View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

The Bad Side of Woo

Discuss General Topics.

The Bad Side of Woo

Postby really? » 01 Apr 2010, 21:22

The lawyer for a Lebanese man sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for witchcraft has appealed for international help to save him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8598134.stm
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby NucleicAcid » 02 Apr 2010, 08:04

That's not really woo...that's religious oppression. The Lebanese man did not do anything wrong. Sure, you may not agree with his practices, but as far as I can tell, his 'woo' didn't harm anyone.

Harmful woo is like when the AIDS mother chooses not to take HAART in favor of orange juice and homeopathy, and she and her daughter die of opportunistic infections.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby ciscop » 02 Apr 2010, 08:40

i am with really on this one
Religion is WOO

is woo on both sides
the lebanese idiot that believes he can do it for real
and the swetty camel riders that believe in mahoma and witchcraft
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby Nostradamus » 02 Apr 2010, 10:25

From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/01/world/main6353736.shtml

Psychic May Face Beheading in Saudi Arabia

Attorney May al-Khansa said she learned from a judicial source that Ali Sibat is to be beheaded on Friday. She added that she does not have any official confirmation of this. Saudi judicial officials could not be immediately reached for comment.


Sibat made predictions on an Arab satellite TV channel from his home in Beirut. He was arrested by the Saudi religious police during his pilgrimage to the holy city of Medina in May 2008 and sentenced to death last November.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby really? » 02 Apr 2010, 12:19

NucleicAcid wrote:That's not really woo...that's religious oppression. The Lebanese man did not do anything wrong. Sure, you may not agree with his practices, but as far as I can tell, his 'woo' didn't harm anyone.

Harmful woo is like when the AIDS mother chooses not to take HAART in favor of orange juice and homeopathy, and she and her daughter die of opportunistic infections.


Woo is anything that someone believes when common sense does not prevail.

Btw here's the rest of the quote in blue you always forget to add to these words in black
“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.

"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.

"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."
“ - Richard Wiseman
Last edited by really? on 02 Apr 2010, 21:01, edited 1 time in total.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby Nostradamus » 02 Apr 2010, 19:26

From http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2010/04/02/lebanese_not_to_be_beheaded_friday_for_witchcraft/

Lebanese not to be beheaded Friday for witchcraft

Attorney May al-Khansa said Lebanon's justice minister told her that her client, Ali Sibat, will not be executed in Saudi Arabia on Friday -- the day executions are typically carried out in the kingdom after noon prayers.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby NucleicAcid » 03 Apr 2010, 01:59

I'm fully aware of what Wiseman said.

I just selectively ignore it because he used "begs the question" incorrectly. :-P

Begging the question is the following train of logic:

Psi does not exist
The evidence for psi is not good enough, because psi does not exist, so the data must be full of errors
Psi has not been proven to exist because the evidence doesn't support it.
The data for psi must contain errors, because psi has not been proven to exist.
Repeat.

The important point of the matter is, the community of skeptics simultaneously argue that 1) There is next to zero evidence for psi, and there is no way it exists 2) There is enough evidence to show that psi exists by any other measure of science, but there needs to be much more evidence before we will consider its existence seriously, because it would revolutionize the world of science.

The skeptical community needs to make up its damn mind. Either renounce the possibility of psi wholesale, or agree that it is plausible, as long as there continues to be evidenced produced for it.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby really? » 03 Apr 2010, 03:29

NucleicAcid wrote:I'm fully aware of what Wiseman said.

I just selectively ignore it because he used "begs the question" incorrectly. :-P

Begging the question is the following train of logic:

Psi does not exist
The evidence for psi is not good enough, because psi does not exist, so the data must be full of errors
Psi has not been proven to exist because the evidence doesn't support it.
The data for psi must contain errors, because psi has not been proven to exist.
Repeat.

The important point of the matter is, the community of skeptics simultaneously argue that 1) There is next to zero evidence for psi, and there is no way it exists 2) There is enough evidence to show that psi exists by any other measure of science, but there needs to be much more evidence before we will consider its existence seriously, because it would revolutionize the world of science.



The skeptical community needs to make up its damn mind. Either renounce the possibility of psi wholesale, or agree that it is plausible, as long as there continues to be evidenced produced for it.

Why did you include it [quote] was it because the first sentence adds weight to your position ? Didn't you also realize that someone would find the full quote ? Both questions are rhetorical.
We are not of one mind hence the differing and seemingly contradictory positions. Everything Wiseman has said is true. It's your misunderstanding that leads to wrong assumptions about Wisemans position and of the skeptical community in general.

On your behalf and other persons of like positions I sense a deep and stubborn resistance to the idea that there is not something to all this paranormal stuff. And to cut you off from some lengthy reply why us skeptics are wrong I'll leave you with the skeptic's mantra to think about-- it can be summed up in two little words, they are Prove it.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby ciscop » 03 Apr 2010, 04:42

oooh really
common

he cant do that
otherwise the paranormal wouldnt be paranormal

there is nothing there but the imagination
and for me that's good enought
i love the lenght of the human imagination
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby really? » 03 Apr 2010, 09:18

ciscop wrote:oooh really
common

he cant do that
otherwise the paranormal wouldnt be paranormal

there is nothing there but the imagination
and for me that's good enought
i love the lenght of the human imagination


I love human imagination also, but I like reality even more; why, because it's real.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby NucleicAcid » 03 Apr 2010, 23:03

The thing is, that chunk of the quote is a full statement. It could be used to answer the question:

Has [ESP] been proven by the conventional standards of science?

Yes.

Done. That's all I care about. There is nothing nonfactual about any of that. Prove me wrong.

I know exactly what the position of the skeptical community is. They are drawn together by the singular belief that supernatural things are impossible. Yet, they are faced with an overwhelming and ever increasing body of evidence to the contrary. They are the epitome of rigid and conservative dogmatic mindsets. So what do they do? After they've realized they can't attack the data any more, because it's good data, they resort to, "Okay. Fine. The data is good. But it doesn't mean psi exists. We need more proof before we'll believe it." That paraphrased is EXACTLY what Wiseman said, and my point is in how ironic it is that every time they come to this conclusion (which has been several times now since the late 1800s), they push the goalposts even farther. In other words, we need MORE than science. We need unanimity. It's dogma, not science.

On your behalf and other persons of like positions I sense a deep and stubborn resistance to the idea that there is not something to all this paranormal stuff.


Silly really?. This is why you shouldn't make assumptions. I am KEENLY aware of the possibility that there is nothing at all to this paranormal stuff. However, possessing a very strong critical thinking mind, I am able to simultaneously weight the absurdity of the claims of the paranormal, the possibility that it is all one giant coincidence, the massive amount of evidence in its favor, the fraud that has occurred in the parapsychological community, a few other variables, and lastly but most importantly, my personal experience in the field. And if it weren't for the last bit, I wouldn't have half the conviction that I have.

You, on the other hand, seem resistant to even poke your nose into any of the research done in scientific laboratories all around the world in heavily controlled conditions.

The problem with "Prove it" is that skeptics want to see superpowers before they will believe psi is real. Unrealistic. They wanna see someone read someone's mind like it's a book, or levitate a couch. And EVEN THEN, they'd still believe it was a magic trick.

I am fully grounded in realistic expectations because I have worked with this stuff for a decade. You are an armchair skeptic who has done the minimum of reading on the material, and asserts that your position is the correct one, because it seems to be what most people are saying.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby Nostradamus » 03 Apr 2010, 23:06

Has [ESP] been proven by the conventional standards of science?

Can you help me out here and show me where this has happened?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby NucleicAcid » 03 Apr 2010, 23:13

That would be tricky to fit in a single post. You're invoking about a century of research, experiments, journal articles, conventions, commentary, arguments, and discussions.

However, someone has already summed up the very best of it into one convenient, 300 page package:

Image

Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality (Paperback) ~ Dean Radin (Author)

It's a wonderful read. It reads like a newspaper but it's annotated like a textbook.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby Nostradamus » 03 Apr 2010, 23:23

So there isn't an instance where there is an experiment you can point to that demonstrates success such as in the case of the AIDS work you pointed to in another thread?

When you go back a century you end up including the work at Duke that has not been replicated.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: The Bad Side of Woo

Postby NucleicAcid » 03 Apr 2010, 23:30

Science only very rarely does a "single experiment" to prove something, and usually that's only when they already know the answer, they just want to feel cocky because they are scientists, and that's what we like doing. Like the recent experiment that showed frame dragging due to Earth's rotation. But even then, that isn't the single experiment that has verified special relativity.

But nonetheless I can still deliver.

If you want a SINGLE experiment, with the most number of participants (several million), that would probably be the Got Psi report

http://www.boundary.org/bi/articles/GotPsi-public.pdf

That's the preliminary. I can't get my hands on the full report because JSE has been remodeling their website. But it shows a very significant overall effect nonetheless.

I should also note for the AIDS thing, that that case didn't PROVE HIV or AIDS. It's just a demonstration of what we would expect to see if it did exist, which it does, but that was determined through many other means. In fact, HIV, like most cutting edge discoveries, raised a HUGE stink in the world of science when it first came onto the scene. Science ALWAYS pisses and moans over validity whenever something new or unknown is discovered. Then, once all of that blows over, you'd be an idiot to question the generally accepted hypothesis.

Plate techtonics, quantum mechanics, endosymbiotic theory, yada yada yada.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests