What The Fuck Is Woo Goddammit

[kristopher]

16. Best definition on DU I've seen by Bluenorthwest

"I assume the Knights Who Say Woo would have accepted the 'disease' theory as 'science' and mocked anyone who suggested otherwise. I am free to assume that because 'woo' is a bit of meaningless jargon, not actual language, and it's meaning is improvised to suit any moment."

I've strung two of Bluenorthwest's posts together. I'm assuming BNW won't mind. Original discussion here, but this is the cream of the crop.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024281840#post15

Woo in the English language does not mean quackery or medical fakery, pseudo-science or therapeutic fraud, it is a verb meaning 'to seek the affections of another with romantic or matrimonial intent'.
This usage on DU is a jargon use, not the actual, accepted definition of the word in actual English. A process that is science based, including mere discussion, would make use of clear and actual definitions in an officially shared language. The use of jargon almost always causes confusion and misunderstanding, which reason based people seek to avoid. By using the actual language.

...

The improvisational 'definition' you posted is gibberish in that it is not the definition of the word. I'll help you out, it's just something people say to remain vague while sounding mean. They wish to stay vague because they fear actual reasoned discussion with terms which are solidly defined and prefer magical wording for their ritual arguments.
Just to be clear, 'jargon' specifically means a terminology that is used by one group or community which is not used by the wider population at all or in the same way. So the fact that professionals in this area use the term but others do not is what makes it jargon. This leads to confusion and a lack of specificity, things most people of science do not care for much. Several people in each of these threads asks what is meant by the word, because it is a piece of jargon. It requires definition because others do not know what is meant by those who say it. I assume those using it use it because it lacks specific meaning. Specificity seems to frighten them.

The august experts of medical science, in my lifetime, claimed being gay was a mental disorder. After that sort of display, the curtain has been torn, the wee man has been revealed to be making wild guesses and naming it knowledge far too often and with far too much certainty.

Here's an example of how stable and reliable the scientific community can be.

"During the first half of the nineteenth century a number of individuals in Europe began to study homosexuality scientifically. The theories developed during this time suggested that homosexuality was a disease, and these theories influenced how homosexuality was regarded by the scientific community until well past the mid twentieth century. It wasn't until the late twentieth century that there was a paradigm shift in the science of psychiatry and medicine regarding the pathology of homosexuality. In the early twentieth century, psychiatrists considered homosexuality a disease that could be cured through psychotherapy and treatment options were assessed, yet gradually, theories of a hormonal and genetic origin of homosexuality arose and became accepted. This paradigm shift impacted the political and social climates of the United States, while at the same time; these outside influences also affected science. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, and patients practicing homosexuality were no longer treated as if it were a disease. Thus, since its conception in the early nineteenth century, the scientific definition of homosexuality has greatly evolved; this evolution has been closely associated with the progression of the social and political definition of homosexuality as well."
https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/WWC/The+Evolution+of+the+Medical+Definition+of+Homosexuality

Assumptions made and called fact influenced the scientific community from the 1800's until the 1970's. Gay was a disease, that was the accepted, tested science.

To me, that's a history of extreme quackery and theology posing as science. A community that called me diseased until 73 based on no evidence at all needs to wait a few decades before criticizing other people for things they think to be true. If my choice is some raging nut saying gay people have a disease and a person offering an herbal tea for my digestion, I'll call the second one doctor and the first idiot, fool, brittle brained nonsense dribbling dogma lover. But that's just me. I assume the Knights Who Say Woo would have accepted the 'disease' theory as 'science' and mocked anyone who suggested otherwise. I am free to assume that because 'woo' is a bit of meaningless jargon, not actual language, and it's meaning is improvised to suit any moment.