Uncovering the Bleep: The Mystics in “What the Bleep Do We Know?”

The possibilities presented in the book create different realties and truths for those that would read it. These possibilities can be too influential to those that do not have enough background in terms of the fields discussed in the book; the readers can be easily misled to conclusions that are drawn from questionable justifications that do not even qualify as science (McCue, 2006, p. 1). Reading the book’s summaries from others who opted to work on the same piece exposes possible structural problems inherent to the book. Taking for example, the Alice in Wonderland likeness of the film collages many scientific approaches into a whole form of art slash informative melodrama that does not has a definite identification of its real and unreal scientific explanations. According to some critics of the book, its authors failed to attribute the correct proportions of the reputable figures’ included in the book (scientists, philosophers, religious leader, etc.) drive to push forth their concepts as real science (McCue, 2006, p. 1). Due to this failure, the book exposes their readers to questionable notions of truths and fallacies.

Taking into consideration the possible structural flaw of the book leads this paper to delve further into discussing the basic criticisms to “What the Bleep Do We Know?”- exaggerates the value of quantum mechanics and anti-scientific.

The authors of “What the Bleep Do We Know?” find themselves in a position that imposes a need to explain the value of quantum mechanics. Defining quantum mechanics with a single focal point is virtually impossible; quantum mechanics as a form of “science” has branched out to many forms (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2000, p. n.pag.). In mathematical terms, quantum mechanics is well explained through the measurement structures it was able to provide and even with the theoretical- practical bearing it has (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2000, p. n.pag.). On the other hand, in terms of quantum mechanics being a tool to draw out a concept what the world is, up to date is highly contested.

The scientific community has been clamoring to debunk and prove quantum mechanics as an integral part of the sciences. The vagueness that quantum mechanics exposes through its failure to provide the interpretations that it push for, gives enough reason for many members of the scientific community to scrap the whole idea of quantum mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2000, p. n.pag.). In the book “What the Bleep Do We Know?” the argumentation for quantum mechanics is scrapped by the scientific community in the same way that it scrapped the theoretical aspect of the said paradigm.

“What the Bleep Do We Know?” finds guilt in pursuing quantum mechanics to create realities in vital parts of the book; the book can even be said to be guilty of asserting realities through modern day quantum mechanics principles. This critics’ allegation can be proven through three major examples included in the book. First, Candace Pert narrated in the book that the Native American as well as the part of Columbus have major problems in “seeing” each other since both parties are unaware of the existence of each other (Intuitor.com, 2005, p. n.pag.). The Native American people supposedly were unable to see the gigantic ship of Columbus since the actual physical attributes of the ship is not included in the consciousness that the Native Americans have. In the same way, Columbus during that time was supposedly unaware of the canoes used by the Native Americans. Using this example exposes the bias of the book to generalize even a history that is unverifiable to has occurred in a time frame only explainable through quantum mechanics such as seen in the failure of the brain fluxes to explain the presence of the ships and the canoe.

This example was included in the book and was treated as a verified fact; but in reality, this event is still contested in terms of it being an actual event or even it occurring at all. Second, the cited example of the P-59 and P-38 pilots who argued that the P-59 pilots’ claim regarding the existence of jet planes shows the inconsistencies within the book’s context sued in quantum mechanics (Intuitor.com, 2005, p. n.pag.). One of the pilots of the P-59 supposedly dressed up as a gorilla and passed clear of the practicing P-38. Supposedly, after the event the P-38 pilots never mentioned any articulation of doubt with the realness of the claim of P-59 pilots that jet planes exist (Intuitor.com, 2005, p. n.pag.).

Finally, the water photographs used in the book depicted the different use of labels and the extent of the influence of the use of such labels. In “What the Bleep Do We Know?”, ordinary individuals are said to be composed of 90% water; it is scientifically known that this proportion is a fallacy to the real physical nature of individuals. The point for enumerating these three examples is simply to point out that quantum mechanics as represented and used in the book “What the Bleep Do We Know?” is highly contestable in terms of validity and realness. The idea that realities can be constructed in a relative manner molds reality itself in a manner that is too superficial and in the borderline of being a fallacy.

The claim that the Native Americans and Columbus are not aware of each other can be contested with the generalization that inference is one of the characteristics of mentally enabled bodies. It is not historically proven that during that event, ignorance has really sprung out and affected both parties. It is also plausible that maybe the two parties are aware of each other but do not have a parallel system of representation to address and recognize such existence. Among the other possibilities, the ancient nature of such example makes verifying it even harder to achieve because there are no written history to account for it. On the second example, the authors of the book took a stand that yes perceptions can be made even without prior experience to the event; the submissive reaction of the P-38 pilots exposes the reality that consciousness and experience can lead to different perceptions. The idea that the second example showed counters the idea of the first example since the first example generalizes that humans are incapable of processing what they presuppose as not parts of their consciousness and experience. The last example shows the power of labels, in such a way that it can completely modify existing conventions of meaning and value. If this is the case then labels should be the only focus of all academic institutions since knowing labels literally translates to knowing everything else there is to know (Intuitor.com, 2005, p. n.pag.).

