Who knows the most woo?

[Cuddles]

This was inspired by a post by Dr B in another thread, but I thought it deserved its own.
As predicted, regulars on that woo forum had not read the website and knew nothing of the debates (ones that had been around for decades). In other words the scientists and skeptics are better read on woo than woo's are.

This is something I've noticed before with virtually every form of woo there is. The skeptics almost always know far more about the woo than the believers. Why is this? It seems really weird that someone will believe in something not only without bothering to research about it, but also without even bothering to find out what it is they actually think they believe in.

A perfect example would be homeopathy. There are millions of people who claim to believe homeopathy works, yet many, if not most, are genuinely surprised if you explain to them all the crap about dillutions and like-cures like and the rest. It's not just that they haven't looked into whether it works, they don't even know what it is.

The same seems true for practically everything I can think of. The Twin Towers conspiraloons hardly ever know what actually happened, so the questions they ask are irrelevant. It's always surprising how many devout Christians can lose arguments with skeptics about the Bible because they don't know as much about what it actually says. As I've mentioned before, believers in telekinesis and similar things claim to believe in one thing, but argue excuses about something completely different, and even study entirely different phenomena, apparently without ever noticing it is not what they claim to believe.

I can understand people accepting things they are told without checking them or thinking critically about it, but doing so without even knowing what it is you're accepting really seems quite odd. Anyone else have any thoughts?

[John Jackson]

I agree.

I have found, with almost perfect consistency, that when you challenge people who have a woo belief to explain some aspect of it, they can't. They never really seem to understand what it is they believe in or the theory of how it's meant to work.

I mean look at psychicsarah and her take on astrology. She does astrology charts etc., and talks about it as if she possesses arcane knowledge (always sounds good to clients who don't understand it) but when it came to her basic understanding of the planets she hadn't a clue.

Ask a medium what the difference is between a medium and a psychic is and you'll get some strange answers - likewise, ask what's the difference between a medium and a channeller and they won't be able to tell you.

This all goes hand in hand with woo arguments where they love to call skeptics closed-minded and say that we are dealing unfairly with them as we just don't understand....

The truth is, we understand the things they believe in far better than they do.

That's not an empty claim either: it can be demonstrated time and time again by simply asking them about their beliefs.

The response, if you get one, will usually be wildly incorrect but more likely will consist of Ad Hominem points and insults - and if you're on a forum, your post will be deleted and you'll be banned.

[vbloke]

This is why pretty much any paranormal claim has almost as many "explanations" as there are believers. They never bother to do any basic fact-checking to verify their beliefs.

[MRT]

I have found, with almost perfect consistency, that when you challenge people who have a woo belief to explain some aspect of it, they can't.

Perhaps that's because, if they truly understood the belief, they wouldn't believe in it any more. :smiley:

[Cuddles]

I mean look at psychicsarah and her take on astrology. She does astrology charts etc., and talks about it as if she possesses arcane knowledge (always sounds good to clients who don't understand it) but when it came to her basic understanding of the planets she hadn't a clue.

I actually meant to mention astrology. There's a thread on the JREF forum where someone is trying to convince us that astrology works, but so far he hasn't managed to answer a single question about astrology, astronomy, coordinates or anything else relevant. Of course, he hasn't managed to make a single accurate reading either.

Psychicsarah is an interesting case because she basically admits that she doesn't know what she believes. In one post she's psychic, in the next there's no such thing as psychics. How can people possibly hope to convince anyone that their beliefs are correct if they can't even manage to state what they believe?

Perhaps that's because, if they truly understood the belief, they wouldn't believe in it any more. :smiley:

I had thought about this, but I'm not sure it's always the case, although it may be for many things. For example, PEAR. They were supposed to be testing telekinesis, among other things, which most people believe affects big things. However, PEAR actually tested for a tiny effect that needed millions of trials to have any chance of seeing anything and didn't involve affecting anything bigger than electrons in a computer. The big belief is clearly not compatible with reality, so anyone who really understands the consequences of that belief can't possibly believe it. However, the effects they were actually testing for are so small that it is entirely possible to believe in them without any real contradictions, because it doesn't affect the real world.

The problem is not that either belief is obviously wrong, it is that people profess belief in one while actually talking about the other. It is possible to believe in either one, although the lack of evidence makes it rather silly, but people usually just don't seem to understand the difference.

[vbloke]

I actually meant to mention astrology. There's a thread on the JREF forum where someone is trying to convince us that astrology works, but so far he hasn't managed to answer a single question about astrology, astronomy, coordinates or anything else relevant. Of course, he hasn't managed to make a single accurate reading either.Link?

[Cuddles]

Link?

The first thread was this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87381). This one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93532) carries on the fun, although in relation to another astrologer rather than the actual poster.

[Dr B]

Great thread!

One other issue is that I just don't think modern woo's are even as well read as their earlier counterparts.

I know many woo's over 40 years old (calm down Mel!!!!) - all of them well read, knowledgable, and have a healthy appreciation of science. They accept what science says and often totally recognise that their position is a philosophical one or even a religious one (and thus not claiming scientific truths). Many are also critical of contemporary fashions in modern woo - having seen it all before. Most have extensive book collections and attend conferences, join associations etc.

However, the modern woo tends to set up their own association because they think they are doing something 'new' and filling a gap - ;D. They don't read, can't think effectively, and have an unhealthy view of science (and then contradict themselves by trying to look for scientific evidence for woo ;D:cheesy::cheesy: - which i never understood). I guess you can be an expert in woo these days with a few hours on Google.......oh, and an EMF meter! :cheesy:

[Melanie]

You're right Dr B.

I would advise anyone new to the subject to join the SPR (Society for Psychical Research), spend a couple of years seriously studying their century-worth of journals, papers and other research, and read all the books you can find by their illustrious members, many of whom hail from academic backgrounds. You will not be bored for an instant. You will find questions raised by their literature, and you will find answers further down the line, and then there will be more questions in your mind - a very satisfying intellectual journey.

At the end of the day, you may be convinced that 'life after death' is a reality, but you will probably come to the realisation that it's a belief - there is no proof available that can be held up to scientific scrutiny, and there never has been, not in a century of real, scientific exploration.

This is not to dismiss the possibility that life after death is a reality - just that the proof is not there, except on a deep personal level.

Having said that, I spent over 15 years reading, researching, examining mediums, even 'developing' a 'psychic ability' myself, and was moved to do this by a hope that it was, after all, true - but in the end I failed to find the kind of evidence necessary even to prove it to myself, let alone other people. And I cannot stress enough just how hard I searched for it.

I am not bitter about this at all - on the contrary, I have learned so much about the mind, perception, psychology and consciousness, and I find all that just as exciting.

Neither do I wish to dismiss any further discussion on this subject - there are several members of this forum who can discuss such research intelligently.

As an intellectual pursuit, the study of the evidence for life after death is very worthwhile. It's mind-broadening, satisfying. But only on a personal level. Belief in survival remains just that - belief.

[Shirley]

LOL this is a good thread I like it.

I often contemplated about this and have had some interesting thoughts.

Suppose in the past right, wizards and magical people knew a lot of stuff ordinary people didn't and not only that, they knew they were tricking folks with their fancy gestures and what not etc etc. The people were so enamoured and impressed some thought they would do it all themselves but the true secrets weren't passed on because if they really knew how to do it they'd know it was a trick.. catch my drift?

Secrets are secrets because they are tricks and if the fake psychics and ordinary people knew everything was a trick they wouldn't be fooled so easily and therefore not pay a great big load of money to be told a big load of crap.

So all the woo... (woo I love that word..heh..) .. is just simply a made up thing to keep folks fooled so anyone who knows what they are doing will be able to make a living. Fake psychics don't even know they are fake - it's true they have no idea and will defend their beliefs to the end just as a christian would in the face of there being no real evidence for their beliefs...

[Tin Lizzie]

I agree.

I have found, with almost perfect consistency, that when you challenge people who have a woo belief to explain some aspect of it, they can't. They never really seem to understand what it is they believe in or the theory of how it's meant to work.

I mean look at psychicsarah and her take on astrology. She does astrology charts etc., and talks about it as if she possesses arcane knowledge (always sounds good to clients who don't understand it) but when it came to her basic understanding of the planets she hadn't a clue.

Ask a medium what the difference is between a medium and a psychic is and you'll get some strange answers - likewise, ask what's the difference between a medium and a channeller and they won't be able to tell you.

This all goes hand in hand with woo arguments where they love to call skeptics closed-minded and say that we are dealing unfairly with them as we just don't understand....

