Came across a list of pseudosciences and was fun seeing where im woo woo.
Lunar effect – the belief that the full Moon influences human and animal behavior.
Ley Lines
Accupressure/puncture
Ayurveda
Body Memory
Faith healing
Anyway, list too long to read. I guess Im quite the nonscientific woowoomancer. How about you? What pseudoscience do you believe? Also I believe nearly every stone i find was an ancient indian stone. Also manifesting and or prayer to manipulate via subconscious aligning the future. oh and the ability to subconsciously deeply understand animals, know the future, etc
You must log in or register to comment.
That wiki article is very biased.
It also has problems distinguishing pseudo medicine (proven not to work) from alternative medicine (not conclusively proved or disproved).
Once something works, we call it medicine. There’s no such thing as “alternative medicine”.
Even if it’s weird, or comes from popular knowledge, or disrupts the profits of a pharmaceutical company - if it’s proven to work, it’s medicine.
Modern doctors are using fish skin to combat burns, maggots against necrosis, electroshock therapy for depression.
The things that need the “alternative” qualifier before the word “medicine” are the ones that do nothing but extract your money.
I’m not sure what are you trying to tell me.
That you agree with me that “alternative medicine = not proven to work, but I’m wrong somehow”?
I think you sorted things into three types of medicine:
[ pseudo, alternative, modern/mainstream ]
I think he believes that most things you put into the alternative category have already been mostly studied; those being not proved or disproved to work.
I think the that some issue here comes from the fact that conspiracy theorists / other (for lack of an agreed upon modifier) medicine gurus may have used the argument that some medicines aren’t proven to be bad yet as a way to give them legitimacy.
Whether or not other medicine is good for you should be be studied and determined to be medicine or not. Until then we can’t say anything about its efficacy. But there can be carry on effects: protein powder was found to have heavy metals, is protein powder good? Maybe in certain circumstances, but concentrating a given substance can have unintended consequences when not properly analyzed.
If your definition is that something can be called “alternative medicine” simply because we have no proof if it works or not, my magic stick that heals all wounds is alternative medicine.
What? There are no studies proving it doesn’t work… and no, I won’t let you touch it. But it’s alternative medicine!
That’s literally alternative medicine defined as per well, science. And you being silly doesn’t take from it. In the past, viruses were considered alternative medicine (quackery even), until they were proven to exist and work as in theory.
If you hit someone with a stick and that person gets cured of cold, it’s alternative medicine (you suspect there’s correlation or causation, and repeating the treatment during other incidents tends to have similar effect, i.e. when you hit more people they also get cured). When it’s proven that there’s causation between your action and the cure, then it’s medicine.
There’s no scientific definition of alternative medicine, it’s not a real category.
I subscribe to historical materialism, which is apparently a pseudoscience according to that Wikipedia article.
Is that some kind of magazine
Karl Marx stated that technological development can change the modes of production over time. This change in the mode of production inevitably encourages changes to a society’s economic system.
I dunno, man, that doesn’t sound too crazy. I’m in a really bad condition for learning new things right now, and I can’t even figure out what claims this idea would be making. It sounds like it’s just describing a process of advancement and the types of conflicts that arise?
I’m finding this especially hard to grasp because my brain’s on a tangent about how you’d really go about falsifying most stuff in history or sociology. You gonna put a bunch of people in a series of jars with carefully controlled conditions for hundreds of years and observe the results? Like we have this piece of paper from 1700 that says Jimothy won the big game, but our understanding of this guy and his alleged win of this supposed game are totally vibes-based because we don’t have a time machine. I think like the best you can do is try to base your beliefs and claims off things that have been observed repeatedly, but does that make these kinds of topics unscientific? We test what we can and go with our best guess for what we can’t, right? This is going to bother me.
I’m too lazy and tired to go into it at the moment, so I’m just going to paste this infographic explaining the relationship between the material base and ideological superstructure.
