What makes a woo tick? Someone clue me in.

[tkingdoll]

I'm not keen on internet debates with hardened woos, I usually just get annoyed. However, it's important to try, especially if a woo has come to a skeptic forum. But I am getting a bit sick of it because I don't understand why these people think the way they do. On the UK Skeptics forum, someone posted this:

incidences of apport are not uncommon. The best I have heard of is a fresh rose. More recently a friend woke up to find a large shiny nail beside her bed, after dreaming of nails (needless to say, it doesn't belong to her)

To which I replied (with a short temper):

I tell you what else is not uncommon: lying; attention seeking; twisting the facts to make them more interesting; being plain old mistaken; fantasizing; exaggerating; not realising an object was there the whole time before; noticing the object the night before in peripheral vision and that triggering a dream about the object; wishful thinking; etc etc.

There are many, many explanations for the nail story, Occams Razor giving us lots to choose from, including the least palatable but very likely 'it never happened' to the kinder and also very likely 'it didn't happen exactly as it was told to you'. Pick the simplest. It's the one most likely to be right.

At the absolute, rock bottom, doesn't-even-scrape-onto-the-list-of-potential-explanations you have "apported there by paranormal phenomena in defiance of all known physical laws and in the absence of an actual witness to the phenomena".

Will someone please explain to me where this drive, this compulsion to cling to a physically impossible explanation when there are so many well-document, human, possible, plausible and likely ones to choose from, actually comes from?

I appreciate you believe you are keeping an open mind, but can you explain to me the difference between accepting "someone apported a nail" without question and just being a creduloid?

I've bolded the bit that I am seeking an answer to, and thought I'd throw it open in here in the hope that someone can talk me out of the "this type of woo is just an idiot" thinking that I'm declining into.

Why do some people hear the nail dream story and just laugh, and then dismiss it as mundane, while others tell and retell it as proof of something science can't explain? There are few born critical thinkers, but there are also few born creduloids, so is this an educational difference? Cultural? Genetic? Something else?

[Zep]

The inability or reluctance to distinguish childish fantasy from reality. Or more simply: Failure to grow up.

[Capsid]

A pet theory of mine originating after learning about behavioural styles, is that it is to do with attention seeking.

[tkingdoll]

The inability or reluctance to distinguish childish fantasy from reality. Or more simply: Failure to grow up.

Is it willful, though? I mean, if it is, I guess I scorn it a bit. A lot. Or is it something that can't be helped? But then I'm into 'patronising tolerance' territory. Gah!

[Normal Dude]

I once heard a girl tell a story about how she had been ice skating and suddenly she realized it was fifteen minutes later. She felt like she had lost time, and asked how this would be possible. A man responded nonchalantly, "Oh, it was just a temporal warp. Nothing to be concerned about. Happens all the time."

??!! When I suggested that maybe, just maybe, she got carried away and lost track of time, the guy actually laughed at me and treated me like I had a screw loose.

??!!

[tkingdoll]

A pet theory of mine originating after learning about behavioural styles, is that it is to do with attention seeking.

But why does it manifest itself in that way? I mean, I'm an attention-seeker, but I don't get my kicks from making up or exaggerating stories about apporting objects from my dreams to the real world.

[Normal Dude]

I think it could, at least partially, be due to an over-riding need to assign meaning and patterns to everything we see - and if it makes us feel like we are a part of something larger.

[tkingdoll]

I think it could, at least partially, be due to an over-riding need to assign meaning and patterns to everything we see - and if it makes us feel like we are a part of something larger.

OK, but that doesn't answer my original question, which is why do some people feel that way and others don't?

[Zep]

Is it willful, though? I mean, if it is, I guess I scorn it a bit. A lot. Or is it something that can't be helped? But then I'm into 'patronising tolerance' territory. Gah!Yes, it is willful. At the least in that they willfully refuse to drop the fantasy when reality is demonstrated to be the real reason why "stuff happens".

I like a good fiction story as much as the next person, but these people want to live them out.

[Zep]

But why does it manifest itself in that way? I mean, I'm an attention-seeker, but I don't get my kicks from making up or exaggerating stories about apporting objects from my dreams to the real world.Because they have no special talents otherwise. So perhaps it could also be a touch of envy involved. ;)

[Normal Dude]

deleted

[tkingdoll]

Yes, it is willful. At the least in that they willfully refuse to drop the fantasy when reality is demonstrated to be the real reason why "stuff happens".

I like a good fiction story as much as the next person, but these people want to live them out.

But that reinforces my "these people are idiots and I may mock and deride them" instinct. Which I am trying to suppress because I don't think it's a quality.

[Jeff Corey]

Oh yeah, the old nature and nurture thing again. After all, what else is there?
But seriously, Shermer's "Why people believe in weird things", even better Gilovich's "Why we know what isn't so" attempt to explain this.
Oh no, Normal Dude deleted his "nature or nurture " post. That's why I couldn't quote it, he was diddling with it at the time.

[Zep]

But that reinforces my "these people are idiots and I may mock and deride them" instinct. Which I am trying to suppress because I don't think it's a quality.Depends on how you intend to mock and deride, I guess. ;) The idiots part is often correct though. :)

[RSLancastr]

Well Teek, first a mommy wood tick and a daddy wood tick love each other in a very special way...

Oh, wait.

Never mind.

[tkingdoll]

Oh yeah, the old nature and nurture thing again. After all, what else is there?
But seriously, Shermer's "Why people believe in weird things", even better Gilovich's "Why we know what isn't so" attempt to explain this.

I've read Shermer but not Gilovich. I will check that out. But I guess I'm referring specifically to people who actively seek out the debate with skeptics (such as in my OP) and yet still manage to learn nothing, and ignore all of the information around them. What makes that person tick?

People in general believe weird things, but some people specifically believe really weird things without question.

[Normal Dude]

Oh yeah, the old nature and nurture thing again. After all, what else is there?
But seriously, Shermer's "Why people believe in weird things", even better Gilovich's "Why we know what isn't so" attempt to explain this.
Oh no, Normal Dude deleted his "nature or nurture " post. That's why I couldn't quote it, he was diddling with it at the time.

I deleted it because I had realized that I was repeating something already said in different ways.

[Capsid]

But why does it manifest itself in that way? I mean, I'm an attention-seeker, but I don't get my kicks from making up or exaggerating stories about apporting objects from my dreams to the real world.This would only be one of the ways this person would behave, I guess. This is a description of the behavioural style I think woos fall in to.

Free Spirit, Expressive, or Enthusing Style

Free Spirit style personalities appear to be more flamboyant. They have a tendency to interact within relationships and they dislike any loss of prestige. Their pace is fast and spontaneous. They try to create an atmosphere that encourages flexibility. They achieve acceptance through sociability and creating a stimulating environment.

