Showing posts with label rational wiki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rational wiki. Show all posts

Wednesday, 2 December 2015

Nassim Haramein

 Personally, I will keep an open mind about the claims on this page. Requires more research as far as I am concerned. NH may be onto something. RS Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science    

From RationalWiki

 

Jump to: navigation, search

Style over substance Pseudoscience
Icon pseudoscience.svg
Popular pseudosciences
Random examples
Nassim Haramein (b. 1962) is a Swiss amateur physicist. Haramein claims to have developed, in collaboration with academic-but-fringe physicist Elizabeth Rauscher, a Unified Field Theory that he calls the Haramein-Rauscher Metric.[1] According to Haramein, this "metric" is a new solution to Einstein's Field Equations that incorporates torque and Coriolis effects. He is also the founder of the Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics and the Resonance Project, a website and foundation addressing his unified physics.
Despite his claims, Haramein's work is unacknowledged by mainstream physicists. The only people who take him seriously tend to be fans of Coast to Coast AM (where he has appeared on several occasions[2]). Selections from his talks are available on YouTube. Many of his papers can be downloaded from his website (he doesn't even get his stuff onto arXiv). Wikipedia articles about him were repeatedly deleted on notability grounds.[3]

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Haramein-Rauscher Metric

Haramein claims his theory explains the origin of spin, which he defines as a "spacetime torque." He claims that his amendment to Einstein’s field equations, incorporating torque and Coriolis effects in "'plasma dynamics'"[4] interacting with a "polarized geometric structured vacuum", produces a unified field theory. Further, he and Dr. Rauscher have developed a "Scaling Law for Organized Matter"[5], which characterizes all matter from subatomic to galactic and universal size as various sized black holes. His unified field theory and the fractals associated with this "Scaling Law" are integral to his concept of a "Holofractographic Universe". There's also something in there that uses the real field of cymatics[wp] to support his idea of "resonance".

[edit] Schwarzschild proton

Drawing on the aforementioned "Haramein-Rauscher metric," Haramein proposed "the Schwarzschild proton," a theoretical model of the proton in which two black holes "orbit" one another. It may sound impressive, but it's almost entirely inconsistent with experimental observation. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of quantum mechanics knows that classical "orbits" do not apply at the scales addressed in his paper.
A blog titled "Up" ran a number of posts debunking the Schwarzschild proton model.[6][7][8]
The paper describing the model is available for download from his website.
Now that his Schwarzschild Proton paper has been debunked, Haramein claims to have published a new paper, "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass" in the Physical Review and Research International Journal, at ScienceDomain International. Physical Review and Research International Journal is in fact not a scientific journal, but an "open peer reviewed" website where anyone can pay a fee and have their "research" "peer-reviewed" and then "published" on the website.[9]

[edit] Cinematic outreach

[edit] Thrive

Haramein was featured prominently in the conspiracy theory movie Thrive, where he discusses the fundamental shape of the fabric of space, as well as potential extraterrestrial involvement with Earth throughout history.

[edit] The Black Whole

He directed and stars in The Black Whole, a 2011 documentary-type movie starring Haramein and his "vacuum is the key to everything" claims. In the movie, he addresses the little he understands of quantum mechanics, the phi ratio, tetrahedrons, symmetries in the structure of the vacuum, and, of course, black holes, which, according to Haramein, are everywhere and everything; we are constantly appearing and disappearing at the speed of light, so, half of the time, we are vacuum, made of "blocks" of 64 tetrahedrons, arranged in such a way that a mini-black hole is created right at the centre of each "block", thus proving that we all have four sides.[10]

[edit] Other interests

In his DVD box set, Haramein discusses, in addition to his unified field theory, topics including the Ark of the Covenant, the Knights Templar, Emmanuel's Tomb, Kabbalah, and something he calls "the Tree of Life Decoded".[11]
In at least one lecture, Haramein claimed to decode crop circles.[12]

