From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
It's everywhere!!!
This might be


Icon skepticism.svg
But we're not sure
Who's asking?
At least they're honest about it.
Not to be confused with the polygon sex act, WooHoo.

Woo is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words.

Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example, homeopathy may occasionally give results, but as a placebo — the explanations for these occasional results, e.g. water memory, are woo.

Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bullshit. (As such, "woo" that has zero paying customers is more like just ordinary batshit crazy.)

Despite the terrible name, it has become quite a popular term within the skeptical movement -- probably because it's fun to say.


[edit] Origins

The term comes from "woo-woo", an epithet used in the 1990s by science and skeptical writers to ridicule people who believe or promote such things. This is in turn believed to have come from the onomatopoeia "woooooo!" as a reaction to dimmed lights or magic tricks. The term implies a lack of either intelligence or sincerity on the part of the person or concepts so described.

As a coincidence, the Chinese word "Wū" (巫) means a shaman, usually with magic powers.[1]

[edit] Characteristics

Woo generally contains most of the following characteristics:

  1. Anecdotal evidence: Prefers to use testimonials over actual studies.
  2. Panacea: Is a simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including many diseases).
  3. Pseudoscience: Has a "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it; especially:
    1. Science woo: Uses words that sound scientific but make no sense in their context, such as "quantum".
    2. Quote-mined studies that, if bent properly, appear to support the woo.
    3. Appeal to authority: Claims that a scientific authority supports the woo; this is usually combined with a quote mine.
    4. Applies studies from different, unrelated fields.
    5. Disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing (which are kind of what makes epidemiology actually, y'know, work)
  4. Involves the supernatural and/or paranormal.
  5. Persecution complex: Claims to be persecuted, usually perpetrated by the government, "Big Pharma", or the entire worldwide scientific community (see Galileo gambit). Usually accompanied by a claim that the public and/or scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them.
  6. Uses a hypothesis that remains virtually unchanged for years or decades, despite changes in the evidence for the woo. This is sometimes presented as a strength.
  7. And, almost always, is willing to share their precious knowledge... for a price.

Not every characteristic need be present for woo to be, well, woo. Woo is a gradient, rather than a binary: the more of these tactics that are used, the more likely it is that the idea is woo.

[edit] Not to be confused with

WoO (Werke ohne Opuszahl, "works without opus") is the classification given to any originally unpublished compositions by Ludwig Van Beethoven (Für Elise(link) being the most famous example) or other composers of classical music.[2]

However, unlike woo, WoO always describes something which demonstrably exists.

[edit] See also

James Randi is not pleased with your woo.[3]

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes

Personal tools