What is it about woo that upsets you?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Last edited:
Woo Li
Sounds exotic.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It is actually quite profound and yet easy to read. I read it a long time ago and it introduced me to the more ethereal aspects of eastern philosophy as it relates to reality. (see link to .pdf)
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/dancingmasters.pdf
Last edited:
Sounds a bit um ...like religion? Without the deity.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Sounds a bit um ...like religion? Without the deity.
Even as I am an atheist, I realize that both science and deism seek truth and enlightenment.
The difference is that each discipline pursues a different area of inquiry. One explores the Physical world, the other the Philosophical world.
Last edited:
This is the most insightful post I’ve ever read on here. After posting my comment, I was hopeful you wouldn’t be offended.
I may just read this book.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Hang on. We're mixing things up here.
There's nothing wrong with faith or God or anything. None of that's woo. It's only when it's put forth as "science" that it becomes woo-ish.
The last time I was on here, it seemed like many of you were oh so rigid, but now? I like this open minded/enlightened side.
Couldn’t agree more with you!
Woo is anything really that can’t be proven, yet one insists is backed by scientific evidence. Sometimes, “evidence” is offered, but it’s just erroneous and delusional.
There's a related thing, that involves armchair reasoning uncorrected and (key) uncorrectable by evidence, afflicting the scientifically oriented: the presumption that expressions of doubt in some canard of sociological scientific conventional wisdom is a symptom of woo and is best handled in its least rational form.
Not granting a counter argument or proposal its strengths, in other words, but treating it as an unsupported assertion of the ignorant and irrational that needs no address. Seeing woo where it isn't, or assigning various claims to wooville because one can find examples of people expressing them in woo language. Judging an idea by its least credible proponents.
Examples: Nuclear power; Trans fats; The Aquatic Ape hypothesis; The safety and benefits of GMOs; Leaded gas; Various food additives; etc - it's a fairly long list.
Not granting a counter argument or proposal its strengths, in other words, but treating it as an unsupported assertion of the ignorant and irrational that needs no address. Seeing woo where it isn't, or assigning various claims to wooville because one can find examples of people expressing them in woo language. Judging an idea by its least credible proponents.
Examples: Nuclear power; Trans fats; The Aquatic Ape hypothesis; The safety and benefits of GMOs; Leaded gas; Various food additives; etc - it's a fairly long list.
The question becomes: if it is conventional and defended wisdom among the scientifically educated, but fits that definition, is it woo?
YES YES YES 10,000 times YES YES YES
I would say worse because both try hard to integrate into Science
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I don't speak for anyone else but I am rigid in the context of scientific discussion. In the larger context, humans are more than science.
Well, there are plenty of things that can't be proven but have some scientific evidence to support - like what happens at the event horizon of black holes, or what happened before the first 1x10-43 seconds of the universe. I generally define woo as non-scientific beliefs (i.e. not really supported by any science) that the presenter has a personal interest in promulgating.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No, sorry. The Scientific Method and the discipline of science do not prove anything. SR is not proven; natural selection is not proven; GR is not proven;etc.
None of these things will ever be proven.
They make predictive working models that have a preponderance of evidence.
I think that a preponderance of evidence is proof that a theory is sound. Such evidence motivates acceptance, it establishes the validity of a theory. If you want to split hairs, you can. But, that's my thoughts to it.
I'd say only if the person is trying to integrate religion/supernatural beliefs, into science. Many spiritual people don't do that. Having said that, there are scientists who have religious beliefs, yet still stay intellectually honest with regards to science.YES YES YES 10,000 times YES YES YES
I would say worse because both try hard to integrate into Science
My reply to Dave, could fit here, too. But, on this site specifically, there have been many threads created by people in favor of pseudo-science/woo, who intertwine science into their ''theories.'' Can you give an example or two? Threads about Big Foot, and alien sightings, come to mind - if that's what you mean?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
SR can be proven. The Doppler effect is a demonstrable phenomenon.
Last edited:
No. It's woo when there is a lack of evidence to support ''unconventional'' ideas, that wouldn't ever likely be supported by the science community. Perhaps it comes down to what a reasonable person would think, as a jury member for example, listening to evidence in a court case. If there is reasonable doubt towards an alleged theory, because there is no evidence to support it (not merely because it sounds ridiculous) then, that would be a trait of woo, in my opinion.
Off topic, I wish I had multi-quoted and put the last four posts in one.
Last edited: