Logical Critical Thinking

[Ghostisfort]

All of Fort's research and philosophy are based on logical critical thinking.

"Almost all people are hypnotics. The proper authority saw to it that the proper belief should be induced, and the people believed properly." Fort.

Forts dissatisfaction was against the selective and feeble renditions of the authority figures of his day.
Constructing mundane rationalisations for otherwise paranormal/uncommon phenomena is a sure way to endear oneself to authorities who wish to reinforce their illusion of control. He saw the scientists of his day as the epitome of this manoeuvre.

But nothing changes: In the past few years we have seen in the UK and else-where, the collapse of many of our permanent institutions, including banking, the Health Service, government - we were surprised to find that many of our MP's were ripping off the taxpayer. Organised religion has become irrelevant and yes, science has turned a blind eye, failed miserably to address the clean energy production problem and descended into the political quag of global warming that blames us all for doing that for which we have no other option.

When the battery goes flat in the torch of those who are paid to light our way, it's time to start thinking about a reappraisal.
The reason we find this so difficult is that all of our education and the media we read and watch is based upon the ideas of our failed leaders in the fields mentioned above. We tend only to be critical within the parameters they set for us in the failed establishment education paradigm.

I find support for all of this in the fact that true critical thinking and formal logic are not taught in education to any noticeable extent and I would suggest that the reason for this is that education does not - contrary to its claims - want us to think for ourselves because that would encourage awkward questioning. (See below.)

This guy, an educator, thinks that logic is only useful in math:
"The bottom line is that logic alone can tell us nothing new about the real world", he says.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm

Compare:

...Aristotle is credited with the earliest study of formal logic, and his conception of it was the dominant form of Western logic until 19th century advances in mathematical logic. Kant stated in the Critique of Pure Reason that Aristotle's theory of logic completely accounted for the core of deductive inference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

And then:

Critical thinking generally refers to higher order thinking that questions assumptions. The concept is somewhat contested within the field of education due to the multiple philosophical frames in which it is contextualized....(?)
...Greek Socratic tradition that dates back over 2,500 years in which probing questions were used to determine whether claims to knowledge based on authority could be rationally justified with clarity and logical consistency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

It is logically impossible to achieve true critical thinking within existing institutional philosophical frameworks because of the influence of academic/political/religious/scientific agendas. These constraints do not necessarily have to be abandoned in order to achieve critical thinking but just compartmentalised; in other words the abandonment of a fixed mindset.

In the UK school system, Critical Thinking is offered as a subject which 16- to 18-year-olds can take as an A-Level...
...However, due to its comparative lack of subject content, many universities do not accept it as a main A-level for admissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_t ... _schooling

 

[Analis]

I find support for all of this in the fact that true critical thinking and formal logic are not taught in education to any noticeable extent and I would suggest that the reason for this is that education does not - contrary to its claims - want us to think for ourselves because that would encourage awkward questioning. (See below.)

I agree with that.

 

[Timble2]

...- we were surprised to find that many of our MP's were ripping off the taxpayer.

No we weren't.....

a politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man

ee cummings

 

[Mythopoeika]

I find support for all of this in the fact that true critical thinking and formal logic are not taught in education to any noticeable extent and I would suggest that the reason for this is that education does not - contrary to its claims - want us to think for ourselves because that would encourage awkward questioning. (See below.)

I agree with that.

I agree too.
I've met plenty of highly qualified people who have no critical thinking at all. They question nothing they have been taught.

 

[Spookdaddy]

Simply because someone concurs with a widely accepted line of reasoning doesn't mean that they haven't thought about it - you can agree with a commonly held assumption without having done any assuming yourself. Any argument which denies that possibility is itself based on nothing more than an unquestioned assumption.

I don't know, I do get the point, but it worries me how often this type of discussion sails into the realms of misanthropy: when Fort says that 'almost all people are hypnotics' he's basically saying the same thing as, for example, an arch-conspiracist does when they call the unenlightened (more often, those who simply disagree with them) 'sheeple'.

I'm also concerned that all forms of thinking which adhere to a theory or method (or see themselves as not adhering to another theory or method - which boils down to basically the same thing) can end up creating their own orthodoxy and can become just as constrained and parameter bound as the thing they claim to abhor. I can't be the only person to have noticed that when arguments erupt between arch-sceptics and their arch-critics the two sides become almost indistinguishable. Or is it just me?

