we modern materialists have lost. So why the bleep couldn't they see the ships coming? I don't know, but that was the point in the film that I saw the bullpuckey coming.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

1st March 2006, 11:45 AM	#32
Chris Haynes Perfectly Poisonous Person Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West Posts: 4,205	Originally Posted by Pragmatist I dealt with that in detail here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...318#post950318 by referring to Columbus's original records. Of course there is no indication that the natives didn't see the ships. In one of the logs Columbus relates how the Taino islanders came out to meet his ships in canoes. If they couldn't see the darned things, then what were they rowing out to meet? Anyway, if you want some actual facts to throw back at the woos, ask them to explain why Columbus's own logs contradict their claim! Wow!!! Thanks a bunch! I don't have time to check it out (I'm checking the forum and running), but I'll be sure to send this to the relative who does speak Spanish!
	__________________ I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids "HCN, I hate you!" ( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )... What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

1st March 2006, 05:07 PM	#33
Chris Haynes Perfectly Poisonous Person Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West Posts: 4,205	Originally Posted by Pragmatist I dealt with that in detail here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...318#post950318 ...! Thanks again. I have read it while dying fabric green. Now I know why I missed it. I find my sanity is better (and a better use of my time) if I skip threads started by certain people (I.I., jay gw, and now Paulisonne).
	__________________ I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids "HCN, I hate you!" ( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )... What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

26th January 2008, 07:57 AM	#34
Stout Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 1,991	BUMP Over on another board, we've been having a conversation about a couple of movies. This Bleeping Movie and The Secret. Now, I must comfess I haven't seen either one but I have spent way more time reading both here on the JREF and on other sites about these two movies than it would have taken me to watch both of them...twice. The Secret I judge as being "harmful" in the way that some people have maxed out their credit cards with the intention of asking "the universe, or whatever" for the cash at the end of the month to pay off these debts. OTOH I fail to find anything harmful in The Bleeping movie other than coming off looking like an idiot talking about emotions and ice crystals and quantum mechanics and consciousness. I suppose tossing the prescription meds could be the harm here. but it's my understanding that prescription meds are something one is "supposed" to get off after a while anyway. Let me add too, that I have no first hand experience with the mental health industry, in any capacity so I'm basically saying that out of ignorance and hearsay. Am I off base as simply classifying this movie as harmless woo?

26th January 2008, 08:36 AM	#35
Lensman Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Caerphilly Posts: 1,411	I'm on a lifetime of "prescription meds", I'll never be weaned off them - they're for a minor heart attack I had a few years ago, Soluble Aspirin, Ramipril, Simvastatin & Bisoprolol Fumarate - they're for high cholesterol, blood pressure etc.
	__________________ When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty. I have learned that if you upset your wife, she nags you. If you upset her even more you get the silent treatment. Don't you think it's worth the extra effort?