Wordie: She Blinded Me With Pseudoscience: Comments

Comment by whichbe, 3 months ago

Tue, 13 May 2008 18:39:07 +0000

Hey Uselessness, I like this list and I've read through these comments. I agree with you about science vs. pseudo-science, but I wanted to chime in with my two cents and just say (defend?) that I'm a trained and certified clinical Hypnotherapist and there's a lot of facinating phenomena to observe in the process. It has been incorporated in psychology quite a bit in the last 100 years and is ultimately more of a "technique" than it is a "science".

I could talk forever about it, but Hypnotherapy has been either mystified or lampooned in the media for a long time, but it is essentially just the process of deep relaxation and concentration put together and guided by someone trained in it.

Comment by uselessness, 9 months ago

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:11:04 +0000

Hey, I had never heard of either of those, thanks for the suggestions!

Comment by sionnach, 9 months ago

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:20:28 +0000

How about the odic force aka odyl or odyle, brainchild of Baron von Reichenbach.

Then there is also Reich's orgone.

Comment by reesetee, about 1 year ago

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:29:42 +0000

Figured as much. I recently read that book--or I should say I listened to it (audiobook)--which is why I was asking. Next up: The Big Oyster, so I can give the book back to its owner.

Comment by John, about 1 year ago

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:11:58 +0000

They might serve haddock or whiting and call it cod, which is apparently commonplace. Or it could be cod, but not Atlantic Cod, of which there are apparently only about 14 left.

Cod, by Mark Kurlansky, is an excellent book, fwiw.

Comment by reesetee, about 1 year ago

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:35:33 +0000

Eww. I don't like my wraps talking back.

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:06:59 +0000

Hopefully not when they serve it.

Comment by reesetee, about 1 year ago

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:42:48 +0000

John, it so happens I'm going to be in the Portland area next month--briefly. I'll have to squeeze in a trip to Silly's and see what that cod wrap is all about. :-)

Hey...can they still *serve* cod? There are still some alive? ;-)

Comment by slumry, about 1 year ago

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:29:06 +0000

Hey TG, why don't you show us some of the words you love, or love to hate? ;-)

Comment by thegoat, about 1 year ago

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:24:49 +0000

ah well, it was fun (at least for me) while it lasted. guess I'll look at the rest of your lists...

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:08:29 +0000

You think I ever go to Maine? Don't be silly. :-P

Comment by John, about 1 year ago

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:54:42 +0000

Wordie is silly? Silly!? Why you, why I oughta...

Ok fine, it's silly. Hey, speaking of, if you're ever in Portland, Maine, I highly recommend eating at Silly's. There's nothing silly about their fried cod wrap with buffalo sauce, it's seriously delicious.

Comment by slumry, about 1 year ago

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:42:20 +0000

The search for the universal solvent she said, lightly.

(but where would we keep it?)

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:37:41 +0000

Hey man, thanks for the comments. You're right of course, but you take this thing much too seriously. I might get in trouble if I was publishing this list in a famous encyclopedia... but ultimately I'm just categorizing things for my own pleasure. There are plenty of great places to debate correctness and semantics on the web, but I find that Wordie is not one of them. It's just a silly site to make silly lists. And I say with all due silliness, lighten up! ;-)

