Aren't some woo just the hypothesis that has yet to be tested. Intuition? Doesn't science always

[applegrove]

start there?

[randome]

1. Steve Jobs trusted his intuition.

He died from it.

Of course intuition counts. But only to a point.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[AngryAmish]

9. Steve McQeen's intuition led him ti be making movies well

into old age.

WHAT?

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. Steve McQueen had mesothelioma from asbestos exposure.

It's pretty doubtful that anything outside of a double lung transplant would have saved him, and that wasn't an option in the 1970's (the first successful lung transplant wasn't performed until 1981).

[Deep13]

2. No.

Jesus, not this again.

"Woo" proponents reject scientific methods because they don't like the conclusion. The idea must come from the facts. One cannot start with the conclusion and then cherry pick the facts, or worse cherry pick the anecdotes and uninformed explanations, to support that conclusion.

[applegrove]

3. Do the scientists recognize "woo" as a term or is it simply a made up idea?

Is "woo" woo? Because I've never heard about it except on the DU.

[KT2000]

10. I believe someone

here is trying to make this made up word more common. It is a derogatory term that is entirely subjective. Some have used it to deride treatments they personally do not believe in, including some whose efficacy has been proven.
To me, it seems to be used as a propaganda tool.

[LostOne4Ever]

13. It if has been proven

It would not be woo.

If it claims to be proven contrary to scientific community...it is woo.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

[Ohio Dem]

25. If the OP really wants to know what woo is, cite describes it exactly. nt

[KT2000]

43. point being

some here have called proven therapies woo. Some using that term are not up on the latest research pertaining to therapies that they are still calling woo.

[applegrove]

20. The discussion does not seem scientific at all. It does sound like somebody's propaganda.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. As far as I can tell, though I could test your hypothesis

by asking a few actual scientist, but as far as I can tell it is a DU term.

That said, in my mind it means lack of scientific literacy.

Not just DU

Here, for example

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

[arcane1]

30. I'm a science lover who hates the word "woo"

Even though pretty much everything I've ever seen defined as "woo" really is truly bullshit, I nevertheless hate the term.

[Deep13]

41. I don't know, but they certainly recognize pseudoscience. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Fine. Subject your woo to the same efficacy and safety tests as other drugs.

[Pale Blue Dot]

5. And science is the only proper way to test hypothesis.

And if properly blinded and controlled scientific studies say the hypothesis is wrong, then it should be over.

"Woo" is what happens when people choose to ignore the results of properly blinded and controlled scientific studies.

[NuclearDem]

6. Woo and actual science are in no way related.

Woo doesn't follow the scientific method at all. It's very often not peer-reviewed and subsequently is not subjected to falsification to determine if it's true. Woo pushers often claim persecution or conspiracy when actual members of the scientific community evaluate (and subsequently reject) their claims.

Woo is not a term for rudimentary scientific fields or "unpopular" ideas. Woo is NEVER science. They are completely, wholly incompatible.

If you see claims of a conspiracy or persecution (Big Pharma and secularists are two of the most popular boogeymen), it's woo.

If you see phrases like "scientifically proven to work", it's woo.

If you see anything about quantum not published in a major scientific journal, it's probably woo.

[dilby]

7. I still don't understand woo.

Would science fiction be considered woo?

[TlalocW]

14. No, because it's fiction admitting to be fiction

Serious people don't look at Star Trek movies and say, "Hey, the Enterprise makes a wooshing noise when traveling in the vacuum of space! Science is wrong!"

Woo is that which has been properly subjected to scientific testing - like say, "Dowsing" - and found not to be of any worth yet practitioners and their supporters still claim it works. If the dowser could get past a simple, double-blinded experiment where the tests yielded better results than chance would in his/her finding something then there would be something there, but they never have so science can return to important matters.

TlalocW

[TlalocW]

16. Also on a sidenote...

It's not, "Woo." It's, "WOOOOOO!"



TlalocW

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. And good science fiction uses science for the basis of the possible

such as warp drives... in star trek. Yup, Rodenberrry asked NASA.

We are to the point that it might require ALL the energy in the universe known at present, not more, so we are making progress.



And in design departments, you know why clam shell phones look like communicators? Butt calling, communicator calling.

[longship]

19. As long as Scotty kept the Heisenberg compensator properly aligned.

Of course, all his time estimates were multiplied by four so that he could keep his reputation as a miracle worker.

Plus, the dude could drink just about anybody under the table.

I raise my glass to Commander Montgomery Scott!


(Mine's bourbon tonight; forgive me Mr. Scott.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. The miracle worker part, is classic Navy Engineering

you always over estimate the repair time for the Captain. Hence, you are a miracle worker.

