In a recent post on Green Chameleon, Patrick Lambe posed the question:
"Google, Google on the wall ... Who's the Guru-est of them all?"Well, Google as the 21st century magic mirror seems an apt simile - and you'd need a magic mirror to identify the guru-est guru. Peter Drucker, who resented being called a guru, once remarked that:
"I have been saying for many years that we are using the word ‘guru’ only because ‘charlatan’ is too long to fit into a headline."Should I free-associate on the word "guru", the first word that would come to mind would be "bullshitter". I have to concede, however, that many to whom the term may be applied, would prefer it not te be and may in fact be legitimate experts in a legitimate fields of expertise.
In the context of this blog, I'm more concerned with quackery than gurury (no, I don't think such a word exists, I've just made it up). So ...
"Google, Google on the wall ... What's the Quack-est of them all?"Let's consider only controversial techniques/approaches/devices that featured in this blog the past year.
First, just off the top of my head, the criteria I would use to label something quackery:
The candidates are:
The number of hits on Google, the modern magic mirror, suggested the quackest quackery. It was done by googling the name of the approach, combined with the label "quack". No, I don't claim this to be research and certainly not science.
The quackest of them all according to Google is Brain Gym (539 hits), followed by the first princess, the Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface - SCIO/QXCI (207 hits). Google has spoken.