|
Comments:
-
Comment by Robin, 10 Sep, 2008
Have just read your material on Silly Beliefs on handwriting analysis and Malcolm McCloud.
Having been involved (since 1980) with both Questioned Documents i.e forensic analysis, and handwriting analysis; I am perhaps, from your point of view, biased.
I thought your sceptisicm and cynicism was bordering on libel. The significant effort you went to to make the site was excellent but your reasoning and sarcasm was blunt and inaccurate. Not to mention very discourteous.
The throw away lines and generalities indicates, to me at least, that it was just criticism not critique. There's a difference.
There is much broohaha about the graphology not being scientific. Well, I guess that's also very debatable. It depends on how one defines science.
The Sorbonne University in Paris runs a one semester course in Graphology that's mandatory for school teachers doing there degree there. In France also, more that 80% of companies use handwriting analysis as a vetting tool when hiring staff.
In Germany, all school teachers do a semester of graphology as part of their training. The German Federal Court system uses graphology as part of testimony and evidential proceedure. And I'd hardly call the Germans un-scientific.
But the question that needs to be asked here is John: where is your scientific approach and proceedure here?
The presentation on your site is not a great deal more than well presented pub talk.
You are obviously possessed of talent, yet you waste your time slagging people.
It's a wise dog that scratches its own fleas John.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Sep, 2008
Robin, you do what the general public does and that is you suggest that Questioned Document Examination (QDE) and graphology are one and the same. They're not. 'Questioned Document Examination' "deals with the authenticity and authorship of written documents" and is a respected branch of forensic science. Graphology is a pseudoscience based on a superstition and is respected only by its practitioners and a few deluded members of the public, which does unfortunately include some businesses, schools etc that use their proclamations to unfairly vet employees. If you work in both fields you should know the difference between looking for a forged signature and providing a psychological profile.
Saying you support and work in both QDE and graphology is like someone saying they are both a police detective and psychic detective. One is respected, proven and accepted while the other is laughed at, disproved and rejected.
You say,
"There is much broohaha about the graphology not being scientific. Well, I guess that's also very debatable. It depends on how one defines science."
At least you acknowledge the vocal complaint that graphology is not scientific. Yet you say that the scientific consensus is "debatable", and suggest that this problem can be negated by redefining what science is. The debate is between science and graphologists, not within science itself. Science is united in its view that graphology is bogus. There is no debate. Certainly you or other graphologists could redefine what "science" means and thus bring graphology in from the cold, but so could Creationists and astrologers and every other silly belief who are greatly peeved that science has rejected their claims. If someone needs to redefine what science means to get scientific support for their claims then this should signal just how flawed their belief really is.
Your mention that a university teaches a course in graphology or that some teachers in France or Germany are "forced" to take a graphology course means little I'm afraid. It's not whether someone teaches it, but whether it has any validity. We have all heard of a university somewhere that teaches a course that the rest of the academic community wouldn't think of offering e.g. homeopathy, witchcraft, energy healing etc. The majority of courses in graphology are offered by private, unaccredited graphology schools who are at odds with each other as to what they teach, since there is no consensus in the graphology world as to how handwriting should be interpreted.
You ask "where is your scientific approach"? My scientific approach is displayed in the article by looking at the evidence for and against graphology and reaching a decision based on what I found. That there is no scientific evidence that indicates graphology works and that there is plenty of scientific evidence that shows that it is just a primitive superstition, a bogus method of divination along the lines of astrology, physiognomy, palmistry and phrenology.
-
Comment by Vicki, 01 Feb, 2009
Hi to Malcolm, I met you at a Kurek Ashley Fire Walking seminar about 6 1/2 years ago in Brisbane.
I was blown away by your amazing talent and even more so by how you picked my character and exactly where I was at, at that time of my life.
Love to do it again with where I am at now.
Do you offer this, and if so, how do I go about it?
Thankyou and Kind regards
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Feb, 2009
Sorry Vicki, but you obviously didn't read our article on Malcolm. The only talent he has is to con people into thinking he has some mystical power, and we certainly won't try and arrange a meeting so that he can rip you off again. And surely you realise that fire walking is just other scam? You don't need to attend a seminar since anyone can do it if the trick is set up properly. That's right, it's all a trick, and anyone that charges you money to teach you how to fire walk is a con-man.
-
Comment by Craig, 17 Jun, 2013
Go ahead, keep bagging Handwriting Analysis.
I suggest you do some more.
It's great that you're opinion is saving the rest of us gullible types.
I have no idea how I've made it this far.
I wish I'd stumbled across your silly site (is that right?) before, it would've save me heaps of effort researching topics when you're apparently correct with your research.
At last I have found the ultimate truth.
I will believe you and nobody else.
I will not doubt your word or do any research on my own behalf.
You must be very pleased with your undoubtable accuracy.
Thank you for saving us all from this extremely dangerous and life threatening problem that affects today's society, quality of life and detracts from global economy.
You should be bronzed and mounted.
