Greetings,
Until very recently there was a fantastic critical analysis of “What the bleep do we know” on You Tube. It was a seven part analysis that went bit by bit to rebut most of the claims by exposing logical fallacies used in the film.
Does anyone know where I might find a copy or who the author was? It is no longer available on You Tube. I teach a class and use this analysis as a model for how to debunk New Age “documentaries”.
THANKS!!!
-Joe
Since you’re inviting opinions and over the years I’ve watched it a couple time on the influence of friends, so I’ll share mine.
Not much to say about it.
Discoveries in the micro world are not transposable into our macro world and especially into human behavior.
Our “Mindscapes” are capable of imagining much more than exists within the confines of physical reality.
The movie can be fun, like getting a buzz, but doesn’t offer much by way of substance.
Very weird experience this week. A friend who believes in things I don’t visited and had a story of going to a meditation retreat in Cancun and getting his arthritis cured. He had a real doctor, bought the meds, but didn’t take them. Now he says this guy cured him.
The guy, Joe Dispenza, was in this movie. He’s all over the internet. He has a doctor doing research, but all the data is from their seminars. They have the victim mentality of academia not listening. What I can’t find is counter studies, or any of the people who say they’re cured, except in videos controlled by Dispenza.
There are a few like this, which I’m about to watch
The most succinct critical analysis of what the bleep i have seen
Can you offer a summary of how you see it?
,
,
…
Fibre quantum rabbit hole mechanics
It is back on YouTube now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jvy0mh0el4s&t=77s
Why is it called a rabbit Hole?? Why not something more scientific like particle pit 
(“Down the rabbit hole” is an English-language idiom or trope which refers to getting deep into something, or ending up somewhere strange . Lewis Carroll introduced the phrase as the title for chapter one of his 1865 novel Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, after which the term slowly entered the English vernacular. WIKI)
Because that don’t sell for squat.
Science is always changing . See that W ? Tomorrow it could be an M !! 
Is this supposed to be some profundity?
What isn’t always changing?
