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

The Fortean Fallacy!

@Comfortably Numb Good find!


Ha! Not a good definition of "Fortean" IMNSHO

a Fortean being one who occupies himself clipping or otherwise saving weird reports out of old magazines and newspapers, like Fort himself
Click to expand...

On the other hand, apart from the value of the speeches, I can get behind

The Fortean Society was merely an excuse for buddies to get together, hear exceptionally valueless speeches after a good dinner, and then drink one another to the carpet.
Click to expand...
 
Frideswide said:
@Comfortably Numb Can you see a date on it?

I never thought I'd find myself grouped in with the Christian Right in the US :rasp:
Click to expand...
Affirmative:

Acknowledgments: This material was originally written in 1985 by Rory Coker, Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at Austin.

Clicking on that, takes us to a sceptic.com association.
 
Whilst aware re some of Charles Fort's quotes, finally got around to examing this further.

In search of the real Charles Fort...

Simply astounded, only right now, realising the depth and astute perception of these.

Sorry, although some might disagree, I would elevate Fort's summations- particularly given he was such an academic layman - as remarkable genius.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/160301.Charles_Fort
 
Comfortably Numb said:
absolutely no idea about its origin or background!
Click to expand...
Whilst interesting, it makes some incredibly-sweeping statements: can anyone accurately or fairly say that Fort really knew nothing about mainstream science?

And I certainly don't accept the biased dismissive use of the term 'pseudoscience' to categorise Fort's work, or that of those of a similar ilk (then or now). True Forteans have open minds, and should contemplate any and all possibilities whilst on a path towards attaining ultimate truths. That does NOT include falsifing facts, or supporting fictions as being reality. To me a Fortean approach is application of the scientific method (including the recording of data) but with a mind and approach-mode that is more-tolerant of effects from possible fringe factors, and, acceptance of hidden contributory circumstances being valid within certain contexts
 
Ermintruder said:
Whilst interesting, it makes some incredibly-sweeping statements: can anyone accurately or fairly say that Fort really knew nothing about mainstream science?
Click to expand...

No - certainly not.

If I recall correctly, Fort was fascinated with the natural world during his childhood years and thought of becoming a naturalist. Scientific journals were among the publications he regularly reviewed during his extensive library visits.

Although he hadn't any substantial academic scientific background or credentials, I've always believed he had a strong and broad layman's understanding of the sciences of his day.

The fact that he persistently attacked (then-) contemporary science's self-anointed status as the ultimate explanation for anything and everything doesn't necessarily mean he was ignorant of scientific methods, theories and news.
 
Fort's critique of science is based on the misconception of science as a kind of secular priesthood, deciding arbitrarily what is “true” and what is “false” without regard to the evidence.
Click to expand...
What Fort actually thought was that the scientific community as a whole is a kind of secular priesthood deciding what is “true” and what is “false” without regard to the evidence that doesn't support those decisions. Big difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top