They want to be admired, seek recognition, and dislike being ignored. They want you to be stimulating because they are irritated by routine and boredom. They measure their personal worth by the amount of recognition and acknowledgement (or complaints) they receive.

Managers who want to be successful in influencing and working with a person who uses this style will need to support their dreams and ideas, and show how they can help enhance their standing with others.


From here (http://www.allaboutmedicalsales.com/articles_managing_performance/building_rapport_am_120104.html). I bolded "complaints" because they want good and bad recognition. So even if they know they are wrong about woo stuff, it doesn't matter because you have recognised them. If you really want to annoy them then ignore them. Don't feed the troll.
ETA: Found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_style)too.

[schlitt]

My viewpoint is unfortunately somewhat cynical, but i will offer it anyway.
The majority of people lack the capacity to grasp concepts beyond what satifies their needs emotionally. I think the ablility to look at your perception, from an objective viewpoint outside of your perception, is EXTREMELY rare.

[The Man]

Certainly some aspects can be attributed to psychological conditions particularly those indicated by visual and auditory hallucinations or an inability to distinguish dreams and fantasy from reality. Others, as mentioned, can just be a drive for attention that most of us have but, hopefully, do go to such extremes to obtain. Likewise I think it also stems from some peoples' need to feel special. If strange thing are happening to or around me then I must be very unique. I for one have always been very comfortable just being a normal average everyday guy. So although I can not perceive that kind of feeling, I am sure to some, just being part of the median can be a difficult concept to accept. Finally just as a good or embellished fish story will entertain your fisherman friends, I'm sure a good or embellished woo story will woo your woo friends.

[Dogdoctor]

Your whole life you are learning to deal with the world. As they grow up some people develop thought processes in which they view themselves as the expert in determining what is what. When faced with logic or data that disagrees with them the expert, it is quickly rejected as a trick or not true so they can preserve what they the expert knows is true. Said another way they want to believe in some things because if these imaginary happenings are true it fits well with their (faulty)view of the world.

[tkingdoll]

Certainly some aspects can be attributed to psychological conditions particularly those indicated by visual and auditory hallucinations or an inability to distinguish dreams and fantasy from reality. Others, as mentioned, can just be a drive for attention that most of us have but, hopefully, do go to such extremes to obtain. Likewise I think it also stems from some peoples' need to feel special. If strange thing are happening to or around me then I must be very unique. I for one have always been very comfortable just being a normal average everyday guy. So although I can not perceive that kind of feeling, I am sure to some, just being part of the median can be a difficult concept to accept. Finally just as a good or embellished fish story will entertain your fisherman friends, I'm sure a good or embellished woo story will woo your woo friends.

But what would then drive you to retell that story as fact on a skeptic site? I guess if it works in one crowd, you might assume it would work in another. In sympathetic company, it's a shortcut to popularity and acceptance. So why not use the same trick in a new situation.

Yes, there might be something in that.

[RayG]

One is not born skeptical, one becomes skeptical.

RayG

[athon]

But that reinforces my "these people are idiots and I may mock and deride them" instinct. Which I am trying to suppress because I don't think it's a quality.

Try to see it as 'these people are an animal called 'human', which has a range of behaviours evolved over time to deal with their social environments'. It means I don't quite think of them as idiots, but rather as an interesting species of animal.

Why don't we all behave that way? Subtle differences in behaviour allow some individuals to see the impact of such thinking and avoid it.

Athon

[Fnord]

What makes a woo tick?

IMHO, it has something to do with a disorder similar to "Munchausen By Proxy" or "Factitious Disorder by Proxy."

--> LINK (http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/general/sick/munchausen.html) <--

To paraphrase: "This relatively uncommon condition involves the exaggeration or fabrication of conspiracies or supernatural events by a self-proclaimed expert who misleads others into thinking that the events are real by lying and reporting fictitious episodes"

This is all a WAG on my part, so please look at what you know or perceive as similarities between wooish behavior and the aforementioned syndrome.

[Miss Whiplash]

But what would then drive you to retell that story as fact on a skeptic site? I guess if it works in one crowd, you might assume it would work in another. In sympathetic company, it's a shortcut to popularity and acceptance. So why not use the same trick in a new situation.

Yes, there might be something in that.

I can think of two reasons:

1) The old "I'm right, you're wrong. I know something you don't know. Na!Nayyyah!" reason.
2) The old " let's rearrange the cyberfuniture, rattle a few cages and get a rise out of people" reason.

[RayG]

But that reinforces my "these people are idiots and I may mock and deride them" instinct.

But will mocking and deriding them make them more skeptical? Carl Sagan didn't think so, and said as much in his Wonder and Skepticism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganws.htm) presentation back in 1995.

The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status. Whereas, an approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition, that recognizes that the society has arranged things so that skepticism is not well taught, might be much more widely accepted.RayG

[tkingdoll]

But will mocking and deriding them make them more skeptical? Carl Sagan didn't think so, and said as much in his Wonder and Skepticism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganws.htm) presentation back in 1995.

RayG

No, it won't, which is one of the reasons I fight my urge to do so. But then again, satire is a very powerful tool.

I dunno. Part of me says "this person has come to a skeptic site, this is an opportunity" and then the other, experienced part of me says "this person has come here to convince you their crap is true, not to learn. Mock them with all your might, for they haven't thought about what they are saying".

Which isn't very nice, given that we're all people.

[BrianSI]

Try to separate criticism of the human from the annoying parts of their behavior (which they could possibly change). (ETA: instead of "You are a moron!" ... "You ought to maybe think more on this.")


It's hard. But I do try.


Unless they are clearly trolling, then I think it's fine to take out all your frustrations on them.

[schlitt]

If you break down the typical argument between skeptic and woo, i think there are two distinct possibilities.

Here is a very simplistic example:

Woo: This is true
Skeptic: no it is not, here is the logical evidence why it is not true
Woo: But its still true
skeptic: *groan*

This is what seems to be going on:
1.) The Woo is not capable of processing the information in a meaningful way, and therefore cannot reach the logical conclusion.

2.) The woo is able to reach the logical conclusion, but it is against their best interests to accept it.

Number 1 would tend to suggest a lack of capacity with regard to thinking. Like asking a 32 bit computer CPU to run a 64 bit program.
This would not necessarily equate to low intellect, it could just show a defficiency in one particular area.

Number 2 would be linked to emotional state, and self denial.

I think even if people get past the first hurdle of number 1, number 2 is probably going to stop them anyway.

