 |
| Ghosts n' stuff. |
From
Creationists attempting to re-brand themselves as ‘Intelligent Design Advocates’
to Cryptozoologists (the folks who go traipsing off attempting to find Bigfoot
or the Loch Ness Monster), there has undoubtedly been a shift in which those
who advocate theories outside of the norm attempt to describe or put forward
their views in a way they feel to be scientific. Really, this is the essential
tenets of pseudoscience; arbitrarily attempting to make something sound and
look more feasible by jury-rigging scientific-sounding jargon to them.
Sharon
Hill over at Doubtful has another way of describing the process of attempting
to sound scientific and failing to do so; she calls it ‘scientifical’.[1]
She’s also very kindly just released her entire thesis for free via the
internet for all to look at and read. I found it via a link shared on /r/skeptic,
and I thought it would be worth spreading the word about (though I will confess
now that I’ve not yet had the opportunity to read through the thesis in its entirety;
I am not that fast a reader).
Rather
than attempting to describe it to you when I’ve not fully read the thesis
myself, I’ll instead quote the Abstract and then give you a link; take it away Sharon:
“21st century
television and the Internet are awash in content regarding amateur paranormal
investigators and research groups. These groups proliferated after reality
investigation programs appeared on television. Exactly how many groups are
active in the U.S. at any time is not known. The Internet provides an ideal means for
people with niche interests to find each other and organize activities. This
study collected information from 1000 websites of amateur research and
investigation groups (ARIGs) to determine their location, area of inquiry,
methodology and, particularly, to determine if they state that they use science
as part of their mission, methods or goals. 57.3% of the ARIGs examined
specifically noted or suggested use of science as part of the groups’ approach
to investigation and research.
Even when not
explicit, ARIGs often used science-like language, symbols and methods to
describe their groups’ views or activities. Yet, non-scientific and subjective
methods were described as employed in conjunction with objective methods.
Furthermore, what were considered scientific processes by ARIGs did not match
with established methods and the ethos of the scientific research community or
scientific processes of investigation. ARIGs failed to display fundamental
understanding regarding objectivity, methodological naturalism, peer review,
critical thought and theoretical plausibility. The processes of science appear
to be mimicked to present a serious and credible reputation to the
non-scientific public. These processes are also actively promoted in the media
and directly to the local public as “scientific”.
These results
highlight the gap between the scientific community and the lay public regarding
the understanding of what it means to do science and what criteria are
necessary to establish reliable knowledge about the world.”
And
there you have it. You can find the thesis here, and I strongly recommend you
check it out. These studies are extremely useful when discussing the paranormal
and those who would seek to investigate it.
No comments:
Post a Comment