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

Wikipedia & Sceptics Versus Forteana

Scepticism comes in many guises, I had something in my Email today from an unashamedly sceptical organisation that called for 'critical thinking' and as if in the same breath a funding appeal for TalkOrigins to buy-up the rights to a film I'd never heard of called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". The whole thing gave the impression that they are contemplating a book-burning , with a film of course?
My local rag of two weeks ago had headlines about driving witchcraft from the town. I understand that a shop had opened that sells herbs and spells and plaster angelic figures. It seems the critical thinking is confined to the narrow confines of a medieval age, the same one that the sceptics claim to be protecting us all from.
This convoluted circular thinking is born of a rationality that rejects any normal logic in favour of emotional, authoritarian, mind control and claims, as did the Email to be doing a service to science?
There is a need to tread carefully when describing oneself as a sceptic these days and a strong likelihood that you may be invited to a burning at the stake.
Scepticism within Forteana is a Fortean issue in itself.
 
While I don't tend to agree with you usually, what you're describing here is not sceptisism but universally distasteful tat. I'd say you should ignore it, rather than take it as being representative of the views of anyone with a genuine interest in Forteana, whatever approach or position they may take.

There's no onus on anyone to react to or be mindful of this kind of partisan nonsense.
 
Yes, being sceptical does not automatically mean that you subscribe to any extremes. That said, to express scepticsm sometimes leads others to assume that of you. If scepticism within Forteana is a Fortean issue in itself, then so is anti-scepticism.
 
My intent is not to tar everyone with the same brush, far from it, but to illustrate how the word scepticism has become all things to all men/women.

For example: it's become a platitude that can be used to validate anything simply by appealing to the authority of science... the pseudo rationale goes something like: Science uses scepticism: therefore scepticism is science.

Alternatively, it's a platitude that everyone thinks they know the meaning of but have never really thought about, applying it to their own personal brand. One man's "tat" is another man's scepticism.

I have no wish to encourage gullibility in any shape or form, just to apply honest scepticism to dishonest scepticism, because the alternative is gullibility.
There are no fixed parameters that define scepticism, its often a personal choice not to believe something that falls into category 2 (things that happen rarely or intermittently or don't present themselves for scientific study)... like the paranormal.
 
Ghostisfort said:
Alternatively, it's a platitude that everyone thinks they know the meaning of but have never really thought about, applying it to their own personal brand. One man's "tat" is another man's scepticism.

I have no wish to encourage gullibility in any shape or form, just to apply honest scepticism to dishonest scepticism, because the alternative is gullibility.
Click to expand...

But if 'One man's "tat" is another man's scepticism', then surely 'honest' scepticism is going to vary from person to person?
 
There are no fixed parameters that define scepticism, its often a personal choice not to believe something that falls into category 2 (things that happen rarely or intermittently or don't present themselves for scientific study)... like the paranormal.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind Ghostisfort these discussions are taking place on the Fortean Times message board.
 
oldrover said:
There are no fixed parameters that define scepticism, its often a personal choice not to believe something that falls into category 2 (things that happen rarely or intermittently or don't present themselves for scientific study)... like the paranormal.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind Ghostisfort these discussions are taking place on the Fortean Times message board.
Click to expand...
I apologise, it seems I spent too much time on New Science.
I began to think that all the Forteans were dead.
 
Then it'll be a pleasant surprise to you to realise that even though not all of them agreed with you, they were there all along.

At least I'm assuming it'd be a pleasant surprise.
 
oldrover said:
Then it'll be a pleasant surprise to you to realise that even though not all of them agreed with you, they were there all along.

At least I'm assuming it'd be a pleasant surprise.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed, greetings to all Forteans.
My own pseudo-conclusion: That we've been damned by giants sound asleep, or by great scientific principles and abstractions that cannot realize themselves: that little harlots have visited their caprices upon us; that clowns, with buckets of water from which they pretend to cast thousands of good-sized fishes have anathematized us for laughing disrespectfully, because, as with all clowns, underlying buffoonery is the desire to be taken seriously; that pale ignorances, presiding over microscopes by which they cannot distinguish flesh from nostoc or fishes' spawn, have visited upon us their wan solemnities. We've been damned by corpses and skeletons and mummies, which twitch and totter with pseudo-life derived from conveniences.
Click to expand...
But, don't be surprised if, at times I don't feel at home, I wouldn't join a Fortean group that didn't have the good sense to exclude me. :)
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
Alternatively, it's a platitude that everyone thinks they know the meaning of but have never really thought about, applying it to their own personal brand. One man's "tat" is another man's scepticism.

I have no wish to encourage gullibility in any shape or form, just to apply honest scepticism to dishonest scepticism, because the alternative is gullibility.
Click to expand...

But if 'One man's "tat" is another man's scepticism', then surely 'honest' scepticism is going to vary from person to person?
Click to expand...
Well of course, but only within the bounds of logic and without a preconcieved agenda.
Nothing is absolute, literal fact.
We live in Plato's cave, chained so that we only see the world as shadows on the wall.
 
