Woo.

[danydandan]

What exactly is Woo!

Should such an overarching term be used to describe something's? On this website we have numerous sections each with there own 'Woo' proponents. But what exactly is woo and has it now become a derogatory term we use to dismiss everything we deem counter to our own perspectives? 

I will be the first to say I believe the term Woo has now become this derogatory term outlined above. 

[SHaYap]

To hoo ?

~

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

I will be the first to say I believe the term Woo has now become this derogatory term outlined above. 

Woo seems to me to have replaced the flying spaghetti monster as the low hanging fruit skeptics reach for when frustrated or bored.

Its an easy "gotcha" term to end a conversation.

[SHaYap]

Though I do detect it fast being a badge of honor of sorts around this here parts of the forum

~

[danydandan]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

Woo seems to me to have replaced the flying spaghetti monster as the low hanging fruit skeptics reach for when frustrated or bored.

Its an easy "gotcha" term to end a conversation.

As a mostly sceptical individual when comes to claims, I don't think I've ever dismissed anything out-of-hand as Woo. 

From reading through the three sections I usually stick to I see some of the following has been classified as Woo!

Ancient Aliens, Atlantis, Angel's, Ghosts, Afterlife's, Cosmic Consciousness, Macro observation of Quantum Mechanics, FTL, Time Travel etcetera.

Am I to suppose that anything that is untestable and counter to current accepted scientific consensus is Woo?

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Am I to suppose that anything that is untestable and counter to current accepted scientific consensus is Woo?

IDK personally I think maybe the term woo should be used more to define the process one uses to justify their unjustifiable belief in a particular subject than that subject itself.

My "belief" in bigfoot being a good example. I have enough faith in humanity that I think out of the litany of reported sightings enough of them have to be from sober minded - believable folks,I.E the professional Alaskan hunting guide - that its a possibility that they exist. I dont think thats woo, thats just fun conversation along the lines of "who would win Woods or Palmer in their prime?"  . 

IMO where the woo comes in is when I start describing all the reasons to justify the negation of established science, logic and reason in order to argue for BF's existence - government coverups, subterranean existence, ability to see IR in order to avoid trail cams, inter dimensional portals, UFO's etc.
 

[Jodie.Lynne]

I believe that the term 'woo' was first used as a response to 'new age' spiritual claims. If you search YouTube for videos by "Spirit Science" and the rebuttals thereof by Martymer81, you will see what I am referring to.

And I am not referring to spirituality that makes claims like "god is all", or "angels watch over us"; I'm talking about the kind of spirituality that strings nonsensical sentences in mind-numbing & boggling servings of word salad.

"Before the Inner Eye can comprehend the Outer Truth, the Outer Eye must reflect the Outer Light in order that the Inner Darkness be dispelled by the Inner Light of Truth! Shifting one's paradigm to become in accord with the indwelling nature of the subconscious quantum realms of the macro-reality of 'What Is'.

 

And, for only $39.99 (plus shipping & handling, taxes, and a hefty donation to my ministry), I can send you (by thought transference) my 6,333 page thesis that will show you how to become an ascended master!

[SHaYap]

Well ... we all know what happens when the first fighting words are flung and what will soon hit the fan, in that respect I think the word woo applies, if the discussion keeps along some rational discourse it doesn't matter if it is about God or Ghosts or Napoleon himself is speaking through some medium asking about his favorite horse, it doesn't waver across to the woo any one bit

~

[+joc]

I always thought that 'woo' was derived from the music of a Twilight Zone type of show...you know,   Wooooo eeeeeeeeee oooooo eeeeee ooooooooooo.

In my vocabulary it means things that are way out there in that fragmented reality zone made up of fantasy.

[danydandan]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK personally I think maybe the term woo should be used more to define the process one uses to justify their unjustifiable belief in a particular subject than that subject itself.

