Woo

From WikiSynergy

Jump to: navigation, search

Skepticism project

See also

Why skeptics lose

Menu

edit

General articles

Essays and criticism

Science and logic

edit

Projects

The end result of too much Woo

Woo (or "woo-woo") is a term used mainly by skeptics to denigrate phenomena, or people who are open to the possibility of phenomena, that the skeptic takes to be unfounded or unsubstantiated. The term is meant to imply a high degree of unlikeliness or credulity in the things or people so described. In this respect "woo" is similar to terms such as "nutjob," "wacko, or "crank," when applied to people, and to "quackery", "bunkum" or "flim-flam" when applied to purported medical treatments or other phenomena. The term is regularly applied to things such as complementary medicine, cryptozoology, anything involving the paranormal, pseudoscience, or anyone who is not, in the skeptic's view, sufficiently critical of those things.

The origins of the term are unclear: some say it comes from the phrase uttered by the gullible at, say, a seance or magic show when the entertainer produces unexpected or "magical" results: "wooooooo!", while others maintain that it is a shortened version of the verbalization "woo-woo-woo-woo..." of the distinctive theme music from the series The Twilight Zone, the brief singing of which has entered popular culture as response to any strange happening.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Applications of woo

Ideas referred to as "woo" run the full gamut from channeled Venusians or the Hollow Earth theory which lie on the far edge of the outer-fringe, to well established phenomena such as ball-lightning or hypnosis, the legitimacy of which some skeptics still refuse to accept. The term is also applied to people who believe in, or who the skeptic takes to be insufficiently critical of, any idea which might be considered to be woo ("He's a woo" "They're all woos" "That damn woo wiki").

[edit] "Woo" as name-calling

The term "woo" is primarily used in a peremptory, derogatory manner and for its emotive content rather than as a neutral descriptor.^[1] In this respect referring to someone or something as "woo" is little more than name-calling.

“

Well, Dean Radin has been remarkably silent in the nine years since his book came out. He’s of course eligible for the million-dollar prize if he can produce one example – from his book or from anywhere else – that proves the case for parapsychology. Why haven’t I heard from him, let alone from Lou Gentile…? Just what can it be that prevents these woo-woos from applying for and winning the prize? —James Randi^[2]

”