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes

  1. http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/torque_paper.pdf
  2. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/haramein-nassim/40486
  3. "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein." Wikipedia. 2008 September 14. "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein (2nd nomination)." Wikipedia. 2012 May 16. Deletion logs for the article. Now locked so only a sysadmin can recreate it.
  4. N. Haramein, E. A. Rauscher, Collective Coherent Oscillation Plasma Modes In Surrounding Media of Black Holes and Vacuum Structure - Quantum Processes with Considerations of Spacetime Torque and Coriolis Forces (PDF), R. L. Amoroso, B. Lehnert & J-P Vigier (eds.) Beyond The Standard Model: Searching For Unity In Physics, 279-331. © 2005 The Noetic Press, ISSN# 1528-3739.
  5. N. Haramein, M. Hyson, E. A. Rauscher, Proceedings of The Unified Theories Conference (2008), Budapest, Hungary, Scale Unification: A Universal Scaling Law for Organized Matter, in Cs Varga, I. Dienes & R.L. Amoroso (eds.)
  6. "Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage? (intro) "
  7. "Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?"
  8. "The Physics of the Schwarzschild Proton '
  9. Sciencedomain.org's description of their version of "peer review"
  10. A review and summary by a fan.
  11. http://theresonanceproject.org/products.html
  12. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6151699791256390335 at 2:13:00


Cult from the Rational Wiki


(Redirected from Cults)
 
 
Jump to: navigation, search
Drink the Kool-Aid  Cults 
RW Cult Template.png
Bomb with love
A cult (not to be confused with occult) is any religious or political group too small to field its own army or without political power. It is also a term generally applied to religions that are isolationist, controlling, and often, extreme.
In pop culture, cults are scary places where lost children go to be raped and murdered, where the recruits wander through airports chanting various 'ohms', and of course where people are (ohhga booga) brainwashed.
A bit more formally, the term is usually used to refer to religions (or other movements) whose beliefs or practices are not just "not what we do", but are seen by the culture at large, as truly bizarre. In religious studies, recently developed religions with few adherents are called "new religious movements" or "NRMs"; the term "cult" is generally reserved for a religious or political group that is actively endotoxic (dangerous to its members, e.g. People's Temple) or exotoxic (dangerous to non-members, e.g. Aum Shinrikyo). Often, cults are identified as religions or political ideologies that are coercive in recruiting and retaining members. "Cult" can be a snarl word applied to unpopular religions and political ideologies, and was used up until the middle of the 20th century to describe any sort of movement, religious or otherwise, that had an element of in-group/out-group to it.[1]

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Usage in recent decades

The usage of the term shifted considerably during the 1960s (e.g. Charles Manson) and 1970s to mainly refer to a variety of new movements (religious or otherwise) which were believed to hold a coercive control over member's lives, or which were especially attractive to young people in search of self-actualization but also led to adherents adopting modes of living which were rather out of the mainstream (and thus perceived to be threatening to society even if harmless in themselves). Some of these groups were especially attractive to young adults during that time of social change, appealing to them through recruitment tactics like love bombing and offering an environment of stability in identification with (and ultimately dedication and obedience to) the group. Much of this concern over cults during the 1970s and since has had an air of moral panic and in at least two cases (the Branch Davidians and M.O.V.E.) led to a preemptive law enforcement overreaction to the group which was far out of proportion to any danger the group actually posed if at all, and ended in both cases in disaster. In one case, the Satanic Panic, there was a widespread belief, including among law enforcement, in a cult which probably never even existed as claimed.
On the other hand, a few cults have on some occasions posed a genuine threat to society or to themselves; well-known examples include the People's Temple and Heaven's Gate mass suicides, the sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway by the Aum Shinrikyo cult under the orders of Shoko Asahara, the spreading of salmonella at salad bars in The Dalles, Oregon by the Rajneesh movement in order to influence local elections and take over the city, and criminal harassment of critics and ex-members by Synanon. On yet the other hand again, the fact that there have been truly dangerous cults has led to a general overuse of the term, fed especially by the Internet in which web sites exist accusing everything from Amway to Alcoholics Anonymous to Wikipedia of being cults. The situation is such that any faddish self-help movement or new religious movement has to contend with suspicion that it is a cult until proven otherwise, especially if the group has a charismatic leader or guru associated with it. Many of these groups may be teaching pure woo, but the next People's Temple they aren't; unfortunately the problem is that human nature is such that there will be more truly dangerous cults but it is hard to tell in advance which new group will turn out to be one, among all the eccentric but relatively harmless groups.

