2nd February 2012, 04:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 2nd February 2012, 05:19 PM by moreno.)
Why not view "cranks, crackpots and outlandish" viewpoints with a critical eye? There is something to be said about the anomalous way some people of professed genius view science. Perhaps the way these views (alternative science, cryptozoology etc.) that are promoted by amateurs are founded in conflicted relationships with mainstream science. Perhaps it is resentment rather than reason which motivates the pseudoscientific theorist.
Perhaps it is the aggrieved personality towards mainstream roots of learning? Or the lack of respect and status attained by one’s peers? Pursuing pseudo-scientific explanations IS out of step with the academic mainstream. Surely where these two differing rationalities meet is where the conflict begins? From my POV there is a clear issue with accepting pseudo-scientific explanations that impinge on anthropological archaeology. It seems to me that the lack of the willingness and the ability to write a standard acceptable academic paper to present to peers is suspect. Why do pseudo-scientific theorists argue from personal conviction rather than from agreed, referenced evidence, and then have the audacity to call themselves free thinkers, when it is clearly evident that such individuals have failed to keep up with current research?
Please spare the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. This isn’t some new radical manner of thinking; it is nothing more than the cherry picking of incomplete evidence. The suppositions drawn are by nature flawed. Picking evidence to support such conclusions is nothing more than selective attention to draw upon data that suits or confirms a particular position, nothing more. Where is the weighing of evidence to support the hypothesis? Conformation bias perhaps, but not a well constructed theory and more like over the top populist exploitation. Tortured genius syndrome me thinks.
Perhaps it is the aggrieved personality towards mainstream roots of learning? Or the lack of respect and status attained by one’s peers? Pursuing pseudo-scientific explanations IS out of step with the academic mainstream. Surely where these two differing rationalities meet is where the conflict begins? From my POV there is a clear issue with accepting pseudo-scientific explanations that impinge on anthropological archaeology. It seems to me that the lack of the willingness and the ability to write a standard acceptable academic paper to present to peers is suspect. Why do pseudo-scientific theorists argue from personal conviction rather than from agreed, referenced evidence, and then have the audacity to call themselves free thinkers, when it is clearly evident that such individuals have failed to keep up with current research?
Please spare the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. This isn’t some new radical manner of thinking; it is nothing more than the cherry picking of incomplete evidence. The suppositions drawn are by nature flawed. Picking evidence to support such conclusions is nothing more than selective attention to draw upon data that suits or confirms a particular position, nothing more. Where is the weighing of evidence to support the hypothesis? Conformation bias perhaps, but not a well constructed theory and more like over the top populist exploitation. Tortured genius syndrome me thinks.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.