Yeah, that’s the point.
When the undecided see so-called skeptics using obnoxious terms, it provokes them to view dowsers and psychics with greater sympathy.
I don’t see why you would come to that conclusion. Most people see woo-woo a mocking term, not the repugnant slur you seek to portray it as.
Or to summarize, “You can’t measure my woo with your science” - a common dodge used to explain the failure of homeopathy, mind-reading etc. to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
“I was on the fence between credulousness and rationality, but since some of the rational people are Meanies, I’m going to suspend logical thought processes and dive right into the woo!”
Uh-huh.
Dang, in posting this I bet I’ve convinced at least two people to believe in alchemy.
That was never my point. And I am not well educated in Spiritualism in particular. As I have stated before, I am not a defender of Spiritualism. Did I post anything which contradicted what you added?
There was a lot more information on the history of Spiritualism at Marley’s links and mine that I did not post. Very little was required to settle the issues that Marley claimed in error. I am not an expert in Spiritualism. If you are, then you know that Skepdic.com is referring to the same group.
I think Marley has confused the concept with people who say that they are “spiritual.” That is the general term that is used by many Christians.
A skeptic keeps a critical and open mind. Who of you disagrees? Would a skeptic refer to someone else as a “woo woo”?
I do not denegrate science or the scientic method in any way. I depend upon it.
Jackmanii, what is the rest of that sentence? I don’t disagree with what liberal is saying. When I could understand him, we disagreed on little and were friends. I’m just curious about the context, but if it is too much trouble, forget it.
He was asked to suggest a phrase to describe those who reject science and embrace nonsense, and that’s what he came up with.
I merely put it in a succinct form. 
If I had to guess, I’d say that woo-woo is just an evolution of the sound ghosts make “woooOOOOOooooo”. Then it became to mean anything airy-fairy.
Thanks, Jackmannii. Sorry for the misspelling after all this time.
Good stuff and appropriate.
What on earth gave you that impression? I’ve defined spiritualism over and over in this thread. I linked to the Skepdic.com entry on the topic and I did read it before linking. I’ve quoted from it, I think. Spiritualism is the belief that consciousness survives after death, and the dead can communicate with the living through a medium. Sprituality can be pretty much anything other than traditional religious orthodoxy. It’s nearly all things to all people. And it’s not included in that definition of “woo woo,” which spiritualism is.
You have cited the fact that there an organization for spiritualism. I get it. I didn’t know that before. It appears to be doing about as well as phlogiston theory but it does exist. “Woo woo” does not refer just to members of that church. It refers to anyone who believes in communication with the dead through things like seances, Ouija boards, hauntings, or whatever else, which could reasonably be termed spiritualism without being part-of-the-Spiritualist-association-Spiritualism.
Yes. It is exactly the skeptic community among whom woowoo is the standard term for the nonsense-begetters.
Ah, OK. Asked and answered.
AH, Goddamnit! Double bluff all along! Ya know If I was psychic I would have seen that coming.
That’s my guess, too.
What the hell is “woo9”? Might make a good movie.
“WOO9 FROM OUTER SPAAAAACE”
Or maybe not.
Exactly.
Moving right along…
Webster’s strongly disagrees with you on most meanings of spirituality. Do you want to look it up for yourself or do I need to post it here?
It can be what you would call the “pretty much anything other than traditional religious orthodoxy” and it includes traditional religious orthodoxy" too.
I’ve been a Presbyterian, a member of Unity Church, an Anglican, and an Editorial Assistant for the United Methodist Publishing House. All except Unity are considered “mainline” churches and very, very traditional. All consider themselves “spiritual.”
Why are you doing this, Marley? Sometimes I can see your friend’s lips moving.
Mr. Mapcase, I can’t really disagree with you that it is some of the standard terminology, but a true scot…er skeptic is supposed to remain critical but openminded.
The “spiritual” aspects of mainline churches have nothing in common with “spiritualism”. Apples and oranges, and you know it. Such pedantery does not advance your agrument.
I agree with you for the most part, ** Fear Itself**. I haven’t confused the two.
I know of only one mainline Bishop who became involved with Spiritualism in 1967. I was an Episcopal Church (a member of the worldwide Anglican Communion) at the time) or I probably wouldn’t remember it.) His name was James A. Pike.
He was the Bishop of California and was grieving for his son who had committed suicide the year before. In his despair, he turned to Spiritualism. A lot of people including leaders in the church called him a heretic. He resigned his position and wrote a book about his experiences called, I think, The Other Side. I may be confusing it with a Doors song.
Anyway, he was eventually lost in the desert in the Holy Land. I don’t think his body was ever found, but I’m not certain.
Before all of this happened, he was known for his influence on the thinking of the time on “situational ethics.” It is that part of his life that influenced my thinking and not his Spiritualism. I felt very sorry for him when his life took such a tragic direction.
Mainline churches, are, however, concerned with being spiritual. (See your Webster’s)
I don’t think that any still posting on the differences in spiritual, and Spiritualism are being serious anymore. If you are, I suggest that you use Google, reread the relevant posts, ask an Administrator for clarification, hire a tutor, or get a better dick. I’ve always liked Webster’s.
Not among the good ones it isn’t. It’s only the “gutter press” type that use the term. And the ones that do are usually full of nonsense themselves.
Yes, if an argument is totally ridiculous, it should be quite easy to shoot it down without having to resort to denigrating the idea proposer’s perceived personality defects.
I think I’m done with this bullshit.
Why not do both? That way you fight ignorance, illustrate the pathology behind sloppy thinking and have fun while you’re at it.