Alongside with the confusing use of the concept of quantum mechanics in molding reality, “What the Bleep We Do Know?” is also guilty of developing a perverse advocacy to a superior being or God through quantum mechanics. In the figure of Ramtha, quantum mechanics was used as the benchmark of modernizing sciences closer and closer to what cannot be perceived by the sensory faculties such as the existence of God (Intuitor.com, 2005, p. n.pag.). There is nothing wrong with advocating for the merging of religion and of the sciences, as long as it is not achieved through the fabrication of highly theoretical and even fallacious claims that seeks to replace the existing consciousness by harnessing more popular acceptance. At this point, this paper sees the book “What the Bleep We Do Know?” as guilty in terms of having the motive of misleading the believers of quantum mechanics to become more anti-scientific and pro-religion, such as vocalized by the books critics as Mormonism (McCue, 2006, p. 4). Furthermore, these criticisms were articulated even by one of the featured characters in the film version of the book. David Albert of Columbia University expressed outrage with the way scientific arguments are used and fabricated in the final output of “What the Bleep We Do Know?” (Intuitor.com, 2005, p. n.pag.).

He argued that the book and even the movie uses the purity of science to open up interpretations which are misguided and will only lead to more distortions in the understanding of science (Intuitor.com, 2005, p. n.pag.). This criticism paves the way for coining the book’s authors as advocates of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is the attempt to masquerade unscientifically proven knowledge as real science by mixing it up with the genuine science (Lower, 2008, p. n.pag.). The claim of Albert shows the potential of the book to follow the same path; the book has the tendencies to make the pseudoscience of quantum mechanics as the justifying scientific proof for its claims.

Putting all of the criticisms regarding “What the Bleep We Know?” into a holistic picture paints an image that shows the power of propaganda fuelled campaigns in construing realities for the benefit of their cause. Whether the authors of the book advocate Mormonism or simply quantum mechanics is no longer the concern of this paper. Everything presented in this paper represent the most well articulated arguments in proving the major flaw of the book put into close examination- quantum mechanics and being anti-science.

Conclusion: Defining the Bleep

This paper started with its thesis that the book that turned to movie “What the Bleep Do We Know?” is best discussed through its quantum mechanics implications. The presented arguments in this research paper show the dominant concepts of quantum mechanics in the whole book; thus making the thesis statement fully realized. Other thesis could have been put forward such as defining the bleep. However, this paper deems it to be almost cosmically impossible to achieve since the bleep as represented in the book is laden with too many definitions and meanings. On the other hand, this research paper deems that it has accomplished explaining its thesis through the arguments presented in the earlier parts of the paper. In the same way, this research paper recognizes its responsibility to generalize its position after analyzing the most pronounced criticisms for and against the main thesis of the book. Nonetheless, the authors have created more than a fun way of viewing one’s reality.

Truly, the authors that set out to create an alternative way of molding realities were able to achieve their goals; given that their goal really is to provide new ways of viewing reality. The arguments presented in this research paper reveal the best and worst parts of the book as an informative and transforming book; but, it can still be said that balancing the arguments is still needed.

Taking into consideration the negative reactions of the science community as presented in the later part of the paper reveals that there are existing contradictions between the scientific claims of the authors and science backed up scholars. The book is guilty in terms of perverting some scientific pillars to pave way for the arguments that it would like to push forth. The authors as mentioned by David Albert are guilty of creatively fabricating the small parts of the real science to form a whole new science; a new one but not necessarily a real one. It appears that the most pronounced negative criticism thrown at the authors of the book is rooted on the grounds of quantum mechanics. This can be said to be true since most of the assertions in the paper are deemed to be fallacious even in terms of quantum mechanics. However, the most successful contributions of this book to its audience and even the scientific world also lie within the tenet of quantum mechanics. The authors’ inclusion of quantum mechanics made the book more vital in terms of contributing for the academic world and even to the lives of its readers. The reality dynamism that is observable in the whole book provided an escape for those that find their reality too constrained and too linear.

Conclusively, it can be said that the safest way of assessing the book “What the Bleep Do We Know?” is through its effects on readers in terms of good habits such as positive thinking. In terms of being an academic piece this book definitely fails in the conventions of the academic world. It can be said that the use of the book would determine its efficacy and value.

Bibliography

• Arntz, W., Chasse, B., & Vicente, M. (2005). What the Bleep Do We Know? . Florida: Health Communications, Inc.
• Baron, D. (2004). What the Bleep Does It Mean? Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.scribd.com: https://www.scribd.com/document/6728559/What-the-Bleep-Does-It-Mean-By-Dov-Baron
• Laitman, R. M. (2006). Kabbalah, Science and the Meaning of Life. Toronto: Kabbalah Laitman Publishers.
• Lower, S. (2008). Pseudoscience. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.chem1.com: http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
• Positive-Thinking-Principles.com. (2010). Dr. Masaru Emoto: The Power Of Thoughts.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2000, November 29). Quantum Mechanics.