Ah, your old elephant groper has been "outed." Recently an esteemed reader
and commenter of mine called me out for talking about the "vague and woowoo"
idea of a what I described as an "existent spiritual dimension." Actually, and I
think the tons of posts I've written along these lines over the years will bear
this out: it isn't so much the existence of a spiritual dimension I've grappled
with as it is the proper interpretation of it.
But it was that characterization of what I wrote as "woo woo" that caught
my attention. I've used it before myself but determined after thinking about
that comment that I would never again aim it directly at another human being as
long as I live.
When used by skeptics, woo-woo is a derogatory and dismissive
term used to refer to beliefs one considers nonsense or to a person who holds
such beliefs.
Okay, let me 'fess up right here and say that I am attracted to fringe
ideas and "maverick" science. My cheeks didn't blush when I typed that
statement. If it weren't for those brave folks willing to think outside the box,
progress couldn't be made.
As I understand the matter, there are facts and there are interpretations
of facts. In other words, I believe in the scientific method. But I discern a
difference between science and philosophy of science. A delightful little book I
have in my library, The Experts Speak, is a fun and enlightening read,
and from which I take the following quote, dated from 1782, as an example:
[I]t is entirely impossible for man to rise into the air and
float there. For this you would need wings of tremendous dimensions and they
would have to be moved at three feet per second. Only a fool would expect such a
thing to be realized.
Certainly he was using scientific reasoning, but he was wrong about that
thing.
The Skeptic's Dictionary's article I quoted from above also says this
concerning woo woo:
Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational
or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces
or powers.
I love the reference to "occult forces or powers." We can't think of that
word today without thinking about magic, or magick. Although when your doctor
uses it he properly uses it the way it was derived from the Latin, as something
that is hidden or concealed. I think of the way the moon exerts an invisible
power (gravity) over the tides as occult, but I don't think of it as magic. Of
course, that invisible power was once contested.
This desk I'm working at and the chair my butt rests comfortably in seem solid enough to me. For centuries it was held to be a truism that the atom was the smallest particle of matter and from the combination of these tiny particles solid objects like my desk and chair are made.
This desk I'm working at and the chair my butt rests comfortably in seem solid enough to me. For centuries it was held to be a truism that the atom was the smallest particle of matter and from the combination of these tiny particles solid objects like my desk and chair are made.
Came the physicists with their occult ideas of subatomic particles and the
notion that atoms, and thus my desk and chair, are mostly empty space, and that
while at the macroscopic level where I live these things are indeed solid, at
the microscopic level it is another matter (no pun intended).
Now if you want to talk about woo from a scientific perspective,
check out some of the mental ramblings of the theoretical physicists, for
example, the following passage from Arthur Stanley Eddington, one of the great
physicists of the twentieth century:
The external world of physics has thus become a world of
shadows. In removing our illusions we have removed the substance, for indeed we
have seen that substance is one of the greatest of our illusions. Later perhaps
we may inquire whether in our zeal to cut out all that is unreal we may not have
used the knife too ruthlessly. Perhaps, indeed, reality is a child which cannot
survive without its nurse illusion. But if so, that is of little concern to the
scientist, who has good and sufficient reasons for pursuing his investigations
in the world of shadows and is content to leave to the philosopher the
determination of its exact status in regard to reality. In the world of physics
we watch a shadowgraph performance of the drama of familiar life. The shadow of
my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow
paper. It is all symbolic, and as a symbol the physicist leaves it. Then comes
the alchemist Mind who transmutes the symbols. The sparsely spread nuclei of
electric force become a tangible solid; their restless agitation becomes the
warmth of summer; the octave of aethereal vibrations becomes a gorgeous rainbow.
Nor does the alchemy stop here. In the transmuted world new significances arise
which are scarcely to be traced in the world of symbols; so that it becomes a
world of beauty and purpose — and, alas, suffering and
evil.
When I read that I cannot help but think of that ancient woo-master, who still happens to be respected as a great thinker among philosophers today, Plato and his allegory of The Cave.
In fact the more I go back in time and dig into some of the concepts the
great thinkers down through history have held and debated, the more I'm reminded
of those words of Qoheleth, "there is nothing new under the sun."
I'm not suggesting there haven't bad and wrong ideas along the way, but I'm
suggesting that a whole lot of what was once considered irrational, occult - in
the sense of being concealed or invisible (at that time) - and improbable or
impossible, was later validated or proved to be perhaps incomplete theories
rather than wrong ones. Is it inconceivable that if we could come back in, say,
a thousand years and take a look around, some of what is now considered
woo might be validated or at least more fully understood and
accepted?
As someone who considers himself a freethinker, I don't see how I can do
less than keep an open mind. I love science and I love logic. But I think of
those things as tools and not as ends in themselves. The bottom line for me when
it comes to so-called woo woo is from now on going to be this: better
to be engaging than dismissive.
So maybe I am ass-slapping or howling-at-the-moon crazy. Or maybe I'm
finally settling in with the idea that any worldview we build is going to have
as a foundation basic assumptions that are not indisputable. Else I should
change the name of this blog from Groping The Elephant to Explaining The
Elephant.
