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

Questionable Scientific / Skeptical Explanations for Fortean Phenomena

A

Anonymous

Guest
Worst scientific "explanations"

What are the most paper-thin scientific explanations for strange phenomena you've ever come across ?

I'll start the ball rolling with my two favourites to date:

A couple of years back on a documentary about UFOs, a scientist working with the M.O.D was shown video footage of an object hovering very low over a field in Wiltshire. Whether it was a UFO, a military aircraft or a hoax - it was clearly a complex object emitting various coloured lights.

This expert's answer ? It was a planet.

On another documentary, this time 'investigating' the Loch Ness Monster, a number of witnesses to the creature (some of whom claimed to have seen it close-up and could give detailed descriptions: long-neck, like a plesiosaur etc) were told by a scientist that it was probably a large bubble of air rising from the bottom of the lake.
 
Anything given as 'science' by cereologists ;)
 
That laser-like wounds found in cattle and horse mutilations were caused by predators.:sceptic: :nooo:
 
Worst Scientific Explantions

When a munch of persons see a UFO they all saw swamp gas or some stupuid thing like that

Nebka
 
I once travelled home from college, a distance of about 5 miles, by bus, foot and bicycle, all the while keeping an eye on a strange double light which appeared in the sky late afternoon and remained until late at night.
Crowds of people saw it and discussed it enthusiastically.

It was 'of course' the planet Venus (Uranus more like!) and dismissed by scientists as a natural phenomenon.
 
Susan Bulmer said:
That laser-like wounds found in cattle and horse mutilations were caused by predators.:sceptic: :nooo:
Click to expand...

Seems perfectly sensible to me. They're technologically advanced predators. :p

Nonny
 
those darn skeptics...

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions,but sometimes skeptics piss me off.Some of them refuse to beleive that anything paranormal exists.Then there's the people who think ghosts and aliens are complete crap,yet they beleive in God.And THEN there's that one guy from "The Skeptical Enquirer" who's on a lot of paranormal TV shows.I really wanna hit that guy in the face.:D But maybe most of it comes from how people are raised.Both my parents are beleivers in the paranormal, so I've been hearing about this stuff since I was born.That's also the reason why people have no trouble beleiving in God, but not ghosts or anything.
 
This is actually quite a provocative statement. What is it about sceptics that pisses you off, weakness of argument, bad behaviour, or is it just that they do not share your beliefs?
I am a sceptic, and an atheist. I am also a Fortean; I have had a life-long interest in the bizarre and unusual, in fact in most of spectrum of topics that fascinated CF himself. Charles Fort could be thought of as an Uber-sceptic, as he seemed to doubt everything!!
For me, belief is not a default position on any issue - I need persuasion, I need evidence. The sceptic mantra that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' may be a little trite, but it's not a bad motto.

I have visited many ''Fortean' sites that proved to be nothing more that a chat room for true believers, who threw hissy fits at any post that challenged or questioned the objective reality of their own particular hobby-horse.

Having said that, I would agree that 'armchair debunkers' who dismiss items without consideration or investigation, are as irritating as the saucer-heads who see Rigellian mother ships in every cloud. So far this is proving to be a very well balanced and enjoyable site - I hope it continues so!
 
Bump! Two threads with a similar theme have been merged into this one.
 
Susan Bulmer said:
That laser-like wounds found in cattle and horse mutilations were caused by predators.:sceptic: :nooo:
Click to expand...
Space Rodents!:eek!!!!:
 
Re: those darn skeptics...

waster said:
And THEN there's that one guy from "The Skeptical Enquirer" who's on a lot of paranormal TV shows.I really wanna hit that guy in the face.:D
Click to expand...
Call me a sceptic, if you like, but I don't think hitting people in the face solves things.:headbutt:
 
Quite a lot of 'UFO' reports HAVE turned out to be planets - usually Venus or Jupiter. There was a conjunction of these two a couple of years back,which did inspire some ufo reports, I believe.
I haven't heard the wtory about the Wiltshire UFO being debunked as a planet, but the astronomer (if it was an astronomer) would have based his opinion on the fact that a) it was in the same part of the sky that a visible, bright planet would have been in that night and b) that particular planet wasn't otherwise wasn't visible in the film.
And don't know if it's true, but I've heard a story about an American lady who called out the police to report a huge UFO hovering over her house; it turned out to be the Full Moon.
Anyway, try videoing a bright planet one night, using the zoom control. You'll very likely get some impressive-looking film of a brightly-coloured UFO!
 
Susan Bulmer said:
That laser-like wounds found in cattle and horse mutilations were caused by predators.:sceptic: :nooo:
Click to expand...

Well, that depends on who's actually saying that the wounds have these properties - is it CM investigators or independant authorities?

Whenever one looks at 'evidence', one also has to look at who's providing it and for what reasons.
 
