Common woo-woo statements

[Brahe]

I was browsing slashdot today when I came across this post regarding machine intelligence and souls. I count several interesting claims here:

(1) You (skeptics) presuppose that science is the only way of understanding the universe.

(2) Science is just a fad.

(3) Science is just another belief system or faith.

(4) Religious claims (e.g. an afterlife) are factual.

(5) Since priests (and other religious figures) make religious claims, that makes them equal or superior to scientists.

(6) Since science cannot verify claims about the afterlife (and souls and gods and such), that just means that science is limited, not that these claims are inaccurate.

(7) Tarot, astrology, and zen mediation are all just as useful, if not more useful, than any science.

The problem is that I find these statements to be a mixture of half-truths and outright lies. Regarding (1), it is true that science is not our only tool. We do not prove theorems through the scientific method, nor do we use science to verify our morals. However, when it comes to factual claims, science is our best tool, as our next best tool seems to be making stuff up.

In any case, it seems like these sentiments are very common among woo-woos. Statements (2), (3), and (7) are especially odd given that these statements are spread through computer networks rather than the author astral projecting himself into my living room. Statements (4), (5), and (6) are interesting in that the author simply assumes the truth of some claim and then goes on, not to test the claim, but to belittle science for not providing support for the claim!

Has anyone else come across these statements? Has any woo-woo actually disputed or refuted some of these claims while holding others to be true? Do woo-woos share any other beliefs?

Incidentally, can anyone suggest a better term than "woo-woo"? I would have chosen "credulous," but that seemed more insulting.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brahe
Incidentally, can anyone suggest a better term than "woo-woo"? I would have chosen "credulous," but that seemed more insulting.

It is very difficult not to think of insulting descriptions for people who believe such rubbish.

"Superstitious" is rather neutral.

[scribble]

I think you mean "creduloid" -- "credulous" is an adjective. Er, is that adverb? Anyhow, you need a noun.



"Verbing weirds language."

[Brahe]

Quote:

Originally posted by scribble
I think you mean "creduloid" -- "credulous" is an adjective. Er, is that adverb? Anyhow, you need a noun.

Oops! Yes, you are correct--credulous is an adjective. It would only be correct if I were to use the term "credulous person" or "superstitious person," as CFLarsen suggested.

[Piscivore]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brahe
Oops! Yes, you are correct--credulous is an adjective. It would only be correct if I were to use the term "credulous person" or "superstitious person," as CFLarsen suggested.

"Askeptics", perhaps?

[Maledict]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is very difficult not to think of insulting descriptions for people who believe such rubbish.

"Superstitious" is rather neutral.

Indeed - The first several words that come to my mind just reading those 7 statements aren't very...well.......nice.

As for the OP - My first suggestion right off the bat would be, "Idiot" - but since you're looking for a less offensive term - I would go with either "Creduloid" or the good old fashioned "Believer".

[hgc]

Quote:

(6) Since science cannot verify claims about the afterlife (and souls and gods and such), that just means that science is limited, not that these claims are inaccurate.

This one seems valid enough.

Scientific inquiry is bounded by the physical Universe. That it can't verify such claims does not disprove them. Of course nothing can verify these claims, so if you want to believe...

[Dr.Stefano]

I´m sorry, but I´m new here: What the hell is "woo-woo" ?

[Maledict]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr.Stefano
I´m sorry, but I´m new here: What the hell is "woo-woo" ?

General term that's used around here for people who believe in a variety of quackery, astrology, tarot cards, homeopathy, psychics, "that-smudge-in-window-is-jesus!" , and general nonsense that doesn't have any background evidence to verify.

[Radrook]

Science admits its limitsations.
Those who have blind faith in science do not.

[Marquis de Carabas]

(2) Science is just a fad.

Man, remember when we used to throw on our retro Astros jerseys, put some Outkast on the stereo, and try to test out hypotheses? Those were the days, man.

[Radrook]

We might all just be brains in a vat.

[Brahe]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
This one seems valid enough.

Scientific inquiry is bounded by the physical Universe. That it can't verify such claims does not disprove them. Of course nothing can verify these claims, so if you want to believe...

Science is indeed limited by methodological naturalism. Superstitious people, especially creationists eager to use God as a cause, often harp on this. The problem with their claim is just as hgc says: supernatural claims cannot be verified by any method. This also means that supernatural claims can neither be falsified nor tested. If an entity cannot be tested in any way, even in principle, that implies that there is no observation that would be different were this entity to exist or not exist! So what explanatory power could supernatural entities or processes possess? When superstitious people denigrate the scientific method for relying on methodological naturalism, they imply that the supernatural world is excluded arbitrarily. In reality, science uses methodological naturalism because only the naturalistic world can be usefully studied.

As a side note, I also have a problem with believers in various supernatural entities. Why believe in one set of supernatural claims and not some other set? For example, there seems no reason why one should believe in mystical elves rather than leprechauns or ghosts. So why not believe every supernatural claim, even those that contradict others?

[Brahe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Radrook
We might all just be brains in a vat.

And it's entirely possible that God created the world last Thursday but gave it the illusion that it's actually ancient. Heck, maybe God created the world three seconds ago!

The problem with these claims is that they're of no use. They don't explain anything, they aren't testable, and even if they were true, so what? If what we think is reality is actually a perfect simulation, how could we verify that the world we're living in is fake? Even if we were sure that this world is a fake, how could we learn about actual reality?

[Radrook]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brahe
And it's entirely possible that God created the world last Thursday but gave it the illusion that it's actually ancient. Heck, maybe God created the world three seconds ago!

The problem with these claims is that they're of no use. They don't explain anything, they aren't testable, and even if they were true, so what? If what we think is reality is actually a perfect simulation, how could we verify that the world we're living in is fake? Even if we were sure that this world is a fake, how could we learn about actual reality?

We need not bring God into the subject to discuss it.
Why you do so is way beyond me.

I made no claims.
The modifier MAYBE should have made that clear.
The truth is the we do not really know if there even is an external world. We assume there is for practical purposes.

Now, people become hysterical when you tell them this. Especially those with a tendencies toward nervous breakdowns.
Others come to philosophy boards and never read Hume nor Descartes nor Berkley. So you tell them these things and they right off think you are a wacko making things up as you go along.
That's when the pillaring begins.

But that's understandable since it is their concept of their illusion that provides the much-valued emotional security that they are defending.

In fact it is their own sanity they are defending since they have not been prepared intellectually to deal with such concepts. That's why they resort to pillaring.

BTW
I find the concept very useful in understanding reality.

[Dymanic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Radrook

Science admits its limitations.Those who have blind faith in science do not.

Have you ever actually met such a person? I mean, 'blind faith in science' being such an obvious contradiction, I can't help but wonder if any such people actually exist.

Unless of course you want to count all the times during an average day when the average person (skeptic and creduloid alike) drives an automobile over a bridge, flies in an airplane, picks up a telephone, flips the switch on a microwave oven, etc.

Edited to add: Woo Hoo! My thousandth post! Again!

[Brahe]

Originally posted by Radrook
We need not bring God into the subject to discuss it.
Why you do so is way beyond me.

I was simply bringing up Last Thursdayism, nothing more.

I made no claims.
The modifier MAYBE should have made that clear.
The truth is the we do not really know if there even is an external world. We assume there is for practcal purposes.

I apologize if I wasn't clear in my earlier response, but I did not and do not believe that you seriously assert that we're just all brains in a vat.

That's when the pilloring begins.

I did not intend to pillory you. I was simply pointing out that it makes just as much sense to claim that Last Thursdayism is true as it does to claim that we're just brains in a vat.

BTW
I find the concept very useful in understanding reality.

Please expand on this.

[Gulliamo]

Quote:

Originally posted by Radrook
We might all just be brains in a vat.

Judging by the OP I would seriously doubt whether each vat did indeed contain a brain.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Radrook
I find the concept very useful in understanding reality.