8 comments:
I remember the first occasion I had to visit your blog. I really liked the analogy of "groping the elephant" and soon found out that you employ that analogy in your own thinking (not all blog titles are so descriptive of the blog owner). That is what I like about your blog; your open-mindedness is so refreshing. While we don't always think alike, I find that we do (open-mindedly) on many occasions. There are many times in which you show me an alternative way to look at a subject. I appreciated that. Our backgrounds are quite similar, yours being more fundamentalist than mine, but still very conservative, enough so that I find a connection with your thinking. Once again, thanks for providing a place to challenge me to think outside that proverbial box.
One should be prepared to grapple with weighty matters if one ventures into the realm of an elephant groper!
Where, oh where, is the proper balance point between extreme gullibility and extreme skepticism?
There have been good scientists and bad scientists, just as there are good and bad plumbers. My thinking is that if some elusive phenomena are at present beyond the tools of science to grapple with, they may yet come within the purview of science as we progress in knowledge. Thus what today seems supernatural can be subsumed into the natural as we grow in the ability to interact with it constructively. But if there is something that we cannot as yet interact with constructively with the reason, logic, and tools now at our disposal, all I can see is that we are left, for the nonce, in the realm of speculation.
But as to 'other ways of knowing', I am open to learning what these may be and how to verify their accuracy. (This may not truly be so, perhaps I don't see my biases, all I can do is try. Of course this applies to all of us.)
Too much gullibility leaves one vulnerable to those who prey on the gullible. Too much skepticism makes you unwilling to contemplate how some new ingenious contrivance might allow a man to fly.
I have come back to balance, which you may recall was one of the first things I mentioned upon visiting your site. I don't think we are in perfect accord with where that balance is, but we are at least both striving for it. (You'll probably weary of me repeated recourse to balance. A wonderful idea - a bit elusive in practice.)
What say ye of this? Still too much like scientism? (I kinda don't like that word any more than you like the word woo.)
@ Don,
I thank you so much for your kind words. More, in fact, than what you could know. Allowing ourselves the freedom to look outside the confines of our established thought patterns is what this blog is all about - or what I intended it to be, even if I realize now that I did get off course from time to time.
@ Exrelayman,
You don't know much I appreciated your measured response to this post. Your voice at GTE is much needed and appreciated by me, especially as I allow myself to daringly explore the - okay, for a lack of a better way of putting it here - "wooish" aspects of life as I do from time to time.
Yes, I agree that it comes down to balance. All of us are believers when you think about it. All of us are skeptics, too. None of us is perfect when it comes to being purely objective all the way across the board.
You bring up the word scientism, which, coincidentally enough, I have been grappling with a lot lately. I want to - as a courtesy - kick the habit of referring to certain hidebound skeptics as fundamentalists. I was trying to decide if that might not be less intellectually insulting while still trying to make the point that there is a distinct similarity in listening to a religious person say "that's a sin!" and a science devotee say "that's nonsense!"
Woo or woo woo is clearly meant as an intellectual insult, I think. Although it didn't really offend me when it was directed at me (more like it amused me, thus my lighthearted response in this post).
What does offend me is this notion that an alternative way of looking at things should be summarily dismissed with an insult. I object to it when religious fundamentalists do it with regard to science, just as I do when - okay, for a lack of a better way of putting it here - fundamentalist atheists do it with regard to religion.
Perhaps there is no easy way out of this "conflict" mentality. You are a wise man and I do want your input about this woo woo vs. scientism or atheist fundamentalist mudsling. If you don't like scientism, what other word to do you suggest?
Perhaps you feel that concept isn't legitimate at all. But when a person is accused of speaking woo for merely mentioning something that some of the greatest philosopher and scientists throughout history has embraced (the supernatural), there is something wrong there, I believe.
Thanks for the kind words, my friend. I have sometimes wondered if I hog up the comments section - I am a bit wont to wax prolix here because I won't go to the trouble of hosting my own blog, and our differences (if they even exist at all given the nuances of language) are pretty minimal.
Anyway, to begin with a blog specific humorous bit before returning to the serious: How do you get down from an elephant? You don't - you get down from a duck.
As far as non-offensive terminology goes, I think that 'excessive skepticism' rings better than 'fundamentalist skepticism'. The former indicating a perhaps remedial offset from a hypothetical wise 'point of balance' (now I've done it, a poem citation will follow in relation to that phrase), whereas the latter seems to indicate a closed minded non negotiable intransigence.
The 'point of balance' poem:
http://www.solearabiantree.net/namingofparts/namingofparts.html
there is a distinct similarity in listening to a religious person say "that's a sin!" and a science devotee say "that's nonsense!"
I agree, Doug - I think all of us could be a little more open to one another, at times! (& totally appreciate that about your blog!)
@ Exrelayman,
I agree that "excessive skepticism" is less offensive, but would that be employing "weasal words"? If I used that, am I not really just saying that somebody is more skeptical than I am or think they should be?
We could speak of people who are dogmatic, I suppose, but again that will probably be viewed the same as calling someone a fundamentalist. Of course us woo merchants would then be "heretics."
So you may be right. But if we use "excessive skepticism," with what will we replace "woo," excessively gullible? I don't think I like that.
It is so difficult to figure out the best way to insult someone's intelligence!
@ Kerry,
I try but have failed many times in the past. I've resolved to do better. If I can't appreciate certain philosophical positions, I can at least have understanding for those who hold them.
Post a Comment