Woo.

[Harte]

DP

Edited March 8, 2019 by Harte
by cracky!

[Harte]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Is the claim that JC rose from the dead, "woo" ?

Not enough information available to say.

You don't see me posting much at all in this section - for that very reason.

Harte

[Timothy]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Is the claim that JC rose from the dead, "woo" ?

If we use it; yes. But for the people of the time, or information illiterate; they didn’t/don’t know any better and it’s not woo for them.

[danydandan]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Is the claim that JC rose from the dead, "woo" ?

In my opinion it is. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

34 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Is the claim that JC rose from the dead, "woo" ?

Absolutely. 

[SHaYap]

About time we had some woo hoo around here ...

~

[Emma_Acid]

On 07/03/2019 at 11:14 AM, danydandan said:

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

No, I think it is something that is demonstrably unscientific that is given the sheen of scientific respectability. Like homeopathy. 

It's a term for people who can't be bothered to type "pseudo-science"

[Stubbly_Dooright]

13 hours ago, Guyver said:

And let’s not forget about the workers of woo.  If you can work the real woo, you have spiritual joo joo.

Can one find the elements of woo, when kids make pretend with their toy guns? 

Is there woo woo, when they go pew pew???

  

[Stubbly_Dooright]

11 hours ago, Habitat said:

11 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 I said,  I thought it was the sound kids made while pretending to be on trains.

Oh, I know what you said, but kids imitate sounds they are familiar with, and they are not familiar with steam trains !

So I guess, hence why they make what they assume are trains sounds. 

And how is it they are not familiar with train sounds?! From what I gather, tv the internet, and all sorts of things bringing to them the magic of communicational and educational sharing. (The technological woo woo.) And my son, when he was an itty bitty little wee one, he was fascinated with trains. And, he didn’t go on a real train until a bit later. We ended up getting him a train set, (despite his father already had one, still had one, gathering dust in a closet) and various vhs tapes, (yeah, I know, in the good ole times) of trains. I remember two of them,  one actually for kids with a host teaching about trains, taking a trip on one, and working in each job on the train. There was another one, which was for adults, (something about the Santa Fey trains) and boy was that played out over and over and over (my daughter did that with ‘Mask’) and that was boooooooooring!!!!!

I still seem to recall my son woo wooing the train sounds. 

But yeah, we took a trip on an Amtrak from the East coast to Colorado a bit later, and boy was my son in Heaven! 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

11 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

11 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 Thank you! That’s the very one I was trying to post. How was it you were able to do it? 

Well, I'm psychic, so I knew which one you were thinking about. Then I telepathically linked to the gif with my mind and placed it in the reply box.

 

Now, that is some serious woo right there!!!!   

  

[psyche101]

On 3/7/2019 at 9:14 PM, danydandan said:

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?

As per your examples there, I personally consider it the extreme end of the unlikely scale. Exactly what lovely Emma described. 

Religion is a different subject altogether because of the immense appeal to authority. If one guy says he he is Napoleon he is crazy, if millions do, its considered quite possible. Reason and logic don't get the respect in religion that they would on any other subject because of this. 

Unfortunately reasonable people such as yourself are a springboard for less rational people. They use the credibility good people like yourself and DC create to support much less rational approaches. I know I've even seen Einstein taken out of context for that purpose. 

Makes things complicated. 

Edited March 8, 2019 by psyche101

[Aquila King]

7 hours ago, danydandan said:

Yes we have a two person consensus, now my interpretation of Woo isn't Woo!

Do Creationist Woo peddlers call Evolutionists Woo peddlers, Wooers?

That's the thing. So much of these arguments can easily be turned around 180 degrees towards the other side.

There's a Christian Apologetics book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist." The author claims to support reason, logic, evidence, etc. while any naysayers (mainly atheists) take a position of 'faith'. I've seen many a Christian argue that there is no evidence for evolution, and they won't believe in evolution until they're presented evidence. Then when presented evidence they say "that's not real evidence." 

Both sides of the argument accuse the other of the same damn things. Every time I see some hardcore skeptic or atheist saying something like "There is no evidence of the afterlife, God, etc." or "I only believe things based on evidence" I'm immediately reminded of the devout religious people who say literally the exact same thing about the atheist/skeptic's position.

I'm not saying that both sides are equally wrong, or that neither of them actually do base their positions on evidence and whatnot. Just that they often claim the same things, essentially. So even if one is completely right and the other is completely wrong, their claims are worthless since the side that's wrong is making the same exact claims whilst being wrong.

The term "woo" is just the latest example of this.

[danydandan]

2 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

No, I think it is something that is demonstrably unscientific that is given the sheen of scientific respectability. Like homeopathy. 

It's a term for people who can't be bothered to type "pseudo-science"

I'm inclined to agree with this but do we not see examples, on this site alone, of people using the term Woo as a catch all statement used as dismissal of something you may this agree with. 

However out of the number of examples that I gave and that @psyche101 mentioned that he thinks these are highly unlikely examples of things that may be true. Most of them have no scientific evidence or 'sheen' of respectability what so ever. 

