General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo, if woo is just as good as science, why bother with global warming?
I mean, sure science says human kind is warming up the planet, but the consensus on DU seems to be that scientists and science can't be trusted. So why the need for comprehensive carbon regulation.
Also, why should we believe those pencil- necked biology scientists when they tell us Jesus never rode a dinosaur?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Over 20 years ago I was involved in a serious car crash, as a passenger. I had a bad case of whiplash, and a doctor suggested I have a couple vertebrae fused to fix it. I saw a chiropractor instead, 2 visits a week for 2 months, then 1 visit a week for 1 more month, and I've been just fine ever since. I am SO GLAD that I didn't have those vertebrae surgically fused back then.
Just because someone like Archae considers it "woo" does not make it so, it just means that they're close minded or misunderstand what it is about.
So, yes, I suppose there are different grades. Chiropracty is not Aromatherapy. If someone suggested treating whiplash with aromatherapy, I would call that woo as well.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)what he does is not woo.
When he starts offering treatment for leukemia or pneumonia, that will be woo.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Anecdotal, again, but I have a friend who is battling cancer. She has done the common regular medical treatments including chemo, radiation, and surgery for it. She also uses aromatherapy and says that it helps her mood. Who am I to argue if she says having her house smell of chamomile makes her less anxious and depressed? In that instance, for her condition, aromatherapy is not woo. She is not expecting aromatherapy to cure her cancer.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and saying that those who go to them are idiots.
So it isn't that anyone here is actually supporting woo. It is that people's definitions differ -- so some people support chiropractors, for example, and others insist that they're engaged in woo.
There are categories of woo that are clearly woo, like palm reading.
There are categories that some people here call woo, like acupuncture, even though it has has been shown in dozens of studies involving thousands of people as helpful in relieving pain.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It's what they do.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and which do we get to mock conservatives for dismissing?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Nor should we put words on the mouths of others.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)than medical science are anti-science.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity" , also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. First appearing in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek "??? ά????? ??????ή" or eis atopon apagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics),[1] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.
The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms:
Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air.
Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos.
There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.
mathematic
(1,430 posts)It's not a fallacy. So I'm a little confused by your "agree".
Things proved by this technique are true as long as their underlying premises are true. Of the three examples cited, the first two are sensible using common understandings of the words. I don't think they're particularly good examples, though. The third example is true in no uncertain terms.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Big Pharma is out to make money and some doctors are incompetent, so therefore TCM is much better, regardless of its lack of scientific support.
I swear it's like I'm reading creationists trying to "disprove" evolution.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)BTW: why did 40,000 to 60,000 people die from Vioxx (FDA figures) before it was yanked from the market?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And BAD science is, well, bad.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)The drug is no more dangerous than some drugs sold over the counter in other countries (like diclofenac). Ibuprofen increases the risk of stroke by 30% in people, and can be bought over the counter.
It's a shitty stat and it's like saying "X amount of people die from vaccines," as if it's a relevant stat. Yes, vaccines can and do cause reactions in very rare cases.
Salviati
(6,002 posts)Because there are plenty of human beings that are greedy lying shitbags.
Some of them are in the business of selling medicine that has side effects that they'd rather you not find out about.
Some of them are in the business of selling snake oil that does no good whatsoever.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Money can corrupt anything, and does result in bullshit scientific studies (see: Koch brothers and global warming), but that doesn't mean TCM or most alternative medicines suddenly have the edge on evidence-based medicine.
ProgressSaves
(123 posts)HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES MUST WORK THEN!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Even though it kills as many as Vioxx?
The FDA followed proper procedure. The drug companies withdrew the drug because it lacked effectiveness and opened them up for lawsuits. The FDA was not scammed into accepting a drug that didn't have a real world use. They simply looked at the data and approved it. There was no false data provided to the FDA as that would've been caught.
temporary311
(954 posts)Jesus was a dinosaur.
