Skip to main content

Picturing Aura - Jeremy Stolow ***

This is a weird one with a capital W. It really is about auras - or should that be aurae? (The plural surely isn't 'aura' as the title seems to suggest.) I was highly doubtful when someone mentioned this as a popular science book, but they argued 'Plenty of phenomena have been treated with gravity by the sciences without being deemed real in any kind of empirical sense. For example, today we wouldn’t implement any medicine based on the model of the four humours – but it’s important to reckon with that history as part of the history of biology.'

Okay, so were this about the dodgy history of the concept that people have auras - invisible coloured glows around them that can be seen by sensitive souls and captured on camera, it arguably is about psychology and history of science. But I'm not sure the book really does this. What does it even mean, for example, to photograph an aura? Jeremy Stolow tells us that when he had his aura photographed, 'expert' Guy Coggins 'was reticent to offer details about how exactly his system functioned'. Apparently, it combined a photo from a digital camera with data from a metal plate touched by a hand that allegedly measured galvanic skin response. The end product was a portrait with a fuzzy multi-coloured glow around the sitter.

Stolow makes it clear that what resulted was very much part of the new age view of reality, using the aura image both to provide a 'chakra analysis' and the explaining the meaning of his aura colours 'drawing upon a long-established New Age discursive and visual canon.' Hmm. After a second, more technical-sounding approach giving Stolow training in 'human energy field analysis' it feels like he became somewhat more of a convert while remaining sceptical.

We then get a couple of hundred pages of detailed exploration of the pre-scientific history of auras and related phenomena such as haloes, plus various wild related technical developments, such as Kirilan Photography and the whole eastern-philosophised approach to science that was popular in some US West Coast universities in the 60s and 70s. Stolow appears to treat this all as open-mindedly as possible, reporting in a largely uncritical fashion. There is an appendix headed 'The Aura debunked' which opens 'It seems almost impossible to avoid encountering the verdict on pictures of aura (again that odd non-plural) as pseudoscientific nonsense and the stuff of medical quackery'. 

But note the ambivalence in Stolow's comment. He is not saying this is pseudoscientific nonsense, just that it's almost impossible to avoid encountering this verdict. He seems reluctant to support what he describes as the view of 'mainstream science'. Bear in mind Stolow is not a scientist, he is a professor of communication studies.

In the end, while there are elements of the book comparing this historically to theories that have long been discarded, it doesn't really account for all the modern pseudoscience. Stolow's account is not incredibly readable, heavily laden as it is with the academic language of the humanities. I can't say that it's a book I would recommend, except in the same sense I'd recommend reading Alan Sokal infamous paper Transgressing the Boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Only, this isn't intended as a joke. But for some it will be interesting.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Infinite Alphabet - Cesar Hidalgo ****

Although taking a very new approach, this book by a physicist working in economics made me nostalgic for the business books of the 1980s. More on why in a moment, but Cesar Hidalgo sets out to explain how it is knowledge - how it is developed, how it is managed and forgotten - that makes the difference between success and failure. When I worked for a corporate in the 1980s I was very taken with Tom Peters' business books such of In Search of Excellence (with Robert Waterman), which described what made it possible for some companies to thrive and become huge while others failed. (It's interesting to look back to see a balance amongst the companies Peters thought were excellent, with successes such as Walmart and Intel, and failures such as Wang and Kodak.) In a similar way, Hidalgo uses case studies of successes and failures for both businesses and countries in making effective use of knowledge to drive economic success. When I read a Tom Peters book I was inspired and fired up...
Post a Comment
Read more

God: the Science, the Evidence - Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies ***

This is, to say the least, an oddity, but a fascinating one. A translation of a French bestseller, it aims to put forward an examination of the scientific evidence for the existence of a deity… and various other things, as this is a very oddly structured book (more on that in a moment). In The God Delusion , Richard Dawkins suggested that we should treat the existence of God as a scientific claim, which is exactly what the authors do reasonably well in the main part of the book. They argue that three pieces of scientific evidence in particular are supportive of the existence of a (generic) creator of the universe. These are that the universe had a beginning, the fine tuning of natural constants and the unlikeliness of life.  To support their evidence, Bolloré and Bonnassies give a reasonable introduction to thermodynamics and cosmology. They suggest that the expected heat death of the universe implies a beginning (for good thermodynamic reasons), and rightly give the impression tha...
Post a Comment
Read more

The War on Science - Lawrence Krauss (Ed.) ****

At first glance this might appear to be yet another book on how to deal with climate change deniers and the like, such as How to Talk to a Science Denier.   It is, however, a much more significant book because it addresses the way that universities, government and pressure groups have attempted to undermine the scientific process. Conceptually I would give it five stars, but it's quite heavy going because it's a collection of around 18 essays by different academics, with many going over the same ground, so there is a lot of repetition. Even so, it's an important book. There are a few well-known names here - editor Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker - but also a range of scientists (with a few philosophers) explaining how science is being damaged in academia by unscientific ideas. Many of the issues apply to other disciplines as well, but this is specifically about the impact on science, and particularly important there because of the damage it has been doing...
Post a Comment
Read more