-------------------------------------------------------
The problem with Chopra is that he makes so many wacky comments that it is difficult to be sure when he is being wacky and when he is being serious.
The process of valuating evidence is complex and subtle. When I evaluate the validity of a topic, I'm not evaluating the truth of it. I'm skeptical of capital T truth because I think our scientific understanding of "reality" (another word I'm wouldn't want to capitalize) is constantly being refined and altered.
Here are some of the filters I use when evaluating information. Maybe this will help you pre-judge whether or not information you share with me will be viewed skeptically. Well, I view everything as skeptically as I can, but maybe the following list of things to consider will help you get where I'm coming from.
1: Is the source trustworthy?
Many people believe that they are in the position to evaluate all truth claims. While it is true that we must decide, in a world of ever increasing specialization, it is not reasonable to believe that we know better than the community of experts in a given area of knowledge. A competent pediatrician should not be expected to understand the latest cancer research as well as a competent oncologist. A paleontologist shouldn't be relied upon to be an expert on all ancient artifacts, only the ones from his specialty. A shaman shouldn't be relied upon to interpret quantum physics. To me,expertise matters and is essential. To this end establishing a pool of trusted expert sources is important and this pool must be maintained. When a source proves themselves untrustworthy, they should be removed from the pool for that topic.
2: All sources are fallible.
No one source of information should be trusted completely and by source I mean person, small team of persons or even a single large organization. Large professional groups that represent a majority of the total population of experts might be an exception, but even then they should not be trusted completely (no capital T truth). Anyone can be a crank or crackpot. One of the things we rely on the scientific consensus for is to show which people are outliers and therefore are probably wrong. If a expert in a field is making claims that the majority of his/her peers disagree with them doesn't mean that they ARE wrong, it only means that it is probably wrong. So I do not trust "the community of scientists" absolutely. But I trust them more than a subset of that group or even any individual no matter how talented.
3: What is the opinion of the community of experts on the relevant topic?
While it is true that "the herd" can often be wrong it is not usually the case with the scientific consensus at any point in time. It is also true that scientific revolutions in the mature sciences (such as physics) usually involve augmenting the current understanding and not completely replacing it. Newton's model was more accurate than his predecessors, Einstein was more accurate than Newton, and Quantum Mechanics is the most accurate physical theory to date. However both Newton's and Einstein's theories are still utilized and while pre Newtonian physical theories are largely ignored the observations made by the ancients are still used to answer questions today.
4: How mature is the theory/information?
Frequently a new study comes out that I find incredibly interesting. It might be about a new medical breakthrough that I desperately wish to be true or or some new mode of energy generation or some finding about ancient peoples that tickles my imagination. No matter how much I enjoy the possibility of the paper being true I always remind myself that a high percentage of scientific papers end up being incorrect of flawed. That is why it pays to have a conservative view on new topics in science and take a "wait and see" approach. This doesn't mean that if a paper is 20 years old that it should be trusted. To me, it means that a single study that has never been replicated no matter how old it is should be disregarded. On the flip side a study that has been replicated over several decades has more validity.
5: How many studies and of what quality?
There are areas of inquiry that have created volumes of poorly executed studies that seem to only be replicated by people who are supporters or financial beneficiaries of the topic of the study. Being a supporter or beneficiary of a study does not invalidate the science, however it shades the results with doubt and demands that a third party who is either neutral, or better yet even hostile to the subject, replicates the results. If the study has been replicated with negative results by a third party this does not mean that the subject is without merit but it does mean that the results are in question and that further research should be done. On top of the question of WHO is doing the research is the questions of HOW. Fringe science often relies on poor data, poor data analysis and poor study design to show any results at all. People who study fringe science often make claims that their area of study requires special treatment and that even being skeptical of the phenomenon being studied can taint the results. The pattern of many fringe studies is that early small poorly done studies conducted by interested parties show some small positive result but that over time as further more refined and larger studies are done the positive results either become negative or shrink until the result is most likely simply statistical error or placebo effect.
6: How does the information fit in with others scientific knowledge?
What happens when you try to insert the information into your cognitive framework? If the new information is correct what other ideas would require modification or deletion? As we go through life we gather information about the world around us. One of the general characteristics of correct information is that it meshes with other things we know about the world rather than forcing us to change our model of how things work. Checking a new piece of information against our current understanding of the world is a good but not foolproof step to take before we integrate a new piece of information. The more sure we are of a given piece of information say the "laws" of thermo dynamics the more important it is that new pieces of information conform or be rejected. For example most "free energy" machines that seem to produce more energy than they consume can be disregarded without much danger. Notice I didn't say without any danger, I reserve the right to be wrong under all circumstances. However I personally wouldn't lose any sleep over disregarding a claim that someone had created a perpetual motion machine. That isn't because I know the claim to be wrong but because I know the claim to be incredibly unlikely and I have better things to do with my time.
These aren't all the filters I use but I hope they help help illuninate in advance what ideas I'm likely to take seriously. I don't toss ideas out without reason and I've given most popular paranormal claims quite a bit of thought. I also try to keep my mind open to most things and to new information about topics that I have previously denigrated, but some things are so unlikely that I would rather spend my mental effort elsewhere. Chopra might be a fine spiritual person but he abuses science on a regular basis. His statements frequently end up as the fodder for discussion in skeptical circles. This is just my opinion. Just so you know, I love you and your friendship is important to me. If anything I have said seems abrasive just chock it up to my passion for the subject and please understand that there is no animosity aimed at you. Also I don't mean to be pedantic, I'm just trying to clearly state my ideas. I think I can sound preachy at times, but it is unintended.