Mindlessly evoking science (esp when you don't know the science) is woo too

[kristopher]

We see a tremendous amount of that on the EE forum with nuclear proponents. There is a large amount of woo from a few Fukushima-is-going-to-kill-us posters, but by far the greatest volume of woo over there is people who claim that "science" supports the expanded use of nuclear power. You can make an argument for that position, but it is not a sustainable argument in the face of what we know about energy systems.

Moving from that specific to the more general, "science" is the pursuit of knowledge in a systemized manner designed to protect us from false conclusions. It isn't perfect. It makes mistakes. If you are wielding it like a club to bash people with in generalized discussions, you are just being an ass. "Science" requires that you first obtain a full understanding of their position on the specific issue to be judged and, only once that is done, can you set out on a path to find whether that position is accurate or not in light of the best known evidence.

In the area of medicine, for example, Japan has an active and integrated holistic medical community that works together with the modern medical community. It isn't seamless, but they do have the one of the longest life expectancy of any country.

EVERYONE has something they can learn. The discussions I've been reading today are not related to learning.

[immoderate]

1. It's quantum!

Does anything you want.

--imm

[mike_c]

2. science has stronger woo fu....

I've just wanted to say that all morning.

[KT2000]

3. Agree. The true scientists

I have met are humble, not arrogant.
They are research scientists who are driven to learn more.

[bemildred]

4. Yes. It's annoying too.

"It's not the things you don't know that get you in big trouble, it's the things you know for sure that aren't so."

[AverageJoe90]

8. Exactly.

"It's not the things you don't know that get you in big trouble, it's the things you know for sure that aren't so.

This is especially true, it can be argued, for the "It's worse than we thought! Worse than we thought! Always!" mantra, like, for example, when they keep trying to argue that the IPCC was way too conservative on everything; when in fact, other than Arctic sea ice melt and a select few other things(including short-term atmospheric temperature increases, which they were actually a little pessimistic about), they were actually pretty much about on the mark with nearly everything else.

[bemildred]

11. Well, I mostly avoid that donnybrook,

but i can assure you I never listen to people who are sure they know what's going to happen. We don't live in that sort of world, and we never did.

We may be doomed, we may not. Time will tell.

[progressoid]

5. Speaking of science. How (scientifically) did you come to the conclusion that Japan's integrated

holistic medicine extends their lifespan?

Switzerland and San Marino have the same life expectancy. Do they also have "an active and integrated holistic medical community"?

[kristopher]

6. Great science (if the use of straw man argumentation can be called science)

The point is that modern doctors in Japan see a value in some aspects of the holistic approach and that they are delivering effective healthcare. Are you saying they are practicing "woo"?

My larger point is that the entire framing of the discussion by most on DU today is nothing but squabbling.

[progressoid]

9. What strawman?

[KT2000]

13. Switzerland does

cover homeopathic remedies under their insurance. Not sure if there is a formal integration of holistic/conventional medicine.
They did approve a Constitutional amendment to allow certain alternative therapies.

[progressoid]

22. Ok, so it's covered by insurance.

Now all we need is a double blind study to determine if those that partake in these therapies actually live a longer life than those that don't participate as the OP suggests.

[KT2000]

31. Many times the alternative

therapies are used by people who have chronic illnesses. The goal of those therapies in that case would be to ease pain and discomfort, regain functionality etc.
These would be quality of life issues rather than length of life although the OP did say that Switzerland did have a comparable length of life.

Asian, European, South & Central America have been using alternative therapies for centuries. I think if you look around at journals you will find lots of double-blind studies that have proven efficacy for some alternative therapies but that is up to you. Of course you will not find them in the JAMA etc.

[2naSalit]

14. Do they?

Most likely. Maybe someone should look that up?

Here's a place to start:

http://www.camdoc.eu/Pdf/CAMDOCRegulatoryStatus8_10.pdf


I'm sure that different search terms will render different results but, you might find the answer you like, or not.

[progressoid]

25. Great link

Unfortunately, it does nothing to support the OP's implication that integrating holistic and modern medicine extend lifespans.

[2naSalit]

27. Well

that's true, I was looking for that but got distracted. I would love to conduct a study on that topic myself but can't find the $$ to fund it. I think it's a valid question to ask.

I was hoping to find something on that but haven't yet... haven't looked all that hard either though!

[kristopher]

29. "the OP's implication"?

You should rephrase that as "the straw man I keep trying to insert into what the OP wrote".

I've already made clear what the "implication" in my OP was:
"The point is that modern doctors in Japan see a value in some aspects of the holistic approach and that they are delivering effective healthcare. Are you saying they are practicing "woo"?"

You chose to ignore what was explicitly written in order to pursue your use of straw man argumentation, but I'm sure you nonetheless consider your tactic to be a very "science" based approach to discussion.

[progressoid]

32. There is no straw man.

You said:

In the area of medicine, for example, Japan has an active and integrated holistic medical community that works together with the modern medical community. It isn't seamless, but they do have the one of the longest life expectancy of any country.

I'm trying to do what you asked. That is "obtain a full understanding of their position on the specific issue to be judged and, only once that is done, set out on a path to find whether that position is accurate or not in light of the best known evidence."

And I agree with EVERYONE has something they can learn. So I'm trying to learn how Japan's integrated holistic medicine extends their lifespan.

[kristopher]

33. Not only a straw man, but now overt dishonesty also

I can see why you seem to be taking the OP so personally.

You misconstrued my meaning; I clarified.

You ignored the clarification and promote the straw man I'd corrected.

I corrected your misconstrued "implication" yet again.

Now you continue your false assertion.I never said that the integration of alternative medicine led to long lives, only that both are present meaning the endless claims of mutual exclusivity being made on various threads today are questionable. If you can't accept that, OK.

Now we know what you are, and it isn't a person of science but it is a person willing to intentionally falsify data for a petty emotional high.

You can have the last word, since nothing you have to say is of further interest.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Clearly they do not have similar population samples. San Marino has about 33,000 people

a very high average income and universal heath care which most augment with private insurance because to repeat, they are 33,000 well off people in a tiny enclave nation surrounded by Italy.
Japan has 127 Million people. There are problems with your comparison of the two, obviously.

[progressoid]

23. I don't understand.

Are you saying San Marino doesn't need to integrate holistic medicine because they are more wealthy and have better health care?

[AverageJoe90]

7. I find that this is particularly true for climate doomers, in regards to E & E.

It seems that they, or at least some of them, are all too willing to grab the newest gloom-and-doom article, and scream, "See?! It's worse than we thought! Worse than we thought! WORSE, I TELL YA!!!one!!1!1!!one!!", pretty much regardless of how far-fetched the claim(Guy McPherson's wild & unsupportable claim that humanity will be extinct by 2030) or how flawed the article's research(see: Sherwood's recent claims, or at least, as has been interpreted of water-vapor remodelling, supposedly taking climate sensitivity from 2*C to 4-5*C, alone, by itself) may be.

And it seems that nearly every time someone calls it out, depending on the person(this goes both ways), they'll either brush it off, or go after you and label you a "denier", or a "minimizer", etc.

[Vashta Nerada]

10. Funny. That's not in the definition of woo:

“Woo” is shorthand for “woo woo” and is not just limited to alternative medicine but rather represents an entire philosophy of credulity of the sort favored by New Age types. It’s clear that “woo” or “woo woo” can refer to either a person or a belief system. When it refers to the person, it is referring to a person who believes in woo. To me, when referring to “alternative medicine,” I view the “altie” and “woo” as largely synonymous, but woo has a broader meaning, embracing a wider variety of credulity. One thing is for sure, it is not generally meant as a flattering term–for very good reason.

So what is woo?

If I had to boil it down, I’d define woo as beliefs that clearly demonstrate magical thinking, uncritical acceptance of things for which no good evidence exists. This includes, but is not limited to, psychic phenomenon, ghosts, the paranormal, “energy healing,” the use of “colon cleansing” and “liver cleansing” to rid oneself of “toxins,” homeopathy (especially quantum homeopathy), and a wide variety of other mystical and pseudoscientific beliefs. Woo is resistant to reason. Indeed, woo has a double standard when it comes to what it considers to be good evidence. It is very accepting of a wide variety of fuzzy, mystical ideas, but is often incredibly distrustful and skeptical of anything having to do with “conventional” science or “conventional” medicine. Woos tend to be very quick to react to defend their particular brand of woo and very unforgiving of its being questioned.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/08/01/reader-mailbag-what-is-woo-1/

[kristopher]

12. I'm referring to the discussions on DU today and the way it's being used

If you disagree, fine.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. But that's the definition of the word like Goodwin's Law is a law.

Woo in the English language does not mean quackery or medical fakery, pseudo-science or therapeutic fraud, it is a verb meaning 'to seek the affections of another with romantic or matrimonial intent'.
This usage on DU is a jargon use, not the actual, accepted definition of the word in actual English. A process that is science based, including mere discussion, would make use of clear and actual definitions in an officially shared language. The use of jargon almost always causes confusion and misunderstanding, which reason based people seek to avoid. By using the actual language.
The OP makes very good points. What you posted is gibberish.

