Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Night Walker

Scientifical Americans

24 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Night Walker

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
DieChecker

"Scientifical" says it all.

People are so stupid. Even the ones with advanced degrees are stupid on so many things.

I can respect people who are going out and looking for evidence as a hobby, but some of these people (Watch some bigfoot videos) are completely and utterly insane. They claim to be doing science, and logical, but they are heavily influenced by bias and simple minded opinions.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

"Stupid" and "insane", huh?
 

we must be clear that people who have paranormal experiences and interests are not weird, crazy, or stupid. And, scientists are not cold, unfeeling, and closed-minded. To make progress in understanding, those limiting stereotypes must be discarded. We should be able to discuss these issues through civil discourse, not insults and ad hominem attacks.

Hill, Sharon A.. Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers (p. 4). McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Kindle Edition.
 

Think you may have missed the point of Hill's speech, DC. You're usually more considered and balanced in your commentary...

I attended a Yowie camp-out over the weekend that brought some diverse groups together - didn't see any "stupid" or "insane" people, though. Some unusual worldviews and practices - sure. It was fun and educational...

Here's my report - http://home.yowieocalypse.com/ACRO_Jimna_2018/

Edited by Night Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 2/4/2018 at 8:38 PM, Night Walker said:

"Stupid" and "insane", huh?
 

we must be clear that people who have paranormal experiences and interests are not weird, crazy, or stupid. And, scientists are not cold, unfeeling, and closed-minded. To make progress in understanding, those limiting stereotypes must be discarded. We should be able to discuss these issues through civil discourse, not insults and ad hominem attacks.

Hill, Sharon A.. Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers (p. 4). McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Kindle Edition.
 

Think you may have missed the point of Hill's speech, DC. You're usually more considered and balanced in your commentary...

I attended a Yowie camp-out over the weekend that brought some diverse groups together - didn't see any "stupid" or "insane" people, though. Some unusual worldviews and practices - sure. It was fun and educational...

Here's my report - http://home.yowieocalypse.com/ACRO_Jimna_2018/

You would not put ANY yowie believer into the category of "Stupid", or "Insane"?

Did you see where I said I respected people who did it as a hobby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Thanks for posting the video without comments or opinions of your own.  Saves me from watching it.  Bye.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

but afore I go...

On 2/2/2018 at 11:22 PM, DieChecker said:

... some of these people (Watch some bigfoot videos) are completely and utterly insane. 

Don't know why, but this image came to mind....

Clipboard-2.jpg.420e8049c3439b325d31fdb9ee792cea.jpg

Anyone wishing to find out the relevance could start here:
http://thebigfootnews.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/new-jonny-dagger-scientific-paper-seeks.html
..which actually does a pretty good job of uncovering some really, really bad 'scientificalness'...

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Thanks for posting the video without comments or opinions of your own.  Saves me from watching it.  Bye.

I think you'd really appreciate it ChrLzs. It'ĺl be very much in the same vein as your Sheldrake thread, eagerly awaited Sheldrake thread. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You would not put ANY yowie believer into the category of "Stupid", or "Insane"?

Did you see where I said I respected people who did it as a hobby?

Just because I didn't comment on the "hobby" part doesn't mean I didn't see it. You stated that some of these hobbyists "are completely and utterly insane". I'm not qualified to objectively determine the level of someone's intelligence or sanity via casual observation -- are you, DC?

 

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Thanks for posting the video without comments or opinions of your own.  Saves me from watching it.  Bye.

Why would you need my opinion in order to watch a video? Doesn't the title "Scientifical Americans: Paranormal Researchers and the Public Understanding of Science" provide sufficient commentary to indicate what its about? The video literally speaks for itself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
7 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Just because I didn't comment on the "hobby" part doesn't mean I didn't see it. You stated that some of these hobbyists "are completely and utterly insane". I'm not qualified to objectively determine the level of someone's intelligence or sanity via casual observation -- are you, DC?

Technically, no. I'm not qualified to judge who is or is not insane. I'm led to believe it is a Spectrum thing, so to some degree... All of us are probably insane.

However I was referring to people who clearly (or maybe not) are hallucinating, or lying. People like Joan Ocean in Hawaii, who says these are inter-dimensional beings, and they do all kinds of stuff for her almost every day.

Like I said, I am not a PHD in mental medicine, but read Joan's page and then tell me what her mental condition appears to be based on the assumption she Really Believes what she wrote.

And she is far from alone in having such beliefs and "encounters".

