Scoftic Is A Word
Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 20th, 2009
Recently, a comment-maker left here this remark: “scoftic (a made-up word that has no meaning).”
Why does “scoftic” kick up so many feelings about whether it even exists?
The facts, actually, show that the scoffing statement about the word itself are hardly supportable. Indeed, since all words are “made-up” by humans, this one ~ scoftic ~ is a viable created word that does have meaning, which is understood by a community of people.
I have written about the word at Cryptomundo on April 28, 2007, for example, when I shared some of the history of the term.
Sometime before the fall of 2003, Roger Knights, a frequent comment maker on all matters Bigfoot, decided to coin a word that he felt would be a counter to words like “pseudoscience.” According to his own accounting, Knights first used “scoftic” on the Bigfoot Forums on September 13, 2003. No, it was not a Friday, but the date in the old Roman festival calendar is epulum Iovis (“banquet of Jupiter”), on the Ides, during the Ludi Romani. Perhaps Knights should have been beware of the Ides of September, for his term itself has been debated almost as much as what he wished to point out by inventing it.
According to various documents online, and in articles, such as in Fate, September 2005, Knights has developed an exacting meaning for what the term means to him.
My thumbnail definition of “scofticism” is “UNhealthy skepticism.” This is a play on the common phrase, “a healthy (dose of) skepticism.”Roger Knights
Knights has been clear that a “scoftic” is not the investigator who goes out into the field, examines the Bigfoot evidence and finds it was made by, for example, a bear or Ray Wallace. No, Knights appears to be specifically talking about the programmed skeptic who is defined more by a pre-determined mindset than the results of any thoughtful probing of the evidence.
By “scoftic” [I mean] someone who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds, and who asserts numerous other bits of unreasonable dogma, such as that the quantity of reports is insignificant. Scofticism is thus fanaticism behind a pose of reasonableness. The reasonable pose is “show me the evidence.” The “fine print” is all the qualifiers, and all the hidden assumptions and misdirections.
A nutshell definition of scofticism would be “scientism in disguise,” although that’s not quite accurate….Another thumbnail definition is “a cranky skeptic.”Roger Knights
Of course, some skeptics and apparently scoftics have not been happy with the word.
“Scoftic” has to be the most ridiculous word in the current lexicon of Bigfoot research.Nightwing, November 2006
And…
“Scoftic” – a Roger Knights neologism.Matt Crowley, September 2005
But there is little doubt now that the word has been invented and the person who coined it was Bigfoot intellectual and Bigfoot Forum’s founder Roger Knights.
Knights continues to share at various forums, blogs, and sites around the web the history of the word and his thought process behind coming up with it:
I suggest “scoftic.” It floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee. And it’s only two syllables. Anything longer is too earnest–and thus self-defeating. A short, snappy nickname is the most dismissive….
Another point in favor of “scoftic” (which is my coinage, BTW) is that it was inspired by Marcello Truzzi’s complaint, when he resigned from CSICOP, that most people who call themselves skeptics are really scoffers….
Scofticism goes beyond a defense of materialism. It’s a defense of the mundane in general (eg, opposition to cryptozoology), and a championing of a rule-driven approach to things. (See the book, “The Essential Difference” for more on rule-driven mentalities.) This comes out in their emphasis on formal processes like peer review, and their utter denigration of anything that has not received such a “nihil obstat.” ~ Roger Knights, January 7-8, 2007.
How involved and interested folks are in the topic of “scofticism” can be seen in the long discussions that occur in the wake of postings on the topic here at Cryptomundo. For example, the original 2007 notes on “scoftic” garnered over 80 comments and the spin-off of that “scoftic” posting, about the reliability of scientists as witnesses vs truck drivers, generated 165 comments (see here).
Oh, my friends, “scoftic” is a word to humans, and what it means creates a level of emotional and intellectual turmoil in people that shows it stirs humans who are still defining how it will be employed. The Roger Knights-coined word has moved into wider usage, no doubt about it.
Art by Dave Lowe.
Thank You.
Random Posts
- Similar Phenomena:
You can call me a scoftic if I can call you a woo-woo.
I think “woo” applies only to a fraction of “believers,” those whom we believers characterize more gently as “romantics.” Similarly, “scoftic” applies only to a fraction of disbelievers. Even more accurately, individuals are rarely all-of-a-piece; most people tend to fall into and out of being insufficiently or excessively skeptical depending on their mood, their opponent, the particulars of the case before them, and the alignment of the stars (just kidding).
