Talk:Noetic science

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon pseudoscience.svg

This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Concerning Dan Brown's promotion of woo[edit]

Is he actually trying to promote this kind of woo in the Lost Symbol or is he just using it as part of the story. I read it awhile back but I can't remember. Sam Tally-ho! 19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's debatable. I've gotten the impression Brown avoids the question of whether he believes in the pseudo-history and pseudo-science that form the basis of his works. MDB (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a nudge-nudge-wink-wink thing with him. I haven't read Lost Symbol, but the beginning of the Da Vinci Fraud Code starts with a page headed "FACT," which is followed with the usual pseudohistory. That counts as promotion to me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The same sort of "outrage" (more loudly, though) occurred with the popularization of Da Vinci Code and the filming of Angels and Demons--people called the works blasphemous, or called out the inaccuracies of the science surrounding the LHC, or whatever. I think what the loudest people (and the people who listen to them) fail to realize is that all of his works are FICTION, regardless of however much information he takes from history or from other theorists (crank or otherwise). Brad Meltzer's novels have a similar amount of modern conspiracy and woo in them, but they don't make the headlines as much as Brown's do...why? Could it just be that Meltzer's novels don't get the marketing that Brown's do? Or because Brown dares to tackle the authority of the Catholic Church? Compare that to the difference in novels written by J. K. Rowling versus Ed Greenwood--people try to ban/condemn novels about Harry Potter but never novels about Elminster the Mage (again, marketing).
Anyone who has read "Digital Fortress" or "Deception Point" and has a technical background should realize that Brown's work is destined to be fiction. One would think that because his later, more popular his work is less technical it would also be more fictional. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it the case that the page saying that "everything described in [The Da Vinci Code] is based on real events" appears after the disclaimer saying "this work is fictional, any similarity to real events is..." ? Scarlet A.pngnarchist 19:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
In The Lost Symbol he pushes it more than in any of his other works. Whether he personally "really" believes it is another question - but I'm pretty sure that his readers end up believing it. Again whether they "should" be influenced is yet another question.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


Institute of noetic science is not on the untrustworthy list of the Quackwatch it is on the Voluntary organizations list.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

looking at the link in the article it under "Questionable Organizations". I have corrected the article.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Not actually that rational[edit]

Section title by me.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly some users of rational wiki aren't actually that rational. This whole page (not the talk, this seems reasonable) looks like it was created and edited by some "new atheist" basement dweller, screaming and throwing a general shitfit over the slightest sign of something outside their little comfort bubble of 'sensible' science. Yes, I admit, noetic science is pretty 'out there' in places, but what the criticizers fail to recognise is that no, you can't explain self singularity through our current understanding of science, and that through automatically dismissing the proverbial book for its cover, they are becoming the very thing that they claim to fight: a dogmatic, authoritarian belief system that consists of "we know this because we say so". Think that's rational? Think again. Apologies to those of you who actually are rational and here for genuine education. Much sorries if by posting this, I decimate the comments page; I'm new to this editing system.— Unsigned, by: Bustin Jieber / talk / contribs 09:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you point to the specific facts or statements in the article which you feel are false? Comments along the lines of "This article is horrible" or, in your case, "It looks like it was created and edited by some "new atheist" basement dweller" are a little bit unspecific. Thanks.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You just described the entire purpose of this wiki...— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I think I would have to agree with ZooGuard.. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 00:41, 04 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the use of 'woo' (I gather this connotes 'woo-woo' rather than some attempt to win a mate) and 'fluff' (again, probably not a reference to feathers or down or cuddly dust-bunnies). I have seen this referred to as 'Loaded Language'. Arrowstone (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)