Wikipedia and WOO

[palarax]

Correct me if im wrong, but i have searched the Wikipedia for a definition of WOO or WOOISM, and have returned no hits in the skeptical framework. Would anyone be interested in creating such an entry? It would increase the knowledge of skeptisism and its language.

 

[RSLancastr]

I did write an entry for the skepticwiwki.

 

[palarax]

I was just thinking about the general WIKI, so that it was available to all people

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I don't think it's notable enough for Wikipedia. It's only used by a small skeptical community, right?

It would definitely be appropriate for urbandictionary.

 

[Ducky]

I think building the skepticwiki to be as formidable as possible is a better choice than adding to wikipedia.



PS. RS you do know about the skepticwiki tags for this forum, right?

 

[c4ts]

Next time use a hyphen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"woo-woo"

 

[davefoc]

I have looked for a less derisive term than woo-woo to use.

I like the term true believer, but I think that suffers from being a bit ambiguous and it is still can be taken derisively.

I think there is a distinct aspect of personality that relates to one's willingness to accept ideas with little or no evidence when those ideas make us feel better. Clearly there is a continuum here and even people that I would consider to be skeptics often form opinions on less than an objective basis.

But I still think the range of this particular aspect of human personality justifies terminology to describe people that are towards one end of this coninuum or the other. Unfortunately the only people that think much about this are the skeptics and anytime they come up with a label for people on the other end of the continuum it will probably be seen as derisive by those so labeled.

Michael Shermer has an interesting article in this month's scientific american that suggests a physiological basis for the effect of confirmation on the formation of views. I wonder if there isn't something there that might lead to better terminology and more importantly a better understanding of this critical factor in the formation of views by people.

ETA: I read your skepticwiki article RSL. I thought it was well written and exactly correct.

 

[sat556]

I have looked for a less derisive term than woo-woo to use.

I like the term true believer, but I think that suffers from being a bit ambiguous and it is still can be taken derisively.

I don't tend to worry about it. A lot of 'woos' or True Believers^TM use skeptic as a derisive term anyway.

 

[Hellbound]

Alternatives to Woo-woo:*

Creduloid

Potential Mark

Mouth Breather

O.J. Simpson Jury Member

Looser

Programmable Humanoid Unit (PHU)

Knuckle Dragger

Delusionoid

Screaming Nutter

Fundamentalist (subclass of Screaming Nutter)

Scientologist (subclass of Fundamentalist)

Psych Ick

Intereting Ian

50 cards short of a full deck (has both Jokers).

Not the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree.

Jello Brain

Unicellular Intelligence

Noncognitive

*-some refer to specific woo subclasses)

 

[strathmeyer]

I don't tend to worry about it. A lot of 'woos' or True Believers^TM use skeptic as a derisive term anyway.

Isn't woo a derisive term? Like 'soccer mom'?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Alternatives to Woo-woo:*
Noncognitive

I think I'll start using "noncognitive" instead of "stupid."
It sounds a lot less rude.

"I don't feel very well today. I think my chakras are out of balance."
"That sounds very...noncognitive."

 

[davefoc]

I don't tend to worry about it. A lot of 'woos' or True Believers^TM use skeptic as a derisive term anyway.

I always smile a bit at the idea of skeptic as a derisive term.

But maybe in my case it is deserved. I had heard warnings about the danger of poison oak pretty much all my life but had never personally experienced a problem with it despite occasional exposure.

I decided some experimentation was called for and rubbed the leaves on my forearm. I forgot about the experiment until after a few days I noticed a mild rash on my forearm where I had rubbed the poison oak. I thought OK now I've had a poison oak rash, big deal. Later in that day I began to develop one massive red rash that ran up nearly the entire length of my leg. It was several weeks before all the symptoms and discomfort of the rash had disappeared.

Perhaps it is not fair to blame skepticism here. This might not be an example of classic skepticism as much as it is an example of classic stupidity.

ETA:
I think non-cognitive might be exactly the correct term to use in place of woo when some sort of serious discussion of the propensity of human beings to believe things that reinforce their biases is intended.