UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Magical Realist said:
"Woo" is a made up pejorative of the skeptical community to belittle the views of those who disagree with them. It is no different from the terms "heresy" or "demonic" the religious use to denigrate the views of those who disagree with them,
Click to expand...

Whoa you can't be serious?

:)
 
Magical Realist said:
"Woo" is a made up pejorative of the skeptical community to belittle the views of those who disagree with them. It is no different from the terms "heresy" or "demonic" the religious use to denigrate the views of those who disagree with them,
Click to expand...
Nup wrong again MR. Woo is as I and others infer. It is the domain of impressionable people who see the need for awe and mystery in everything around them, and consequently, reject the science, ignore any and all other possibilities, ....here it says it much better then I here.......
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo
"Woo, also called woo-woo, is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words.

Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example: "Homeopathy is effective (even when no molecule of the active ingredient remains in the final product) because the solution retains a memory of the solute."—the explanation for these results, e.g. water memory, is woo.

Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bullshit. (As such, "woo" that has zero paying customers is more like just ordinary batshit crazy.)"
further extract........
Characteristics[edit]
Woo generally contains most of the following characteristics:

  1. Anecdotal evidence: Prefers to use testimonials over actual studies. (Much less likely to go wrong.)
  2. Panacea: Is a simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including many diseases).
  3. Pseudoscience: Has a "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it; especially:
    1. Science woo: Uses words that sound scientific but make no sense in their context, such as "quantum".
    2. Quote-mined studies that, if bent properly, appear to support the woo.
    3. Appeal to authority: Claims that a scientific authority supports the woo; this is usually combined with a quote mine.
    4. Studies from different, unrelated fields.
    5. Disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing (which is kind of what makes epidemiology actually, y'know, work. And maybe one or two other obscure corners of the field of scientific endeavor...)
  4. A supernatural and/or paranormal involvement; failing that, the preternatural.
  5. Persecution complex: Claims to be persecuted, usually perpetrated by the government, "Big Pharma", or the entire worldwide scientific community (see Galileo gambit). Usually accompanied by a claim that the public and/or scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them.
  6. A hypothesis that remains virtually unchanged for years or decades, despite changes in the evidence for the woo. This is sometimes presented as a strength.
  7. And, almost always, a willingness to share the woo-peddlers' precious knowledge/insight/revelation... for a price. And repeatedly. (Because if it didn't take the first time around then the victims didn't believe sincerely enough.)
Not every characteristic need be present for something to be woo. Woo manifests itself as a gradient, rather than a binary: the more of these tactics that are used, the more likely it is that the idea is woo.
 
paddoboy said:
Nup wrong again MR. Woo is as I and others infer. It is the domain of impressionable people who see the need for awe and mystery in everything around them, and consequently, reject the science, ignore any and all other possibilities, ....here it says it much better then I here.......
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo
"Woo, also called woo-woo, is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words.

Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example: "Homeopathy is effective (even when no molecule of the active ingredient remains in the final product) because the solution retains a memory of the solute."—the explanation for these results, e.g. water memory, is woo.

Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bullshit. (As such, "woo" that has zero paying customers is more like just ordinary batshit crazy.)"
further extract........
Characteristics[edit]
Woo generally contains most of the following characteristics:

  1. Anecdotal evidence: Prefers to use testimonials over actual studies. (Much less likely to go wrong.)
  2. Panacea: Is a simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including many diseases).
  3. Pseudoscience: Has a "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it; especially:
    1. Science woo: Uses words that sound scientific but make no sense in their context, such as "quantum".
    2. Quote-mined studies that, if bent properly, appear to support the woo.
    3. Appeal to authority: Claims that a scientific authority supports the woo; this is usually combined with a quote mine.
    4. Studies from different, unrelated fields.
    5. Disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing (which is kind of what makes epidemiology actually, y'know, work. And maybe one or two other obscure corners of the field of scientific endeavor...)
  4. A supernatural and/or paranormal involvement; failing that, the preternatural.
  5. Persecution complex: Claims to be persecuted, usually perpetrated by the government, "Big Pharma", or the entire worldwide scientific community (see Galileo gambit). Usually accompanied by a claim that the public and/or scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them.
  6. A hypothesis that remains virtually unchanged for years or decades, despite changes in the evidence for the woo. This is sometimes presented as a strength.
  7. And, almost always, a willingness to share the woo-peddlers' precious knowledge/insight/revelation... for a price. And repeatedly. (Because if it didn't take the first time around then the victims didn't believe sincerely enough.)
Not every characteristic need be present for something to be woo. Woo manifests itself as a gradient, rather than a binary: the more of these tactics that are used, the more likely it is that the idea is woo.
Click to expand...

You made my case for me. Thanks.
 
Magical Realist said:
You made my case for me. Thanks.
Click to expand...
If if if
paddoboy said:
Nup wrong again MR. Woo is as I and others infer. It is the domain of impressionable people who see the need for awe and mystery in everything around them, and consequently, reject the science, ignore any and all other possibilities, ....here it says it much better then I here.......
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo
"Woo, also called woo-woo, is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words.

Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example: "Homeopathy is effective (even when no molecule of the active ingredient remains in the final product) because the solution retains a memory of the solute."—the explanation for these results, e.g. water memory, is woo.

Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bullshit. (As such, "woo" that has zero paying customers is more like just ordinary batshit crazy.)"
further extract........
Characteristics[edit]
Woo generally contains most of the following characteristics:

  1. Anecdotal evidence: Prefers to use testimonials over actual studies. (Much less likely to go wrong.)
  2. Panacea: Is a simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including many diseases).
  3. Pseudoscience: Has a "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it; especially:
    1. Science woo: Uses words that sound scientific but make no sense in their context, such as "quantum".
    2. Quote-mined studies that, if bent properly, appear to support the woo.
    3. Appeal to authority: Claims that a scientific authority supports the woo; this is usually combined with a quote mine.
    4. Studies from different, unrelated fields.
    5. Disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing (which is kind of what makes epidemiology actually, y'know, work. And maybe one or two other obscure corners of the field of scientific endeavor...)
  4. A supernatural and/or paranormal involvement; failing that, the preternatural.
  5. Persecution complex: Claims to be persecuted, usually perpetrated by the government, "Big Pharma", or the entire worldwide scientific community (see Galileo gambit). Usually accompanied by a claim that the public and/or scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them.
  6. A hypothesis that remains virtually unchanged for years or decades, despite changes in the evidence for the woo. This is sometimes presented as a strength.
  7. And, almost always, a willingness to share the woo-peddlers' precious knowledge/insight/revelation... for a price. And repeatedly. (Because if it didn't take the first time around then the victims didn't believe sincerely enough.)
Not every characteristic need be present for something to be woo. Woo manifests itself as a gradient, rather than a binary: the more of these tactics that are used, the more likely it is that the idea is woo.
Click to expand...
made your case for you,

why did you start galloping about with this pap?

Magical Realist said:
"Woo" is a made up pejorative of the skeptical community to belittle the views of those who disagree with them. It is no different from the terms "heresy" or "demonic" the religious use to denigrate the views of those who disagree with them,
Click to expand...

:)
 
Magical Realist said:
"Woo" is a made up pejorative of the skeptical community to belittle the views of those who disagree with them. It is no different from the terms "heresy" or "demonic" the religious use to denigrate the views of those who disagree with them,
Click to expand...
Yup. And that's OK.
Similarly, MR believes that "skeptic" is a perjorative term, and uses it like an insult, in a misguided attempt to belittle and denigrate the rational logic of those who dismantle his ideas. So he's got no moral high ground there.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yup. And that's OK.
Similarly, MR believes that "skeptic" is a perjorative term, and uses it like an insult, in a misguided attempt to belittle and denigrate the rational logic of those who dismantle his ideas. So he's got no moral high ground there.
Click to expand...

Except that skeptics use the term "skeptic" to refer to themselves as proud doubters of all "woo".
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Except that skeptics use the term "skeptic" to refer to themselves as proud doubters of all "woo".
Click to expand...
Of course!
But one can say that you and river and probably one or two others, wear your silly woo as a badge of honour.
But hey, whether you like it or not, at this time we have absolutely no evidence to lead to any conclusion that UFO craft are of alien origin. When you accept that, then you may finally accept some semblance of reality.
 
Magical Realist said:
"Woo" is a made up pejorative of the skeptical community to belittle the views of those who disagree with them. It is no different from the terms "heresy" or "demonic" the religious use to denigrate the views of those who disagree with them,
Click to expand...
The term "woo woo" is older than the little green men drivel.
 
river:

river said:
Not deflecting at all . I know UFO's exist .
Click to expand...
Please present the evidence that gave you the knowledge that UFOs exist.

I don't look to government alone , to verify the reality of UFO's . Everyday people prove the existence of UFO's .
Click to expand...
Not to me knowledge. Please point me to one person who can prove the existence of UFOs.

Or, better still, since you know that alien spacecraft are real, why don't you give us your proof? Is it too much to ask of you?

I ask what are your findings on my post # 2554 , what's the problem with my question ?
Click to expand...
You haven't presented any "findings" in post #2554 - or anywhere else as far as I can tell. As has been established, you apparently haven't even looked at any of the "millions" of documents you claim prove the existence of little green men.
 
Mankind's most enduring and inspiring questions, is are we alone? Like Carl Sagan I accept that while the likelyhood of life elsewhere is very probable, as yet we do not have any of the extraordinary evidence needed to suggest any life existing off the Earth. And while Carl also agrees that Aliens could well have visited Earth at some time in the past, we have none of the extraordinary evidence that such a momentous event would require.
 
paddoboy said:
Mankind's most enduring and inspiring questions, is are we alone? Like Carl Sagan I accept that while the likelyhood of life elsewhere is very probable, as yet we do not have any of the extraordinary evidence needed to suggest any life existing off the Earth. And while Carl also agrees that Aliens could well have visited Earth at some time in the past, we have none of the extraordinary evidence that such a momentous event would require.
Click to expand...

To your last high lighted statement .

Disagree

The extraordinary evidence exists ; to find it you have to be willing to go there for a long while . For some .

A short while for others . Short while means at least 6 months of reading .
 
Last edited:
river said:
The extraordinary evidence exists ; to find it you have to be willing to go there for a long while . For some .
A short while for others . Short while means at least 6 months of reading .
Click to expand...
"Reading" is not extraordinary evidence. All you have done is let others convince you of what you want to believe.

If this extraordinary evidence exists, then by definition, you would not have to send us on a wild goose chase to go find some of this ill-defined idea of yours for evidence. You could just show us, or tell us were it is, directly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top