Feedback on Recent Changes

[Giambattista]

to you, james, the sighting of an ufo, the confirmation thru various means, the innumerable official investigations, the existence of actual unexplained events by those bodies are equated with sighting terrestrial cryptids. if you are that eager and enthusistic about this field, take cryptozoology to the science forum. after all...

Do you hold a particular animosity to the subject of cryptozoology?

despite the the fact that we already have an example of a spacefaring civilization in this universe, (earthlings) speculating about the extraterrestial origins of another by way of a ufo sighting is the same as postulating it comes from realms of angels and demons. some other worldly dimension. equal credence should be given to those archaic interpretations in the 21st century. yes, that is really rational and scientific

I agree that Ufology should have its own subforum, but I don't agree that all of the hypotheses or schools of thought about the phenomenon should be discarded.
Ufology has never been a monolithic consensus. There are nuts and bolts ET theories; ultraterrestrial; and extradimensional, which I would say probably includes demonic theories (John Keel), and whatever else people have come up with. Some would reject any one of those outright, or say that aspects belong in parapsychology.

Does ufology deal exclusively with Unidentified Flying Objects? Does it exclude cases where a typical humanoid associated with ufo's (greys, for example) are sighted in the absence of any flying vehicle?
There are precedents for such things. Wasn't NICAP known for not wanting to touch any cases where occupants were sighted, for various reasons? Aerial Phenomena were the center of study.

I don't think that's specifically where you were going, and this really isn't germane to whether or not there should be a ufology subforum, but I had to say something about the definition, since you were talking about that. I'm only wondering how broad or narrow the lines of demarcation between these subjects needs to be.

I'm all for Ufology as its own subject here. Lord knows it's about time.

go look for yourself. do a comparison of topic titles containing the relevant terms and see what you come up with. in para, esp is the focus,ghosts are a footnote at best, and pseudo has perhaps less than 10 cryptid discussion. now count the ufo threads. large orders of magnitude is what you will see.

so what is your objective again? make this place even more woo woo? equal time to the sasquatch proponents?

I agree with your assessment, for what it's worth: ufology, in my experience, has probably attracted more serious scientific study, as well as cases and witnesses, than any of the other "fringe" topics. The Air Force never had a Project Bigfoot Book.
Although, you describe ghostly phenomena as a footnote, and maybe it is here, but there seems to be no shortage of ghost hunter shows on TV. I guess I couldn't speak to that.

Beyond that, and giving ghosts to the paranormal forum, where would cryptids fit in? I don't piss on that topic, and never have. There are plenty of people who are just as convinced of seeing Nessie and Sasquatch as they are convinced they've seen a flying saucer, and I see no good reason to either group them all together, nor throw any of them away.

Any suggestions where the leftovers and outcasts go? Anyone?

This is what exists at this time:

• Alternative Theories (revolutionary physics, alternative medicine, creationism/intelligent design and more)
• Parapsychology (ESP, telepathy, faith healing, precognition, dowsing, talking to dead people)
• UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters (They are amongst us...)
• Conspiracies (faked moon landings, JFK, etc.)
• Pseudoscience (If it doesn't fit in any of the other Fringe categories...)

Something should be done with some of these.

I don't even know why I'm saying anything. I'll be quiet now.

 

[Gustav]

pseudoscience naturally
awesome post, battista

and yes you are right, there is some shit i will not even touch with a goddamn barge pole
color me prejudiced but this stuff is flaky enough already

and that's why "Monsters" has to absolutely go

 

[Captain Kremmen]

The term "Monsters" could be dropped with little loss.
Or do you mean the whole section?

 

[Tiassa]

Proposal: OtF —> Potsherds

Proposal:

James, would you consider simply renaming "On the Fringe"? I would propose it should be called "Potsherds".

 

[nietzschefan]

Bah... why did you guys even fuckin bother?...just dump the new topics.

 

[Gustav]

and here is tiassa creating some "facts on the ground" in order to maintain his aesthetics. kinda like those illegal settlements you find in palestine.

/snicker

in UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters we have Yeti: Siberian Regional Administration Claims Confirmation of Legendary Snow Man

Agence France-Presse reported yesterday that the local administration of Kemerovo, a region of southern Siberia, has confirmed the existence of the legendary Yeti:

"During the expedition to the Azasskaya cave, conference participants gathered indisputable proof that the Shoria mountains are inhabited by the 'Snow Man'," the Kemerovo region administration said in a press-release.

The expedition was organised after Kemerovo's governor invited researchers from the United States, Canada, and several other countries to share their research and stories of encounters with the creature at a conference.

"They found his footprints, his supposed bed, and various markers with which the yeti marks his territory," the statement said. The collected "artifacts" will be analysed in a special laboratory, it said.

