• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

When Scepticism Goes Belly Up

Since this topic is suffocating under a discussion of fortean philosophy (I hope it claws it's way to the surface), I'll throw in another shillings worth of my viewpoint. My issue with hardline skepticism is that it so often attempts to discourage discussion of genuine phenomena. All too often it asks what seem to me to be the wrong questions. For example, the question shouldn't be 'does bigfoot exist?' but why do people claim to see hairy manbeasts? Why do so many appear in the myths of widely spread cultures? Are people seeing something real? If they're lying, why? If they're hallucinating or misremembering, why this particular delusion? Are the myths and native stories really similar, or have they been altered in the retelling, and if altered, is that to bring them in line with Darwinian theories? The phenomenon of people claiming to see hairy manbeasts is real, and even if the answer lies in human psychology (as I suspect is the case), that's still worth investigating (not being used to dismiss the validity of the discussion itself, but actually investigating), because the human brain is still a mysterious structure, and understanding it affects us all, because, you know, we all got one.
 
Being a GOG, I would regard myself as sceptical. I have a default scepticism of all manner of things including promises and statements made by Authorities,(avoiding the P word) , institutions, sales people, telephone callers offering "help", and all their ilk. However, the last thing I would describe this forum as, would be sceptical, even open minded. Won't harp on about it, since Mr Neville has put it much more eloquently above than I could.
 
All too often it asks what seem to me to be the wrong questions. For example, the question shouldn't be 'does bigfoot exist?' but why do people claim to see hairy manbeasts?
Yes, this is a big part of it, and allows for the possibility of multiple explanations. The search for a single, blanket answer inhibits a lot of investigation, in our field of interest especially.
Won't harp on about it, since Mr Neville has put it much more eloquently above than I could.
Thank you! In fairness I've had a lot of practice.
 
Since this topic is suffocating under a discussion of fortean philosophy (I hope it claws it's way to the surface), I'll throw in another shillings worth of my viewpoint. My issue with hardline skepticism is that it so often attempts to discourage discussion of genuine phenomena. All too often it asks what seem to me to be the wrong questions. For example, the question shouldn't be 'does bigfoot exist?' but why do people claim to see hairy manbeasts? Why do so many appear in the myths of widely spread cultures? Are people seeing something real? If they're lying, why? If they're hallucinating or misremembering, why this particular delusion? Are the myths and native stories really similar, or have they been altered in the retelling, and if altered, is that to bring them in line with Darwinian theories? The phenomenon of people claiming to see hairy manbeasts is real, and even if the answer lies in human psychology (as I suspect is the case), that's still worth investigating (not being used to dismiss the validity of the discussion itself, but actually investigating), because the human brain is still a mysterious structure, and understanding it affects us all, because, you know, we all got one.
This is why I find the psychology more interesting than the things perceived.
 
OK, here's something that roughly fits the criteria of the original post: early sceptical attitudes to the safety of rail travel.

Early trains could travel at around 25 mph (40 kph) and this was considered to be dangerously fast. There were fears that being shaken about and travelling at that speed could cause nerve damage.

An average saddle horse can gallop at around 25 – 30 mph and a thoroughbred somewhat faster (a quick search suggested 40 – 45 mph).

So for centuries, some people had been shaken about at speeds in excess of 25 mph. This was clear evidence that flew in the face of the idea that 25 mph in a train was "dangerously fast" but people were still afraid of travelling that fast in trains.

Of course, there were other considerations, such as the quality of brakes, the stability of the rails, the integrity of the companies running the trains, and the simple discomfort of being in an open carriage at that speed. However, the simple idea that rattling along that fast would cause nerve damage was contrary to a large body of evidence from horse riding.


I found some interesting discussion of an actual phenomenon known as "railway madmen". There were several instances of individual passengers becoming violent while the train was in motion, but calm while it was stationary. Whether this was "escaped lunatics" using the rail system, or some form of fashionable hysteria, or just individuals behaving badly, or some combination of factors is unclear.


Here's a link to an interesting article I found while checking this before posting.

Edited extracts from the article linked above:
The most common danger on Victorian trains was the threat of attack by “railway madmen”. Many of these individuals seemed like ordinary passengers upon boarding the train, however, began lashing out when the train was in motion. As an attempt to curtail these attacks, the railway carriages were fitted with enclosed sections with a locked door...

It is believed that this insanity was due to the noise and rocking of the train carriages, as when a train reached the next station, the insane individual would be calm until the train was once again set into motion. Many medical professions during this time also held the belief that the rocking and jolts of the train shattered nerves in the brain, leading to uncontrollable behaviour ... Many professionals believe that these episodes were due to passengers experiencing “mania”, which included mind-racing, quickly speaking, and feeling empowered.

An illustration was published in Punch ... of railway tracks, with a final destination leading to a mental institution. This is due to the fact that patients in these institutions who escaped, sought freedom on the rails, and terrorized travelers on board. Oddly enough, towards the end of the 19th century, and as railways became more commonplace, attacks on board trains subsided substantially.


Below: various images relating to "Railway Madmen" including the Punch cartoon mentioned above.

madmen-on-the-railway-01.jpg

image-2.jpg
image-3.jpg
image-4.jpg
image.jpg
madmen-on-the-railway-02.jpg
trains2.jpg
 
Great post, Mikefule.
Whether this was "escaped lunatics" using the rail system, or some form of fashionable hysteria, or just individuals behaving badly, or some combination of factors is unclear.
As an aside, railways themselves feature a lot in Forteana. The sheer number of crashed circus trains alone is colossal.
Early trains could travel at around 25 mph (40 kph) and this was considered to be dangerously fast. There were fears that being shaken about and travelling at that speed could cause nerve damage.
There was a whole lot of sociological stuff going on there, too (horses were "natural" but trains were man-made and thus "against God"), the arch-Conservatism of that era, commercial rivalries. Fact-checking was a whole lot more difficult in those days too, and people maybe a bit more credulous in the sense that they trusted what they were told.
 
The word euroskeptic always made me laugh, ive alway been sure there is a euro as in the currency and a Europe as in the continent.
I've not heard that term before. But there was a big difference between the skeptics' community in the US and that of Europe for a while. The US skeptical movement was poorly managed and had social problems six ways from Sunday. The UK groups, at least, were better organized and not as dysfunctional.
 
Since this topic is suffocating under a discussion of fortean philosophy (I hope it claws it's way to the surface), I'll throw in another shillings worth of my viewpoint. My issue with hardline skepticism is that it so often attempts to discourage discussion of genuine phenomena. All too often it asks what seem to me to be the wrong questions. For example, the question shouldn't be 'does bigfoot exist?' but why do people claim to see hairy manbeasts? Why do so many appear in the myths of widely spread cultures? Are people seeing something real? If they're lying, why? If they're hallucinating or misremembering, why this particular delusion? Are the myths and native stories really similar, or have they been altered in the retelling, and if altered, is that to bring them in line with Darwinian theories? The phenomenon of people claiming to see hairy manbeasts is real, and even if the answer lies in human psychology (as I suspect is the case), that's still worth investigating (not being used to dismiss the validity of the discussion itself, but actually investigating), because the human brain is still a mysterious structure, and understanding it affects us all, because, you know, we all got one.
This has been my view. And it still doesn't sit well with "Skeptics". Once I gave a talk to the National Capital Area Skeptics on my book Scientifical Americans that examines how paranormal researchers say they use science. The goal was to show that they admire science but, like the general population, they have no idea what it means. My work was about science literacy and public understanding. At the end, one acquaintance (very active skeptic) said "Good talk, but I don't know how you can stand to read about Bigfoot and ghost hunters, it's all so fake". He could not get past his deep bias to see the point.
 