My "belief" in bigfoot being a good example. I have enough faith in humanity that I think out of the litany of reported sightings enough of them have to be from sober minded - believable folks,I.E the professional Alaskan hunting guide - that its a possibility that they exist. I dont think thats woo, thats just fun conversation along the lines of "who would win Woods or Palmer in their prime?"  . 

IMO where the woo comes in is when I start describing all the reasons to justify the negation of established science, logic and reason in order to argue for BF's existence - government coverups, subterranean existence, ability to see IR in order to avoid trail cams, inter dimensional portals, UFO's etc.
 

Here is my issue, now you are seen as a Woo proponent. That's the way it is now just because you believe that a creature that may or may not exists. You get thrown into the same boat as everyone who believes in Bigfoot. I mean the likes who think it's an alien or has special plain of existence it can hide in.

How do you feel about that? I'm not saying you are a Woo proponent all I'm saying is you believe something counter to accepted consensus. I'm not sure if think Bigfoot is an inter dimensional alien either. Actually the specific details of a belief seem to matter too.

Like I believe in God, but I'm not seen as Woo proponent. Am I?

[SHaYap]

8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Like I believe in God, but I'm not seen as Woo proponent. Am I?

I belief it is only woo if you say God speaks to you and sits with you and touches you and especially if your god is a she and has three boobs

~

[Farmer77]

16 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Here is my issue, now you are seen as a Woo proponent. That's the way it is now just because you believe that a creature that may or may not exists. You get thrown into the same boat as everyone who believes in Bigfoot. I mean the likes who think it's an alien or has special plain of existence it can hide in.

How do you feel about that? I'm not saying you are a Woo proponent all I'm saying is you believe something counter to accepted consensus. I'm not sure if think Bigfoot is an inter dimensional alien either. Actually the specific details of a belief seem to matter too.

Well there is a reason I post anonymously

I hide behind a laughing emoji but thats actually the truth. Im a professional in an industry where trust is important and simply couldnt ever have that kind of conversation outside of my home in the real world.

While my example is mildly extreme I do think there is something right about it. You probably dont want to be forced to trust your life to a dude who may or may not think there is a 9 foot tall creature blinking into and out of our plane of existence ( kinda feeling like I should firmly establish that I dont at this point ) and you definitely dont want to get stuck on a week long hitch with a guy who is gona tell you all about it!

16 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Like I believe in God, but I'm not seen as Woo proponent. Am I?

 Just playing devils advocate here why shouldnt you be? Because your religion had more advanced technology than the pagan religions? Or because your scientifically unprovable creatures have been blinking in and out of existence for longer than mine? What makes any established religion not woo?

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Farmer77

[eight bits]

Woo is the creature of the Amazing Randi (he of the million dollar challenge, Randi Educational Foundation, etc.). It is intentionally derogatory, and although it "has caught on" internationally, it is in origin an American coinage. To the extent a personal word has an etymology, I think it is an attempt to capture the "gee whiz" and similar exclamations some people make in the face of the uncanny. (I personally have said and heard others say "woo!" as an expression of the intensity of a personal experience, not necessarily paranormal, but an exaggerated exhalation after exertion or "forgetting to breathe").

Its precise boudaries, like most words, are flexible. For example, Randi acknowledges the possibility of things perinormal (in deliberate contrast to the word paranormal) - real things that just happen to be unknown to science at present (Bigfoot? Aliens, even abducting aliens? ...).

My interest in Jung, and the related interest in dreams, have been described by others in wooly terms. There is a theory that except for @psyche101, every skeptic believes something that another skeptic would call woo. Also, I noted with ironic interest

28 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm not saying you are a Woo proponent all I'm saying is you believe something counter to accepted consensus.

Those who think it seriously possible that Jesus is fictional or mythical believe something counter to accepted consensus; yet all who think it seriously possible are to that extent "skeptics." Some Guild members will actually use the phrase excesssive skepticism for the condition.

I think @Farmer77's analysis hits the nail of woo on the head:

36 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

... the term woo should be used more to define the process one uses to justify their unjustifiable belief in a particular subject than that subject itself...

