[Megan]

Here is the offending article Dr. Hawkins objects to:

The Skeptic's Dictionary

Applied Kinesiology

AK has some formidable proponents, such as psychiatrist-cum-guru David Hawkins. He claims, among many other things, that he has proof that AK is a reliable "lie detector" and can be used to determine the truth or falsity of any statement.

Hawkins also has developed a "scale of consciousness" and uses AK to determine how "enlightened" a book or person who wrote the book might be.*

Hawkins claims he's calibrated The Skeptic's Dictionary at level 160, "which is that of sophomoric egotism."*

Only 15% of humanity calibrate at above 200, according to Hawkins, so I'm in good company. By 'consciousness' Hawkins means some sort of developing spirituality. When you score between 700-1,000 you have reached "enlightenment."

George W. Bush calibrates at 460, according to Hawkins, which is in the range of intellectual genius. (Need I add that Hawkins holds spirituality in high regard and has very conservative political values?)

Hawkins goes so far as to claim that the Wikipedia article on him would calibrate at 400, instead of 200, if it removed the links to my criticisms.*

He claims AK is also a reliable way to determine a person's motives. Like many other New Age gurus, Dr. Hawkins believes he has not only found a way to tap into the unconscious mind but that therein dwells an unlimited database full of amazing truths.

One would think that a trained psychiatrist such as Hawkins would give more credit to the power of the unconscious mind to cause muscles to tense or relax (ideomotor action) and would not be buffaloed by the applied kinesiology quackery.

One would also think that a trained M.D. (Medical College of Wisconsin) and Ph.D. (Columbia Pacific University [a diploma mill]) would know that you can't do a proper controlled experiment with an audience of paying customers who are given envelopes containing either Nutrasweet® (bad, bad, bad!) or vitamin C (good! good! good!), a popular technique used by Dr. Hawkins to demonstrate the accuracy of AK.

He and Dr. David Gerston, another psychiatrist, refer to these public exhibitions as double-blind controlled studies.

I would hope that Dr. Hawkins was taught better when he worked on his Ph.D. under the guidance of Dr. Sheldon Deal, one of the world's foremost promoters of AK.

applied kinesiology

The Wikipedia article on Dr. Hawkins has been a sticky wicket, and has generated this page, which includes Hawkins' objection to The Skeptic's Dictionary article above:

#4: Dr. Hawkins voices his personal objections

THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED SPIRITUAL RESEARCH

September 13, 2005

To: 66.69.219.9

Re: Concern for Wikipedia

Dear 66.69.219.9,

It is assumed by its readers that Wikipedia is a handy online version of the equivalent of an encyclopedia, and that the information provided is authoritative and valid (i.e., calibrating in the 450-460 range as does the Encyclopedia Britannica).

This function would thus be of a different category than just the usual run of bloggers. By research, approximately 50 percent of the information on the Internet is fallacious. Presumably, Wikipedia would be of a higher academic standard and not just a rerun and condensation of bloggerism.

To be integrous, the entries in Wikipedia should therefore be reflective of valid sources of information, such as the Britannica demonstrates. Thus, an encyclopedic section on the recent history of Judaism would hardly include, as an authoritative reference, information derived from the fallacious diatribe, The Protocol of the Elders of Zion (calibration level 90), although mention could be made of that hate propaganda as one of the ideology bases of Nazi genocide.

Similarly, as to the entry on me, the belated appearance of a blog site entitled “Skepticism” hardly constitutes an authoritative reference in lieu of the more integrous confirmation of my work (e.g., Dr. Wayne Dyer; nomination for the Templeton Prize; etc.).

The work of consciousness research and all the books I have written are to facilitate spiritual understanding and confirm the reality of spiritual truth in the individual as well as society, and to confirm the evolution of consciousness over eons of time via both the linear and the nonlinear expressions, and then to correlate the emergence of spiritual awareness historically as expressed by the great avatars, saints, mystics, and Enlightened Teachers over the millennia.

My books and the lectures I have given worldwide for decades are not about kinesiology (I have written no books about that subject), but instead, they are about consciousness and the road to Enlightenment, of which I am an acknowledged teacher.

The Skeptics Dictionary (I have a copy) does not even have an entry on or about me at all and is therefore not a reference, as was incorrectly cited.

There is solely a negative blog site of very recent origin by an author who has no listed credentials at all and who is critical of all spirituality or religion (he invalidates even the Buddha and other recognized spiritual teachers from an atheistic viewpoint).

I would not list an atheist as a qualified critic of any spiritual or religious literature by any author.

The Skeptic author, web site, and purported “dictionary” are at calibration level 160, which is that of sophomoric egotism.

Even the supposed negative reports on kinesiology itself calibrate at 160, as they are mere polemics derived from false premises in that they violate the requirements for consciousness research validity.

My lifetime spiritual journey began 75 years ago, which includes 50 years of clinical experience and over 25 years of research to confirm spiritual realities. I therefore formally object to the inclusion of a blog-site reference from an avowed atheist who scorns all religion or spirituality.

Talkavid R. Hawkins/archive1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr. Hawkins doesn't address the issue of failed double-blind verifiability of applied kinesiology, which was the thrust of the Skeptic's Dictionary criticism, other than to rate the criticism more 160/sophmoric egoism--which you can call a mere ad hominem attack, for my money.

He is a medical doctor and a PhD [albeit a diploma mill PhD], and yet his defense is that his detractor is an atheist, and he, Dr. Hawkins, is a spiritual teacher and therefore immune to criticism from an atheist. Huh? It was scientific criticism. Shouldn't one also be scientifically, er, integrous?

Or...do the "requirements for consciousness research validity" lie in some rarified spiritual realm beyond the scientific method, known only to Hawkins?

If so, why insist on the "absolute replicability of test results?"

And besides, the, er, integrous Wayne Dyer (nominated for the Templeton Prize) supports him, says Dr. Hawkins.

OK, Wayne Dyer also supports Sai Baba, bigtime--Sai Baba--the Indian guru of large scandal, and interestingly enough, if the following is correct, Hawkins calibrates Sai Baba pretty low:

Dr. Wayne Dyer Inspires You Discussion Forum:

Posted by Cheekykid, Sat 17 Sep, 2005

I attended Wayne Dyer's lecture today and in the break I went up along with other people to talk to him.As you can understand I didn't have much time to talk to him so after greeting him and expressing my gratitude towards him/his work I asked him: For which Sai Baba you speak about.

He took out the pic from his pocket which by the way as he said during the lecture he keeps it in there all the time and guess what the controversial Baba was the person in it.

I then went forward to say:You said during the lecture that Sai Baba calibrates at 970 and that there only 2 people in world that calibrated as high.

As fas as I know according to D.Hawkins calibration test sai baba calibrates below 200 and his a fake guru.

His reply was that Hawkins doesn't believe in guru's and that he has actually met Sai Baba in person therefore he has some grounds on what he says. That was all......

My conclusion:

If Hawkins with his muscles tests calibrates Sai Baba below 200 (see power VS force VHS) then everyone who does the test on his own should find out the same number.

If Wayne endorses Hawkins and Hawkins says that Baba is a fake then how Wayne came up with a 970 calibration?

Hawkins or Dyer is in the wrong here.

I admire a lot Wayne Dyer and I have no intention to critisize him but i can't hide the reality which is that there is a major contradiction here.

Wayne Dyer endorses Sai baba????

Hawkins is a self-styled guru, IMO, whether he admits it or not, and is more than a little crazy.

All the gurus have feet of clay, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to learn from them, if you can manage to hang on to your critical thinking skills.

I've gone to a seminar on dowsing. I have my little pendulum. I know how prone dowsing is to subjective override (and I seriously doubt two-person dowsing is less so), but I don't write it off entirely.

But if you're going to create neologisms like integrous, and describe yourself as Top Integrous Dog, and shoot scientific jargon and dismal calibrations from the hip, you deserve all the skepticism the great unwashed dis-integrous masses throw at you, I would say.

Megan