 

[SHAYBARSABE]

I can't be the only person to have noticed that when arguments erupt between arch-sceptics and their arch-critics the two sides become almost indistinguishable. Or is it just me?

I agree, Spookdaddy. Best we can do, I guess, is know that human lines of reasoning eventually stagnate and be ready for that.

 

[Ghostisfort]

I have to admit that I never came across E E Cummings before.
"Writing...is an art; and artists...are human beings. As a human being stands, so a human being is..."

I agree too.
I've met plenty of highly qualified people who have no critical thinking at all. They question nothing they have been taught.

The ones that I met had a lever arch folder with all that they knew in it!

Spookdaddy
I loved your post, but I think you are also questioning my personal philosophy.
You say, "you can agree with a commonly held assumption without having done any assuming yourself."
This is exactly what the hypnotism is all about. The 'advertisers' play on popular emotions.
I am an anarchist in as much as I question everything.
I'm in favour of the middle ground, but I have an aversion to BS.
I love you and everyone on the FT board and all the worlds people like brothers and sisters.

I'm also concerned that all forms of thinking which adhere to a theory or method (or see themselves as not adhering to another theory or method - which boils down to basically the same thing) can end up creating their own orthodoxy and can become just as constrained and parameter bound as the thing they claim to abhor.

It's all about thinking for yourself - we have this "god given gift" called logic that is being eroded by a dogma driven education meritocracy. Orthodoxy is the problem not the answer. There is no theory or method other than looking at the things you think you know and never thought to question. When you are able to do that, the hypnotism subsides.

 

[Ghostisfort]

I agree, Spookdaddy. Best we can do, I guess, is know that human lines of reasoning eventually stagnate and be ready for that.

This is very true.

 

[rynner2]

Logic itself can lead a large group of people to agree on the facts of a situation, making it a commonly held assumption.

So it's not always the case that 'commonly held assumptions' are mindlessly assumed - in fact to assume that it is would be an unsupported assumption.... :madeyes:


I think I'll go for a lie-down now...

 

[Spookdaddy]

...You say, "you can agree with a commonly held assumption without having done any assuming yourself."
This is exactly what the hypnotism is all about...

I'd have to disagree with that. As I said, and Rynner echoed, a conclusion can be reached which concurs with a common assumption without itself being a simple assumption. The accusation of 'hypnotism' can surely only result from the complete suspension of reasoning, not the simple fact, in and of itself, that you reached a particular conclusion.

loved your post, but I think you are also questioning my personal philosophy.

Not at all, it's not really much different to my own - I just think there can be a tendency (and this is a general observation, not a personal criticism) for the pendulum to swing too far the other way - and stick there.

 

[Jerry_B]

I agree with Spookdaddy, especially the point about how things can lead to misanthropy. Whilst some people may lack 'enough' critical reasoning for some people, everyone has it. Certain elements may like to claim that we're all being 'hypnotised' by advertising, etc but, again, I'd say this is really just veiled misanthropy. I think this tends to stem from some people trying to see a wider view of society in general but then missing the point and only seeing it for various things on the surface.

In simple terms, if humans in general were easily cowed or hynotised into thinking certain things, then culture and society would be completely homogenised and generic. This is obviously not the case. Even advertising constantly has to change and adapt, and it doesn't seem anywhere near being a perfect solution to the job in hand.

 

[Mal_Adjusted]

In these days of sub-cultures, micro-cultures and niche marketing, there's a premium on not having mass conformity. Small group conformity (with face-to-face peer-pressure) is probably more powerful than broad-brush mass marketing.

 

[Jerry_B]

Yes - PR and advertising can only focus on quite wide areas of human respnse. That's not to say it can't be a powerful force, but as yet no-one has perfected any of it. Every time a 'system' is created to help sell products, ideas, etc it only has a limited shelf-life before it's effect becomes dulled or negated. Why? Well, because humans make choices and decisions. If they lacked this sort of critical thinking then, like I said, we'd have a much more homogenised culture right across the planet.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Logic itself can lead a large group of people to agree on the facts of a situation, making it a commonly held assumption.

