The theory of theories

[Sriram]

No. What is woo is woo - that there might be new discoveries tomorrow which at some point in the future mean that these claims turn out to be true doesn't stop them being woo. Woo is not a statement that the claims are false, but that the claims are unjustified, and that doesn't change even if it turns out they are right.

No, the methodology stays the same: do we have an observable phenomenon that is verifiable, and if so what patterns can we identify in it that can be investigated? What possible explanations are there that are testable that fit the evidence? How can we test those explanations.

That methodology will not change - what are detectable phenomena might change, what are the possible explanations that fit the evidence might change, but the methodology itself will not.

O.

That is the dogma I am talking about!

[Outrider]

That is the dogma I am talking about!

So how do you propose we distinguish between things for which there's no evidence which might miraculously in defiance of all reason turn out to be true in the distant future and just plain batshit crazy nonsense for which there's no evidence which might miraculously in defiance of all reason turn out to be still batshit crazy nonsense in the future?

What makes woo woo isn't whether not it's right, it's whether or not there's any justification for thinking it.

People, for instance, have recoveries from diseases which baffle conventional medicine - to claim that reiki works, therefore, because someone once had reiki who got better, despite the fact that when tested reiki is shown to be no more nor less effective than blind chance puts reiki in the woo category.

Unless you have a methodology for judging what's actually true and what's just wishful thinking, they all get consigned as woo.

That's not 'dogma', it's having a methodology. If you don't have a methodology, you just have to accept every assertion out there.

O.

[Shaker]

That's not 'dogma', it's having a methodology. If you don't have a methodology, you just have to accept every assertion out there.

This is something I've said myself many a time. A methodology is like a filter, sorting out the provisionally true from any number of other categories - the uncertain, the possibly true but unlikely to be so, the almost certainly false, call them what you like. If there's no filter (methodology) in place, to be consistent by rights you are obliged to accept literally every single claim about the nature of reality ever made - not just a resurrected Jesus, but abduction by aliens; not just feeding thousands with a few bits and pieces of food, but a hollow earth and that Paul McCartney died in 1967 or whenever.

The fact that people in actual practice don't do this, and accept one set of unproven, unevidenced and wholly implausible beliefs while rejecting the rest, is quite arbitrary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So how do you propose we distinguish between things for which there's no evidence which might miraculously in defiance of all reason turn out to be true in the distant future and just plain batshit crazy nonsense for which there's no evidence which might miraculously in defiance of all reason turn out to be still batshit crazy nonsense in the future?

What makes woo woo isn't whether not it's right, it's whether or not there's any justification for thinking it.

People, for instance, have recoveries from diseases which baffle conventional medicine - to claim that reiki works, therefore, because someone once had reiki who got better, despite the fact that when tested reiki is shown to be no more nor less effective than blind chance puts reiki in the woo category.

Unless you have a methodology for judging what's actually true and what's just wishful thinking, they all get consigned as woo.

That's not 'dogma', it's having a methodology. If you don't have a methodology, you just have to accept every assertion out there.

O.

Can you demonstrate how the methodology establishes philosophical naturalism?

[Shaker]

Nobody even mentioned philosophical naturalism, Vlad.

Just you.

Yet again ...

[jeremyp]

Why do you say that?  So many modern discoveries and inventions would have been considered as miraculous and 'woo' some centuries back. Today it is normal.

Can you name anything that was once considered woo, but is now considered to be science?

[jeremyp]

Hypnotism

Hypnotism is science is it? That's news to me.

Also, is there a time when it was considered to be woo?

[jeremyp]

Yep!

See my link, also many people still consider it woo, although actually it is scientific.

It's not really science though is it. Saying hypnotism is science is like saying Mars is astronomy.

And I'm not really sure it was ever considered to be woo by most people.

[jeremyp]

Ok then, ball lightning  was  once considered woo, and impossible but they no longer are.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/ball-lightning.htm

Plus many medicines have their beginnings in the woo of various tribes, Quinine was one.

It used to be considered woo until someone looked and found it did actually work.

Were all these things considered as woo or merely unexplained?

[Sriram]

So how do you propose we distinguish between things for which there's no evidence which might miraculously in defiance of all reason turn out to be true in the distant future and just plain batshit crazy nonsense for which there's no evidence which might miraculously in defiance of all reason turn out to be still batshit crazy nonsense in the future?

What makes woo woo isn't whether not it's right, it's whether or not there's any justification for thinking it.

People, for instance, have recoveries from diseases which baffle conventional medicine - to claim that reiki works, therefore, because someone once had reiki who got better, despite the fact that when tested reiki is shown to be no more nor less effective than blind chance puts reiki in the woo category.

Unless you have a methodology for judging what's actually true and what's just wishful thinking, they all get consigned as woo.

That's not 'dogma', it's having a methodology. If you don't have a methodology, you just have to accept every assertion out there.

O.

I did not say there should be no methodology.  Obviously any form of investigation will have a methodology.  I was saying that existing methodologies that have hitherto been used to examine certain type of phenomena... would not be useful for different types of phenomena.

We may have to develop different methodologies to examine different types of phenomena.

Our methodologies and techniques have been focused on our sensory perceptions (perhaps naturally). We have taken it for granted that only things we can sense with our five senses can exist.  Our instruments have largely been mere extensions of our senses.

This itself could be a limitation. Many things could exist that we are unable to sense directly...but which could be fundamental features of our universe.  The same is true of our logic also.

For example....Dark Matter could be existing next to you and you still are not aware of it. Parallel universes could exist inches from us and we still are unaware of them. Dark Matter is 'woo'. Dark Energy is 'woo'. Parallel Universes are 'woo'. But they are also science and are real phenomena though we may know nothing about them.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree with quite a lot of Sriram's post except he has confused a methodology with a method within a methodology. It is one thing to acknowledge that in investigating scientific hypothesis we need to look at methods that don't currently exist but the methodology that we look to test that hypothesis remains the same.


The article and the issue raised by the idea of non testable hypotheses is not really about this and does present a fundamental problem in excluding 'woo'. And'woo' isn't to my mind something that we currently do not have currently an explanation of, or a method of investigation,rather woo is an explanation, or set of explanations, which disagree at a fundamental level with the basis of science that investigates physical interactions on a level that those interactions are explicable in physical terms.

[Nearly Sane]

Also the idea that we might be hypothesizing ideas that are not capable of being falsified but nevertheless are useful is not one that challenges itself the idea that these are physical interactions explicable  in those terms.

[Outrider]

Can you demonstrate how the methodology establishes philosophical naturalism?

No, can you? I was under the impression that it derived FROM a presumption of naturalism, and that presumption was quite open and just validated on an ongoing basis by the continued consistent success of scientific endeavour.

O.

[Outrider]

Ball lightning was definately woo, it was up there with UFOs and crop circles and ghosts.

UFO's aren't woo - the explanation that UFO's are alien visitors is woo, the fact that people think they see things (which they might well do) that they can't identify is perfectly fine. They might actually be alien visitors, but the data isn't there to support that conclusion - that's why it's woo, because people accept the explanation on insufficient evidence, not because it's wrong. It's a judgment on the (lack of) reasoning process, not on the conclusion.

Scientists denied it could even exist, and there were stories of it behaving in an intelligent way.

Definately woo.

People were suggesting that ball lightning was itself intelligent, that was the woo. People queried whether it could exist at all, given the understanding of electricity at the time, but describing ball-lightning accounts wasn't woo, it was just reporting questionable phenomena.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Woooorld,

http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html

When used by skeptics, woo-woo is a derogatory and dismissive term used to refer to beliefs one considers nonsense or to a person who holds such beliefs.

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.

Derogatory and dismissive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Criticism of the term

Philosophers of science such as Paul Feyerabend argued that a distinction between science and nonscience is neither possible nor desirable.[27][28] Among the issues which can make the distinction difficult is variable rates of evolution among the theories and methodologies of science in response to new data.[29] In addition, specific standards applicable to one field of science may not be applicable in other fields.[further explanation needed]

Larry Laudan has suggested pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe our emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us".[30] Likewise, Richard McNally states, "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one's opponents in media sound-bites" and "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?"[31]

"The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one's opponents in media sound-bites"

Much easier just to say "woo" and move on!!

Gonnagle.

[Sriram]

I agree with quite a lot of Sriram's post except he has confused a methodology with a method within a methodology. It is one thing to acknowledge that in investigating scientific hypothesis we need to look at methods that don't currently exist but the methodology that we look to test that hypothesis remains the same.


The article and the issue raised by the idea of non testable hypotheses is not really about this and does present a fundamental problem in excluding 'woo'. And'woo' isn't to my mind something that we currently do not have currently an explanation of, or a method of investigation,rather woo is an explanation, or set of explanations, which disagree at a fundamental level with the basis of science that investigates physical interactions on a level that those interactions are explicable in physical terms.

Methodology is about Principles and also includes methods.  The Principles of science have been created by us humans using certain logic and by developing certain algorithms. These are based on certain assumptions about reality. But since humans are not perfect these principles cannot be absolute or perfect either.

They might have been relevant and useful under certain circumstances of the past....but they need not be useful under all circumstances and for all phenomena.  Everything needs to be reviewed and rethought. Nothing is forever. If we hold on to something for all time to come, it becomes dogma.

[Outrider]

Methodology is about Principles and also includes methods.  The Principles of science have been created by us humans using certain logic and by developing certain algorithms. These are based on certain assumptions about reality. But since humans are not perfect these principles cannot be absolute or perfect either.

Absolutely agree.

They might have been relevant and useful under certain circumstances of the past....but they need not be useful under all circumstances and for all phenomena.

That's possible, but you'd need to justify why they weren't applicable for a given phenomenon, you can't just arbitrarily decide 'this phenomenon is different'.

Everything needs to be reviewed and rethought. Nothing is forever. If we hold on to something for all time to come, it becomes dogma.

Everything is open to question, but just as you don't keep something on the strength that that's how you've always done it, you equally don't throw it away because you've got bored of it.

If you have an alternative methodology for investigating claims, put it forward. Until then, though, for any phenomena we encounter, science remains our most consistently reliable method for determining probable facts.

The depiction of certain claims as woo isn't because the justification isn't science, or even because the justification is contrary to the popular understanding of science, but rather because the justification is insufficient to the claim.

O.

[Sriram]

Absolutely agree.

That's possible, but you'd need to justify why they weren't applicable for a given phenomenon, you can't just arbitrarily decide 'this phenomenon is different'.

Everything is open to question, but just as you don't keep something on the strength that that's how you've always done it, you equally don't throw it away because you've got bored of it.

If you have an alternative methodology for investigating claims, put it forward. Until then, though, for any phenomena we encounter, science remains our most consistently reliable method for determining probable facts.

The depiction of certain claims as woo isn't because the justification isn't science, or even because the justification is contrary to the popular understanding of science, but rather because the justification is insufficient to the claim.

O.

My interest is not in putting any specific x,y or z phenomena to test. Nor can I present any alternative methodology on a platter.

As I mentioned in another thread, alternative methodologies have to evolve and develop over time with the efforts of many people depending on the phenomena they are interested in investigating.

The important point is about acknowledging that the current established methodologies  and techniques are not absolute and cannot be the basis for investigating all aspects of reality for all time to come. This acknowledgement is sufficient to open up the minds of thinking people to create alternative methodologies and methods to suit the phenomenon they are investigating. 

Boxing people in with some standard, time worn methodologies... assumed as unchangeable and unquestionable... is the bane of all science and philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody even mentioned philosophical naturalism, Vlad.

Just you.

Maybe they didn't but it's your secret wee vice isn't it ladies and gents.

[Shaker]

Maybe they didn't but it's your secret wee vice isn't it ladies and gents.

No, mine is putting Brazil nuts in the mixed nuts bowl that I've already sucked the chocolate off.

[Nearly Sane]

My interest is not in putting any specific x,y or z phenomena to test. Nor can I present any alternative methodology on a platter.

As I mentioned in another thread, alternative methodologies have to evolve and develop over time with the efforts of many people depending on the phenomena they are interested in investigating.

The important point is about acknowledging that the current established methodologies  and techniques are not absolute and cannot be the basis for investigating all aspects of reality for all time to come. This acknowledgement is sufficient to open up the minds of thinking people to create alternative methodologies and methods to suit the phenomenon they are investigating. 

Boxing people in with some standard, time worn methodologies... assumed as unchangeable and unquestionable... is the bane of all science and philosophy.

Nope, you are again getting all confused, a methodology isn't the equivalent of a technique or a method here. The methodology is based on the axioms you choose. Thus science is, as already covered about the explanation of physical interactions based on the assumption that they are explicable within physical terms. Note this isn't about being an absolute or a description of truth or necessarily reality - you seem to get this wrong too. It's simply the methodology that we use to investigate - if we remove those axioms we need some way of evaluation

If you can't provide another set of assumptions to work on, then evaluation of claims becomes impossible. And again that methodology doesn't need to be a fully detailed idea but just going 'There might be something else' is entirely useless, And again this isn't about being dogmatic or absolute, and claiming that shows either a misunderstanding of how evaluation might work or simply a need to ignore that it would be useful.

It would be good if you showed some even nascent ability to recognise what a methodology is, rather than this rather primitive approach about arguing that not being able to state that something is absolute means that any claim is equal, because that leads merely to a nuclear option on discussion - rather like Feyerabend, quoted by Gonnagle, which is about a denial of any methodology rather than an idea to move towards one.

 

[jeremyp]

Maybe they didn't but it's your secret wee vice isn't it ladies and gents.

No.

[Gordon]

No, mine is putting Brazil nuts in the mixed nuts bowl that I've already sucked the chocolate off.

Putting empty orange juice cartons back in the fridge - but with the top screwed on: shocking conduct!

[Outrider]

My interest is not in putting any specific x,y or z phenomena to test. Nor can I present any alternative methodology on a platter.

And that's what makes it woo - it's not definitively wrong, it's that there's no way on the frame of reference that it's delivered with to determine whether it's valid or not.

As I mentioned in another thread, alternative methodologies have to evolve and develop over time with the efforts of many people depending on the phenomena they are interested in investigating.

But without a methodology by which you can attempt to validate these claims, how can you tout them?

The important point is about acknowledging that the current established methodologies  and techniques are not absolute and cannot be the basis for investigating all aspects of reality for all time to come.

No, the important point is that whilst we recognise there are limitations to science - or to any methodology - it is incredibly successful and you are not offering a viable alternative.

This acknowledgement is sufficient to open up the minds of thinking people to create alternative methodologies and methods to suit the phenomenon they are investigating.

Scientists, typically, already have an open mind - if you have an hypothesis for a phenomenon you can have it reviewed by the scientific community, that's the way science works. If you don't have a hypothesis, though, if you just have an assertion with no method for testing or validating it, open-mindedness does not lead to 'well it must be true', open-mindedness leads to 'how do you show that to be true'?

Boxing people in with some standard, time worn methodologies... assumed as unchangeable and unquestionable... is the bane of all science and philosophy.

You aren't boxed in by science. You're boxed in by the fact that you don't have a viable alternative. Science's role is not to confirm every idea that crosses anyone's mind, it's to provisionally accept validated conceptualisations of the explanations for observed phenomena.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

A very interesting thread, no it does not help me understand string theory or quantum more clearly but it does help me understand the minds of the scientific community more clearly.

My theory and yes it is a theory, not your common or garden hypothesis, a strong theory, why! because of one glaring fact, scientists are................wait for it...............wait for it!! Human.

Whilst reading through Sanes opening link and trying to understand what all the chuntering was about ( oh and by the way I think that almost every post on this thread is covered in the article, I think ) this paragraph stopped me.

In my talk on the final day of the meeting, I argued that indeed physicists do in practice use undisclosed assumptions: aesthetic judgements that they use to select among approaches. Philosopher Elena Castellani recounts the history of string theory: “The theory was regarded as so beautiful and had such a compelling mathematical structure, obtained in agreement with consistency conditions and deep physical principles, that the intuition  But why should beauty be a valid criterion for assessment?was that it had to be somehow related to the physical world.” The problem is highlighted by historian Helge Kragh who speaks about theories once considered beautiful but now considered wrong: the steady state universe, vortex theory, SU(5) grand unification.

The methods science use in evaluating any theory, any hypothesis are fine, the scientists who are just like us, are prone to all sorts of human failings, sorry, every sort of human failing.

Just because a theory is beautiful does not make it right, hell! I am beautiful but nine times out of ten I am wrong, but just like the scientists I will focus on the one time I am right, why, because I am human.

Gonnagle.