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
13 hours ago, oldrover said:

I think you'd really appreciate it ChrLzs. It'ĺl be very much in the same vein as your Sheldrake thread, eagerly awaited Sheldrake thread. 

Sounds like it would just reinforce my biases towards good science, and my dislike for made up words..... :D   I thought the forum was here to discuss issues not promote videos - if there are any issues in it, other than the blindingly obvious surely the OP would have raised them by now...

 

BTW, I confess to avoiding the Sheldrake thread right now, but I will get back to it eventually - just not in the right mood... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
13 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Technically, no. I'm not qualified to judge who is or is not insane. I'm led to believe it is a Spectrum thing, so to some degree... All of us are probably insane.

However I was referring to people who clearly (or maybe not) are hallucinating, or lying. People like Joan Ocean in Hawaii, who says these are inter-dimensional beings, and they do all kinds of stuff for her almost every day.

Like I said, I am not a PHD in mental medicine, but read Joan's page and then tell me what her mental condition appears to be based on the assumption she Really Believes what she wrote.

And she is far from alone in having such beliefs and "encounters".

I agree mental illness exists as a “Spectrum thing”. All of us would display sub-clinical levels of any or perhaps all mental illnesses – the keyword here being SUB-CLINICAL. That does not, however, mean we are all insane – quite the opposite, actually…

Precisely which highly credentialed medical professionals can accurately diagnose mental illness via casual observation? Or, for that matter, via a person’s website? 

Yet, apparently, you can tell that Joan Ocean is “clearly (or maybe not)” “hallucinating or lying” via her webpage? And all based on an assumption? Whoa... 

Joan Ocean’s views look “New Age” to me. “New Age” is a popular and widespread worldview within the English-speaking world. It is often creative, fanciful, and imaginative but it does not equate to being “insane” in the clinical sense. Furthermore, no-one is under any obligation to take it literally...

The belief that people (appropriately accredited or not) can accurately diagnose mental illness via casual observation is also widely held (perhaps more widely held than of the New Age or of Bigfoot itself) and is even present among some who pride themselves on their rationality yet it is completely unsupported by the objective evidence and/or the scientific literature…

If you’d like to get a better grasp on the “unusual beliefs” of others then I suggest that the best place to start is with oneself. Your belief, DC, in this instance, is actually far more dangerous and has far greater potential to cause harm than anything Joan Ocean may or may not believe, is it not?

 

Edited by Night Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover

Firstly, thanks Night Wslker for posting this. 

Is anyone else thinking of hunting down the person who did the subtitles though, and exacting some Byzantine revenge? I am. 

Aside from that it's an excellent talk, and very relevant to the sort of thing a lot of us here have noticed, and discussed, particularly the Sheldeake thread so far. I contacted Hill yesterday to get a bit more on the the condept of 're-enchantment', and it was very interesting. As is the 'scietifical' tag, which she uses to describe the **** backward type of inherently biased processes used by the groups in question. 

Definitely recomended for anyone interested in the motivations, pitfalks, and methodology of the modern woo brigade, and their love/hate relationship with science, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

Sharon Hill will be in Sydney later this year for Paracon 16th June, 2018. She will be doing a talk on "Misadventures in "Scientifical" Paranormal Investigation" as well as taking part in a discussion about Yowies with author Tony Healy (moderated by co-author Paul Cropper)...

http://www.paraconaustralia.com/presenters-2018.html

332y1ds.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 2/7/2018 at 10:49 PM, Night Walker said:

I agree mental illness exists as a “Spectrum thing”. All of us would display sub-clinical levels of any or perhaps all mental illnesses – the keyword here being SUB-CLINICAL. That does not, however, mean we are all insane – quite the opposite, actually…

Precisely which highly credentialed medical professionals can accurately diagnose mental illness via casual observation? Or, for that matter, via a person’s website? 

Yet, apparently, you can tell that Joan Ocean is “clearly (or maybe not)” “hallucinating or lying” via her webpage? And all based on an assumption? Whoa... 

Joan Ocean’s views look “New Age” to me. “New Age” is a popular and widespread worldview within the English-speaking world. It is often creative, fanciful, and imaginative but it does not equate to being “insane” in the clinical sense. Furthermore, no-one is under any obligation to take it literally...

The belief that people (appropriately accredited or not) can accurately diagnose mental illness via casual observation is also widely held (perhaps more widely held than of the New Age or of Bigfoot itself) and is even present among some who pride themselves on their rationality yet it is completely unsupported by the objective evidence and/or the scientific literature…

If you’d like to get a better grasp on the “unusual beliefs” of others then I suggest that the best place to start is with oneself. Your belief, DC, in this instance, is actually far more dangerous and has far greater potential to cause harm than anything Joan Ocean may or may not believe, is it not?