[img][/img]
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)And then, of course, it is very bad indeed. Opposed to GM foods, then any science that doesn't agree is bad science. Think GM foods are a good idea for feeding the world, then opposition to GM is GM denial. Believe Fukushima is destroying the world, then science that contradicts that idea is corporate lies. Believe that Fukushima is not destroying the world, then those that believe are members of the anti-intellectual faith society.
And discussing these things is impossible because belief has run rampant, and an well written, researched, information that contradicts belief is unacceptable.
longship
(40,416 posts)It has nothing whatever to preconceived notions or wishful thinking, or political leanings.
Science tests things against nature, which is the final and sole arbiter of what's what.
And it's not easy. It's fucking difficult to find out new things, or even to get to the bottom of old things.
But one thing is for sure. One does not likely learn it on the Intertubes.
People who are educated in science and/or critical thinking see woo-woo as a threat to our future. If people are not educated in science enough to know that homeopathy is bunkum, how in the Sam Hell are we going to convince them that increased tax rates on the wealthy is a good ide?
Granted, they are different disciplines but the common thread is thinking rationally and being able to evaluate rationally one position from another.
Too many people are still drinking the Kool Aid. That's not good.
Thanks.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Science can do what it wants, if people en masse decide to go with myth or woo, the fact based and scientific method derived findings will not win out. And while Science has a number of important things in its corner, myth and woo have in their corner the fact that people who believe such things do not need verifiable facts to be on their side. They will take things on faith.
It frustrates me but it is reality unfortunately. I fight against it every chance I get including here.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Those who said otherwise were called radicals, fools, heretics, deniers of medicine. They were also called mentally ill.
I contend that at that time, and thus possibly at other times, the folks in the 'science and medicine' costumes were in fact preaching 'woo' and religious dogmas. The folks wearing the 'mentally ill pervert' costumes were in fact speaking of natural reality. The thing which at that time was called 'science' was very wrong, and did great harm to others due to their hyper confidence in their own incorrect beliefs. They preached myth, they lobotomized people based on this quackery they called 'modern medicine'.
I am for all time grateful to those who stood up to the 'science and medical communities' in my youth and did not allow those communities to sell their lies and assumptions to others couched as truth, peddled as discovery.
In matters of LGBT equality, science and medicine were among the first major opponents that had to be defeated. When the AIDS crisis came along, they were still pretty bigoted and that cost untold lives and precious time while they hemmed and hawed and did nothing at all for years.
The mistake comes when any group is given unquestioned authority to make conclusions that are then made into law and used to lobotomize good people, and Steve, I can not sit here and say for you that the 'doctors' who classified gay people as diseased were not quacks because they were quacks. What they practiced was religious based nonsense.
Just saying. They need to do a good century without claiming that a minority group is inferior and diseased in order for me to think about trusting them again without question.
I use 'regular' medicine for most things, I am exceedingly rational. Too rational to be part of the Knights Who Say Woo, a group who when I was a young gay man, said I was diseased because that's what 'science' told them to believe, so they did.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It may not fix its errors in the timeline many of us would like, but it fixed them nonetheless.
Compare that with the thousands of years religion and other superstition has propagated all kinds of harmful myths.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and does extensive harm for which they never offer explanation or apology, this should not cause us to be suspect of their next set of conclusions? They should be offered standing as 'the authorities' while others are mocked for any disagreement? The 'authorities' said gay people are diseased, for years but they are still authorities? No need to fact check?
Being that wrong, for that length of time, about that which is obvious and observable in nature indicates very large flaws in the process being touted as hyper reliable.
Basically, in 1972 the 'science' types said gay people are cursed and need to have electricity run through them or something. What am I comparing that to again?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I know the discussion is about woo, but part of woo is the tendency to accept science or Woo that justifies ones own beliefs.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I attempted to point out that many tend to accept science that justifies their beliefs but ignore, or call it bad science, when it disagrees.
My bad.
longship
(40,416 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)just a few people whining on their electric grid-powered computers never having lived through a pandemic and not having to work an ox-drawn plow to get their food who complain when things are not perfect.
yes, we have made many mistakes, and we should work on making fewer, but while making these mistakes we have lengthened our lifespans, reduced suffering, and made the odd improvement to the planet here and there.
