View Single Post
Old 11th June 2011, 02:09 AM   #421
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Larechar View Post
What's the common definition of, "woo," then? I took it as accepting something that couldn't be proven.
Accepting something that has been disproven, is logically impossible, pseudoscientific, truly bizarre etc,

"Sometimes woo-woo is used by skeptics as a synonym for pseudoscience, true-believer, or quackery. But mostly the term is used for its emotive content and is an emotive synonym for such terms as nonsense, irrational, nutter, nut, or crazy."

Skeptic's Dictionary
Quote:
Yes, I am, because the point is moot 'til I actually have some tar-poo to test!
You have to accept the point that the null hypothesis is fantastically more likely than yours because that is what they evidence says. Some doctors have already commented as to why it's unlikely and what the alternatives are, and there is no documented cases parallel to what you're talking about, so your hypothesis has almost zero weight. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's necessary for you to include these other factors in your exploration of the subject.
Quote:
I left both of those statements open [incredibly open in regards to the nutrition statement]
I see. Yeah you we'rent' just "led to believe" you were lied to, marketed to and propagandized! And a quick search would have totally debunked that notion. It's almost as bright as "mushrooms spores are from space"
Quote:
so that I could squeeze out from underneath the nail.That may be true with the tar-poo bit; I think I'm getting the hang of it, though.
Yeah that's one of the genius things about posting, is you realize that the way you say things can mislead people. We don't want to have to add endless caveats and explain the obvious but we have to strike a balance so we can communicate effectively. You should see how science journalists criticize their peers.
Quote:
I'm not shirking, I'm procrastinating. I can't even begin with new anecdotes until I fast again, let alone skeptically/scientifically prove them.
Once you understand why the null hypothesis is important, you'll see where I'm coming from. It's fine to come up with radical axioms and explore the most bizarre anecdotes, but if you ignore the null hypothesis, you'll waste a lot of time, and if you ignore the body of knowledge that should be contributing to the null hypothesis, you'll be exploring already debunked notions. This is why I recommended looking through the history of skepticism and medicine which Novella is a good guide for.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 11th June 2011 at 02:12 AM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top