There were a few things that came straight mostly from the Royal Navy in the series, like you serve in the same command forever and a day.

Also the original series had no enlisted personnel (and fun fact, the Enterprise had no bathrooms).

[longship]

28. No bathrooms!!!!! I love it!

I guess they don't poop in the 23rd century.

Can't stand the Star Trek reboot. Turns the whole universe upside-down.

Just keep yer Heisenberg Compensator aligned and ye'll be alright, Lassee!

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. The geek is my husband

a regular geek, and yes, somewhere we have the actual technical drawings for the Enterprise.

The joke among geeks was, get into the teleporter, and that will get rid of your body waste.

Hey, you do need compensators for that! Oy.

[longship]

36. ROFL! Oy! Indeed.

So that's what it's for. Commander Data would be amused. Wesley Crusher would be horrified. Worf would just shrug it off.

[X_Digger]

8. No, woo is belief in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Like believing in acupuncture or homeopathy in spite of scientific evidence that it does no better than a placebo.

Or believing that sea stars on the west coast are dying from fukushima radiation, when in fact they started dying before fukishima and also are dying on the east coast.

Woo is believing that vaccines cause autism in spite of multiple studies to the contrary.

Woo is believing in crystals, pyramids, ghosts, past lives, precognition, telekinesis, or ESP in spite of debunking.

[Adrahil]

12. Exactly.

Woo is not just promoting an idea that has yet to be tested (unless you promote it as TRUTH without any evidence), it's idea that people believe despite considerable evidence against.

Most woo believers depend upon anecdotal "evidence" for their beliefs.

[loudsue]

11. Did you really have to start another woo thread?

What is wrong with you?

[truth2power]

15. You are correct. Anyone can posit a hypothesis about something and then seek to test it...

there should be freedom of thought and freedom to speculate.

Unless, of course, you step on the toes of a certain contingent, here, who just KNOW what "woo" is. Then just STFU.

Some months ago I attended an astronomy program. At the conclusion of the program, I chatted briefly with the presenter. He told me that Worm Holes had been "proven" not to exist. I told him that was incorrect but that i would re-check my information.

He was incorrect. A worm hole is a theoretical construct that is allowed for, mathematically. No one has ever found one. Yet. This is not the same as saying they've been proven not to exist. (aside from trying to prove a negative).

Do you think humankind will ever be able to travel faster than light? No?

Google: alcubierre drive + NASA

Here: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/164326-nasa-discusses-its-warp-drive-research-prepares-to-create-a-warp-bubble-in-the-lab

In my lifetime? Nah! But someday in the far future....perhaps.





Think outside the box.


Edit to add: See what I mean, applegrove? If someone says something is woo, then stop talking about it. If no one ever pursued an idea that the naysayers pronounced as "woo" where would we be? It's a pejorative term, meant to shut down discussion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. And here Clarke's rules of prediction fit very well

Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

And I should add a tad of Michio Kaku's Physics of the Future, among others. Who you talked is also way behind the power curve in current knowledge by the way.

That said, when people say, vaccines cause autism, that IS woo, provable and all.

When people say, you should use chelating agents RIGHT NOW due to fuku fall out RIGHT NOW in North America, that IS woo.

If you tell me, well, you see there is the possibility of time travel... and the laws of nature are even easier to see at higher dimensions... yes, absolutely, we even have simulators to try to envision how that would look. No, we humans did not evolve to understand at an intuitive level anything beyond the third dimension. Tape worms I think can only see two, so we would be magical to them. Could life on other worlds evolve sentience and more senses than just three dimensions? Possible.

[longship]

21. Great! Both Montgomery Scott and Arthur C Clark in the same thread!!

Wonderful posts, both of them.

Tanks, pal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. You welcome

I think we will have to include Kaku in this list soon.

[longship]

32. Not a big Kaku fan.

He's alright, but delves far too far into speculation. Plus, there's the String Thing. Not sure that's going anywhere.

I prefer those who stick to what we know and are not afraid to say "I dunno" when asked speculative questions. Kaku plunges into the speculation. It can be fun, but that isn't science.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. String is actually going places

as they refine the Kaluza Klein. If it does pan out, it will make physics stranger than a muon, or a quark.

[longship]

39. No experiments is the problem.

I know about Kaluza Klein and studied multidimensional calculus in my undergraduate days as a physics student, as well as quantum.

My problem with Strings is that they've been at it for decades and have not made anything which can remotely be called a breakthrough. To many who follow physics it seems to be mathematical games, where one tries to model the universe using mathematical formula without any prior plausibility or physics to lead one down that path.

