Science is the reason we live so well in the 21st century. Woo is what held it back for so long

[Pretzel_Warrior]

Remember Ptolemy's writings (from 2nd century AD) and mathematics sat in the Library of Alexandria for hundreds of years. Even after their discovery by Muslims and hundreds more before they were available to scientists in Europe. Even then, the Church wanted to deny everything. Some things never change.

[Lizzie Poppet]

1. Precisely. "Magical thinking."

Loads of fun in Harry Potter books. Load of shit in real life.

[Katashi_itto]

2. So vitamin supplements were the cause for holding civilization back. ok.

Also Bigfoot.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. "vitamin supplements" are but one element of the domain "woo"

[Katashi_itto]

18. And they have held civilization back too. This whole Woo thing is total nonsense

Seriously though as if if you all need an excuse to hate each other

[JDPriestly]

19. If vitamin supplements are but one element of the domain "woo," why do doctors prescribe

calcium supplements for people with osteoporosis, and vitamin B for pregnant women (at least they did that when I was pregnant).

An excellent doctor suggested that I rub aloe vera and a vitamin oil into my hands for a condition in my hands.

It would be more accurate to say that "some vitamin supplements" are but one element of the domain "woo."

Besides, sometimes the placebo effect works. In fact, I know a young mother who tells her three-year-old that she is giving him a placebo. She says, "You had an upset tummy didn't you? And then I gave you a placebo and you felt better? Right?" It works.

Sometimes we take "real scientifically tested medicines" when we don't really need them. But they sometimes work. Now if we take a scientifically tested medicine when we don't need it and then feel better after we have taken it, should we call that "woo"? Or is what we are calling "woo" really just the way that people who like "woo" comfort themselves? And if a person who takes a lot of woo does feel better due to the placebo effect, why should we discourage that?

Some years ago when one of my children was born, we lived in a country in which mothers were advised to feed their babies camomile tea if they were gaining too much weight or had an upset stomach. Guess what? My child who was born in that country and drank the camomile tea for comfort still finds a cup of camomile tea to be very comforting.

Lots of good, healthy products do not come in a box or bottle with a prescription label on them. And lots of comforting products are among those non-prescription items, folk medicine if you will.

As for acupuncture. I had it once for an earache and it really helped me. Placebo effect, woo or perhaps a real remedy? I don't know but it worked for me. On the other hand if I have an infected elbow, I want an antibiotic cream.

In the meantime I swear by aloe vera. It really soothes the skin. And vitamin B really does make me feel better, placebo or not.

[Electric Monk]

3. Copernicus' ideas were considered "woo" at the time, by conventional thinkers of the day.

/just sayin

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. you mean the conventional pope who wanted to kill him if he dared say the earth wasn't

the center of the universe lest it reduce the Church's power over people? Yeah, same kind of anti-science dipshits running around today.

[Electric Monk]

6. Is it that different than "conventional medicine" orgs like the AMA vs Chiropractors?

AMA = Church
Chiropractors = Copernicus

If your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

7. show me your scientific data then.

the AMA doesn't have the power to have you executed if you're a proponent of chiropractic "medicine".

[ProgressSaves]

9. By his or her logic,

GLAAD must be the church and the conversion therapy assholes are the chiropractors.

[Electric Monk]

11. At 2 in the morning on a Sunday night? Google it yourself, lol.

I'll even get you started, though, since I'm such a nice guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilk_v._American_Medical_Association

http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/237.cfm
The medical profession has a long history of opposing alternative healing professions. While always claiming public safety as its reasons for the attacks, the true reasons involve protecting their monopoly of the health care market.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/29/us/us-judge-finds-medical-group-conspired-against-chiropractors.html

[ProgressSaves]

8. Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

http://www.lyricsmania.com/storm_lyrics_tim_minchin.html

[Gravitycollapse]

10. Intelligent design was at one point held to high academic esteem.

As was phrenology and homeopathy and many other now outdated fields of thought.

You've actually got it backwards. What constitutes woo and quackery now was foundational to the advancement of scientific research in the past. Not that I'm defending the contemporary glorification of things like homeopathy, but your argument from history seems to be more than a tad revisionist.

[Electric Monk]

12. Thank you, that's a very good way to put it. They (OP et al) are framing it backwards. nt

[Luminous Animal]

16. The OP is a pretzel.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

13. no, I actually don't. scientific method will observe and accept or reject various hypotheses

and over time, our knowledge becomes richer and more helpful in our interaction with the world around us.

It's not woo if it's a speculation/hypothesis that is way far out there and you test it with full expectation your result may prove the idea wrong.

It is woo if you continue to believe it despite the lack of empirical evidence to back it up despite years of attempts.

you know....like ghosts and UFO's.

[Gravitycollapse]

14. You're failing to ask epistemic questions.

What you're posing is a very structuralist argument. And it ignores the capacity for scientific thought to produce false realities.

The common structuralist claim is that science is the persistent endeavor to reach out and touch "truth." I don't agree with this claim at all. Scientific endeavor, in fact most truth seeking, very often revolves around constructing evidence that fits a preconceived narrative. And the "truth" sought after very often turns out to be nothing but myth. It's enough to bring into serious doubt the very existence of truth.

