Self Moderating

[realisticphish]

How many times have you guys started to reply to some woo nonsense, or anti-medicine diatribe, on DU, and have then just deleted your response, and ignored the thread? I've had to do that more and more, because I know that any response remotely critical of the OP will get 200 replies calling me a fascist.

*sigh*

I guess I'm not as committed a skeptic as some. On the other hand, it's not as if arguing on here actually changes anything. Meh.

[trotsky]

1. More times than I can count.

And considering how many times I *do* step in it, that may come as a surprise!

[Warpy]

2. If it's egregious

I replay stating the facts. Then I don't bother reading any of the horseshit that is sure to follow.

I reply once to give reasonable people the facts as I know them. I don't give my permission to be used as a chew toy by idiots.

Knowing when to walk away is most of the battle, I've found.

[realisticphish]

3. that's a good point

put the skeptical viewpoint out there, for fence sitters to see.

[cosmik debris]

4. I've been doing it a lot more lately

And I'm convinced that the woo is getting a LOT worse lately.

That's worse in quantity and quality too.

I'm still flabbergasted at the woo response to the child being forced into chemo to save his life. Apparently they believe that diet and herbs will cure cancer and chemo is just the Dr.'s tool for euthanasia. (I thought it was ironic that the "Kennedy in Remission" story came out on the heels of that Minn. story)

So, is the woo getting worse or is it just my perception?

[charlie]

5. It's getting weirder, in any case

Anti-chemo Mom has gone on the run with her son. Hope she has the fortitude to handle her boy's death alone, away from family, friends, and home.

The kid was given an entrance exam for a charter school and was found to be completely illiterate -- he was stymied by the word "the". Since his parents are demonstrable fuck-ups in educating him, anyone who argues for their competence in making his medical decisions is an idiot.

[salvorhardin]

7. I'm not convinced it's getting worse, just louder

I think the web, and Google amplify the existing woo. Fuzzy headed thinking has always been there, but it's only in the past decade that we're exposed to so much of it so often.

Another factor is the proliferation of 24/7 TV channels. Back in the day when there were three TV networks and PBS producing programming for perhaps, at most, six to eight hours a day (prime time + news + morning talk) there was a greater pressure to produce quality programming. And since the big three commanded the vast majority of advertising dollars, they had the money to invest in it. This made a natural filter against woo. Even so, we still got the televangelists and cheap syndicated shows (remember Leonard Nimoy's In Search Of...?).

But now with 5,000 TV channels, all operating 24/7, with advertising dollars increasingly hard to come by, they have to program them with something and often the cheapest content is the most attractive. So we get infomercials, "reality" television, and woo. And a lot of it.

Between the web, Google, and TV we have a cultural milieux created where woo not only seems acceptable, but also authoritative. So people who once might have believed, but kept silent for fear of social criticism, become quite vocal in asserting their beliefs. And that's where the web and Google can make their voice heard the world over.

[mr blur]

8. I think you're right, and

the whole thing is made worse by this dumb belief expressed by narrow-minded idiots everywhere that if you don't have a "completely open mind" then you're some kind of intellectual fascist. "Open-minded", of course, means "will believe any old mad shit that isn't tied down to natural laws".

[salvorhardin]

10. That's one of the things Hofstadter talked about in Anti-Intellectualism In American Life

The great American mythos is built around egalitarian principles and so when some egg head tells us that "A is true and no other" it's only natural for the American mind to rebel and say, "But I believe B and my opinion is just as good as yours!" To suggest otherwise is to sound elitist. Somewhere along the way we seem to have confused questioning authority with Pyrrhonic skepticism though where objective reality either doesn't exist or is impossible to ascertain and truth is whatever we make of it.

[onager]

17. Oh yes! "All theories deserve equal consideration."

Good point, and just the kind of...thinking that helped get us into our current mess.

What a pant-load. The theories of real doctors are equal to the theories of someone hawking Miracle Healing Crystals on eBay. The theories of astronomers are no better than those of astrologers. Etc. etc.

One day I was curious about how that noted medical expert, Oprah Winfrey, developed her theory that vaccination causes autism. Why, she was doing research way back in 1985!

Fortunately, Oprah waited for the research to come out in paperback, by which time she was a Big Star and freely bloviating on her talk show.

Though I really do like the logical Argument From Celebrity:

I just found your blog through google. I have a 4 year old daughter with ASD. I never thought I would be saying this but: Jenny McCarthy is my role model. She was such an articulate spokesperson on Oprah, and her book is great too. I will buy anything she's selling, and will be first in line for the next Jim Carrey movie, no matter how much it may suck. I'm so glad that someone is out there saying what so many of know to be true.

