Quote:
Originally Posted by The skepTick  From my perspective, I thought most of the podcast was effective. It spurned me to do a little research on a few of the council members behind the Society for Scientific Exploration and I found them to have extensive scientific credentials. They each have their own particular “hobby”, whether it is Loch Ness, UFOs, or some other phenomenon. I have noticed that other general paranormal or pseudoscience groups do little to criticize one another’s belief. For example, I never hear Bigfoot hunters lambasting UFOlogists, Astrologists deriding Psychics, or Ghost Hunters ridiculing Homeopaths. Is it that they all believe each other’s claims? I doubt it. Rather, I think they are more willing to say that anything is possible, therefore if their pet claim is possible, the gates are thrown wide open to allow the possibility of other claims.
From what I’ve read about JSE editors, they are not above debunking claims outside of their particular “hobby”. They draw a clear distinction between their day jobs and their night jobs. They acknowledge the precarious position this might put them in, and recommend other scientists join as full members only after receiving tenure.
Not having read any of the JSE’s issues, I’m wondering how the “Letters to the Editor” read. Usually this is where scientists will retort against other past articles, so it would be interesting to see if they try to debunk anything that might be considered pseudoscience.
|
yea, the JSE is pretty solid and very interesting. As far as everyone having their little corner of the unexplained... I suppose that's true. The do have some very good back and forth with contributions from skeptical folks as well.
Even if you don't suscribe to the journal you can google the papers and get an idea of the topics. Here are two of my favorites:
-
Henry Bauer - AIDS Wiki
- Plate tectonics: a paradigm under threat
http://www.scientificexploration.org...14.3_pratt.pdf Quote:
As for the humor, it makes the podcast enjoyable. The sarcasm and ridicule aren’t particularly objectionable, but they do show Alex’s proclivities and serve to solidify his supporters as well as his opponents. That’s not bridge building, but I get the sense that Alex has decided to move away from that goal. |
yea, I think I made it clear a few episodes back that what I've learned thus far doesn't allow me to play dispassionate observer... I look forward to engaging in useful dialog, but now think we need better maps rather than more bridges (i.e. more research).