As I said earlier, I consider that science needs to be understood within the context of a larger view
That's great. It doesn't mean Chopra is taken seriously by scientists the way you stated (or really at all; certainly he has some supporters, particularly those who are in the same business he his, but that isn't being taken seriously by the scientific community).
Professionals such as Stuart Hameroff, Amit Goswami, Rupert Sheldrake, Leonard Mlodinow, Michio Kaku, Menas Kafatos and others have either associated themselves with Chopra or even collaborated with him to the point of co-authoring books together. Are these professionals deluded in your opinion?
1) As I told you before, the ID proponent William Dembski co-edited a volume with one of the most vocal anti-creationists- Michael Ruse. So co-authoring a book doesn't mean much to me.
2) Goswami? why do you have to ask? I've already talked about the extent of his expertise which is mostly limited to a paper or two in the 60s and then flooding the market with pseudo-science (and I do mean market; his quantum creativity baloney isn't just for self-improvement through delusion, but quantum business practices).
3) Rupert Sheldrake I almost worked with in that, after consulting on a parapsychology study, I received a few other offers and one was from a researcher working with him. We never got past correspondences as they didn't want a research consultant they wanted someone who could make their research look more credible without being credible.
4) Leonard Mlodinow I only know through
The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives. It was a decent popular science book, not good enough to recommend given there are better that cover the same topic, but definitely good enough to not dissuade anybody from reading it who thinks it looks interesting.
5) Michio Kaku is interesting, in that you don't often find his kind of thinking outside of locked wards. I must confess I did kind of enjoy his
Physics of the Impossible, but his talks and what I've read of the rest of his popular works are just filled with inaccuracies and sensationalist garbage.
6) Menas Kafatos I've quoted here before, long ago. Well, not him
per se but the book he co-authored:
The Non-Local Universe. I probably wouldn't agree with what I quoted, and even then it was too elementary for me, but I saw nothing that puts him in the same category as Chopra.
So there are two out of 6 that so far as I know may be great scientists. Even were all 6 great scientists, the fact that 6 scientists are in some way connected to him doesn't mean anything, as shown by point 1).
Chopra has even invited his worst critics to debate/discuss those very points of friction between them, people like Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer.
I've seen his debates. He dodges questions, he'll open the floor for audience responses unless they are critical and/or are commentary, and most importantly, who cares? These "debates" are held in front of popular audiences who don't have the background to evaluate what is said anyway. I watch some of them the way I buy books like
The Jesus Mysteries or Chopra's for that matter: I can't adequately address views I am only familiar with by people who support them and defend them (or by critics, for that matter). But they contribute nothing to the sciences and usually the are more harmful than anything else.
I see him doing exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting, which is to bring science and spirituality to the common man, and that is where they belong; not in some specialist peer reviewed journals accessible only by a few.
Unlike many scientists, I don't have a problem
per se with scientists who use scientific research in religious and/or spiritual apologetic works. I even support works like
Debating Darwin (although mostly because it's not just creationists/ID proponents but their opponents, and so at least provides both sides),
Theology and Modern Physics (although I bought it thinking it was going to be a very different kind of book),
The Language of God, and books like those by my old teacher which, while I disagree with the scientific conclusions, are attempts to try to see how traditional spiritual notions could be explained by modern science rather than simply misrepresenting scientific research. I have books by Gerald Gardner, Dorieen Valiente, Merlin Stone, Starhawk, etc. I've read many primary sources on Eastern traditions of various sorts, from spiritual to philosophical to martial. And many of the books that I have are by academics I despise or dislike (some in general, some only because of their popular works) such as Richard Carrier, Richard Dawkins, Noam Chomsky, J. D. Crossan, Stephen Pinker, Bart Ehrman, Marija Gimbutas, Joseph Campbell, Rodney Stark, Daniel Dennett, Marvin Minsky, Lawrence Krauss, William L. Craig, etc.
I have a problem with those who lack intellectual integrity, who don't mind knowingly misleading others if it brings in cash and/or converts, and who promote ignorance disguised as something else. Chopra is one of the worst. I also have to admit that, even as an agnostic, I find the commercializing of religion and spirituality and the appropriation and tourism involved in this market for McMysticism and
Dummies Guide to Englightenment market despicable. I find those who buy a few popular books or watch some YouTube videos and then act like they're initiated or steeped in wisdom an insult to actual practitioners/gurus/shamans/etc. Often there are names for these types given by insiders (e.g., fluffy bunny wiccans, McDojos, etc.), not by academics, or scientists or those hostile to religion and/or spirituality.
