# What other fields besides high-end audio are susceptible to 'woo'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 8, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057 "2017-11-08T15:42:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/81 "2017-11-11T01:47:18Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Diamonds. Gotta have “real” diamonds. Synthetic diamonds or diamond substitutes are Just Not Done. And they have to be high priced just because, actual lack of rarity is irrelevant. > > The fake diamond people keep making better and better ones. So the DeBeers folks keep having to come up with better devices to detect them. A jeweler looking through a loupe isn’t always going to be sure. > > Let me get this: If a pro eye can’t tell the difference, why does anyone else care??? The idea that any diamond _isn’t_ a blood diamond is a scam, on the part of the people who know, and woo, on the part of the people who’ve been duped. There’s no way to track diamonds, other than by relying on the people who stand to gain from you buying them. There’s no independent diamond tracking system, and it isn’t possible anyway, because gem-quality diamonds aren’t marked and aren’t chemically traceable, either. You’re relying on diamond suppliers and retailers monitoring their supply chains and they’re going to tell you anything if it gets you to buy a stone. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/82 "2017-11-11T02:24:46Z")
> [@Saltire](#): > > Agriculture has been mentioned a few times, but I think [Biodynamic agriculture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture) is worth bringing up. It’s very popular among those that grow grapes for wine. > > It includes thing like putting manure or powdered quartz in a cow horn and burying it in your field. Most of it is basically sorcery. Marijuana grower groups often make this kind of advice sound sensible. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/83 "2017-11-11T06:31:20Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > Where do you draw the line between “woo” and just outright scams? It seems every other poster has their own idea of what _woo_ is. ---
**Author:** ![OldOlds](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a3d4f5/32.png) [@OldOlds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldOlds)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/84 "2017-11-11T14:52:10Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Medicine. > > Part of it is simple tradition: Medical woo is a lot older than actual medicine, and it hasn’t died out. People were eating plants long before we knew how to refine them into medicines with known potency and fewer side-effects, or we knew that those specific plants were worthless and/or potentially harmful. > > Another part is the old-fashioned scam nature of all woo: It’s a lot cheaper to sell “supplements” which don’t have to get by the FDA, or do Reiki where your only material outlay is a quiet office and some rocks, than it is to do things the right way. Much higher profit margins on stuffing garden weeds into pill capsules than making even generic medicines, especially since nobody’s checking to see that the garden weeds are clean or safe. > > But the biggest reason is twofold: First, humans, when left to themselves, usually get better. Humans tend towards resiliency. Therefore, if you do anything which isn’t too harmful, the disease will usually go away. Second, humans are very bad at separating sequence from causation. “This happened before that, therefore this caused that” is an insidious fallacy which is very hard to overcome, and is medical woo’s best friend. Because if you did the thing, whatever thing it is, and then your disease got better, it’s easy to think the thing made your disease get better, and, what’s more, you think you have proof of it. I agree with all that, and would add psychosomatic effects. People are so desperate for answers and sense of things that they will happily imagine not only ailments, but treatments. Why do I sometimes feel crappy? Must be gluten. My kid looked flush that one time after eating something, must be allergic. And once someone self-diagnoses as one of these things, and determines they’ve a solution (Magnets!!1!), good luck convincing them otherwise. Add into that people only too willing to sell magnetic anti-gluten and herbal vaccine replacements, and the woo flows ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/85 "2017-11-11T15:53:30Z")
I think in a lot of cases of woo there is probably a little something there that is blown out of proportion. I see it a lot in nutrition. Some studies show the health benefits of a high-vegetable diet and suddenly vegetarianism is the cure for cancer. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/86 "2017-11-11T16:32:30Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > I think in a lot of cases of woo there is probably a little something there that is blown out of proportion. I see it a lot in nutrition. Some studies show the health benefits of a high-vegetable diet and suddenly vegetarianism is the cure for cancer. oh, you remind me of another one- the whole “super food” thing. Kale is supposed to be a “superfood,” yet nutritionally it’s pretty much the same as plain ol’ spinach. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/87 "2017-11-11T16:59:31Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > Food, nutrition, dieting… > > Tons of well meaning BS and “bro science” out there. > > A FB friend just posted a long article on the evils of microwave cooked food. It referenced a “study,” that I kid you not, had 8 subjects. Also a quote from the guy who ran the study claiming that microwaves alter the atoms and molecules of food. You can split atoms at home in your microwave…who knew? [This story](http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/danish-school-experiment-with-wifi-routers-and-garden-cress-good-example-of-bad-science/) has been making the rounds for several years, purportedly showing that wi-fi signals stunt or prevent plant growth. Or not. :smack: The field of nutrition may have the highest woo density of them all. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/88 "2017-11-11T17:06:32Z")
