Woo Argument Flowcharts

[Phrost]

Having done an extensive bit of arguing with believers, woos, and the like, over the internet, it's really easy to see the same patterns in their arguments crop up.

What I was wondering is if there would be some benefit to creating a sort of "flowchart" of the typical arguing tactics used by these people who show great skill in deftly avoiding logic and reason.

I imagine this would be very useful in helping to "nail them down" when they're being evasive, and extremely convenient to point out "yes, you're at step 7a right here on our handy chart" instead of playing the same game over and over.

What do you guys think? Would it be a fun exercise at least, or would it be too much work?

[CLD]

Robert L. Park's 7 Signs Of Pseudoscience is a good place to start.

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation

[Normal Dude]

Every step in the explanatory portion needs to have either "Energy" or "Quantum _______" mentioned.

[Blue Wode]

You might like to consider these:

The 10 commandments of pseudoscience:
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/180_11_070604/ern10789_fm.pdf

The 12 unspoken ground rules that "alt-med" believers impose on any debate:
http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/altmed_debate_laidler.html

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Have you seen this (http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html) flowchart?

[JoeEllison]

The anti-global warming losers follow the exact same patterns... and they get really offended when you point it out. :)

[The_Animus]

I seriously do not understand how people think global warming is a scam. But then again I don't understand how people think about many things.

[JoeEllison]

I seriously do not understand how people think global warming is a scam. But then again I don't understand how people think about many things.Why are people creationists, or think that HIV/AIDS is some sort of hoax? It is the same sort of thinking, only pointed in a slightly different direction.

The really weird think, the question I want answered, is how someone can be strongly against a couple of different woo beliefs, and at the exact same time hold a couple of those beliefs themselves? You see it here all the time: someone will post about how ridiculous it is to be a creationist, with its assumption that the worldwide scientific community is part of a giant conspiracy... and their very next post is to claim that there is a giant scientific community conspiracy to push global warming.

That's weirder than my brain can handle without a Tylenol and a couple of beers.

[rjh01]

I love this thread. Love the flowchart.

I give you a present. One extra tag.

[SusanB-M1]

Have you seen this (http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html) flowchart?

My Supernova voice will not work on that site, so I wonder if you could please just type out the captions on the flow chart for me? From what I can see (with magnification) they look fun. Thank you.

[Normal Dude]

It shows a flowchart of the scientific process, which is multi-branched depending on results and new evidence and what not, and next to it is a flowchart of Faith, which goes in a straight line:

Start ---> Get an Idea ---> Ignore Contradicting Evidence ---> Keep Idea Forever ---> End

[arthwollipot]

In Philip Ball's book H20: A Biography of Water (1999), he recounts Irving Langmuir's six criteria of pathological science:

i. The phenomena responsible for the claims made are barely detectable.
ii. The phenomena are provoked by a cause of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is independent of the intensity of the cause.
iii. The observation of the phenomenon is claimed to great accuracy.
iv. The explanation offered is extraordinary and conflicts with previous experience.
v. Criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses, often thought up on the spur of the moment.
vi. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to about 50:50, and then declines to virtually zero.

Unfortunately this was not published, but "preserved for posterity in a poor-quality recording of a lecture that he delivered in 1953 at a laboratory of the General Electric corporation". And now in Ball's book.

[Normal Dude]

Here is a list from skeptoid #37, by Brian Dunning: How to spot pseudoscience:

1. Does the claim meet the qualifications of a theory?

2. Is the claim said to be based on ancient knowledge?

3. Was the claim first announced through mass media, or through scientific channels?

4. Is the claim based on the existence of an unknown form of "energy" or other paranormal phenomenon?

5. Do the claimants state that their claim is being suppressed by authorities?

6. Does the claim sound far fetched, or too good to be true?

7. Is the claim supported by hokey marketing?

8. Does the claim pass the Occam's Razor test?

9. Does the claim come from a source dedicated to supporting it?

10. Are the claimants up front about their testing?

11. How good is the quality of data supporting the claim?

12. Do the claimants have legitimate credentials?

13. Do the claimants state that there's something wrong with the norm?

14. Is the claim said to be "all natural"?

15. Does the claim have support that is political, ideological, or cultural?


How extensive of a flowchart should we do? Will it be very generalized or specific to each woo flavor?