Hi Radrook,

If you would seriously like to discuss the possibility that we are all just a brain in a vat then I would suggest that you qualify your statement as such. Bear in mind the thread is about woo-woo statements and those contributing are pointing out the logical flaws of some or most of the statements. Of course hgc has pointed out that one is not unreasonable.

Anything is possible. We might actually be a brain in a vat. And I agree that from a philosophical POV there is some merit to the concept. However once one understands the limits of such a discussion there is not much to work with after that. As someone else said the position leaves us with nothing with which to theorize that we can test to help us better understand reality or even our perceptions.

Having hung out with many of these folks for the last 3 years I can assure you that most of the veterans are well versed in philosophy from the early Greek to the modern.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic
I mean, 'blind faith in science' being such an obvious contradiction, I can't help but wonder if any such people actually exist.

I'm not sure it can be called "blind faith in science", but everybody who has ever flown on a plane has placed his life in the hands of science.

I wonder if people think about that, when they say that "science is just a fad" or "just another belief system". If science is a belief system, it's a heck of a lot better than the religious/superstitious ones!

[uruk]

Quote:

I'm not sure it can be called "blind faith in science", but everybody who has ever flown on a plane has placed his life in the hands of science.

That is called "trust" in science. You can see an airplane lift into the sky and safely land. You can describe and test the theories and principles of aerodynamics. I have yet to see an angel much less see it fly.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I have to take a moment and deal with 1 1/2 of these statements.

First, the idea that science is limited is, as stated before, true. We can only test what we can observe in some respect. It would be impossible, for example, to test anything about the invisible, intangible, weightless, etc. pink unicorn. We can't even verify that is is pink. By scientific principle, we can say the existence of such a supernatural creature is unlikely, but beyond that, we cannot prove or disprove it. We, as individuals, can choose to believe it or not. If you believe it, you may be worried that it will gore you with the Mighty Horn of Ouchies (tm) should you offend it. If you don't, you would not be so worried. It would not matter, since the Horn would be equally non-verifiable, even should you be impaled.

Second, I would like to state that Zen Meditation does have some scientific merit in so far as it can be used as a relaxation technique in order to relieve stress, lower blood pressure, etc. Its spiritual nature is akin to the above-mentioned unicorn, and thus, irrelavent scientifically, at least until a method of observation can be devised.

[Radrook]

Bringing in pink unicorns and gremlins and gnomes is ridiculous and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject. It is unnecessary to the subject since no one has ever required or expected of science to detect figments of the imagination or things beyond the senses. Obviously this is an attempt to bolster blind faith in science via ridicule.

Much better to simply divest yourself of your blind faith in science.
It takes less effort and is far more reasonable.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Radrook
Bringing in pink unicorns and gremlins and gnomes is ridiculous and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the subject of invisible, immaterial entities, for which there is no tangible evidence of their existance.

What subject were you referring to?

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Radrook
Bringing in pink unicorns and gremlins and gnomes is ridiculous and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject. It is unnecessary to the subject since no one has ever required or expected of science to detect figments of the imagination or things beyond the senses. Obviously this is an attempt to bolster blind faith in science via ridicule.

Much better to simply divest yourself of your blind faith in science.
It takes less effort and is far more reasonable.

Do you trust science with your life?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Quote:

Originally posted by Radrook
Bringing in pink unicorns and gremlins and gnomes is ridiculous and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject. It is unnecessary to the subject since no one has ever required or expected of science to detect figments of the imagination or things beyond the senses. Obviously this is an attempt to bolster blind faith in science via ridicule.

Much better to simply divest yourself of your blind faith in science.
It takes less effort and is far more reasonable.

You know, Rad, I haven't had an opinion of you until I read this. I wasn't part of any previous debate or discussion you have had, and while I did read your "Good bye" thread, I chalked it up to someone being frustrated.

However, you post here has given me something I can personally judge.

Never once did I make any kind of disparaging remarks about your beliefs, your god, your bible or your religion.

