What Is "Woo"?

You’ll see me (and skeptics in general) talking about “woo.”  (Sometimes “woo woo”, but I prefer just “woo.”) 

Woo is a word skeptics use as shorthand to describe pseudo-scientific and often anti-scientific ideas - ideas that are irrational and not based on evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the claim.  These are ideas that usually rely on magical thinking, are rarely tested to see if they are real, and are usually resistant to reason and contrary evidence.

A woo can also be a person who hold those beliefs. So you could say, for example, “homeopathy is woo” or “woos believe in homeopathy.” 

Its use has been criticized because it is seen as insulting.  Maybe, but its use is not fallacious if you explain why the woo belief is a woo belief.  Irrational beliefs based on magical thinking should be ridiculed.  Alternative terms such as “believer” don’t really cut it, in my view.

Back to main page

Comments

[Graeme Bird]

What an incredibly idiotic word. It looks like projection to me. And its a pretty bad sign that you are linking Bad Astronomy and other anti-science nutballs.

[King of Ferrets]

While I don't actually visit Bad Astronomy much, based on what I have seen, and what I've seen other people say about it, it's actually good science. Therefore, I submit that you are, in fact, probably a woo.

This shit seems to support my hypothesis. Warning: It has random capital paragraphs.

[King of Ferrets]

Now that I finally take a look at the GW thread, I find more evidence.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Bad Astronomy is anti-science? You sir are either an idiot or unable to link words and their meaning together coherently.

But, since you're so keen on asking for evidence; give us just one piece of evidence that Bad Astronomy is an anti-science blog, or that Phil Plait is an anti-science nutball.

Otherwise, withdraw the ridiculous statement.

[Rockstar Ryan]

I too request evidence backing up this asinine statement:

And its a pretty bad sign that you are linking Bad Astronomy and other anti-science nutballs.

Please provide evidence that Bad Astronomy is anti-science or withdraw the claim.

Thank you, I'll bill you later.

[Graeme Bird]

No no. You are a woo. Because you are an idiot. And I submit that
that you are epistemologically retarded.

You are a fuckwit mate. You fell for the global warming fraud.
You fell for the big bang. If you can fall for those two
you have no affinity for science and are without controversy completely fucking pathetic.

In my time the skeptics movement was a real thing.
A serious thing.
Now its become a citadel and bunker for idiots who cannot think for themselves. Its an embarrassment.

[Jimmy_Blue]

So, no proof then? We await your retraction then.

Belief in the Big Bang is anti science? You do know what science is, don't you? I'll give you a hint, it isn't "Whatever Graeme Bird believes today".

In my time the skeptics movement was a real thing.
A serious thing.
Now its become a citadel and bunker for idiots who cannot think for themselves. Its an embarrassment.

And with such illustrious alumni as you I can't imagine why the skeptical movement might have wanted to change. It's a mystery.

Pack up and go home everyone, 2000 years of physics is not actully science, we've all been had. Let me guess Graeme, Ptolemy was right wasn't he? Geocentrism? Or no, goddidit. Or no, maybe its turtles all the way down. And what a joker that Einstein was, right?

You're a joke. A very bad one.

[Graeme Bird]

You don't think global warming alarmism and big bang theory represent valid science do you? If you do you are a complete fuckwit without any affinity for science and you should pack up and go home or perhaps take your tie off and sneak out to the girls toilet and end it all.

I'll tell you what science is about you moron. Its about EVIDENCE. And people who now ludicrously call themselves skeptics think they don't need it to believe.

[Graeme Bird]

Global warming science is quite literally flat earth science and far inferior to anything Ptolemy had on the go. At least Ptolemy's model WORKED after a fashion. It was a reasonable predictive model. The global warming watts-per-square-metre model is a flat earth model as well. But it doesn't even work. It doesn't hindcast, forecast or anything. And its totally ridiculous and they have no evidence.

So you are sucker mate. A dupe.

Models of the big bang are not science. They are maths-boy-101 fantasies that violate all known physics. They are a creation myth. An evidence free embarrassment. And they represent a reduction-to-absurdity of that line of enquiry.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Still no proof then? Where's the retraction?

Go on then, explain why big bang theory isn't science. This should be funny. Graeme Bird v Hawking, Einstein, Lemaitre, Gamow, Alpher, Herman, Hubble.

I'll tell you what science is about you moron. Its about EVIDENCE.

Oh goody. The Big Bang has no problems then.

Global warming science is quite literally flat earth science and far inferior to anything Ptolemy had on the go. At least Ptolemy's model WORKED after a fashion.

Only I wasn't comparing Ptolemy to global warming genius. Of course you knew this, you're just dishonest.

But it doesn't even work. It doesn't hindcast, forecast or anything.

Big Bang theory does.

So you are sucker mate. A dupe.

Obviously I am devastated by your opinion.

Models of the big bang are not science. They are maths-boy-101 fantasies that violate all known physics.

And so I suppose you'll be able to explain exactly how this is the case then. Violate all known physics you say. Prove it.

An evidence free embarrassment.

Well oops, how very embarrassing for you.

And they represent a reduction-to-absurdity of that line of enquiry.

Oh do go on, explain away. Can't wait.

[Tom Foss]

No no. You are a woo. Because you are an idiot.

I'm pretty sure you've missed the point of the word "woo."

