Feng shui in a rational world

It's not long since I last mentioned feng shui, but it's pure coincidence that it has come up twice in my general attempt to stress the rational over the irrational - consider it a cluster.

As before, it has become a topic because it has intruded into my life without me asking, in this case in the form of the advert from Facebook pictured on the right. I have to confess, the advertising on Facebook can be particularly pathetic. It tries hard to make use of information gleaned from your profile, but does so in such a hamfisted way that it make you chuckle, rather than rush to click through. So you (or rather I, because you aren't so ancient) will get an advert saying, SPECIAL OFFER FOR 54-YEAR-OLD PEOPLE! Yeah, right. And there isn't a bit of code that reads something like 'Print SPECIAL OFFER FOR {Field: age}-YEAR-OLD PEOPLE!'

Any road up, this morning up popped the offending ad you see here and it set off a small burst off fireworks in my brain (not a good idea before 10am on Sunday - do not try this at home).

First there was that title. 'Natural therapy.' Hmm. Two problems there. First, the use of natural as a magic word, or as I sometimes refer to it, a bogeyman. A loaded word that comes with all sorts of baggage attached. 'Natural' is one of the most powerful. It triggers all sorts of implications of nice and fluffy and harmless and good for you - which is why advertisers use it so much, even in a hugely artificial concoction like a shampoo. Our response to the word is so strong, we totally forget that nature is often anything but nice and fluffy, but is cold, hard and uncaring. The reason many things are artificial is because nature is so nasty. Try living a year in a forest with no artificial aids (i.e. nothing made by hand, so this includes any form of shelter, even one made out of natural products).

The second issue with 'natural' therapy is the suggestion that feng shui is in some sense 'natural'. (Sorry guys, but I can't help but pronounce it fehng shoe-ee in my head, not fung shway.) According to Wikipedia (perhaps I should have used Wiccapedia), feng shui is an ancient Chinese system of aesthetics believed to use the laws of both Heaven (astronomy) and Earth (geography) to help improve life by receiving positive qi. That sounds rather more supernatural than natural. The only sense it's natural is that it was natural to blame events on supernatural influences before we understood things better. So when the cow stopped giving milk, for instance, it was either the influence of the stars or the witch down the road. But we do understand things better now.

Frankly I find it offensive to suggest that astronomy and geography, both harmless disciplines that really do help us understand the universe, should in some sense gang up to have a magic influence on our lives. And that by doing silly things we can somehow manipulate these influences to increase 'qi', a magic form of energy that is somehow totally impossible to register on any instrument and that seems to have nothing to do with any of the fundemental forces of the universe. Hmm. Oh, and even more offensive that people are prepared to take gullible punters' money for doing feng shui readings, or whatever they call them.

So, I am afraid my only answer to 'I love feng shui because...' is 'because it gives me something to rant about on Sunday morning.' I titled this post Feng shui in a rational world. I know, really it isn't a very rational world, thoughI like to think that science is doing its bit to make it a little more so. But there are always forces ranked against rationality. And this is one of them.

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog