Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Those claiming to be anti "woo" and pro science [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)126. Where did that remark about "control" come from?
I haven't seen anyone in this thread trying to control your behavior. The comment was made that science had earned people's trust. You asked "how so?" and you were given numerous examples. Then, as far as I can see, what happened was that you over-reacted to the negativity about "woo".
In #79 you wrote in part:
And sometimes when science has no solutions to offer, when science delares that there is no hope, people will and have sought other means of survival. And for some, it has worked. To try to deny anyone the right to fight for survival after science has declared there is no hope for survival, is incomprehensibe to me. Why do you care if, after science issues a death sentence, some people refuse to accept that sentence and seek other means of survival??
First, as I said above, I don't see anyone hear trying to deny anyone the right to hold whatever outlandish beliefs they like, and even to act on those beliefs. (There are exceptions when, for example, parents deny children lifesaving treatment.) It's a free country and you have the legal right to blow all your money on homeopathic remedies administered while you lie under a pyramid surrounded by healing crystals. AFAIK there's no serious movement in the U.S. to ban any of those things. Purveyors of such quack remedies aren't allowed to lie about their products, but then, neither are purveyors of anything else.
A related point is that the homeopaths and all the other quacks are free to argue that their methods are sound. What ticks them off isn't any fancied oppression, but rather a corresponding freedom: People who have even a minimal understanding of these things are free to refute their sophistries.
So this idea that someone is trying to "control the behavior of everyone else" is a straw man.
Second, there are a few instances in which someone with a serious illness recovers unexpectedly. In some such cases, the patient has tried a quack method, and then attributes the recovery to the quackery. In those cases the quack treatment made no difference. The big issue is the cases in which following some woo idea leads a person to forgo a treatment that's been validated by the scientific method. People have died because of reliance on pseudoscience.
Finally, let me clarify the "trust" that's involved. It doesn't mean that every scientist is a noble human being. Any barrel has its bad apples, and putting on a lab coat doesn't transform one's character. From what you've said about your girlfriend's mother, there were scientists who violated the ethical norms applicable to experimenting on human subjects. They acted wrongly. But what's meant here by "trust" is that the scientific method has shown itself to be a trustworthy (i.e., reliably accurate) method for ascertaining facts about the world. We use the term "woo" to describe medical quackery and other pseudosciences, like astrology, that don't meet that standard.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
140 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Well then it should be a breeze to provide just one or two examples, shouldn't it? All that
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#48
Are you typing from inside an iron lung? Or blind from Measles? No? Thanks, science! n/t
X_Digger
Jan 2014
#51
?? I'm puzzled. Did I say somewhere that science has not contributed in any way to
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#79
Even the atomic bomb, which some consider to be unwise, was a success. Reality isn't always what
freshwest
Jan 2014
#114
Still nothing. I'm waitning for something of substance and have a feeling I will receive
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#62
Excuse me? Flight? Just what is the relevance of all that to the subject under discussion?
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#95
Yes, it produces 'results' such as those my girlfirend suffered when she realized she could never
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#121
Of course it did. They experimented on pregnant women, and I suppose you could say they
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#123
Woo to some equals 'science' that has had fatal and disastrous results for many people. To each
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#38
Of course you are trying to control the choices of others. It's right there in your comment over and
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#129
Those who make outrageous claims that "acupuncture works" or "vitamin B12 cures cancer"
Vashta Nerada
Jan 2014
#6
Well, here's the problem you are having. Neutral readers assume that when someone reports on
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#40
You want to re-read what you posted and reconsider? Here, I'll copy it for you:
flvegan
Jan 2014
#23
Making a claim, with no evidence to back it up, or with only anecdotal evidence, is outrageous.
Vashta Nerada
Jan 2014
#35
Geez, that's twice in one thread that folks are (intentionally?) misreading what you're saying.
X_Digger
Jan 2014
#26
Those who claim anything works FOR THEM, have to prove it. Eg, my MIL was on several prescription
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#43
So it's okay to prescribe FDA approved scientifically tested medications arbitrarily which HAVE
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#124
You mean the same way those who claimed that DES worked to prevent miscarriages
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#59
I didn't think you would. Thanks for the confirmation. Woo, it all depnds on what you know.
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#89
How do these get here? I read a post the other day where there are several from other countries, I
Thinkingabout
Jan 2014
#31
That particular poster wondered if I was an actual Democrat because I questioned woo.
Vashta Nerada
Jan 2014
#72
I actually know a nuclear physicist who swears by acupuncture for her pain. I shit you not.
X_Digger
Jan 2014
#75
Right. Water has 'memory' of piss, shit and all deadly bacteria that came in contact with water.
idwiyo
Jan 2014
#105
You are a scientist! You have healthy curiosity! Shouldn't it allow for a possibility that water
idwiyo
Jan 2014
#111
i wouldn't bother. honestly, the only woo thing that upsets me is vaccinations
La Lioness Priyanka
Jan 2014
#63
You want to feel superior to everyone but don't want education or credentials?
OriginalGeek
Jan 2014
#132