Purveyors of piffle, pseudoscience, woo woo and the SN

General discussions

Who is the biggest purveyor of woo woo for 2007?

Poll ended at Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:40 pm

Archbishop Seán Brady
9
14%
Mairead Conlon (Angel Lady)
2
3%
Tom Higgins (Irish Psychics Live)
11
17%
Cornelius "Neil" Horan (Dancing Priest)
0
No votes
Sean McCarthy (Free Energy)
3
5%
Willie McCrea (Singing Preacher)
3
5%
Brenda Power (Uncritical Journalism of woo woo - Newstalk 106)
6
9%
Una Power (98FM Psychic)
1
2%
Prof. William Reville
10
15%
Eddie Stones (Faith Healer)
1
2%
Robert and Patrick Wilson (Homeopathy)
0
No votes
David Quinn (Iona Institute Director and Religious Journalist)
8
12%
Tony Quinn (Health Pills)
0
No votes
Patricia McKenna (Green Party - Former MEP pusher of Homeopathy)
11
17%
 
Total votes: 65
Acos
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:33 pm

Post by Acos » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:33 pm

I voted for William Reville. His attempts to shoehorn religious belief into scientific debate is particularly pernicious. But I really wish Ratzinger was Irish. He'd get my number one with a bullet!
alienmimi
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:43 pm

woo woo vote

Post by alienmimi » Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:35 pm

Unfortunately I am ignorant of Irish notables (or innotables), being a new comer to this fair isle, I have read and digested all six pages of opinions and votes relating to this topic and am basing my votes solely upon the evidence and opinions therein stated. So bishop Brady and David Stone the journalist - because they appear to me able to influence and weild power to wider audiences that are more susceptible than say, prof Reville. The others - well!? :roll: :roll: :roll:
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:40 am

We have to come up with a way of informing the winner. I was thinking maybe we could communicate it through prayer and let god pass on the message. Alternatively, there's always mental telepathy.

No need to inform the psychics of course...
Cleas
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:06 pm

Post by Cleas » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:30 am

Help me please I understand neither woo woo or SN????? Please explain the question more fully. le meas Duc
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:42 am

Cleas wrote:Help me please I understand neither woo woo or SN????? Please explain the question more fully. le meas Duc
Hi Cleas. SN=Supernatural. Here is a definition for woo woo...

Woo-woo (or sometimes, simply woo) is used within parts of the skeptical community in referring to extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient extraordinary evidence, and people who hold those beliefs.
Sometimes used as an adjective ("My brother has a lot of woo-woo beliefs"), other times as a noun ("That message board is full of woo-woos"), it is almost always used as a term of derision.

Origin
The origin of the term is unclear.

One theory is that it comes from the "woo-ooo" sound made by a Theramin, the electronic instrument often used in old horror films to emphasize that something strange or mysterious was happening (such as the appearance of a ghost or alien). Another theory is that the term woo-woo comes from the theme song of Rod Serlings's The Twilight Zone. Yet another theory is that "woo woo" was early 20th century slang for insanity.


http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Woo-woo

Post Edit: Wow, just read that definition. My spelling and grammar may not be great but whoever wrote that should consider going back to school. It think it's basically right though. Woo woo in this context refers to the extraordinary beliefs for which there is no good evidence. As a noun it can also refer to a person who holds such a belief.
Last edited by bipedalhumanoid on Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
eamonnm79
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:20 pm

Post by eamonnm79 » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:00 pm

I think Prof William Reville is the most dangerous. He comes from a scientific standpoint and is a very good scientist on many other topics.
Any doctors like Tony Quinn would also fall into that catagory as they have percieved intelligence and credibility due to their titles. Thank fully their are plenty of Loonatic/peodophile priests who have completely ruined religious reputations.
freakysnatch
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by freakysnatch » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:52 pm

Let me see... so much choice here, to pick only one!!! I'm going to go for Patricia Mckenna. Archbishop Brady was tempting but religious figures don't expect the support of atheists I suppose. I think it's important for people to snub the likes of McKenna and right her off as a total feckin eejit! :D
Fogartach
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:53 am

Post by Fogartach » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:54 pm

Roghnaím David Quinn as an liosta, mar is fear dainséarach, cliste é.
micfur
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:17 am

Post by micfur » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:52 pm

A lot of first time posters in this topic. You are all very welcome and hope we see many more posts in the future.
FXR
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:44 pm
Location: Dublin

Post by FXR » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:12 pm

Fogartach wrote:Roghnaím David Quinn as an liosta, mar is fear dainséarach, cliste é.
We welcome our Eastern European brethern! :lol:
Human communication is a very rickety rope bridge between minds. Its too narrow to allow but a few thoughts to cross at a time. Many are lost in the chasms of noise, suspicion, misinterpretation and shooting the message through dislike of the messenger.
Post Reply