Woo Denial

[1eyedtiger]

Ok,

But it then becomes a case of any theories being raised being put at the mercy of scientist's abilities which imo are currently pretty limited. I've said it before that there is still much that science has the inability to prove or disprove either way.

I see the word 'woo' in a negative way, almost implying black magic or something else sinister. For scientists to consider something as being 'woo' simply because they are either too lazy, poorly equiped, poorly educated or have other interests to protect is demeaning. Why is it up to scientists to determine what is woo and what isn't?

If someone else comes up with a plausable theory and the scientific community dismisses it without further investigation, why should that theory be automatically thrown in the bin? How many so called 'scientific' discoveries have been made in the past which initially seemed sound and proven but have turned out to be false given new evidence? The scientific community is prone to failure just like the rest of us.

Disco has stated his dog has benefited from a new diet which you consider woo. The benfits of this diet have been proven to some extent and this merits further investigation. Until I see proof from the scientific community that this diet is not beneficial, then given the evidence at hand, it's not woo.

While I'm here, someone raised the issue of naturopathy. My neighbour used to see a naturopath about his back. Eventually, when the problem persisted, he went to his GP and it turned out he had cancer. The cancer had spread to his skeleton and eventually killed him. The cancer was found too late for anything to have been done. Naturopaths are OK for temporary ailments, but if it persists, go and see a GP and get further tests done.

It's like my dog. It had X-rays yesterday on her back legs. They couldn't find anything but it does rule out a lot of possibilities. I'm still going to try Disco's suggestion for my dog but if it does keep persisting, it's back to the vets.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Ok,

But it then becomes a case of any theories being raised being put at the mercy of scientist's abilities which imo are currently pretty limited. I've said it before that there is still much that science has the inability to prove or disprove either way.

"Scientist's abilities"? How about human abilities? Are you stating that the woo-vendors have some source of knowledge that "the scientists" do not? Of course there are things that science can and can't prove....that doesn't mean that unsubstantiated claims should be considered valid just because they can't be disproven at present (this has been discussed ad nauseum on the Christianity thread).

I see the word 'woo' in a negative way, almost implying black magic or something else sinister. For scientists to consider something as being 'woo' simply because they are either too lazy, poorly equiped, poorly educated or have other interests to protect is demeaning. Why is it up to scientists to determine what is woo and what isn't?

I see the word "woo" as negative too. In its most tepid form it is relatively harmless and can tap into the placebo effect or give people a psychological boost, ala the horizontal effects of religion. In its most insidious form it is exploitative and in many cases downright harmful (ie anti-vaccine advocates or parents who use woo-based treatments while withholding evidence-based medicine etc.). These are sinister.

"....too lazy, poorly equiped [sic], poorly educated "? Really? In many cases science has shown that the woo is exactly that. The research has been done and has consigned the claim to the bin o' woo. Your anti-science stance is interesting. If you want to support a specific woo claim, feel free. These matters are up for debate. It is not like there is some international science high council that arbitrarily rules on such matters. Science is debated in the literature until consensus is achieved (or not).

If someone else comes up with a plausable theory and the scientific community dismisses it without further investigation, why should that theory be automatically thrown in the bin? How many so called 'scientific' discoveries have been made in the past which initially seemed sound and proven but have turned out to be false given new evidence? The scientific community is prone to failure just like the rest of us.

Point out where a plausible theory has been dismissed out of hand. If it was plausible, it would be considered scientifically valid unless contradictory evidence came to light. Something is only considered woo if it is not plausible, ie not supported by available evidence, or has been directly contradicted by the available evidence. What you refer to a "failure" is actually the success of the scientific method. When the available evidence expands to fine tune a theory this improves our knowledge of the natural world. Why you would consider this a failure is beyond me. Scientific theories represent our best model to describe the world around us, given the available evidence. Do woo-mongers have some insight not available to others? I think not.

Disco has stated his dog has benefited from a new diet which you consider woo. The benfits of this diet have been proven to some extent and this merits further investigation. Until I see proof from the scientific community that this diet is not beneficial, then given the evidence at hand, it's not woo.

