| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tonyblair11 Joined: 28 Jan 2002 Total posts: 2080 |
 Posted: 22-06-2006 04:31 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
You just gave me knowledge. If not for Fort I would not know this or you. I think you are worthy and have a purpose.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fortist Grey Joined: 18 Sep 2005 Total posts: 24 Location: Durham Gender: Male |
| Posted: 22-06-2006 10:36 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | But perhaps Forteanism - like Marxism - is a product of late 19th century thinking that has long since become obsolete |
It seems reasonably certain that certain late C19 philosophies had an influence upon Fort; however since he declined to cite his influences, this is impossible to affirm without doubt. However simply because his influences were fin de siecle, this does not mean that his own ideas are in any way obsolescent; philosophies do not usually "date" in that way; see the continuing popularity and influence of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, etc.
| Quote: | | The science of today is very different from the mechanistic, Newtonian science against which Fort was rebelling, and it is no longer considered radical to challenge scientific methodology or to question the omnipotence of science |
Science is not completely different. The philosopher of science Nancy Cartwright has pointed out that scientists use multiple and incompatible theories and methodologies - such as Newtonian and relativistic physics. Furthermore challenges to scientific methodology are still quite radical. Paul Feyerabend, the "maverick" philosopher of science, wrote a book criticising scientific methodology for being duplicitous in the late seventies and received an enormous intellectual and personal backlash (prompting his later remark "I wish I had never written that fucking book"). Furthermore there is still considerable resistance to criticisms of "scientific omnipotence" (perhaps "scientism" is better), since science remains the supreme cognitive authority and shows no signs of losing that esteemed status.
Moreover it was not "science" or "scientific method" that Fort was criticising; nor was it important to him to "be radical". There is much confusion surrounding Fort and his attitude towards science. His criticisms were of "exclusionist" science (or more broadly, exclusionism in any form). It was radical because it was very new and was directed against the rising star of science, in which people were starting to put a lot of faith (and money). The radicality or not of the criticisms is irrevelent.
| Quote: | | Similary, relativism is no longer a radical standpoint, nor is promoting 'paranormal' phenomena as being worthy of study. |
Relativism is still highly contested (see the introductions to any recent anthologies on it) - and againl, why must it be radical? And paranormal phenomena still suffers from academic and intellectual exclusion; but maybe that will change over time. But Fort was not, in my view, first a paranormalist, but a philosopher.
| Quote: | | Considering that 'Fortean' thinking now permeates the cultural mainsteam, is there really any purpose left for 'organised' Forteanism in the 21st Century? |
Is Forteanism "organised"? Aside from the few societies, the readers of FT and the users of this forum? And need it be organised? It might very well work better as a collective, a band of kindred spirits - and Fort himself warned against organisations concerned with anomalous phenomena.
Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| graylien Great Old One Location: Norwich - home of the Puppet Man! Age: 42 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 22-06-2006 14:21 Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'd say that the radicalism of Fort's ideas was very relevant to why they initially gained a following. When an philosophy or scientific theory is first proposed, it attracts both supporters and detractors by the mere fact of its novelty - and the possibility that it may prove superior to entrenched methods of thinking. But as time passes, the new idea has to prove its worth - and if it turns out to be a dead end it should be abandoned.
So, has Fort's philosophy proved it's worth? Has it made any real impact on the world? The theory of relativity led to the atom bomb. The theory of Marxism led to the founding of the trade union movement (now itself fast becoming obsolete). What did Fort's theories lead to?
I fear that 'Forteanism' has become little more than a whimsical form of scepticism, which reached its nadir with the likes of 'wacky vicar' Lionel Fanthorpe's banal TV series.
As to the 'exclusionism' of science, science is 'exclusionist' simply because it is a body of complex and specialist knowledge about which most people (including myself) are profoundly ignorant. You can't enter a meaningful dialogue with a Frenchman if you can't speak French. And you can't enter a meaningful dialogue with a scientist if you have no understanding of science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fortist Grey Joined: 18 Sep 2005 Total posts: 24 Location: Durham Gender: Male |
| Posted: 23-06-2006 13:40 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| graylien wrote: | | I'd say that the radicalism of Fort's ideas was very relevant to why they initially gained a following. When an philosophy or scientific theory is first proposed, it attracts both supporters and detractors by the mere fact of its novelty - and the possibility that it may prove superior to entrenched methods of thinking. But as time passes, the new idea has to prove its worth - and if it turns out to be a dead end it should be abandoned. |
Fort was radical, but then he was ahead of his time. But I'd be careful against positing the success of a new theory as being due to its novelty; one could propose any novel theory, but if it's not coherent, consistent, reasonably plausible, etc., etc., it will attract no-one but cranks. A theory must have merit. But then the merits of a theory are contingent, and the history of ideas shows how the fortunes of theories and ideas fluxes back and forth.
| graylien wrote: | | As to the 'exclusionism' of science, science is 'exclusionist' simply because it is a body of complex and specialist knowledge about which most people (including myself) are profoundly ignorant. You can't enter a meaningful dialogue with a Frenchman if you can't speak French. And you can't enter a meaningful dialogue with a scientist if you have no understanding of science. |
Well, Fort thought that all phenomena - from continents to nation-states to scientific theories - were generated and sustained by exclusionism: and so not just science but *everything* is exclusionistic. Science is just a case in hand. But Fort did seem to think that if you were aware of the methods of exclusionism, then you could apply them to understanding any phenomena; whether you know anything about science or not. (But of course Fort did know science very well, despite what his detractors say!)
