What is it about woo that upsets you?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, Apr 23, 2019.

  1. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,751
    Woo in my opinion, is any ''theory'' that can't be tested (proven) in a controlled setting, where general acceptance is reached by the overall science community. Although, long-accepted theories probably started out as ''woo'' ...until they gained acceptance. Hence, I'd imagine Charles Darwin for example, was probably viewed by his peers with raised eyebrows, when he first introduced his ideas about evolution.

    Spirituality/faith/religion is a different thing altogether, because it is subjective. It will always be subjective, even if it's objective truth for me, or anyone else who has particular faith views.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,629
    'Raised eyebrows' is putting it generously.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    wegs likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,666
    ID makes quite specific - though spurious - claims, to do with "design" and the alleged impossibility of certain features of organisms arising naturally. It's bogus, but not woo as we know it Jim.
     
    Yazata likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    On The Origin of Species[/] was a huge hit, sold in train stations so people could read it in transit. People were ready for a non-woo explanation of our origins.
     
  8. candy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    822
    I love woo.
    I love being woo.
    Someday maybe you can be woo too; until then you are limited by linear logic instead of illumination.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,349
    TY Doc...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , I was not so much asking about ID, which could be amended to read as a "natural quasi-intelligent mathematical design" or "self-organization and self-assemly" or "emergent mathematical pattern" and actually be correct.
    I totally agree.
    But the notion of a living motivated intelligent designer inside or outside spacetime being the designer and assembler requires so many untestable (impossible) qualifiers, that IMO, that can only be dscribed as woo.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2019
  10. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,751
    I’m woo-selective.
     
  11. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,751
    Faith, so long as it doesn’t harm others, isn’t woo, to me. Poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe?
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,349
    I agree, but when it is suggested as a school curriculum (how do you correctly spell potato), were getting into deep scientific water and woo don't swim too well.
     
    wegs likes this.
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,074
    The only time it isn't subjective is when someone thinks that it isn't subjective. "Objective" truth for you is still subjective.

    A scientific hypothesis can start out as potential woo but as data bears it out, it moves out of the woo category. Many people "accept" woo but that has no bearing on its validity.

    I do get your point however.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,074
    Woo is never woo to the woo holder.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    wegs likes this.
  15. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,751
    I agree, religion and woo (see what I did there) doesn't belong in government or in the classroom.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  16. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,751
    I know, it's hard to see the forest through the woo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Seattle likes this.
  17. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,751
    Yep.

    I'm torn sometimes, between believing that woo can be in essence, a sign of one's imagination and creativity, and feeling that woo keeps many of its groupies, from advancing in science, medicine, and math.

    Good

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Seattle likes this.
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,794
    I'm woo-intolerant.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    So things like string theory would be considered woo?
     
    wegs likes this.
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,666
    That's interesting. I did not know woo could also be an adjective.

    As for illumination, the problem is when what may seem to some to be illumination is actually plunging them into Stygian darkness.
     
  20. candy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    822

    Woo can be anything woo wants to be.

    How can we know what is light and what is dark?
    Can light exist without dark or do the define each other?
     
    exchemist likes this.
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,074
    Woo might be a sign (among other things) of creativity but you can be creative without woo as well. The probably with believing in woo is that it is suspending your belief in reality IMO.
     
    wegs likes this.
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,074
    Not being able to answer that is what is wrong with believing in woo.

    Yes, light can exist without dark. Light is a "thing", dark isn't. The concept of "dark" may not exist if light is everywhere, all the time but even then, it should be a concept that one could imagine since it's simply the absence of light.

    I spend most of my time where there is plenty of oxygen, but I can imagine an environment devoid of oxygen. No woo required.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  23. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,751
    Not the theory itself, but have you noticed that legitimate theories often become victims of woo advocates? (I don’t care for the label “crank.”) lol

    That might be far worse than making up theories out of thin air - taking theories that have been widely accepted and distorting or misrepresenting them, based on one’s limited understanding of them.
     
    exchemist likes this.

Share This Page