I think after reading the comments made by people, there is a scale of acceptance for Woo. As in my Woo is Wooyer that your Woo sort of thing. 

For example if I say I believe in God or Bigfoot, apparently that belief isn't Woo. Now if I go on to state I also speak to and for God or I know Bigfoot is an interdimensional being, my beliefs then become Woo. That's fine I accept that's Woo.

Now if I incorporate our agreed upon premise that Woo is demonstrably non-scientific. Well God and Bigfoot beliefs are both demonstrably non-scientific thus is my belief in God not Woo by our definition?

Edited March 8, 2019 by danydandan

[jmccr8]

27 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm inclined to agree with this but do we not see examples, on this site alone, of people using the term Woo as a catch all statement used as dismissal of something you may this agree with. 

Hi Dany

I don't often use woo as a descriptor, I do know a Myth Woo and she worked as a dancer with a lysp in the speakeasy that Moses and I were running in the Derailers thread when it first open and it has gone legit since.

jmccr8

[+Hammerclaw]

18 hours ago, eight bits said:

Oxford has been out of touch with the American secne for the longest time. Woo-woo as a description of nonsense is attested in American English way before the 1980's. Most notably, in the Athens of America,

 

 

Randi's an American, and no doubt woo-woo as a general expression of nonsense was an influence upon him when he coined just one woo, but his invention is nevertheless distinct.

The eighties were when into came into popular usage as defined. Woo has other meanings and has been around a while in any case.

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Both sides of the argument accuse the other of the same damn things. Every time I see some hardcore skeptic or atheist saying something like "There is no evidence of the afterlife, God, etc." or "I only believe things based on evidence" I'm immediately reminded of the devout religious people who say literally the exact same thing about the atheist/skeptic's position.

I'm not saying that both sides are equally wrong, or that neither of them actually do base their positions on evidence and whatnot.

That seems to be the important part though. The way, the only way I'm aware of, to resolve claim disputes like this is with evidence to examine.  There is none that I'm aware of, thus isn't the skeptic saying 'there is no evidence of the afterlife, God, etc' correct?  Even within the class of theists there are numerous people who recognize this, ergo the emphasis on 'faith', which wouldn't be needed much if there was actual evidence to work with.

[danydandan]

31 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That seems to be the important part though. The way, the only way I'm aware of, to resolve claim disputes like this is with evidence to examine.  There is none that I'm aware of, thus isn't the skeptic saying 'there is no evidence of the afterlife, God, etc' correct?  Even within the class of theists there are numerous people who recognize this, ergo the emphasis on 'faith', which wouldn't be needed much if there was actual evidence to work with.

Believers will state that all the anecdotes are enough evidence to support the notion of an afterlife. 

But we as sceptically minded individuals should simply say anecdotes aren't evidence. So maybe the real argument is how we define the parameters for something to be considered evidence? Should we relax our definition and they tighten theirs so we can meet in the middle? 

Edited March 8, 2019 by danydandan

[SHaYap]

Wasn't there a movie made about this very subject called 'Flatliners' or something ?

All I remember was I stopped watching about twenty minutes in ...

~

[danydandan]

15 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Wasn't there a movie made about this very subject called 'Flatliners' or something ?

All I remember was I stopped watching about twenty minutes in ...

~

That's about NDE's. 

[Mr Guitar]

On 3/7/2019 at 7:00 AM, 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.  

But religion is a belief based on nothing but fear and ignorance so, in my book, it's all 'woo' just like space aliens and bigfoot. No matter how much you want it to be true, it probably never will be.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Believers will state that all the anecdotes are enough evidence to support the notion of an afterlife. 

That may be, but a believer almost always states that other people's anecdotes which are contrary to what their own anecdotes tell them are not enough evidence, so there is the indication that what they mean by 'all the anecdotes' is 'the subset of anecdotes that agree with me' and that suggests they are special pleading.  I'm not aware of examples of skeptics engaging in special pleading that often.  Gotta be careful to keep our framework workable too; the goal is not to convince believers or specific people, that is folly, people believe irrational things and that fact has nothing to do with how to make a rational, logical case for something.  It doesn't matter at all to the argumentative case for evolution that it doesn't convince creationists, nor does it impact the truth of evolution in any way.

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

But we as sceptically minded individuals should simply say anecdotes aren't evidence. So maybe the real argument is how we define the parameters for something to be considered evidence? Should we relax our definition and they tighten theirs so we can meet in the middle? 

We could try I guess, not sure where we would end up though, and I think there are already points of evidence that inform what makes sense to do.  Science, I think objectively, is the best method of ascertaining the truth; we're not chatting away on our essentially magical connected typing boxes due to anecdotes.  Other than in psychology, I don't think anecdotes are relied on much if at all in scientific experimentation or scientific conclusions.  In my view then, science has some of the most stringent and narrow requirements and it still comes to wrong conclusions sometimes, and I'm not aware of anyone saying, 'hey, science wouldn't have come to the wrong conclusion if it would have just accounted for Bill and Suzy's anecdotes'.  There is plenty of actual non-anecdotal evidence that people can't even provide that reliable of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials, and that just involves identifying people, with a brain that is specifically wired by evolution to recognize faces.  Why on earth would we then think that they can accurately identify things that don't have 8 billion examples on this planet?

