Feng Shui Wooi on Heart

Every now and then I like to take a mild pop at what is sometimes described in blogging circles as 'woo'. Not everyone likes this term, but it quite appeals to me. It refers to something based on superstition or bad science that is sort of all... well, 'Woooo!' (To be pronounced in ghost-like manner.)

I was saddened, if not totally surprised to hear our local commercial radio station Heart FM talking the other day about Feng Shui as if it were fact, rather than woo. Some local 'expert' had volunteered to sort out one of the presenters' love life by rearranging his bedroom (no, really). There was no real attempt to suggest that this was not a likely method to make anything happen. So I went into Mr Angry mode and sent an email of to Heart.

To his credit I got a swift reply from Mark Franklin, the programme controller for Heart Wiltshire. He said:

The whole purpose of the piece was not to give [Feng Shui] any validity. The team spoke of Feng Shui a few weeks ago as 2 of the on air team thought it was a load of rubbish and the third was open minded. As a result, a Feng Shui expert called up and offered to enlighten the team to its merits and to try an experiment – which they did.

Ultimately, they were having a bit of fun.

Okay, fine, but there was no reference back to thinking it was 'a load of rubbish.' More to the point, though, it was disappointing that the ‘expert’ wasn't pressed to justify that ‘expertise’ rather than just have it taken as such. How does it work? How has it been verified?

Something like Feng Shui may well be just fun as Mr Franklin suggests if it's done at no cost, but when someone pays good money for an 'expert' to do a Feng Shui reading (or whatever it's called), it's disappointing that there is no intervention by Trading Standards, given that this appears to be a payment for something where there is no evidence it works. Of course there may be lots of good evidence I don't know of - but in the absence of evidence, which way should the benefit of the doubt go?

Heart logo from Heart FM website
Feng Shui compass image from Wikipedia

Comments

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