Customer Reviews

The New Inquisition

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In many ways we have made little progress from the days of the Holy Spanish Inquisition; on TV, Radio, Magazines, Newspapers, from the halls of Academia and the halls of religous institutions to the halls of Congress, we are showered, bombarded and pressured to THINK a certain way...and woe to those who preach heresy. Wilson's book strikes me as a plea for free, and sane, thought. Wilson will point out with devastating clarity how often we are straight-jacketed into reality tunnels both of our own making and those imposed on us by EXPERTS. (digression here...if you enjoyed this book and Wilson's shots at the "experts", watch the film FAKE by Orson Welles. Great fun.) Wilson challenges us to be Creative Agnostics, to not be so quick to dogmatize, to be a little less constipated about how Universe works and acts. Warning though...if you are a layman, as I am, to scientific and philosophical terminology, keep a good dictionary of those terms handy! Is well worth it, though, fellow laymen! Wilson is the Groucho Marx of Academia; if he is obnoxious, it's only the more to point how insultingly pretentious the EXPERTS are that he gives the rasberry to. And ohhhhhh what a relief it is... Buy this book, keep some dictionaries handy, bowl of popcorn, and for God's sake watch the skies...

Like all of Wilson's books, The New Inquisition makes one think, and look at the world in a completely new way. Wilson is one of the most brilliant and open minded writers around, and he is funny to boot. Both fundamentalist theists and fundamentalist atheists ought to avail themselves of his books.

"The New Inquisition" basically sends the fundamentalist materialists (such as Richard Dawkins, et al) a big and well-deserved thump upside the head. As biologist J.B.S. Haldane remarked, "The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we CAN imagine". Or Spinoza's remark that the human mind is to the mind of God as a dog is to the Dog Star. Anyone, scientist or theologian, who thinks they can explain anything away uncritically is dead wrong. We live in an era where materialistic science is accepted as uncritically as the Catholic Church was in the Middle Ages. If more people read "The New Inquisition" (and other of Wilson's books) we might start to change that and think for ourselves.

Now we know who the little boy who shouted out "The Emperor doesn't have any clothes on!" was - it was Robert Anton Wilson, and thank God (or thank Dog) he's still pointing out naked emperors for us to see.

I actually sought this book out after reading an unfavorable review by a notable skeptical organization(wink, wink, science cops:) I think it was an ultimately fair critique of the modern skeptical movement and asked some really big questions on why skepticism has come to mean automatically dismissive. Dean Radin has a book called "The Conscious Universe" which dissects the motives of skeptics in more detail(as well as offering one of the most convincing arguments for psychic phenomena of the 20th century). Bottom line: Read this if you want to see how science has been tainted with politics. If your an irrational skeptic, don't read it unless you like having a nervous fit.

This book is Robert Anton Wilson's look at how science went wrong in the 1900s. There are many books dealing with the same topic, but there are few, if any, writers who can match Wilson's quirky, insightful, and humorous prose:

"There remains, of course, Scientific Method (SM), the alleged source of the certitude of those I call the New Idolators. SM is a mixture of SD (sense data: usually aided by instruments to refine the senses) with the old Greek PR. Unfortunately, while SM is powerfully effective, and seems to most of us the best method yet devised by mankind, it is made up of two elements which we have already seen are fallible - SD (sense data) and PR (pure reason) can both deceive us. Again: two fallibilities do not add up to one infallibility. Scientific generalizations which have lasted a long time have a high probability, perhaps the highest probability of any generalizations, but it is only Idolatry which claims none of them will ever again have to be revised or rejected. Too many have been revised or rejected in this century alone.
Certitude is seized by some minds, not because there is any philosophical justification for it, but because such minds have an emotional need for certitude."

The main point of the book is how science fell prey to Fundamentalist Materialism or the New Idolatry, as Wilson calls it. This is basically the failure to adhere to the scientific principle of empirical testing and remain model agnostic. What this means is that scientists begin to pay more heed to pet theories, ego, career, and popular paradigms than to actual data, and let honest, open inquiry fall by the wayside. He uses data from a wide variety of sources, including hard science and some fairly fringe areas.

He challenges the status quo and argues quite convincingly that science has followed much the same path as religion in this regard, even to the point of calling dissenters "heretics."

Wilson's ability to shake entrenched notions and cause one to entertain new thoughts is quite singular, and I consider him one of the most important writers and thinkers in Amercia today. I highly recommend this and his other works.

Disregard the countless citations of weird things falling from the sky because it all contributes to this book's power. After reading "The New Inquisition" I see everything around me in a completely new way and notice things I never thought of before. For example, I am more aware of the illusions and restrictions created by language and that my teachers do not know everything and that a lot more is possible than most think. I am just an average highschool student but the ideas in this book were very accessible and I honestly think that a lot more progress in anything would be made if more people read books like this.

I love the style of this man. As in his other writings, Robert Anton Wilson entertains and challenges with intelligence and wit in The New Inquisition. Wilson takes the reader on a philosophical, scientific and linguistic journey, shattering expectations and preconceptions along the way, leaving one feeling that nothing is completely real and that everything is possible. Or something like that. What is this "reality" thing anyway!?

Wilson argues for creative agnosticism in all areas of thinking and ideology. Models are regarded as "tools to be used only and always where appropriate and replaced (by other models) only and always where not appropriate". All forms of dogmatic thinking are cleverly undermined with irreverent humour and intelligence, Wilson continually pointing out the consequences of accepting limited perception.

The ideas of various 20th century "heretics" are explored to support Wilson's insights. Wilhem Reich, Velikowsky, David Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake and Jung are just some of the original thinkers touched on. Throw in some quantum physics, UFO sightings, all manner of reported strange phenomena, a bit of Zen, and you have some idea of what this book is about. Brilliant.

If you are an open minded materialist ready to question what you believe to be true about what Wilson might call the Church of Scientific Materialism, then this is a fantastic book.

It's fantastic because there are few sources that ask questions in a logical reasonable manner. Wilson has been through a lot in his life, and he is smart enough to commit the sin of Socrates-- admitting his ignorance while mercilessly spearing those who claim they know the "truth."

Stay away from this book if you aren't willing to read it with an open mind. It will either frustrate or bore you.

In this book Robert A. Wilson drives home the point that the scientific "establishment" is prone to acting like religious fundamentalists when it comes to offbeat new ideas that don't conform to accepted "laws" of science. Just like the old inquisition attempted to destroy all examples of thought or action that did not comply with their religious dogma to the letter, mainstream scientists of today have become a new inquisition and have suppressed and often incarcerated eccentric thinkers like Reich or Velikovsky. So the point is, you can't believe everything that you hear from the scientific establishment, as "evidence" that is compiled to dispute offbeat theories often shows traces of simply conforming to preconceived notions. A common example is the "mass hallucination" excuse that is often trotted out to explain UFO sightings or religious visions that are witnessed by many people. Mainstream scientists may even compile "evidence" to justify the mass hallucination theory, which is not a theory at all but a reaction to an uncomfortable or unacceptable idea. Wilson asks us, which is harder to believe - UFO's or mass hallucinations? If you're open minded, you can see the gaps in the establishment's reactions, without resorting to outlandish theories yourself.

Wilson manages to stay objective and open-minded through most of the book, though he shows tendencies of the worst conspiracy theorists by assuming that simply piling on examples of suppressed ideas actually proves the existence of an organized conspiracy against them. This fails, as does Wilson's use of the vague term "Citadel" as the supposed cabal of mainstream scientists who have devoted their lives to stifle creative thinking. Of course there are specific examples of this, as Wilson convincingly demonstrates, but he fails to reveal an organized effort by "the enemy." And as always, Wilson's sarcastic, stream-of-consciousness writing style has a negative impact on his credibility, as does the very awkward final chapter of this book in which he attempts to wrap up many disconnected ideas into an overall philosophical theory.

If you approach this book with an open mind, you will definitely learn how to read what you get from the scientific community with a healthy skepticism, and will want to see more evidence before you believe everything you read. This can definitely help you become a freer thinker. But if you're one of those folks who claim that Wilson's books have changed your whole way of thinking, you've pretty much missed his point entirely.

Have you ever wondered why scientists never seem to come up with (or at least publicize) many ideas that seem to be REALLY new, or REALLY out there? Wilson speculates on many things in this book, from how our use of language affects how we look at the world, to unexplained rains of frogs in various parts of the world. He accomplishes what seems to be his main objective: to get the reader to think.

Robert Anton Wilson is an engaging author, and he has some things to say we can all learn from. It's undeniably true that we are shaped by our reality tunnels, and that it's helpful to try to see from other reality tunnels. However this book makes it clear that Wilson is no scientist, that he does not really understand science (of either the classical or quantum variety), and that he is often attacking not science but rather a straw man of his own devising. Wilson has little to no conception of the intricacies of the scientific method, and he frequently misunderstands the scientific results.

For example, Wilson is very excited by Bell's theorem and its experimental verification. Without going into too many details here, Bells theorem seems to indicate non-local connections between certain quantum systems. To a physicist, and to Bell and the experimenters who've verified the theorem, non-locality has a precisely defined meaning. In essence it means that information is being transmitted between two points faster than the speed of light. This is indeed a problem in physics, and an area of active research.

However, Wilson does not seem to understand this. He takes non-locality in a more prosaic sense that simply means communication between two spatially separated points. He thinks this might be a basis for ESP. However none of the evidence he gives for ESP indicates that ESP, even if it does exist, is a non-local phenomena in the relativistic sense. He seems to think that simply because ESP might involve communication between people in different places, it's non-local. By that standard, radio and telephones are non-local. For ESP to be truly non-local (and for Bell's theorem to have anything to do with it) ESP would have to happen faster than the speed of light. Wilson provides no evidence for this.