Go back and read my posts related to Disco's dog. You misrepresent me here. I clearly stated that I had no issue with the improvement that he saw within his dog. I did take issue with the clearly BS woo claims that the peddlers of the dietary supplement were making. Did the suppliers of the treatment say that they had noticed health benefits and were undertaking research to determine the basis of this effect? No. They stated a bunch of crap that to the uninitiated may sound like legitimate scientific evidence. That is the woo and that is exploitative IMO.

While I'm here, someone raised the issue of naturopathy. My neighbour used to see a naturopath about his back. Eventually, when the problem persisted, he went to his GP and it turned out he had cancer. The cancer had spread to his skeleton and eventually killed him. The cancer was found too late for anything to have been done. Naturopaths are OK for temporary ailments, but if it persists, go and see a GP and get further tests done.

Another tragic example of how non-evidence based medicine can have a negative effect. Cancer is something wherein the prognosis declines rapidly over time without treatment. The delay between seeking alternative therapy and evidence-based treatment can make the difference between successful treatment and an inability to treat. I understand when people seek alternative therapies after they reach the limits of evidence-based treatments, not that they are likely to work, but I understand it. However, to delay treatment in favor of woo, or completely dismiss it in favor of 'alternative therapy' - especially when there are children involved - is at best foolhardy, at worst, criminal.

It's like my dog. It had X-rays yesterday on her back legs. They couldn't find anything but it does rule out a lot of possibilities. I'm still going to try Disco's suggestion for my dog but if it does keep persisting, it's back to the vets.

Indeed. If the vets can't do anything and Disco has noted a beneficial effect, why not?

 

[1eyedtiger]

I'm not anti science. In fact, I'm all for the advancement of the human race but theories that arise must all be proven or disproven without predijuce.

As for ability, I consider scientists to be the best educated and best equiped to prove or disprove theories. Therefore, in a way, I feel that the scientific community represents humanity in that regard. It is not a negative comment to say that their equipement may be primitive and inadequate. It is negative to say that they dismiss theories that arise from outside the scientific community or for other interests. I do believe that there is other life beyond Earth and I think that despite all our intelligence, we are still the apes of the universe. That is not being disrespectful. But that we need more time.

Theories being dismissed out of hand. Acupuncture. Not until recently thought to have any benefit by western medicine.

Look at global warming. Half the scientific community believes and the other half don't. It hasn't actually been proven so is global warming woo? Either way, when it is proven one way or the other, half of those who I consider to represent the human race in scientific matters believes in woo. Very comforting considering the negative image that woo has.

I suppose I'm a spiritual person at heart. Don't confuse that with religion because I'm definately not religious. I wish science could prove things that I hold at heart but it can't and therefore I see failure. But I don't see it as a lack of evidence. Just like to world is as most people see it but a blind person can't. It's not their fault. Like I said, more time is needed. I just wish they wouldn't discount things such as souls and ghosts and whatever and declare it all woo. Unproven, yes, but not woo.

On the bright side of things, I finally found out what was wrong with my dog. She was coming down the steps on Sunday and gave out an almighty yelp. Since then the leg in question has been firmly off the ground. Took her to the vets that afternoon and they confirmed what they suspected. She has torn all the AC ligaments. It's hard to diagnose partial tears unfortunately and this was the only real outcome. It was just a matter of time. Fortuantely the vets can repair the damage quite easily. She's having to op tomorow and should be good as new in a month!

 

[Disco08]

Glad to hear that 1eyed.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Thanks Disco,

It's going to be a stressful day though. There's always a risk with surgery.

Cheers

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I'm not anti science. In fact, I'm all for the advancement of the human race but theories that arise must all be proven or disproven without predijuce.

Indeed. However as humans we are prone to predjudice and bias, even despite our best efforts and that is why controlled experiments and peer review of findings is central to the scientific process.

As for ability, I consider scientists to be the best educated and best equiped to prove or disprove theories. Therefore, in a way, I feel that the scientific community represents humanity in that regard. It is not a negative comment to say that their equipement may be primitive and inadequate. It is negative to say that they dismiss theories that arise from outside the scientific community or for other interests. I do believe that there is other life beyond Earth and I think that despite all our intelligence, we are still the apes of the universe. That is not being disrespectful. But that we need more time.

The question is what do you base this assertion on? Do you have access to some source of knowledge that everyone else is not privy to? That is a serious question.

Theories being dismissed out of hand. Acupuncture. Not until recently thought to have any benefit by western medicine.

