| Introduction After reading the Fortean Times avidly for the last 5 years I came to the conclusion that this magazine which was interested in every area of the paranormal,didn't actually believe there was any validity to any of it.Their stance seems to be,that if you study the paranormal in a sober,academic fashion you realise it has no basis in actual reality.But that doesn't matter,it's all just an amusing,titilating,thought provoking,weird and wonderful game which in the process of investigating these disreputable subjects,light will be shed on the muddled and downright strange views of their proponents,its believers and society. In short,the Fortean Tmes rather oddly presents a comforting view of reality.Which is - The challenge to Science from the paranormal is unfounded.Science is basically OK is just that the Scientific Establishment became unbending because it got too powerful - This editorial stance tempers the pro paranormal views expressed in it by putting forward the view,that although they look convincing these researchers will eventually be shown to be misguded. The question for me is why the FT should promote such a view.Here are a list of possibilities why- 1) An Editorial stance -The FT to differentiate itself from the plethora of semsationalist glossy magazines predominantly about UFO's decided to take a sceptical stance.It also decided to take a very critical position on all aspects of the whole field of the paranormal,so as to gain maximim readership from the open minded but intellectual person who might be put off by too much belief in such weird subjects. 2)New Science - At the end of the last century as popularity waned for mainstream science,the Fortean Times saw it's chance to try to fill that gap.It wants to be seen as the new science,the one that really investigates the full gamut of the paranormal properly but reassuringly of course realises there's very little in lt.This would be very attractive to open minded scientists who may be beginning to have doubts about the absolute rightness of Science. 3) It's a socio-politcal thing - Having a lot of uncertain scientists and intellectuals who could be the next movers and shakers of our society could have a seriously destabilising effect on our society.So the FT (Funded by science ?) has stepped in to keep them on the straight and narrow path.. 4)It's part of a big conspiracy - There is a big secret related to UFO's or maybe some aspects of the paranormal and the FT is deliberately trying to control the minds of wavering scientists and intellectuals who might start getting to close to 'the truth'. Depending on your own beliefs you may rule out some of these theories,but personally I believe there's truth in them all.And the rest of this Webpage through analysis of FT articles I'm going to demonstate why I believe this. |
| Rob Rickard and the Lamarck Quote FT 110:57 Before I start my reviews properly I must mention this casual quote from the FT Editor Rob Rickard. This point may seem on the surface a bit nit picking with which to challenge the credibilty of the FT. But I do find Rob Rickards position completely untenable with the FT's declared open mindedness and neutrality and makes it a key piece of evidence for me. In Rob Rickard's article FT110:57 on the review page he made this statement"The Lamarkian idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics has been thoroughly discredited" Before I start if you are unfamiliar with the content of the quote I am going give you some background information to elucidate why I have such a problem with it. Back in 1980 when I was just starting out on my research there were certain influential writers on the paranormal.They were Arthur Koestler,Lyall Watson,Colin Wilson and Rupert Sheldrake.These writers were well researched and academic in tone and were well respected in their field and importantly to this essay,all had one thing in common.They all championed the cause of Lamarck,a contemporary of Darwin who had proposed a different theory of evolution.Lamarck's view is so important to the paranormal in general that it requires an essay on it's own.See the Survival of the 'Fittest' theory Anyway,as the 80's and 90's progressed there was to be a major sea change in the 'paranormal' landscape.An explosion of interest caused by the heady concoction of Ufology,Abductions and conspiracy theories blew all that quiet chiselling of the scientific fortress away and to all intents and purposes the more measured 'old' paranormal perspective disappeared.This new surge of public interest in the paranormal brought the Fortean Times to prominence with it but here's the important point.The FT began in the 70's and so would be well aware of the aforementioned writers. So how come Editor Rob Rickard ignored them?.These writers were and are still about as reputable as you get in such a damned subject.They were,and some are still,true Forteans fighting against an oppresive Scientific Establishment which would ridicules or ignores them.Which as a matter of interest they found hard to do with Arthur Koestler,his breadth of expert knowledge in many diciplines made him very hard to dismiss.And to rub my point in,he was also the main champion of Lamarck. So let's return to the Quote.Who is it that could be doing the utter discrediting? In the diverse unregulated world of the Paranomal' nobody has enough status to decree what's right and wrong.However the Scientific Establishment in all it's mightiness can make such grand announcements So it's obvious Mr Rickard is siding with science (Which just coincidentally is ideologically opposed to Lamarck) ignoring the best research the paranormal world can give. Something is rotten in the state of the Fortean Times!,because I can't think of a better defintion of a Fortean,than when their well researched and argued case gets The Establishment rattled enough to denounce their work as rubbish. And on that Bombshell!! I'm going to leave it there for the moment and leave you to ponder on what game the FT is actually playing |
 |
| The Fortean Times - A Critical Review |
| Introduction |
| Rob Rickard and the Lamarck Quote |
 |
| Note I wrote this in about 1998 and it's a bit dated now because the Fortean Times has changed it's layout however not it's editorial stance which I still have the same problem with. I must admit that my views have tempered since then and will accept that the Fortean position to doubt is the stance that it's taking, however I feel that it utterly contrives to do this and because of that, the views expressed in this section still stand. |