Back to topic, please bag Handwriting Analysis some more, it can only help us all.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Jun, 2013
Craig, do we detect a little sarcasm in amongst your praise and gratitude for your enlightenment? If not, then yes indeed, you have found the truth. It's good that you believe us and yes we are pleased with our accuracy. You have no need to thank us, we will keep debunking graphology as nonsense, and for our statue we were thinking of titanium rather than bronze. We're happy that we can save gullible types such as yourself, someone has to, especially since you say that 'I have no idea how I've made it this far'. Frankly neither do we.
But if your comments were meant as sarcasm, we are a little confused. Are you saying that graphology is so obviously bogus that we needn't have written our article, that even the most dense imbecile knows that handwriting analysis is as silly as astrology and that it's therefore insulting to these imbeciles for us to suggest that they need to be told?
Or are you saying that you believe that graphology is not a nonsense based on superstition and pseudoscience, one that shares its origins with astrology, palmistry and tealeaf reading? But if you believed graphology was valid and you spend your time searching the Internet and reading graphology articles, why did you not point out at least some of the errors we made in our article? Or is it that you can't challenge our claims, you just have a gut feeling that they must be wrong?
Although perhaps there is something to graphology, since we can tell by your writing that you're obviously someone who struggles with comprehending what you read. Referring to views that you imply you got from our site, you say that 'I will believe you and nobody else. I will not doubt your word or do any research on my own behalf'. This is rather offensive, you're confusing us with a religion. We could ask you where we push this arrogant demand, but we know you won't reply. We are totally against those that insist that people should blindly believe, and we actively encourage people to do their own research (we even recommend books to read). In fact it is you that are telling us that you have found the ultimate truth — graphology works — and that we should blindly accept it. You don't recommend any research or offer any reasons, we should just believe you. We explain our reasoning and must leave it up to the reader as to whether they find our case convincing, whereas you refuse to present your case and yet seemingly expect us to crumple to your will.
We are continually dismayed with people like yourself who choose to demonstrate that our view is mistaken with insults rather than reason. We can only assume, since you offer none, that you have no answers to our claims. Of course sarcastic insults will not cause us to doubt our stance one iota. We can't understand why you would think it might, we're not vulnerable children desperate to be accepted by you 'gullible types'. All your comments have done is to tell that there are naive graphology believers out there that are annoyed that we have exposed their belief, and yet they still aren't willing or able to challenge us. Silly Beliefs — 1. Graphology believers — 0.
-
Comment by Anonymous, 08 Sep, 2013
You are ridiculous SIR in your argument, you really don't know what your talking about, there is soooo much evidence to support Graphology, dim what your on about but blaming teenage hormones on handwriting, if you have seen it and knew anything about it, and analysed your families handwriting you will be able to tell that there is strong evidence right there waiting for you to take it. I am willing to agree to disagree with you but SIR you clearly have not even tried to see if your handwriting suits your personality. RETARD!
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Sep, 2013
You claim that our argument is 'ridiculous' and that 'there is soooo much evidence to support Graphology' and yet typical of believers in superstitious nonsense you can't be bothered to point out a single error in our article and you can't link to even one piece of this evidence. So much evidence but evidently you've misplaced it for the moment. How convenient. Instead you fall back on abuse. We have explained why graphology is bullshit, you need to explain why our arguments are ridiculous, simply just saying so is the ploy of a child.
I'm guessing your handwriting reveals that you have a fantasy prone personality, are extremely gullible, have difficulty in forming rational arguments, are quick to anger, and like a racist you are willing to discriminate against people based solely on appearance (of their handwriting).
It's quite depressing that in this modern age there are still people that will critically judge family, friends and strangers based on something as silly as their handwriting. We just hope that you don't work in a position of responsibility and that your family and friends dismiss your childish request to view their handwriting as an embarrassing quirk.
-
Comment by Anonymous-2, 21 Jan, 2018
How do you know you know that its nonsense?
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Jan, 2018
How do I know I know that graphology is nonsense? Assuming that it isn't a typo, then your question is as childish as asking how do I know I know that I'm alive. If it is a typo, and you got carried away with 'you know', and you're simply asking how do I know that graphology is nonsense, then I'm still a little confused. I'm assuming you must have read our article to know that we view graphology as nonsense, that the claim that handwriting can reveal your innate character traits is utter bullshit. But if that's the case, that you read and understood our argument, then surely you must now know why we see it as nonsense and why we view people that subscribe to said nonsense as being right morons. So why the question? Does simply asking your little question somehow make you feel better?
If you have good evidence that it's not a scam for gullible idiots, then perhaps you could provide it. Again, we've taken the time to explain why it's nonsense, perhaps you could explain why we are mistaken, but I'm sure you've already moved on from your little foray into grown-up debate, and as I write this you're probably now on YouTube watching videos of kittens. Your question is as worthless as a child asking how we know Santa isn't real, but then he walks away without waiting for a reply.
Return to Article
Add a Comment
|
Support Science Not Superstition
