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?

[Admin]

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.

[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.

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. This one 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 - . 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 - 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!

[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.

[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!

[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?