| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Otto_Maddox Banned
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 Total posts: 96 Age: 0 Gender: Unknown |
 Posted: 25-10-2009 21:31 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
..
Last edited by Otto_Maddox on 27-10-2009 01:24; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| _Lizard23_ In love with the
Great Old One Joined: 23 Aug 2001 Total posts: 1657 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 26-10-2009 00:05 Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'm a total sceptic. And sometime ceremonial magician. It's complicated stuff, this 'belief' thing. I have my doubts about 911, I am currently hating any kind of 'energised' water, I quite want to see a nice Himalayan yeti (where's my camera?!), I rather like and kind of trust the whole peer-reviewed scientific method thing, I always throw the salt over my left shoulder if I spill it.
What I always liked about FT was that sort of editorial stance of 'look, we're just telling you this stuff, not what to think about it', whether it be two-headed cows or MIBs. I'm interested in social trends and folklore and what people believe as much as 'verifiable fact', and I'll argue either way so long as there's an interesting discussion about it, although, as I said, I'm often pretty 'sceptical'.
I don't think FTMB is 'too fluffy'. I think we get more 'true believers' getting upset at the general level of scepticism and piss-taking than we do skeptics taking umbrage because we're foolish enough to discuss meaningless nonsenses.
This is probably as near to a warning as I've got in fuck knows how many years on this message board, but, KarlD, I feel that you're kind of a troll with your now (possibly - I could be exaggerating) several 'you're all credulous fools' type threads - maybe you're just in the wrong place, friend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| stuneville Quite decent really...
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Total posts: 8293 Location: skulking in the shadows, just to the left of Jet Harris Age: 42 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-10-2009 01:58 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Otto_Maddox wrote: | | i still don't like the term fluffy it sounds rather condescending and insulting to me.. |
Ah well, can't please everyone.
And Ufology does tend toward the sceptical, yes - mainly because of the quality of stuff that usually gets brought to the table. See my last post for the caveat about case-by-case analysis, though. You'll find many, or indeed most of us perfectly accept the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects.
| _Lizard23_ wrote: | | ..This is probably as near to a warning as I've got in fuck knows how many years on this message board, but, KarlD, I feel that you're kind of a troll with your now (possibly - I could be exaggerating) several 'you're all credulous fools' type threads - maybe you're just in the wrong place, friend. |
No, no warning. Be careful how you phrase things, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| _Lizard23_ In love with the
Great Old One Joined: 23 Aug 2001 Total posts: 1657 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 26-10-2009 06:54 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Ta, Stu. I was a little drunk when I wrote that and it was a tad direct, I admit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dr_Baltar |
| Posted: 26-10-2009 13:03 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Otto_Maddox wrote: | | i still don't like the term fluffy. it sounds rather condescending and insulting to me, rather like referring to actors as 'ponces' or describing the works of duchamp as 'arty farty'. |
As opposed to the term "sanctimonious scoffing sceptics" of course 
I dare say there's a couple of people who would apply that term to me and a couple who wouldn't. I find that a sense of humour and not taking yourself or anyone else too seriously will carry you through the minefield of fundamentalist rationalism and loony leftfield theories, and everything inbetween. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mighty_Emperor Divine Wind
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 Total posts: 19860 Location: Mongo Age: 38 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-10-2009 20:41 Post subject: Re: The real question for this forum |
|
|
|
| KarlD wrote: | Why has 'Fortean' been taken over by people who think it means only believing 'alternative' stuff and not thinking for yourselves.
...
It seems that sometimes Fortean has become a badge of honor for people who swallow new age crap hook line and sinker without thought. |
| Otto_Maddox wrote: | i think the complete opposite and would argue that if anything the term fortean these days has been "taken over" by sanctimonious scoffing sceptics who can't think for themselves but instead can only mindlessly repeat philip klass and the mainstream when it comes to thorny issues that could potentially turn our understanding of reality on its head.
...