... where the woo comes in is when I start describing all the reasons to justify the negation of established science, logic and reason ... - government coverups, subterranean existence, ability to see IR in order to avoid trail cams, inter dimensional portals, UFO's etc.

Hope something in that helps.

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by eight bits

[+joc]

47 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Am I to suppose that anything that is untestable and counter to current accepted scientific consensus is Woo?

I don't really view Religion per say as Woo.  Religion is an established belief...not by some humans but by most humans.  No one has ever been willing to die in a war over whether or not Big Foot exists.  Nor have there ever been 'my BF is greater than your BF' wars.  So...outside of religion...it depends...there are probably things out there untestable and counter to scientific consensus...but I think they need to be addressed one by one as they are brought up.  

Edited March 7, 2019 by joc

[danydandan]

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Just playing devils advocate here why shouldnt you be? Because your religion had more advanced technology than the pagan religions? Or because your scientifically unprovable creatures have been blinking in and out of existence for longer than mine? What makes any established religion not woo?

That's my dilemma! 

I'm not religious however. 

[SHaYap]

Just to set the record straight, 'wooly' is real and is a good thing, 'wooey' is not real and is not always a good thing

~

[+joc]

3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

That's my dilemma! 

I'm not religious however. 

You believe in God.  Religions are belief systems built around a primary belief in God.  Believing in God is not of itself a religion...it is merely a belief. It can be a strong belief or a mediocre, eh maybe, belief.  Religion is when you believe a scenario about God that fits a certain parameter.

[eight bits]

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

Just to set the record straight, 'wooly' is real and is a good thing, 'wooey' is not real and is not always a good thing

Context is all. It is winter here, and most things wooly are good to wear outside.

Somebody dreams something that comes true and concludes "I has powerz" is wooly, and that's bad inside and out.

[SHaYap]

Just now, eight bits said:

Context is all. It is winter here, and most things wooly are good to wear outside.

Somebody dreams something that comes true and concludes "I has powerz" is wooly, and that's bad inside and out.

I guess you woon that one ...

~

[danydandan]

16 minutes ago, joc said:

I don't really view Religion per say as Woo.  Religion is an established belief...not by some humans but by most humans.  No one has ever been willing to die in a war over whether or not Big Foot exists.  Nor have there ever been 'my BF is greater than your BF' wars.  So...outside of religion...it depends...there are probably things out there untestable and counter to scientific consensus...but I think they need to be addressed one by one as they are brought up.  

Just because it's established believe I don't think it's exempt from being Woo! 

I suppose looking at it from one perspective, until a belief is no longer a consensus it's then deemed Woo. For example everyone in Europe was once a Pagan, during the 1000ad+ you could certainly argue that Paganism was deemed Woo because of Christianity.

11 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Theres a really easy answer for that dilemma .....repeat after me:

"Hooray for me, screw everybody else!!!!!! "  Or  alternatively 

That is generally my outlook.

But I often think to myself, " I'm a bloody professional physicist why do I still have this belief." I've studied why I probably have this belief (a mixture of cultural and upbringing influences, I think) it's completely untestable, however I justify it using logic like absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence! I guess I'm strange.

However does this now set me firmly in the Woo camp? As I'm not religious thus my beliefs are not in any shape a consensus of opinion nor are my beliefs testable. It's fits the Woo definition I mentioned earlier perfectly. Don't you think?

Edited March 7, 2019 by danydandan

[SHaYap]

11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

However does this now set me firmly in the Woo camp?

It is a woo camp only if there is a woo crusade ...

~

[+joc]

11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Just because it's established believe I don't think it's exempt from being Woo! 

I suppose looking at it from one perspective, until a belief is no longer a consensus it's then deemed Woo. For example everyone in Europe was once a Pagan, during the 1000ad+ you could certainly argue that Paganism was deemed Woo because of Christianity.