The goal was to show that they admire science but, like the general population, they have no idea what it means
That's very true, and too many in the believer (and Fortean) community regard Science as an implacable enemy rather than as an entirely neutral and systematic process. Scientists can be dogmatic and utterly cemented to a position, but science itself is an orderly and logical process that evaluates data and bases conclusions on that data. A good scientist may be disappointed if the results don't mirror their expectations but will report them nonetheless, and work on theories based on the new data.
 
Since this topic is suffocating under a discussion of fortean philosophy (I hope it claws it's way to the surface), I'll throw in another shillings worth of my viewpoint. My issue with hardline skepticism is that it so often attempts to discourage discussion of genuine phenomena. All too often it asks what seem to me to be the wrong questions. For example, the question shouldn't be 'does bigfoot exist?' but why do people claim to see hairy manbeasts? Why do so many appear in the myths of widely spread cultures? Are people seeing something real? If they're lying, why? If they're hallucinating or misremembering, why this particular delusion? Are the myths and native stories really similar, or have they been altered in the retelling, and if altered, is that to bring them in line with Darwinian theories? The phenomenon of people claiming to see hairy manbeasts is real, and even if the answer lies in human psychology (as I suspect is the case), that's still worth investigating (not being used to dismiss the validity of the discussion itself, but actually investigating), because the human brain is still a mysterious structure, and understanding it affects us all, because, you know, we all got one.

Excellent post, thank you.
 
I've not heard that term before. But there was a big difference between the skeptics' community in the US and that of Europe for a while. The US skeptical movement was poorly managed and had social problems six ways from Sunday. The UK groups, at least, were better organized and not as dysfunctional.

I think he was just making a mild joke.
The term eurosceptic in the UK refers to those who were sceptical towards the benefits of being a member of the EU.
 
OK, here's something that roughly fits the criteria of the original post: early sceptical attitudes to the safety of rail travel.

Early trains could travel at around 25 mph (40 kph) and this was considered to be dangerously fast. There were fears that being shaken about and travelling at that speed could cause nerve damage.

An average saddle horse can gallop at around 25 – 30 mph and a thoroughbred somewhat faster (a quick search suggested 40 – 45 mph).

So for centuries, some people had been shaken about at speeds in excess of 25 mph. This was clear evidence that flew in the face of the idea that 25 mph in a train was "dangerously fast" but people were still afraid of travelling that fast in trains.

Of course, there were other considerations, such as the quality of brakes, the stability of the rails, the integrity of the companies running the trains, and the simple discomfort of being in an open carriage at that speed. However, the simple idea that rattling along that fast would cause nerve damage was contrary to a large body of evidence from horse riding.


I found some interesting discussion of an actual phenomenon known as "railway madmen". There were several instances of individual passengers becoming violent while the train was in motion, but calm while it was stationary. Whether this was "escaped lunatics" using the rail system, or some form of fashionable hysteria, or just individuals behaving badly, or some combination of factors is unclear.


Here's a link to an interesting article I found while checking this before posting.

Edited extracts from the article linked above:
The most common danger on Victorian trains was the threat of attack by “railway madmen”. Many of these individuals seemed like ordinary passengers upon boarding the train, however, began lashing out when the train was in motion. As an attempt to curtail these attacks, the railway carriages were fitted with enclosed sections with a locked door...

It is believed that this insanity was due to the noise and rocking of the train carriages, as when a train reached the next station, the insane individual would be calm until the train was once again set into motion. Many medical professions during this time also held the belief that the rocking and jolts of the train shattered nerves in the brain, leading to uncontrollable behaviour ... Many professionals believe that these episodes were due to passengers experiencing “mania”, which included mind-racing, quickly speaking, and feeling empowered.

An illustration was published in Punch ... of railway tracks, with a final destination leading to a mental institution. This is due to the fact that patients in these institutions who escaped, sought freedom on the rails, and terrorized travelers on board. Oddly enough, towards the end of the 19th century, and as railways became more commonplace, attacks on board trains subsided substantially.


Below: various images relating to "Railway Madmen" including the Punch cartoon mentioned above.

View attachment 36780

View attachment 36776View attachment 36777View attachment 36778View attachment 36779View attachment 36781View attachment 36782

I would dearly like to know what the "French remedy" for married ladies was!
 