The fact we each need to decide what to eat a couple times every day, and we crave a certain variety, certainly gives rise to a lot of opportunities to make decisions. We all understand and agree there are such things as bad diets. As the Grateful Dead said there’s “livin’ on reds, vitamin C, and cocaine.” Just not good for a man. If there’s a worst, there’s gotta be a best, right? Wrong of course, but that doesn’t stop people from selling and therefore buying on that basis. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/89 "2017-11-11T17:49:56Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > oh, you remind me of another one- the whole “super food” thing. Kale is supposed to be a “superfood,” yet nutritionally it’s pretty much the same as plain ol’ spinach. I’ve read a lot of nutrition books from _The China Study_ to _Good Calories, Bad Calories_ and while most of them have been eye-opening, some present better research and more plausible claims than others. It seems to me that all of these different nutrition experts are holding onto different parts of the elephant, and claiming their part is the whole elephant. The only recurring theme I’ve picked up from all of them is that processed food is terrible for you, which doesn’t require a nutritional expert to figure out. I like Michael Pollan’s book _In Defense of Food_ because the message is incredibly moderate and woo-resistant: \*\* Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/90 "2017-11-11T21:23:28Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Eat food. Tautology, or more likely a way to smuggle in a naturalistic fallacy. > [@](#): > > Not too much. Vague, but this is, after all, just a three-statement summary. > [@](#): > > Mostly plants. Debatable, as per other people in the field. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/91 "2017-11-11T21:47:48Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Tautology, or more likely a way to smuggle in a naturalistic fallacy. > Vague, but this is, after all, just a three-statement summary. > Debatable, as per other people in the field. Are you saying it’s a fallacy that whole foods are better for you than processed foods? That’s literally all he means by “eat food.” If that is a fallacy I’m interested in hearing more. Also, based on his other books I don’t think Pollan’s food orientation “mostly plants” is derived solely from his view of nutrition science. He’s really big on people understanding where their food comes from and pulling it out of their back yard when they can. Also, I never would argue any nutrition science claim isn’t debatable. But there is a marked difference in tone between Pollan’s “here are some decent health guidelines” and the grandiose claims I’ve read elsewhere. It’s a pretty unassuming read. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/92 "2017-11-11T21:52:33Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Are you saying it’s a fallacy that whole foods are better for you than processed foods? That’s literally all he means by “eat food.” If that is a fallacy I’m interested in hearing more. Yes. It’s a fallacy to think it’s true without actual evidence. That’s called the naturalistic fallacy: “Natural” things are better than “unnatural”, by some (usually inconsistent!) definitions of those terms, simply by virtue of being “Natural”. > [@](#): > > Also, based on his other books I don’t think Pollan’s food orientation “mostly plants” is derived solely from his view of nutrition science. He’s really big on people understanding where their food comes from and pulling it out of their back yard when they can. First, the second part is another example of the naturalistic fallacy, and quite dangerous unless your backyard’s actually clean and free of contamination, as farms are. Second, and more to my point there, nutrition science also gave us diets like Atkins, which is definitely not “mostly vegetable”! ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/93 "2017-11-11T21:58:26Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > [This story](http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/danish-school-experiment-with-wifi-routers-and-garden-cress-good-example-of-bad-science/) has been making the rounds for several years, purportedly showing that wi-fi signals stunt or prevent plant growth. It must be true. I have a wi-fi router and not a single plant has ever sprouted in the room that it’s in. Not only that, but over the past several weeks the trees along the whole street have started losing their leaves! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/94 "2017-11-11T22:12:35Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Yes. It’s a fallacy to think it’s true without actual evidence. That’s called the naturalistic fallacy: “Natural” things are better than “unnatural”, by some (usually inconsistent!) definitions of those terms, simply by virtue of being “Natural”. I can see launching that argument with regard to natural supplements and organic food and BS like that, but I’ve never heard a criticism of the basic advice “eat whole foods.” And in all the nutrition reading I’ve done ever, the science does point to most processed food as toxic, addictive garbage, if not for its individual content than for its engineered purpose of making people crave more of it. The evidence shows that people who subsist on a diet of this stuff usually suffer for it. So I don’t think it’s a fallacy unless there is a bunch of research I’m not aware of. I can’t recall exactly, but I think the purpose of Omnivore’s Dilemma was to trace a single meal back to its origins, hence the backyard thing. I don’t remember if it was a device for his book, or a dietary recommendation. He talked way too much about corn, so I stopped reading. His books aren’t really about nutrition science. He’s a journalist. I saw An Eaters Manifesto as a generalization of existing nutrition science combined with his whole philosophy of paying attention to where your food comes from. The latter is only woo if it comes with an unsubstantiated claim of health superiority. It doesn’t. He states it as an ethical or philosophical opinion. I find nutrition science pretty fascinating but as I pointed out before, there seems to be evidence in support of all kinds of dietary choices. The one commonality in all of these nutrition science books is the whole foods part. I don’t think it’s woo to say people whose diets consist mainly of whole foods are usually healthier than those who subsist on processed food. We have a lot of evidence for that. Do we have evidence against that? Serious question. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/95 "2017-11-11T22:32:18Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Are you saying it’s a fallacy that whole foods are better for you than processed foods? Is that what “processed foods” means now, “refined”? Because it seems that, like “natural”, it’s one of those expressions that mean different things from one writer to another. I’ve seen definitions which included anything that has been cooked or preserved in any way. I agree that a lot of sold-cooked food has things that really shouldn’t be there but definitions which change with the time of day and phase of the moon are as bad for communication as palm oil cheese is for nutrition. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/96 "2017-11-11T22:35:55Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Is that what “processed foods” means now, “refined”? Because it seems that, like “natural”, it’s one of those expressions that mean different things from one writer to another. Well, when I say it, I mean anything that would be regarded as junk food. That’s usually what the writers mean. Food products that contain added sugar, salt, and fat. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/97 "2017-11-11T22:42:25Z")
All of those, or any? Because, again, I’ve seen articles which counted anything which had either of them added. I think the only reason they didn’t include “has had acids added” is that the writer hadn’t heard of ceviche. I’m not trying to attack you - but sadly nutrition is a field that’s so full of economic interests, woo and other general crap (something which really, really shouldn’t be part of anybody’s food) that we need to begin any conversation by defining our terms. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/98 "2017-11-11T22:45:26Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > All of those, or any? Because, again, I’ve seen articles which counted anything which had either of them added. I think the only reason they didn’t include “has had acids added” is that the writer hadn’t heard of ceviche. > > I’m not trying to attack you - but sadly nutrition is a field that’s so full of economic interests, woo and other general crap (something which really, really shouldn’t be part of anybody’s food) that we need to begin any conversation by defining our terms. I agree. If I haven’t been as skeptical as I should be, I want to learn about it. ---
**Author:** ![Filbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/filbert/32/3433_2.png) [@Filbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Filbert)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2017, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/99 "2017-11-11T23:23:38Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Man, woo can affect ANYTHING. Just the other day, we were planting a tree. (Dawn redwood - its gonna be SO COOL - and HUGE!) I figured I’d check some Youtube videos, just to reaffirm my understanding about hole size, root pruning, etc. The FIRST video I opened up had some guy talking about the importance of putting charcoal in the hole to balance out the ions of the heavens, and the need to cut the roots with a copper blade because??? > > We’re talking about digging a frigging hole and dropping a root ball into it! There’s a great example of why woo develops there; there’s actually serious research going on as to the benefits of adding charcoal to soil- it appears to have rather a lot of beneficial effects on plant growth, due to things like reducing nutrient leaching and beneficial microbial development. It’s one of those ‘stopped clock twice a day’ moments that keeps whole woo movements going. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057/100 "2017-11-12T00:47:24Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > I can see launching that argument with regard to natural supplements and organic food and BS like that, but I’ve never heard a criticism of the basic advice “eat whole foods.” Because the people who aren’t buying into the fallacies have more specific recommendations, like “don’t eat some kinds of fish if you’re pregnant due to mercury levels which could be dangerous to a fetus”: That fish is whole food, in that it’s caught, cut, cooked (usually), and served, but it is still not harmless to a developing brain. Woo involves the broad pronouncements. Woo is exciting. Reality looks mundane compared to that. > [@](#): > > And in all the nutrition reading I’ve done ever, the science does point to most processed food as toxic, addictive garbage, if not for its individual content than for its engineered purpose of making people crave more of it. The evidence shows that people who subsist on a diet of this stuff usually suffer for it. So I don’t think it’s a fallacy unless there is a bunch of research I’m not aware of. If you have specific complaints about specific foods, _make those specific complaints_. Saying “processed food” as if it doesn’t involve home-baked bread and ceviche and sushi and tomato soup and Twinkies and apple pie and tofurkey is a horrible confusion of ideas, and confused ideas are a hallmark of woo. > [@](#): > > I can’t recall exactly, but I think the purpose of Omnivore’s Dilemma was to trace a single meal back to its origins, hence the backyard thing. I don’t remember if it was a device for his book, or a dietary recommendation. He talked way too much about corn, so I stopped reading. His books aren’t really about nutrition science. He’s a journalist. I saw An Eaters Manifesto as a generalization of existing nutrition science combined with his whole philosophy of paying attention to where your food comes from. The latter is only woo if it comes with an unsubstantiated claim of health superiority. It doesn’t. He states it as an ethical or philosophical opinion. I’m not accusing you of anything here, just adding on: Confusing ethics for reality is confusing “ought” for “is”, and is woo as well. PETA is the premier example: They think people _ought not_ eat meat. They say that meat _is_ unhealthy. Confusing “ought” for “is” and they lie their asses off about pus being in milk and beer being better for children than dairy. > [@](#): > > Do we have evidence against that? Serious question. I have evidence for more specific things. That’s how science works. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-other-fields-besides-high-end-audio-are-susceptible-to-woo/801057.md?page=6)