Now, maybe if we put a bit more effort into the cleanup of the planet, we might just have reason to be proud of ourselves while drinking some organic woo-tea.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Claims that the earth is not warming are woo.
Your lack of understanding science is not my fault, or DU's in general. But there are some who dish real crap to try and have you love them. Eh?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)they would put a probability on the likelihood that event x,y, or z would happen and develop a risk profile for nuclear energy.
What the OP is saying is there certainly do seem to be an alarming number of DU posters who are quite cavalier about dismissing scientific research in medicine and other fields in favor of their pet beliefs that have not been proven or duplicated in clinical research.
It does beg the question: how is such a person any better than one who denies humans are causing global warming despite all of the science?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)youth which insisted that being gay was a disease, a mental disorder. This was not a conclusion based on evidence, it was simply an assumption built on prejudices that the 'scientific and medical communities' believed as an article of faith.
Until 1973, 'science' said gay was a disease. That's the context. The Knights Who Say Woo at that time, clearly would have agreed with 'science'. Automatically and without question, or as they say, religiously they would have held that the 'best science' says gay people need to be cured.
Any field that made such grave errors and because of those errors 'treated' people with lobotomy, shock treatments, institutional commitment and harsh, no longer used medicines has much to answer for and looks pretty unrepentant when they claim it is just those others who make such mistakes.
The question is, how were those people any different than fundies with dogmatic beliefs The question is, why didn't the process of science show them how wrong they were? The question is, why would they use such incorrect dogma as reason to do horrific things to human beings?
1973, about the same time the LDS stopped teaching that blacks carry a curse, 'science and medicine' also stopped teaching that being gay is a disorder. How is that impressive?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Please do research on the characteristics of pseudoscience before further commenting on the nature of pseudoscience.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The 'nuclear village' produces a body of "scientific" literature that has the specific intent of promoting a product that those who are doing the research depend on for their livelihood.
Here is a critique by a well qualified ethicist of the method of analysis used to determine the numbers used to promote the idea that "nuclear is safe". How, precisely does this problem and the reaction of nuclear proponents to it on the thread, differ from pseudoscience?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112759049
Classical probability (i), relative-frequency probability (ii), subjective probability (iii)
Even universities erroneously use subjective probabilities (iii), not frequencies (ii), to assess nuclear-core-melt likelihood, particularly when pro-nuclear-government agencies fund their studies. For instance, although the classic, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)-authored, government-funded, reactor-safety study had frequency data for various nuclear accidents that already had occurred after decades of US-operating experience, it did not use them; instead the MIT authors usedsubjective, pro-nuclear assumptions and conjectures about these accident probabilities (Rasmussen, 1975). When independent, university mathematicians compared US nuclear-accident-frequency data, reported from operating experience, with MIT guesses (iii), they discovered that all guesses were far too low, by several orders of magnitude. None of the nuclear-accident-frequency data, based on reactor-operating experience, was within the theoretical, 90% confidence interval of the MIT guesses.Yet there is only a subjective probability of 10% that any of these true (frequency-based) probability values (for different types of reactor accidents) should fall outside this 90% interval. The conclusion? University mathematicians said that MIT assessors were guilty of a massive overconfidence bias toward nuclear safety, a typical flaw in most industry-government-funded, nuclear-risk analyses (Cooke, 1982).
A second illegitimate defense of BSC is through the frequency fallacy, confusing core-melt-relative-frequency data with subjective probabilities. Yet probability can mean: (i) classical probability; (ii) relative frequency; or (iii) subjective probability, not all of which are applicable to nuclear-core-melt assessment.
Classical probability (i) is illustrated by card games in which the deck contains a fixed number of cards, for example 52. The probability of an event (e) thus equals the number of possible favorable outcomes (f) divided by the total number of possible outcomes (n): P(e)?=?f/n. Provided the deck of cards is fair, each card has an equal chance of being picked, and the probability (i) of picking an ace?=?4/52. Thus, (i) assumes that all possible outcomes are equally likely and that we know nneither of which is the case regarding nuclear-accident outcomes.