So it's not always the case that 'commonly held assumptions' are mindlessly assumed - in fact to assume that it is would be an unsupported assumption....

I don't understands this post, maybe you could clarify?
My first post was one that encourages the use of logic and critical thinking as an antidote commonly held assumptions that are also illogical.
I can, if required, produce a list of commonly held assumptions that are, while being mostly unchallenged, mythological.

I'd have to disagree with that. As I said, and Rynner echoed, a conclusion can be reached which concurs with a common assumption without itself being a simple assumption. The accusation of 'hypnotism' can surely only result from the complete suspension of reasoning, not the simple fact, in and of itself, that you reached a particular conclusion.

I use the word advertising in its widest sense and this includes the media, education, the presentation of technology and so forth.
There is a thread that was alongside this one yesterday exploring the development of the electric car...
As an engineer, I know that most of automotive technology is almost a hundred years old and yet it's presented as new and is popularly believed to be so.

Electric Vehicles
"The first electric vehicles were developed more or less hand in hand with the first oil powered vehicles. Indeed, the first fleet of electric taxis were introduced in New York in 1897, while the first gasoline-electric hybrid car was launched by Chicagos Wood Motor company in 1917."
Read more: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/opinion/co ... z1Jdip0Ak9

7 modern car technologies that are actually 100 years old
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2011 ... years-old/

"1920s cars saw many technical advances that improved the functions of the automobile. Many of the automobile innovations that we assume of as being modern were in fact introduced in the 1920's
For example, electric powered cars, front wheel drive, four wheel drive, and even hybrid fuel/electric cars."
http://www.anythingaboutcars.com/1920scars.html

All of the above is presented today as if it were new and it is assumed to be new by the majority of people.
For new technology read old technology that someone has been persuaded to throw some money at. This applies to the majority of modern technology and is the basis of what I choose to call 'the hypnotism'.

The aim of the hypnotism is standardisation, not a conspiracy theory but in plain view. We are all supposed to agree with each other or there is the threat that we are somehow letting the side down. Some of us are not team players, but that does not mean we hate the team. The great majority of famous past innovators who gave us the technology that we enjoy today, did so by ignoring traditional views and did their own thing. This is discouraged by the consensus.

"In simple terms, if humans in general were easily cowed or hypnotised into thinking certain things, then culture and society would be completely homogenised and generic. This is obviously not the case. Even advertising constantly has to change and adapt, and it doesn't seem anywhere near being a perfect solution to the job in hand."

 

[Jerry_B]

The aim of the hypnotism is standardisation, not a conspiracy theory but in plain view. We are all supposed to agree with each other or there is the threat that we are somehow letting the side down. Some of us are not team players, but that does not mean we hate the team. The great majority of famous past innovators who gave us the technology that we enjoy today, did so by ignoring traditional views and did their own thing. This is discouraged by the consensus.

But 'consensus' as a factor has been around for a very long time and in many different forms, and culture across the world is still not homogenised. And whilst some technology may have been around a long time, it's utilisation is more recent in some cases. How does that mean that critical thinking is somehow lacking? Seems to me that all that means is that some things aren't common knowledge - that doesn't have anything to do with the masses being 'hypnotised', etc etc.

 

[Ghostisfort]

But 'consensus' as a factor has been around for a very long time and in many different forms, and culture across the world is still not homogenised. And whilst some technology may have been around a long time, it's utilisation is more recent in some cases. How does that mean that critical thinking is somehow lacking? Seems to me that all that means is that some things aren't common knowledge - that doesn't have anything to do with the masses being 'hypnotised', etc etc.

The next time the car salesman tells you how much better this years model will be, will you remember the thread above? This is the test of misplaced optimism.
We can look at other "new technologies" if you want?
How about electrical power generation, very primitive, with technology even older than the automotive?
The hypnotism is about *progress* and everyone, or most, the consensus if you prefer, think that we are making progress when we are not.

 

[Jerry_B]

A car salesman does not hypnotise anyone. It's up to the individual as to whether they do or do not buy the car he is trying to sell. If we lacked critical analysis of even simple processes such as buying cars, all cars would be the same and we wouldn't need car salesmen. You mentioned certain bits and bobs for cars, but the use of such things - even if they were invented a long time ago - is all about utility. Inventions sometimes only come into common useage when a need arises for them.

As I said, consensus as been around for a long time. What drives it in any given society comes and goes over time. But things are different now to they way they were 20, 50 or 100 years ago. We have progressed in that time.

How are we not making progress, in your opinion?

 

[Ghostisfort]

OK, we will look at electricity generation?
The polyphase alternator that provides our electrical power was invented by Tesla around 1890 and has had no significant improvements.
The steam engine that drives it was invented by an ancient Greek and this was updated to a steam turbine in 1551 by someone called Taqi al-Din.

For something a little more up-to-date, how about the technology that drives our mobile phones? I only found this one yesterday and it was quite a surprise to me.
Frequency-hopping spread-spectrum invention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr#Early_life

There aint' much that's new.

 

[Spookdaddy]

Is it really that misguided to describe the recent application or development of an older idea 'new'?

 

[Jerry_B]

There aint' much that's new.

There are ideas, and then there is the eventual application of those ideas. Sometimes there are situations in which any given idea cannot be used in any sort of amazingly useful way by the culture that created it. Older inventions may inspire and drive newer versions which are entiurely more practical, buildable and affordable to any given culture. Sometimes - as with Hedy Lamaar - an invention that has one use ends up having other uses for other, newer things. It doesn't mean that those newer things are somehow lacking because of the older ideas they draw on.

This sort of stuff has been going on for a long time. I don't see how it can be construed as a bad thing, as such.

Again, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with 'hypnosis' etc.

 

[Jerry_B]

Is it really that misguided to describe the recent application or development of an older idea 'new'?

Yes - the buzzword here is 'application'. You can have an old idea, but it's day might not truly come until some later point in time. Ideas and their application evolve over time, in some instances. Others inspire other avenues of newer thought, design, invention, etc..

 

[Ghostisfort]

I had no idea where this thread would go when it started, but that's OK.

"Sometimes - as with Hedy Lamaar - an invention that has one use ends up having other uses for other, newer things. It doesn't mean that those newer things are somehow lacking because of the older ideas they draw on."

"The idea was not implemented in the USA until 1962, when it was used by U.S. military ships during a blockade of Cuba" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamar ... _invention

So you see, it has been in use for quite some time.

"Is it really that misguided to describe the recent application or development of an older idea 'new'?"

I started to look at technology maybe a year ago and certain patterns started to emerge. (It keeps my brain active during retirement.)
At a time when more is being spent on research than ever before in the history of the world,(I'm speaking of the past few decades) we find very few 'new' ideas and the revival of old ideas that are presented as new. I start to wonder why this should be?

A similar situation presents itself with the cutting edge Terahertz:
A Dr. Paul E. Dobler discovered that turbulent water emits powerful bursts of energy in the millimetre electronic wave band, called the X-band by physicists of the 1930's. And then I find that these same waves were photographed in 1898 by Dr Gustav LeBon and much of his work was along the same lines as Karl von Reichenbach (1788-1869) who was kicked out of the scientific community because his ideas were seen as being somewhat paranormal - for want of a better description. It seems they all based their work on the now debunked aether theory?

It's very difficult to find a generally useful technology that was conceived after the 1930's.
This is what critical thinking is all about.

 

[rynner2]

It's very difficult to find a generally useful technology that was conceived after the 1930's.
This is what critical thinking is all about.

Well, apart from transistors, microchips, and the whole computer industry...

Or have you somehow managed to connect to the WWW using Babbage's Difference Engine?

 

[Jerry_B]

So you see, it has been in use for quite some time.

So your point is...? As I said, the application of certain aspects of technology from old designs into new, different ones does not make the new stuff defunct or not cutting edge.

It's very difficult to find a generally useful technology that was conceived after the 1930's.
This is what critical thinking is all about.

As Rynner has pointed out, this is clearly wrong. And it does not demonstrate anything to do with crtical thinking IMHO.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Quote:
So your point is...? As I said, the application of certain aspects of technology from old designs into new, different ones does not make the new stuff defunct or not cutting edge.

Quote:
As Rynner has pointed out, this is clearly wrong. And it does not demonstrate anything to do with critical thinking IMHO.