[edit] Warning signs of a potentially destructive cult

With that said, there are several warning signs that can be used to indicate when a religious group has gone from "harmless, quirky woo-meisters" to an active threat to its membership and even to others.[2]

[edit] Warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

  1. Offers promises of a new life, a "spiritual resurrection", a rejection of former life which to many desperate people is simply irresistible. Therefore, easy to be pulled in.
  2. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. Therefore, extremely hard to leave.
  3. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
  4. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
  5. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
  6. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
  7. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
  8. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
  9. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
  10. The group/leader is always right.
  11. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

[edit] Warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader

Rick Ross's Cult Education Institute lists the following warning signs:[3]
  1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
  2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
  3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".[4]
  4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
  5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.
  6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supersede any personal goals or individual interests.
  7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
  8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
  9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
  10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

[edit] Groups considered to be coercive cults

Note: the groups listed below below are not necessarily cults, though they have been accused of being so

[edit] Religious groups

[edit] Political groups

[edit] Self-help movements

[edit] Criminal organizations

[edit] Accused by fundamentalists

According to many Christian fundamentalists, any sect that does not agree with their doctrines is a cult, though they are less pernicious than many of the above groups. Examples of such sects include:

[edit] Cult of personality

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 secret speech "On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences" was the outing of the late Joseph Stalin as being a cult figure. The unfortunate Mao Zedong was to suffer a similar fate a few decades later.[7]

[edit] See also

[edit] Footnotes

  1. Martin Gardner used it frequently to refer to schools of medical quackery in his book Fads and Fallacies.
  2. The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (ABCDEF) BY Isaac Bonewits, useful since 1979
  3. The Cult Education Institute's warning signs
  4. See persecution complex.
  5. Unitarian Universalism Contender Ministries
  6. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/what-is-quiverfull/
  7. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.firstwave/mlob-on-china/section27.htm

Meditation from the Rational Wiki..

Meditation
 
Jump to: navigation, search
Tell me aboutyour mother Psychology
Icon psychology.svg
Let us examine...
Random examples
Dolphins and money New Age
Icon new age.svg
Key cosmic concepts
Spiritual selections
Meditation is a contemplative practice in which one trains one's attention to focus on different aspects of one's experience.[1] This is done in various ways, often by sitting still in a quiet location, limiting external stimuli, and focusing on a single point of reference. The pure training of attention is known as mindfulness,[2] whereas there are also practices for training the brain to experience loving-kindness,[3] and practices for gaining insight into the nature of thought.[4]

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Religions

Ummm...
It is a discipline within many religions, particularly Buddhism. For example Roman Catholics reciting the Rosary can be a form of meditation, Christians in general may meditate on a specific verse of scripture, and for Zen practitioners meditation is a central part of their religious practice. (Wim Hof attributes his endurance to Buddhist Tummo meditation.) Meditation is often a popular practice among New Age believers. New Agers will sometimes tie meditation in with parapsychology, ESP, and other related woo.
In Hindu beliefs, several different forms of Yoga meditation exist, of which the best known is Hatha Yoga, a series of body positions and exercises. Hatha Yoga is often what most people think of when they think of Yoga.

[edit] Cults

A number of alleged cults sell their own specific form of meditation as a path to "higher consciousness." These include Transcendental Meditation, and its practice of Yogic flying plus Shri Ravi Shankar's Art of Living movement, Vipassana meditation and the Orgasmic Meditation cult of San Franscisco.

[edit] The straight dope

From a rationalist and secularist standpoint, meditation is a valid practice that does not have to be linked to any religious belief. The psychology community may promote meditation as a general stress-relieving technique. It can also be done with the intent of bringing about an altered state of consciousness without any drugs. There is also however a lot of woo surrounding the practice, and not all the claims made by its advocates may be valid; many of its perceived benefits may be merely psychosomatic. A relaxed state in general may bring about temporary biochemical changes which affect (and reduce) blood pressure, stress, heart rate, and respiration rate. It may also have effects such as reducing pain by removing one's mental focus from it and as a sleep aid, but this does not necessarily translate into permanent health benefits. One should be wary of specific claims, however (especially health-related claims) for pseudoscience.
On the other hand, some would say that the whole point of meditation is to intentionally produce psychosomatic effects, so this means it's working just fine:
The second criticism, that any change is a result of placebo, does not seem to make sense in this context. There doesn’t seem to be a way to define a placebo as separate from a “real” treatment. In drug testing, a patient is given a fake drug (a placebo) which they believe is real, and they experience some tangible health change because they are convinced the drug they are taking is beneficial. They actually create this change for themselves – it’s an internal mental thing rather than a result of the material pill. This parallel doesn’t work for meditation, because meditation *is* an internal mental thing – that is the whole point. If practicing shooting a basketball gives one the confidence to sink more baskets, the practice is not referred to as a placebo – rather, the practice is serving an important function, building confidence. If practicing focusing my attention improves my ability to focus my attention in my day-to-day life by improving my confidence, then it is doing exactly what it’s supposed to do, and it’s a worthwile practice.[5]
Sorting out the science of meditation and its observable effects from many of the practices and alleged benefits can be tricky, because many of the explanations traditionally given for meditation's effects are of a pre-scientific or religious nature.
In 2007, the largest peer reviewed independent meta-analysis of meditation techniques was published by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). It found that some studies have reported positive effects for meditation in regard to conditions such as stress and hypertension. However, it ruled that most of the studies were too poorly designed to say anything definitive on the medical use of meditation. It concluded:
Many uncertainties surround the practice of meditation. Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analysis and reporting of results.[6]
Some neuroscientific research has found expertise in meditation to be correlated with increased concentration and less mind-wandering.[7] Some studies have detected differences in gray matter in the brain for those who meditated.[8]
The research showing benefits of meditation is unimpressive, to say the least, and is corrupted by the “allegiance effect,” the tendency of proponents of a treatment to find evidence that it works.[9]

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes

Friday, 7 August 2015

Science Woo...

Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science
          
From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Style over substance Pseudoscience
Icon pseudoscience.svg
Popular pseudosciences
Random examples
Science woo is woo that confuses science with magic, often in the heads of the people espousing it. The science is often accurate and current, but the "woo" comes from poor understanding of the scientific background, the scientific method or the burden of proof. People are blinded by the science and misled as to what it actually means.
In some cases, like "chaos theory", "vacuum energy", "zero point energy" and "quantum computing", only the name of the scientific principle or discovery has actually made it into the popular culture and minor details like what they actually mean are left up to the imagination.[1] New Age is particularly enamored of quantum woo, where the "strange" behavior of subatomic particles is claimed to work in the macroscopic world.
The popular press may be partially to blame for this, by simplifying science reporting so far that they almost completely leave out any real science; one particularly striking example being a picture of an X chromosome and a pair of scissors to "cut one leg off" to convert it to a Y chromosome. Popular science media, especially the bad kind, also bears some of the blame by playing to public tastes for sensationalism over skepticism and drama over fact. Articles on speculative topics such as how the universe will end may be based on accurate science but have an actual likelihood of occurring of close to nil.[2]

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Examples

Prominent examples of science woo tend to cluster around very abstract hypotheses in physics that have strange predictions (whether "valid" and useful yet or not). These include the venerable quantum theories[3], chaos theory, string (and superstring) theory, fractals, the work of Nikola Tesla, and anything interesting one ever reads about black holes and wormholes. Two common features of most of these occurrences of science woo are one, lack of genuine familiarity with the field in question, and two, an utter lack of familiarity with the mathematics required to understand them. Biological examples tend to leap far beyond minor test results to almost magical "cures" for cancer, obesity, and stupidity.

[edit] Terraforming

For an example of science woo, take someone who may have read an article in Omni magazine (or an Arthur C. Clarke novel) about terraforming Mars, or at least creating sustainable human colonies there. While every speculation about how this would work may be grounded in valid scientific principles, the reader may make the leap to thinking the only real obstacle is getting enough ships to Mars to get it started. Then (and this is where the woo kicks in), when presented with an issue about environmental damage here on Earth, their reply might simply be "Well, then, we'll terraform Mars!" The very complex concept of terraforming Mars may indeed have some validity - but if we can't keep Earth "terraformed" first, how could we possibly succeed on Mars?