Quantum Field Theory is based on experimentation and grounded in physical properties, which because of the evolution of the theory over a century, gives one reason to expect that both experimental and theoretical results will produce solutions that are born out by predictions, especially in the theory. The Higgs comes to mind.

Strings have been studied for the same number of decades as QFT with no success. So many people paying attention to things now must discount strings. Note, that nobody's saying they should stop. Just that it does not appear to be a productive avenue for physics, in spite of their incredible mathematical achievements. Physics can always use those.

My personal opinion. Others may disagree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Looking at it from the perspective of the history of science

String is pure theoretical physics, while QM is experimental. This is not a new conflict in the history of physics. And in previews times the breakthrough came from some obscure lab somewhere, and not from the usual suspects.

I like to compare it to a point to Relativity. When Einstein sent his famous paper it was just math. (Advanced mind you, to the point that it is all greek to me). iirc the breakthrough came during a solar eclipse. Light does indeed bend around the sun. The measurements were done with equipment that even twenty years before did not exist.

To get even further into the theory of scientific revolutions, one also has to ask (mind you the string theory fans have not asked that question, but somebody like Karl Popper would if he were alive today), if we have equipment\experimenter bias at play as well.

And this is WAY, WAAAYYYY too much inside baseball, as you well know.

But if they actually manage to do this, as in find evidence that it is real, in my mind we will be closer (minutely mind you) to the grand unification theory. If we do not, we will get there as well, but it will also take time and many steps, and physics will be stranger than the God Particle itself. It is already really, really, really weird.

And always remember the last funny statement from Einstein himself, GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE. To me that means, things are sure to get stranger. But that is what makes it fun.

Hey, twenty years ago we did not have planets outside the solar system. This was a strange critter. Now we know we are strange indeed, the makeup of this solar system is... well, special.

[truth2power]

37. Thank you nadin. The only one of Clarke's 3 laws I knew of was

#3...Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I tell people this all the time.


As far as whether vaccines cause autism...I haven't investigated the research, so I'm not in a position to offer an opinion one way or the other. I don't currently have any infants, so it doesn't affect me personally. But if I had a newborn at this point in time I don't think I'd load him/her up on multiple vaccines all at one time. JMHO.

When my son was an infant (this was 46 years ago). He received a vaccine one afternoon. My memory fails. I don't remember what it was. The next morning he spiked a fever and had what they called a febrile convulsion. Over the next few days he had several more. The doctor said that some babies are born with not enough insulation on their nerves (??) and tend to "spike" any fever they have.

For the longest time I carefully monitored any minor illness for a high fever. He is currently a healthy adult and seems to have suffered no residual effects. Did the vaccine cause the seizures? Who can say?


* * *

BTW...watch for Neil deGrasse Tyson's new Cosmos series scheduled to air on PBS in March or April.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Yes, we know they do not cause autism

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n5/full/nn0507-531.html

Let me share the effect of this idiocy

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html

What your doctors told you is funny. Was your son a premie? We NOW know kids who were premies tend to have more high fevers as children. And yes, some kids will have more fevers than others.

What your doctor was implying was the sheath that covers the nerve, that be the myelin sheath. That is usually considered a serious condition.

[truth2power]

45. I looked at those links and also did some cursory research. There seems to be

no definitive idea as to what causes autism.

Just to clarify...I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't vaccinate my children. Just space the immunizations out more.

Nevertheless, it appears that it's not the thimerosol, since the incidence of autism conitinued to increase after it was removed from vaccines.

Was my son a preemie? God, no! He was 8 lbs. 16 oz., which, back then, was a very large baby.

As far as the myelin sheath, I understand. All I can say is that 46 years ago medical science wasn't where it is today. Thankfully, my son developed into a normal healthy individual.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Yup, healthy kids are a gift

And medicine evolves.

[laundry_queen]

27. Excellent post. That's exactly it. nt

[marybourg]

29. No. No.

And no.

[cthulu2016]

33. Short answer, No. What hypothesis do you have in mind?

[applegrove]

42. Any bit of insight. Like Einstein. You feel/think it in a aha moment and then you test it.

I'm also asking you where you first heard of the concept of Woo? Is it purely a DU thing?

[baldguy]

35. Tim Minchin said it best:

Alternative Medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work.
Do you know what they call "alternative medicine" that's been proved to work?

Medicine.

[GeorgeGist]

44. NO.

[bemildred]

47. Science does not take authoritative positions about theories.

For that you need people and belief.

[Dash87]

48. "Woo" is superstition favored over science.

This includes energy-based faith healers, exorcism, homeopathy, new age spirit science, some alternative medicines proven to have no medical value, and magic.

Basically, if has a non-placebo value and does what it's intended to do, it's not woo. If it has no value and has been proven to do nothing, it's woo.