Yetis, or Abominable Snowmen, are hairy ape-like creatures of popular myth, that are generally held to inhabit the Himalayas.

But some believe Russia also holds a population of yetis, which it calls Snow Men, in remote areas of Siberia.​

To the other, though, Kemerovo is the administrative seat of the Kuznetsk coal basin, and has in recent years attempted to transform its economy into a tourist market.

Indeed, the regional administration is considering the possible construction of a Yeti research center cataloguing the "science of the yeti".
____________________

Notes:

Agence France-Presse. "Siberian region 'confirms Yeti exists'". Hürriyet Daily News. October 10, 2011. HurriyetDailyNews.com. October 11, 2011. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=siberian-region-confirms-yeti-exists-2011-10-10

an utterly transparent pre-emptive strike

/woot

now lets see why here....

is a yeti a ufo? no!
is a yeti a ghost? no!
is a yeti a monster? apparently so!

/rotfl

this is how these things have to prostitute themselves in order to maintain their bogus proposition.

yetis are monsters!​

 

[Gustav]

woooooooo
wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo woooooooooo

Monsters!
They are amongst us!


woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wooooooooooooo
woooooooooooooooooooooooooo

eeeeek
eeeeeeeeeeeeeek
eek
eek
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek

A monster is any fictional creature, usually found in legends or horror fiction, that is somewhat hideous and may produce physical harm or mental fear by either its appearance or its actions. The word "monster" derives from Latin monstrum, an aberrant occurrence, usually biological, that was taken as a sign that something was wrong within the natural order.

The word connotes something wrong or evil; a monster is generally morally objectionable, physically or psychologically hideous, and/or a freak of nature. It can also be applied figuratively to a person with similar characteristics like a greedy person or a person who does horrible things.​

woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wooooooooooooo
woooooooooooooooooooooooooo​

 

[Gustav]

please move the aforementioned thread to pseudo
thanks

if you object, make the case that the yeti/cryptids satisfies at least some of the attributes commonly ascribed to either monsters, ghosts or ufos.

furthermore, Dartmoor Beast Identified As New Species Of European Giant Hyrax? was locked on 08-23-11 in pseudo. despite that it was moved to UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters

what would be the purpose of seeding a new forum with dead threads? what could possibly have been the intent of the mod who moved it there?

seed the new forums with a few pertinent and active threads. perhaps two pages of ufo crap in pseudo moved to ufology?

yeah... do exactly the opposite. thrash the new forum with as many dead cryptid shit as possible.

/snicker

 

[Gustav]

what would be the purpose of seeding a new forum with dead threads? what could possibly have been the intent of the mod who moved it there?

it was a sequential and categorized move from pseudo, dumbass
apologize to tiassa

 

[Gustav]

apologies, tiassa

 

[Gustav]

We are going to regret making these new subforums.

quite possible
provocative terms such as fringe/ghosts/monsters/conspiracies in forum titles will probably be a magnet for kooks and trolls

i feel the need to absolve myself here. this was the extent of my desires

pseudo used to mostly consist of ufology stuff. threads were actually created there. now it serves as a dumping ground for crap from other forums.

this is its storied history

i want it back

subcultures can be endlessly expanded. lets start with Ufology and since this forum is supposedly overrun with children....Youth.

lots of potential for additional traffic so implement

ufology will not be out of place in that hierarchy
nor will youth
how about some local regions? england? australia? india?

get some goddamn readership in here
we seem to average a miserable 20 odd members online and the only thing you tards ever seem enthusiastic about is showing us the goddamn door

as far as the officious sounding "ufology" goes, it is not so much to give credence to the woo woo's blurry specks in the sky but to encourage some rigor and rationality in the lines of argument presented

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

woooooooo
wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo woooooooooo

Monsters!
They are amongst us!


woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wooooooooooooo
woooooooooooooooooooooooooo

eeeeek
eeeeeeeeeeeeeek
eek
eek
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek

A monster is any fictional creature, usually found in legends or horror fiction, that is somewhat hideous and may produce physical harm or mental fear by either its appearance or its actions. The word "monster" derives from Latin monstrum, an aberrant occurrence, usually biological, that was taken as a sign that something was wrong within the natural order.