I have no problem with application or even development, but often the word invention is inappropriately used and I can quote several examples.

Quote:It's very difficult to find a generally useful technology that was conceived after the 1930's.
This is what critical thinking is all about.

Quote:
"Well, apart from transistors, microchips, and the whole computer industry... Rolling Eyes
Or have you somehow managed to connect to the WWW using Babbage's Difference Engine?"

The basic idea behind the computer is that it's a programmable machine and these are recorded from the time of ancient Greece. As Greece and also Rome derived much of their culture from Egypt it is not beyond the realms of possibility to suppose that the Egyptians also knew about programmable machines, but this is not recorded?
At the time of Babbage's Difference Engine there was, it seems, another contender for the same invention named Johann Helfrich von Mller and so the idea was not completely out-of-the blue.
The first electronic programmable computer appears to be that of Tommy Flowers, using telephone exchange technology. He first proposed his own design in February of 1943. Not all that far from the 1930's?

The Atanasoff Berry Computer, conceived *1937* is often claimed to be the first, but it was never completed and was not programmable.

It can't be denied that computing as we know it today would be impossible without the transistor, but its history does go back beyond the 1930's.

"The transistor was *invented* in 1947 at Bell Telephone Laboratories by a team led by physicists John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley."
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inven ... sistor.htm

This is the official version, but when Bardeen, Brattain an Shockley applied for patents, they found that someone had already been there. The first Field Effect Transistor was patented by Julius Edgar Lilienfeld on October 22, 1925.
In 1934 Dr. Oskar Heil patented another field-effect transistor.
There are several other contenders for pre 1930's transistors, but not so well documented.

Other 1930's or previous computer components
Printed circuits: 1918 Max Schoop produced high current printed circuit boards.
"The inventor of the printed circuit was the Austrian engineer Paul Eisler who, while working in England, made one circa 1936 as part of a radio set."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printed_ci ... rd#History

Magnetic recording: seems to start with Oberlin Smith (1840 - 1926)
Valdemar Poulsen invented devices that recorded on steel wire, tape, and 'disks' around 1900.

Optical Recording: In 1906 Eugene Lauste applied for a patent to record sound on film.
Theodore Brown patented in 1907 (UK patent GB190714493) a photographic disk system of recording a approximately 1,200 images in a spiral of pictures on 10 inch disk. Played back at 16 frames per second, the disk could (play) around one and a quarter minutes of material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videodisc

Digital transmissions, recording and computer applications:
Engineer, Alec Harley Reeves, recognised the potential of pulse-code modulation (What are now called digital transmissions or recordings) for reducing noise when speech is transmitted over long distances. He patented the invention in 1938.

 

[rynner2]

Nothing new under the sun, eh?

The basic idea behind the computer is that it's a programmable machine and these are recorded from the time of ancient Greece.

Got any references for that?

Even if it were true, what's it got to do with Logical Critical thinking?

I know I'm wasting my time, but I'll lob a few more recent discoveries/inventions for you to stonewall.

The jet engine; lasers; discovery of the structure of DNA and all that followed (eg DNA fingerprinting, sequencing the human genome,etc); communication satellites.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Even if it were true, what's it got to do with Logical Critical thinking?

Critical thinking is about asking questions rather than just blind acceptance.
These technologies have been reinvented in recent times.

"The original superconductor was invented in 1911 by Dutch physicist, Heike Kammerlingh Onnes, when these superconductors are cooled, they act as a perfect conductors with no resistance. Onnes experimented with mercury, tin, and lead....Onnes was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1913 for this work. " http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinv ... uctors.htm
US patent 0685012
"On March 21, 1900, Nikola Tesla was granted a US patent for the means for increasing the intensity of electrical oscillations by lowering temperature, which was caused by lowered resistance, a phenomenon previously observed by Olszewski and Wroblewski. Within this patent it describes the increase intensity and duration of electric oscillations of a low temperature resonating circuit. It is believed that Tesla had intended that Linde's machine (air liquefaction) would be used to attain the cooling agents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... nductivity

Superconductivity was first discovered in 1911 by the Dutch physicist,Heike Kammerlingh Onnes. http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/m/ornlm3063r1/pt2.html

How do you justify an award for the 'invention' or even discovery of something that has been patented for eleven years?
There is a long list of such things.