[Puppycow]

I think that credulity is our default state, which we are born with.
Critical thinking has to be learned, but some people never quite fully manage it.
My own mother, for example is a first-rate new-age Woo.
I think she believes this stuff because she has a social circle of good friends who are in fact nice people, but they all have these new-age Woo beliefs, and they reinforce each other.

So, one word for a scam artist is a "confidence man" (or confidence woman) It is a person who first wins your confidence and then once you really trust him/her, especially if you think he/she's smarter than you or has special powers, you will believe whatever they tell you.

Anyway, what I'm basically getting at is that most people start out gullible and when they trust someone like a parent or teacher on an emotional level, they will automatically believe almost anything that person says.

[ProbeX]

Yes, I agree there are many who jump to wild conclusions that appear to mindlessly point away from likely causation: plausible logic based on empirical data and accumulated knowledge. And I'm in agreement that there's a wellspring of "lazy logic" and lies couched as methodical reasoning or irrefutable truth.

At the same time, no one can claim with absolute certainty that one or more sane, intelligent and healthy people, somewhere on the planet at some time, has not experienced a highly unusual, repeatable or unrepeatable event that may defy the logic of physics as we understand it to date.

If such an event/s has occurred, it could reflect an aspect of physics that has thus far remained undiscovered; or a miscalculation in our understanding of physical laws. Science - a wonderful, but very human - endeavor, has shown itself to have blind spots in the past. Do not try and substitute the word improbable with impossible, is my recommendation. Yes, the bulk of these things sound silly (especially that nail - good god), but certain events that appear improbable, could turn out to be possible; a reality.

[Puppycow]

But what would then drive you to retell that story as fact on a skeptic site? I guess if it works in one crowd, you might assume it would work in another. In sympathetic company, it's a shortcut to popularity and acceptance. So why not use the same trick in a new situation.

Yes, there might be something in that.

This might be a case of "the exception proves the rule." Is this typical or atypical woo behavior? Don't most of them in fact prefer to post on woo-friendly boards? I've occasionally posted on sites hostile to my POV, but I don't make it a habit.

[Apathia]

We are natural born believers. Unless we bring awareness and mental discipline to our believing, emotions lead the way, sometimes very subtly.

Magical Thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
is very much emotional thinking and reacting.
I look over the elements of Sympathetic Magic and I see my own sentimentalities every time I fall in love.
Like woo-woo for chocolate!

Without think first, believe later, we believe whatever inspires us, whatever feeds our needs of significance and belonging.

The person who denies the beliefs we hang our affirmation and significance upon seems a betrayer of self-esteem and communal life.
Believing is seen as a virtue, not believeing as a negative abnormality.
Warm Fuzzies share their magical moments.
Cold pricklies debunk them.

Evolutionarily speaking, hormons and the limbic structures of the brain were guiding our behavior long ages before the Greeks and Vedics formulated the first rules of critical thinking.

It's not an us versus them. We are all just too Human.

Being skeptical is sometimes like riding a bike with flat tires uphill against the wind.

As for those who come as missionaries of their beliefs to this forum,
I think some of them are just so inspired by their ideas, that they assume that once we poor, deprived, "cold pricklies" see how wonderful these beliefs are, we will thank them for opening our eyes. They pity us for not having a heart commitment and groan when we ask for evidence or point out the flaws of their logic. They get angry at us for not being open to what spells intimacy for them. And we get angry because they deny the process by which we come to reliable common beliefs. It's a quite a culture clash.

[nails3jesus0]

i think people want things to be more exciting than they actually are. i know a lot of natural explanations are so interesting to skeptics but the general population doesnt think its so great a lot of the time.

[Explorer]

Irrational thought surely derives from the irrationality of our own existence as conscious human beings. This starts from the time a child first begins to ponder on the reason for its own existence.

This feeling that our existence is irrational does not sit comfortably with the everyday humdrum and routine of life. It is placed on the back burner, but every now and again it comes to the boil IMHO, when the subject of the paranormal is raised. In other words, the irrationality and mystery, the paranormal part of our own place in the world and universe, is some kind of base principle that is resorted to when trying to make sense of other so called strange and apparently inexplicable phenomena.

The irrationality of, and the need for a reason for our existence, leads many of us of down the most common form of "woo" (I really despise the use of that horrible word) thought, i.e. religion. Dawkins, in the God Delusion talks about this, but he does stop short of trying to rationalise the actual reason for our existence, which would have to take him down a more philosophical, non-science route.

Many people like to believe that the paranormal is part of life's great mystery, and want to believe that science cannot explain everything. Education is the key here, particularly scientific education. In the UK, students taking up the sciences is on the wane, and this is to be greatly regretted.

[articulett]

I don't know what makes them tick-- but just keep asking them questions... they like the attention. Sometimes if you try hard enough, you can make their head explode. And even if their head stays intact, you can still have fun...

One that I like to ask is, "Why is what you're saying more likely to be true than X" (insert "Scientology", Alien probes, or other woo claim of similar caliber.) Then they have to find a way to distinguish their woo from other woo to prove their woo is the true woo.

[Capsid]

To add to the idea of behavioural styles, an expressive person, who I think usually falls into the woo category, has a back up style i.e the sytle they adopt when backed into a corner (such as when asked for evidence on forums like this) is to attack. This fits I think with the frequent ad hominems that the woos resort to.

[Azrael 5]

Teek I sympathise with your OP. I get suspended from more forums for getting angry with woos. Not just believers,thos who claim to be in contact with spirit themselves! Why oh why?!
I wonder if it's a mental illness, a permanent state of fantasy?

[chillzero]

Teek, having had similar blinkers on myself when arriving at this forum, I can see many things that make believers tick, and also make them want to discuss it on skeptic forums. Everyone is different, and their reasons will vary, but a few would be as follows:

- They want to feel special, and feel there is nothing special enough about themselves, so they need to hang on to these beliefs.

- Other believers tend to be 'nicey-nicey', touchy-feely, and scientists are perceived as white coat wearing, indifferent, unfeeling, aloof people. There's a 'them and us' distrust that gets propogated.

- They genuinely want to spread the information about their experiences around, They feel that they can convince skeptics, and would love to do so. Think of the times you hear 'I used to be skeptical... until ...'

- They don't understand science, or scientific explanations.

- They feel that to deny contact with their dead loved ones is to reject or insult them somehow.

- Like missionaries, they feel that people can only be truly happy when they believe the truth as they see it - such as that the whole force of nature is there to support and guide each individual.

Personally, I am guilty of each of these at various times. I came here with my heels dug in, determined to show that my experiences with psychic phenomena were real. I wanted to share what I thought was the kind of euphoria that only an intimate relationship with the universe and nature could bring - that feeling that I was in my correct place, undertaking my correct role.