The truth is, we understand the things they believe in far better than they do.

That's not an empty claim either: it can be demonstrated time and time again by simply asking them about their beliefs.

The response, if you get one, will usually be wildly incorrect but more likely will consist of Ad Hominem points and insults - and if you're on a forum, your post will be deleted and you'll be banned.

hmm...what you lot actually seem to be saying is that you know the most woo, in scientific terms, than us woos do.

which is a bit like saying the french speak more french than the spanish do.

you'll probably find that most woos don't give a tuppence for scientific explanation, they don't need to prove what they know.

'tis a shame we can't always have a decent discussion all the time, but i suppose that just highlights how it is difficult to remain objective about things you are passionate about.

familiarity may breed contempt; ignorance breeds suspicion and sometimes fear.
:smoke:

[Shirley]

I think a lot of them must feel like they are being attacked if we ask how they know something or question them about their beliefs. Same with religious people. A truly open minded person would at least listen to the arguments on both sides but most people would say that you have to make up your mind sometime and can't be agnostic forever and sit on the fence. I say.. why not? How can you make up your mind about something unless you have heard all the arguments for and against and weighed up the pro's and cons.? You can't.

[Tin Lizzie]

I think a lot of them must feel like they are being attacked if we ask how they know something or question them about their beliefs. Same with religious people. A truly open minded person would at least listen to the arguments on both sides but most people would say that you have to make up your mind sometime and can't be agnostic forever and sit on the fence. I say.. why not? How can you make up your mind about something unless you have heard all the arguments for and against and weighed up the pro's and cons.? You can't.

in the meantime, just float along like a butterfly....or like a wandering child lost in the dark! :smiley:

[Shirley]

I beg to differ Tin Lizzie. If you say you believe something and you stick to that no matter what evidence comes forth you may be believing in something completely wrong. You'd look a total idiot if you still believed something that was proven false. I think it's really good to have an open mind and look at the facts and the evidence before saying you think something is true or not.

Its like.. if you have a chair in front of you and you are told it's a chair you will believe all your life that it is a chair, even if science proved to you that it was actually a table. Like.. just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true.

[Cuddles]

hmm...what you lot actually seem to be saying is that you know the most woo, in scientific terms, than us woos do.

which is a bit like saying the french speak more french than the spanish do.

No it isn't. Go back and read the first post again. Science doesn't need to be involved at all here.

you'll probably find that most woos don't give a tuppence for scientific explanation, they don't need to prove what they know.

This thread is nothing to do with explanations, it is about what people actually believe. If you ask most people about homeopathy, for example, they don't actually know what it is. Regardless of whether it works and the evidence involved, most people who believe in it don't seem to have heard about dilutions, succussion, grafting or many other things. It's not about whether what they believe in is true, it's that they don't even know what it is they think they believe in.

'tis a shame we can't always have a decent discussion all the time, but i suppose that just highlights how it is difficult to remain objective about things you are passionate about.

familiarity may breed contempt; ignorance breeds suspicion and sometimes fear.

Of course, since this thread highlights the fact that so many woos are ignorant of their own beliefs, what does this say about them?

[John Jackson]

hmm...what you lot actually seem to be saying is that you know the most woo, in scientific terms, than us woos do.

No. What I'm saying is that we know more about all aspects of woo than the woos do. That's because we aim to understand the belief and in order to achieve that we need get a full grasp of what the claim actually is, so we can go on to, hopefully, explain this belief and what function it serves.

you'll probably find that most woos don't give a tuppence for scientific explanation, they don't need to prove what they know.

Exactly right. Again, though, it's worth asking ourselves why that is.

As I've said elsewhere, we can look at belief in things from two perspectives:
Validity.

Does this belief have any evidence to back it up? Is it based on good, solid theory? Basically, is it true or false?
.
Utility.

Disregarding whether the belief is based on something true or false, do people get some sort of benefit from holding this belief? Are there emotional comforts to be gained, social or cultural benefits, etc.?Now with something like your belief, TL, it is certainly not based on any robust evidence or solid theory and is not at all likely to be true. This idea that some people have an ability to receive messages from the dead also has viable alternative explanations: from Cold Reading to outright fraud.

So, if this ability isn't real, why do people believe it? Well, the emotional comfort they get from believing that there's still some link to loved ones who've died is far more important to believers than whether it's true or not.