OK, here's something that roughly fits the criteria of the original post: early sceptical attitudes to the safety of rail travel.

Early trains could travel at around 25 mph (40 kph) and this was considered to be dangerously fast. There were fears that being shaken about and travelling at that speed could cause nerve damage.

An average saddle horse can gallop at around 25 – 30 mph and a thoroughbred somewhat faster (a quick search suggested 40 – 45 mph).

So for centuries, some people had been shaken about at speeds in excess of 25 mph. This was clear evidence that flew in the face of the idea that 25 mph in a train was "dangerously fast" but people were still afraid of travelling that fast in trains.

Of course, there were other considerations, such as the quality of brakes, the stability of the rails, the integrity of the companies running the trains, and the simple discomfort of being in an open carriage at that speed. However, the simple idea that rattling along that fast would cause nerve damage was contrary to a large body of evidence from horse riding.

Not just horse riding though. Coaches and carriages and carts had been a 'thing' since the Bronze Age. I'd suggest that a team of fit horses galloping over rough ground would be shaking people about a lot more, and often at speeds similar to, a railway carriage. And with the acknowledged awfulness of roads and the propensity for wheel loss or horses bolting, a lot more dangerously.

So just WHY was it that railway transportation inspired these 'lunatics'? Or did some people see it as a kind of licence to behave badly, being able to plead 'speed of passage' as a mitigating defence?
 
@Zeke Newbold wrote: With this mind, I thought it might be nice to create a complilation of those times when the sceptic attitude, or the individual claims of sceptics (on any Fortean issue) have been shown to be wrong - or where there at least are reasonable grounds to doubt them.

The example I posted above, spoon bending, is an example of a sceptical attitude towards a Fortean topic in the process of being changed. At least one (former) sceptic, Professor Halsted, has publicly acknowledge that some metal is bent by unconventional means which cannot be replicated conventionally. I am unaware of any other metallugical expert acknowledging this.
 
I've not heard that term before. But there was a big difference between the skeptics' community in the US and that of Europe for a while. ...

NOTE: The term "euroskeptic" is a relatively recent neologism in the realm of politics. It means someone who is skeptical about the European Union (concept; implementation; goals; regulations; etc.).

It does not refer to any school of (e.g., academic or philosophical) skepticism unique to Europe.
 
That's very true, and too many in the believer (and Fortean) community regard Science as an implacable enemy rather than as an entirely neutral and systematic process. Scientists can be dogmatic and utterly cemented to a position, but science itself is an orderly and logical process that evaluates data and bases conclusions on that data. A good scientist may be disappointed if the results don't mirror their expectations but will report them nonetheless, and work on theories based on the new data.
Yup, Escet's doctoral thesis was an examination of a theory about the properties of a particular subatomic particle. His conclusion was that the theory didn't stand up.
 
This has been my view. And it still doesn't sit well with "Skeptics". Once I gave a talk to the National Capital Area Skeptics on my book Scientifical Americans that examines how paranormal researchers say they use science. The goal was to show that they admire science but, like the general population, they have no idea what it means. My work was about science literacy and public understanding. At the end, one acquaintance (very active skeptic) said "Good talk, but I don't know how you can stand to read about Bigfoot and ghost hunters, it's all so fake". He could not get past his deep bias to see the point.
I was halfway through your book incidentally when everything in my life took a nosedive last year, (weirdly, nothing to do with covid, that was just background unpleasantness to me), and I haven't read anything since. So, I highly recommend the first half of Scientifical Americans to forteans, and I'll probably recommend the second half when (if?) my life settles.
 
As regards 'railway madmen'. There certainly were 'railway murders' - but actually only about half-a-dozen in the whole history of UK railways, and mostly for a very topical reason. Males abusing females.

However the first -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Müller

was distinctly strange and it is still debatable what was the motive and whether the correct man was hanged.
 
