What's worst: god, horoscope or homeopathy?

[Homeless Nutter]

Yes, no, maybe, 42

Would people class alien conspiracies as "woo"? I don't think I would, because it's not an appeal to the intangible, but rather to the improbable. I don't mean like we're all aliens or something, but just that aliens have landed here and stuff, and we've taken their ships and hid them. All that. And abductions, I suppose.

I don't know if they're "woo", but there isn't a shred of credible evidence for such events having happened. Conspiracy theories are self-perpetuating fantasies, where we're supposed to accept special pleading when it comes to material evidence, because lack of such evidence (or existence of evidence to the contrary) is part of the claim.

It's impossible to prove a negative. Therefore we can't definitively prove aliens aren't secretly visiting Earth. But that doesn't mean we have to take seriously claims, that technologically superior beings, with an ability to detect life/intelligence from very far away traveled inconceivably large distances, only to play proctologists with drunken vagrants, or mutilate cattle in ways small scavengers would... No more seriously than any other legend. 

I think the government is hiding the evidence of the existence of pixies. I know it's currently not the most fashionable "theory", but it's pretty much equally plausible and un-falsifiable as those new-fangled "alions" kids are talking about these days...

[Pyrrho]

Yes, no, maybe, 42

Would people class alien conspiracies as "woo"? I don't think I would, because it's not an appeal to the intangible, but rather to the improbable. I don't mean like we're all aliens or something, but just that aliens have landed here and stuff, and we've taken their ships and hid them. All that. And abductions, I suppose.

I don't think "woo" has a precise definition (not for this kind of use, anyway), so I am not interested in the question of whether belief in alien abductions is woo or not.  But believing in it is something that only crazy, stupid people do.  So in that way, it is, if anything, worse than belief in a god.  Belief in a god is indoctrinated into children, whereas, typically, adults adopt crazy beliefs about abductions more or less on their own.

To put this another way, you can be more sure that someone is either crazy or stupid (or both) if they believe in alien abductions, than you can be sure that someone is crazy or stupid for being a Christian.

[robvalue]

*Hides UFO data magazine*

I was thinking of like a woo translation game, like this:

"We treat the body as a whole" = "We have no medical qualifications"

"This contains exactly the right amount of active ingredient" = "This is water"

[Pyrrho]

Maybe you have in mind "supernatural" for "woo."  In which case, alien abductions would not necessarily be supernatural, so it is in a different category of extremely stupid than, say, horoscopes.

The thing is, the people who claim to be abducted by aliens seem to have serious mental problems.  The kind for which one can be involuntarily hospitalized, as opposed to just being regarded as a stupid fool, as is generally the case for those who believe in horoscopes.

Now, it is different if one does not claim to have been abducted by aliens, but believes others who have claimed to be abducted by aliens.  But they are believing people who are crazy, which does not reflect well on their ability to evaluate evidence, and seems quite a different situation from believing in horoscopes (though that, too, involves problems in evaluating evidence, but a different problem or set of problems).

[robvalue]

Yeah, I guess I have always thought of woo as supernatural. I'll have to thoroughly research it

Indeed, I feel very sorry for people who are so unable to critically examine things that they end up believing any old nonsense. They are so vulnerable to being taken advantage of

[Pyrrho]

Yeah, I guess I have always thought of woo as supernatural. I'll have to thoroughly research it

Indeed, I feel very sorry for people who are so unable to critically examine things that they end up believing any old nonsense. They are so vulnerable to being taken advantage of

Yes, they are vulnerable to being taken advantage of.  But it is not just themselves who are affected by their gullibility.  William Kingdon Clifford had this to say:

        And, as in other such cases, it is not the risk only which has to be considered; for a bad action is always bad at the time when it is done, no matter what happens afterwards.  Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence.  We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to, and the evil born when one such belief is entertained is great and wide.  But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent.  If I steal money from any person, there may be no harm done by the mere transfer of possession; he may not feel the loss, or it may prevent him from using the money badly.  But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself dishonest.  What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should become a den of thieves; for then it must cease to be society.  This is why we ought not to do evil that good may come; for at any rate this great evil has come, that we have done evil and are made wicked thereby.  In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts.  But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous.  The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery. 

        The harm which is done by credulity in a man is not confined to the fostering of a credulous character in others, and consequent support of false beliefs.  Habitual want of care about what I believe leads to habitual want of care in others about the truth of what is told to me.  Men speak the truth to one another when each reveres the truth in his own mind and in the other’s mind; but how shall my friend revere the truth in my mind when I myself am careless about it, when I believe things because I want to believe them, and because they are comforting and pleasant?  Will he not learn to cry, “Peace,” to me, when there is no peace?  By such a course I shall surround myself with a thick atmosphere of falsehood and fraud, and in that I must live.  It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbours ready to deceive.  The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat; he lives in the bosom of this his family, and it is no marvel if he should become even as they are.  So closely are our duties knit together, that whoso shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

[vorlon13]

I have an especially big annoyance with supposed christers that are also into horoscopes. They should know better, it is another example of their cherry picking scriptures to observe and ignore.

Fucking scripture cherry pickers, damn them. Damn them all to hell.

[ignoramus]

Christers should know better! You mean they should be logical about the horoscope bullshit, but then get serious about skydaddy with us?