Comment by thegoat, about 1 year ago

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:30:13 +0000

Perhaps I was mistaken about the qualifications for this list. I thought it was for pseudosciences, but you are arguing for inclusion of anything "not-science".
Science is a rigorous process one follows to uncover truth. A method of study. Application of this knowledge is no longer science, but can be either scientifically based or not. Pseudoscience is something derived from a premise already proven to be false or by means unverifiable or irreproducible. No one said eugenics was science; it is a philosophy or could be an attempt at applied science. If this is a list of not-science include apple pie and poetry. Technically, medicine isn’t a science. It is based on a science, biology and its derivatives, and is scientific, but is applied knowledge and technology. Medicine has a stated objective of a subjective nature: preservation and improvement of human life. It is pretty self-evident what is good or healthy for someone and what isn’t… at least physically. Of course, evaluation of someone’s mental well being heads into sketchy territory. Medicine, surgery, etc. has had its brushes with pseudoscience – bodily humours, bloodletting, and possession by demons. Do these missteps cause all subsequent medical practices to be pseudoscientific?
Science may be a process of observation but its application is necessarily guided by the practitioner towards some goal. Good engineering doesn’t become unscientific merely because it ventures out of the realm of theory. Just because in its infancy eugenics was confused with a mistaken belief in the supremacy of some races, or even the very subjective decisions of what qualities are desirable, it would be odd to assume nothing can be labeled detrimental. I think most would agree cystic fibrosis is undesirable, and its eradication from the gene pool a boon, and few would tell a child with the disease that research into it, and its being done away with, is pointless because their suffering is too subjective.
If a meteor hurtles towards Earth, we could study its trajectory objectively towards the end of averting a disaster. Regardless of kooks and religious fanatics who may perceive the world’s destruction as a good thing, intelligently thinking people would still work towards realizing their judgment that we are better preserved than annihilated… and I would have to agree with that philosophical stance.
The lines between biochemistry and preventive medicine blur and eugenics becomes a possibility – eugenics uncolored by racism or any other trivial difference among us. Besides, a race of atomic supermen created to play basketball for normal people’s amusement sounds cool.

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:14:25 +0000

Counterpoint: Science is not meant to pass judgment, only to observe. Because eugenics has the stated goal of "improving" the human gene pool, it enters the unscientific waters of subjectivity. It belongs here for the same reason chiropractic belongs here -- its value is only perceived value, dependent upon the expectations and preferences of the person/group employing it.

Comment by thegoat, about 1 year ago

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:02:43 +0000

I liked the list and was sad that it was uncommented on in 5 months. Figured I would get it rolling again; what better way than to champion eugenics? What, no one on counterpoint? Then strike it!

Comment by reesetee, about 1 year ago

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:42:33 +0000

Nooooooo!

Comment by oroboros, about 1 year ago

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:28:34 +0000

Uh oh!

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:24:06 +0000

No earth = no Wordie. :-(

Comment by oroboros, about 1 year ago

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:20:59 +0000

Let's see, do I have this down right? No brain = no science; no science = no pseudoscience; no earth = no brain. Right? Seems like a no brainer to me that the earth creates her own "problems". ;oP

Comment by reesetee, about 1 year ago

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:30:48 +0000

True. I'm sure this conversation will soon be Googleable. ;-)

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:24:32 +0000

Well this list has always generated attention, hasn't it? ;-)

Comment by reesetee, about 1 year ago

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:10:24 +0000

Eesh. It's just a Wordie list....

Comment by jennarenn, about 1 year ago

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:34:11 +0000

Simmer down. There's a way to state your point without attacking somebody.

Comment by thegoat, about 1 year ago

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:15:58 +0000

I think you have misapplied the label pseudoscience to eugenics out of confusion stemming from the term's vagueness. It is a simple word and a simple idea, but because of past racist proponents it has many negative connotations associated with it. Yes, a eugenics plan could be implemented with genocide, mandatory abortions, mandatory birth control, forced breeding, segregation, etc. Must it be? No, of course not.
At its core eugenics stems from a normal wish to wipe out genetic diseases and have one's children be smarter, stronger, and more healthy with each generation. In the hands of people who understand the benefits of neither genetic variety nor cultural differences, it is easily made into a tool for robbing other human beings of their freedom. Many things scientific have been
appropriated for evil uses; this isn't a defect inherent in the technology but one in the person who sees fit to use it this way.
The real problem is illustrated by the questions "Where do we stop?" "What constitutes deformity or disease?" "What is to be voted undesirable?" Questions like these should be taken on a case-by-case basis and with the full informed consent of a society.
As to where we are to start, well, that Pandora's Box has already been opened in research into hemophilia and Huntington's disease and treatments such as gene therapy.
Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on as to whether this technology SHOULD be used, or whether or not we have yet attained sufficient knowledge to begin tinkering with a process that operates on the order of hundreds of thousands of years or more, the technology is advancing every day and doesn't show any sign of being something akin to astrology or reflexology. Perhaps if you are going to link to Wikipedia from your list, you should actually try reading the article.

Also surprising is antimatter's inclusion: I think there may be not only some theoretical physicists, but also some experimental particle physicists who would argue with you on that one... If you are going to include things with major support in the scientific community that don't pan out, then string/M-theory ought to be here. What the hell - I vote for Psychology as well; at least until they pare down the DSM-IV and oh, I don't know, develop
some CURES? I am talking about ones distinct from pharmacological ones, otherwise: why all the useless therapy chit-chat? Scrap the whole discipline and prescribe strictly for actual disorders like schizophrenia, severe depression, & bipolar disorder.

And somehow aromatherapy and Creationism under the guise of Intelligent Design dodged the list-bullet?!

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:44:46 +0000

Good additions! I'm not sure that phlogiston is technically pseudoscience; in its day it seems to have been a legitimate theory from real science, limited by the knowledge available at the time. It's the nature of true science to revise theories and drive wrong ones into obsolescence. But since I have included other archaic "real science" theories in this list, I added this one also. :-)

Orthogenesis very much belongs on the list. It illustrates man's natural desire for the supernatural/higher purpose in life, even among some atheists. Reminds me of Carl Sagan and his awed reverence for the "Cosmos." And as for memetics, I'm with you. It's a fence-sitter. Philosophically speaking, it's true, and sociologically applicable. But there's no real science to suggest physical manifestations of memes within the brain, which is a pretty silly idea anyway.

[phlogiston]

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:27:54 +0000

seems as if it would belong on this list. orthogenesis might be another, which has the benefit of covering such specific manifestations as Lamarckism (heritability of acquired traits), Lysenkoism and other silliness pertaining to genetics and evolution. I personally am not yet ready to add memetics to the list.

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:05:05 +0000

That's a good one. I hear about conditional panaceas all the time but those are not, by definition, panaceas. The true panacea is a myth.

Comment by Valse, about 1 year ago

Wed, 03 Jan 2007 23:43:48 +0000

panacea might be a good catch-all word to add for pseudoscientific medicine.

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:04:12 +0000

Hey, that's cool. The jury's still out on aromatherapy for the same reason I didn't add massage therapy -- there may not be medical benefits but it's valid and useful as a nice thing people enjoy, and it makes them feel better. Not exactly a false or pseudoscientific claim.

I always play the devil's advocate. It's a shameful hobby of mine. :-)

In regards to censorship, I think I'll be the least of your concerns, John. Sure, I screw around... but it's all for some semblance of fun. I'm sure real right-wing nutjobs will eventually make their way to the site though. What then? It's ultimately your site, and your decision, but I vote for free speech for all. Even if that speech is stupid or just plain wrong.

I was out all day yesterday (looking for a new home, joy of joys) so now I've got some catching up to do. Looks like the "guidelines" list comments have exploded, so I'm going over now to catch up on them. Glad there's no hard feelings. You're still ace in my book.

Comment by John, about 1 year ago

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:15:55 +0000

I feel kind of badly that we jumped on you, and hope you didn't take down 'gw' because you felt attacked. I like lively, even vociferous debate -- a bit too much perhaps -- but the last thing in the universe I want to be is censorious. And I really like the fact that you're playing devil's advocate/provocateur.

But dude, AROMATHERAPY IS SCIENCE.

Ok, I'll shut up now.

Comment by kad, about 1 year ago

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:43:00 +0000

oh, also thought i'd suggest 'aromatherapy,' which my last dentist used in an attempt to make the cavity-filling process less stressful.

Comment by kad, about 1 year ago

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:41:38 +0000

It's amazing how easy it is to get a rise out of scientists -- I'm no exception :) Black sheep we may be, but plain old sheep, we are not. I think you're spot on when you say that blind faith is the antithesis of science.

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:00:53 +0000

Well that was fun. I certainly don't mean to lump myself in with any crackpots... the goal of the list was quite the opposite. I've got nothing against you or kad, and I won't take things personally if you don't. :-)

I originally added "global warming" just be mischievous, to see if anyone would notice. I guess they did. I'm now deleting it and the other controversial items so the list can get back to its original intentions.

If there was any point to all this, it's that I feel there is a fine line between science and pseudoscience, at least in terms of how most people view them. The average person doesn't know the difference between the two. The average person begins by putting too much trust in scientists to be fully accurate and work miracles consistently; and that trust spills over into stupid pseudoscientific gimmick products too. People are sheep. They expect the world but don't think for themselves. The bottom line is, science is a great thing but is ultimately imperfect -- like everything else. And people should know to take everything with a grain of salt, no matter how reputable the source, because blind faith is the antithesis of science.

That said, I believe in global warming and just enjoy getting a rise out of people. It's a sick sense of humor, I know. :-)

Comment by John, about 1 year ago

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:55:26 +0000

I think perhaps you're not distinguishing between the sky-is-falling activists, and the scientists -- as kad says, it's a vague term. Speaking about the science, sure, skepticism is always warranted, but on an issue where you have, on the one side, thousands of scientists with primary data all pointing towards the same thing, and on the other, oil companies and George Bush, I'll go with the scientists. Though even the oil companies are coming around. It's pretty much strictly crackpots who'd agree with the pseudoscience designation.

Don't like that you added evolution. Equal time doesn't make sense when it means giving time to bullshit. You can question anything, but doing so doesn't make it pseudoscience.

Full disclosure: kad is my girlfriend. And she's being modest, she's got a PhD in paleoclimatology from MIT and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. She spent five years looking at microscopic sludge from the ocean floor, gathering some of that primary data.

Nothing personal, and you get points for getting my goat. I like to think it's hard to do. Inkhorn, that's my favorite comment in a long time :-)

Comment by inkhorn, about 1 year ago

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:26:52 +0000

To arms! *munching popcorn*

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:20:48 +0000

Not a right-wing nutjob, just a skeptic. Even if that means skeptical towards science, which is really what science is all about. :-)

Thanks for the suggestions! I've added all but supply side economics, because I really don't know anything about that. I'm a fan of laissez-faire economics personally. I also put a couple others in, for good measure. :-)

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:17:19 +0000

Bwahaha. I was waiting for somebody to call me on that. Let me clarify that this is not a list of lies, it's a list of pseudosciences. There are other things in here that may be true and factual, but are no less unscientific.

Science says, "We have atmospheric observations, data on the climate, and historical records." Pseudoscience says, "We know it's caused entirely by man-made greenhouse gases, we know it will continue exponentially, and anyone who disagrees with our conclusions is a moron."

Pseudoscience begins when the scientific method is set aside and the political banners are picked up. It's when scientific observations are used to make predictive statements and are reinforced by fearmongering, bandwagon-jumping, and the fallacious appeal to authority.

I'll repeat that I'm not making a statement about the truthfulness of global warming. It may be very real. But by definition, it is only partially scientific -- pseudoscience. Furthermore, if you really think that having a majority consensus constitutes truth, you've already swallowed the Kool-Aid and should probably re-evaluate your understanding of science. If there's one thing that irritates me, it's people treating science as infallible and completely truthful. It can be quite useful, but we've grown cocky if we think it's always gospel, all the time. Where's your scientific skepticism?

Comment by John, about 1 year ago

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:55:30 +0000

Most of this list I love (dianetics: nice!), but global warming? Uselessness, did you just out yourself as a right wing nut job? You should add "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design." And "Supply Side Economics."

Comment by kad, about 1 year ago

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:44:26 +0000

Um...'global warming' and 'power crystals' in the same category? The phrase 'global warming' may be vague, but the phenomenon is very, very real. As 99% of the climate scientists in the world (including me!) will tell you, global warming is no longer a theory. It is a fact.