Reading Loren Coleman's blog, Cryptomundo, is a chore I willingly do to try and keep up with the status of special pleading and positive confirmation bias being presented as evidence and reason within the cryptozoological community. Usually, this is an exercise in reading posts which appear to be meant to generate website traffic and/or blur the line between legitimate Zoological/Biological discoveries and the “field” of cryptozoology. Anyone who reads this blog is aware of my opinion of the quality of Cryptomundo's material. It's hard to get much lower into stupidity without being an antivaxxer, Holocaust denier, or homeopath cancer-quack. Occasionally though, I do get a gem or two that makes me laugh out loud when I read them. One of today's offerings is just such a case.
In his post, How Kids Films Destroyed Sasquatch Research, Coleman tries to make the claim that movies made for children are responsible for the increase in what he calls “silly skepticism”. To support his argument, he presents a movie called “Little Bigfoot” which was released in 1997. Ever hear of it? I certainly hadn't before I read Coleman's post but it appears to be making the rounds today. Regardless, blaming bad movies (in his opinion anyway) on what I interpret to be his apparent observation of the decrease of true-believers in cryptozoology is a prime example of special pleading and I thought I'd point it out and provide a rebuttal.
While Coleman asks for debate on his blog, I know he is not willing to really open up that can of worms on his site. Myself and others have posted criticisms and the like on Cryptomundo only to have them disappear or never get posted at all. Obviously, Coleman and the site's owner are not interested in real dialog on this topic. Having said that, I will present Coleman with some possible explanations for the decrease in true-believers and the rise in Skepticism here:
Technology is now so available that almost anyone can carry a camera or camcorder in their pocket. Trail-cams are now very common. Despite this fact, there has been no video footage which has been proven to be real or, for that matter, not to be a fake. This sparsity of actual evidence despite the nearly exponential increase in the means for it potential collection only furthers the Skeptical position that bigfoot sitings are either misinterpretations of known animals and/or phenomena or that photographic “evidence” is fraudulent.
As population increases, there is less and less wilderness in which a bigfoot or similar animal could live without detection. Whether we are talking about the actual, physical decrease in acres of land or the increase in people going into wilderness areas, there is an even greater likelihood for an animal such as bigfoot to be discovered if it did indeed exist. Yet, nothing has turned up. Additionally, the ability for a breeding population large enough to self-sustain in the wild while remaining hidden is so questionable it is almost impossible.
While there are failures within science education as a whole (and I have already stated as much), most Americans, Canadians, and Australians (they have the Yowee) have a much better understanding of the Biological sciences than they did in the 50s and 60s (Coleman's Golden Age of Bigfoot). Consequently, they are better prepared against pseudoscientific claims.
It has been at least 52 years since the Ray Wallace's Bluff Creek footprints first appeared in California and entered the public consciousness. In that time, no animal has ever been discovered (recovered?). There is a pretty good chance that the general public is getting tired of the Biscardis and Colemans of the world crying “bigfoot”. What started out as a fraud seems to have become a part of folklore.
The internet has provided an amazing way for lay people to actually do their own research and for myself and fellow Skeptics speak out against the horrendous pseudoscience Coleman and his ilk are perpetrating. Consequently, the general public is more aware of the flaws in their arguments and their fundamental lack of evidence and are making more rational and educated decisions based more upon the evidence rather than belief alone.
Whether Coleman addresses any of these points remains to be seen. However, I think the recent rise of Skepticism which Coleman clearly abhors is being seen in other venues as well. Dr. Novella, Orac and others have already written about the positive effect of Skepticism on what appears to be the downfall of Homeopathy and the recent turn of events which have shown the absolute failures of the antivax movement. While the internet does make it easier for the wack-a-loons to get in touch with each other, it is also making it easier for the Skeptics to criticize and get our message out. As a result, the public is becoming better informed and educated and that, unfortunately for Mr. Coleman, damages belief in cryptozoology.
Posts
2 comments:
Take a look at Nat Gor AMerican Paranormal. It proves beyond a doubt in most peoples mind that the ability to develop a 8 foot animal with all muscle groups, knee bone, scapula moving was not possible in 1967. The materials needed, the movement of fingers etc, the technolgy simply did not exist. Even if it did, these guys were a couple of cowboys from WA who did not have the money. No computers back then etc
I guess you didn't read my actual post. I never mentioned the Patterson film.
However, I did see the National Geographic show and I was very disappointed with it. Not only did it not "prove" anything, it all but neglected the evidence that the Patterson film was a fraud.
Read the book "The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story" and you will see just how Patterson and Gimlin perpetuated one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.
I also remember seeing some very obvious flaws in the survey team's calculations. As a Geologist, I am very aware of the importance of establishing scale within a photo. Evidentially, no indication was made that any attempt to scale the Patterson film or the reconstruction. For this reason, what they showed is only good for eye candy.
The National Geographic show just further illustrates my observation that the state of the understanding of science is eroded in this country. The fact that you think that a television show "proves" anything demonstrates you are not fully aware of the scientific method. Shows like this one just do more damage than they are worth.
Post a Comment