How Do You/Should We Look At Woo?

[Kahalachan]

I'm assuming we all have the same goals for woo. We want it decreased. We don't want so many people wasting money and effort on it.

I guess I don't have a problem with someone who believes in ghosts if they don't waste their money with mediums or exhaust perfectly good resourses on it. If that is the natural state of their mind and they can't help it fine.

Woo is a bit irrational. Yes. So are phobias. So I'm a bit on the compassionate end. Unfortunately people with phobias may seek help. People with woo beliefs probably don't.

I guess my first goal of woo is for people to admit they have a problem. "I believe in homeopathy. But it's never been proven. I suppose I like easy answers to difficult problems. I should try and fix that"

When it directly conflicts with robust facts, I would say it's a problem. If it's something insoluble like a diety or an afterlife, then probably not so much a problem. Of course if we discover multiple universes scientifically and a Creator of this universe is still held onto, that would then be a problem.

I think Creationists need to admit to having issues. People who believe psychics can talk to the dead. Homeopathetics (Hah hah is that what you call people who believe in homepathy? With the word pathetic in it?:p )

[777]

I don't know if admitting problem is a good way to go. I know someone who knows absolutely why his woos are bad, he can reason it and recite evidence that contradicts it, but he can't give it up. I think we need to go deeper, and I don't know how. I really wnat to help that friend, so I guess I would use the help from the discourse.

[Kahalachan]

I don't know if admitting problem is a good way to go. I know someone who knows absolutely why his woos are bad, he can reason it and recite evidence that contradicts it, but he can't give it up. I think we need to go deeper, and I don't know how. I really wnat to help that friend, so I guess I would use the help from the discourse.

I would say that's a good first step for him though. It's the beginning, not solution.

Why does he strive towards it amidst the fallacies? Why can't he give it up?

We all do irrational things and it takes time and effort to give it up. Smokers all know it's ridiculous to smoke. Showing facts doesn't stop smoking.

There's the facts plus a bit of understanding on how to change the person that's involved. So often we get caught in preaching the facts and expect that to be sufficient.

The pure scientists lay out the facts and it's wonderful. Now the facts are out there, we've got to figure out how to make them digestable.


Edit: One thing I want to lay on the table is the idea of intellectual altruism. Where we don't purely compete with ideas to show why woo is inferior. That is evident.

I try my darndest to be understanding of the woo idea and acknowledge how and why they feel that way and through my open listening, they become receptive of my objections.

It kinda works and is a little more effective than just saying "Woo is bad" "This is better"

[jimtron]

This is tricky, because it's very difficult to convince someone their beliefs are mistaken, and they often take it quite personally. Imagine trying to convince someone who has political views diametrically opposed to your own, that you're right and he/she's wrong. Or convincing a Muslim, Christian, or Jew, that their religion is wrong but atheism, or a different religion is right.

When I look at all of the facts regarding god, or homeopathy, or psychics, it seems quite clear that there is no good evidence to support these things, and it should be a relatively easy to task to explain that, using reason and logic, to other people. But I've found that if they believe in these things, it's next to impossible to convince them otherwise, unless they already have critical/skeptical tendencies.

[kellyb]

I know for me, acknowledging that my religion "sounded" absurd was key to me eventually dropping it.
So maybe that's an ok place to start?

"You have to admit that this comes across as extremely unlikely."

"Can you admit that what you're proposing sounds sort of silly?"

[arthwollipot]

"Intellectual altruism". I like that.

[Warge]

I'm assuming we all have the same goals for woo. We want it decreased. We don't want so many people wasting money and effort on it.

I guess I don't have a problem with someone who believes in ghosts if they don't waste their money with mediums or exhaust perfectly good resourses on it. If that is the natural state of their mind and they can't help it fine.

Woo is a bit irrational. Yes. So are phobias. So I'm a bit on the compassionate end. Unfortunately people with phobias may seek help. People with woo beliefs probably don't.