Wilson's understanding of the scientific method is equally weak, perhaps weaker. Science does posit the existence of an objective, external reality. This can be denied, and science can't refute this position, but in practice few people deny this. Once the existence of an objective, external reality is posited science has proven itself through experience to be the best means of understanding this objective reality.

Scientists do know their limits. They do not, as a general rule, attempt to scientifically define morality, ethics, or many non-objective assertions about God. Ask any working scientist what he doesn't know. you'll get an impressively long list. Scientists are quite aware of the limits of their knowledge. They spend their careers trying to expand those limits.

Science gets us beyond the narrow categories imposed by geography and culture. In fact it's the only way we know to produce truth that applies to more than one reality tunnel. Newton's laws are as true (or as false) for a Dane in Copenhagen as they are for a aborigine in Australia. Although the choices of what to study and the uses to which science is put may be socially conditioned, the ultimate results of the experiments are not. Communist scientists doing the same experiments get the same results as capitalist ones. Male scientists get the same results as female scientists. European scientists get the same results as Oriental or African scientists. Edward Teller and Robert Oppenheimer argued about whether they should build the hydrogen bomb; they argued quite vehemently in fact. However, they did not argue about whether it could be built. Whether it should be built is a matter of politics and morals. That it was possible to build is a matter of science that Oppenheimer and Teller could not disagree on despite their very different reality tunnels.

When scientists don't get the same results, science provides the means to check everyone's results to see who's right and who's wrong (or, more properly, to what extent different results are partially right and partially wrong). Independent verification and reproduction of results is at the foundation of the scientific method. In fact it's precisely the ability of science to police itself and correct its mistakes that makes it unique in human endeavors. Wilson uses some classic scientific mistakes as an argument against science. That scientist are human and are often wrong is not, however, what's interesting and important about science. It's that scientists, sometimes over a long period of time but more or less inevitably, find and correct their mistakes and move forward. Certainly there were scientists who said that humankind would never go to the moon, as Wilson points out. However, once men did in fact go to the moon they changed their minds. (Most of them changed their minds well before the actual moon landing.) Philosophers are still arguing the same points argued by Socrates more than two millenia ago. Scientists are not still arguing the same points of Aristotle. Science has moved forward. Most other fields have not.

In fact I think Wilson makes my point for me, quite forcefully in his final chapter. According to Wilson, discussing humans in general and the models they use in their reality tunnels, "If the models do not fit very well, they do not revise them but grow angry at the world--at experience--for being recalcitrant." This is certainly true of many, many people in many aspects of their lives. But there is exactly one class of people who commonly and repeatedly revise their models to fit the observed facts, rather than the other way around. This class is scientists. Every practicing scientist can cite many examples where they've had to throw out cherished theories in the face of contradictory evidence. Is some pathological cases, a particular scientist is unwilling to throw away a theory despite overwhelming, contrary evidence. But even in these cases, the community of scientists will throw out the theory themselves. If willingness to abandon models in the face of contrary evidence is the mark of an enlightened human being, scientists are the most enlightened beings on the planet.

There are some good points to this book. Wilson does point out many interesting Fortean phenomena, and having read it you must ask yourself exactly why these occur. It is undeniable that people have for millenia seen lights in the sky that are currently called UFOs. (It is very deniable that these lights are aliens from outer space.) Why? It is undeniable that people report strange things falling from the sky. Why? These are topics worthy of investigation, but the investigation shouldn't necessarily be aimed at a paranormal or extra-scientific answer. There is much we don't understand about the human mind, how it works, and how it hallucinates. It is extremely likely that these phenomena are caused by that very large part of the brain we don't yet understand. It is even more likely that some of these phenomena are hallucinations, some are fakes, some are made from whole cloth by Wilson's "Ubiquitous Unscrupulous Reporter", and some are unidentified or improperly identified natural phenomena.

Once again, I do think Wilson has some important points to make about reality tunnels and how they affect our view of the world. And he does suggest some promising areas for psychological and neurological research. However, he consistently and repeatedly gets the science so horribly wrong that you need to be very careful when approaching this book. I'd recommend reading Carl Sagan's the Demon Haunted World as a companion to this book. It discusses many of the same issues, but Sagan is a true scientist who understands both what science really believes and how science is really done. Wilson has some not so complimentary things to say about Sagan in this book, but those were said before Sagan published The Demon Haunted World. Sagan refers to Wilson and The New Inquisition in The Demon Haunted World. In many ways The Demon Haunted World is a response to The New Inquisition and others of its ilk. I'd be curious to know whether Wilson has revised his opinion of Sagan after reading The Demon Haunted World.