I won't have much time to write about giants over the next couple of weeks, but I wanted to pass on two things that I think illustrate something important about what constitute "evidence" and "research" among those who enthusiastically and uncritically promote the existence of giants.
The first is a Photoshopped image that is making the rounds on the internet. A friend of mine told me that it was posted to the REAL GIANTS Facebook page in connection with (yet another) reposting of the story of the supposed horned skull excavated in Sayre, Pennsylvania, in the 1880s. The modified image is shown next to the original below. In case someone from the REAL GIANTS page is having difficulty telling which one is real, I have labeled them.
The first is a Photoshopped image that is making the rounds on the internet. A friend of mine told me that it was posted to the REAL GIANTS Facebook page in connection with (yet another) reposting of the story of the supposed horned skull excavated in Sayre, Pennsylvania, in the 1880s. The modified image is shown next to the original below. In case someone from the REAL GIANTS page is having difficulty telling which one is real, I have labeled them.
A catalog number is visible on the drilled artifact in the lower right corner, suggesting the original photo was of a display in a museum. The modified image says "Worth 1000" (a site that runs image manipulation contests), which is a giveaway to anyone who cares to take a single second to think about what he or she is looking at. How this meets the standards of "scientific, serious research" that REAL GIANTS purports to be about is beyond me. But, anyway, keep up the good work over there and let us know when you get it all figured out!
The second example comes from the experience that Jason Colavito wrote about in his blog post entitled "Outraged Gigantologist Accuses Me of Lies, Asks Readers to Send Me Hate Mail." Apparently someone compiling old newspaper stories about giants felt that Jason's own transcription of some old newspaper stories on his webpage constituted theft. You can read the story yourself.
The thing that's interesting to me about the giantologist's reaction to Jason's compilation is that it makes visible the idea (also expressed in this interview with another aspiring giantologist) that the simple act of collecting old newspaper clippings constitutes "research." Here's a definition of "research" that pops up online:
"The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions."
Notice that research involves something beyond collecting primary data. Cutting and pasting newspaper articles is not, by itself, research, and no-one who understands what "research" actually is would claim it to be so.
The second example comes from the experience that Jason Colavito wrote about in his blog post entitled "Outraged Gigantologist Accuses Me of Lies, Asks Readers to Send Me Hate Mail." Apparently someone compiling old newspaper stories about giants felt that Jason's own transcription of some old newspaper stories on his webpage constituted theft. You can read the story yourself.
The thing that's interesting to me about the giantologist's reaction to Jason's compilation is that it makes visible the idea (also expressed in this interview with another aspiring giantologist) that the simple act of collecting old newspaper clippings constitutes "research." Here's a definition of "research" that pops up online:
"The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions."
Notice that research involves something beyond collecting primary data. Cutting and pasting newspaper articles is not, by itself, research, and no-one who understands what "research" actually is would claim it to be so.
RSS Feed
