Konrad Hartmann
Paranormal Maven
I am of two minds. I am very comfortable discussing many topics others would call utter madness, things relating to spirituality, magic, imaginary things having a foot in reality and so forth. This is one side of me. I understand this to be a subjective realm. It includes experiences that I may have, or others may have, but at the end of the day, I can't say with any real certainty it isn't all just insanity. I cannot argue logically on its behalf. It just happens to work for me. The madness keeps me sane.
Then there is the other side of me that tries to deal with things in the outside objective realm. While I am fine with people saying they are approaching something from a mystical angle (as long as they don't demand that their subjective experience is objectively true for everyone), I tend to become more critical when people claim the authority of science. In the interview I listened to today, the guest pretty much stated that he considers all conspiracy theories to be true until proven false. That isn't research. That's automatically granting authority to gossip. I hear a lot of questionable statements being made about conspiracies and what-mainstream-science-doesn't-want-you-to-know, and the unifying thread seems to be that if a statement claims that big business/the government/law enforcement/the military did something bad, it is automatically true, especially if someone said the CIA is involved.
Many people also give all sources equal weight. Anything a trained and experienced scientist says can be cancelled out by the guy you work with's former neighbor who used to be married to someone who's cousin's boyfriend's sister said George Bush brainwashed her as a Project Monarch assassin. Plus, you read an internet site about it, as if more proof is needed.
But on the topic of scientists, it is often the case that a claim is seen as academically sound because a real scientist (whose career is based on lecturing and selling books on the topic) says that sasquatches are an unknown primate or that UFOs come from such and such star system. The problem is that doing science doesn't just involve collecting confirmatory evidence. It means coming up with a hypothesis and trying to disprove it. So if, for example, you find a big print in the ground that might very well come from an elk laying down, you have to accept the possibility that it comes from an elk laying down, and not try to prove that, well, if you look at it this way, it could be a sasquatch, therefore it is from a sasquatch.
Real science is a brutal field, and I'm not even talking about the paranormal stuff. If your research shows any weakness, your peers will gouge out your eye and, well, you know the rest. It is an unkind process, but it serves the function of removing the weaknesses from your argument. Granted there are many, many things worth exploring that wouldn't hold up to peer-reviewed research. And those things are still good to explore. But it is important to understand the difference between "speculative" and "this-is-provable-science."
I like to listen to the MonsterTalk podcast, except when they get too smarmy. They often approach things from a folkloric angle, but they also try to bring in real science when possible. One thing I take away from that show is that one should research the folklore and history of a given site. I think this is a fair point to consider, rather than just having a preconceived notion that something is a ghost or alien or cryptid that you already know all about. Another thing I get from the show is that, if you are making a certain claim, pay attention to the problems with your argument, because others will certainly attack these flaws. This fact often seems to lead people in the paranormal field to seek an uncritical choir to preach to, and what does that really accomplish? Well, it sells books and lands speaking spots at the conventions, and there's nothing wrong with entertaining people and paying the mortgage. But if you really want to learn, your opponents will be far better teachers than your allies.
Then there is the other side of me that tries to deal with things in the outside objective realm. While I am fine with people saying they are approaching something from a mystical angle (as long as they don't demand that their subjective experience is objectively true for everyone), I tend to become more critical when people claim the authority of science. In the interview I listened to today, the guest pretty much stated that he considers all conspiracy theories to be true until proven false. That isn't research. That's automatically granting authority to gossip. I hear a lot of questionable statements being made about conspiracies and what-mainstream-science-doesn't-want-you-to-know, and the unifying thread seems to be that if a statement claims that big business/the government/law enforcement/the military did something bad, it is automatically true, especially if someone said the CIA is involved.
Many people also give all sources equal weight. Anything a trained and experienced scientist says can be cancelled out by the guy you work with's former neighbor who used to be married to someone who's cousin's boyfriend's sister said George Bush brainwashed her as a Project Monarch assassin. Plus, you read an internet site about it, as if more proof is needed.
But on the topic of scientists, it is often the case that a claim is seen as academically sound because a real scientist (whose career is based on lecturing and selling books on the topic) says that sasquatches are an unknown primate or that UFOs come from such and such star system. The problem is that doing science doesn't just involve collecting confirmatory evidence. It means coming up with a hypothesis and trying to disprove it. So if, for example, you find a big print in the ground that might very well come from an elk laying down, you have to accept the possibility that it comes from an elk laying down, and not try to prove that, well, if you look at it this way, it could be a sasquatch, therefore it is from a sasquatch.
Real science is a brutal field, and I'm not even talking about the paranormal stuff. If your research shows any weakness, your peers will gouge out your eye and, well, you know the rest. It is an unkind process, but it serves the function of removing the weaknesses from your argument. Granted there are many, many things worth exploring that wouldn't hold up to peer-reviewed research. And those things are still good to explore. But it is important to understand the difference between "speculative" and "this-is-provable-science."
I like to listen to the MonsterTalk podcast, except when they get too smarmy. They often approach things from a folkloric angle, but they also try to bring in real science when possible. One thing I take away from that show is that one should research the folklore and history of a given site. I think this is a fair point to consider, rather than just having a preconceived notion that something is a ghost or alien or cryptid that you already know all about. Another thing I get from the show is that, if you are making a certain claim, pay attention to the problems with your argument, because others will certainly attack these flaws. This fact often seems to lead people in the paranormal field to seek an uncritical choir to preach to, and what does that really accomplish? Well, it sells books and lands speaking spots at the conventions, and there's nothing wrong with entertaining people and paying the mortgage. But if you really want to learn, your opponents will be far better teachers than your allies.