Please stop with the silly phrase woo-woo

[GnuBee]

Would it not be more befitting a forum area that positions itself as the bastion of rational thinking to adopt a more efficient form of rebuttal other than simply screaming "heretic"?

If you don't like a contributors question on UFOs, Pyramids, Ghosts etc I'd of thought it would be more useful in the wider educational context to explain why rather than resorting to name calling?

This forum area has great potential to those of us with an interest in science of any kind and it would be disappointing if the only discussion that was permitted was confined to specific areas that fall within areas not deemed as "woo woo".

There's clearly some very knowledgeable people contributing here and I, for one, would like their considerable intellect be used to educate rather than demean...

[BarnatosGhost]

GnuBee said:

Would it not be more befitting a forum area that positions itself as the bastion of rational thinking to adopt a more efficient form of rebuttal other than simply screaming "heretic"?

If you don't like a contributors question on UFOs, Pyramids, Ghosts etc I'd of thought it would be more useful in the wider educational context to explain why rather than resorting to name calling?

This forum area has great potential to those of us with an interest in science of any kind and it would be disappointing if the only discussion that was permitted was confined to specific areas that fall within areas not deemed as "woo woo".

There's clearly some very knowledgeable people contributing here and I, for one, would like their considerable intellect be used to educate rather than demean...

'Woo woo' is just shorthand for "no evidence, no science, supported only by the credulous based only on a hunch or wishful thinking, can be dismissed out of hand."

Theres no educating required, other than communication of the above.

There's enough amazing stuff around that IS actually 'scientific' to be learning about and getting excited about without wasting time on woo woo.

[Eric Mc]

Seeker UK said:

This is not "teh serious, please remember to leave your sense of humour at the door" forum, so lighten up.

I thought it was.

Isn't The Lounge for all that kind of thing?

[Lost soul]

rhinochopig said:

It's childish - more in keeping with the lounge - and certainly not appropriate here. All IMO obviously.

That is all, carry on chaps.

It should be Wooo Hoo not woo woo

[Marf]

Eric Mc said:

I thought it was.

Serious scientriffic debate doesnt have to mean no humour.

[Eric Mc]

Marf said:

Eric Mc said:

I thought it was.

Serious scientriffic debate doesnt have to mean no humour.

Quite right. I'm all for "serious" scientific debate.

I like the new word "scientriffic" by the way . It adds an extra meaning to why I like science.

[Marf]

CERN is scientriffic!!

[Einion Yrth]

Bedazzled said:

respecting other people's opinions.

Why should one respect them if they are groundless irrational cobblers?

[Marf]

Einion Yrth said:

Bedazzled said:

respecting other people's opinions.

Why should one respect them if they are groundless irrational cobblers?

Exactly, I respect someones right to hold an opinion, but respecting its contents when it's derived from baseless guff or wilfull ignorance? Pfff jog on.

[freecar]

Marf said:

Einion Yrth said:

Bedazzled said:

respecting other people's opinions.

Why should one respect them if they are groundless irrational cobblers?

Exactly, I respect someones right to hold an opinion, but respecting its contents when it's derived from baseless guff or wilfull ignorance? Pfff jog on.

This!

I'm sick of someone spounting bks to trot out the "it's because I've got an open mind" line. no, you've got a fking hole in your head!

[crofty1984]

I like woo-woo (as a term). It's suitably patronising and silly and serves well as a way for me to patronise the silly.
So I'll keep using it if you don't mind. Actually, I'll keep using it if you do.
Though I may alternate with a more serious "Bunkum and balderdash!" from time to time if I'm wearing my monocle.

[Marf]

Might I also suggest "Piffle and poppycock" my monacled friend?

[otolith]

Marf said:

Serious scientriffic debate doesnt have to mean no humour.

I got "there is no place for levity in science" written on an early draft for a chapter of my thesis.

The miserable git

[Eric Mc]

otolith said:

Marf said:

Serious scientriffic debate doesnt have to mean no humour.

I got "there is no place for levity in science" written on an early draft for a chapter of my thesis.

The miserable git

Not working on an anti-gravity device then?

[otolith]

Eric Mc said:

Not working on an anti-gravity device then?

No, I think I suggested that calculating the ages of fish using methods which had not been validated was akin to reading tea-leaves.

[deeen]

GnuBee said:

Would it not be more befitting a forum area that positions itself as the bastion of rational thinking to adopt a more efficient form of rebuttal other than simply screaming "heretic"?

If you don't like a contributors question on UFOs, Pyramids, Ghosts etc I'd of thought it would be more useful in the wider educational context to explain why rather than resorting to name calling?

This forum area has great potential to those of us with an interest in science of any kind and it would be disappointing if the only discussion that was permitted was confined to specific areas that fall within areas not deemed as "woo woo".

There's clearly some very knowledgeable people contributing here and I, for one, would like their considerable intellect be used to educate rather than demean...