The word connotes something wrong or evil; a monster is generally morally objectionable, physically or psychologically hideous, and/or a freak of nature. It can also be applied figuratively to a person with similar characteristics like a greedy person or a person who does horrible things.​

woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wooooooooooooo
woooooooooooooooooooooooooo​

I'm Alive !!! I am called the Beast . Not really a monster as you would normally think . Though I would crush the current system of economic structure with a word and blow off the displaced with a gust of wind from my mouth and not give it another thought . Monster enough for you . I live ! I am a Monster . The Snow Man is real . Brain Freeze! So is Satan Claws . A fat Cat with red sweat pants that likes to play guitar while belly dancers dance in provocative ways . Fat cat Satan Claws the Monster in red sweat pants . With a hammer . E i E i Oh

 

[chimpkin]

lets split the cesspool forum in two
Cess and Pool

The Cess could be for the truly stupid ones, the Pool for the stupid yet sexually titillating ones...

What a great, idea, Gustav!:bravo::xctd:

My wife suggested we treat the new fora as shooting-galleries for debunking nonsense...

Giambattista:I'm all for Ufology as its own subject here. Lord knows it's about time.

I'd like to study it as a sociological phenomenon.
Along with the people who have paranoid delusions about the government beaming thoughts into their heads...coming together online and forming support and activist groups to stop the government beaming thoughts into their heads...

 

[wynn]

as far as the officious sounding "ufology" goes, it is not so much to give credence to the woo woo's blurry specks in the sky but to encourage some rigor and rationality in the lines of argument presented

Exactly.

 

[Gustav]

so ahh, james?

 

[Tiassa]

Don't look at me; I'm just confused

Note to Gustav

Don't worry 'bout it. I took my swing and whiffed horrendously, so I'm just staying the hell out of this one, lest I screw it up even worse.

 

[Gustav]

Occupy SciForums: Day 1

*Rename UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters to Ufology
​

 

[chimpkin]

That's a good windproof tent you have there, Gustav...good job that, with all the hot air and windbags around here...

 

[Yazata]

I kind of like the new subforums.

Unfortunately, I still see a real problem. And no, it isn't the names of the new subforums. Nobody is going to be posting with conceptual precision in any of these places so it doesn't much matter what they're called.

The problem is that the conventional science fora up on top continue to be crank-science fora. All that the new fora have accomplished is increasing the percentage of Sciforums that's devoted to crank-science. That's not really a good thing.

For example, if anyone with real scientific interests logs on to Sciforums for the first time, they are greeted by a 600 post wonder promoting what appears to be a cold-fusion scam, front and center on the first forum. (Link here) If Sciforums' management has any hopes that the recent changes will improve Sciforums, that thread and others like it really need to be moved down to the alternative theories section. (Not banned, not silenced, just moved.)

Max Dessoir may have considered ghosts and monsters to be psychological phenomena. Maybe he would also have put alien spaceships in the same category. However, I think the definition of "parapsychology" may have moved a bit since the 1930s.

The topic of discussion isn't the fundamental problem. The problem is the manner in which that topic is being treated and the nature of the conclusions that the discussion is promoting.

It's entirely possible to conduct a scientific discussion of religious prayer and/or meditation for example. A scientific treatment might discuss psychological research findings concerning these practices, as an example.

If discussion turns to careful description of the practices, to how those who pray and meditate conceive of the religious purposes and significance of what they are doing, towards the long and complicated histories of these practices, or towards comparing them with seemingly similar practices cross-culturally, then the thread might still be eminently scholarly. It might even be a necessary adjunct to the science, since ostensibly scientific discussions of these things are often marred by appalling ignorance about what's supposedly being studied. But that kind of discussion would probably be drifting slowly away from science towards the humanities.

And if the discussion simply devolves (as is almost inevitable) into iteration number 593442 of atheists vs theists, then it might still fit, however uncomfortably. in 'philosophy', but it isn't 'science' any more.

It makes sense to me that UFOs, ghosts and cryptozoology should share a section. All of them involve people seeing things that some other people either doubt the existence of or doubt the proferred explanations of.

I think that there's real value (to say nothing of fun) in discussing that kind of stuff. But I think that both of us will agree that if what people believe exists is too... let's say 'controversial'... compared to the the present scientific view of the universe, then threads tirelessly promoting fringe-science and crank-theories probably belong in an 'alternative' or 'speculation' space.

(If the crank-threads are going to remain up in the conventional science fora, then the 'alternative' fora probably need to be deleted. They'd just be redundant.)

It's not redundant. "On the Fringe" is a category heading that demarcates certain subforums into a category separate from the Science forums. The Science forums are for discussion of established science, peer-reviewed scientific research - basically science that is supported by some kind of good evidence and/or argument. The standards of evidence and argument that are/will be applied to the "On the Fringe" subforums are/will be somewhat less strict than for the Science forums.

I like that approach and agree with it whole-heartedly.

It just needs to be put into actual practice.

 

[Gustav]

Occupy SciForums: Day 71

*Rename UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters to Ufology
​