One of the members on UK Skeptics has a sigline that reads:
"Don’t take away my illusion -
they may be all that is keeping me alive"
I think this is quite telling of those people who refuse to listen to reasonable refutions of their beliefs. There is a large element of fear involved. With no understanding of science, etc, it is frightening to consider what comes after you change your beliefs. What do you have in place of contact with your loved ones, or the love of mother nature / gaia / spirit / whatever? They just see a big empty hole, and it is very scary.

[Darat]

From my years interacting with many bees on just this Forum I think there is certainly some who come here to help us understand the error of our ways. By the time they get to that stage they are totally convinced (because of their social group) that their interpretation of what happened, what the event means is correct and is set in stone.

They may not be able to say "your explanation is wrong because of X" but they know "our" explanation is wrong because they recognise that if our explanation was right their conclusion would be wrong. They aren't twits or liars, simply people who are wrong about at least one thing.

There are however also those that are just bonkers and seem to live in a different world one where, for example Satan's face is not just seen in the clouds of smoke and dust from the collapsing WTC towers but it is Satan's face. These are the type that I think are the most dangerous (and I do mean that word) these are the ones that can instigate such tragedies as wrapping a little girl in blankets and smothering her to death because they knew she was possessed by demons.

[H3LL]

On the OP:

Decide why one enjoys showing another a card trick.

The answer is probably there....

...or not.

.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Woo's don't bother me at all - battle of wits with an unarmed opponent and all that. It's all you sceptics that don't agree with me that keep me coming back.

One day you will know that I was right:D

[Cainkane1]

If you examine the lives of people who believe in the paranormal you'll find that they lead otherwise very empty lives. Woo gives them something to believe in much like religion. They are also able to get together with others like them and socialise.

Atheists often don't socilaise because by their very nature they are not joiners. I personally belong to no organization not even secular ones.

[chillzero]

If you examine the lives of people who believe in the paranormal you'll find that they lead otherwise very empty lives.

You know, I hate these generalisations. I hate how believers are labelled 'woos', and immediately assumed to be really stupid, uneducated, and empty. They come from all walks of life, all kinds of educational backgrounds, all kinds of communities, just like skeptics.

Believers are just as diverse as non-believers. In fact, even non-believers believe in something so the terminology is out of whack.

My life as a believer in the paranormal was far from empty. My life now is also far from empty. People sit on each side of this 'fence' and perpetrate myths about how the other side are close-minded, unimaginative, and lead empty lives. It is the same kind of bigotry I grew up with in Ulster.

I'm sorry for ranting, but the answer to Teek's question is absolutely not that they are all too stupid, devoid of life-meaning or mentally impaired to know any better.

[Locknar]

Well, I think the answer is simple; "woo'ers" are simply too stupid, or otherwise mentally impaired to know any better :)

Sorry CZ….for the habitual amateur comedian, that was just to much of a straight line to pass up; yes yes, I won’t quit my day job (haha).

Ok, seriously though….I think your (CZ) post raises several valid points.

Be it religion, ghosts, predicting the future, talking with the dead, etc. I think it all boils down to the “there has to be something more” wish/dream/desire that seems almost core to humanity.

Why do some folks seem “overwhelmed” by this desire, to the point of believing in “woo”…I don’t know. Safe to say one could easily eliminate being “mentally impaired” or “simply too stupid” arguments as there are plenty of brilliant, sane people that believe in some form of “woo”...dare I say (to second what CZ said) everyone believes in something.

I think one could argue that you are nothing more then the summation of your past experiences…and it is that summation of knowledge you use to process new information.

Add to that, everyone perceives and processes information differently; that is to say everyone’s experiences are unique to them...and everyone's brain is "wired" a bit differently.

Excluded from this are the frauds such as say SB, folks that know (or knew at some point) they have no special power/ability but rather prey on peoples natural trust, and the desire for “there has to be something more”.

[Cuddles]

I don't know why people act like this, but having had experience with the woo refered to in the OP I've already gone for the "ignore it and hope it goes away" option. Regardless of exactly why they are as they are, some people really are past helping, and I believe this person is one of them. If someone comes along, asks questions and engages in debate, it is at least possible to have a sensible conversation with them, even if you can't actually convince them of anything. If someone comes along and spouts the same crap as everyone else while claiming to be a leader not a follower and pretending to be original, refuses to listen to a word anyone says and complains about all the mean skeptics, there really is no point trying to talk to them.

In fact, even non-believers believe in something so the terminology is out of whack.

No they don't. That's what "non-believer" means.

[tkingdoll]

OK (to chill et al), but that's not really getting to the core of my question. Let me try and rephrase:

Person A: "last night I dreamed about nails, and when I woke up there was a nail by my bed that wasn't mine. There's no way it could have got there by itself, I must have apported it"

Person B: "Oh my god, that's amazing! Congratulations on your paranormal ability! This is so exciting, I've heard about such things and now my friend has experienced it."

Why would person B react that way? Taking skeptics out of the picture for a minute, I think that most people would react very differently to that. Most people would say something like "er...well, are you sure it wasn't there before? Maybe it fell out of the wall in the night? You're sure? Well, I don't know, I wasn't there." and then try and change the subject because person A is has leapt to a very silly conclusion about the origin of the nail.

A skeptic might react as I did, as per my OP. Or something similar, but a skeptic would usually try and point out why apportion is the least plausible explanation.

I am not interested in Person A, I am interested in Person B. Why would anyone just accept a really crazy claim like that?

And, equally, why would my reasoning not have an affect? Why can someone accept a crazy crazy story from their friend, or a stranger, but not accept a rational explanation from a friend or stranger?

[Locknar]

No they don't. That's what "non-believer" means.

That implies you have complete understanding and knowledge of everything within the universe…that would make you, by definition, God.

[Z]

Well, in my own situation, I'd say it's because having a world full of fantasy and childish woo can be fun - of course, most woos take it way too seriously, but that's just my opinion. I do find it fun to think that a house might be haunted, or someone can take things out of their dreams and into reality. And that's about the extent of it, for me. Still, I tend to compartmentalize 'beliefs' as a separate and distinct region of thought from 'knowledge' - so I'd say I'm really part skeptic after all.

[Cuddles]

That implies you have complete understanding and knowledge of everything within the universe…that would make you, by definition, God.

Nope.

[chillzero]

I am not interested in Person A, I am interested in Person B. Why would anyone just accept a really crazy claim like that?

And, equally, why would my reasoning not have an affect? Why can someone accept a crazy crazy story from their friend, or a stranger, but not accept a rational explanation from a friend or stranger?

