I was set back by these terms also. So I wonder which category Mr Regal places Dr. Krantz?

I would think that a study of Dr. Krantz’s work would have revealed how frustrating it is for those who take their search for Bigfoot seriously to be left on their own by the scientific community at large. Many are doing as much as they can to the best of their ability to properly bring forth evidence in such a way that will be solid enough to get the attention of those scientists who may be in a position to help.

I also thought of the possibility that it could be a difference in cultures since much of British humor simply doesn’t come across to me as funny. Maybe it is common in the U.K. to call a friend either a “crackpot” or an “egghead” like we might use the term “buddy” or “pal” but this is the first time that I have come across it.

In the current climate those involved in “pseudoscience” are often discredited as “crackpots.” If or when, well presented significant and scientifically accepted evidence comes to light then the researchers or scientists involved will be the labelled “eggheads” as the subject matter by its nature becomes more “mainstream” as it is generally more social accepted by colleges peers and the public.

All these labels, the social outlook and the research situation are synonymous, and unfortunately interdependently linked.

I may well, however, be wrong in my interpretation not knowing a massive amount about his work.

Apologies if I am and also apologies for the ineloquence of my explanations!

Oh how I long for the days when “paranormal research” becomes…alla whatcha just said…

Why would I be angry with you for saying such things? I’m a believer in science. Charlatans and opportunists do us no good. Data and physical evidence do all the good in the world.

Thank you for adding to my input…or, at least, my lol-style commentary…

Also, Loren, thank you for responding to the “crackpot” vernacular used:)

Of course, Grover Krantz use to say something very similar to this, with different labels, and would make the amateurs at his presentations as angry as they could be. It’s probably in one of his books too.

Why anyone that studies Bigfoot has to be pegged as being a “crackpot,” however, by academically-based scholars is beyond me.

To MMGood:

The more popular article will appear in the British history of science magazine Endeavour (unfortunately not widely available here in the states). The info is, “Amateur Versus Professional: the Search for Bigfoot,” Endeavour vol 32 #2 (2008). While the printed version is not available yet, you can go to their webpage (the parent publisher is Elsevier) and download a pdf for a small fee. I have no idea when the Annals of Science will be available, sometime this year I am told. It is still in the page proof stage. Peer-review articles are notoriously difficult to get published because they are held to a much higher standard of intellectual rigor.

To TaishaMcGee:

I will tell you the same thing I tell my students when they ask me that question. “Paranormal” research will become “mainstream” when practitioners do a number of things. With all due respect, just carrying a night vision scope into the woods does not make the search for Bigfoot “scientific” (and yes, I know that is a gross oversimplification of what goes on). You are going to have to establish research paradigms, unifying goals and methodologies that are widely accepted within the field, articulate the predictive power of cryptozoology, and most importantly provide undeniable evidence that will stand up to peer-review scrutiny. Now, don’t get mad at me, I’m an historian not a scientist, I don’t make these rules, I just have to live by them. All you really have to do to settle the question is toss a body on a dissecting table at WSU, Berkeley, U. Chicago, etc. and your worries are over. At least those worries. Because you know the day that happens Bigfoot is no longer fringe or paranormal or pseudo-science, its anthropology. That means the eggheads take over and crackpots are out.

Hope that helps,
Brian Regal

Join us for a free glass of wine in a private view of the Museum after the talk.

What?? Don’t they know that crackpots get heavily aggresive after imbibing alcohol?!

Thanks for the information, Loren!

Thanks for clarifying. Your work sounds interesting. When does the article come out? What about the book?

This event sounds very much like one I will attend and, as the man says, there’s free wine chucked in!

Thanks so much for helping spread word of my upcoming talk at the Grant Museum’s Darwin Theater in London. (I’ll also be giving a related paper at the BSHS meeting at Oxford the week before, if anyone is in town).

I was a bit surprised at your description of my work, as an attack on the late Grover Krantz. It is certainly not. (My upcoming book on his life is actually rather sympathetic to his career).

My work situates Bigfoot studies in the long tradition of sometimes strained relations between amatuer naturalists and professional scientists, hence the title “Crackpots & Eggheads” (also the title of the book). I use these terms in the most endearing of ways. (Both sides have certainly called each other worse names.) Not unlike the folklorist Donna Kossy used the term “Kooks” to describe the subjects of her work.

I look at the complex interaction of these two intellectual worlds in order to discover insights into how monster hunting fits into the broader context of the history of science in America. I think you would enjoy my talk and not find it insulting at all or any kind of “attack.”

Oh, I also have a scholarly peer reviewed article coming out on this later this year in the journal Annals of Science.

Sincerely,
Brian Regal, PhD