Prepare to hurl:

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/09/jenny-mccarthy-on-oprah-vaccine-injury.html

[charlie]

18. "...no matter how much it may suck"

Ouch. What the hell, a sale's a sale's, right Jimbo?

If McCarthy truly loved all the li'l chirruns and wasn't secretly selfish, she'd have been buying and handing out thiomersal like lemonade back when she was preening about her Crystal Child, before she decided his superhuman mineral qualities were actually an affliction called autism.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

19. I think that Obama's victory emboldened the woos

They're our version of the religious right, who were similarly emboldened by Bush's "win" in 2000.

People that don't think logically (like the woos or the fundie christians) believe, incorrectly, that because their side won, that their wackiest of beliefs have somehow been validated and that rest of us should fall into line.

[realisticphish]

20. might be a good point

also like Bush after the 04 election. "At best, I squeaked by with 1 or 2 percent more popular votes. This means that the country is now firmly neo-conservative"

[EvolveOrConvolve]

21. It's that sort of compartmentalized thinking

that makes the woos our very own religious right.

Some other similarities:
- a lack of critical thinking on specific issues
- the taking of certain information for granted, without question
- a professed individualism that is nearly identical to others in their group
- a professed "open mindedness" that doesn't allow the introduction of new ideas unless they meet arbitrary or impossible criteria

Thinking about the post the other day in GD on authoritarianism, it's a little bit chilling.

[realisticphish]

22. can you pm a link?

[salvorhardin]

6. Don't let anyone tell you responding to idiots doesn't make you less of a committed skeptic

You're right. Arguing doesn't change anything. Debate with true believers never does. Like Warpy said, you can only state the facts or why a post is BS and then walk away. Why allow the poo-flinging howler monkeys to cover you in crap? Remember, they're not your audience anyway. The more rational, undecided, readers are. They're ones who are capable of weighing arguments and then making an informed decision, but might, for whatever reason, be somewhat swayed by the woo. They're ones we can make a difference with.

[salvorhardin]

11. Sorry for the double negative

That should be "Don't let anyone tell you not responding to idiots makes you less of a committed skeptic."

[Nevernose]

15. Your English teacher was incorrect

In English, a double negative does not automatically equal a positive. It's merely grammatically incorrect. It's math in which a double negative equals a positive. Two different rules systems.

In English, a double negative is just wrong; the important part is the intent of the speaker.

Then again, I've had six beers, I'm under stress, and that's my pet peeve. The important thing is that I got your point. :)

[salvorhardin]

16. Well, I think I intended a litote but got a double negative instead

:D

[progressoid]

9. I wonder if I'm a defeatist.

I often get a "why bother" attitude and just move on.

While I don't expect to change any of the obstinate minds, I suppose it's worth the effort to keep the woo from infecting others.

[salvorhardin]

12. Is that defeatism or pragmatism? eom

[progressoid]

13. True. I suppose it depends on the situation.

Some circumstances/people are hopeless.

[realisticphish]

14. yeah

especially on the internet, where you can't read facial expression, etc. You have to assume people are nutjobs if they express woo, where as in real life, you can see if they might be wavering

[skepticscott]

23. Well, never forget

that just because a skeptical, rational response to a completely whacky OP may have no hope of changing the OP's mind or any of the other woo-woos that support them, there are a lot of people who read threads, but rarely or never post themselves, and who may know little or nothing about the issues involved. You don't see them, but they're out there, and they need to be made aware that there is another side to things, and that there are sensible, rational explanations for things that others try to paint as miraculous or incomprehensible to science.

Infusing the information stream with facts is never a waste of time, no matter how much it may seem to be sometimes.

[realisticphish]

24. and i guess I also have to say

that how many times has there been a thread filled with nothing but woo, when one skeptical voice posts. And suddenly, there's a waterfall of skepticism from many posters who aren't normally "one of us." It's almost as if they're scared to post criticism until someone else breaks the ice

[onager]

25. Seen that many times.

It's always comforting.

When I see a big one-sided Woo Pile-On, I always try to wade in. Even if I know nothing about the subject (typical), I'll at least try to post a "Thanks for the info." But this seems to happen most often in places like GD, and I don't go there much.

I just posted in a thread about voodoo. Using my psychic powers, I predict that my post will be deleted very shortly. :evilgrin: