I am also surprised that those with science backgrounds use the word ´woo woo´ for everything-else-in-life that´s not a basic group of sciences, as if it were almost scary to them. Almost all acknowledge there is personal experience, though begrudgingly, but they still need to minimize other sciences and/or worry about a possible invasion of charlatans and fakes with, LOL, herbs and sticks, or worse, ´personal experiences´! Too funny.
If science is full proof, why all the insecurity?
Now playing at ET: How the invasion occurred. With charts. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
Wrong. Try again. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Migeru http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/10/18/131821/29#83
Now, just because something is not within the reach of science doesn't mean that what is said about it isn't woo-woo. I mean, science is not woo-woo free, so why should other areas of human experience be woo-woo free? Science is easy and structured enough that woo-woo tends to stick out like a sore thumb. So, when not doing science, one has to exercise more, not less critical judgement because there is no structure more or less adapted to weeding out woo-woo.
Please, find something good to say, Migeru! Your last attack on Sunday says enough. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
If it is merely the word "woo-woo" that is objectionable, I am sure that we can agree upon a replacement that denotes the same methodological errors but lacks the perceived pejorative tone.
May I suggest "excessive hand-waving?"
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
In any case, the force of the argument does not hinge on the particular wording. And there is no point in using terminology that raises red flags in people's minds from the word go.
I suspect the difference is chromosomal. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
I am also surprised that those with science backgrounds use the word ´woo woo´ for everything-else-in-life that´s not a basic group of sciences, as if it were almost scary to them
I've met a handful of science absolutists in the professional world, but there aren't any on here that I know of.
you are the media you consume.
So, given the strong science interest in the discussion, is there a need for separate science debates? Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
I feel that contributions have been interesting and fair even if nobody has changed their opinion on anything - which wasn't something I set out to do anyhow. Nobody has treated my experience or diary with disregard, which is all I can ask for.
I don't appreciate any attempt to use my diary as a means to attack people who don't agree with you and I ask that the discussion in this bit of the thread ceases please. If you have an issue with what I have said here then email me, but I don't want this thread to turn into a argument which will spoil an otherwise really decent set of contributions in the comments. Ad astra per aspera
I did a little exercise in archaeology in ET's comment archive. The first 4 comments ever mentioning the term of woo-woo were by ThatBritGuy in 2006:
It's that disconnect with reality that has to be bridged. What we have now is a system that pretends to define reality while mostly being based on hand-waving and woo-woo, with a side order of bullying and oppression.
Considering how audio reviews are mostly hand-waving and woo-woo, sometimes with a few meaningless graphs thrown in for supposedly objective air cover, and some of them are genuinely corrupt, this is not a good thing.
So you get economics which is pure made-up woo-woo, both in terms of bubbles and pretend-factors like GDP.
Reid really is a complete woo-woo-wee-wee fruityloop, isn't he?
Chopra? Gimme a friggin' break! The man is a class-A woo-woo. His 'thinking' on quantum mechanics are astrology-grade nonsense. That kind of thing is exactly what we don't need, and frankly, I though that progressives had learned their lesson after the Sokal Hoax.
Finally, there's an additional twist to this whole discussion which is that decoherence is supposed to be about breaking entanglement, a concept which figures prominently in gaianne's writeup and seems central to the "everything is connected" woo-woo (excuse me) narratives. Now the twist is that entanglement itself is not well defined. It is possible to write down a state of three particles such that depending on the result of a measurement made on A, B and C may or may not be entangled (and cyclic permutations of A, B and C). So, "connectedness" of A, B and C means that "connectedness" of B and C depends on what happens to A far away. This state is called sometimes a Borromean state, by analogy with the borromean rings which are not linked pairwise, but are linked as a set of three.
"'woo woo' is not shorthand, it's rudeness."--Bertrand Russell http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html There are 41 statements to the Woo Woo credo, many of which demonstrate that it is a term coming out of Usenet flamewars--or somesuch. To understand if a person is a woo woo, one would have to run their comments via the list--and if they matched up, you can then call them "woo woos" and start an argument--it's an argumentative term, with some humour but clearly aimed at a certain Usenet type of character (the kind who reports you to the sys admin etc.) The list does have some enjoyable moments. I recommend numbers 4, 8, 9, 12, 22...wow, 22! But I don't recommend using it as shorthand because it is clearly meant to be derogatory.
There are 41 statements to the Woo Woo credo, many of which demonstrate that it is a term coming out of Usenet flamewars--or somesuch. To understand if a person is a woo woo, one would have to run their comments via the list--and if they matched up, you can then call them "woo woos" and start an argument--it's an argumentative term, with some humour but clearly aimed at a certain Usenet type of character (the kind who reports you to the sys admin etc.) The list does have some enjoyable moments. I recommend numbers 4, 8, 9, 12, 22...wow, 22! But I don't recommend using it as shorthand because it is clearly meant to be derogatory.
I've used 'woo woo' in this thread in the way (I presume) InWales meant it - which is anything unusual which doesn't currently have a scientific explanation.
I'd guess in a Borromean way it shades into self-aggrandising kookiness at one extreme, well intentioned and open minded curiosity in another, and dismissive self-aggrandising but ignorant skepticism in the third.
If anything it's probably more useful to look at socially acceptable woo-woo as a social process, because there's not much else to add about the scientific angle at this point.
I put Chicago-style economic theory in that category deliberately, because I really can't see a difference in the quality of reasoning needed to decide that 'tachyon meditation' is something special, as opposed to the reasoning behind trickle down or tax cuts for very rich people.
Except possibly that one is more consciously cynical and exploitative than the other - although which is which may not be obvious.
It bothers me that the professional scientific skeptics are keen to tackle the paranormal with crusading zeal, but seem willing to leave more mundane, but far, far more dangerous, Chicago-style pseudo-science alone.
As for audio woo-woo - endless fun there, and a diary in prep about that. :)