[Rolfe]

On Saturday evening Chillzero, Brodski and I went to a "psychic medium comedy" show at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. One gem of logic went like this:

These sceptics, they call all this sort of thing "mumbo-jumbo". Well that sounds very clever, but mostly that's because it rhymes. When you really think about it, things don't have to rhyme to be true. Because, what about oranges then? There's no rhyme for "orange". But we all know oranges exist. Therefore I can talk to dead people!


It's about as sensible as much of what I've heard from woos.

Rolfe.

[Normal Dude]

A compelling argument indeed. :cool:

[Cactus Wren]

SusanB-M1, in case you're still curious, here's a fuller description of the "Science" flowchart:

It starts with "Start", but has no "End". The first step after "Start" is "Get an idea". Next is "Perform Experiment".

After that, "Does the evidence support the idea?" Yes or no? If "No", then "Bad Idea", and cycle back to the "Get an Idea" step.

However, if the answer to "Does the evidence support the idea?" is "Yes", the next point is "Theory created", and after that is "Use theory to better understand the universe". (This is the box with a bright-yellow border and stars around it.)

Next step, "Discover new evidence".

"Can the theory be modified to explain the evidence?" Y/N

If "No", then -- "Revolution!" and cycle allllll the way back to "Get an idea".

But if "Yes", then "Improve theory" and cycle back to "Use theory to better understand the universe".

[Phrost]

How extensive of a flowchart should we do? Will it be very generalized or specific to each woo flavor?

I think we should probably limit it to forum discussions.

The reason I created this thread was due to TaiChi and his "oblongular" (not even circular) logic and attempts to evade having to provide evidence supporting his views.

It's really easy to have a discussion when both parties are willing to admit when they're wrong based on evidence. But when you've got people for whom "evidence" is an is a nebulous sort of thing combined with a desperate desire to cling to their beliefs in spite of facts, you get endless arguments that generally accomplish little more than providing entertainment for the people involved.

I'm a big fan of getting to the point and cutting through the "BS". We have a list of logical fallacies. We have Godwin's Law. I think it's time for something a little more sophisticated than the "arguing on the Internet" image macro (which I won't repost here).

[Starthinker]

On Saturday evening Chillzero, Brodski and I went to a "psychic medium comedy" show at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. One gem of logic went like this:

These sceptics, they call all this sort of thing "mumbo-jumbo". Well that sounds very clever, but mostly that's because it rhymes. When you really think about it, things don't have to rhyme to be true. Because, what about oranges then? There's no rhyme for "orange". But we all know oranges exist. Therefore I can talk to dead people!


It's about as sensible as much of what I've heard from woos.

Rolfe.

Door hinge?

[robinson]

I don't think you can flowchart the Woo mind process.

[phildonnia]

Robert L. Park's 7 Signs Of Pseudoscience...
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation

Pardon, but isn't this how scientific progress occurs?

[Zep]

A compelling argument indeed. :cool:Yes, but for what?!

[Normal Dude]

Yes, but for what?!

I have no idea. That's why it's so compelling!

[Normal Dude]

Pardon, but isn't this how scientific progress occurs?

I think the meaning was that new laws of nature are not lightly adopted by the scientific community, and it's often a historical event if it does. Compare this against the mass of claims whose theories rest on new laws of nature.


As for Tai Chi, I think it would be rather to easy to flowchart his stratagem:

Make random semi-comprehensible one-liners ---> semi-comprehensible one-liners are challenged ---> Respond with another, slightly different random semi-comprehensible one-liner ---> slightly different random semi-comprehensible one-liner is challenged ---> Disappear and/or put challenger on ignore

Done!

[articulett]

I find it interesting to ask the woo what would make them change their mind... and if they avoid the answer (they always do... or they answer obliquely) then they have a faith based claim... not amenable to reason.

I ask the AGW deniers what the imagine the difference would be if the AGW was real and the kind of thing all people should be concerned about-- Because if AGW was incorrect, I'd expect to see a wellspring of scientists presenting their evidence in peer reviewed papers and telling people to relax--but instead I see more and more scientists and skeptics sounding the alarm bell--from many different areas of science--

The woo always have weird vague "loaded" questions they ask...and they ignore so many questions and attempts at getting them to clarify... they are forever playing semantic games to frame the issue into a question with some sort of implication... science aims to clarify... you understand more-- With woo--you hear a lot of words, but the aim is to obfuscate.... I always end up understanding less. Lots of words--nothing said.