[Vashta Nerada]

16. "Twerking" and "texting" is gibberish too.

"Woo" is a word that is accepted by all the world's leading scientists, including Richard Dawkins.

I suggest you re-read the article. I'll help you out: woo woo.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. It's jargon and I did not even say the word 'woo' is gibberish, I said it is misused.

The improvisational 'definition' you posted is gibberish in that it is not the definition of the word. I'll help you out, it's just something people say to remain vague while sounding mean. They wish to stay vague because they fear actual reasoned discussion with terms which are solidly defined and prefer magical wording for their ritual arguments.
Just to be clear, 'jargon' specifically means a terminology that is used by one group or community which is not used by the wider population at all or in the same way. So the fact that professionals in this area use the term but others do not is what makes it jargon. This leads to confusion and a lack of specificity, things most people of science do not care for much. Several people in each of these threads asks what is meant by the word, because it is a piece of jargon. It requires definition because others do not know what is meant by those who say it. I assume those using it use it because it lacks specific meaning. Specificity seems to frighten them.
The august experts of medical science, in my lifetime, claimed being gay was a mental disorder. After that sort of display, the curtain has been torn, the wee man has been revealed to be making wild guesses and naming it knowledge far too often and with far too much certainty.
Here's an example of how stable and reliable the scientific community can be.
" During the first half of the nineteenth century a number of individuals in Europe began to study homosexuality scientifically. The theories developed during this time suggested that homosexuality was a disease, and these theories influenced how homosexuality was regarded by the scientific community until well past the mid twentieth century. It wasn't until the late twentieth century that there was a paradigm shift in the science of psychiatry and medicine regarding the pathology of homosexuality. In the early twentieth century, psychiatrists considered homosexuality a disease that could be cured through psychotherapy and treatment options were assessed, yet gradually, theories of a hormonal and genetic origin of homosexuality arose and became accepted. This paradigm shift impacted the political and social climates of the United States, while at the same time; these outside influences also affected science. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, and patients practicing homosexuality were no longer treated as if it were a disease. Thus, since its conception in the early nineteenth century, the scientific definition of homosexuality has greatly evolved; this evolution has been closely associated with the progression of the social and political definition of homosexuality as well."
https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/WWC/The+Evolution+of+the+Medical+Definition+of+Homosexuality
Assumptions made and called fact influenced the scientific community from the 1800's until the 1970's. Gay was a disease, that was the accepted, tested science.
To me, that's a history of extreme quackery and theology posing as science. A community that called me diseased until 73 based on no evidence at all needs to wait a few decades before criticizing other people for things they think to be true. If my choice is some raging nut saying gay people have a disease and a person offering an herbal tea for my digestion, I'll call the second one doctor and the first idiot, fool, brittle brained nonsense dribbling dogma lover. But that's just me. I assume the Knights Who Say Woo would have accepted the 'disease' theory as 'science' and mocked anyone who suggested otherwise. I am free to assume that because 'woo' is a bit of meaningless jargon, not actual language, and it's meaning is improvised to suit any moment.

[Vashta Nerada]

19. tl;dr

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Such a lucid response.

As I said, facts, context and specificity frighten the very people who claim to be all about those very things.
Until 1973, the 'scientific community' held that homosexuality was a disease, they bickered about the cure. People had gone to the moon. They were still committing gay people and doing all manner of 'therapies' to correct that 'disorder'.
That's just the fact. The Knights Who Say Woo used to say 'Homosexuals are diseased' and when I say 'used to' I mean during my lifetime. They held absolute nonsense to be absolute fact. No different than the religious community. Except that the doctors had power to do physical and emotional damage beyond measure, and they did so.
They should think twice before criticizing others. They should think mostly about how not to fall into such errors and hold on to them so strongly ever again.

[Vashta Nerada]

21. You veered way off into left field.

That's why I didn't give you a response.

[CanSocDem]

26. No...

...you just didn't read the post.


.

[Whisp]

24. well, the earth was flat once, until the scientists rounded it!

edited: No, I am NOT anti-science, that's for teabaggers. But I know that we are only as smart as the instruments we have at hand and science does change its mind according to new facts - therefore, being wrong in the past.

This minute is the next minutes past.

[2naSalit]

28. And perhaps

the flat earth idea is making a comeback! I keep reading and hearing people saying across the world as opposed to around the world lately. What's up with that? Is subject/verb agreement a thing of the past or suddenly illegal or unacceptable now? Last I knew, the world was round and when in reference to the entire surface of it the term would be around and that the term across would be in reference to something akin to a plane or flat-ish surface as a segment of a global shape like, oh, the nation or an individual land mass.