FT and the FTMB is far more sceptical than otherwise imho and thus i utterly fail to agree with your contention. |
If you are being accused of being both too much of a Believer and too much of a Skeptic (in the same thread even!!) then like Baby Bear's porridge, we might be just right. Not that there isn't room for improvement and even a dash of tolerance of course |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Stormkhan Disturbingly familiar Joined: 28 May 2003 Total posts: 4902 Location: Robin Hood country. Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 26-10-2009 23:03 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Personally I'm willing to entertain anyones theories or beliefs with a respectful attempt at understanding. However, if the discussed "logic" goes over my head then I start to lose interest. If so-called evidence is - to my knowledge or checking - shaky to incredibly nonsensical, I shall scoff like a big, scoffing thing.
There is a huge difference between having an open mind and being gullible. As far as I understand it, being Fortean is the willingness to think outside the box ... but not shut the lid behind you. Just because the theory is outlandish, it isn't automatically nonsense. And orthodox views - supported by current observable evidence - isn't automatically "blinding itself to The Truth"
Each new theory or explanation of the weird and wonderful* phenomena that exists in the world should be considered on its own merit; especially considering science - that strange part-horror, part-inspirational creature - is forever being updated with new techniques and technology reassessing what was once considered "fact".
* Wonderful as in inspiring wonder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| stuneville Quite decent really...
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Total posts: 8293 Location: skulking in the shadows, just to the left of Jet Harris Age: 42 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 31-10-2009 11:13 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Having chatted to a fellow FT mag reader yesterday, I think it's possible this forum is being overly compared to the mag itself: I think dannychevaux1 put his finger on it nicely here: | dannycheveaux1 wrote: | I've read and subscribed to FT mag since the start and for me, over the past few years the slant towards sceptism on the major topics has become too overbalanced.
Their UFO sections are invariably "case closed" type articles by Dr Clarke, supposedly solving yet another landmark case. However it ends up being just a theory with much guess work and assumptions and bias as any other theory. The Berwyn mountain story was a recent one.
Up to a point Jenny Randles' page at least presented a more balanced view, but how long will that go on for?
There has been more going on in recent times in the UFO world that got minimal, if any, coverage in the mag, such as the Disclosure project, the South American sightings etc. Instead, classic cases are just brought out to get the treatment, with the original witnesses no longer here to defend themselves.
To me FT mag no longer reflects the thoughts and ideas of the Fortean thinker, with the exception of the letters pages, and even these of course could be selected on their adherance to the party line.
The website, especially the forum of course, reflects a broad spectrum of views and lets hope it long continues! (my emphasis - stu) |
I have to (largely) agree. The aforementioned sense of wonder-but-with-a-pinch-of-salt seems to have in the main evaporated from the mag, these days. Reading back issues from the early 90s there was a far more curious, flaneur quality to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timble2 Imaginary person Joined: 09 Feb 2003 Total posts: 5840 Location: Practically in Narnia Age: 54 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-10-2009 12:53 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| But if no-one writes the articles or pitches them, they're not going to get published are they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| stuneville Quite decent really...
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Total posts: 8293 Location: skulking in the shadows, just to the left of Jet Harris Age: 42 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 31-10-2009 17:51 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| True, but we equally don't know what gets submitted but rejected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| merriman_weir Great Old One Joined: 07 May 2009 Total posts: 114 Location: Merry England Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-11-2009 10:44 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| stuneville wrote: |
I have to (largely) agree. The aforementioned sense of wonder-but-with-a-pinch-of-salt seems to have in the main evaporated from the mag, these days. Reading back issues from the early 90s there was a far more curious, flaneur quality to them. |
I think the important thing is that the readership retains the "sense of wonder-but-with-a-pinch-of-salt" more than the actual magazine. Fortean Times is merely a conduit for all this stuff, whereas the way the reader perceives and interprets what's presented is something you can carry about you everywhere and apply it to just about anything. Everything looks like the Fortean Times* if you look at things the 'right' way and I genuinely think that that is the right way to go about things.
*talking of which, that gives me an idea for a thread or at least a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