I am not up on the medical literature related to acupuncture so I can't comment on the strength of the evidence supporting its efficacy. However if such efficacy has been demonstrated then what is the issue? It clearly hasn't been "dismissed out of hand" but shown to be beneficial through controlled trials (if that is what was done).

Look at global warming. Half the scientific community believes and the other half don't. It hasn't actually been proven so is global warming woo? Either way, when it is proven one way or the other, half of those who I consider to represent the human race in scientific matters believes in woo. Very comforting considering the negative image that woo has.

I think you will find that it is a very small minority of scientists that don't accept the impact of humans on the climate. It is definitely not woo (Liverpool et al.'s claims aside).

I suppose I'm a spiritual person at heart. Don't confuse that with religion because I'm definately not religious. I wish science could prove things that I hold at heart but it can't and therefore I see failure. But I don't see it as a lack of evidence. Just like to world is as most people see it but a blind person can't. It's not their fault. Like I said, more time is needed. I just wish they wouldn't discount things such as souls and ghosts and whatever and declare it all woo. Unproven, yes, but not woo.

I think many humans are "spiritual". I think it is part of our makeup. Why? Who knows? Does that support the existence of anything. No.

Are you claiming that you have insight that the rest of us ("the blind") do not? You say that more time is needed. For what?

To make specific assertions that are unproven or 'unprovable' is the definition of woo. You explicitly say that these things are "unproven" but then you defend the right to claim such things as fact and that scepticism is a fault in these matters.

On the bright side of things, I finally found out what was wrong with my dog. She was coming down the steps on Sunday and gave out an almighty yelp. Since then the leg in question has been firmly off the ground. Took her to the vets that afternoon and they confirmed what they suspected. She has torn all the AC ligaments. It's hard to diagnose partial tears unfortunately and this was the only real outcome. It was just a matter of time. Fortuantely the vets can repair the damage quite easily. She's having to op tomorow and should be good as new in a month!

Great to hear!

 

[1eyedtiger]

I'm on the level with you here.

Scientists are usually the best educated people around and they usually have access to the best resources. I have no proof of my claims ecept that given the size and diversity of the universe, that other life is to me a certainty. I can't give any more than that. No one on this planet can.

Scientific equipment will improve over time. It always does but as long as you know what you are looking for. I've said in previous posts that I believe that I've experienced telepathy even though scientists can't prove it one way or the other. The very nature of some things may determine whether we can reliably detect and reproduce it or not. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I hope that science can one day give me an answer but since I've had it only once and the moment has passed and gone, then so be it. To find something, you need to know what you are looking for. I'm not taking anything away from science here. It's just the way it is. If anything, I hope that someone may read this and inspire them to develop new technology. At the moment, I don't have it in me to do it myself. I currently operate on a different level.

You said yourself that you think many people are spiritual.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I'm on the level with you here.

Scientists are usually the best educated people around and they usually have access to the best resources. I have no proof of my claims ecept that given the size and diversity of the universe, that other life is to me a certainty. I can't give any more than that. No one on this planet can.

No one on this planet but you? Why not just leave it as "I don't know"....which is the truth....as opposed to these claims of certainty?

Scientific equipment will improve over time. It always does but as long as you know what you are looking for. I've said in previous posts that I believe that I've experienced telepathy even though scientists can't prove it one way or the other. The very nature of some things may determine whether we can reliably detect and reproduce it or not. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I hope that science can one day give me an answer but since I've had it only once and the moment has passed and gone, then so be it. To find something, you need to know what you are looking for. I'm not taking anything away from science here. It's just the way it is. If anything, I hope that someone may read this and inspire them to develop new technology. At the moment, I don't have it in me to do it myself. I currently operate on a different level.

I have no doubt you believe that you had a telepathic experience. Others have had other 'supernatural' experiences. Does that mean they actually happened, or are they a quirk of the human mind? I often get a strong feeling of De ja vu, however I put it down to just one of those things that our minds can do to us....similar to an optical illusion. Knowing the limitations of our perception, it seems the most pragmatic conclusion to draw.

Anything that impacts on the natural world is open to the realm of scientific investigation. It isn't always about technology. Just solid evidence of its existence would be a good start.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "operating on a different level"?