I used the idea of the unicorn to show that there is no way science can verify its existence or non-existence, and therefore faith is what is required.

I was defending you.

You, however, decided to take it as an attack.

As for my blind faith in science, as you say, I have faith in science, but it is certainly not blind. It is faith based in observation and things I can verify myself.

No, I do not believe in any gods: not youors, vishnu, allah, ganesh, zeus, or even ed. I make it a point, however, not to disparage (Okay, I can't spell.) anyone who does, as long as they understand that there is no way they can prove their god to me, and they don't try to force it on me.

Yes, I believe in evolution, because I have seen the proof of it (as many of us have, either through demonstrations, or the research.) Does it disqualify god? No. Does it disqualify the bible as being literally true? yes. That doesn't mean it should mean any less to you. It was written by people over a thousand years ago, using the knowledge they had at the time.

One last thing (only because the computer I'm on sucks, so I don't want to go post in a seperate thread) you say in a different thread that "anyone wiith a basic grasp of English and a basic grasp of philosophy should be able to understand you."

I can tell you that most people here have both. I can tell you that I graduated with a double major (English / Psychology) and double minor (Philosophy / Ttheology) and there are people here far more qualified than me to debat on these subjects, as well.

Okay, I lied, there is one more thing.

I do not attack, and I do not insult, unless it is done to me first. If you read something I address to you, and you think it is meant as an insult or an attack: stop, take a breth, maybe go eat a muffin, then come back and realize it was not meant that way.

[Radrook]

Quote:

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
You know, Rad, I haven't had an opinion of you until I read this. I wasn't part of any previous debate or discussion you have had, and while I did read your "Good bye" thread, I chalked it up to someone being frustrated.

However, you post here has given me something I can personally judge.

Never once did I make any kind of disparaging remarks about your beliefs, your god, your bible or your religion.

I used the idea of the unicorn to show that there is no way science can verify its existence or nonexistence, and therefore faith is what is required.

I was defending you.

You, however, decided to take it as an attack.

As for my blind faith in science, as you say, I have faith in science, but it is certainly not blind. It is faith based in observation and things I can verify myself.

No, I do not believe in any gods: not yours, Vishnu, Allah, ganesh, Zeus, or even ed. I make it a point, however, not to disparage (Okay, I can't spell.) anyone who does, as long as they understand that there is no way they can prove their god to me, and they don't try to force it on me.

Yes, I believe in evolution, because I have seen the proof of it (as many of us have, either through demonstrations, or the research). Does it disqualify god? No. Does it disqualify the bible as being literally true? yes. That doesn't mean it should mean any less to you. It was written by people over a thousand years ago, using the knowledge they had at the time.

One last thing (only because the computer I'm on sucks, so I don't want to go post in a separate thread) you say in a different thread that "anyone with a basic grasp of English and a basic grasp of philosophy should be able to understand you."

I can tell you that most people here have both. I can tell you that I graduated with a double major (English / Psychology) and double minor (Philosophy / Theology) and there are people here far more qualified than me to debate on these subjects, as well.

Okay, I lied, there is one more thing.

I do not attack, and I do not insult, unless it is done to me first. If you read something I address to you, and you think it is meant as an insult or an attack: stop, take a breath, maybe go eat a muffin, then come back and realize it was not meant that way.

I appreciate your respectful and decent response.
I had not realized that my manner was offensive.
I was only trying to point out that comparing pink elephants with people's beliefs in God is a bit unflattering to say the least. Some might even find it insulting. You say you SEE proof. I say I SEE proof. You say my claim is not sound. I say yours is not sound. As long as we remain on that level everything remains respectful.

Now, if I were to compare your belief in evolution with belief in a Mother Goose story, then that's when your insult detector would ring.

Get my point?

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brahe
Incidentally, can anyone suggest a better term than "woo-woo"? I would have chosen "credulous," but that seemed more insulting.

I like woo woo.

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Radrook
We need not bring God into the subject to discuss it.
Why you do so is way beyond me.

Nuff said then