[edit] Anti-gravity

Anti-gravity prototypes vibrating on scales give a false weight-change reading. Gyroscopes are another anti-gravity favorite but they don't get lighter. They would only work to squeeze energy out of the rotating Earth. A gyro points in one direction while the planet turns under it. It would be a great power source but the gearing ratio would be 4,320,000 to one.
The anti-scientist Richard Hoagland wrote thousands of words declaring that Wernher Von Braun had a secret knowledge of anti-gravity, and no doubt his fans believed it. The whole essay was invalidated by Hoagland's own mathematical errors.

[edit] Squeezing energy out of the rotating earth

Attempts to take energy from the earth's rotation must contend with conservation of angular momentum. Any earth-bound device will fail for this reason. One thing that would work is attaching a weight to a very (very) long string anchored to the ground, and releasing the weight at above the height where geosynchronous satellites orbit. The weight would be flung outwards, and the unwinding string could be used to power a generator. The device would generate power by slowing the earth down, but rotational inertia is conserved. It's just not terribly practical, is all.
A much better idea is to exploit the effects of a large mass in space that just happens to be conveniently located in Earth orbit: the Moon. Ocean tides are caused primarily by the Moon's gravity, and they slow down the Earth's rotation by transferring angular momentum to the Moon. Several power plants that generate electricity from ocean tides are currently in operation.

[edit] Limitless energy

See the main article on this topic: Perpetual motion
Skeptics often ask, "If your perpetual motion machine is so good, why isn't it widely available?" And the reply is invariably, "The oil/coal/nuclear industry/government is conspiring to suppress my invention." But utility companies are required by law, in the U.S. and E.U., to buy back excess juice. So if their machine works, all they have to do is phase match their machine to the AC line with an inverter, sit back, and collect their payments. Also, the US government has such a strong interest in reducing the use of fossil fuels that it would jump at this, even as it violates the laws of thermodynamics, despite John Hutchison's claims to the contrary.
A very specific subset of this is fusion woo - claims of practical low-cost fusion technologies. These devices are often capable of causing fusion, but never deliver an energy gain.

[edit] Space woo

Wow, a face on Mars
Never mind!
"Space woo" is the kind of woo peddled by Richard Hoagland on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell/George Noory. Since all woo depends on the inaccessibility of counterevidence to third parties, nothing is more ripe than space woo. The images of Mars returned from the Viking orbiter in the 1970s, with its primitive camera providing resolution only down to 150-300 meters per pixel provided an instance of pareidolia when a mountain was imaged that resembled a human face. Hoagland asserted that it was a monument, something like Mt Rushmore on Mars. When the Mars Observer probe was sent much later, with resolution down to two meters per pixel, they took a picture of the "face" and Hoagland got really quiet.
Another kind of space woo involves a peculiar if not scientifically recognized tendency called the Overview Effect: the cognitive shift in awareness reported by some astronauts and cosmonauts during spaceflight, often while viewing the Earth from orbit or from the lunar surface.[4] While most comments amount to awe and wonder at the world and/or cosmos, quite a few vocal advocates like Frank White (the man who coined the term) and Edgar Mitchell had taken the idea and interpreted it into what could be best described as a mix of New Age fluffiness and systems thinking taken to its extreme, with a dash of hard green and pseudo-Carl Sagan polemics. It's no surprise that the woo version of the effect had gained some traction among some fringe meisters and well-meaning if naive supporters with its emphasis on "global/cosmic consciousness" to the detriment of any legitimate effort to validate the effect itself.[5]

[edit] Cryonics, transhumanism, the Singularity

We cannot yet freeze humans and bring them back, and it is doubtful whether anyone frozen with current technology can be resurrected; we can't upload minds; we don't have nanobots; we don't have strong AI. But more than that, we have no current prospects of any of these things and literally have no idea how to get to any of them from here, despite what science fiction may suggest to you, and certainly not within a few decades. Advocates of the cryonics/transhumanism/Singularity belief cluster confuse science-fictional speculation with anything we have any idea how to do, especially when extremely superficial progress is reported, and tend to predict such things will come to pass in their own lifetimes.

