A
Anonymous
Guest
I haven't read of Fort's own stuff. But I don't fancy getting into a personality cult type of mind set. I'd say that the old boy can be credited for setting us on a course of research into things that would otherwise either be dismissed out of hand by sceptics or believed uncritically by eejits.
But it's unsatisfying if the result of our research into these areas should only amount to "hey, here's a weird tale"; "wow! That is weird!"
Not having read any of his stuff I don't know if this is where Fort wanted to leave things, but even if he did (which I doubt), I don't see why we of this generation shouldn't try to take a wider view of things and apply at least some of the methods of science to move things forward.
Like if I said to you "there's a gnome living at the bottom of my garden" you'd probably say "b****ks!" You'd be right, but the whole thing generates many interesting questions.
My complaint is that some of the things printed recently in FT don't amount to anything more than the hypothetical bit of b****ks referred to in the previous paragraph. And what I'm saying is that the magazine and its readership are missing a trick and overlooking the really interesting questions.
This dragon for example; open the jar and see what it is. Then instead of just printing the annecdote in the magazine about the finding and provedence of the specimine, whether it be fake or real, use the magazine space to discuss the wider implications of the case. Otherwise all we've got to look forward to in coming articles are more annecdotes with no follow ups.
But it's unsatisfying if the result of our research into these areas should only amount to "hey, here's a weird tale"; "wow! That is weird!"
Not having read any of his stuff I don't know if this is where Fort wanted to leave things, but even if he did (which I doubt), I don't see why we of this generation shouldn't try to take a wider view of things and apply at least some of the methods of science to move things forward.
Like if I said to you "there's a gnome living at the bottom of my garden" you'd probably say "b****ks!" You'd be right, but the whole thing generates many interesting questions.
My complaint is that some of the things printed recently in FT don't amount to anything more than the hypothetical bit of b****ks referred to in the previous paragraph. And what I'm saying is that the magazine and its readership are missing a trick and overlooking the really interesting questions.
This dragon for example; open the jar and see what it is. Then instead of just printing the annecdote in the magazine about the finding and provedence of the specimine, whether it be fake or real, use the magazine space to discuss the wider implications of the case. Otherwise all we've got to look forward to in coming articles are more annecdotes with no follow ups.