To the falsifiability point, while I can’t say a lot without knowing the specifics that Popper argued, historical materialism (and dialectical materialism, the way of understanding the world historical materialism comes from) don’t on the surface make much sense trying to attack from a falsifiability angle. While one could attempt to disprove, say, the extraction of surplus value through profit or the tendency of the rate of profit to fall being properties of capitalism (these are claims about the world that can conceivably be true or false), dialectical/historical materialism is the tool used to analyze the world, attempt to change the world based on the understanding from that analysis, incorporate the lessons learned from those attempts (be they failed or successful) into one’s understanding of the world, and repeat. It’s basically a way of gaining knowledge about the world, as well as an explanation of how people get knowledge.
Again, I’d have to check out Popper’s full argument for the specifics, but I don’t know how one can make assertions about the falsifiability of what is basically an epistemology without committing some kind of category error.
Modern geocentrism
kinda. It’s more that “center” of the universe can be picked completely arbitrarily. I can say I’m the center of the universe, and when I spin on my chair, the universe revolves around me. You can define the frame of reference however you wish to. The change of perspective does not change how orbits work.
Lunar effect – the belief that the full Moon influences human and animal behavior.
by that short definition sure, but probably not how they mean. If you’re active at night, the amount of ambient light is surely going to impact your behavior. Not so much in areas with artificial lighting.
Memetics.
Insofar as there are self-replicating ideas, and the ones more likely to self-replicate become more prevalent…sure. Not the whole story either, as ideas can also be pushed by people that don’t believe those ideas.
Memetics is not really pseudoscience. It was science, there there were compelling evidence and arguemtns that ideas have no agency on their own, contrary to genes, and the whole field died for good.
Genes don’t have agency either.
While genetic agency is often appropriated by reactionary politics, it’s a quite established scientific perspective.
I’m guessing “agency” in this case is being used in a way that’s very specific to that area of research and not exactly how people use it in normal conversation?
It’s obviously an open topic of debate in philosophy, but genes have agency for some definition of agency.
In a cybernetic sense, they have agency in the sense that the information within them transforms the world way more than the world affects their information. They are more players than chessboard.
For people like Dennet, which I’m not necessarily a fan of, you can think of agency (and therefore freedom) as the ability of any unit of matter to prevent its dissolution in the face of threats. Life can be framed as a strategy of DNA to reproduce itself in the face of entropy. That is agency.
Does a grain of sand have agency? Does it want to be caught by a specific size of classification sieve?
Because that’s exactly the level of agency that drives natural selection.
Agency is not will though. For sure genes have no will and neither does sand
“center” of the universe can be picked completely arbitrarily.
IIRC there are still theories within the scientific community of the universe being non-homogenous and roughly geocentric. Usually (when I’ve come across them) presumed to be incorrect, but still possible in a, “huh, that would explain the data that we can’t otherwise explain” way.
You are always the center of the observable universe.
Mind-body. That you can think yourself sick, or well. Not like magic, but a lot of the time. Like how people won’t get sick until vacation a lot of the time, they say “don’t have time to get sick” so then on the day off, the mind tells the body “ok now you have time!”. All of my kids were born on a day off or weekend, same thing in a way. And once I read a book where the protagonist’ hands were burned, very vividly described, and got blisters on my fingertips.
I just really believe a lot of physical illness, and health, comes from thinking.
Maybe like a limited Gaia hypothesis. The whole planet is a conscious thing, we are its braincells and its hands.
why not go full panpsychic it actually makes even more sense and has been seriously studied for millenia
In that theory we’d more be the cancer-cells rather than braincells 😏
Not sure either of these counts fully as what OP is looking for, but -
The idea of the technological singularity feels right to me. There’s a whole section on the wikipedia page about scientific objections to it, and I get that, but if we don’t kill ourselves before then, it seems like an event that almost has to occur at some point, to me. And maybe it zigs instead of zags and we get star trek. Or maybe it zags and we get terminator. But probably neither of those I’m guessing, and these days it’s hard to imagine that it would put humanity on a worse trajectory than we seem to be on today.
Similarly, but less seriously (for me) I like to consider the whole “maybe we’re in a simulation” theory.