Isn't that just more like the pot calling the kettle black?   I think when a majority of humans have a common belief...that belief is not woo.  Like @third_eye said...it depends on what the parameters of the belief are.  There is a deep inherent 'belief' in God among humans.  Is that something that is in our dna because of interactions with an actual deity back in the mists of time?  Or something else?  I don't know.  Because of the commonality...I think that is not woo. 

[danydandan]

2 hours ago, joc said:

Isn't that just more like the pot calling the kettle black?   I think when a majority of humans have a common belief...that belief is not woo.  Like @third_eye said...it depends on what the parameters of the belief are.  There is a deep inherent 'belief' in God among humans.  Is that something that is in our dna because of interactions with an actual deity back in the mists of time?  Or something else?  I don't know.  Because of the commonality...I think that is not woo. 

That's sort of the point, my Woo might not be someone else's Woo. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

What exactly is Woo!

I thought it was the sounds kids make, playing make believe we are on a train thing. . . 

You know, “WOO WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO”

 

(Ok, I posted this gif, because it’s so awesomely adorable! . .  ) 

Quote

Should such an overarching term be used to describe something's? On this website we have numerous sections each with there own 'Woo' proponents. But what exactly is woo and has it now become a derogatory term we use to dismiss everything we deem counter to our own perspectives? 

I will be the first to say I believe the term Woo has now become this derogatory term outlined above. 

Well, I’m not surprised this has become a thread. Yeah, I have been a bit wondering and reflecting on the fact that word has been used so much (lately)  and so fervently to describe certain feelings about other’s belief and religion. Honestly, I thought it was a simply shortcut to best express a debator’s Points in a quick way, complete with how the feel about what they’re discussing. Granted, yes I see how it’s showing how derogatory the aspects of various beliefs are, and I wonder, if it has gotten too far these days. 

Though, I often feel it’s understandable when it is being described about the belief of someone who is proselytizing heavy with their combined contempt and then also bullying toward those who don’t feel the same way they do. ( I think it’s kind of how it can be seen why someone doesn’t believe the proselytizer’s proselytizing and it coming across as a definite that they won’t ever believe.) I guess, it hits the point home. 

And I agree, I think it’s being used too easily to describes a whole bunch of stuff, when I think there’s a line to not cross when it comes to certain ‘paranormal’ or ‘extraordinary’ situations.   I guess, the Bigfoot example is a good one, for me to see it as. Well, *shrugs* I don’t believe in Bigfoot myself, (I really think it’s my ex-boyfriend being misunderstood.   ) But sometimes there are things, like spotting a UFO, (I didn’t say flying saucer, I think there is a difference there), and then looking at it that it could be identified along the way, or it’s something out of this world, and yet to be explained. Labeling it woo, I think, could be excessive. (I did say, I think it is, not as something objective.) 

And I guess, the term subjective, is a good thing to use here for a line being drawn. (Do I make sense?!   My point being, when it comes to a proselytizing bully, letting them know how they’ll never succeed in their proselytizing bulliness, is to show how you see their ‘words’ won’t ever catch on. But, for others, who just think, believe, and see things as a sense of them believing it, and respect other’s lack of belief in it, I think using that term, might be not the right way to have a discussion with someone. I would just think, ‘all that paranormal stuff’  is what I think should be looked at as. 

I guess, my point is, is not that it’s a term that should be used all of the time, ( I think there’s a bit of ambiguous thought behind it) It’s should be how someone uses it to send a message with it and to whom. 

And, probably, *shrugs*, to me it’s just something that just goes back to kid’s making sound effects on their make believe train.  

[Stubbly_Dooright]

3 hours ago, joc said:

I always thought that 'woo' was derived from the music of a Twilight Zone type of show...you know,   Wooooo eeeeeeeeee oooooo eeeeee ooooooooooo.

In my vocabulary it means things that are way out there in that fragmented reality zone made up of fantasy.

You know, this reminds me of another thing I have always associated woo with. Don’t ghosts make that sound? 

 

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!