Thanks Dang. I generally agree with the guidelines, but in this particular case, I don't think joshuapants should be required to give a full refutation of Ayurveda in order to state his opposition to taking health advice from such a practitioner.
I'm not sure if this is common knowledge or not, but the term "woo" is a pretty widely used term in certain circles to describe fields and ideas that, shall we say, may not be self-critical and self-questioning enough in the ways you need to be in order to get to the truth. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo)
Thus, I'm not sure if I would even classify it as "calling names". Ayurvedic practitioners might find it derogatory; I'm not sure. But it's a clear communication to a certain population of the what category joshuapants believes Ayurveda belongs to, and also a hint of what qualities of these peoples' thought processes might make joshuapants nervous when it's applied to other areas.
It's always possible to make one's point without using an intellectual slur like "woo-peddlers", which of course is calling names. None of us is immune to this bad habit, but we should all try to be. It doesn't matter how right one is; the mentality that thinks 'I'm right, therefore it's ok if I call names' is the problem in the first place.
I don't disagree, but calling names is noise, not signal. "Woo" is certainly one of those names. We just don't notice it because most of us happen to agree. But the mechanism is just as harmful here as it is anywhere else. It closes thought rather than opening it.
The author has a doctorate from NYU and the article was published in a peer reviewed journal.
That's just a funny example, but there are tons of poorly researched peer reviewed papers which makes it exceedingly difficult for me to accept credentialis as being a useful signal. I find it's much better to have ideas stand on their own merit, rather than on the shoulders of those who are espousing them.
I'm not sure if this is common knowledge or not, but the term "woo" is a pretty widely used term in certain circles to describe fields and ideas that, shall we say, may not be self-critical and self-questioning enough in the ways you need to be in order to get to the truth. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo)
Thus, I'm not sure if I would even classify it as "calling names". Ayurvedic practitioners might find it derogatory; I'm not sure. But it's a clear communication to a certain population of the what category joshuapants believes Ayurveda belongs to, and also a hint of what qualities of these peoples' thought processes might make joshuapants nervous when it's applied to other areas.