Perhaps because they do not want to seem to doubt someone 'on their side'. Related to the bigotry I mentioned earlier, there is often a 'them v us' mentality, and there's often a feeling that each side will never meet in the middle, and all things must be opposed when put forth by the 'others'. I have seen discussions take a really weird turn when believers and non-believers are actually in agreement, but continue arguing because they refuse to accept this could happen.

Perhaps because they feel it validates their beliefs, and also perhaps it actually mirrors an experience of their own that they have never explained by anything non-paranormal.

[Miss Whiplash]

OK, but that's not really getting to the core of my question. Let me try and rephrase:

Person A: "last night I dreamed about nails, and when I woke up there was a nail by my bed that wasn't mine. There's no way it could have got there by itself, I must have apported it"

Person B: "Oh my god, that's amazing! Congratulations on your paranormal ability! This is so exciting, I've heard about such things and now my friend has experienced it."

Why would person B react that way? Taking skeptics out of the picture for a minute, I think that most people would react very differently to that. Most people would say something like "er...well, are you sure it wasn't there before? Maybe it fell out of the wall in the night? You're sure? Well, I don't know, I wasn't there." and then try and change the subject because person A is has leapt to a very silly conclusion about the origin of the nail.

A skeptic might react as I did, as per my OP. Or something similar, but a skeptic would usually try and point out why apportion is the least plausible explanation.

I am not interested in Person A, I am interested in Person B. Why would anyone just accept a really crazy claim like that?

And, equally, why would my reasoning not have an affect? Why can someone accept a crazy crazy story from their friend, or a stranger, but not accept a rational explanation from a friend or stranger?


Teek, person B is trying to find some sense of belonging.

I know it's a hasty generalization, but Caine makes a good point. The majority of woos I've encountered are trying to fill some void in their lives. Magical thinking is much easier than critical thinking. Two years ago, I tried to talk sense to a single mother who was convinced her child falling out of a child seat was proof of levitation. As her child was 3 and able to climb out of its crib at night, she was convinced ghosts were moving the kid at night. The woman's life was a shambles, but her outrageous statements made her popular on a ghost hunting forum for a few short weeks.

[tkingdoll]

Perhaps because they do not want to seem to doubt someone 'on their side'. Related to the bigotry I mentioned earlier, there is often a 'them v us' mentality, and there's often a feeling that each side will never meet in the middle, and all things must be opposed when put forth by the 'others'. I have seen discussions take a really weird turn when believers and non-believers are actually in agreement, but continue arguing because they refuse to accept this could happen.



Cognitive dissonance.

Perhaps because they feel it validates their beliefs, and also perhaps it actually mirrors an experience of their own that they have never explained by anything non-paranormal.

This is one of the reasons I am so down on parapsychology. The majority of people working in that field do so for exactly those two reasons you mention, with the additional two of looking for evidence that the paranormal exists, and being the first to prove something in a fairly obscure field.

[chillzero]

I don't know why people act like this, but having had experience with the woo refered to in the OP I've already gone for the "ignore it and hope it goes away" option. Regardless of exactly why they are as they are, some people really are past helping, and I believe this person is one of them. If someone comes along, asks questions and engages in debate, it is at least possible to have a sensible conversation with them, even if you can't actually convince them of anything. If someone comes along and spouts the same crap as everyone else while claiming to be a leader not a follower and pretending to be original, refuses to listen to a word anyone says and complains about all the mean skeptics, there really is no point trying to talk to them.

I think that's a shame. You shouldn't expect every single person to react the same way, or even have the same beliefs or tactics for discussion. Thanks to people who didn't ignore me, I am here on a whole new path in life. Many of "these people" are not beyond 'help', and are honestly looking for answers and information. You may just need to tailor that information to be received by a non-scientist. I am not the only 'convert' on this forum.

No they don't. That's what "non-believer" means.
So there is nothing you believe in? Nothing at all? What about gravity? I think you missed the point I was making about the terminology itself.

[Darat]

...snip...

Why would person B react that way?

...snip...

I am not interested in Person A, I am interested in Person B. Why would anyone just accept a really crazy claim like that?

...snip...

Person B is a type B bee!

I.e. bonkers.

Slightly more serious you often see that the bees tend to support one another even when their various claims all contradict each other - this is why I said in my post above that a bee is often convinced 100% that they are correct because of their social group.

[tkingdoll]

I love the 'bee' thing. It's spreading, too. Darat spawned a meme!

[Apathia]

Good posts, Chillzero. (I confess their "good" because I agree with them.)

- Other believers tend to be 'nicey-nicey', touchy-feely, and scientists are perceived as white coat wearing, indifferent, unfeeling, aloof people. There's a 'them and us' distrust that gets propogated.

And here's the thing. There are very, very few scientists who match this sterotype. Skeptics too are no less warm-fuzzy.

But it's difficult to see this in a forum medium where we quickly get down to the business of debunk without the face to face contact and the chance to give the believer some affirmation before stepping on her wonder item.

And yes, Skeptics too have working assumptions about how the world works. We just don't like to call them beliefs. But watch what happens when someone questions the universal effacacy of Science, or some troll declares that the best path is to let the Dailai Lama do your thinking for you.

Skeptics are passionate people too, in all the best and worst ways.

[Cuddles]

I think that's a shame. You shouldn't expect every single person to react the same way, or even have the same beliefs or tactics for discussion. Thanks to people who didn't ignore me, I am here on a whole new path in life. Many of "these people" are not beyond 'help', and are honestly looking for answers and information. You may just need to tailor that information to be received by a non-scientist. I am not the only 'convert' on this forum.

I don't expect people to react the same way as everyone else. The fact remains, however, that some people just won't accept any answer that doesn't agree with them. For example, I wouldn't bother trying to convince David Icke of anything because his beliefs are utterly absurd and he obviously has no interest in reality. You, and other "converts" are the people I refered to that are worth talking to. Even if you don't end up discarding your beliefs, you can at least have a sensible conversation and listen to each other's points. The person in question has made it absolutely clear that he has no interest whatsoever in science or reality, and makes no attempt at actually understanding any posts which refer to them. It's not a case of generalisation, it's simply that they are making a deliberate effort to ignore reality, and it's just not worth talking to someone who doesn't just fail to understand, but actively refuses to even try.

So there is nothing you believe in? Nothing at all? What about gravity? I think you missed the point I was making about the terminology itself.

No, I accept gravity based on the available evidence, I don't believe in it.