I guess my first goal of woo is for people to admit they have a problem. "I believe in homeopathy. But it's never been proven. I suppose I like easy answers to difficult problems. I should try and fix that"

When it directly conflicts with robust facts, I would say it's a problem. If it's something insoluble like a diety or an afterlife, then probably not so much a problem. Of course if we discover multiple universes scientifically and a Creator of this universe is still held onto, that would then be a problem.

I think Creationists need to admit to having issues. People who believe psychics can talk to the dead. Homeopathetics (Hah hah is that what you call people who believe in homepathy? With the word pathetic in it?:p )

Fully agree sir. But I think it seems like the believers of woo has decreased since the late 90's, early 00's. There are still 13 a dozen but still, it seems woo gets less space in media nowadays too which of course plays its part.

[chillzero]

I think if you can take a stance that your own worldview could be wrong, then you would be on the right path with this. Believers believe that they are right every bit as much as skeptics do.

Take a minute to think about what convinces you most, and try to get a believer to do the same. Then you have grounds for a discussion. Even as a skeptic, you know, there may be things you are mistaken about ;)

[777]

woos make people feel better about themselves. I think that's why they can't drop it.

[Miss Whiplash]

Fully agree sir. But I think it seems like the believers of woo has decreased since the late 90's, early 00's. There are still 13 a dozen but still, it seems woo gets less space in media nowadays too which of course plays its part.

Decreased where? It's certainly still on the rise in the US. As for media coverage, a new season of "A Haunting (http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/haunting/about/about.html)" premieres tomorrow on the Discovery Channel.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know for me, acknowledging that my religion "sounded" absurd was key to me eventually dropping it.
So maybe that's an ok place to start?

"You have to admit that this comes across as extremely unlikely."

"Can you admit that what you're proposing sounds sort of silly?"
This sounds good--sort of like a chink in the armor.

The problem I have with the hard-core woos I've known is that they surround themselves with enough woos that they really lose sight of how absurd their claims sound.

Any discussion or reasonable criticism is considered "negative" and dismissed.

A former girlfriend was about the worst. She was really in a bad mood one day, and she offered as the explanation that "mercury is in retrograde--and I don't wanna hear any critiques of that". My critique is that she's not taking responsibility for own moods and subsequent behavior. But even that is too "negative".

I've also tried appeals based on questing for the truth and honesty. Regardless of how many people believe something, doesn't it matter to you at all whether or not it's true?

Sorry to rant--it's been a source of frustration for me.

[Warge]

Decreased where? It's certainly still on the rise in the US. As for media coverage, a new season of "A Haunting (http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/haunting/about/about.html)" premieres tomorrow on the Discovery Channel.

Really? Ok, I was not aware since I'm in the US, but here in Sweden we have had a quite a change as far as I know. 10 years ago, you couldn't open a paper without some whacko having something important/totally moronic to say.

Discovery tends to blend and send really good historical and scientific stuff with total BS which is why I don't watch it. You'll never know when the woo will emerge from a supposedly serious program...

[Miss Whiplash]

Really? Ok, I was not aware since I'm in the US, but here in Sweden we have had a quite a change as far as I know. 10 years ago, you couldn't open a paper without some whacko having something important/totally moronic to say.

Discovery tends to blend and send really good historical and scientific stuff with total BS which is why I don't watch it. You'll never know when the woo will emerge from a supposedly serious program...

In 2005, a survey found 73% of Americans believe in some form of the paranormal. Last summer another survey found belief in the paranormal was on the rise for college graduates. A whopping 91% of Americans now believe in god. The paranormal has also become a big industry in the US. The Discovery Channel, the History Channel and the Travel Channel have become purveyors of woo - ghost stories, legends, UFOs and conspiracy theories are portrayed as sensationalized facts.

Speculation shows can be interesting and educational when skeptics are given equal time. Viewers can be given a rational explanation for the events portrayed and learn wild claims must have evidence to be believable. There's no reality check in these shows. Skeptics are not seen or heard and rationality is more or less thrown out the window. People see these wild shows on TV and think this stuff is real. Since they were shown on a semi-educational channel, they assume the paranormal is a proven thing. It's a sad and disturbing trend.