Yeah I kinda adhere to the simulation thing too. As a videogames programmer, every time I try to learn about quantum mechanics I learn about some new quirk that really makes it sound like some game engine limitation
I thought you were going to say
As a videogames programmer, it is natural to me to consider myself as a character in some video game.
when I like to gain perspective and imagine how useless we are on this meaningless little planet in a massive galaxy universe etc I just imagine the lonely little Boltzmann brain that’s actually just imagining the whole thing for a few nanoseconds before it returns back to quantum foam
ITT: very little pseudoscience. It’s pseudoscience only when you try to pass something non-scientific as science (understood in the modernist sense). There are plenty of systems of knowledge that are outside of science and don’t really care about passing as science when making statements about the world: metaphysics, theology, cybernetics, open systems theory, and so forth. Those are not pseudosciences.
Wikipedia is a terrible source for the likes of this.
The full moon does something to people’s brains and makes them act weirder than usual.
There’s been more than one time when I’ve been out and thought people were driving crazier than usual or people on the bus were being more psycho than they normally are, and I’ve looked it up and it’s been within like 2 days of the full moon on either side.
People are ~70% water and the moon does move the entire ocean around, so maybe it’s something to do with that?
If it’s not provable by science, then I don’t believe it.
You express plenty of opinions not provable by science in your comment-history.
Gödel would like to have a word with you
Science cannot even prove itself as a method. Science is just spicy epistemology.
Science can’t “prove” anything. It is more accurate to say that it reduces the level of uncertainty of hypotheses, but that uncertainty can never be reduced to exactly zero.
What is “zero” exactly? Scientists CAN prove unequivocally that the earth is a globe, there is no uncertainty and it is not an hypothesis.
Assuming “zero” is the number of people who don’t believe in an hypothesis, then I agree with you. Despite the overwhelming evidence there are people that believe the world is flat.
The beauty of science is you don’t have to believe in it for it to be real or true.
Scientists CAN prove unequivocally that the earth is a globe, there is no uncertainty and it is not an hypothesis.
Could be a weird confluence of spatial anomalies perfectly mimicking a “globe” to our tests. That’s not very likely at all, but it’s a non-zero uncertainty.
Of course, we could all be living in the matrix and nothing is real.
Correct.
Goodness, that’s a lot to read.
I don’t know if I believe any of them with actual faith instead of just chalking coincidental things up to some beliefs like that. The Lunar phase one comes to mind as something I’ll often reference, but I don’t actually believe in lunacy.
However, there’s one about grounding methods in the health section. I definitely don’t believe there’s anything about elecron alignment or whatever bull that all is. But being on the ground helps me a lot with anxiety and relaxation in general. To the point where I prefer sitting in front of my couch vs on it, lol. So maybe I believe in that one, but not in any pseudoscience way??
I work in 911 dispatch, and I don’t have hard stats to back it up, I’m not even really sure how it could be objectively measured, and I’m sure I have a whole lot of bias and such, but I’m pretty sure everyone I work with agrees that we just get weirder calls on full moons.
Not necessarily busier, or more severe, there’s just a certain something that’s hard to explain about a lot of our callers that seems to get a little strange on a full moon.
It’s not something we’re actively keeping track of, it’s not like we have a reminder set on our phones for the full moon, but when we have one of those nights where everything just seems to be a little off and we check the moon phase, it seems like it’s full or nearly full more often than not.
Although personally I think we see a bigger difference for a couple days after the clocks change for daylight savings time. My pet theory on that is it throws people’s medication schedules off by an hour and it takes them a few days to readjust. Plus throwing off sleep schedules, and dementia patients who sundown may be up and acting up at a time they would otherwise be asleep.
That’s a long list I’ve only skimmed it and I didn’t find the theory I like most, the stoned ape theory. That belief that some distant ancestors ate some shrooms and discovered art and a higher state of mind. I’ve taken a microdose a little too high and my vision was like an impressionist painting for a few moments and it made me so happy because Monet and Van Gogh now made absolute sense.
It might be a little too convenient but I think it works and it’s really sweet.
Body Memory
I mean, cellular memory and muscle memory exist.
I like all the ones you listed and I love “woowoomancer” as a description. Other than those, I have a good feel for future sight.
The only pseudo science I believe is that one day I’ll be happy. Even though I know i ll never be happy.
That is neither science nor pseudoscience. I don’t know your story, but there are scientific and pseudoscientific ways that might be able to make you happy one day.