Ian[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BookOfMysteries Grey Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Total posts: 10 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 25-06-2006 18:29 Post subject: Re: Fort and Forteans |
|
|
|
| Steveash5 wrote: | | It seems an over strong responce certainly, though I do sympathise with it in some ways. For instance I've often noted in modern 'Fortean' articles a kind of weird pro-science attitude more akin to the sceptics society than the stance of Fort, and a tendency to debunk. |
Spot on and the most disappointing feature of these forums to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| stuneville Administrator
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Total posts: 10230 Location: FTMB HQ Age: 46 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 25-06-2006 18:35 Post subject: Re: Fort and Forteans |
|
|
|
| BookOfMysteries wrote: | | Steveash5 wrote: | | It seems an over strong responce certainly, though I do sympathise with it in some ways. For instance I've often noted in modern 'Fortean' articles a kind of weird pro-science attitude more akin to the sceptics society than the stance of Fort, and a tendency to debunk. |
Spot on and the most disappointing feature of these forums to me. |
In what way? Yes, we do have fairly robust scepticism, but equally we have true belief. In the main, I think you'll find the mindset is predominantly Fortean, certainly over either of the latter. Tentative acceptance and tentative speculation in absence of definite proof one way or the other is the general esprit d'corps.
Remember, the woo sites think we're all skeptics, and the skeptic sites think we're all woos. We must be doing something right  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 25-06-2006 18:38 Post subject: Re: Fort and Forteans |
|
|
|
| stuneville wrote: | ...
Remember, the woo sites think we're all skeptics, and the skeptic sites think we're all woos. ... |
And, that's the way it should be. 
Never let them be sure, as to whether we're going to stick a flower down their gun barrel, or kick 'em in the groin!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| stuneville Administrator
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Total posts: 10230 Location: FTMB HQ Age: 46 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 25-06-2006 18:45 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Ah! That's L'esprit d'corps summed up in one handy phrase . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BookOfMysteries Grey Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Total posts: 10 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 25-06-2006 18:55 Post subject: Re: Fort and Forteans |
|
|
|
| stuneville wrote: | | BookOfMysteries wrote: | | Steveash5 wrote: | | It seems an over strong responce certainly, though I do sympathise with it in some ways. For instance I've often noted in modern 'Fortean' articles a kind of weird pro-science attitude more akin to the sceptics society than the stance of Fort, and a tendency to debunk. |
Spot on and the most disappointing feature of these forums to me. |
In what way? |
I see a lot of conditioned behaviour and attempts at armchair expertise, a type of behaviour John Keel has ALWAYS despised since he did so much field research - he derides it in Strange Creatures for example and quite rightly so. I also do field research and I despise it too.
I am not interested in the slightest degree in rehashes of "widely believed facts" that "explain" things. Fort himself had nothing but contempt for that sort of easy pat answer and it is humbug no less than the Jenny Tollivers and the "every shadow is a sasquatch" school of monster hunting.
I don't not what the woo stuff's all about, but in terms of investigators versus debunkers I find these forums to be on the debunker side of the fence. And it is indeed a fence.
Trotting out school teacher level explanations to phenomena that geniuses have been baffled by for centuries is not only not good enough as an approach it is in total flagrant disregard for Charles Fort. It is so alien to his original writings I find myself wondering whether the people who act in his name have even read him in some cases.
Think I am going to shoot through.
On a less related note, the waiting period to be validated for this forum... is just odd. And no I don't mean in a Fortean way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| graylien Great Old One Location: Norwich - home of the Puppet Man! Age: 42 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 25-06-2006 19:09 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| But surely Fort was the ultimate 'armchair researcher'? He did all his investigations in libraries rather than 'in the field', after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 25-06-2006 19:14 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| graylien wrote: | | But surely Fort was the ultimate 'armchair researcher'? He did all his investigations in libraries rather than 'in the field', after all. |
Textual analysis. Well ahead of his time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| stuneville Administrator
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Total posts: 10230 Location: FTMB HQ Age: 46 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 25-06-2006 22:30 Post subject: Re: Fort and Forteans |
|
|
|
| BookOfMysteries wrote: | | ..... in terms of investigators versus debunkers I find these forums to be on the debunker side of the fence. And it is indeed a fence. |
How deep have you looked? There are a third of a million posts on this board. Reading and evaluating them all in about 5 days would be prodigious, to say the least.
| Quote: | | Trotting out school teacher level explanations to phenomena that geniuses have been baffled by for centuries is not only not good enough as an approach it is in total flagrant disregard for Charles Fort. It is so alien to his original writings I find myself wondering whether the people who act in his name have even read him in some cases. |
As is dismissing all the available evidence on the basis of a small sample, wouldn't you say?
| Quote: | Think I am going to shoot through.
On a less related note, the waiting period to be validated for this forum... is just odd. And no I don't mean in a Fortean way. |
Well, we're choosy who we let in . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| graylien Great Old One Location: Norwich - home of the Puppet Man! Age: 42 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-06-2006 03:11 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| It's perhaps also worth pointing out that a lot of Fort's raw material was drawn from scientific journals. Yes - those narrow-minded scientists who wouldn't accept the existence of Bigfoot if it ran up and bit their faces off were actually collecting and publishing Fortean material long before Fort himself did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| stuneville Administrator
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Total posts: 10230 Location: FTMB HQ Age: 46 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-06-2006 07:03 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Perhaps Fort wasn't Fortean enough either, then... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| graylien Great Old One Location: Norwich - home of the Puppet Man! Age: 42 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-06-2006 10:49 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| In which case maybe we should adopt Beckjord as our new figurehead. He does plenty of field research and he certainly isn't trammelled by the narrow-minded paradigms of conventional science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