Now we reach the crux of the matter - why do woos not fully understand their belief systems the way skeptics do?

Well it should be obvious that if you actually used your 'open-minds' and looked at the issue from more than the one angle that suits you, and looked to understand the issues and considered alternative explanations then you would have to conclude that your belief system isn't what you think it is - in short, you'd lose your precious belief system!

Cognitive Dissonance theory (the inability to hold contradictory views on one issue) would predict that if someone believes in something but evidence comes to light that it is not true then there are two choices available to the person to reduce cognitive dissonance (emotional discomfort).

1) they could change their beliefs to suit the new evidence.
2) they can find a way to dismiss the evidence thus preserving their belief system.

Now, again, it should be clear why woos spend a lot of their energy ridiculing science and skeptics. It's not because they think they've got better evidence than we have: it's because we provide the evidence and explanations that threaten their belief systems. They take option (2) and attack anything or anyone that threatens their belief system. They are so emotionally tied to it that that's all they can do.

In summary then, woos don't really understand their own beliefs because they can't - they daren't.

[siestatime]

This is a fascinating thread.

I found myself once "in the company of woos" because a friend took me to what she described as a gathering for people who wanted to learn vegetarian cooking. I spent an entertaining evening with crystal-gazers, energy-cleansers, holistic herbal astrologers, the works. What really annoyed me was that all these fruitloops took it as read that my wish to avoid dairy produce (I´m lactose intolerant) was on a par with their off-the-wall theories. I learned that when you are in woo-land you are not allowed to question anything anyone else believes in. This is their idea of an open mind. Any slight sign of dissent was greeted with open hostility bordering on violence. I have discussed all kinds of inflammatory topics - politics, religion, global warming - before and since with complete strangers, but the only time I faced physical harm for voicing my opinion was in a room full of woos. They cannot stand having their belief system questioned.

[Tin Lizzie]

Of course, since this thread highlights the fact that so many woos are ignorant of their own beliefs, what does this say about them?
i refer you to the introductory paragraph and the second paragraph in the statement concerned

as for this being all about 'what you believe', then you will probably see parallels to global conflict in the 'debate' going on here - people have every right to stand up to those who challenge and mock their beliefs, so if you don't like others beliefs you should not invite trouble by questioning them. after all, have i at any point gone out of my way to ridicule sceptics and challenge their beliefs?

i am a science teacher who has had a fair share of paranormal experiences. some can be explained with reference to scientific terminology; others can not and if you would like to know more about these feel free to PM me and quote me elsewhere. i am talking here about things i have not shared with my closest friends, so don't just expect me to auction them for dissection on the internet.

[Tin Lizzie]

I beg to differ Tin Lizzie. If you say you believe something and you stick to that no matter what evidence comes forth you may be believing in something completely wrong. You'd look a total idiot if you still believed something that was proven false. I think it's really good to have an open mind and look at the facts and the evidence before saying you think something is true or not.

Its like.. if you have a chair in front of you and you are told it's a chair you will believe all your life that it is a chair, even if science proved to you that it was actually a table. Like.. just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true.

hey i wasn't disagreeing at all, just 'waxing philosophical'. like i've said what other people believe in is not for me to question. i do like having a good-natured debate though.

[Tin Lizzie]

Well it should be obvious that if you actually used your 'open-minds' and looked at the issue from more than the one angle that suits you, and looked to understand the issues and considered alternative explanations then you would have to conclude that your belief system isn't what you think it is - in short, you'd lose your precious belief system!

In summary then, woos don't really understand their own beliefs because they can't - they daren't.

hi again and apologies for chopping up your statement - your points are interesting, but they apply to scientists and sceptics as much as they do to 'woos'.

when i first saw a ghost, i was actually not too scared. really. because it was not behaving in a threatening manner and because it seemed simlpy to be passing by, but somehow still in a world of its own. i understand that ghosts are linked to magetic/emotional memory. i don't claim to be an expert - Gordon Smith's written material contains better explanations, where he himself has 'diagnosed' poltergeists as simply being telekinetic disturbances.

the general criticism of woos from certain quarters here seems to be as unnacceptable as the inability of some woos to have their beliefs challenged.

obviously there are many people who hold on to their beliefs just because the thought of oblivion, meaninglessness and nothingness is just terrible to bear.