Relative-frequency probability (ii) is often used for cases where the number of outcomes (n) is so great that all typically cannot be observed, as in the probability (ii) that current 5-year-olds will contract cancer. We cannot observe all 5-year-olds throughout their lifetimes, but can reliably predict cancer probability for random, typical 5-year-olds, if we observe a large-enough, long-enough sample. Thus, if we observed 1000 5-year-olds over their lifetimes, if samples were representative and large enough, and if we observed 350 cancer deaths, we could say this cancer probability was roughly P(e)?=?35.0% (350/1000). We cannot predict with certainty, however, unless we know the frequency of all relevant eventswhether lifetime cancers or total nuclear-core melts. Given that preceding core-melt lists include all occurrences (consistent with the three caveats), those lists suggest an almost-certain, core-melt probability (ii)?=?core melts/total reactors?=?26/442?=?roughly a 6% probability (ii)roughly a 1 in 16 chance of core meltwhich is hardly a low probability.
Subjective probability (iii) relies only on what people think particular probabilities are. The odds people get when they bet at racetracks are subjective probabilities because if the probabilities were objective, smart players would always win.?Obviously (iii) does not provide reliable nuclear-core-melt probabilities because it is based not on facts, but on what people think about facts. Nuclear proponents think the facts are one way, and opponents think they are another. Both cannot always be correct. Since (iii) is subjective and could be inconsistent, and because (i) would require knowing n and knowing a falsehood (that all reactor outcomes were equally likely), (ii) appears most relevant to nuclear-core-melt assessment.
As preceding sections revealed, however, typical atomic-energy advocates use (iii) not (ii) to assess core-melt probabilities, such as when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said core-melt accidents, for all 104 US reactors, would only occur once every 1000 years. Instead, the NRC should have made predictions based on government inspections, independent analyses, and accident-frequency data, not on [subjective-probability] data submitted by plant owners (Broder et al., 2011, p. D1). The NRC predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) also has a long history of making BSC based on (iii). AEC said the probability of a US nuclear core meltdown is 1 in 17,000 per reactor year (AEC, 1957; Mulvihill et al., 1965).
Even universities erroneously use subjective probabilities (iii), not frequencies (ii), to assess nuclear-core-melt likelihood, particularly when pro-nuclear-government agencies fund their studies. For instance, although the classic, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)-authored, government-funded, reactor-safety study had frequency data for various nuclear accidents that already had occurred after decades of US-operating experience, it did not use them; instead the MIT authors used subjective, pro-nuclear assumptions and conjectures about these accident probabilities (Rasmussen, 1975). When independent, university mathematicians compared US nuclear-accident-frequency data, reported from operating experience, with MIT guesses (iii), they discovered that all guesses were far too low, by several orders of magnitude. None of the nuclear-accident-frequency data, based on reactor-operating experience, was within the theoretical, 90% confidence interval of the MIT guesses.Yet there is only a subjective probability of 10% that any of these true (frequency-based) probability values (for different types of reactor accidents) should fall outside this 90% interval. The conclusion? University mathematicians said that MIT assessors were guilty of a massive overconfidence bias toward nuclear safety, a typical flaw in most industry-government-funded, nuclear-risk analyses (Cooke, 1982).
This fallacious substitution of subjective probabilities (iii)for nuclear-core-melt frequencies (ii)has at least two interesting parallels, namely, nuclear-industry preferences for subjective opinions, over empirical data, in reporting both nuclear costs and carbon-equivalent emissions. Since most nuclear-industry-performed studies employ purely subjective economic estimates, instead of empirical-cost data, they counterfactually assume that nuclear-load factors are 9095%, that average reactor lifetimes are 5060 years, and that nuclear-construction-loan-interest rates are 0%. Yet in reality, industry-collected empirical data show average nuclear-load factors are 71%, not 9095%; average reactor lifetimes are 22, not 5060 years; and nuclear-interest rates are at least 15%, not 0%. When one corrects only five subjective (counterfactual) nuclear-cost assumptions with actual empirical data, nuclear costs rise 700% above industry-reported costs, revealing that fission is far more expensive than wind or solar-photovoltaic. Similarly, most nuclear-industry-performed studies claim that atomic energy is carbon-emissions-freea claim dependent on subjectively counting only emissions from reactor operation, not emissions from the entire, 14-stage nuclear-fuel cycle. Once one counts all fuel-cycle emissions, the ratios of carbon emissions are roughly 112 coal : 49 gas : 7 nuclear : 4 solar : 1 wind. For low-grade-uranium ores, the nuclear ratios are even worse: 112 coal : 49 gas : 49 nuclear : 4 solar : 1 wind (Shrader-Frechette, 2011).
From the journal
Ethics, Policy & Environment
Fukushima, Flawed Epistemology, and Black-Swan Events
Dr Kristin Shrader-Frechette
The full discussion is available for download here
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21550085.2011.605851
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)scientific conclusion.
To begin with "safe" is a tricky term to define in normal parlance, let alone scientific inquiry.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)by those components.
"Safe" is not something science can tell you, because it's a judgement call based on risk.
Drinking water can kill you - if you drink something like 2-3 gallons per hour. Does that mean water is safe or not? The answer is how likely you think it is you'll do the unsafe thing.
Are nukes safe? Well, science provides measurements like 2 catastrophic failures in 60 years, with many thousands of plants operating.
But whether or not that is safe is a political consideration, because it includes not only that data, but the data on the alternatives to nuclear power. For example, by turning away from nuclear power in the 70s we made global warming much worse, and we're fucking over the environment by fracking to get at what we used instead of nuclear power.
ProgressSaves
(123 posts)I bet it pays pretty good to be one of the scientists denying it.
Tells me all I need to know about the other findings that people try and deny, based on either religious superstitions or political ideology.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)that poor little "Oil and Gas" interests are looking out for our common good and it's those big, bad mean SCIENTISTS with their GRANT MONEY that are warping the narrative.
too fucking funny.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Doesn't anyone do nuance around here?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)never advances.
Because science is science, after all.
drokhole
(1,230 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)They know their limitations, unlike some of the people around here. True scientists and engineers tend to be a lot more humble than their devoted fans.
drokhole
(1,230 posts)Reminds me of a recent article in Nature where a few scientists address the errors rampant with interpreting scientific claims and even in practicing science itself:
Policy: Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims
http://www.nature.com/news/policy-twenty-tips-for-interpreting-scientific-claims-1.14183
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Indeed they are, thank goodness.
I wouldn't want to live with a robot.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)But acupuncture still isn't that future.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)devices never touched. It works. Thankfully, as the pain and spasms were utterly debilitating. Gone with the needles. Would I use it if I had a brain tumor to treat that tumor? No.
The scientific and medical communities, until 1973 held that being gay was a disease. They had no evidence for this, just assumptions based on other assumptions, but they were so devoted to their beliefs that they lobotomized an shocked and institutionalized thousands of people. Horrific abuses. Until 1973. That's the recent past of a community that is being presented on DU as unerring and also as doing no harm, when in fact the science and medicine community erred criminally, did great harm and failed to question their own conclusions for generations.
In my lifetime, 'science' has held and taught unmitigated bullshit based on dogmatic assumption, and 'medicine' has used that bullshit to excuse torturous and worthless 'treatment' of people who were not in need of any treatment.
And still, even after those things which should still bring shame to that community, they come around to tell others than treatments which work for them do not work, 'cause of belief.
My acupuncture treatments were ordered by the head physician of a chronic pain clinic in a major and very wealthy hospital. A leader in his field. But you disagree with him and call me a liar when I say it works for me. You do this in the name of a thought process that recently concluded that gay people are diseased. Forgive me if I don't take you seriously at all.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And where the fuck do you get off thinking I endorse the previous listing of homosexuality in the DSM as a mental disorder? That was based on bad science, and fortunately good science won out and it was removed.
Know what, don't bother fucking answering. You're on ignore for that shit.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)accepted that 'science' which you now claim was science, just 'bad science' that the entire community could not see was bad for about a hundred years. Tell me, what was the 'bad science'? I don't think there was any science, just assumption mounted on assumption, called 'science' and extended into medicine, lobotomies and such. This was 'science and medicine' until I was a teenager.
The fact that such grave errors are part of the history means that the communities responsible have no standing to claim that they follow a process, or that they are always right. A reason based community, having done such wrongs, would practice a rigorous humility and a constant state of self inspection so consuming that inspecting other people's medical choices would not even cross their minds, too busy making sure they themselves don't wind up committing atrocities based on ignorance again.
They did what they did, saying 'bad science' does not explain why that bad science was believed fully for a hundred years. It also does not redeem the actions nor create for those guilty a new world in which they get to preach without being questioned.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That was bad science, and now we have much more accurate approaches to dealing with the mind. In fact, the developments made by prominent psychologists led to homosexuality being removed from the DSM.
Look, I'm not going to make apologies for things like lobotomies, ECT, or shitty 19th century attitudes towards homosexuality and the worst aspects of psychiatry. In fact, I've never endorsed those brutal aspects of psychiatry and frankly they never should have been used on anyone. But nobody is stating that scientific fields shouldn't be questioned or that every effort shouldn't be made to find flaws in methodology. What they are saying is that though methodological naturalism has its flaws, it cannot and should not be substituted with pseudoscientific nonsense.
Your statements show you don't understand how the scientific community functions ("dogma" is not a thing in science, and claiming it is puts you in league with creationists), nor do you understand how methodologies rise and fall in these fields.
My not wholeheartedly endorsing acupuncture as the future of medicine because it doesn't scientifically stand up under scrutiny of the many, many claims alternative medicine advocates have made on its behalf is not me claiming that scientists in all sorts of fields have not drawn inaccurate conclusions or that every claim made under the guise of the scientific method is inerrant.
Acupuncture worked for you, fine. I have to take that with a grain of salt because I don't have access to your medical records to know the details of your situation and can't evaluate that claim, but yes, acupuncture has been shown to be useful in alleviating certain types of pain. I never denied that.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)that does not mean it is not. I'll take your claim of not supporting lobotomies with the same grain of salt you offer to my word. No one asked you to evaluate my statement. You wish to dismiss that which is true and observable because it is not 'holding up' to the standards of those who felt 'gay is a disease' met those standards. See the problem?
If you can, why not explain to me what methods were used for the 'bad science' that claimed gay people are diseased. I say they had NO methodology, just dogmatic assumptions upon which they built more assumptions. You claim it was 'science' but I sure don't see you talking about the specifics of how the process failed for a century and a half, deep into the 20th Century. 19th. Yeah. Explain to me how they functioned in that and how it was not based on religious dogma and assumptions they held and sought to 'verify' using 'studied' designed to deliver the results they assumed to be true. Show me the 'science' and show me which parts were 'bad'.
I say they were and are often just as dogmatic and anti truth as are the religious folks and when left uninspected they can descend into pure quackery without ever pausing the 'we are the authorities' song. Show otherwise if you can.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)What many of us are suggesting is that some of the practitioners DUers want to call practitioners of woo -- such as osteopaths and acupuncturists -- aren't practicing woo at all. Osteopaths go to medical school and have osteopathic training on top of the regular medical school courses. And accupuncture has shown through many studies to work in reliving pain -- and is practiced by MD's across the country, including at the medical schools at Harvard, Stanford, and Chicago.
drokhole
(1,230 posts)..."Escape Fire," currently available on Amazon Prime. In it, they outright admit (and demonstrate) that acupuncture has proven enormously beneficial to troops with chronic pain, and that the NIH acknowledges its efficacy but can't figure out how to implement it. Oh, and the benefits of meditation are in there for good measure. Couple that with how the dreaded "TCM" had two millennia ago linked gut health with overall health (one need only look into the burgeoning understanding and appreciation of the microbiome to recogize that), and the "woo" perjorative peddlers come off more and more as ill-informed and fundamentalist.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)about scientific revolutions, but their brains are probably immune to any new thoughts.
I wonder if it's a coincidence that so many of them here appear to be fervent atheists. They passionately disbelieve in God, so they try to deify the scientists.
drokhole
(1,230 posts)...on both accounts. One of my favorite Zen stories delightfully illustrates the first:
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era, received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitors cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. It is overfull. No more will go in!
Like this cup, Nan-in said, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Easy litmus test.
If a man named Free who wears sandals in December and smells vaguely of homemade kimchee would say it, then it's accepted on DU.
If a man named Royce who wears a $500 tie and smells of aquavelva at seven PM would say it, it's not accepted on DU.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)If a guy named bubba who lives in a red state spouts it, it's not accepted on DU. Examples of This Bud's for Woo include Creationism and Birtherism.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"This Bud's for woo", classic.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)almost as bad as Avon's Wild Country which I had to smell as a kid growing up.
Oh, and hint to the guys out dating....buy real cologne.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I use antiperspirant and aftershave, and it was enough of a pain to get two scents that don't add up to stink. Try to add a third? No way.
True, I'm not dating these days, but I did the same thing when I was.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)HAH! You forgot about that guy, huh?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Not hankering to live in what Sagan calls 'The Demon Haunted World.'
Carl Sagan - Demon Haunted World
Published on May 12, 2012
Eminent Cornell astronomer and bestselling author Sagan debunks the paranormal and the unexplained in a study that will reassure hardcore skeptics but may leave others unsatisfied.
To him, purported UFO encounters and alien abductions are products of gullibility, hallucination, misidentification, hoax and therapists' pressure; some alleged encounters, he suggests, may screen memories of sexual abuse.
He labels as hoaxes the crop circles, complex pictograms that appear in southern England's wheat and barley fields, and he dismisses as a natural formation the Sphinx-like humanoid face incised on a mesa on Mars, first photographed by a Viking orbiter spacecraft in 1976 and considered by some scientists to be the engineered artifact of an alien civilization.
In a passionate plea for scientific literacy, Sagan deftly debunks the myth of Atlantis, Filipino psychic surgeons and mediums such as J.Z. Knight, who claims to be in touch with a 35,000-year-old entity called Ramtha.
He also brands as superstition ghosts, angels, fairies, demons, astrology, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and religious apparitions.
Carl Sagan's views are what I grew up with and they are the view of liberals and progressives. But in the liberal and progressive is also a thread of skepticism toward all forms of authority.
That is healthy, but it has to be informed skepticism,. not this CT crap that gleans its knowledge from RW radio shows preaching how Obama is coming for everyone, and how the world is going to be a police state and enslaved.
Oh, there will be slaves, all right. Those will be the ones who refuse to move forward and the rest of the world won't have time for their blathering. Education is the key, but so few want to be 'standardized' as my generation was, where evolution was not up for debate, where science was the answer to almost anything but also NOT AN END to human progress at any stage.
Science, as Sagan explains, is not just a dogma, but some people think they can waive the word 'Science' around and 'Facts' with as much meaning as the RW slogans about 'socialism' and 'liberty.' They don't see or exhibit the kind of humble mindset that scientific geniuses truly have as they think they have the answer to everything,
The fact is, no one does. Science is a process, not meant to be used as a hammer over anyone's heads. Sagan saw our present day coming from what was being generated by media and politics. And warned us what the trends were.
He also warned us that our time is short to fix these problems as a species. Either because of climate change, the population explosion, the power to brainwash and thus persuade, or the funneling of wealth to the few. Complacency he said, is foolishness.
Yet I see complacency in dealing with the real problems falling down while people fight each others. Just what the uber rich want us to do.
I don't think anyone at DU want this nightmare scenario that is being promoted everywhere, as it ends all our freedoms. But we can be civil to each other in less important issues.
Regarding Global Warming and the disruption to the climate, the idea that it's caused by planets, the sun, or is not happening is a RW lie, one they all know is not true.
Their real objection is the loss of profit. It is part of why they deny that humans have anything to do with the problem. They want to keep on doing what they are doing.
There are plenty of signs they know full well what is going on but don't want the unwashed masses to know and interfere while gathering up all the wealth they can to escape the impacts as much as possible.
The RW and uber rich know exactly what is going on and have access to the best information through all the highest scientific organizations. Which they are increasingly taking out of the public sphere into the private one, leaving a dearth of knowledge.
They BELIEVE in the science. This other crap is fodder for terminally stupid followers that have their minds full of Duck Dynasty and every other piece of fantastic crap that belches out of Hollywood and the rest of the media. They are busy creating a permanent underclass that can be easily controlled.
They are the enemy, not DUers. I'm getting tired of these threads, I feel like the IQ of DU is going down as people fall for divide and conquer crap. The people causing this DO NOT post here at DU.
EOM.
"Science, as Sagan explains, is not just a dogma, but some people think they can waive the word 'Science' around and 'Facts' with as much meaning as the RW slogans about 'socialism' and 'liberty.' They don't see or exhibit the kind of humble mindset that scientific geniuses truly have as they think they have the answer to everything,
"The fact is, no one does. Science is a process, not meant to be used as a hammer over anyone's heads. Sagan saw our present day coming from what was being generated by media and politics. And warned us what the trends were."
I have been close to quite a number of PHD scientists and engineers over the years, and even given birth to one. There is nothing like getting a scientific education at a top school to help one realize his or her limitations. The best scientists are willing to take risks AND have a "humble mindset."
freshwest
(53,661 posts)In contrast, the more hubris and expending energy fighting over who is best gets one the closer to:
The DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.[1]
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding.
David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[2]
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Or how much their scientist-gods don't know.
But true scientists have an understanding of their limitations, because they've tested themselves against other brilliant people. They know they're not the only brains on the block.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)from doing unconscious harm to others. This is true is science and in other fields as well.
I'd just like to say I agree with your posts in this thread and appreciate the perspective.
Edim
(300 posts)is woo. It's very sad and damaging (to science and liberalism) that so many jumped the bandwagon. It reminds me of this quote:
"But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
The tide is turning though and many are up for a very rude awakening.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4360
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Edim
(300 posts)"As a neutral scientist observing the climate debate, I regret the harm that it does to the image of science with the general public. I recognise the existence of a significant number of competent and knowledgeable climate scientists, who refuse to have their results misused by irrational propaganda. I note that they mostly express themselves with integrity and have to face unacceptable aggressiveness, including insults and ad hominem attacks, by those who consider that they know better than them what the right message should be."
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Wish I could say I was shocked.
Edim
(300 posts)I used to think "climate change denier" was something (a psychological projection), but climate denier? Can the phrase have any logical meaning?
Shooting blanks is not a way to hit any particular target, but Yosemite Sam was very entertaining.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)n/t
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)When your op is based on a completely flawed idea, it won't go anywhere but down from there.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)nuance is ignored and we go straight for the outrageous absolute to spike the football in the "who said that" end zone.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Talk about "outrageous absolutes".
ananda
(28,783 posts)... and lot of stuff considered not to be "woo" is.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Dash87
(3,220 posts)We must appease our Flying Spaghetti Monster overlords!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)It must be true! I found it on the internet!
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Who the hell said "woo is just as good as science"? Oh right, just YOU! Boy, that's some solid scientific thinking...
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)If we all just have positive energies and thoughts, climate change will be fixed.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)"I have cancer. I'll just take sour sop." "I have arthritis. I'll drink herbal tea." "I have Parkinson's. I'll rub a quartz crystal on my head and spin around 40 times."