Many modern proponents say that the Law of Attraction has roots in Quantum Physics. It should be noted, however, that no reputable scientist or publication ever supported the alleged scientific credentials of this theory. According to proponents of this law, thoughts have an energy that attracts like energy. In order to control this energy, proponents state that people must practice four things:
- Know what one desires and ask the universe for it. (The "universe" is mentioned broadly, stating that it can be anything the individual envisions it to be, from God to an unknown source of energy.)
- Focus one's thought upon the thing desired with great feeling such as enthusiasm or gratitude.
- Feel and behave as if the object of one's desire is already acquired.
- Be open to receiving it.
Thinking of what one does not have, they say, manifests itself in not having, while if one abides by these principles, and avoids "negative" thoughts, the Universe will manifest a person's desires.
Scientists are critical of the lack of Falsifiability and Testability of these claims. The evidence provided is usually Anecdotal and, because of the self-selecting nature of positive reports, as well as the Subjective nature of any results, highly susceptible to misinterpretations like Confirmation bias and Selection bias. References to modern scientific theory are also criticized. While brainwaves do have an electrical signal, quantum physic principles do not act in the way proponents of the Law of Attraction have described them.
The use of the term law has also come under fire. Critics have said that the use of the term and the vague references to quantum physics to bridge any unexplained or seemingly implausible effects are hallmark traits of modern pseudoscience. Proponents of the Law of Attraction however say that the nature of the 'law' is not one to be settled scientifically, and the word 'law' carries the same belief-based weight as non-scientific 'laws' from other religions, such as the 'Law of Karma' and the Ten Commandments.
The principles of the law of attraction have also been interpreted in the realm of medicine and illness. In 1990, Bernie Siegel (a retired assistant clinical professor of surgery at Yale) published a popular book, Love, Medicine and Miracles, which asserted that the threat of disease was related to a person's imagination, will, and belief. Siegel primarily advocated "love" as the source of healing and longevity stating that "if you want to be immortal, love someone.". The most notable critic is neuroendocrinologist and Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky, who devoted a whole chapter in his book Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" to critiquing Siegel. Sapolsky refers to Siegel's general idea as "benign gibberish" but is strongly critical of what he sees as blaming patients for their illness, based only on questionable anecdotal evidence. Sapolsky sums up his primary criticism as follows:
Where the problems become appallingly serious is when Siegel concentrates on the main point of his book. No matter how often he puts in the disclaimers saying that he's not trying to make people feel guilty, the book's premise is that (a) cancer can be caused by psychosocial factors in the person; (b) cancer (or any other disease, as far as I can tell) is curable if the patient has sufficient courage, love and spirit; (c) if the patient is not cured, it is because of the insufficient amounts of those admirable traits. As we have just seen, this is not how cancer works, and a physician simply should not go about telling seriously ill people otherwise.