Plate tectonics only really became accepted when the "old guard" died off - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/
To reiterate, plate tectonics rejection was not a clear cut issue. Many people thought Wegener was onto something.
The bottom line on continental drift from Wegener's perspective is quite complicated. Everyone could see the evidence he saw but there was no mechanism. It could only be confirmed when we gained the technology to see seafloor spreading. And even that evidence was LONG delayed because of military secrecy. So, it's just not right to say "science was wrong" as seems to be suggested in the initial post.
 
I would contend that you may be presenting a "kinder" reading of the scientific establishments view at the time - then again I may be being overly critical myself.
I am old enough to have had books in primary school that portrayed plate tectonics as a controversial and unfounded theory - then again I am old and possibly from the Universe next door (the one with The Bernstein Bears).
Will folk in the future think that Robert M. Schoch was onto something in relation to the Sphinx I wonder ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Schoch
 
This is why I find the psychology more interesting than the things perceived.
That's it in a nut shell. A classic example is Damien's friend's experience with a girl, a dog and a motorcycle. It's the effect on the psyche of the circumstance surrounding the existence of these fairly mundane things that are the most interesting.
 
As regards 'railway madmen'. There certainly were 'railway murders' - but actually only about half-a-dozen in the whole history of UK railways, and mostly for a very topical reason. Males abusing females.

However the first -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Müller

was distinctly strange and it is still debatable what was the motive and whether the correct man was hanged.
So, these were another kind of Social Worker/Dognapper Panic, over reported and over inflated in the media and something that people were living in dread of, despite not really being a 'thing'? I shall add them to my list!
 
I would contend that you may be presenting a "kinder" reading of the scientific establishments view at the time - then again I may be being overly critical myself.
I am old enough to have had books in primary school that portrayed plate tectonics as a controversial and unfounded theory - then again I am old and possibly from the Universe next door (the one with The Bernstein Bears).
Will folk in the future think that Robert M. Schoch was onto something in relation to the Sphinx I wonder ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Schoch
Textbooks are notoriously not in step with current scientific thinking but far behind and sometimes skewed for business reasons. But I see how that could cause the belief that plate tectonics was scientifically ridiculous until it wasn't (in the next textbook edition). But, that is an oversimplification.

Plate Tectonics
An Insider's History Of The Modern Theory Of The Earth
Naomi Oreskes
https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/naomi-oreskes/plate-tectonics/9780786742554/

It's possible that "maverick" scientists today could be shown to correct in the future, but evidence always dictates where the overall scientific view goes. It often takes a very long time and it's how it works. I think that it would be great if people learn why and how scientific findings are provisional and that's not a bad thing. Being entirely mistaken about an explanation is a normal phase.
 
It's possible that "maverick" scientists today could be shown to correct in the future, but evidence always dictates where the overall scientific view goes. It often takes a very long time and it's how it works. I think that it would be great if people learn why and how scientific findings are provisional and that's not a bad thing. Being entirely mistaken about an explanation is a normal phase.

Yes, good science is "organised scepticism".

Every hypothesis is checked and tested; the resulting paper is then peer reviewed before it is deemed worthy of publication; and when it is published, someone else immediately sets out to see if they can replicate the findings.

Science is a constant process of asking, "Are we sure that's right?" and then making appropriate checks.

Occasionally the answer to "Are we sure that's right?" is "No." This is not a failure, but a success, leading to a step forward in understanding.

Of course, in real life, science is often less pure, driven by funding, reputation, ego, rivalries and so on. However, I choose not to judge science as a principle on the basis that some of its practitioners are flawed.
 
The impression given to me as a child was that it was a far more "out there" idea than say the Loch Ness monster which I also seem to recall getting quite a bit of attention. I was somewhat of an anoyance to my Teachers as I could read pretty well before going to school, so would be packed of to the library by myself when the rest were doing the basics.
They had a wonderful trove of national geographic and other similar magazines and books - most of them from the US and dating from mid 1950's up till late 60's. I assume gifted by a staff member or parent with links there.
Much better education than the "formal" stuff whatever they said about Geology :)
 
Back
Top