I have a confession to make

[Orrex]

I'm no longer comfortable using the word "woo" to refer to people, and honestly I've grown to find it somewhat distasteful.

I have two main reasons for this:

1. From a practical standpoint, it provides a weak link in any post or argument a Skeptic might make, because even if the argument is sound, an opponent can still justifiably attack the personal use of "woo" as a slur as indefensible. It wouldn't change the validity of the Skeptic's argument, but it would suggest a rudeness of character that could easily have an impact beyond the argument at hand.

2. From a standpoint of politeness, it seeks to pigeonhole an opponent in terms of that person's beliefs or way of thinking. That's a very low form of discourse, at it's at least as objectionable as being called a shill for Big Pharma or the like. Sure, Skeptics will still be accused as shills, but refusing to reduce oneself to name-calling will grant at least some measure of moral high ground. Further, if a Skeptic does engage in name-calling, then that Skeptic can hardly object when his or her opponent makes use of equivalent epithets.



I'm certainly not condemning anyone who uses the term, because goodness knows that I've used it more than once, but not any longer. I don't see any real problem in using "woo" or "woo-woo thinking" to refer to uncritical belief in extra-normal or pseudoscientific phenomena, because in that case it's not being used as a direct, snarky insult against a person.


Just my $0.02. I'm off my soap box now.

[CanSocDem]

1. .

:woohoo:

[realisticphish]

2. interesting

I do see your point about pigeonholing, especially in a debate situation. And, I suppose that there is really no reason to HAVE such an encompassing term. After all "X believes in a lot of woo" is a potentially demonstrably true statement which doesn't have any ad hominem context.

[Orrex]

11. Yes, that's what I was trying to say (successfully or otherwise)

Referring to a person's beliefs (in whatever) is a lot different from reducing that person to a caricature of a believer.

[salvorhardin]

3. I try to avoid it when referring to individual people

However, when referring collectively to people who uncritically embrace, umm, well, woo, the closest similar word we have is L. Sprague de Camp's 'credophile'.

[Orrex]

10. There's no quick-and-handy term

I've come up with (IMO) a fairly neutral description: believers in extra-normal phenomena. It's a broad description, to be sure, but it's not likely to lead to an exchange of insults. Though I suppose it could kick of a discussion of what "normal" is...

One obstacle to consider is that any label applied to a group by an outsider might carry a connotation beyond being a simple designator.

[woo me with science]

4. Well, there goes my screenname.

I do agree with you for the most part, though. It is just such attractive shorthand, especially when I am particularly irritated and angered by it all and the way it has affected people I love.

[Orrex]

7. That's why I'm not condemning or calling-out anyone who uses it.

For someone who's been personally affected by such belief systems, the stakes are considerably higher than they are for me; each of us must find her or his own level.


However, I'd suggest that you not post anything until the DU screen name-change amnesty in 2012, to avoid confusion. :evilgrin:

[woo me with science]

25. oops!

I will be changing my name to Indigo or Chakra at that time.

And I'll be giving out free butt candles to celebrate! :headbang:

[Odin2005]

5. I'll be trying to avoid using the term as well.

In my experience with some posters using the term "woo" simply poisons the discussion. Belittling the other side may be emotionally satisfying but it pisses people off and provokes them into calling us "science bigots" or whatever and ruins any chance of a reasonable discussion.

[Orrex]

8. Exactly correct

In fact, one of your recent (and quite sensible) posts in this very Group helped me to realize the effect of such name-calling.

Props to everyone who reached the same conclusion before me!

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. It's an ad hominem attack, and we can do much better than that.

I hate the term for that reason.

[Orrex]

9. Yes indeed

I regret that it took me so long to open my eyes to it.

[mr blur]

12. I appreciate your POV but I don't think I'll be changing

I guess I like direct, snarky insults. Sometimes it's the only reaction to persistent stupidity.

[onager]

13. Especially when they barge into the Skeptics GROUP...

(not FORUM) with their cheesy bullshit.

And especially when woos admit to patrolling this GROUP, just looking for posts they can go whining to the mods about. While not allowing any Science-Nazis to pollute the rarified air of their Very Special Indigo People On Ancient Dead-Ends GROUPS.

I completely agree with you.

If the Reflexology Shoe fits, they can damn well wear it.

[Orrex]

16. I agree that it would be nice to see such posts (and posters) limited in this Group

And, I think, their visible presence here has been much reduced lately, for whatever reason.


I certainly enjoy tearing into an overly aggressive advocate for pseudoscience in the Health or R/T forum, or anywhere else for that matter, but I won't be using that particular label anymore.

As I mentioned, I won't condemn anyone for using it.