All fine, but the point is that questions on UFOs, ghosts etc. should not be in the science forum, they belong in whichever forum would be appropriate for discussing whether Father Christmas is real.

[rhinochopig]

deeen said:

GnuBee said:

Would it not be more befitting a forum area that positions itself as the bastion of rational thinking to adopt a more efficient form of rebuttal other than simply screaming "heretic"?

If you don't like a contributors question on UFOs, Pyramids, Ghosts etc I'd of thought it would be more useful in the wider educational context to explain why rather than resorting to name calling?

This forum area has great potential to those of us with an interest in science of any kind and it would be disappointing if the only discussion that was permitted was confined to specific areas that fall within areas not deemed as "woo woo".

There's clearly some very knowledgeable people contributing here and I, for one, would like their considerable intellect be used to educate rather than demean...

All fine, but the point is that questions on UFOs, ghosts etc. should not be in the science forum, they belong in whichever forum would be appropriate for discussing whether Father Christmas is real.

Why? The thread on UFOs has moved onto very real science and is now discussing the relativistic effects of flight at close to c. That's real science IMO. Simply dismissing it as 'woo' would have stopped what has turned into a very interesting discussion. Ask the question and then explore the science behind whether it is actually theoretically possible or not.

[S13_Alan]

Bedazzled said:

crofty1984 said:

...I'll keep using it if you don't mind.

That's your right of course, but be aware the perception it creates may not be what you intended; that is I think it says rather more about the person writing it than their intended target.

I prefer 'delusional rubbish peddled by the rationally challenged and often gullible'... but suspect that's slightly less broadcastable than woowoo, a phrase which I don't actually like (nor use) but seems to serve a purpose.

You make the mistake that thinking those who would put forward the stuff dismissed as woowoo are in any way wishing to be educated about it's scientific merits. They seem more at home shouting 'it's my opinion and I will play scientist if I want to'.

If anyone wishes to respect and pander to those who for example would suggest that the alignment of planets has an influence on not only their daily lives, but also their personality, then go for it. I'm calling it what it is.

The answers are out there, the scientific principals are there, the education isn't hard... it's lack of effort, combined with a willingness to believe rubbish that's being ridiculed.

Edited by S13_Alan on Wednesday 1st February 16:00

[Eric Mc]

rhinochopig said:

deeen said:

GnuBee said:

Would it not be more befitting a forum area that positions itself as the bastion of rational thinking to adopt a more efficient form of rebuttal other than simply screaming "heretic"?

If you don't like a contributors question on UFOs, Pyramids, Ghosts etc I'd of thought it would be more useful in the wider educational context to explain why rather than resorting to name calling?

This forum area has great potential to those of us with an interest in science of any kind and it would be disappointing if the only discussion that was permitted was confined to specific areas that fall within areas not deemed as "woo woo".

There's clearly some very knowledgeable people contributing here and I, for one, would like their considerable intellect be used to educate rather than demean...

All fine, but the point is that questions on UFOs, ghosts etc. should not be in the science forum, they belong in whichever forum would be appropriate for discussing whether Father Christmas is real.

Why? The thread on UFOs has moved onto very real science and is now discussing the relativistic effects of flight at close to c. That's real science IMO. Simply dismissing it as 'woo' would have stopped what has turned into a very interesting discussion. Ask the question and then explore the science behind whether it is actually theoretically possible or not.

On the Infinite Monkey Cage just before Christmas, there was a debate on the relativistic requirements of Santa's Sleigh - and whether Rudopl's nose would look purple as he approached and even more red as he receded.

[rhinochopig]

Eric Mc said:

rhinochopig said:

deeen said:

GnuBee said:

Would it not be more befitting a forum area that positions itself as the bastion of rational thinking to adopt a more efficient form of rebuttal other than simply screaming "heretic"?

If you don't like a contributors question on UFOs, Pyramids, Ghosts etc I'd of thought it would be more useful in the wider educational context to explain why rather than resorting to name calling?

This forum area has great potential to those of us with an interest in science of any kind and it would be disappointing if the only discussion that was permitted was confined to specific areas that fall within areas not deemed as "woo woo".

There's clearly some very knowledgeable people contributing here and I, for one, would like their considerable intellect be used to educate rather than demean...

All fine, but the point is that questions on UFOs, ghosts etc. should not be in the science forum, they belong in whichever forum would be appropriate for discussing whether Father Christmas is real.

Why? The thread on UFOs has moved onto very real science and is now discussing the relativistic effects of flight at close to c. That's real science IMO. Simply dismissing it as 'woo' would have stopped what has turned into a very interesting discussion. Ask the question and then explore the science behind whether it is actually theoretically possible or not.

On the Infinite Monkey Cage just before Christmas, there was a debate on the relativistic requirements of Santa's Sleigh - and whether Rudopl's nose would look purple as he approached and even more red as he receded.

I heard that one. My favourite podcast for walking the dogs. It is genuinely laugh out loud at times. The competing theories posited by the various guests was very funny.

Proof that science can incorporate humour and not stoop to....anyway