Denial (like T'ai putting everyone on ignore), a complete lack of curiosity to the answer to the questions they ask, tangential arguments, and goal post moving are sure signs. They also tend to say things like "I'm skeptical of the skeptics" or "scientists have faith the sun will come up", etc. They'll accuse forum members and/or everyone else who disagrees with them as being part of some conspiracy or clique-- they blame their failure to communicate on others rather than the incoherency of their claims. The "orange" example above was an excellent example.
What are they trying to say?-- They are inferring something about skeptics being wrong, but they're not saying anything coherent enough to address.

[articulett]

Oh... and try to get one woo to sum up what another woo just said-- they don't even understand each other, I suspect. I don't think creationists really understand other creationists... they just latch on to the part that makes sense with whatever it is they want to believe. Go ahead, try it. Really. Woos have to align with each other so they feel like they are making sense to someone other than themselves... but they can't paraphrase one another for the most part. They can't even engage in diaglogue with the people who seem to share their same warped version of reality.

[Niobe]

Every step in the explanatory portion needs to have either "Energy" or "Quantum _______" mentioned.

Something like this?

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/3997/woobingodl2.gif

[articulett]

Niobe--that's fantastic! Did you make it yourself? I might add some words--(energy, vibes, "inner knowingness", astral, ether, organic, "outside science", soul, "brains in vats", karma, darwinist, conspiracy... gosh there is so many) I bet we could come up with enough for many hours of woo bingo fun.

[arthwollipot]

Everyone's supposed to have a different card, aren't they? Or they'd all be shouting "woo-woo!" at once.

[SusanB-M1]

Normal Dude and Cactus Wren

Thank you for the explanations.

[articulett]

Everyone's supposed to have a different card, aren't they? Or they'd all be shouting "woo-woo!" at once.

Yep... so add more words...

[Normal Dude]

Heh... we could start a forum bingo game. :)

[rjh01]

More words
- alternative
- complementary
- free energy
- Scientist know nothing (or words to that effect)
- testimonials.
- Eastern
- secret revealed
- Make money

[Niobe]

And if all else fails you could checkmark any item on the Doggerel index (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/05/doggerel-index-suggestions.html).

[articulett]

More words
- alternative
- complementary
- free energy
- Scientist know nothing (or words to that effect)
- testimonials.
- Eastern
- secret revealed
- Make money

oooh... those are good...

How about:
"law of attraction"
"doctors don't want you to know"
synergistic

[Starthinker]

How could you forget:

Magnetic
Crystal
Doesn't work when you watch me (is there a word for this?)

[In My Spare Time]

Rough draft. Suggestions?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1800646c1ffa0b1904.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7722)

[Phrost]

Rough draft. Suggestions?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1800646c1ffa0b1904.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7722)

Beautiful.

We could probably flesh out the part about anecdotes to include assertions, "Faith", scripture, appeals to authority, etc.

[In My Spare Time]

Beautiful.

We could probably flesh out the part about anecdotes to include assertions, "Faith", scripture, appeals to authority, etc.

I like that. I'll see if I can come up with something prettier after work today.

[articulett]

How could you forget:

Magnetic
Crystal
Doesn't work when you watch me (is there a word for this?)

oh... those are good... as for the latter "bad vibes" or "skeptics have negative energy"-- or it takes "faith" to work. What are some of the keywords of the AGW deniers? Creationists like to use words that mix up science and religion--like "scientism" or "evolutionarianism" or "Darwinism".

telepathic, out of body, astral, healing, manifest, qualia....

[Normal Dude]

Activ-On (is that how it spelled?), 30C, ESP, chakra...

I think we should start another thread for this?

[quixotecoyote]

Rough draft. Suggestions?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1800646c1ffa0b1904.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7722)

Very nice. You need some arrows at the Skeptic convinced box to make the flow clear.

[orphia nay]

Rough draft. Suggestions?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1800646c1ffa0b1904.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7722)

Can you make it bigger? Even I can't read that, and I'm short sighted.


Something like this?

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/3997/woobingodl2.gif

Awesome.