At the same time, there are many genuinely fascinating examples of interaction with the spirit world. all i say (i have said this before on another thread) is: what would you think; how would you feel if you were to visit a medium and be given information which only you and the deceased know about?

in short (very short admittedly) you can't knock it if you daren't try it yourself. (not you personally, the collective 'you')

[Cuddles]

i refer you to the introductory paragraph and the second paragraph in the statement concerned

as for this being all about 'what you believe', then you will probably see parallels to global conflict in the 'debate' going on here - people have every right to stand up to those who challenge and mock their beliefs, so if you don't like others beliefs you should not invite trouble by questioning them. after all, have i at any point gone out of my way to ridicule sceptics and challenge their beliefs?

i am a science teacher who has had a fair share of paranormal experiences. some can be explained with reference to scientific terminology; others can not and if you would like to know more about these feel free to PM me and quote me elsewhere. i am talking here about things i have not shared with my closest friends, so don't just expect me to auction them for dissection on the internet.

Please stop trying to derail this thread with your nonsense and ad homs. There are plenty of other threads around to discuss actual evidence or your perceptions that you are being ridiculed. I started this thread soley to dicsuss the point that many woos don't actually know what their beliefs are. For example, most people who believe in homeopathy don't actually know what homeopathy is and are very surprised when they find out what it entails, often to the point of not believing ni it any more because it is so obviously ridiculous. This appears to be the case for many, if not most, forms of woo.

If you have any thoughts on this topic, feel free to post them. If you want to dicsuss any actual evidence for any of your claims, feel free to post it in the appropriate thread. If you want to whine about non-existent ridicule and having your opinions challenged feel free to post that, but don't expect anyone to take it seriously.

[Tin Lizzie]

could you quote the ad hom - presentation of evidence is after all what you keep referring to, so i would like to see evidence here to go with your accusations

[Tin Lizzie]

Please stop trying to derail this thread with your nonsense and ad homs. There are plenty of other threads around to discuss actual evidence or your perceptions that you are being ridiculed. I started this thread soley to dicsuss the point that many woos don't actually know what their beliefs are. For example, most people who believe in homeopathy don't actually know what homeopathy is and are very surprised when they find out what it entails, often to the point of not believing ni it any more because it is so obviously ridiculous. This appears to be the case for many, if not most, forms of woo.

If you have any thoughts on this topic, feel free to post them. If you want to dicsuss any actual evidence for any of your claims, feel free to post it in the appropriate thread. If you want to whine about non-existent ridicule and having your opinions challenged feel free to post that, but don't expect anyone to take it seriously.

this is the kind of attitude i am referring to when i talk about mocking and general ridicule. i have thankfully had some great debates with some sceptics here, without anyone having to resort to the nonsense shown above. thanks to those of you who have managed to stay balanced and not succumb to emotions.

[Zaira]

Tin Lizzie,

"obviously there are many people who hold on to their beliefs just because the thought of oblivion, meaninglessness and nothingness is just terrible to bear."

I just wanted to say that that doesn't scare me because Zen beliefs are similar. They don't even believe this world is real let alone the unseen world of spiritualism.

[Tin Lizzie]

sounds a bit like the old cathar sect, only they thought this physical world was evil, the spirtual world good.

i'm quite uneducated as far as eastern philosophy goes, any nice linkies on zen stuff? - PM if you like, not sure if it would go down too well here

[Zaira]

Tin Lizzie,

Don't be silly of course they will allow it. You are making a simple enquiry. Isn't that what this forum is all about. We put forward our beliefs - with a link for reference. They check it out and them we all discuss it. Correct? ;)


I think this is a good place to start. Like everything else you can go into it as deep as you want once you learn the basics.


"The innocence of this first inquiry—just asking what you are—is BEGINNER'S MIND. The mind of the beginner is needed throughout Zen practice. It is the open mind, the attitude that includes both doubt and possibility, the ability to see things always as fresh and new. It is needed in all aspects of life. Beginner's mind is the practice of Zen mind."

http://www.dharmafield.org/bookzmbm.htm


;)

[Zaira]

"Our 'original mind' includes everything within itself. It is always rich and sufficient within itself. You should not lose your self-sufficient state of mind. This does not mean a closed mind, but actually an empty mind and a ready mind. If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything; it is open to everything. In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities; in the expert’s mind there are few."

Shunryu Suzuki Roshi - from Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind