doctorow at March 26th, 2014 18:00 — #1
mgphotoworks at March 26th, 2014 18:11 — #2
I love it when someone just flat out refuses to put up with pseudo-scientific b.s.
robulus at March 26th, 2014 18:31 — #3
Tapas Acupressure Technique
Worst appetiser ever.
funruly at March 26th, 2014 18:40 — #4
ianu at March 26th, 2014 18:45 — #5
uniqueusername at March 26th, 2014 19:12 — #6
Yes!!! More of this, please!
marilove at March 26th, 2014 19:22 — #7
This makes me so happy. This sort of determined and forceful attitude is sorely needed in our society. I am so tired of obvious bullshit getting attention because of some incorrect assumption that every opinion deserves consideration or discussion. No. They don't.
timmowarner at March 26th, 2014 19:30 — #8
Next time they ask I'm actually going to donate. I feel too guilty now.
sqyntz at March 26th, 2014 19:33 — #9
Weren't the Wright brothers called lunatic charlatans in 1906?
marilove at March 26th, 2014 19:37 — #10
1906 was a long time ago. Plenty of woo that has since been disproved was also believed in that time.
We have far better resources and knowledge, now, and a far easier time at collaboration of ideas. And of course, we now have a bigger and better emphasis on peer-reviewed research.
If they don't want to be considered charlatans, then they can work at proving their theories and claims.
I'm also not sure that homeopathy and the science of flight should be compared.
abelundercity at March 26th, 2014 19:40 — #11
Right up until the point where the flier left the ground, i.e. they provided concrete, verifiable, and replicable proof of their claims.
nixiebunny at March 26th, 2014 19:46 — #12
The Wright Brothers first achieved flight in 1903, so by 1906 they were considered quite clever.
fee_berry at March 26th, 2014 19:59 — #13
Except... EFT has a very high rate of success compared with other forms of therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. It is difficult to argue with the success rate that something you are describing as woo has when compared with conventional treatments.
In a world where quantum physics allows for a wide range of woo-like science, it seems inexplicable to me that therapies which do no harm are vehemently opposed, when "the estimated total number of iatrogenic deaths—that is, deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures— in the US annually is 783,936".
First, do no harm.
Incidentally, the people who sabotage Rupert Sheldrake's wikipedia don't seem to concern themselves with the accuracy of their edits, nor do they seem to care whether the research they are removing from his entry is peer reviewed or not, if it doesn't fit within the narrow confines of their idea of scientific... or possible.
I think that this will be a very difficult stance to maintain, making alternative therapies jumps through hoops provided by scientists. Are we to insist that any religious group should also peer review any of their assertions? Artists? Show me where love resides in the human being, and how you construct a science of love. The setting up of artificial barriers to information can never be justified in a free society - and constructing barriers to information about harmless practices that may assist many people... I can't honestly see the justice or victory in that.
hubrissonic at March 26th, 2014 20:03 — #14
hubrissonic at March 26th, 2014 20:05 — #15
Your mush minded response triggers the anger in my PTSD. Where is the love indeed.
immutable_mike at March 26th, 2014 20:09 — #16
This is not that world. That's another world.
cowicide at March 26th, 2014 20:10 — #17
hughstimson at March 26th, 2014 20:16 — #18
EFT has a very high rate of success compared with other forms of therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder
And if there are controlled peer-reviewed experiments demonstrating that using legitimate statistical methods, and by "other forms of therapy" you don't mean other pseudo-scientific forms of therapy, then it isn't woo and it shouldn't be a problem. Are there?
Are we to insist that any religious group should also peer review any of their assertions?
If they were claiming that those beliefs were literally true, then of course they would be required to provide objective evidence. But Wikipedia doesn't report religious claims as literal fact, which is what is being requested by the petitioners for these alternative therapies.
osguido at March 26th, 2014 20:16 — #19
I am very happy to see this. Unfortunately, some Wikipedias, like the one in Spanish are completely plagued by woo.
It's great to see people standing up to woo. It might mean less money, less donations, and a lot of harassment and character assassination, so to not only ignore them, but to confront them so boldly deserves a lot of respect and encouragement.
osguido at March 26th, 2014 20:20 — #20
Oh, Jove, Ganesh and a thousand other gods!
Sheldrake and his fanboys and fangirls really, really have a persecution complex. Against Wikipedia, against TED, they really want to be taken seriously and they will cry and complain that Sheldrake is a reaaaaal scientist, but everybody and their mother is against him.... If only the same amount of energy they use to cry on Internet forums they would use in producing replicable research that would shut up us critics.
next page →