Comments on: The Law of Attraction, science, professors, and blindness

By: Rev. Richard

Rev. Richard — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:45:04 +0000

Well, here it is, almost two years later, and The Secret is still being tauted by skeptics: it doesn’t work, it isn’t science, it’s fakery, quakery, and only puts cash into the hands of the book, tape, CD, and course sellers. True enough, they make a little money on the deal but that’s the name of the game. They should. They have created an attraction mechanism. True intention + mechanism = results, as Brian Klemmer asserts. Your true intentions will always manifest. Those who use the starving millions as proof that a thought can’t change the world have never heard the interviews conducted by charitable institutions with their “victims.” Many say they can never escape; they can’t catch up with the rest of the world; they hate the rich nations; they resent needing to be assisted by the “guilt ridden” Western nations and religions. Have they set up a barrier to their own prosperity? Is their true intention showing? You decide. . .

By: Carolyn Manning

Carolyn Manning — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:02:08 +0000

Norcross’ argument seems to be that, because science hasn’t yet advanced to understand something, that ‘something’ must not exist. That mindset absolutely contradicts that science is an art of discovery.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:29:31 +0000

AMEN BROTHER POTTS!

That the mind has so much power and potential is, I think, overlooked or pooh-poohed by too many in the scientific community. You hit it right on the head:

“Please go home and tell your parents that your professor has no idea, so he just blew off the entire concept.”

Thanks for the visit and the comment!

By: Aaron M. Potts

Aaron M. Potts — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:54:59 +0000

Steve,

I just got done watching the interview that you talk about in this post, and I had to give James Ray credit for not sitting there shaking his head like I was when I was watching Norcross. He basically said that since we can’t scientifically prove something, it must not have an explanation.

Well! That sums up your education for today, class. Please go home and tell your parents that your professor has no idea, so he just blew off the entire concept.

Sheesh!

If anything, I think that Norcross helped to point out that since science can’t document these things (at least not in the way HE thinks is necessary) that there MUST be another explanation. Of course, that explanation being the LOA or any other conscious creation efforts I’m sure never crossed his mind…

Ahhh…it is good to be “in the know”. Personally, I’ll put my faith in the power of the human mind and human spirit over a lack of scientific evidence any day of the week.