The Path Ahead: Opportunities, Challenges, and an Expanded View

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Path Ahead: Opportunities, Challenges, and an Expanded View The Path Ahead: Opportunities, Challenges, and an Expanded View ITH THIS ISSUE we begin our second decade. We are proud to note this milestone. Still, we consider the WSKEPTICAL INQUIRER a youthful publication, its potential not fully tapped, challenges and opportunities ahead. We have grown with each issue, but we are still a small publication by mass-media standards. This is as much an advantage as a handicap. Our special (that is, evaluative) approach to a fairly specific set of subjects—pseudoscience, fringe science, and the allegedly paranormal, plus the social, educational, and scientific issues surrounding these public fascinations—gives us a unique niche in periodical publishing. You, our readers, are our first and primary audience. Through you our reach broadens and multiplies. Teachers and scholars use the arti- cles in classrooms and research. News media report the investigations and convey the scientific viewpoint. The many new local and inter- national groups—some of them amazingly active and effective—draw upon studies we publish and do their own investigations. Many of you share articles with friends and acquaintances. So, despite our still rela- tively small size, we have become fairly well known. We have made an impact. Yet there is so much more to do. ***** We have written before in these occasional columns of the need to chart trends in the paranormal and fringe sciences. Steven Dutch's article "Four Decades of Fringe Literature" in our Summer issue illuminated this well. The number of books published on the occult, astrology, UFOs, psychics, and other fringe topics rose from the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. Since 1981 there has been a sharp plunge. From this dramatic decline one might wrongly think fringe science has virtually gone away. We certainly no longer see the international best-selling books of fringe science, such as Velikovsky's historic-era worlds-in- collision, von Daniken's ancient-astronaut scenarios, and the Bermuda Triangle books of the mid-1970s. There has been a dropoff in interest in some of these subjects. But other fringe topics have taken their places, and they don't depend on books. Look what we have now. "Psychics" and their claims are at least as visible, popular, and 2 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 11 accepted, even by the educated public, as ever. Psychics have little need for books. They promulgate their wares through word of mouth, local radio talk-shows, the now-ubiquitous "psychic fairs," and the often fawning attention of newspaper and magazine feature writers. Astrology has similar leverage. Astrologers need not rely on books when their columns appear in nearly every daily newspaper in America. A variety of newer topics and influences have emerged, only a few through books. Creationists operate effectively through fundamentalist organizations; TV evangelism; mass mailings of literature, booklets, and brochures; letter-writing campaigns; and highly organized political pressure on school boards, textbook-selection committees, and state legislatures. If global geophysical scenarios are no longer of much interest to the fringe, all matters of the self are. Health care, medicine, and the "self- realization" movements have been invaded by the fringe. Usually this is with the willing complicity of the consumer/ patient, who naturally seeks help from wherever offered. The stronger the claims of therapeutic value, the more attractive the appeal. Psychic healing, chiropractic, iridology, homeopathy, acupuncture, human auras, hair analysis, diet cure-alls, arthritis cures, nutrition fads, orgone energy (again!), visual therapies for cancer, dream interpretation, reflexology, crystal therapy, graphology, subliminal self-help tapes, applied kinesiology, polarity therapy, naturopathy, past-lives regressions—all these popular enthusi- Fall 1986 3 asms cry out for calm, careful, and, yes, skeptical analysis. ***** The SKEPTICAL INQUIRER intends to move more aggressively into these areas. For example, we will try to present balanced appraisals of some of the fringe therapies that capture the public's interest. In doing so we will try to recognize what may be commendable about any one of them in addition to what aspects have little if any scientific support. This will involve getting into some gray areas and subtle issues of mind and health. Among these complications are (1) the role our attitudes may play in recovering from ailments, and the limits of that role; (2) the need to recognize and understand the placebo effect; (3) the undisputed fact that the body's defense mechanisms cure most ailments on their own; and (4) the human tendency to impute cause and effect when re- covery follows a fringe treatment. Karl Sabbagh's article "The Psycho- pathology of Fringe Medicine" last Winter helped outline this approach. In this issue, Frank Reuter's article on folk remedies and human belief- systems continues this discussion, while John Dodes's article on dentis- try and pseudoscience reports on the surprising spread of fringe thera- pies into what had seemed a conventional area of medicine. ***** And this brings us to another aspect of our expanding interests. We hope to devote more effort to understanding and explaining how and why fringe claims of every sort have so much appeal. It is not enough to show, even carefully and persuasively, that a particular fringe idea is factually invalid (if it is). What is even more interesting is why such fads are believed so strongly despite that. This requires a willingness to see things from the point of view of those who hold the beliefs. Their appeal goes to the very heart of the human condition—our hopes and aspirations, our deepest fears and uncertainties. Several of our Tenth Anniversary Essays and some recent articles have explored these matters with considerable