OK..... Seriously, you are being way too serious here. I am judging people based on their internet presence and things they say they believe, and you say that is wrong?

WHO ARE YOU TO DIAGNOSE ME THEN!!!

Seriously. I am sorry if my post put a bee up your nose. Please accept my apology and perhaps we can move forward?

I don't know any of the people in that video, I was speaking to the word "Scientifical", which is (according to the internet) an archaic or obsolete form of scientific. And also speaking in general to people who might use a word that is obsolete in an attempt at describing a scientific event. 

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

 

I don't know any of the people in that video, I was speaking to the word "Scientifical", which is (according to the internet) an archaic or obsolete form of scientific. And also speaking in general to people who might use a word that is obsolete in an attempt at describing a scientific event. 

Sharon Hill is a sceptic, and advocate for science and critical thinking. She's as far as I've seen a cut above average as she is a genuine sceptic rather than a zelout. The term 'Scientifical Americans', is the title of her book, it's a play on words, on 'Scientific American' which I think is assumed her audience will be aware of. She explians in the video that she's using the term 'scientifical' ironically to describe the unscientific methods used by the groups she studied, whilst they were all the while professing to be scientific in their approach. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

i see no problem with people spending their spare time investigating various cryptids, paranormal stuff, etc. The only issue I have is when they falsify data, present unproven things as facts, or otherwise wheedle around their points and evidence.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
13 hours ago, DieChecker said:

OK..... Seriously, you are being way too serious here. I am judging people based on their internet presence and things they say they believe, and you say that is wrong?

WHO ARE YOU TO DIAGNOSE ME THEN!!!

Seriously. I am sorry if my post put a bee up your nose. Please accept my apology and perhaps we can move forward?

I don't know any of the people in that video, I was speaking to the word "Scientifical", which is (according to the internet) an archaic or obsolete form of scientific. And also speaking in general to people who might use a word that is obsolete in an attempt at describing a scientific event. 

Which mental disorder did I diagnose you with, DC? You’re being somewhat irrational here and reacting to stuff that isn’t actually there (which, in my recent experience, is not dis-similar to how many amateur Yowie researchers react in the field)…

The point is that everyone has beliefs and reactions that do not correspond to objective reality that we do not even question -- even a usually thoughtful, balanced, and intelligent fellow such as yourself. Even in the face of contradictory evidence the belief remains strong. It does not make everyone “insane” – it makes us HUMAN. So, if there is no objective evidence of mental illness in regards to a claimant let’s leave insanity out of the equation. Regular people, just like you and me, are having these experiences and making these seemingly fantastic claims…

“scientifical – a word I use in this volume to connote the attempt to be scientific without actually achieving it"… Hill, Sharon A.. Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers (p. 2). McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Kindle Edition.
 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

After reading all the comments, perhaps, NW, you might take on board my original comments relating to you not giving us a precis and your opinion..  Had you done that, people like me might have actually watched it, rather than looking at the rather silly-looking title and moving on, thinking it was from 'The Dark Side'.

I  might eventually get around to it, but I gotta say that dealing with these sort of people, like Sheldrake, and many of the Bigfoot/UFO/Ghost 'investigators', is immensely tiresome at times.  And that's coming from someone who already studies the human aspects like self-delusion, Autism/Aspergers/ADD /etc, the cultural issues, that some people just love to diss science and the establishment, claim coverups, and, most importantly, feel that they are special snowflakes for knowing the Real Truth that they have concocted in their heads...

Perhaps the video contains something new that I haven't considered or might help in the proverbial 'Good Fight'.  But I haven't heard anyone mention some salient point that might be worthy of discussion...  If all it is about is more understanding of CT-ers, or that we should be more supportive / empathetic...

..no thanks - I'm well past that point!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
On 2/11/2018 at 9:24 PM, ChrLzs said:

After reading all the comments, perhaps, NW, you might take on board my original comments relating to you not giving us a precis and your opinion..  Had you done that, people like me might have actually watched it, rather than looking at the rather silly-looking title and moving on, thinking it was from 'The Dark Side'.