What we seem to have here is a two-tier system of technological history. One is a fabricated fantasy.

 

[Cultjunky]

Even if it were true, what's it got to do with Logical Critical thinking?

Critical thinking is about asking questions rather than just blind acceptance.
These technologies have been reinvented in recent times.

"The original superconductor was invented in 1911 by Dutch physicist, Heike Kammerlingh Onnes, when these superconductors are cooled, they act as a perfect conductors with no resistance. Onnes experimented with mercury, tin, and lead....Onnes was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1913 for this work. " http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinv ... uctors.htm
US patent 0685012
"On March 21, 1900, Nikola Tesla was granted a US patent for the means for increasing the intensity of electrical oscillations by lowering temperature, which was caused by lowered resistance, a phenomenon previously observed by Olszewski and Wroblewski. Within this patent it describes the increase intensity and duration of electric oscillations of a low temperature resonating circuit. It is believed that Tesla had intended that Linde's machine (air liquefaction) would be used to attain the cooling agents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... nductivity

How do you justify an award for the invention of something that has been patented for eleven years?
There is a long list of such things.

What we seem to have here is a two-tier system of technological history. One is a fabricated fantasy.

Tesla in effect decreased the 'waste' Henrys (or is that Henries? mmm) that made the heat due to resistance, so reducing resistance made less waste heat so more energy was utilised to increase the intensity of the electrical oscillations.

Onnes demonstrated that at super cool temps, the propensity for a substance to resist an electric current was so severely impaired to become negligent.

Both actually utilised Joseph Henrys' work on inductance, to develop their own work.

A reasonable analogy would be running through mud. Tesla improved the muscles of the runner, but Onnes thinned the mud. Well, it might not be reasonable, but my head hurts now and I can't think of a better one.

I don't think that qualifies as fabricated fantasy, just two people making use of already established knowledge to examine two different elements of one example.

 

[Ghostisfort]

I don't think that qualifies as fabricated fantasy, just two people making use of already established knowledge to examine two different elements of one example.

The fabricated fantasy refers to all of the examples I have given and not just this one.

The lowest temperature available to Tesla was liquified air. This was improved in the eleven years leading to Onnes work.


There is an argument on the Wiki talk board about this:
"U.S. Patent 685,012. The The patent office classifies the patent as superconductivity technolgy, specifically "Dynamoelectric; liquid coolant""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ALis ... nductivity

The term superconductivity was invented by Onnes.

 

[Cultjunky]

So would I be correct in thinking that your idea of critical thinking, in relation to 'new' technologies, is about critically examining older, established technologies and developing them to be more efficient/applied in different conditions?

Or is it more akin to Wikinosis - a process whereby we all come to consider Wikipedia as a fountain of wisdom and realm of pedants. (I'm trying to get back to the opening post and the Fort quote regarding hypnotism of the masses). A place where if one uses the 'prescribed' language of the commentators and debaters, one can elevate ones elf esteem.

I'm teasing, but your links and proposal of this turn in the debate towards patents does invite the question of the language used to describe specific patents. The two you previously used are all about the language of technology describing a process. I'm sure this has come up elsewhere on the board, the IHTM thread is likely to be full of examples of how something is described, I mean this kindly, inadequately. I know I'm guilty of not expressing myself adequately or precisly. But the language used to describe a process, event or item is where critical thinking should be applied, by the individual describing, not afterwards by someone else.

However, I would put forward the idea that new science and Forteanism are not so far removed when trying to apply critical thinking. Both rely on the language used to communicate ideas, events, process' etc. That's not 'hypnosis' or a desire to engender oneself to authorities, more of a lack of language to describe, (I'm feeling it folks) as such, it's difficult to apply critical analysis without it becoming a critique of an individual. This is where Forteanism has one up on the scientific community. Someone who is as thick as pig **** has equality with someone who has a Phd when describing a ghostly encounter.

Aah, I tried to bring this round to the idea of critical analysis in forteanism, the perfect sentence is out there, in the ether 'tween Gods sweaty arse cheeks. I'm away to bed to see if I can dream it.