insight, and we will continue that exploration in the future. ***** We will also occasionally delve into nonparanormal claims along both sides of the fuzzy boundaries between science and nonscience. The hope is that light cast on one may better illuminate the other, highlighting the 4 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 11 contrasts. Martin Gardner's column in this issue, on Tommy Gold, explores some of that territory. So did his column on science, mysteries, and the quest for evidence in the Summer issue. David Jolly's article on claims of ancient mapping of Antarctica in this issue reports on a topic of interest both within earth science and geography and, across the border, to the fringe. ***** One of the most gratifying pleasures of editing a publication is the mail from readers. Whether informal notes or letters to the editor, they are symbols of an involved readership. I've always thought it would be fun—maybe even enlightening—to put out a publication consisting of nothing but letters, populism at its best. But we can't. We get lots of mail, and all of it is read with interest. Unfortunately, not all the letters can be given personal replies, but please know that your suggestions and comments are important in shaping the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. The volume of letters submitted for publication exceeds by several times the space we can devote to them (despite our generous allotment compared with many publications). So we urge those who wish to have letters published to keep them brief and well focused. ***** Speaking of readers, many of you are new to the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. We welcome you and hope you will find this a rewarding association. You have joined longtime SI readers who tend to be strong supporters of our efforts. New readers may enthusiastically welcome our evaluative approach. (In fact, many of you send for all of the back issues as soon as you get your first.) Others find that a questioning approach to perhaps previously unquestioned assumptions is disturbing and even unwelcome, or feel that we fall short of our goals. We have no illusions that in an emotion-laden area like this we can be all things to all people. But we hope all new readers will appreciate that the effort to conduct careful appraisals and foster critical thinking and a scientific attitude is a worthy goal. We welcome your suggestions and comments. ***** In addition to the expanded interests mentioned earlier, we also wish to find more ways to bring a positive approach to our inquiries. Through our investigations we seek to understand human behavior, to see how Fall 1986 5 our minds work. We want to find ways to show that science is not some narrow, cold, inaccessible, mechanical approach reserved only for specialists (as too much of the public mistakenly assumes) but a human adventure. The quest to discover the nature of nature is both a high intellectual calling and a very human activity. It deals with awesome mysteries and mundane (but essential) methodologies. The quest draws upon the creativity, insight, determination, and sometimes downright good luck of talented investigators. The day-to-day progress is slow and typified by wrong turns and dead ends. Controversies and disputes abound, yet it is a cooperative activity that depends on the contributions of colleagues (and competitors) all over the world. The special language of every field may seem frustratingly opaque, yet the broad ideas, con- cepts, and discoveries of science are accessible to anyone—and they are anything but dull. They are endlessly challenging, exciting, and mind- expanding. False mysteries pale in comparison to the real ones nature, holds in store, but sometimes the differences can be distinguished only after the fact—after a lot of difficult research has been done. We hope to convey some of that sense of excitement and challenge about science and the ultimate mysteries of nature. These are the real frontiers. —Kendrick Frazier, Editor Explaining Rather Than Debunking Too many skeptics view their mission as one of "debunking" nonsense and supersti- tion, rather than explaining the phenomenon.
Recommended publications
  • ANG 5012, Section 6423 Spring 2017 FANTASTIC ANTHROPOLOGY and FRINGE SCIENCE
    ANG 5012, section 6423 Spring 2017 FANTASTIC ANTHROPOLOGY AND FRINGE SCIENCE Time: Mondays, periods 7-9 (1:55 – 4:55) Place: TUR 2303 Instructor: David Daegling, Turlington B376 352-294-7603 [email protected] Office Hours: M 10:30 – 11:30 AM; W 1:00 – 3:00 PM. COURSE OBJECTIVES: This course examines the articulation and perpetuation of so-called paranormal and fringe scientific theories concerning the human condition. We will examine these unconventional claims with respect to 1) underlying belief systems, 2) empirical and logical foundations, 3) persistence in the face of refutation, 4) popular treatment by mass media and 5) institutional reaction. The course is divided into five parts. Part I explores forms of inquiry and considers the demarcation of science from pseudoscience. Part II concerns unconventional theories of human evolution. Part III investigates unorthodox ideas of human biology. Part IV examines claims of extraterrestrial and supernatural contact in the world today. Part V further scrutinizes institutional reaction to fringe science, popular coverage of science, and the culture of science in the contemporary United States. COURSE REQUIREMENTS: Attendance is mandatory. Unexcused absences (i.e., other than medical or family emergency) result in a half grade reduction of your final grade. Participation in group and class discussions is required (50% of your final grade). In addition, written work is required for each of the five parts of the course (50% of your grade). These will take the form of essays and short papers to be completed concurrently with our discussions of these topics. Late papers are subject to a full letter grade reduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence-Based Alternative Medicine?
