# Of Woo and Scientism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572 "2009-08-24T23:43:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/1 "2009-08-24T23:43:40Z")
**RedFury** asked me to stop posting in his thread so I will and I’ll bring the tangents here. I’d like to take the time to respond to some people in that thread. > [@Of delusional believers and naive positivist scientism](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/21): > > Yes, yes, this! > > I appreciated what you wrote about direct experience, as well as what **the Hamster King** wrote about the problems with using, you know, words and all. I love it when people here are able to articulate thoughts I’ve had which I have not been able to articulate myself. And sometimes even give them names or identify a particular philosophy for me. > > More, please. Thanks. 😉 > [@](#): > > How about this…Is it reasonable to think that, when millions of people believe something, there might just be a grain of truth buried in there somewhere? And by truth, I mean something along the lines of a common feeling or experience that most of that group have had? It seems to me that the fact that the conclusions folks might draw from this type of experience could be argued as illogical, but that doesn’t mean that the original experience they might have had was imagined or a result of mental illness, hallucination, or “imagination”. Yes, I think that there is truth to this. People get too caught up in the narrative. > [@](#): > > Here’s a made up example to try to make what I’m saying more clear. Lots of people have said they had the “experience” of being abducted, taken away, and “probed” under bright lights by beings with big heads and tiny mouths (or none at all). Many described these beings as talking without moving their mouths. These individuals relate these experiences and say that they were “abducted by aliens” (as their conclusion). Well, I’m not gonna sit here and say with complete and utter certainty that they weren’t, but it seems highly unlikely (seems like somebody official would’ve noticed alien spacecraft or someone might have had a decent camera handy). But what if what these folks are actually remembering is the moment of their births? Being “abducted”, laid out on a table, bright lights overhead, surrounded by figures that all look alike, whose mouths are all covered with masks, and getting something stuck up their butt (rectal themometer)? I’m not saying that I believe this either, but it seems far more likely to me. What I would say to this is I have no explanation. Maybe they actually were abducted by aliens. I do not know. > [@](#): > > I just think when we throw out personal experience, we mebbe are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (which is likely to give the baby traumatic memories that will arise and go on Jerry Springer later). hee hee. Yes, we tend to be antagonistic to personal experience. > [@](#): > > In other words, is it possible that the science-minded might be missing out on a few possibilities? I don’t think it has much to do with science but with the way people perceive themselves as being more rational. They believe themselves to be more rational by group affiliation. > [@Of delusional believers and naive positivist scientism](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/26): > > You can’t act as if it’s unreasonable that people misinterpreted “in jokes” with yourself. I [asked](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11434756&postcount=43) for clarification, to see if you were mocking the claims in that thread that Sylvia Browne was a fraud, and you chose not to respond. I was mocking the whole thing. Basically how people get all upset that people believe in psychic phenomena. > [@](#): > > Why can’t it be both? Philosophical outlooks are often both a world view/set of beliefs and social groups based on that outlook. Yes, that is true, but it also happens where group affiliation supersedes the ideology. That happens quite commonly. In this case, people act as if they are skeptics by essence, instead of skeptics by the fact that they use skepticism as a tool. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you reject science in its entirety. I think that you may be one of those people who feel that science is a fine tool in a limited scope, but it’s not any sort of authoritative source of objective truth - or at least there exist things outside of the scope which can be measured by science. Which can then be used to justify various forms of woo. Nope. I don’t believe anything resembling this. > [@](#): > > Could you give examples? No, best not invoke demons lest they appear. > [@](#): > > Incidentally, the people who seem more interested in calling themselves skeptics are the least skeptical people - if you watch any sort of ghost hunter or cryptozoology show they’ll always start with “I’m a skeptic, but…” > > Sort of like those people who say “I’m not racist, but …” I agree. But what I meant was that I wouldn’t have any problem rejecting the Qi explanation if a superior explanation came along. But right now, I know that Shiatsu has an effect, so I’ll run with it rather than trying to overthink it. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I’m pretty awesome. Don’t ever change. 😉 > [@](#): > > If it actually works, then there’s some physiological mechanism behind it that doesn’t rely on woo like vitalism. I mean - a shaman from a tribe that knew the fever reduction properties of willow bark might’ve thought it was a gift from the spirits, which doesn’t mean that it didn’t work - but his reasoning was flawed and relied on the paranormal when a measurable biological effect was the actual cause. Yes, but I do not know what that physiological mechanism is, though I know some of the justifications used to explain it. You’ll notice I am not offering any of those justifications. > [@](#): > > This is like the “psychics”, who upon being asked to conduct their talents under blinded conditions, claim to be inhibited by a “negative energy field” generated by the skeptics. > > Funny, that - the trick only works on people who are willing to be fooled by it. > > This is the very essence of a placebo effect. No doubt that people’s expectations can change their perception of the effect of something. That doesn’t mean that there’s some nebulous hidden woo behind it - it is a well understood, well documented psychological effect. If it’s psychosomatic then why is that funny? My point is that just because something is ‘all in your head’ that doesn’t make it ‘not real’. > [@](#): > > The more introspective and rational you are, the less such things work. This can be unfortunate sometimes when you can’t fool yourself into believing something that would ultimately be pleasant and beneficial to you. Yes, that’s an unfortunate circumstance, but people bring it upon themselves by needing an a priori explanation to every experience. Be open to something you can’t understand working for you, and it just might. > [@](#): > > Which was part of what I was talking about in my previous post - often people feel better with a palatable reality they create for themselves and are hostile towards people who attempt as best they can to determine objective reality. Yes, that is true, but just because you are atheist who likes to believe they are skeptical, that doesn’t mean that they are immune to this. > [@](#): > > This seems like a straw man to me - maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but I can’t think of any examples of behaviors that could be described that way by rationally inclined people. That’s a no-true Scotsman argument being used to rebut a straw man. 😉 Rationally inclined does not mean ‘rational’. There’s the rub. Everyone is irrational to some degree. I’ve yet to meet a person who is perfectly rational. Of course it can be claimed that I’d simply reject such a person if I met them but I don’t think that I would. > [@](#): > > I didn’t engage a fallacy. I made a guess, based on what you’ve said on the board. I may be wrong, but I’m not claiming it to be rigidly logical or the absolute truth. I also didn’t mean to imply that you were against science entirely. I suspected (and you made it clear in this post) that you think science serves some role, but that there’s a metaphysical realm beyond the scientific. Actually this is a fallacy. Metaphysics are beyond the realm of science ‘sort of’ in that conflicting metaphysical belief systems can be mutually exclusive and yet both work. Like thoughts are metaphysical. That doesn’t mean that they do not relate to the physical world, only that a thought can contain something that is not adequately described by it’s physical components. Telling me what neuroreceptors are firing doesn’t tell me whether or not I am thinking about antidisestablishmentarianism or Eve Online as both are likely to engage the same parts of the brain as both are intellectual pursuits. An EEG cannot tell you the contents of someone’s thoughts. > [@](#): > > Effectively, this allows you to believe anything you want about existance while still claiming to believe (and probably actually believing in) the scientific process and scientific knowledge. So I was right - you don’t reject science, but you’ve decided whatever you believe is beyond the scope of science superscedes it in your world view. This can be used to justify lots of unscientific beliefs. No I do not, science is the study of the natural world, and nothing exists outside of the natural world. As I said before. Metaphysics are not supernatural, they are just not physical. The natural world contains more than that which is purely physical. > [@](#): > > I partially agree with this statement. There is a tendency to relate to those with similar beliefs. And religion does serve as a way to socially bond and form communities. Atheists are left out in this regard - so it makes sense that they group with other likeminded people to form the same sort of social bonds. I disagree that atheists are left out in this regard. Atheists tend to cohere into groups the same as anyone else. One of the unique beliefs that is common amongst atheists is that atheists are less susceptible to group influence over their cognitive biases than others. That might be true to a certain degree, but atheists are not immune to groupthink. The lack of an official group does not mean that there are no groupings. > [@](#): > > However, because they may be forming groups along the same lines for the same reasons does