Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danydandan

Woo.

180 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

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

~

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
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

~

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
Posted (edited)
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 by joc
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

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

~

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
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 ...

~

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
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 by danydandan
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
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 ...

~

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :o. ;)

You know, “WOO WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO”

 

(Ok, I posted this gif, because it’s so awesomely adorable! ;). :w00t:. :D ) 

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. :o  ) 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?! :o  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. :D 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.