Ghostisfort said:
Well of course, but only within the bounds of logic and without a preconcieved agenda.
Nothing is absolute, literal fact.
We live in Plato's cave, chained so that we only see the world as shadows on the wall.
Click to expand...

But surely even all of those ideas have a preconceived agenda? The bounds of logic to you may differ from someone else's, or that of any given system. And what if someone (i.e. me, for example) doesn't buy the whole Plato's cave idea?
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
Well of course, but only within the bounds of logic and without a preconcieved agenda.
Nothing is absolute, literal fact.
We live in Plato's cave, chained so that we only see the world as shadows on the wall.
Click to expand...

But surely even all of those ideas have a preconceived agenda? The bounds of logic to you may differ from someone else's, or that of any given system. And what if someone (i.e. me, for example) doesn't buy the whole Plato's cave idea?
Click to expand...
You seem to be confusing logic with rationality.

Rationality uses the scientific textbook of its day to solve problems with theories that often turn-out to be wrong with the passing of time and contradictory evidence. The textbook is a collection of scientific consensus opinions.

Logic is a formal system of thinking devised to seek out the truth of a statement, disregarding opinion, agenda or preconceived ideas like textbooks.
As a general rule statements of logic are not controversial.

The ideas of ancient philosophers have stood the test of time because they are logical.

If you wish to reject logic, as many scientists do, then you are perfectly at liberty to do so, but in doing so please don't refer to logic as opinion as this displays a lack of understanding as to what logic actually is.
Rationality is pseudo logic.
We have been through all of this before?
 
No, I was just hoping for a bit more clarity after the roundabouts that were your other threads.
 
Coal said:
That might well be true.

Doesn't mean the video is any good.
Click to expand...

I don't see what's so wrong with it. All Omni Viewer is saying is that you should not be mocked for researching fortean topics. Most people on this forum research them to some extent.
 
IMHO the risk of mockery has a lot to do with the burgeoning population of hoaxers, fakirs, and others who capture clicks and even dollars with shadily / shoddily framed presentations of Fortean style material - much of which is frankly distorted for sensational effect or fabricated outright.
 
lordmongrove said:
I don't see what's so wrong with it. All Omni Viewer is saying is that you should not be mocked for researching fortean topics. Most people on this forum research them to some extent.
Click to expand...
I would argue any 'mocking' is aimed at the methodology, not the subject of the research.

To avoid mocking, do better science. And be honest about your findings.

It's still not a good video.
 
Interesting read.

Wikipedia is not, and never has been, a valid source for serious research. You would not cite Wikipedia in a university essay.

However, Wikipedia is a good first port of call when looking at a new subject.

Common sense and experience suggest that Wikipedia is generally good for names and dates. I would trust it for the discography of a Rockabilly pioneer, or the dates of the major battles in the War of the Roses.

Wikipedia is less reliable on the sort of contentious matters where keyboard warriors like to do battle: Brexit, Trump, and the like.

An intelligent reader can usually spot the signs in the language used in the article. Some language is used to explain (generally reliable) and some language is used to persuade (unreliable). Dramatic phrases, clichés, and vague generalities tend to give the game away.

Wikipedia becomes more useful if you cross reference details within it. So if you are reading about Borley Rectory, you might also red the articles about some of the key people involved. This will give you context and pt you in a better position to form a provisional opinion.

As for scepticism and sceptics: the words are misused and abused, as are words like "Christian" or "agnostic". A sceptic may be:
  1. A person who, hearing something out of the ordinary, listens carefully, asks questions, and seeks further evidence, rather than simply believing it. In the absence of evidence that would normally be expected to be available in the circumstances, they may be inclined to dismiss an allegation. This is a rational approach.
  2. A person who habitually rejects new ideas and says, "You can't prove it," or "Where's your evidence?" in much the same way as a naughty child asks "Why?" and then, on hearing the answer, asks, "Why?" and so on. It is a form of passive aggression. The self-professed sceptic who is determined not to believe is as bad as the conspiracy theorist who is determined to believe regardless of the evidence.
 
I used to be a prolific Wikipedia editor, particularly with regard to Mesoamerican civilization, and the Spanish conquest of Central America (the "Maya civilization" article and the "Spanish conquest of Guatemala" article are both articles that I wrote that I am quite proud of - there are many others). I have to keep dropping by to make sure they don't deteriorate too much. I got burnt trying to deal with subjects of Fortean interest, which are just squashed as soon as you try. Getting the haunted heritage of Bramshill House into its article was a major battle, even though the folklore is a well-known aspect of the House - the section got far harsher scrutiny than it merited. Still, it got in there, and is still there, and I'm quite pleased with that, but wouldn't bother trying again for another article.
 
SimonBurchell said:
I used to be a prolific Wikipedia editor, particularly with regard to Mesoamerican civilization, and the Spanish conquest of Central America (the "Maya civilization" article and the "Spanish conquest of Guatemala"
Click to expand...
Pah! I once edited an article where they had got the status of an 'A' road wrong. Not so smart now are you?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top