not mean the rationality of their beliefs is equal. If a group forms based on mutual interests in science and skepticism, it’s not like they suddenly lose their focus on rationality and empircism and blindly adhere uncritically to a group of beliefs. This, again, was what I posted about in my last post - trying to say “oh, those skeptics are the same as any believer, just with a different set of beliefs” Well, that’s only because false equivalencies are useless. Atheists are susceptible to groupthink and irrational behavior. Trying to draw some equivalency is pointless. Some Christians are more rational than some atheists and some atheists are more rational than some Christians. I don’t think that one can really tell anything meaningful about a person’s level of rationality by their self-chosen ideological signifiers. > [@](#): > > I might be able to agree or disagree if you provided examples. In general, I don’t see a lot of what you’re describing on this board. Not going to call people out, otherwise people will come in and feel the need to defend themselves. I can understand why you’d like some examples, I hope you can understand why I don’t want to single anyone out. > [@](#): > > If anything, your post describes people who try to integrate scientific sounding language into their woo - like all the new age movements that attempt to use “quantum physics” to describe how their belief works - based on it sounding scientific and yet being confusing to almost everyone. Yes, it is much the same thing. Which is why I don’t even try to explain why Shiatsu works scientifically. If someone else figures it out that’s great, but I am fine performing it and having it performed upon me. > [@](#): > > Science is not a collection of facts, it’s an ideology and a method. It’s the best method we’ve devised to understand nature. Our information is incomplete and imperfect, and scientific knowledge changes to reflect that as we gain more information. I don’t think people who appreciate science essentially worship a set of facts and knowledge as sacred - I think they tend to be interested in knowledge and critical thinkers. Yes. I too think that, but I also think that the desire to engage in in-group/out-group behavior sometimes supersedes any rational motives. You and I used to play with this on #i knowingly and willfully when we would try to separate groups to pound on each other, or when we’d gang up on people together in order to mess with the groupings. Radar doesn’t work by lasers, but that was hardly the point was it? The point was making fun of the stupids and ultimately everyone there got a turn in the barrel. > [@](#): > > Sir, I can assure you that I can talk trash to you and make fun of you while also giving a serious effort to understand 😛 Yes, I know. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/2 "2009-08-24T23:59:45Z")
From the other thread. > [@Of delusional believers and naive positivist scientism](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/29): > > Oh come on. To come up with a less ambiguous example: Some ancient people thought the Sun God propelled the sun through the sky every day. We know it’s because the Earth rotates. Because our perception of reality isn’t completely objective then both ideas have merit? After all, the idea that the sun god propels it across the sky every day has predictive value. I don’t see why this really even matters. Yes the scientific explanation is superior. No one was arguing any differently. > [@](#): > > I can’t say I’ve ever liked these sorts of debates because it seems like some sort of philosophical masturbation where people try to show off with their deep thoughts about the nature of reality while ignoring the practical. It’s silly to pretend that all views on how the world works have merit. You do realize that Semiotics is a valid part of the science of linguistics right? If I am remembering correctly **The Hamster King** is a trained Neurolinguist. > [@](#): > > There is an objective reality. The biological nature of our minds limit our ability to see it in a completely objective way. There are cognitive biases, lack of intuitive understanding of the scope of the universe, things we wish to be true rather than observe, etc. Science is man’s best attempt at eliminating our limitations to understand the nature of reality. It comes to erroneous conclusions sometimes based on false premises or false or insufficient data, but it subjects itself to scrutiny and it’s self correcting. It’s our best attempt at describing nature with the best tools we and methodologies we know how to. It is superior to magical thinking. Why do you think you need to defend science? Who is attacking it? What we are saying is that people will appeal to science as a way to justify their cognitive biases, and as such are less willing to look at their own cognitive biases because they see themselves as champions of science. One of the core aspects of scientism is the need to turn it into a defense of science when no one is dismissing the value of science. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/3 "2009-08-25T01:02:13Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Why do you think you need to defend science? Who is attacking it? Well, quite a few people, actually, even if we limit ourselves to the United States. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/4 "2009-08-25T01:17:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, quite a few people, actually, even if we limit ourselves to the United States. Ok, you can argue with the entire United States if you want, but what bearing does that have on this discussion? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/5 "2009-08-25T01:43:20Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Ok, you can argue with the entire United States if you want, but what bearing does that have on this discussion? It answered your questions. Question : “Why do you think you need to defend science? Who is attacking it?” Answer : It needs to be defended. And the attackers are much of America. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/6 "2009-08-25T01:52:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It answered your questions. > > Question : “Why do you think you need to defend science? Who is attacking it?” > > Answer : It needs to be defended. And the attackers are much of America. All of the United States is not participating in this thread. I am not interested in dealing with peoples OCD obsessions with people who are not present but in actually having a discussion with the people present. So this thread is not about what the extended population of the United States thinks. If you are not responding to something that is said by a participant in this thread please go start your own. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/7 "2009-08-25T02:22:07Z")
The statement you were responding to referred to people who were not present. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Science is man’s best attempt at eliminating our limitations to understand the nature of reality. It comes to erroneous conclusions sometimes based on false premises or false or insufficient data, but it subjects itself to scrutiny and it’s self correcting. It’s our best attempt at describing nature with the best tools we and methodologies we know how to. It is superior to magical thinking. Unless all of “man” is here, or all the people who were making “our best attempt”, it’s safe to assume he meant more than just SDMB members in that particular thread. Anyway, science (and freedom generally) are under constant corrosive attack and thus require constant vigilance. I wouldn’t have thought this was in doubt by anyone. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/8 "2009-08-25T10:19:22Z")
Well, **mswas** , there is _falsifiable_ woo, and _unfalsifiable_ woo, and the falsifiable woo _has generally already been falsified_. Personally, I’m happy for anyone to believe unfalsifiable woo. However, the moment they espouse anything that’s actually falsifiable, I’ll generally do my best to convince them that it _has_ already been falsified. (Unless it’s **lekatt** ) Deal? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/9 "2009-08-25T10:29:43Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > If you are not responding to something that is said by a participant in this thread please go start your own. I was responding to _ **you** _. The very person I quoted, which should have been a clue. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/10 "2009-08-25T14:09:53Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Well, **mswas** , there is _falsifiable_ woo, and _unfalsifiable_ woo, and the falsifiable woo _has generally already been falsified_. > > Personally, I’m happy for anyone to believe unfalsifiable woo. However, the moment they espouse anything that’s actually falsifiable, I’ll generally do my best to convince them that it _has_ already been falsified. (Unless it’s **lekatt** ) > > Deal? Absolutely. ---
**Author:** ![Sablicious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Sablicious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sablicious)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/11 "2009-08-25T15:20:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Here’s a made up example to try to make what I’m saying more clear. Lots of people have said they had the “experience” of being abducted, taken away, and “probed” under bright lights by beings with big heads and tiny mouths (or none at all). Many described these beings as talking without moving their mouths. These individuals relate these experiences and say that they were “abducted by aliens” (as their conclusion). Well, I’m not gonna sit here and say with complete and utter certainty that they weren’t, but it seems highly unlikely (seems like somebody official would’ve noticed alien spacecraft or someone might have had a decent camera handy). But what if what these folks are actually remembering is the moment of their births? Being “abducted”, laid out on a table, bright lights overhead, surrounded by figures that all look alike, whose mouths are all covered with masks, and getting something stuck up their butt (rectal themometer)? I’m not saying that I believe this either, but it seems far more likely to me. Not that I’m discounting the validity of the possibility of extraterrestrials’ desire to conduct experiments on living specimens of beings millenia removed from their own evolutionary ascendancy and **nor** do I want to spoil my relish for that upcoming Milla Jovovic movie ‘The Forth Kind’ :D, but: Ockham’s Razor. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/12 "2009-08-25T15:24:51Z")
> [@Sablicious](#): > > Not that I’m discounting the validity of the possibility of extraterrestrials’ desire to conduct experiments on living specimens of beings millenia removed from their own evolutionary ascendancy and **nor** do I want to spoil my relish for that upcoming Milla Jovovic movie ‘The Forth Kind’ :D, but: Ockham’s Razor. > > :rolleyes: Really Ockham’s Razor? Really? Like really? If aliens do exist we don’t know either way whether they abduct people and perform experiments or not. It’s really an assumption in either case, and has nothing to do with critical thought if you have a firm opinion either way there is no rational basis for it. Do aliens exist? I don’t know. Do they probe people for real? I don’t know. Seriously, when did, “I don’t know.”, become an unacceptable answer? ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/13 "2009-08-25T15:40:58Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Seriously, when did, “I don’t know.”, become an unacceptable answer? I suppose if you’re satisfied with muddling through Life with a C- grade point average, “I don’t know” is an OK answer. But sometimes, “That’s incredibly unlikely.” or “That violates everything we know about physics and natural laws.” is a better answer. As a tangent, is there an actual debate contained in that word salad you call an OP? If so, can it be summed up in a more readable form? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/14 "2009-08-25T15:43:30Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > I suppose if you’re satisfied with muddling through Life with a C- grade point average, “I don’t know” is an OK answer. But sometimes, “That’s incredibly unlikely.” or “That violates everything we know about physics and natural laws.” is a better answer. This is an appeal to emotion fallacy. C- We don’t know how likely aliens are or are not, and anal probes do not violate the laws of physics. > [@](#): > > As a tangent, is there an actual debate contained in that word salad you call an OP? If so, can it be summed up in a more readable form? Are you satisfied with a C- grade point average or are you not capable of recognizing when someone is addressing a particular person by directly quoting them? I refer you to the [parent thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=529281). ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/15 "2009-08-25T16:25:30Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > This is an appeal to emotion fallacy. C- We don’t know how likely aliens are or are not, and anal probes do not violate the laws of physics. Actually, Ockham’s Razor and its relatives such as Bayesian probability are far from the fallacy of appealing to emotion. They let us make informed decisions about whether something is probable or not based on our understanding of the real world. Merely saying “I don’t know” is vacuous. Even saying “I don’t have enough information to make a decision at this time” is more useful because then you can form a plan to get that information. > [@mswas](#): > > Are you satisfied with a C- grade point average or are you not capable of recognizing when someone is addressing a particular person by directly quoting them? I refer you to the [parent thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=529281).] If I wanted to be insulted rather than receiving a reasoned response, I would have piled on to one of the several threads you’ve been involved with in the Pit recently. So I’ll ask again, just what is the debate you’re hoping to engender here? Or, having fulfilled your purpose in the OP, should we petition the moderator to close this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Sablicious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Sablicious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sablicious)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/16 "2009-08-25T16:27:45Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Really Ockham’s Razor? Really? Like really? If aliens do exist we don’t know either way whether they abduct people and perform experiments or not. > > It’s really an assumption in either case, and has nothing to do with critical thought if you have a firm opinion either way there is no rational basis for it. > > Do aliens exist? I don’t know. Do they probe people for real? I don’t know. > > Seriously, when did, “I don’t know.”, become an unacceptable answer? [Your sarcasm notwithstanding \<_\<] I’m no meteorologist, but as far as I understand it, weather forecasts are based on computer models and are in effect PREDICTIONS, PROGNOSTICATIONS, GUESS WORK. ie. Knowing doesn’t really enter into the equation when it comes to even this most mundane of day to day occurrences. So I have no problem with not knowing. I mean, what do we really know? A. Diddly squat. It’s all theory, probability and assumption. Hence why I often return home less dressed than when I went out. (And no – I’m not a pole dancer! -_-) **But** , if some trailer park lumpen reeking of moonshine tells me his butt’s sore ‘curz one o’ thurm here **hic** extra testicle types fornicated’ with him the other night, I think Mr **Occam** ’s point is well made. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Maia\_s\_Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3bc359/32.png) [@Maia\_s\_Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maia_s_Well)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/17 "2009-08-25T18:48:42Z")
> [@Sablicious](#): > > **But** , if some trailer park lumpen reeking of moonshine tells me his butt’s sore ‘curz one o’ thurm here **hic** extra testicle types fornicated’ with him the other night, I think Mr **Occam** ’s point is well made. :rolleyes: First of all, “extra testicle”: hee hee. I’m wondering if the point I was trying to make from that example came across? Or perhaps it would be better to ask, what point did you think I was making here? I brought up this as a silly example to illustrate what I see as our tendency (as humans) to either, a) accept experience reported by a large group of people, but draw unlikely conclusions to explain said occurances (like either assuming “those people were abducted by aliens” or “those people are suffering a mass delusion which I do not care to try to explain”, or b)simply ignore and dismiss people’s claimed experiences. I think it makes more sense to observe “a lot of people claim to have this experience. Wonder why?” I wrote that “alien abduction” seems highly unlikely to me, and I offered another WAG that might possibly be a partial explanation. But the greater point I was trying to make was not to argue about alien abductions, it was to make the point that a \*\*commitment to rationalism _sometimes leads a human to either ignore reported experiences or explain them away through irrational means._ I say, “yay, Science!!” as the very best method us hoomans have come up with so far to evaluate and learn, but **the scientific method begins with observation.** Dismissing experience (direct observation) out of hand is, I believe, antithetical to a truly scientific mindset. And here I am getting dangerously close to ranting about how, if a person rejects every report of a personal experience as “anecdotal” and therefore useless, that person is throwing the baby out with all that nasty, useless bathwater. How much more interesting and productive (not to mention inline with the scientific method) it is to notice a whole bunch of people have said they have had this experience, and to wonder why? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/18 "2009-08-25T19:14:34Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Actually, Ockham’s Razor and its relatives such as Bayesian probability are far from the fallacy of appealing to emotion. They let us make informed decisions about whether something is probable or not based on our understanding of the real world. Merely saying “I don’t know” is vacuous. Even saying “I don’t have enough information to make a decision at this time” is more useful because then you can form a plan to get that information. :rolleyes: Ockham’s Razor isn’t an appeal to emotion. Your post was. You are not Ockham’s Razor. There should be a fallacy in there somewhere. I am not saying Ockham’s Razor is silly, I am saying your post was. Merely saying “I don’t know”, isn’t vacuous it’s honest. What is vacuous is holding a strong opinion when the only correct answer is “I don’t know”. Ockham’s Razor tells me that the most likely situation is that you have no fucking clue whether aliens actually exist or not. So how would you form a plan as to whether or not there are aliens somewhere in the entire universe? > [@](#): > > If I wanted to be insulted rather than receiving a reasoned response, I would have piled on to one of the several threads you’ve been involved with in the Pit recently. Well it helps if you read for context. I’m just saying. > [@](#): > > So I’ll ask again, just what is the debate you’re hoping to engender here? Or, having fulfilled your purpose in the OP, should we petition the moderator to close this thread? I was responding directly to other posters. Go read the underlying context if you really care. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-woo-and-scientism/507572/19 "2009-08-25T19:16:54Z")
> [@Sablicious](#): > > [Your sarcasm notwithstanding \<_\<] I’m no meteorologist, but as far as I understand it, weather forecasts are based on computer models and are in effect PREDICTIONS, PROGNOSTICATIONS, GUESS WORK. ie. Knowing doesn’t really enter into the equation when it comes to even this most mundane of day to day occurrences. So I have no problem with not knowing. I mean, what do we really know? A. Diddly squat. It’s all theory, probability and assumption. Hence why I often return home less dressed than when I went out. (And no – I’m not a pole dancer! -_-) > > **But** , if some trailer park lumpen reeking of moonshine tells me his butt’s sore ‘curz one o’ thurm here **hic** extra testicle types fornicated’ with him the other night, I think Mr **Occam** ’s point is well made. :rolleyes: I find claims of mass delusion to be pretty far-fetched too. Which is why I stick with the tried and true, “I don’t know.”, maybe the redneck really was raped by aliens. As the answer is completely and totally irrelevant to my life I choose not to form a strong opinion.