It would be cool to do what you say, but I'm at a loss as to how to even start.  Someone tells there anecdote and... what can we say?  We just nod politely?  I guess we could say, okay let's assume your anecdote is true... now where do we go?  Do we assume all anecdotes are true and if not, how are we going to differentiate them without non-anecdotes?  Not looking to you to answer those questions, I think you have an intriguing idea about trying to meet in the middle, but again not sure how to proceed.  It'd be like asking how do we meet in the middle if we treat arguments from authority or other logical fallacies as evidence.

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That seems to be the important part though. The way, the only way I'm aware of, to resolve claim disputes like this is with evidence to examine.  There is none that I'm aware of, thus isn't the skeptic saying 'there is no evidence of the afterlife, God, etc' correct?  Even within the class of theists there are numerous people who recognize this, ergo the emphasis on 'faith', which wouldn't be needed much if there was actual evidence to work with.

My point is that there are theists who claim the exact same thing regarding your position, whether you agree with them or not.

There are numerous accredited individuals with numerous scientific studies who will easily contest your points in saying that they do have evidence, and that you as a skeptic do not.

You're more than welcome to say that they don't really have any evidence, that they're all practicing pseudoscience, and that they're basically all full of s**t. And that may all be correct, I'm not arguing it isn't.

What I am saying is that simply stating "There is no evidence for your claims" is a completely hollow and empty statement. You can still say it, and I'm not arguing that you necessarily shouldn't. Just that both sides make those same exact statements such as that. 

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

The eighties were when into came into popular usage as defined. Woo has other meanings and has been around a while in any case.

Any dictionary, even one pimped by a wholly owned subsidiary of Oxford University, is a limited tool. It is a summary of what attested uses the publisher happens to have encountered and classified, often biased toward print examples, and within print, with an additional upmarket bias.

I gave the etymology of woo as I received it from James Randi. I showed woo-woo to have been in recorded use among native speakers of American English decades earlier than your source, with a meaning different from the meaning your source gives. I've met my burden here.

By an amazing coincidence, your source recites a near-definition of woo as its definition of woo-woo - as if its publishers thought they were one and the same word.. an unexplained mystery! Let's investigate by consulting your source for its defintion of woo.

After passing over the verb to woo (an entirely different idea, but probably the occasion of some woo-woo now and then), we find the second woo, which it calls "a variant form of woo-woo" Ah, that explains the late date and confusion of meaning. The Oxfordians really do think that woo  and woo-woo are the same word, contrary to fact (at least in world English, the homeland variety may be different in this regard).

Your source confused two similar-sounding words with conceptually "close" meanings (about as close as iceberg and ice cream, but I digress). That is a good example of how language evolves, but not so good an example of the lexicographer's craft.

If I were you, I'd demand a refund. Lol.

[+joc]

15 minutes ago, Mr Guitar said:

But religion is a belief based on nothing but fear and ignorance so, in my book, it's all 'woo' just like space aliens and bigfoot. No matter how much you want it to be true, it probably never will be.

Well not exactly.  There are beliefs that are based on nothing but fear and ignorance...and yet, there are millions and millions of highly educated people who believe...and not from fear, but more from love and hope. There is no real broad base brush to cover belief.  The fact is however that most human beings believe in God but not in bigfoot....hence...Woo.

[+Hammerclaw]

7 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Any dictionary, even one pimped by a wholly owned subsidiary of Oxford University, is a limited tool. It is a summary of what attested uses the publisher happens to have encountered and classified, often biased toward print examples, and within print, with an additional upmarket bias.

I gave the etymology of woo as I received it from James Randi. I showed woo-woo to have been in recorded use among native speakers of American English decades earlier than your source, with a meaning different from the meaning your source gives. I've met my burden here.

By an amazing coincidence, your source recites a near-definition of woo as its definition of woo-woo - as if its publishers thought they were one and the same word.. an unexplained mystery! Let's investigate by consulting your source for its defintion of woo.

After passing over the verb to woo (an entirely different idea, but probably the occasion of some woo-woo now and then), we find the second woo, which it calls "a variant form of woo-woo" Ah, that explains the late date and confusion of meaning. The Oxfordians really do think that woo  and woo-woo are the same word, contrary to fact (at least in world English, the homeland variety may be different in this regard).

Your source confused two similar-sounding words with conceptually "close" meanings (about as close as iceberg and ice cream, but I digress). That is a good example of how language evolves, but not so good an example of the lexicographer's craft.

If I were you, I'd demand a refund. Lol.

One of the finest examples of splitting hairs ever written. Want to take on the finer distinctions between "coke" and coca cola next?