I prefer it when people take responsibility for their own actions. Watch it or don’t – the choice is entirely yours…

Hill’s speech and book are about the motivations, pitfalls, and problems of methodology of amateur paranormal investigations/research and, as such, are relevant to all of us who are actively interested in such pursuits. More than simply being relevant TO us, Hill’s speech and book are ABOUT us as amateur investigators (not just the “woo brigade” as OR put it) and the issues we all face. For example, if I had posted comments along with the video we might have missed ChrLzs’ beautiful demonstration of confirmation bias or DC’s erroneous belief about diagnosing mental illness via casual observation. I am not raising these examples to condemn or poke fun but to illustrate how even the most dedicated and rational of us can slip up…

Like OR, I think that you, ChrLzs, would have much to gain from Hill’s approach but perhaps not in your current state of mind where you project an “us vs them” mentality (instead of just an “us” mentality) and frame your investigative approach in macho-combative terminology. “Understanding” is not a bad thing, ChrLzs. You are an amateur paranormal investigator just like many of us here. You’re not an ideological crusader battling the forces of evil, ffs…
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
9 hours ago, Night Walker said:

I prefer it when people take responsibility for their own actions. Watch it or don’t – the choice is entirely yours…

 

I have to side with ChrLzs on this one.   Typically if I see a video with dumb name like Scientifical Americans and the thread is named the same, I won't take the time to watch it.  

 

I also do not think DieChecker needs a degree to call this person stupid or insane.   I think stupid is very fitting.  

People like Joan Ocean in Hawaii, who says these are inter-dimensional beings, and they do all kinds of stuff for her almost every day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

I can understand how the word “scientifical” seems nonsensical and in a sense it is – that’s kinda the point (see post #15). The rest of the video and title of this thread, however, reads: “Paranormal Researchers and the Public Understanding of Science” – is that not self-explanatory? I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, Myles - did you literally not see the rest of the title after becoming disinterested at "Scientifical Americans"? Everyone who has commented about the negative impact of the title on their decision to not watch this video has singled out the word "scientifical" while neglecting to address what the full title (of video and thread) actually says...

Of course, anyone can call anyone anything. Such name-calling happens all the time in the school yard – it’s the same level of discussion and understanding we have here…
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover

Given the mindset of many of us here, I'm fairly surprised Sharon Hill isn't better known among us. Doubtfulnews, has been doing an excellent job of encouraging critical thinking and highlighting the contradictions, pitfalls, and out and out fraud that's been reported over the past few years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover

Just to add, the disagreement on this thread does seem to me to be between people who are essentially all on the same page, it just appears that Hill's choice of book title has created a bit of misunderstanding here. But, as NW points out, it does have a fuller title which pretty much does tell you what to expect, it also says 'Book and Thesis' so if, as is the case (but I agree is certainly not always), then the contentious word 'Scientifical' is clearly deliberately selected, and not sloppiness. 

What I always do is Google the person, here's what you get for Hill (who I'm very pleased to learn, is older than me).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_A._Hill

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
On 2/17/2018 at 2:31 AM, oldrover said:

Given the mindset of many of us here, I'm fairly surprised Sharon Hill isn't better known among us. Doubtfulnews, has been doing an excellent job of encouraging critical thinking and highlighting the contradictions, pitfalls, and out and out fraud that's been reported over the past few years. 

“Mindset” (ie the established set of attitudes held by someone) is the issue. Is skepticism a “process” or is it an “ideology”? Is it a “tool” or is it a “weapon”? Do we seek to “understand” others or to “ridicule” them? Do contradictions and pitfalls affect all of “us” or just “them”? 

Hill, as a skeptic, is moderate in her approach (identifying more with the former of the above dualities – skepticism as a “process” or “tool” to “understand” “ourselves”). As such, she is often ignored, sometimes even ridiculed, by those who identify with a more “hardcore” approach to skepticism (which identifies more with the latter of the above dualities – skepticism as an “ideology” to “attack” and “ridicule” “others”). For definitional purposes, Hill promotes “scientific skepticism” while the approach of some vocal skeptics here often drifts into "pseudoskepticism". If Hill is not telling some people what they want to hear, if she is not engaged in (or is opposed to) the "good fight" against "the dark side" then why would they want to listen to her?

It is relatively easy to be critical of others. It’s much harder to apply those same critical standards to oneself, though. So it’s easier, then, to simply ignore Hill or to simply cherry-pick the parts that can be applied to those unenlightened “others” than to apply it to ourselves as well…

On 2/17/2018 at 2:41 AM, oldrover said:

What I always do is Google the person, here's what you get for Hill (who I'm very pleased to learn, is older than me).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_A._Hill

Hill is my age - you are very young for an "oldrover"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.