You fell for the global warming fraud. You fell for the big bang. If you can fall for those two you have no affinity for science and are without controversy completely fucking pathetic.

Can you back up your assertion with more than just...assertions? Can you back up your claim that global warming is a fraud? Do you have some way of refuting the cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted by the Big Bang theory and then subsequently discovered, verifying the theory spectacularly? Do you have anything to back up your claim that "drawing inferences from observations, developing theoretical models to explain those observations, making predictions based on those theoretical models about future observations that would strengthen our confidence in the theory, then making those confirmatory observations"--the exact process that the Big Bang theory has withstood--is somehow not science?

In my time the skeptics movement was a real thing. A serious thing.

"Why, we had to walk uphill both ways in the snow barefoot just to find a psychic to debunk!"

You don't think global warming alarmism and big bang theory represent valid science do you?

Alarmism? Perhaps not, though I think the alarmism is largely what the media and others have done with the science, and not the science itself. Global climate change, however, is based on the preponderance of scientific evidence, and the dangers are real and observable, if you'd care to actually look at the evidence. There are legitimate questions surrounding the models and predictions, but there's no doubt in the scientific basis.

I'm at a loss to determine your mad-on against Big Bang cosmology, though. Where's the unscientific part? We observed that the things in the universe are all moving away from one another due to spatial expansion. We reasoned that in the past, things were closer together (which is kind of the definition of things moving apart). We extrapolated from that a model which says that in the distant past, all the matter and energy of the universe were compressed into a very tiny, very dense space, and that things cooled off as the space expanded. This theory--the somewhat misleadingly-named Big Bang--predicted that there would be cosmic background radiation left over from the early universe--a snapshot in the sky of the point when the first stable atoms formed. This background radiation was discovered in 1964, and the measured spectrum of the radiation matched the theoretical predictions so well that the error bars aren't even visible on the graph. The Big Bang was a relatively straightforward theory to explain obvious evidence, which was confirmed to a high deal of accuracy thanks to its predictive power--how is any of that unscientific?

I'll tell you what science is about you moron. Its about EVIDENCE. And people who now ludicrously call themselves skeptics think they don't need it to believe.

You're preaching to the choir, Graeme. We're all about the evidence here...you're the one who seems to be unfamiliar with it. Where's your evidence to overturn the Big Bang theory? Where's your evidence to discount anthropogenic global climate change? Instead of encouraging suicide and cursing like a sixth grader who just learned how, why not offer up some evidence, some links, some citations, or some reasons why you think that the Big Bang and Global Warming aren't based on objective appraisals of the evidence?

Global warming science is quite literally flat earth science

Much like "woo," I think you misunderstand the term "literally." There is nothing about global warming science which says that the Earth is flat.

The global warming watts-per-square-metre model is a flat earth model as well. But it doesn't even work. It doesn't hindcast, forecast or anything.

Okay, can you back these claims up? If I were to write the same sentence, every one of those words would be a link to a relevant page explaining what I mean and providing some supporting evidence. Where's your citations, or do you expect us to believe you because you assert these things as truth? I mean, I'm no expert on Global Warming, but I know where to find expert opinions, complete with the citations and explanations of evidence that they use to support their points.

And its totally ridiculous and they have no evidence.

Seems to me that the climate scientists are able to cite all sorts of evidence. You, on the other hand, look totally ridiculous because you make these bald assertions with no evidence.

Models of the big bang are not science. They are maths-boy-101 fantasies that violate all known physics.

What known physics are violated by Big Bang cosmology? I'm really curious to know, since I know quite a bit about known physics and the Big Bang, and the only even potential conflict I see is the quantum gravity problem, which is the primary problem for all of physics, not some specific trait of the Big Bang theory. There are no physics violations in the idea that things which are moving apart today were closer together yesterday--in fact, it's what very basic physics would predict. The entirety of the Big Bang model is derived from what known physics predicts, and it has been confirmed by the astronomical evidence. Where's the violation?

An evidence free embarrassment.

Again, there's abundant evidence for the Big Bang from astronomical observations and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Your assertion to the contrary doesn't strengthen your point, it only makes you look either ignorant or dishonest. Once again, you've summed yourself up better than the theories you disagree with.

[Touro73]

Quote from Graeme Bird "

No no. You are a woo. Because you are an idiot. And I submit that
that you are epistemologically retarded.

You are a fuckwit mate. You fell for the global warming fraud.
You fell for the big bang. If you can fall for those two
you have no affinity for science and are without controversy completely fucking pathetic.

In my time the skeptics movement was a real thing.
A serious thing.
Now its become a citadel and bunker for idiots who cannot think for themselves. Its an embarrassment."

I Seldom had to laugh that hard out loud at a post. I thank you Graeme for making me smile for that post. (I hope your post was satirical and not your real believes. otherwise it would really be funny. ;) )

[Techskeptic Techskeptic]

Sadly, it was not satirical.....

[Troll Hunter]

Bird isn't a "woo" --- Can't you so-called critical thinkers even spot a TROLL when you see one? Furrfu!

[Bronze Dog]

Hey, the terms are not mutually exclusive. Bird's a woo troll.

[Tom Foss]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Bird, like Dave Mabus, is more "schizophrenic troll" than "woo troll."

[Akusai]

At least Graeme Bird isn't handing out death threats. Yet.

[Skeptico]

Due to trolls posting off topic, I'm closing this thread to comments.