On a slightly related note, some of you may be interested in my Twoofer Bingo card (http://orphia-nay.blogspot.com/) (Minadin helped me with the image):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/488446c27cb044990.png

[Mangafranga]

Rough draft. Suggestions?Maybe some sort of "The skeptic anti-powers are making my powers fail" box.

[articulett]

Wow... such brilliance... I love it...

what about circular anecdote support...

or chain of hearsay from supposed reliable sources...

or "if science can't explain it then my woo is true"...

I bet sylvia browne could have her own bingo card-- "I'm getting the letter M" ...

[orphia nay]

Wow... such brilliance... I love it...

what about circular anecdote support...

or chain of hearsay from supposed reliable sources...

or "if science can't explain it then my woo is true"...

I bet sylvia browne could have her own bingo card-- "I'm getting the letter M" ...

Are you referring to In My Spare Time's flowchart, or Niobe's bingo card?

[articulett]

Are you referring to In My Spare Time's flowchart, or Niobe's bingo card?

I think all 3 graphics were great-- yours especially so-- loved the mock up. I really am impressed and amused. There are several posters who I could count on for a ready bingo, I'm sure. If nothing else, it relieves frustration to find ways to enjoy woo predictability.

I loved this forum for stuff like this. I feel like I'm hanging with the cool, smart, clever peeps. :)

I can imagine a forum game where we could play such bingo with known woo and new woo... we could enjoy their platitudes or arguments without accusations of insensitivity. They are pretty impervious... I don't think an occasional interjection of "bingo!" would make a dent. Of course strategies would develop to get them to say the next woo thing that you need on your card-- prodding and the like... but it's nicer than celebrity death pools... and challenging too...

I'm just impressed with the cleverness and humor and shared observations of my fellow skeptics. I wish I had the artistic flair displayed with the graphics.

[orphia nay]

Thanks very much, articulett. :) As I said, Minadin helped with the graphics, but it was based on what I wrote in my sig.

I agree, this is a great place, full of great minds who can teach us lots, as I am reminded of daily. Thanks again.

[plumjam]

I'd imagine that any such flow-chart would be the same for both Believers and Skeptics.

They are all just modes of argument, no matter which "side" they are on.

[articulett]

Thanks very much, articulett. :) As I said, Minadin helped with the graphics, but it was based on what I wrote in my sig.

I agree, this is a great place, full of great minds who can teach us lots, as I am reminded of daily. Thanks again.

I stole all 3 graphics... but I promise not to plagiarize. At least I am tapped into one big forum of cleverness even if I don't necessarily have any particular graphic talent. Sometimes I get absorbed flinging barbs at the few posters who annoy me, and forget to compliment the many posters whom I admire, enjoy, and giggle with.

[Orthoptera]

The great elegance of Randi's Challenge is that he simply asks people to do what they say they can do. I have come to realize in the past few years that pretty much all debate with regard to religion, psuedosciences, alternative therapies, etc. comes down to quibbling over excuses, and not the thing itself. Randi's Challenge is simply to put up or shut up, so in that spirit, I offer my own flowchart: it's not so much a help in debating wierd things, as to remind the reader to consider when he or she is merely pondering the validity of excuses, rather then the validity of the claim.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_752046c309bd21b7f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7750)

[Normal Dude]

That's awesome! Good work! :) :)

[Phrost]

Awesome.

On a slightly related note, some of you may be interested in my Twoofer Bingo card (http://orphia-nay.blogspot.com/) (Minadin helped me with the image):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/488446c27cb044990.png

I see you modified that from an original elsewhere. I hope you don't mind if I make a Bullshido version.

[Magic 9-Ball]

Orthoptera, that is now my wallpaper on my computer (with permission, of course).

And the bingo idea sounds like great fun. We could watch whenever Larry King, Dateline, ABC or whomever has a Woo story or person scheduled, and we'd have our bingo cards with us.

Of course, it's likely someone would have a bingo within the first minute of the program!

I have additional words:

dilutions
bending spoons
demon(s)
exorcism
intelligent design
Roswell
life force
resonance
EMF

[Orthoptera]

Orthoptera, that is now my wallpaper on my computer (with permission, of course).


Thanks for the compliment-- feel free to use the graphic:)

[JoeEllison]

I'd imagine that any such flow-chart would be the same for both Believers and Skeptics.

They are all just modes of argument, no matter which "side" they are on.
Yeah, the same way "correct" and "incorrect" are really the same thing?

Give it a rest, would you?

[CFLarsen]

My take on Orthoptera's chart:

http://skepticreport.com/resources/skepticsflowchart.jpg

[In My Spare Time]

New, Improved version:
more readable text, filled out argument section, improved flow without having to use arrows, which I suck at making. Also made SKEPTIC a little scarier. I don't know how to make the image bigger in the post, but clicking it should make it show pretty well.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1800646c3460b82ed5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7753)

[robinson]

Isn't this about a flowchart to help argue with Woos?

[CLD]

My take on Orthoptera's chart:

http://skepticreport.com/resources/skepticsflowchart.jpg

Branching off "Is claimant willing to demonstrate/independently replicate/provide evidence of claim?" I'd add a box with "Claimant points to study in pseudoscientific journal".

[Fnord]

What do you think?

[CFLarsen]

Branching off "Is claimant willing to demonstrate/independently replicate/provide evidence of claim?" I'd add a box with "Claimant points to study in pseudoscientific journal".

That is covered in the "Conduct objective test / examine evidence".

[CLD]

Branching off "Is claimant willing to demonstrate/independently replicate/provide evidence of claim?" I'd add a box with "Claimant points to study in pseudoscientific journal".That is covered in the "Conduct objective test / examine evidence".

In my experience, the woo argument branches here into, "But the study in the pseudoscientific journal IS objective! It was peer reviewed!"

[CFLarsen]

In my experience, the woo argument branches here into, "But the study in the pseudoscientific journal IS objective! It was peer reviewed!"

Yeah, remotely.

[articulett]

Yeah, remotely.

:D

[cyborg]

I think this thread is appropriate to reproduce my table in:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90050

Mechanism|Reasoning|Example|Post hoc failure explanation|Real reason for failure
Secret Utterances|Say the right password to nature and nature will give you access to things normally impossible to do. A bit like a hacking a computer program to gain control of the outer system that can do more than the constrained environment you're in|Harry Potter's pseudo Latin phrases|Got the words wrong|No one is listening
Sacrifice|When you want something from someone else you need to trade for it; if you want something from nature you also need to trade for it.|Burning an animal in order to get favourable farming conditions|Didn't sacrifice the right thing or enough of it.|Nature isn't interested in material possession
Submission|Total and utter obedience to the whims of Nature. Bad behaviour leads to punishment. Good behaviour leads to rewards.|Popular in monotheistic religions|You or someone else was breaking the rules. Punish them to regain favour.|Nature doesn't care how you behave

[lister]

More Bingo phrases:

- Ancient Chinese
- Meridians
- Just Know
- Feel sorry for you
- Used to be a sceptic

[articulett]

More Bingo phrases:

- Ancient Chinese
- Meridians
- Just Know
- Feel sorry for you
- Used to be a sceptic

those or good

how about "I used to be an atheist"
Dawkins is (shrill, strident, militant, arrogant)

Did somebody already say "science doesn't know everything" or "it's outside the sphere of science"?)

Starting threads with inane questions...
--posting here without seeming to have read anything here or anywhere else
calling skeptics "rude" as a group

And the grammar, spelling, and logic errors-- woo and poor writing seem linked somehow-- I can't tell if the woo are just stupider or if the stupid are just more drawn to woo or if it's a loop... The ignorant spawn more (religious memes... poor impulse control etc.)... they pass the ignorant genes and memes onto their spawn and the cycle repeats...

[skeptigirl]

There is a missing idea from these flow charts, an examination of the underlying causes of failure to accept the evidence.

Is it a knowledge deficit? Is it a processing deficit? Is there a short in the brain's wiring system?

These flow charts are very useful, so don't get me wrong. But I'd like to see us explore a little deeper into the processes involved which leads to someone believing all scientists are either invisible, in on the scam or duped. What is it that makes a person ignore the contradictory evidence and just go on arguing the same old tired stuff? And what kind of process is going on in a brain that truly believes they have put all the pieces together when they clearly haven't?

[articulett]

There is a missing idea from these flow charts, an examination of the underlying causes of failure to accept the evidence.

Is it a knowledge deficit? Is it a processing deficit? Is there a short in the brain's wiring system?

These flow charts are very useful, so don't get me wrong. But I'd like to see us explore a little deeper into the processes involved which leads to someone believing all scientists are either invisible, in on the scam or duped. What is it that makes a person ignore the contradictory evidence and just go on arguing the same old tired stuff? And what kind of process is going on in a brain that truly believes they have put all the pieces together when they clearly haven't?

Confirmation bias.

[Normal Dude]

Here are words for the Bingo, by no means complete. They are more or less alphabetized. 209 words.

Acupuncture, Ad-Hominem, Activ-On, alchemy, allopathic, alternative, ancient Chinese, angel, Armageddon, artificial, astral, astrology, aura, automatic writing, banshee, Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot, Big Meany, BigPharma, brains in vats, bunyip, chakra, channeling, charms, chimera, chiropractic, chemicals, chi, clairaudience, clairvoyance, Clever Hans, close minded, cold reading, complementary, conjecture, conspiracy, crop circles, crystal, crystal ball, cynic, darwinist, debunk, demonology, devil, dilution, disprove, divination, dowsing, Eastern, ectoplasm, educated, energy, EMF, ESP, ether, exorcism, exaggerate, facts, faith, fairies, fanciful, Fascists, flat Earth, free energy, frequency, Galileo, ghost, government, graphology, healing, holistic, homeopathy, hormones, horoscope, hypnosis, Illuminati, imbalance, infinite, inner knowingness, intelligent design, intuition, invisible, just know, karma, law of attraction, levitation, life force, loch Ness, magic, magnetic, make money, manifest, materialism, medium, mentalist, meridians, miraculous, monster, natural, negative vibes, new age, numerology, occult, organic, Ouija board, out of body, paradigm, paranoia, paranormal, parapsychology, parsimony, pendulum, perpetual motion, persecution, phrenology, pink invisible unicorn, poltergeist, prayer, premonition, pseudoscience, psi, psychic, psychic surgery, psychography, psychometry, qi, quack, qualia, quantum, read my book, reincarnation, remote viewing, Reptilians, research, resonance, Roswell, séance, secret revealed, shaman, shill, sorcery, soul, spirit, spiritual, spoon bending, straw man, supernatural, synergistic, Tarot, tea leaf reading, telekinesis, telepathy, teleportation, testimonials, toxins, trance, truth, UFO, vampire, vibrations, vital, voodoo, witch, Wellness, Western, worldview, woo, Yeti, zodiac, zombie, 30C

[Orthoptera]

My take on Orthoptera's chart:

CFLarsen: Thanks for punching up the graphics! I'm still living in the '90s, all too apparently.:)

[orphia nay]

I see you modified that from an original elsewhere. I hope you don't mind if I make a Bullshido version.

Feel free! I'd love to see your version when it's done. :)


What do you think?


Excellent! :) Are you going to upload it somewhere?



A woo at another forum coincidentally posted this yesterday:

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/nicoland/fruitloopcharts.jpg

I posted my Twoofer bingo card, and no-one's replied.

[arthwollipot]

Here are words for the Bingo, by no means complete. They are more or less alphabetized. 209 words.

We're not worthy! We're not worthy!

[articulett]

Normal Dude-- how did you amass that list... hey, are you the Skepdic's dictionary's Bob Carroll?

Great list. Bob Carroll is cool-- rumpology... I learned about rumpology from Bob Carroll at TAM5.

[Normal Dude]

I took the terms already batted around in here, added some of my own, then went to the JREF encyclopedia and started going down the list. :P

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingo_%28US%29),

A standard bingo card is 5x5 with the middle being a freebie. Thus 24 words per card.

Also, the numbers 1-75 are used. So that means we only have to pick that many words/terms out of the list above.

I will mess around with Excel and see if I can get it to automatically make randomized bingo cards.

Alas, I am not Bob Carroll. He has got a really nice site going. My name is Chris Nelson.

[articulett]

I took the terms already batted around in here, added some of my own, then went to the JREF encyclopedia and started going down the list. :P

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingo_%28US%29),

A standard bingo card is 5x5 with the middle being a freebie. Thus 24 words per card.

Also, the numbers 1-75 are used. So that means we only have to pick that many words/terms out of the list above.

I will mess around with Excel and see if I can get it to automatically make randomized bingo cards.

Alas, I am not Bob Carroll. He has got a really nice site going. My name is Chris Nelson.

Wow. We are not worthy.

Great minds here on planet JREF. CLD is playing... but I don't know how he's crossing off his answers...

[orphia nay]

I took the terms already batted around in here, added some of my own, then went to the JREF encyclopedia and started going down the list. :P

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingo_%28US%29),

A standard bingo card is 5x5 with the middle being a freebie. Thus 24 words per card.

Also, the numbers 1-75 are used. So that means we only have to pick that many words/terms out of the list above.

I will mess around with Excel and see if I can get it to automatically make randomized bingo cards.

Alas, I am not Bob Carroll. He has got a really nice site going. My name is Chris Nelson.

Excellent! Lots of fun and possibilities in the idea. :)

One suggestion: Add "matrix" to the list of words?

[skeptigirl]

Confirmation bias.With that in mind, does having the logical response to the woo positions have any effect?

In other words, should be be dealing just with the logical response or is there something else we can do to address confirmation bias?

[CLD]

double post

[CLD]

Great minds here on planet JREF. CLD is playing... but I don't know how he's crossing off his answers...

Photoshop.

Surely someone ought to be able to cobble together a FLASH version of a woo bingo card that allows you to mark your "hits" and then copy a link to your marked-up card.

There should be prizes for getting a BINGO too.

*I was real close to getting BINGO with plumjam but my card had too many homeopathy and herbal medicine terms on it that never were used in that discussion. So I suggest either increasing the number of terms or creating a truly random mix.

[Normal Dude]

I have a prototype automated bingo card creation ready. : )

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1322/bingoviewfq3.th.jpg (http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bingoviewfq3.jpg)

Basically uses Excel and 75 words, 15 each randomly assigned per column, just like "official" bingo. Hitting F9 reproduces a new card.

I don't have any programming skills, so this is the best I can do.

[articulett]

Excellent! Lots of fun and possibilities in the idea. :)

One suggestion: Add "matrix" to the list of words?

yes...and turing machine (or turing test) (or just turing). And epistemology. And reductionism or monism. Unless, of course we have too many words already.

[Normal Dude]

For it to be legit bingo, it is 75. So we have already have plenty. Although we can always make subject-specific sets. :)

[Blue Wode]

There is a missing idea from these flow charts, an examination of the underlying causes of failure to accept the evidence.

Is it a knowledge deficit? Is it a processing deficit? Is there a short in the brain's wiring system?

These flow charts are very useful, so don't get me wrong. But I'd like to see us explore a little deeper into the processes involved which leads to someone believing all scientists are either invisible, in on the scam or duped. What is it that makes a person ignore the contradictory evidence and just go on arguing the same old tired stuff? And what kind of process is going on in a brain that truly believes they have put all the pieces together when they clearly haven't?


A comprehensive psychological analysis from the late Barry Beyerstein:


If only ignorant and gullible people accepted far-fetched ideas, little else would be needed to explain the abundance of folly in modern society. But, as James Alcock discusses in this issue of SRAM, many people who are neither foolish nor ill-educated still cling fervently to beliefs that fly in the face of well-established research.

-snip-

So, if an unorthodox therapy:

(a) is implausible on a priori grounds (because its implied mechanisms or putative effects contradict well-established laws, principles, or empirical findings in physics, chemistry, or biology);

(b) lacks a scientifically acceptable rationale of its own;

(c) has insufficient supporting evidence derived from adequately controlled outcome research;

(d) has failed in well-controlled clinical studies done by impartial evaluators and has been unable to rule out competing explanations for why it might seem to work in uncontrolled settings; and

(e) should seem improbable, even to the lay person, on "common sense" grounds;

why would so many well-educated people continue to sell and purchase such a treatment?


Read on….

http://sram.org/0302/bias.html

[articulett]

I have a prototype automated bingo card creation ready. : )

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1322/bingoviewfq3.th.jpg (http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bingoviewfq3.jpg)

Basically uses Excel and 75 words, 15 each randomly assigned per column, just like "official" bingo. Hitting F9 reproduces a new card.

I don't have any programming skills, so this is the best I can do.

