General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Maybe I'm Misunderstanding Woo... But... Wasn't There A Time When... [View all]Sancho
(9,207 posts)you condemn an effect that some people observe and a few (but not all) attempts at experimental treatment show a small or possible effect. Of course, you say, "it's only water" and call it "woo" because there is no clear scientific evidence that it's a useful treatment.
In the 1890's, medical doctors (in a famous publication at Dartmouth) said that smoking caused cancer.
In exactly the same way, some people at the time said "it's only smoke" . Likewise, most scientific efforts failed to find a clear connection to cancer so many lay people ridiculed those who warned that smoking might be the cause of cancer.
-because the effect didn't happen to everyone
-because the effect was hard to detect
-because the chemistry was not understood
It took many years and study to find that smoking caused cancer.
You can't just discount something as "woo" because you say "it's only _____" and you can't discount any observed phenomena just because science doesn't understand it (yet).
You have no way to know that "it's only water" and you don't have any way to predict what future science will discover. Therefore, you have no right or reason to call something "woo".