    (YLGHQFH%DVHG$OWHUQDWLYH0HGLFLQH" .LUVWLQ%RUJHUVRQ 3HUVSHFWLYHVLQ%LRORJ\DQG0HGLFLQH9ROXPH1XPEHU$XWXPQ SS $UWLFOH 3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV '2,SEP )RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH Access provided by Dalhousie University (13 Jul 2016 15:54 GMT) 05/Borgerson/Final/502–15 9/6/05 6:55 PM Page 502 Evidence-Based Alternative Medicine? Kirstin Borgerson ABSTRACT The validity of evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the subject of on- going controversy.The EBM movement has proposed a “hierarchy of evidence,” ac- cording to which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs provide the most reliable evidence concerning the efficacy of medical interventions. The evaluation of alternative medicine therapies highlights problems with the EBM hierarchy. Alternative medical researchers—like those in mainstream medicine—wish to evaluate their therapies using methods that are rigorous and that are consistent with their philosophies of medicine and healing.These investigators have three ways to relate their work to EBM.They can accept the EBM hierarchy and carry out RCTs when possible; they can accept the EBM standards but argue that the special characteristics of alternative medicine warrant the acceptance of “lower” forms of evidence; or they can challenge the EBM approach and work to develop new research designs and new stan- dards of evidence that reflect their approach to medical care. For several reasons, this last option is preferable. First, it will best meet the needs of alternative medicine prac- titioners. Moreover, because similar problems beset the evaluation of mainstream med- ical therapies, reevaluation of standards of evidence will benefit everyone in the med- ical community—including, most importantly, patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloading Physics Preprints from Arxiv Would Be Quite Unaware That a Paper in General Physics Has to Be Treated Differently to Papers in Other Categories
    1 The Ecology of Fringe Science and its Bearing on Policy Harry Collins, Andrew Bartlett and Luis Reyes-Galindo School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University1 emails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Introduction Fringe science has been an important topic since the start of the revolution in the social studies of science that occurred in the early 1970s.2 As a softer-edged model of the sciences developed, fringe science was a ‘hard case’ on which to hammer out the idea that scientific truth was whatever came to count as scientific truth: scientific truth emerged from social closure. The job of those studying fringe science was to recapture the rationality of its proponents, showing how, in terms of the procedures of science, they could be right and the mainstream could be wrong and therefore the consensus position is formed by social agreement. One outcome of this way of thinking is that sociologists of science informed by the perspective outlined above find themselves short of argumentative resources for demarcating science from non-science. The distinction with traditional philosophy of science, which readily demarcates fringe subjects such as parapsychology by referring to their ‘irrationality’ or some such, is marked.3 For the sociologist of scientific knowledge, that kind of demarcation comprises 1 This paper is joint work by researchers supported by two grants: ESRC to Harry Collins, (RES/K006401/1) £277,184, What is scientific consensus for policy? Heartlands and hinterlands of physics (2014-2016); British Academy Post-Doctoral Fellowship to Luis Reyes-Galindo, (PF130024) £223,732, The social boundaries of scientific knowledge: a case study of 'green' Open Access (2013-2016).
    [Show full text]
  • ANG 5012, Section 6423 Fall 2011 FANTASTIC ANTHROPOLOGY
    ANG 5012, section 6423 Fall 2011 FANTASTIC ANTHROPOLOGY AND FRINGE SCIENCE Time: Mondays, periods 8-10 (3:00 – 6:00) Place: TUR B304 Instructor: David Daegling, Turlington B376 392-2253 x245 [email protected] Office Hours: MW 10:00 – 11:00 AM; W 2:00 – 3:00 PM. COURSE OBJECTIVES: This course examines the articulation and perpetuation of so- called paranormal and fringe scientific theories concerning the human condition. We will examine these unconventional claims with respect to 1) underlying belief systems, 2) empirical and logical foundations, 3) persistence in the face of refutation, 4) popular treatment by mass media and 5) institutional reaction. The course is divided into five parts, corresponding to major assignments (see below). Part I explores forms of inquiry and considers the demarcation of science from pseudoscience. Part II concerns “crank” theories of human evolution. Part III investigates unorthodox ideas of human biology. Part IV examines claims of extraterrestrial and supernatural contact in the world today. Part V further scrutinizes institutional reaction to fringe science, popular coverage of science, and the culture of science in the contemporary United States. COURSE REQUIREMENTS: Attendance is mandatory. Unexcused absences (i.e., other than medical or family emergency) result in a half grade reduction of your final grade. Participation in class discussions is required (25% of your final grade). In addition, written work is required for each of the five parts of the course (75% of your grade). These will take the form of essays and short papers to be completed concurrently with our discussions of these topics. Late papers are subject to a full letter grade reduction.
    [Show full text]
  • How Scientific Is Chemistry?
    How Scientific is Chemistry? Sebastian Kozuch Department of Chemistry, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 841051, Israel. [email protected] To my father, who loves philosophy and science, but is not really engaged into philosophy of science. Abstract ϕ for philosophy, χ for chemistry. Is there a connection? Is there any interaction? Do chemists have something useful to learn from philosophers? Do philosophers from chemists? How can we define if chemistry is a science, or at least trustworthy? Which disciplines, styles and personalities are progressive in chemistry? Which ones are truth-seekers, progress-seekers or profit-seekers? Is there a point in asking these questions? Is there even an answer to them? Introduction composing it in a light tone, with more interest in presenting an overall idea and having an amusing reading than in seeking for Yes, of course chemistry is a science. That is beyond the point. accuracy or completeness (this is for you, reviewer two! 1). In The question is not if it is a science, but how good a science is it. doing so, and slightly in the style of some renaissance discussion Or, as we can put it, what is the scientificity level of chemistry, a books, I will introduce two characters that will aid in the depiction term defined as the degree or quality of the discipline or project of concepts and viewpoints: Tris the Chemist, and her workmate, (compare to “viscosity”, “luminosity” or “exergonicity”). To be clear, Kris the Chemist. Tris and Kris will act as different persons on in some sense chemistry might even be considered the top each section, always contradicting the other, always showing a science: It does not confront the complete unknown solely with different style of chemists, always believing their way is the best statistical analysis, such as in many areas of life sciences, and it way (any similarity to actual persons is purely coincidental; or does not participate in purely esoterical mathematics, such as in maybe not).
    [Show full text]
  • Issue-03-14.Pdf
    SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Vol. 17. No. 3 Spring 1993/$6.25 FACILITATED COMMUNICATION ? Miracle or Mirage? Al Gore: Education tor Science Richard Dawkins: The 'Awe' Factor Evry Schatzman: A Threat to Science Martin Gardner: E Prime and Isness Donald Tarter: Sale Science with SETI CSICOP Dallas Conference Published by the Committee for the Scientific investigation of Claims of the Paranormal THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER is the official journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, an international organization. Editor Kendrick Frazier. Editorial Board James E. Alcock, Barry Beyerstein, Susan J. Blackmore, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Philip J. Klass, Paul Kurtz, Joe Nickell, Lee Nisbet. Consulting Editors Robert A. Baker, William Sims Bainbridge, John R. Cole, Kenneth L. Feder, C. E. M. Hansel, E. C. Krupp, David F. Marks, Andrew Neher, James E. Oberg, Robert Sheaffer, Steven N. Shore. Managing Editor Doris Hawley Doyle. Contributing Editor Lys Ann Shore. Business Manager Mary Rose Hays. Assistant Business Manager Sandra Lesniak. Chief Data Officer Richard Seymour. Computer Assistant Michael Cione. Production Paul E. Loynes. Art Linda Hays. Audio Technician Vance Vigrass. Librarian Jonathan Jiras. Staff Elizabeth Begley, Ron Nicholson, Alfreda Pidgeon, Ranjit Sandhu, Sharon Sikora, Glen Winford. Cartoonist Rob Pudim. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Paul Kurtz, Chairman; professor emeritus of philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo. Barry Karr, Executive Director and Public Relations Director. Lee Nisbet, Special Projects Director. Fellows of the Committee James E. Alcock,* psychologist, York Univ., Toronto; Robert A. Baker, psychologist, Univ. of Kentucky; Stephen Barrett, M.D., psychiatrist, author, consumer advocate, Allentown, Pa.
    [Show full text]
  • The Science of Software Engineering the Science of Software Engineering
    The Science of Software Engineering Marvin Zelkowitz Department of Computer Science University of Maryland College Park, Maryland [email protected] ESEM - 2009 1 ESEM – October 2009 A Need for a The Science of Software Engineering Marvin Zelkowitz Department of Computer Science University of Maryland College Park, Maryland [email protected] ESEM - 2009 2 ESEM – October 2009 1 Organization of talk Some personal comments on how I arrived at the theme of this talk What are the issues in developing a science of software engineering? What’s next? ESEM – October 2009 3 So what have I been doing for the past 40 years? Most of my professional life has been at the University of Maryland, teaching and doing research in the general area of software engineering. But those who know me, know that I have three other areas of great interest. ESEM – October 2009 4 2 One is attending science fiction conventions ESEM – October 2009 5 A second is my interest in model railroading Layout obviously unfinished. ESEM – October 2009 6 3 A third is that I consider myself a professional skeptic ESEM – October 2009 7 A third is that I consider myself a professional skeptic I belong to an organization of skeptics. Ha! Ha! ESEM – October 2009 8 4 A third is that I consider myself a professional skeptic That’s No! not true! You can’t do that! It’s all bogus! ESEM – October 2009 9 A third is that I consider myself a professional skeptic What does this really mean? And how does this relate to software engineering? This is the general theme of the rest of this talk.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Judge Jones' Opinion In
    December 12, 2006 A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” By John G. West and David K. DeWolf* © 2006 by Discovery Institute. All rights reserved. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December of 2005, critics of the theory of intelligent design (ID) hailed federal judge John E. Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement about intelligent design in public school science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania. Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a “masterful decision” based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys. In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design. *John G. West, Ph.D. (Government), Claremont Graduate University, is Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute; David K.
    [Show full text]
  • Creationist Pseudoscience Scientific Creationism Is a Classical Pseudoscience in Every Way
    Creationist Pseudoscience Scientific creationism is a classical pseudoscience in every way. Robert Schadewald The instructed Christian knows that the evidences for full divine inspiration of Scripture are far weightier than the evidences for any fact of science. John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris1 Scientific creationists consider the first chapters of Genesis the ultimate science textbook. They believe that the entire universe was created six to ten thousand years ago in six solar days. All earthly forms of life were specially created, and most of them perished in a global Deluge a few thousand years ago. The Deluge also laid down essentially all of the sedimentary rock on earth. Many fundamentalists insist that these doctrines should be part of the public school science curriculum. In 1981, Arkansas creationists smuggled a bill through the legislature that would have forced public schools that teach evolutionary theory to give equal time to creationism, but it was thrown out by a federal court on January 5, 1982, after a challenge by the ACLU. The ACLU successfully challenged a similar law in Louisiana. Pseudoscience Scientific creationism is a classical pseudoscience, and it therefore differs from science in several fundamental ways. Essentially, science is an open system based on skeptical inquiry, and its ultimate appeal is to evidence. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate general laws from specific observations. A pseudoscience is a closed system based on belief, and its ultimate appeal is to doctrine. Pseudoscientists base their systems on Robert J. Schadewald is a writer with special interests in certain fringe-science movements. He wrote on scientific creationism, geocentricity, and the flat earth in our Winter 1981-82 issue.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paranormal Conceptualizations in Previous Research
    The paranormal Conceptualizations in previous research https://doi.org/10.30674/scripta.84823 CRISTOFFER TIDELIUS n this article, I explore previous conceptualizations of ‘the paranormal’ within religious studies and Ithe social sciences. Introducing some statistics on paranormal variables in Western populations, I argue that the empirical data make a strong case for future studies of paranormal variables, as well as warranting conceptual clarification. Sketching an outline of previous conceptualizations of ‘the paranormal’, I conclude that definitions tend to stress that purportedly paranormal phenom- ena transgress the boundaries of scientific explanation, as well as demonstrate a degree of tension towards both mainstream or institutionalized science and religion. Lastly, I present the main contri- bution of the article: an attempt at a new working definition of the term ‘the paranormal’ based on the conceptualizations reviewed, encompassing substantial and discursive components and, pos- sibly, functional ones. Studies suggesting that paranormal beliefs are on the rise are several, and there are signs of longitudinal growth (Bader et al. 2011: 189–201; Sjödin 1995 and 2001; Partridge 2004: 58–9). Paranormal, esoteric and occult ideas are further increasingly being disseminated in popular culture, resulting in what the media scholar Annette Hill (2011) has described as a ‘paranormal turn’ in culture, or what the religious studies scholar Christopher Partridge has called ‘occulture’: that is, a pool of elements through which esoteric, occult and paranormal ideas, motifs and practices are formulated and refor- mulated. According to Hill (p. 170), the growth of paranormal media, such as ghost hunting shows or paranormal romantic fiction, reflects a transfer of paranormal motifs ‘from the margins to mainstream’, which is reflected in a rise in belief in paranormal phenomena: ‘polls around the world indicate 50 per cent of the global population believe in at least one paranormal phe- nomenon such as extrasensory experiences, hauntings, or witchcraft’.