But we aren't limited to 75... because Bingo has a set number of balls that must come up... we're only limited to the English language... So we can run the program multiple times with any set of 75 words and change them at whim, right? We could have general woo and new age woo and creationist woo and truther woo...

CLD photoshopped his scorepad to mark of the "hits"... I know we have a highlighting function in the html editor...

I think it would be fun even if I had to print out the card and play along at home.

[skeptigirl]

A comprehensive psychological analysis from the late Barry Beyerstein:Hey, that's great. Thanks.

[articulett]

With that in mind, does having the logical response to the woo positions have any effect?

In other words, should be be dealing just with the logical response or is there something else we can do to address confirmation bias?

I think Randi does it by fooling people and then showing them how easily they can be fooled. And humor does it too... I think Jon Stewart is great... Bill Maher... but I'm guessing that flies over most people's heads. I'm not sure if anything works. I try to think about what changed my thinking and ask others how they changed or what it would take to convince them... I think questions... are good... that's what prodded me... my own and everyone elses... and asking people if they'd want to know if they were wrong (or if there was no god) etc.-- lots of people just don't think of these questions.

But woo is pretty hard to change as you can see on these forums. I remember reading about getting people to change their views and it's kind of insidious-- you start by showing all your areas of agreement and then complementing their intelligence or intuition, etc. so they see you reflecting an intelligent person back at them and then you get them to move an inch forward via a question like the one above... something where it wouldn't be much to admit that yes, some psychics are fake (or whatever)--some schizophrenics have claimed to be saviors... etc. But the more you push, the more they manufacture reasons like a teen girl told that her dad forbids her from dating some dude. Flatter their ability to figure things out for themselves.

The woo that come here, probably won't change... maybe seeds will get planted--but others see the posts and learn... I learn from so many people here...and it gives us practice at communicating these ideas. And sometimes it's fun just to have fun with them.

But if deprogramming was simple then woo wouldn't be the force that it is--

I wonder how professional deprogrammers do it... and what a deprogrammed cult member thinks...

There are a couple of great books on the topic--one is called Persuasion (I think) by Robert Levine (?)-- another is called Influence by Cialdini.
But the key is to let people at least feel they've discovered skepticism and so forth by themselves due to their desire to know the TRUTH or to distinguish the real leaders from the fake gurus or whatever.

[Normal Dude]

But we aren't limited to 75... because Bingo has a set number of balls that must come up... we're only limited to the English language... So we can run the program multiple times with any set of 75 words and change them at whim, right? We could have general woo and new age woo and creationist woo and truther woo...

CLD photoshopped his scorepad to mark of the "hits"... I know we have a highlighting function in the html editor...

I think it would be fun even if I had to print out the card and play along at home.

I think the reason 75 is chosen as a limit is to guarantee someone will actually get a bingo sooner or later. Too many words/numbers, and games will last forever and get boring. :)

And yes all I have to do is change the words entered, the spreadsheet does the rest. Hit prnt screen and save as a picture, and you got a score card.

[Normal Dude]

Bump. So how shall we do this? I am thinking start a specific thread, everyone who wants to play I will send a bingo score card.

I also have the program set up to randomly select the words from the scorecard. Then a "Bingo Master" will call at regular intervals the word. Thoughts?

[articulett]

Bump. So how shall we do this? I am thinking start a specific thread, everyone who wants to play I will send a bingo score card.

I also have the program set up to randomly select the words from the scorecard. Then a "Bingo Master" will call at regular intervals the word. Thoughts?

Maybe we could have a thread in the forum members area--
I thought we'd hunt for words via the woo posts like a scavenger hunt and mark them when we found them... but I don't know how we'd keep score.

[Normal Dude]

Maybe we could have a thread in the forum members area--
I thought we'd hunt for words via the woo posts like a scavenger hunt and mark them when we found them... but I don't know how we'd keep score.

That's a good idea - I hadn't thought of that. I will make a separate score card specifically for that purpose.

[orphia nay]

Great work, Normal Dude.

I was thinking along the lines that we could have a thread where someone suggests a woo web page or site (?) or JREF thread and participants each can be given a random bingo card. The Bingo master (who has a list of all words) calls out words they've found on the page/site (the draw from the barrel), and whoever gets a row wins.

[Normal Dude]

Another good idea... my suggestion is that we try each one in turn. : ) I will start another thread in the Forum Community.