What is it about woo that upsets you?

[wegs]

Woo in my opinion, is any ''theory'' that can't be tested (proven) in a controlled setting, where general acceptance is reached by the overall science community. Although, long-accepted theories probably started out as ''woo'' ...until they gained acceptance. Hence, I'd imagine Charles Darwin for example, was probably viewed by his peers with raised eyebrows, when he first introduced his ideas about evolution.

Spirituality/faith/religion is a different thing altogether, because it is subjective. It will always be subjective, even if it's objective truth for me, or anyone else who has particular faith views.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'd imagine Charles Darwin for example, was probably viewed by his peers with raised eyebrows, when he first introduced his ideas about evolution.

'Raised eyebrows' is putting it generously.

 

[exchemist]

May I ask in what way is Creationism or ID (the concept of a supernatural creator-designer) not imbued with mystical vagueness?

ID makes quite specific - though spurious - claims, to do with "design" and the alleged impossibility of certain features of organisms arising naturally. It's bogus, but not woo as we know it Jim.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

'Raised eyebrows' is putting it generously.

On The Origin of Species[/] was a huge hit, sold in train stations so people could read it in transit. People were ready for a non-woo explanation of our origins.

 

[candy]

I love woo.
I love being woo.
Someday maybe you can be woo too; until then you are limited by linear logic instead of illumination.

 

[Write4U]

ID makes quite specific - though spurious - claims, to do with "design" and the alleged impossibility of certain features of organisms arising naturally. It's bogus, but not woo as we know it Jim.

TY Doc..., I was not so much asking about ID, which could be amended to read as a "natural quasi-intelligent mathematical design" or "self-organization and self-assemly" or "emergent mathematical pattern" and actually be correct.

Wegs said,
Woo in my opinion, is any ''theory'' that can't be tested (proven) in a controlled setting, where general acceptance is reached by the overall science community.

I totally agree.
But the notion of a living motivated intelligent designer inside or outside spacetime being the designer and assembler requires so many untestable (impossible) qualifiers, that IMO, that can only be dscribed as woo.

 

[wegs]

I love woo.
I love being woo.
Someday maybe you can be woo too; until then you are limited by linear logic instead of illumination.

I’m woo-selective.

 

[wegs]

I was not so much asking about ID, which could be amended to read "natural quasi-intelligent mathematical design" or "self-organization and self-assemly" and actually be correct.

But the notion of a living motivated intelligent designer inside ot outside spacetime requires so many impossible qualifiers, that IMO, it can only be dscribed as woo.

Faith, so long as it doesn’t harm others, isn’t woo, to me. Poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe?

 

[Write4U]

Faith, so long as it doesn’t harm others, isn’t woo, to me. Poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe?

I agree, but when it is suggested as a school curriculum (how do you correctly spell potato), were getting into deep scientific water and woo don't swim too well.

Jan 27, 2012 - In the modern era, no gaffe of the spoken word quite reaches the heights of Dan Quayle’s misspelling of a certain tuber. And it also occasioned one of the most unfair responses; Dan Quayle got a bad rap (for potato, at least). ..

 

[Seattle]

Woo in my opinion, is any ''theory'' that can't be tested (proven) in a controlled setting, where general acceptance is reached by the overall science community. Although, long-accepted theories probably started out as ''woo'' ...until they gained acceptance. Hence, I'd imagine Charles Darwin for example, was probably viewed by his peers with raised eyebrows, when he first introduced his ideas about evolution.

Spirituality/faith/religion is a different thing altogether, because it is subjective. It will always be subjective, even if it's objective truth for me, or anyone else who has particular faith views.

The only time it isn't subjective is when someone thinks that it isn't subjective. "Objective" truth for you is still subjective.

A scientific hypothesis can start out as potential woo but as data bears it out, it moves out of the woo category. Many people "accept" woo but that has no bearing on its validity.

I do get your point however.

 

[Seattle]

Faith, so long as it doesn’t harm others, isn’t woo, to me. Poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe?

Woo is never woo to the woo holder.

 

[wegs]

I agree, but when it is suggested as a school curriculum (how do you correctly spell potato), were getting into deep scientific water and woo don't swim too well.

I agree, religion and woo (see what I did there) doesn't belong in government or in the classroom.

 

[wegs]

Woo is never woo to the woo holder.

I know, it's hard to see the forest through the woo.

 

[wegs]

The only time it isn't subjective is when someone thinks that it isn't subjective. "Objective" truth for you is still subjective.

Yep.

A scientific hypothesis can start out as potential woo but as data bears it out, it moves out of the woo category. Many people "accept" woo but that has no bearing on its validity.

I'm torn sometimes, between believing that woo can be in essence, a sign of one's imagination and creativity, and feeling that woo keeps many of its groupies, from advancing in science, medicine, and math.

I do get your point however.

Good

 

[Sarkus]

I’m woo-selective.

I'm woo-intolerant.

Woo in my opinion, is any ''theory'' that can't be tested (proven) in a controlled setting, where general acceptance is reached by the overall science community.

So things like string theory would be considered woo?

 

[exchemist]

I love woo.
I love being woo.
Someday maybe you can be woo too; until then you are limited by linear logic instead of illumination.

That's interesting. I did not know woo could also be an adjective.

As for illumination, the problem is when what may seem to some to be illumination is actually plunging them into Stygian darkness.

 

[candy]

That's interesting. I did not know woo could also be an adjective.

As for illumination, the problem is when what may seem to some to be illumination is actually plunging them into Stygian darkness.

Woo can be anything woo wants to be.

How can we know what is light and what is dark?
Can light exist without dark or do the define each other?

 

[Seattle]

Yep.

I'm torn sometimes, between believing that woo can be in essence, a sign of one's imagination and creativity, and feeling that woo keeps many of its groupies, from advancing in science, medicine, and math.


Good

Woo might be a sign (among other things) of creativity but you can be creative without woo as well. The probably with believing in woo is that it is suspending your belief in reality IMO.

 

[Seattle]

Woo can be anything woo wants to be.

How can we know what is light and what is dark?
Can light exist without dark or do the define each other?

Not being able to answer that is what is wrong with believing in woo.

Yes, light can exist without dark. Light is a "thing", dark isn't. The concept of "dark" may not exist if light is everywhere, all the time but even then, it should be a concept that one could imagine since it's simply the absence of light.

I spend most of my time where there is plenty of oxygen, but I can imagine an environment devoid of oxygen. No woo required.

 

[wegs]

I'm woo-intolerant.
So things like string theory would be considered woo?

Not the theory itself, but have you noticed that legitimate theories often become victims of woo advocates? (I don’t care for the label “crank.”) lol

That might be far worse than making up theories out of thin air - taking theories that have been widely accepted and distorting or misrepresenting them, based on one’s limited understanding of them.