dating from before the 12th century...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo

"Woo me with woo"

has the verve and panache of "woo". It says so much in just three little letters.

It doesn't really tell you anything either. If people try to do too much with a word or expression, meaning is lost.

If you hate the word, don't use it. But don't assume that because you find it devoid of meaning that everyone else does.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

with just a tad more thoughtfulness.

is sorely lacking in this country.

We need to belligerently fight for every piece diction we have!

LOGOPHILES UNITE!!!

...you'll eschew obfuscation.

Or, to the point with an example, why do we have the word "animal" when we have a word for every kind of animal already?

To others it includes mammals and other vertebrates - birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish.

Most biologists include all vertebrates and invertebrates as animals.

You can see the problem.

Each speaker chooses what they want to use. But if you want to be more clearly understood, a little specificity goes a long way.

All sorts of words exist to talk about general characteristics and these words are exceedingly useful. I mean, let's not stop talking about animals just because some people don't call bees animals.

Woo is still a relatively new word in the grand scheme of things so it's definition is still in flux. That's not a bad thing. Discussing what "woo" is or isn't is also not a bad thing. Ironically, you provided a pretty solid definition and starting point for such a discussion... "every kind of anti-scientific thinking". There's definitely a general concept there that's begging to be named.

Whereas, I suspect that "woo" will at some time in the near future fade as a term for anti-scientific thinking and be returned to its traditional definition as a verb meaning "to try to attract someone." I guess I am something of a traditionalist when it comes to language. I also regret the tendency to make up all kind of new words for genital parts to the point that almost any noun can also refer to a penis or a vagina. I don't mind new terms for things as long as they evolve somewhat naturally and are not contrived in a sophomoric way.

Who the hell takes it that way?????

Pseudoscience should be combated with logic. Being rude only puts people on the defensive and makes them solidify their positions. Nobody learns anything.

That's quite a leap for people to make to take affront. It's a convenient label for magical thinking. Calling superstitious beliefs in bullshit woo only feels insulting to those who hold those superstitious beliefs and integrate them into their sense of being, into their personality. It's not the fault of the rationalist that they hold those crazy, whack-job beliefs.

I prefer on the whole to use 'pseudoscience' or 'quackery' or 'anti-science' or 'religious fundamentalism', etc., just for the same sort of reasons that you do: 'woo' is somewhat imprecise and over-inclusive and doesn't make it clear what the argument is.

HOWEVER, I will still use 'woo' or similarly inclusive terms for the type of theory or site, which is explicitly dedicated to opposition to just about everything that could be seen as 'mainstream'; and to treating it as some form of conspiracy. Such sites tend to combine right-libertarian hatred of government; distrust of 'western' medicine in general and vaccines in particular; 9-11 'truth'; distrust of 'conventional' science; belief in the occult; and often racist or anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Examples of such sites are whale.to and Cassiopeia. For such sites, and people with similar viewpoints, it is not that they have a particular belief in, for example, MIHOP or that vaccines are dangerous, but that they explicitly reject all scientific or empirically-based viewpoints as suspect.

I will stop using the word "woo" when woo no longer exists.

Just twirl your finger near your head and say "Woo..."

That sums it up nicely.

On the one hand, I can see how it is dismissive and a bit insulting. On the other hand, they take offense at anything we say so...damned if we do, damned if we don't.

If we are going to use it there should at least be some evidence that the person practicing the "woo" is being nonscientific.

From DU2

In short, I'm fine with "woo" to refer to a mode of thinking or a particular practice of pseudoscience, but I no longer use the term to refer to people who believe in such things.

YMMV

I mean I may written something like "woo meisters," which means purveyors of woo, but...

...between medical or religious quackery. Rather than having become meaningless, it implicitly acknowledges the universality of lazy, dogmatic thinking taken advantage of by charlatans. That's significant, and essential to any anti-woo efforts.

Yeah, most of us would love to carve out favorite exceptions to the rules of evidence, but we shouldn't allow ourselves that luxury.

I find "woo" so wonderfully derogatory. It immediately puts the proponent on the defense to say why what they believe is not woo.