[chillzero]

I don't expect people to react the same way as everyone else. The fact remains, however, that some people just won't accept any answer that doesn't agree with them. For example, I wouldn't bother trying to convince David Icke of anything because his beliefs are utterly absurd and he obviously has no interest in reality. You, and other "converts" are the people I refered to that are worth talking to. Even if you don't end up discarding your beliefs, you can at least have a sensible conversation and listen to each other's points. The person in question has made it absolutely clear that he has no interest whatsoever in science or reality, and makes no attempt at actually understanding any posts which refer to them. It's not a case of generalisation, it's simply that they are making a deliberate effort to ignore reality, and it's just not worth talking to someone who doesn't just fail to understand, but actively refuses to even try.

OK, I see that I missed the tone of your post, and read it as inferring none are worth attempting to talk to. Apologies for that. I think we actually agree here :D

No, I accept gravity based on the available evidence, I don't believe in it.

Well, perhaps the topic of acceptance versus belief is worthy of a separate thread. I would hate to derail this one.

[RayG]

Why can someone accept a crazy crazy story from their friend, or a stranger, but not accept a rational explanation from a friend or stranger?

Meh, it's because you're one of those party-pooper skeptics. I imagine it's because they want to believe there is something more to life. Something mysterious and unexplainable.

RayG

[Correa Neto]

I think chillzero has some very good points here:
- They genuinely want to spread the information about their experiences around, They feel that they can convince skeptics, and would love to do so. Think of the times you hear 'I used to be skeptical... until ...'

- Like missionaries, they feel that people can only be truly happy when they believe the truth as they see it - such as that the whole force of nature is there to support and guide each individual.
I've seen here (and at other places too) this "evangelic" behavior. How many people arrived at JREF to spread the word of their discoveries, truths, etc.?

Lifegazer, the the ETcornfieldgods guy, some of the pro-bigfoot people, all have the same behavior pattern. This is coupled with different levels of arrogance. Arrogance, I think, is the key factor. Its arrogance that avoids them to seriously consider the possibility that they may be wrong; for some the mere suggestion of this is an heresy. Quite often they "evolve" to an aggressive style when they realize their "mission" is failing, but some posters already start with the aggressive style.

As for those who just accept woo ideas without questioning, I think something like a "herd mentality" is one of the answers. Those safe cozy confortable feelings that woo ideas can create (eg.: a purpose for life, a reason for all the suffering, a reward, etc.), coupled with the former provide a powerful motivation. Once again, chillzero got it, because sinceThey don't understand science, or scientific explanations., acceptance of woo becomes easier.

[Blue Bubble]

I love the 'bee' thing. It's spreading, too. Darat spawned a meme!

Yes, I like it too. But be careful, someone like Chillzero who has left the "bee" scene behind could be termed a "bee leaver" ;)

[chillzero]

Yes, I like it too. But be careful, someone like Chillzero who has left the "bee" scene behind could be termed a "bee leaver" ;)

hmm...

I think I like it. :D

Miss Anthrope and I can be the bee leaver queens :cool:

[Flo]

OK (to chill et al), but that's not really getting to the core of my question. Let me try and rephrase:

Person A: "last night I dreamed about nails, and when I woke up there was a nail by my bed that wasn't mine. There's no way it could have got there by itself, I must have apported it"

Person B: "Oh my god, that's amazing! Congratulations on your paranormal ability! This is so exciting, I've heard about such things and now my friend has experienced it."

Why would person B react that way? Taking skeptics out of the picture for a minute, I think that most people would react very differently to that. Most people would say something like "er...well, are you sure it wasn't there before? Maybe it fell out of the wall in the night? You're sure? Well, I don't know, I wasn't there." and then try and change the subject because person A is has leapt to a very silly conclusion about the origin of the nail.

A skeptic might react as I did, as per my OP. Or something similar, but a skeptic would usually try and point out why apportion is the least plausible explanation.

I am not interested in Person A, I am interested in Person B. Why would anyone just accept a really crazy claim like that?

And, equally, why would my reasoning not have an affect? Why can someone accept a crazy crazy story from their friend, or a stranger, but not accept a rational explanation from a friend or stranger?


One reason, in my experience, is that it opens the possibility for Person B to effortlessly one-up on Person A with an (usually) wilder tale of paranormal wonder, whereas offering down-to-earth explanations a) is being a party-pooper who will henceforth never be invited again, b) requires some efforts in reasoning and education. In this context, skeptics are perceived as doubly nasty, for the above reasons and for the sin of berating their interlocutors through showing off their intellectual superiority ;)

[Unalienable]

It shouldn't be ignored than once in a great while the "woos" are proven correct while the rational majority is shown to be quite wrong. The notion that the earth revolved around the sun was once a "woo" idea.

So it's a little bit like asking why there are maniacs who shortsell the stock market in the middle of a huge boom (or buy stocks when prices are falling like rocks)... it's because they know that throughout history that was exactly the right approach to take.

Of course not all "woo" ideas have even a speck of possible merit to them. Some are so outlandish that they can be easily demonstrated to be false. But there's definitely a region where "woo" and "creative thinking" start to overlap.

[Jimbo07]

It shouldn't be ignored than once in a great while the "woos" are proven correct while the rational majority is shown to be quite wrong. The notion that the earth revolved around the sun was once a "woo" idea.

Considered so by whom?

:mad:

[Flo]

It shouldn't be ignored than once in a great while the "woos" are proven correct while the rational majority is shown to be quite wrong. The notion that the earth revolved around the sun was once a "woo" idea.

So it's a little bit like asking why there are maniacs who shortsell the stock market in the middle of a huge boom (or buy stocks when prices are falling like rocks)... it's because they know that throughout history that was exactly the right approach to take.

Of course not all "woo" ideas have even a speck of possible merit to them. Some are so outlandish that they can be easily demonstrated to be false. But there's definitely a region where "woo" and "creative thinking" start to overlap.

Would you be so kind as to point us to that blessed region and its productions ? (just note that a religious institution considering an idea heretical because it contradicts dogma isn't really a good example)

[ObscureReferenceMan]

teek,

I've thought about such situations a lot too. Several others here have some good ideas on the subject. But I think part (maybe only a small part) of why person B reacts the way he does is... He wants to be (or only seem) "open minded". I find this is common among believers and even fence-sitters. Too often, it seems, being skeptical is thought to be synonymous with being "closed-minded".

[Soapy Sam]

I think Chill is dead on. I'd add that often, people tell stories just to hold up their end of a conversation, because they're uncomfortable with silence. They exaggerate a bit for effect, often because they can't recall the details of the version they heard and it sounds better this way and because it hardly matters to them. But. The listener takes the story as true and bases parts of their worldview on it- and passes it on to others as a true story. And so people come to believe in New Labour and other fantastic creatures.