[Why Syzygy]

18. Excuse me.

Members of your group DO troll ASAH. Otherwise you wouldn't see call outs like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=247x25562

Which incidentally, brought me to your foreign shores, not looking for threads to mock.

Your horse is a bit too high on this one.
Science-Nazis to pollute the rarified air of their Very Special Indigo People On Ancient Dead-Ends GROUPS.

[trotsky]

19. Woo Patrol in da HOUSE! n/t

[mr blur]

20. Excuse ME -

that wasn't a call-out for DU that was a link to a site streaming shows about "ghosts and UFO's". Woo Bullshit, in other words. The link was to the source, NOT to whatever excitement Woos on DU were showing. Which I haven't bothered to search for because they don't want us there and would waste no time trying to silence anyone who isn't "open-minded" (i.e., open enough for their brains to fall out).

And Science-Nazis to pollute the rarified air of their Very Special Indigo People On Ancient Dead-Ends GROUPS is actually spot on.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TZ]

34. So now we are not allowed to post stuff from other sites

that might also be posted in the Astrology group. Nice post Kim IL- Jung. The internets is a big place so quit it with you attempts to censor this group!

[woo me with science]

23. hi

:hi:

[realisticphish]

24. there is no callout there

there is no link to DU.

fail.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

27. Holy shit, there's some irony

Trolling our group to accuse us of trolling. That's fucking rich.

I don't know how that link could have "brought you to our foreign shores" (as an aside, why do you see us as the enemy?) since it's a link to a post in this group.

[LeftishBrit]

31. If people barge into the sceptics group to attack or mock, then I tend to put them on ignore

In fact I only have 2 people on iggy, and both for the same reason. I don't put people on iggy just because I disagree with them or dislike their views; only for persistent baiting.

I am not aware that any members of the sceptics group have come to the alternative medicine or astrology groups to bait, but of course I don't go to those groups anyway. If anyone has, might I suggest that the members of those groups also use the ignore function, rather than making raids on our group?

[trotsky]

14. Same here.

Although I generally use the term only when speaking about particular practices or beliefs, or a large unspecified group. I haven't thrown it at any one particular individual that I can think of.

[Orrex]

17. Good point, and you've been in some high-intensity discussions!

[Orrex]

15. I'm cool with that

And, believe me, I'm no fan of willful ignorance.

It's just that I've found the term to be ultimately unhelpful in getting my point across, so I'm done with it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. I disagree.

"Pseudoscientific nutjob" is too many syllables.

"it would suggest a rudeness of character that could easily have an impact beyond the argument at hand."

Sometimes, many times, rudeness is called for.

The ancient Roman senator Cicero was considered the greatest orator and master of rhetoric today. Two thousand years later he's still considered as good as any one who has ever been. Translations are still entirely readable and effective.

If you haven't before, I welcome you to read his 2nd Phillipic:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/cicero2ndphil.html

It would have gotten him banned at DU, but that says more about DU than Cicero.

"it's at least as objectionable as being called a shill for Big Pharma or the like"

Ah, but I make sure somebody's a woo before I call them a woo. I never have and never will be a shill for Big Pharma, even though I may or may not defend their products or actions on a case by case basis.

[Orrex]

22. All valid points, and I respect your position on this as well as Cicero's.

Nevertheless, I find that the word is an unproductive addition to my discourse, so I won't be using it.

YMMV.

[LeftishBrit]

30. Fair point

I don't think I've referred to people as 'woos', though I do sometimes refer to certain beliefs and ideas as 'woo'. Probably not productive.

What tends to bother me is ideological attacks on science and on 'conventional' medicine. Just as the saying goes 'if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one', if you don't believe in modern medicine, don't use it; but don't try to prevent other people having access to it. It reminds me very much of the ideological attacks of stem cell research, and I sometimes use that argument.

[Orrex]

32. That annoys me as well

There tends to be a kneejerk rejection of conventional medicine out of the mistaken notion that it's a clique based on dogma and that it's suppressing "alternative" medicine for political reasons.

Additionally, I lose patience with the idea that conventional and alternative medicine are equally valid.

[TZ]

33. I've rarely used it in direct discussions

And usually only in a tit for tat way..If someone is gonna make a nasty "shill" comment to me, I don't hold back.
In some ways though I find using the term woo to be better than what most of us know the meaning to believe...irrational bullshit.

[uppityperson]

35. I try to not use it for the same reason except in reference to my own

massage business, which does have some unexplained things about it. I try to not pass off things I don't know as things I do though.

I agree with your 2 points. I've noticed though, that the term shows up most often in argumentative posts against anyone questioning them.

[Orrex]

36. I've seen that several times recently myself

It's a curious phenomenon, but I admit that it's part of what brought me to this decision.