Thursday, 5 September 2013

Got my copy of "Abominable Science" today



Just arrived today in the post and I will presently be reading their section on Nessie for review on amazon.com and on this blog. The Nessie section is just under 60 pages, so there is something to get one's critical teeth into.

I see some have posted reviews solely on their Sasquatch section and panned it. The members of the choir the authors are preaching to have not surprisingly acclaimed it. I wonder how many of them have a half decent knowledge of the Loch Ness Monster story to critique it against? You can be sure I will be thorough in how they treat my favourite cryptid.


21 comments:

  1. Glasgow Boy how do I contact you re this footage I shot.

    David Elder

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402134/Could-finally-proof-Nessie-exists-Amateur-photographer-snaps-large-black-object-moving-beneath-waters-Loch-Ness.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,

      shimei123@yahoo.co.uk

      Look forward to chatting

      Delete
    2. Hello Mr Elder, I was led to expect a call from you some time ago regarding your footage. If you wish to discuss it with me please contact me via my gmail address.

      Delete
    3. Its just algae propelled by decomposing logs mr raynor.nothing to see here..

      Delete
    4. There is precious little algae in Loch Ness and I have never seen a decomposing log propelling anything at all. I did however film a similar Nessie a couple of days ago and I have added it to my website at http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Oddities3.htm

      Delete
  2. There have been many strange waves on the loch -- and even more sceptics willing to debunk them.
    It's the Toblerone-shaped ending to this one that gets me.

    *AnonStg*

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Bigfooters comment only on the Bigfoot section (which skewered some of their sacred cows). Are you suggesting that you will review the book only for the Loch Ness section? That seems just as bad. Why not consider the whole book?

    And, not only the "choir" thought it was worthwhile. See the MANY reviews. http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/09/03/abominable-science-media-round-up/

    I think you are starting out a bit biased. Just picking and choosing sections is not really fair to the authors or other interested readers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a 400 page book, I would rather get the focus of the review done right away. I will of course state that the review refers to the Loch Ness Monster chapter only.

      Delete
    2. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that people should comment according to their own area of expertise and knowledge.

      Delete
  4. I don't agree. You should be rating the whole book (on Amazon). Perhaps you meant just your personal blog here?

    Still, it's unfair to judge on just a portion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would add that I am not qualified to speak on the other chapters. In fact, I doubt some of the published reviewers are either. Based on the errors, weak assumptions, inaccuracies, omissions and good points I have so far found in the Nessie chapter, it would be a reasonable assumption to assume this standard propopogates through the rest of the book.

      But if I only had a passing acquaintance with the subject of the Loch Ness Monster, would I have noticed any of this and given it five stars?

      Delete
  5. It's a book for the general public, not a scientific paper to dissect! Anyone can read it and have an opinion. That's what book reviews are for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharon, if I was ready to give 5 stars based on a partial reading, I don't think you would be so upset. :)

      Delete
    2. I see that I am not the only one lumping crypto zoology and creationism into the same category. ;)

      Delete
    3. Easy to lump ... but ridiculous. Proponents (some sceptics don't like "believe" even though they will use the term themselves) have sightings, video and film. Just because a sceptic disagrees with this evidence of course does not render them redundant - it's all about opinions.

      Comparing acceptance of a sighting report from (say) 2010 with acceptance of a text from Genesis written thousands of years ago is just plain stupid and probably a form of trolling!

      Delete
    4. Neither stupid nor trolling. Both require faith, boersatz personal missions, and both require a refusal to accept facts that discredit belief.

      Delete
    5. This blog exists to dispute these so called "facts".

      Delete
  6. So does AnswersInGenesis.org. That still doesn't mean that speculation trumps data and hard science gathered by professionals rather than dedicated amateurs..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are no "professionals" involved in the Loch Ness mystery.

      Delete
    2. "Professionals" have weighed in every step of the way.

      Delete