I have always found it difficult to work out wether people see paranomal events because they belive in them or wether they belive in paranormal events because they have seen them. Some people on this site claim to have seen paranormal activity of all kinds but some times I cant help wondering if this is because they WANT to interpret an odd but perfectly natural event as paranormal or exratrestrial etc.
 
Skeptic Alert! Skeptic Alert!

A routine sneer at several areas of the paranormal, full of generalisations but little intellectual substance.

Seems to me that "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts!" applies to unbelievers as much as to believers. :rolleyes:
 
Oi Rynner, be careful where you put that sneer!
I don't especially want to be a skeptic, you know. I'd love to see ghosts and other interesting stuff and know that I will meet loved ones in another life.
For four years, I was a Spiritualist, going to seances two or three times a week - I never saw or heard any proof that discarnate beings were communicating to me or anybody else, despite my longing for it to be so. I've watched people make "UFOs" from candles and tissue paper, or gas-filled plastic bags, then later read in the local press about sightings of strange glowing objects in the skies that had no natural explanation.
I've listened to hundreds of peoples' stories of meeting ghosts, having premonitions, incredible conicidences - and wished something exciting like that would happen to me! But it never has. So, if there's any sort of paranormal ruling authority out there, deciding who sees 'things' and who doesn't - I damm well hope you're reading this!!! IT'S MY BLOODY TURN!!!!!
 
I think we need a redefnition of "skeptic" for the purposes of this thread.

Main Entry: skep·ti·cism
Pronunciation: 'skep-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1646
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)


I think that (especially 2 a) is what I would define as skepticism - but surely a good Fortean is one who doesn't believe totally anything they are told, but investigates both sides and so forth?

and:

Main Entry: skep·tic
Pronunciation: 'skep-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin or Greek; Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos, from skeptikos thoughtful, from skeptesthai to look, consider


Which is awfully interesting, considering what the word has come to mean.

So basically we should all be skeptical!

What this thread (I think) should be complaining about, to be prescise, is people who believe their own version of things to the exclusion of everything else, perhaps:

Main Entry: dog·ma·tism
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&-"ti-z&m, 'däg-
Function: noun
Date: 1603
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises

Help me out - what's a better term for this type of person (apart from "idiot" :) )

pinkle
 
Pinklefish said:
Main Entry: dog·ma·tism
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&-"ti-z&m, 'däg-
Function: noun
Date: 1603
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises
Help me out - what's a better term for this type of person (apart from "idiot" :) )
pinkle
Click to expand...
A dogmik?
 
Annasdottir said:
A dogmik?
Click to expand...
An abbreviation of Dogmatic, perhaps?
But it sounds rather like a new Cryptid!

(If a Chupa came up against a Dogmik, which would win?!)


Still, we seem to have some good Fortean debate going here. :)
 
Re: Re: those darn skeptics...

AndroMan said:
Call me a sceptic, if you like, but I don't think hitting people in the face solves things.:headbutt:
Click to expand...


I was only joking about that.That's what the :D was for.:p
 
I'm a skeptic about some things, other things I believe in.
I think astral projection, magick, psychics, telekenisis, alien abductions, some unrealistic cryptids, religion, and most conspiracies are a load of hooey. I find lots of it laughable. Luckily Fortean Times stays away from a lot of the flaky stuff.
I don't really believe, but don't flat out reject reincarnation, most cryptids, some more level-headed conspiracies, and ETs visiting earth occasionaly.
I believe that ETs exist somewhere, ghosts (in some forms), polterguiests... and I'm pretty open to SOME cryptids existing, but I couldn't say which.
I side with both the skeptics (I get annoyed at insane claims being taken seriously) and believers (I get annoyed with claims being dismissed without investigation).
 
Re: Re: Re: those darn skeptics...

waster said:
I was only joking about that.That's what the :D was for.:p
Click to expand...
Yeah. I guessed. I just wanted a chance to use the Glasgow Kiss Smilie!:headbutt: :D
 
Skepticism (or scepticism, whatEVER) helps rule out the bullshit, and lets us get down to the stuff that is really WEIRD. That's what we came for.
 
Susan Bulmer said:
That laser-like wounds found in cattle and horse mutilations were caused by predators.:sceptic: :nooo:
Click to expand...

Well, maybe the type that go invisible and run around the jungle after Arnie.. :confused:

Originally posted by Avondrow
I am a sceptic, and an atheist. I am also a Fortean
Click to expand...


Not to dismiss your beliefs, but I'm not sure if it's possible to be both a sceptic and a Fortean - To me being a Fortean means always keeping an open mind about a phenomenom, no matter how reasonable the explanation seems, assuming that it cannot be proven;
i.e. If it's proven without a doubt that a strange moving light in the sky which appeared to pulse was actually a satellite, because it was in the right place in the sky at the right time, and there's data to say such and such a satellite was there at that time, then I'm happy to accept that it was the satellite.
However, if it looked like a satellite and moved like a satellite but there's no actual evidence, just a scientist in the paper saying "It was probably a satellite" then I'd keep an open mind, because even though it's likely correct it's not proven.

Does that make any sense? Sorry, It's 08:10 and I'm ridiculously tired :) Not slept due to a late night astronomy bbq... :D
 
I was going to say, quite a while back the FT divided sceptics from skeptics: sceptics by inclination tend not to believe in non-mainstream explanations, but are happy to accept the possibility of a non-mainstream cause, and indeed will accept this as a true cause given sufficient proof. In this respect many Forteans are de facto sceptics (we tend to tread the middle ground between sceptic and believer).

Skeptics, on the other hand, are hard-line non-believers in non-mundane explanations, will not accept the possibility of a non-mainstream cause, and, if faced with a reasonable degree of proof (or even an indication that it merits deeper investigation) will still cry fakery.

In a nutshell, sceptics are paranormal agnostics, skeptics are dyed-in-the-wool atheists.

Stu

PS There's a good, allied discussion here.
 
Number_6 said:
Not to dismiss your beliefs, but I'm not sure if it's possible to be both a sceptic and a Fortean - To me being a Fortean means always keeping an open mind about a phenomenom
Click to expand...
Of course it's possible. One problem is that most of us have differing criteria of what constitutes 'proof'. What satisfies person 'a', may not satisfy person 'b', and then there are those who when offered a choice between a reasonable explanation and a flight of fancy, will choose the latter every time. (If they didn't, there'd be no conspiracy theory industry.) The moving light in the sky you offer as an example may definitely be a satellite and this may be proveable, but there are those who will not accept that explanation no matter how well-documented the flight path of said satellite might be. (After all, a geuine ET craft could easily use the flight path of an existing satellite to mask its approach to Earth! :)) Are they Forteans too? If they are, then why accept that particular extreme of attitude as 'Fortean' but not the extreme of scepticsm?

And then there's the phenomonon of the mass media making big noises about 'anomalies' when they're first highlighted, but when the so-called 'anomalies' get reasonable explanations, those explanations get no publicity at all. After all, the unusual or the bizarre is news, and the mundane and everyday is not.
 
The most closed minds I have encountered on the net were not amongst sceptics but amongst believers, people who had wholly bought into a particular mythos, be it trans-galactic craft visiting earth to make circles in corn and extract cows rectums, or spirit guides helping the enlightened to bend spoons and other awesome powers. The hysteria generated by the mildest questions reminds one of the worst types of religious dogma.
For myself, there is a spectrum of 'believability' (And before anyone points it out, I confess have lifted this idea direct from Dawkins!)

At one end, I would be surprised and ecstatic if an unknown hominid were discovered in the North American woods - but there would be nothing about such a discovery that would require me to adjust the whole of my thinking about the universe. However, to accept the objective reality of, say, telepathy, would require a Paradigm overturn. I would therefore be extremely sceptical about such claims. That is not the same as being completely dismissive, it is just saying 'very interesting claim - please prove it'. That is a crucial point , the onus of proof lies with the claimant. If a sceptic makes an arrogant statement, offering an explanation that does not fit the situation or that can be readily invalidated, then that sceptic has made themselves look like a twit and done the sceptic cause no favours. This does not, however, in anyway support or validate the original claim.

As to the question of whether it is possible to be a fortean and a sceptic, I suppose it depends on how you define Fortean. If you mean 'adopting exactly the same stance and approach as Charles Fort' then I don't think I am a fortean, because as I said earlier, CF doubted everything, all of established science and knowledge. He even challenged his own ideas! However, I take 'being a fortean' to mean having an interest in one or other of the very wide range of topics and subjects that have been given the label fortean, and that’s the point - there are so many things that could fall into that category - just look at the range of threads on this board!
 
I readily admit to being a sceptic - but my scepticsm includes science as well as Forteana, etc.. I take the claims and rationales of both sides with the same hefty pinch of analytical salt ;)
 
As Stu has said, skepticism as a movement is as anti-Fortean as blind belief. However taking the true meaning of scepticism, that is the main tool of the Fortean mind.

We are sceptical of the accepted answers, albeit "It's the greys!" or "It's swamp gas!". A Fortean takes the data, and (after a bit of healthy checking of reliability of sources) runs with it, making several theories without truly believing any of them.

The main feature in which I consider myself a Fortean is that I accept that if things are reported reliably and frequently enough they must exist. However, no accepted answer is one I would subscribe to. A UFO can be an alien spacecraft, a hallucination, mass hysteria, a ghost plane, a weatherballoon, a covert military project, light reflecting off geese, giant jellyfish living in the lower atmosphere, or the planet Venus.

It is up to us Forteans to gather the data, making links and leaps of imagination that others may not. Believe nothing is true, but believe everything is possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top