You said yourself that you think many people are spiritual.

This isn't to suggest the supernatural though. This is that we can experience more than the sum of the parts. We can feel joy, awe, reverence by many experiences in our lives. This is just part of the human psyche that some people read more into. To deny that part of the human experience would be silly.

 

[Disco08]

Deja vu is a very interesting one. I've actually only experienced it once. I was standing in line at a train station in Holland and for about two minutes I could recite every word that was being spoken around me and predict every action that took place. I was blown away for weeks afterwards.

How could the brain possibly do this?

 

[Tiger74]

Deja vu is a very interesting one. I've actually only experienced it once. I was standing in line at a train station in Holland and for about two minutes I could recite every word that was being spoken around me and predict every action that took place. I was blown away for weeks afterwards.

How could the brain possibly do this?

Well you were in Amsterdam....... :spin

 

[Disco08]

Be that as it may, I'm sure others have had similarly powerful deja vu experiences. What I want to know is how they can be explained.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Be that as it may, I'm sure others have had similarly powerful deja vu experiences. What I want to know is how they can be explained.

There is a significant amount of neurological 'processing' that takes place between vision and recollection. I am not sure exactly what causes the sensation of deja vu, however I am not surprised that this 'disconnect' can happen from time to time for perfectly natural reasons.

Wikipedia has some possible explanations.

 

[Disco08]

Thanks. Having a look it all seems predictably wishy-washy (how can you study something when no one knows when it's going to occur?) and the explanations don't seem to adequately explain how you can know exactly what someone (in my case a host of people) is going to say well before they say it.

 

[evo]

Well what did you expect.

You are asking for an explanation for something that is an illusion.

 

[Disco08]

How do you know it's an illusion?

 

[evo]

How do you know it's an illusion?

Because knowing something ahead of time is logically impossible.

There are an infinite amount of variables that going into just your small part of the world just 5 seconds from now,let alone days or weeks as most people ussually claim in de ja vu.How could your brain possibly calculate it with surety?

Time travel is not possible forward or back.Just enjoy 'now'

 

[Disco08]

If that's the case here's another story which is logically impossible; at the casino one night 4 of us were playing our usually little system on roulette and a young lass I worked with at the time was tagging along. All of a sudden she knew exactly what number was coming up, at least 30 seconds before it actually fell in. She did this a further four times in about a 2 hour period, non-consecutively - she didn't always 'feel' it. She never made an incorrect prediction and she's never felt anything like it before or after. Believe me, we tried to get it to happen again but absolutely nothing.

The odds of this happening by chance are astronomic - well into the billions to one and I guarantee it wasn't an illusion. Myself, the girl and 3 mates all saw it and collected quite a bit of cash from it (once we got over our initial scepticism).

Knowing something ahead of time is only logically impossible if you discount out of hand any possibility of 'psychic' ability. Given the amount of apparent anecdotal evidence I think that's a hard thing to do. Such things may not be explainable with today's knowledge but who's to say at some point these things won't be perfectly validated by scientific discovery?

 

[evo]

Knowing something ahead of time is only logically impossible if you discount out of hand any possibility of 'psychic' ability.

Even if psychic abilities were true you wouldn't be able to know something ahead of time.Have a bit more of a think about what you are saying.

[Given the amount of apparent anecdotal evidence I think that's a hard thing to do. Such things may not be explainable with today's knowledge but who's to say at some point these things won't be perfectly validated by scientific discovery?

Me.And anyone else who has given thought to what 'time' means.

It is not logically possible.It doesn't matter how advanced science gets.

As aside this is a kinda cool thought experiement.Worth the read.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/death%26timetravel.htm

 

[Disco08]

Even if psychic abilities were true you wouldn't be able to know something ahead of time.Have a bit more of a think about what you are saying.

Me.And anyone else who has given thought to what 'time' means.

It is not logically possible.It doesn't matter how advanced science gets.

So how do you explain all the instances of people seeming to know what will happen in the future (be it 2 seconds or 20 years)? All flukes? Should we discard any evidence of such things because investigating them would be folly based on the fact that such things are logically impossible, at least by 21st century philosophical standards?

 

[evo]

What evidence? There is no evidence.If you have evidence take it to James Randi and he will give you a million smakeroos.

And yes,it is a waist of scientists time.