[edit] Brain woo

There are numerous woo ideas surrounding the brain, psychology, and neuroscience, often pejoratively referred to as "neuromythology." These are largely misinterpretations of actual science by pop psychology or New Age types trying to jam some kind of mysticism into fields studying the mind. Dredging up Freudian psychoanalysis and mixing it with some new brand of woo is a common form of this. Pseudoscientific ideas about the physiology and function of neurons manifest in non-materialist neuroscience and quantum consciousness, which mixes quantum woo with brain woo. Brainwave woo and "brain exercise" products like Brain Gym arise from misconceptions surrounding the biology of the brain. Personality woo like the enneagram and distortions of hemispheric dominance have always been popular. Phrenology is often synonymous with brain and personality woo.

[edit] Nanobots

See the main article on this topic: Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology is best understood as microscopic chemistry. Unfortunately, the pop-culture depiction of Nanotech is often cell-sized robots that can magic anything into existence. This ignores that physics is different at the microscopic level. Even ignoring that there is a physical limit to information/programs (even if each bit of data was stored on a single atom, you only have so many atoms), individual atoms and molecules don't behave nearly the same way as large quantities would. As for the "grey goo" scenario, where a self-replicating mini-factory covers the entire world, that happened once already; it's called "life".

[edit] Others

This phenomenon extends beyond the intentional woo, to a person who buys and consumes many various dietary supplements, herbs, and vitamins, and even normal food items, and "knows" for what each are supposed to be curative or preventative. Each of these factoids may rest on nothing more than reading of a preliminary study in the Science section of their local newspaper or television news show. Often these stories lead with a dramatic claim, to make a headline, and then barely make it clear that the test groups were very specifically chosen and that the results were barely statistically significant. The woo-ee simply memorizes the magic list of potions and takes them in order to live forever. Such overconsumption of one single item can actually have adverse consequences.
Also, many purveyors of intentional woo like to throw as much woo on the wall to see what sticks. For instance, Danie Krugel likes to mix space woo, quantum woo, and bio woo all together to convince everybody.

[edit] Technology dangers woo

A subset, or perhaps flip side of science woo, is the "ack, technology is dangerous woo". Cell phones are killing our honey bees is one example. Other examples include: power lines cause cancer, mercury amalgam fillings cause just about everything, microwave ovens create "toxins" in your food, and aspartame is hazardous to your health[6].

[edit] Science as a religion

A special section of science woo has been optimized by the advertising world who turn "science" into a virtual "religion" with scientists acting as something like "priests" to the unsuspecting, under-informed, too-trusting public. Generally, ads using such woo put bespectacled men or women in crisp white lab coats in front of a myriad of glass flasks, bottles, and beakers filled with liquids of pretty colors, who then look directly into the camera with that look of authority and toss out buzzwords like "laboratory analysis", "scientifically proven", "research has shown", and "experts agree". They then move on to sell anything from the latest diet aid, to the best carpet cleaner in the world. The woo-ed sit back and, unable to decipher "carbon tetra anything" from "oxidization reactions" accept the woo and buy buy buy buy buy.
A subset of this is scientists, and others such as engineers and inventors, who really are brilliant in their field but get way out of their depth in another area by trying to apply the scientific method to inappropriate fields, and making utopian claims that by doing so we can solve all mankind's problems. Examples: Galambosianism and the Technocracy movement.
This has sometimes gone by the more general term 'scientism' or 'historicism' when scholars inappropriately apply the methods of the physical sciences to the social sciences like economics or history. CF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poverty_of_Historicism

[edit] See also

[edit] Footnotes

  1. Pretty much all the major sci-fi TV shows are guilty as sin of this. If you want your TV scientifically accurate, you're best off with The Big Bang Theory.
  2. See the 10 Ways To Destroy The Earth. Implausible; maybe. Fun; definitely. Which sort of proves the point, really.
  3. With even neopagans getting into the act
  4. The main gist of it, if rather biased can be found here.
  5. [This review says it all.]
  6. Well, all the other artificial sweeteners were, so why not the blue packets, too?

Reviving the Ancient Polymath Spirit to Meet Modern Challenges We can embrace interdisciplinary learning for innovative problem-solving. Posted January 16, 2025 | Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

  by   Nigel R. Bairstow Ph.D. Disconnection Dynamics Psychology Today Key points Ancient Arab polymaths excelled by integrating diverse kno...