Also Teek- you may be a self confessed attention whore, but the fact is you have something to gain attention with. Namely, you are both good looking and smart; It's a powerful combination. A lot of very nice people out there lack both advantages. From their POV, they need a lure that you don't need and therefore may find hard to understand.

[tkingdoll]

I think Chill is dead on. I'd add that often, people tell stories just to hold up their end of a conversation, because they're uncomfortable with silence. They exaggerate a bit for effect, often because they can't recall the details of the version they heard and it sounds better this way and because it hardly matters to them. But. The listener takes the story as true and bases parts of their worldview on it- and passes it on to others as a true story. And so people come to believe in New Labour and other fantastic creatures.

Also Teek- you may be a self confessed attention whore, but the fact is you have something to gain attention with. Namely, you are both good looking and smart; It's a powerful combination. A lot of very nice people out there lack both advantages. From their POV, they need a lure that you don't need and therefore may find hard to understand.

I knew I liked you :D

New Labour = = Thatcherism.

I still don't get why someone would just accept "I apported a nail from my dream" without at least thinking "is that really what happened?" It's the 'listener takes the story as true' part I'm really struggling with. That's the 'creduloid' part of my OP.

[Michael C]

teek,

I've thought about such situations a lot too. Several others here have some good ideas on the subject. But I think part (maybe only a small part) of why person B reacts the way he does is... He wants to be (or only seem) "open minded". I find this is common among believers and even fence-sitters. Too often, it seems, being skeptical is thought to be synonymous with being "closed-minded".

This always strikes me as strange:

- The woo-person, who is convinced that the only possible explanation for the strange appearance or disappearance of an object is a paranormal one, considers him/herself to be open-minded.

- This same woo-person will dismiss the skeptic who will look at all sorts of possible explanations, finally choosing what seems to be the most probable of the bunch, as closed-minded.

[Soapy Sam]

New Labour = = Thatcherism.


Not quite. Thatcher would have stabbed you from the front.

[articulett]

It shouldn't be ignored than once in a great while the "woos" are proven correct while the rational majority is shown to be quite wrong. The notion that the earth revolved around the sun was once a "woo" idea.

So it's a little bit like asking why there are maniacs who shortsell the stock market in the middle of a huge boom (or buy stocks when prices are falling like rocks)... it's because they know that throughout history that was exactly the right approach to take.

Of course not all "woo" ideas have even a speck of possible merit to them. Some are so outlandish that they can be easily demonstrated to be false. But there's definitely a region where "woo" and "creative thinking" start to overlap.


Although the woos like to say so, that was never a woo idea-- that was the beginning of using science and measurable replicable data to discover our world and the ways that we misperceive it (and make stuff up to fill in the blanks). Woo is about "feeling the truth" and "faith"-- Science is about evidence and facts that are the same for everybody no matter what they believe. Any person could verify the data that made the first scientists wonder about what was causing the observations they noted--but woo is only verifiable subjectively. Until there is a measurable claim (ala the MDC), woo is indistinguishable from delusion. I think woo thrives because we've learned to show deference to "faith" no matter how insane it is. I like Penn Jillette's generic response, "you don't really believe that do you??!?"

[LudicrusSextus]

Would you be so kind as to point us to that blessed region and its productions ? (just note that a religious institution considering an idea heretical because it contradicts dogma isn't really a good example)
What about continental drift? Or dinosaur extinction by meteorite impact? I think it's fair to say that both were regarded as woo for quite a while. (I realise that the dinosaur extinction question is not settled, but you certainly won't get laughed at these days if you give the meteorite hypothesis house room)

[Explorer]

"
Originally Posted by Unalienable :

"It shouldn't be ignored than once in a great while the "woos" are proven correct while the rational majority is shown to be quite wrong. The notion that the earth revolved around the sun was once a "woo" idea.

Considered so by whom?"

I think the poster was referring to the Catholic church in the time of Galileo!

They didn't call him a "woo" though, just a heretic.

[Correa Neto]

What about continental drift? Or dinosaur extinction by meteorite impact? I think it's fair to say that both were regarded as woo for quite a while. (I realise that the dinosaur extinction question is not settled, but you certainly won't get laughed at these days if you give the meteorite hypothesis house room)
Nope to both cases.

Wegener's continental drift was a scientific puzzle, not woo. He gathered evidence pointing to the possibility that continents could move horizontally. Scientific community's reaction was something like "Wow, that is amazing! But how can they move?" To such a question, no one was able to present a good answer. Since there were alternate ideas that were taken as plausible given the knoweledge available back then, continental drift was left "running on the background" awaiting for new data. Check "Principles of Physical Geology" by Arthur Holmes for a very well written account on how continental drift evolved to plate tectonics and the horizontal x vertical tectonics struggle. A scientific saga IMHO.

Same for the K/T boundary. There were several ideas that competed, each one with pros and cons (massive eruptions, diseases, competition with mammals, rise of new plant species, climate changes, etc.). If you said "I think an asteroid did it" back in the 60s', people would say "OK, its possible, indeed. What evidence do you have to back this?" You would have nothing to present. You would have to wait for new data (pro or con). Again, this is not woo.

[charlie1]

Don't you think it is human nature to believe in a "higher power". For some that is science, for some the paranormal and for some god. All believe theirs is correct and fight hard to prove it and disprove the others.

[Michael C]

Don't you think it is human nature to believe in a "higher power". For some that is science, for some the paranormal and for some god. All believe theirs is correct and fight hard to prove it and disprove the others.

God certainly counts as a higher power. The paranormal? Not necessarily. Some believers consider paranormal events to be caused by a higher power (sometimes, but not always, it's God who is held responsible). Others will dispute the idea that paranormal events have anything to do with "higher powers". As for science, it's not a "higher power" at all.

[Unalienable]

Considered so by whom? :mad:
No need for the mad-faced icon friend. You ask me "Who considered the notion of the earth revolving around the sun to be a woo idea." The answer: The leading luminaries and experts in the field, at the time.

When microscopes were new, scientists wasted no time to peer deep into the human sperm, and draw elborate illustrations of the little fetal homunculi which were within. This was not "woo", this was the leading edge of scientific understanding. If somebody at the time proposed that what's really in the sperm was a fantastically complicated molecule which contained the instructions for building a human being "from scratch", now that would have been called woo.

just note that a religious institution considering an idea heretical because it contradicts dogma isn't really a good example
Yes it's a little unfair because in modern days we have a scientific appartatus which is no longer beholden to the church for their every move, so there can be a much more open marketplace of ideas without the fear of being jailed for heresy.

