FT246

[colpepper1]

the impressions, one may get if they skimmed creationist tracts

That word and that comparison again. It keeps rearing its stupid ugly head. People should read what was written and agree or disagree but not lump it in with a load of other stuff they don't like. While ever they do I see it as militant atheist/ humanist noisemaking.
Science hitching a ride on some light philosophy.

 

[AMPHIARAUS]

the impressions, one may get if they skimmed creationist tracts

That word and that comparison again. It keeps rearing its stupid ugly head. People should read what was written and agree or disagree but not lump it in with a load of other stuff they don't like. While ever they do I see it as militant atheist/ humanist noisemaking.
Science hitching a ride on some light philosophy.

Its a usefull catchall to decribe irrational alternatives to evolution. If it isn't natural selection then what is it? There is only one alternative lumped or otherwise when distilled.

To dismiss a critique of a poorly (ugly?) created argument on the basis that it uses the word/phrase 'creationist' is your choice. Believe what you want - spagetti monster included.

Science shouldn't be confused with philiosophy, light or otherwise.

 

[colpepper1]

Science shouldn't be confused with philiosophy, light or otherwise.

I completely agree but it so often is. People complain about one thing and elide to something else entirely, usually another set of belief systems.
The accusation has been made that Harpur shouldn't be allowed to put his ideas into print because they don't match a more widely held notion. I disagree.

Conflating his theories with Abrahamic monotheism - which is always the barking dog beneath these complaints - is misleading and mischievous.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Conflating his theories with Abrahamic monotheism - which is always the barking dog beneath these complaints - is misleading and mischievous.

I and, from what I can see, everyone else who has levelled a complaint at the Harpur article in this thread have done so on the basis that he's arguing from a position of complete ignorance with regard to the subject he attacks. It's the insistence that there's anything more to it than that that is not only misleading and mischievous but also appears to be deliberately obtuse. Any barking dogs are a figment of the imagination.

 

[colpepper1]

Any barking dogs are a figment of the imagination.

That would be true if the same people didn't appear every time a non-provable belief system was aired.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Any barking dogs are a figment of the imagination.

That would be true if the same people didn't appear every time a non-provable belief system was aired.

There's a significant difference between a, 'non-provable belief system' and a, 'dis-provable belief system', which is arguably the case with Harpur's stated beliefs about Evolutionary Theory.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

That would be true if the same people didn't appear every time a non-provable belief system was aired.

:::sigh::: I think God sent you to test me. For the exasperatingly final time, and I'll try and explain it as simply as possible, the complaint is nothing to do with Harpur's non-provable belief system and everything to do with his factual inaccuracies regarding evolutionary theory. A child could understand that. It seems you'd rather just twist the argument to suit your own prejudices regarding certain posters on this thread than admit Harpur got it wrong. I have no objection whatsoever to Harpur's theories or beliefs appearing in the pages of FT but the magazine should be about provoking thought not promoting ignorance.

 

[Twin_Star]

And now for something completely different. One of the highlights of the current mag for me was the story of the cops breaking into the house to rescue an unseen person calling out "help me! Help me!" and it turns out to be a parrot...

 

[colpepper1]

I'll try and explain it as simply as possible

Then I'll do the same. I'm not interested in whether Harpur's assertions are factually correct, true, fashionable or in date. I'm compelled by his point of view. Purely IMO, I find the majority of articles in FT absolute bollox on the likelihood scale but continue to be fascinated by the magazine as a way into human experience and the (un)natural world.

The fact he engages lightly with, or even runs counter to current scientific thought matters not a jot, I'm intrigued by whether its own internal logic is agreeable and I find it is. That's sufficient. I thoroughly enjoyed the article.

 

[47Forteans]

And now for something completely different. One of the highlights of the current mag for me was the story of the cops breaking into the house to rescue an unseen person calling out "help me! Help me!" and it turns out to be a parrot...

I thought the Hunt Emmerson's "Evolution" cartoon was almost as good as last months Hadron Collider/Cryptozoology cartoon.

 

[djoltes]

And now for something completely different. One of the highlights of the current mag for me was the story of the cops breaking into the house to rescue an unseen person calling out "help me! Help me!" and it turns out to be a parrot...

Absolutely classic. It's also a bit of a twist on an old joke. A plumber knocks on the door of a flat; the parrot inside answers "who is it?"

Plumber: "it's the plumber, I've come to fix the sink."

Silence. Plumber knocks again.

The parrot inside answers "who is it?"

Same repeats several times, with the plumber becoming increasingly agitated. Finally he suffers a fatal heart attack and falls dead outside the door.

Soon afterward the owner returns, finds the dead plumber, and shouts "oh, who is it!?"

From inside the flat, the parrot replies "it's the plumber, he's come to fix the sink."

I suppose you had to be there...

 

[djoltes]

I'm not interested in whether Harpur's assertions are factually correct, true, fashionable or in date. I'm compelled by his point of view. Purely IMO, I find the majority of articles in FT absolute bollox on the likelihood scale [...]

I suspect I speak for many following this thread when I say "I wish you'd said that three screens-worth of replies ago." It would have saved a lot of trouble.

 

[colpepper1]

I suspect I speak for many following this thread when I say "I wish you'd said that three screens-worth of replies ago." It would have saved a lot of trouble.

Surely nobody reads FT as a window on rationality? Enlightenment certainly, visionary insight often, consensus reality hardly ever.

 

[GNC]

Yeah, but we don't expect the FT to be totally credulous, either. There are plenty of fantasy novels to cater for that sort of thing.

 

[djoltes]

Surely nobody reads FT as a window on rationality? Enlightenment certainly, visionary insight often, consensus reality hardly ever.

I read it for interesting viewpoints and discussion of out-of-band subjects. Generally I expect a Fortean viewpoint, which in my book means a sensible balance (i.e. neither blindly credulous nor outrageously defensive of the mainstream).

I'm not looking for an academic treatise, but I do expect authors to at least have their facts straight.

 

[colpepper1]

Precisely what constitutes Forteanism and Forteana is an interesting question - though perhaps not one for this thread. The early incarnation of the magazine/fanzine when it was mostly cuttings and a few weird articles seemed nearer to the spirit of Fort.

Now it's a newsagent's glossy FT has become a canvas on which to paint one's own preoccupations. That brings with it an expectation of verissimilitude which wasn't always the case, hence conversations like this one.
I think the magazine would be less if it denied the stuff in the margins or even dedicated too much space to its appraisal. The reader has always had a central role in the text with surprise, confirmation, outrage and hilarity assumed without mediation by third parties.

 

[47Forteans]

Precisely what constitutes Forteanism and Forteana is an interesting question - though perhaps not one for this thread. The early incarnation of the magazine/fanzine when it was mostly cuttings and a few weird articles seemed nearer to the spirit of Fort.

Now it's a newsagent's glossy FT has become a canvas on which to paint one's own preoccupations. That brings with it an expectation of verissimilitude which wasn't always the case, hence conversations like this one.
I think the magazine would be less if it denied the stuff in the margins or even dedicated too much space to its appraisal. The reader has always had a central role in the text with surprise, confirmation, outrage and hilarity assumed without mediation by third parties.

What I like about Fortean Times is that it offers a wide spectrum of all things Fortean (and sometimes non-Fortean!) - I may or may not aggree with the views presented, I may or may not have heard of the material presented, but it gives me the chance to think about what is presented, and that is the important thing.