Portraying science as impenetrably noble, constantly withstanding the barrage of ignoble anti-science, just isn't historically accurate. That just isn't how it works.

[Confusious]

17. Postmodernist nonsense

Maybe you can tell how gravity is a "preconceived narrative?" Or maybe the reactions of elements or the elements themselves are a "preconceived narrative?"

The scientific method is nothing like what you describe, but I'm not surprised that you don't actually know how it works. Par for the course for a postmodernist.

Postmodernism is shit, and it has no clothes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense


"Portraying science as impenetrably noble, constantly withstanding the barrage of ignoble anti-science, just isn't historically accurate."

After studying history for 30 years, Uh, yea it is.

[Drahthaardogs]

21. Actually, gravity is very much a mystery

We know what it does, we have no idea what it really is though or why it exists. There are some plausible theories, but it is still a mystery.

Pretty cool stuff.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. "Postmodernism is shit, and it has no clothes." - Want to talk about par for the course.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Christianity fucked us over and continues to do so by labeling science as woo.

[BlueToTheBone]

20. Better living through chemistry.

With science we got beautiful white paper, toilet paper, beautiful colors of paint, gorgeous lipsticks and fabulous hair products.

[loli phabay]

36. toilet paper is the height of civilisation, especially the real soft stuff. thank you science.

[BlueToTheBone]

40. The older the tree, the softer on your tush. n/t

[loli phabay]

41. i thought it was the bushier the bush.

[NCTraveler]

23. When JFK talked of putting a man on the moon...

many thought it was woo. Don't be so close minded as to how you feel advances are made. Many original ideas are originally considered to be woo. Things are not always black and white.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. There's a difference between thinking something is too hard to do...

or too expensive to do, or not technologically possible to do right now, and believing fairies are responsible for flowers blooming.

[NCTraveler]

25. Woo has gone so far here, at this point its use has been broadened.

Many would consider it to be woo if it were to be done today. Many thoughts by philosophers and inventors were considered to be woo. Woo is not just being aimed at the religious as you try to make it out to be.

[NCTraveler]

30. I do kind of agree with you.

That is what the term woo should represent. It has taken on new meaning here. It is evolving.

[NuclearDem]

26. No, no, no.

Woo is a name for pseudoscience. Pseudoscience appears scientific, but operates outside of the scientific method and is focused on finding more confirmatory evidence rather than attempting to disprove it.

Astrophysics is not pseudoscience. Space travel is not the equivalent of trying to turn lead into gold or claiming that rhino penises cure cancer.

[NCTraveler]

28. Three no's, that's big time.

Many did not think the science was there. It is exactly what you are saying. Many thought we would not have the ability to deal with the radiation. The term woo has taken on a whole new meaning here. The science wasn't there when JFK made his proclamation. It was being worked on. Because something has not been scientifically proven does not make it woo.

[NuclearDem]

32. No! A thousand times no!

Something that can be investigated through the scientific method through observation, testing, and further independent testing is in no manner "woo." Not having all the answers to certain questions in a field doesn't make that field woo. Manned space travel was largely untested before the Apollo program, but that doesn't make astrophysics "woo." That made it a field of science that needed further investigation.

Woo is making a claim without backing of research done through the scientific method (proper testing and observation, peer review, independent study). Pseudoscience fields search solely for evidence that confirms their hypotheses, rather than working on ways to find holes in them. They instead direct this energy towards finding holes in other people's hypotheses, working within a false dichotomy that if they can simply cast enough doubt on an established hypothesis, then they will be the only one left. When actual scientists in comparative fields do independent testing of pseudoscientific claims and find holes in a hypothesis (which is the whole point of the scientific community and peer review), pseudoscience pushers simply claim the existence of a conspiracy against their field, and say their discoveries are "dangerous" to the "dogmatic" mainstream science establishment.

Look at creationism versus evolution. Creationism is pseudoscience. Evolution is science. If you see supposed scientists making claims and operating similarly to creationists, then you've got a pseudoscience on your hands.

Furthermore, if you see the phrase "scientifically proven", that's an instant red flag. That's a nonsensical statement.

[NCTraveler]

33. Love it. nt.

[Vattel]

38. Your post is woo by your own definition.

You claim that "Woo is making a claim without backing of research done through the scientific method (proper testing and observation, peer review, independent study)." But you make this claim without the backing of research done through the scientific method (proper testing and observation, peer review, independent study). Thus, by your own definition of woo, your claim is woo.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[NuclearDem]

39. Bad! Bad!

[Capt. Obvious]

29. True, but...

How are you posting this?
I thought today was D-Day?

[ohheckyeah]

31. Get back to us on this

when the GMOs, brought to us by science, have destroyed the ecosystem and given us all cancer, diabetes, etc.

[Puzzledtraveller]

34. lawdy, lawdy

That title. I feel like watching Mel Brooks "History of The World" now.

[Glassunion]

35. Just don't confuse skepticism as woo.

[bemildred]

37. Fossil fuels are the reason we lived so well in the 20th century.

Science and technology became very helpful, once we knew how to get the fossil fuels to do all the work.