Still, there are modern equivilents for 'heresy' -- e.g. I have spoken to people far more educated on the topic of virology than me, who have told me that the "dirty secret" of modern AIDS research is that we are slowly discovering that HIV doesn't cause AIDS after all. Now I am neither bolstering this persons opinions nor trying to discredit them, but it's clear that to have such a position antithetical to the widespread understanding of AIDS is a little bit like being charged with heresy by the church. These are the outcasts of science, the workers on the fringe. Even though I find his beliefs hard to swallow, I wish him luck in his pursuits, and in such an important struggle as finding a cure for AIDS I would advocate leaving no stone unturned--even the "woo stones."

Would you be so kind as to point us to that blessed region and its productions?That's a fair question but very hard to answer and I'll confess I'm not prepared to give you a good answer. I guess it comes down to exactly where you want to draw the line between "real science" and "woo".

[The Man]

Sorry, I do get to post regularly.

If we exclude from consideration those suffering from a diagnosable condition resulting in illusionary sights and sounds or prevents them from separating fantasy from reality. Likewise if we also exclude those who are just in it for the money or that will profess anything that will benefit them, whether they believe it or not. The people we are left with must, like the latter of the excluded groups, believe by choice even if only a subconscious choice. In my opinion they must at some level be dissatisfied with their natural life and seek fulfillment in a second supernatural life, with supernatural powers that even Stan Lee would have a hard time explaining.

Now there’s an idea… Someone should set up a website “Second Supernatural Life”. There people can live out there magical fantasies fighting against ignominious and ubiquitous forces of the N.W.O., or join the dark side and conduct back opps and “controlled demolitions” intended to enslave the word.

For some, unfortunately, this fantasy world is already far too real.





CHAIRMAN:
...Which brings us once again to the urgent realization of just how much there is still left to own. Item six on the agenda: the meaning of life. Now, uh, Harry, you've had some thoughts on this.
HARRY:
That's right. Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and, uh, what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: people are not wearing enough hats. Two: matter is energy. In the universe, there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this soul does not exist ab initio, as orthodox Christianity teaches. It has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved, owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
[pause]
BERT:
What was that about hats, again?
HARRY:
Oh, uh, people aren't wearing enough.

[Big Les]

If I'm trying to get inside the woo mind, I always think back to me and my group of friends aged 8-10 or so, when we would go ghost-hunting. I wanted so badly to believe in such things, and to impress/share something cool with my little friends, that I would interpret anything, including nothing at all, as a sign of a ghost. The thing is, I knew what was happening. On one level I could act as a believer, but I knew I was kidding myself. I was somehow able to compartmentalise my thoughts and actions in a way that I can only extrapolate is true of some adult woos as well. Not to mention certain brands of criminal, or even how the rest of us treat other people - have you ever convinced yourself that you've treated someone fairly, whilst knowing deep down you were an arse to them? I think it's the same thing. It allows us to carry on with life for practical purposes as before, with just a bit of psychological "damage" as a side-effect.

So yes, I think a lot of woos just refuse to grow up. Which is fine until it starts to affect other people.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Maybe it's just genetic.

~~ Paul

[ChristineR]

I think the primary motivation is that we are pattern-seeking animals. We see intent and meaning in places where there is none. It makes sense to us that we would be able to pull nails out of thin air--it's a bias in our brains.

The second motivation is that our brain evolved in two units. The part of us that speaks and thinks abstractly is separated from the part of us that runs our bodies. We sense that our consciousness, our soul, whatever you call it, is not a part of our bodies. That mistake gives rise to all sorts of bizarre ideas.

All the other stuff about excitement and self-worth and feeling special and giving meaning to life and just plain coolness is tertiary, in my opinion. All that stuff can be dealt with in other ways and has no fundamental need for woo.

[Autolite]

It can be said that are numerous reasons why people perpetuate "woo" but I think a big one would be that it gives the believer a superiority complex. Take religion for example. Religion is maintained on faith. Faith is the act of believing in something that reason says is illogical. For whatever reason, society has determined that faith is a virtue. People with faith feel superior to those without ...

[Flo]

Still, there are modern equivilents for 'heresy' -- e.g. I have spoken to people far more educated on the topic of virology than me, who have told me that the "dirty secret" of modern AIDS research is that we are slowly discovering that HIV doesn't cause AIDS after all. Now I am neither bolstering this persons opinions nor trying to discredit them, but it's clear that to have such a position antithetical to the widespread understanding of AIDS is a little bit like being charged with heresy by the church. These are the outcasts of science, the workers on the fringe. Even though I find his beliefs hard to swallow, I wish him luck in his pursuits, and in such an important struggle as finding a cure for AIDS I would advocate leaving no stone unturned--even the "woo stones."

That's what most woo would like to make us believe, that they are the modern equivalent of Galileo ("cures THEY don't want you to know about", anyone ?), but just short of ending on the stake. The big difference is that all they have to do is to show their evidence to their peers, who, due to their daily experience on the field are expected to show some resistance to theories and hypotheses that contradict known facts and efficient cures ...

That's a fair question but very hard to answer and I'll confess I'm not prepared to give you a good answer. I guess it comes down to exactly where you want to draw the line between "real science" and "woo".

So far, you've given us a rewriting of history and a rehash of the old "complaint of the self-proclaimed martyrs of the dogmatism of mainstream science", but no example of any woo idea leading to anything new ...

[Big Les]

It can be said that are numerous reasons why people perpetuate "woo" but I think a big one would be that it gives the believer a superiority complex. Take religion for example. Religion is maintained on faith. Faith is the act of believing in something that reason says is illogical. For whatever reason, society has determined that faith is a virtue. People with faith feel superior to those without ...

And best of all, they don't have to provide any evidence for it, do any real work toward it, or be in possession of any other talent than the gift of the gab. It's ironic that woos often paint themselves as an alternative to the scientific and academic orthodoxy, when they are simply attempting to become a new orthodoxy whose unquestionable authority stems from ambition and ego alone. In the real world, they'd be forced to work in some mind-numbing desk job. But in woo-land, they can be demi-gods. And kid themselves that they're doing some good into the bargain.

[Cuddles]

No need for the mad-faced icon friend. You ask me "Who considered the notion of the earth revolving around the sun to be a woo idea." The answer: The leading luminaries and experts in the field, at the time.

No they didn't. Some in the Church may have considered it woo, but in all probability even they didn't. Galileo is a favourite of the "they laughed at X, but..." brigade, but they always get the whole thing exactly backwards. They didn't laugh at Galileo, they silenced him. The facts he revealed could potentially destroy the credibility of the Church by proving some of their teachings wrong, and so the Church shut him up. No "leading luminaries and experts" were involved, it was purely a religious and political matter.

And before anyone brings it up, they didn't laugh at Columbus either, at least not for the idea that the world was round.