    [Show full text]
  • Isaac Hughes Thesis
    Repertoires of Resistance: A Discourse Analysis of the Rhetoric of Parapsychologists Isaac John Hughes PhD University of York Sociology November 2016 ABSTRACT This thesis analyses the discourse of researchers associated with the field of parapsychology - a field of contested knowledge and controversial academic standing. The thesis is posiJoned as an update and extension of the discourse analysis methodology and analyJcal framework implemented by Gilbert and Mulkay (1984). Ties to the Sociology of ScienJfic Knowledge are also delineated within the literature background. Core aims of the thesis include; analysing the discourse of researchers connected to a field of controversial posiJoning and revealing the social acJon(s) behind this discourse as points of construcJon. Uncovering interpretaJve repertoires was the primary focus of analysis. The thesis also expands upon previous discourse studies by acJvely exploring the connecJons between the potenJal repertoires - presenJng an overarching theoreJcal binding that is noJceably absent from prior analysis within the literature. Researchers with current or previous career Jes to parapsychology and UK academic insJtuJons were interviewed in semi-structured phone interviews - discussing their careers, connecJons, and perspecJves of parapsychology. From this interview data, three interpretaJve repertoires were idenJfied. The ‘categorisaJon and stake’ repertoire revealed how the researchers managed presentaJons of idenJty and stake towards category construcJons. The ‘outsider repertoire’ demonstrated how the researchers’ discourse constructs idenJty borders that differenJate between concepts of ‘insiders’ / ‘outsiders’ and how this is a key tool for ideological posiJoning. Finally, the ‘reflecJon of conJngency’ repertoire illustrated discursive reflecJve informal formulaJons of personal biographies that were used to construct presentaJons of conJngency for scienJfic and academic pracJce.
    [Show full text]
  • The Life of Charlotte Brontг©, 1862, Elizabeth Cleghorn Gaskell, D
    The life of Charlotte BrontГ©, 1862, Elizabeth Cleghorn Gaskell, D. Appleton and co., 1862 DOWNLOAD http://bit.ly/1jiZRFH http://www.amazon.com/s/?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=The+life+of+Charlotte+Bront%D0%93%C2%A9 DOWNLOAD http://bit.ly/1jqzNCu http://www.filestube.to/s2/The-life-of-Charlotte-Bront http://bit.ly/1ojoAoe The Moorland Cottage , Elizabeth Gaskell, Jan 24, 2013, Fiction, 111 pages. A touching portrait of a complicated family, Gaskell expertly confronts the mores and social problems faced by Victorian women while highlighting their strength and grace.. Cranford , Elizabeth Cleghorn Gaskell, May 1, 2003, Fiction, 138 pages. This 19th-century classic was characterized by Charles Dickens as "delightful, and touched with the most tender and delicate manner," Cranford presents a sensitive and moving. The Brontes , Juliet Barker, Nov 4, 2010, Biography & Autobiography, 1152 pages. The story of the tragic Bronte family is familiar to everyone: we all know about the half-mad, repressive father, the drunken, drug-addicted wastrel of a brother, wild romantic. Charlotte Bronte at Home , Marion Harland, 2007, Biography & Autobiography, 348 pages. PREFACE. THE Author of this very practical treatise on Scotch Loch - Fishing desires clearly that it may be of use to all who had it. He does not pretend to have written. The BrontГ«s Interviews and Recollections, Harold Orel, 1997, Biography & Autobiography, 221 pages. A great deal of what we know about the BrontГ«s has come not from the BrontГ«s themselves but from local tradition, inhabitants of the places associated with them, friends and. In the Footsteps of the BrontГ«s , Mrs.
    [Show full text]