I thank Loren for posting more of my fragments on this topic. Here are a few more:
“During every vigorous and prolonged controversy each side invents nicknames for its opponents to indicate their errors, wrong-headedness, and bad faith. The best ones are so pointed and barbed that they “stick,” permanently damaging the public image of the other side. One such term is “woo,” another is “pseudoscience.” They effectively suggest the enemy’s rational “shell” conceals an inner “nut.” The further implication is that pseudoscientists are not only biased but untrustworthy. In thrall to their Inner Nut, they are prone to Believers’ Blather: exaggeration, omission, evasion, obfuscation, and absurd reasoning.
“Our side’s comebacks have lacked its punch and pizzazz. Neither fundamentalist materialism nor pseudo-skepticism nor pathological skepticism nor sneer-quoted “skepticism” can match it as a Tenacious Taunting Tag. But my term, “scofticism,” fills the bill. It too implies its targets are posers: their posture of Rational Doubt (“Show me the evidence”) masks Die-Hard Denial (“I’ll see it when I believe it”). Its further implication is that scoftics are not only biased but untrustworthy. In thrall to their Inner Nut, they are prone to Slimy Scoftic Subterfuge: exaggeration, omission, evasion, obfuscation, dissimulation, etc. (Bills of particulars can be found on anti-scoftic websites. Start here and follow the links.) My thumbnail definition of scofticism is “UNhealthy skepticism.” This is a play on the common phrase, “a healthy (dose of) skepticism.”
“My coinage … derives of course from scoffer and skeptic, hence the spelling (please retain!). It floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee, so I urge its widespread adoption. However, it shouldn’t be applied to every disbeliever, only to those who are far from fair-minded, and who justify themselves by citing certain scoftical Doctrines of Denial. (An examination of which would require a longer article.)”
Here’s another fragment:
“Scoftics perform few investigations; for instance CSICOP has a policy that it will not perform investigations. It publishes critiques instead. Scoftics generally oppose investigations into fringe topics, claiming that to do so would only give credibility to the field, or would be a tragic diversion of our scarce scientific resources. An example of this don’t-confuse-me-with-facts attitude can be found in the following extract from George P. Hansen’s “CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview,” quoted toward the end of Rochus Boerner’s “Some Notes on Skepticism.”
“‘The effect of CSICOP’s activities is to create a climate of hostility toward the investigation of paranormal claims; indeed, at one CSICOP conference, the announcement of the closing of several parapsychology laboratories was greeted with cheers.’
“Not only do scoftics rarely perform original investigations, most don’t bother to read the believers’ evidence, a further indication of their close-minded attitude. Most merely parrot a party-line on various topics.
For example, even prominent psi skeptic Ray Hyman was quoted in Skeptical Inquirer as follows:
“‘Hyman described most of the popular critics of parapsychology as not rising to the level of sophistication of current parapsychological research. “Most of the criticism of the field is of straw people. The criticism has been very bad.” Source.
“As bipto has said, BF skeptics are generally uninformed. Here’s an illustrative uninformed quote from Robert Todd Carroll’s recently published Skeptic’s Dictionary:
“‘The evidence for Bigfoot’s existence consists mainly of testimony from Bigfoot enthusiasts [?], footprints of questionable origin [questionable in what way?], and pictures that could easily [not the PGF] have been of apes or humans in ape suits. There are no bones [whose fault is that?], no scat [?], no artifacts [?], no dead bodies, no mothers with babies [?], no adolescents [?], no fur [?!!], no nothing.’
“Of course, the sins in the above paragraph go way beyond ignorance. I’m glad it’s now out in hard copy, where it can’t be deleted.
“Scoftics like Carroll are knee-jerk scoffers who’ve adopted the term “skeptic” as camouflage. My term is intended to unmask them. It’s a better term than the ones that other skeptic-opponents have come up with, such as “pathological skeptics” and “pseudo skeptics,” because it’s shorter, more pointed, more amusing, and isn’t as directly confrontational–i.e., it doesn’t imply skeptics are insane (pathological) or deliberately dishonest (pseudo).”
During Loren’s original thread on this topic in 2007, I failed to contribute, although several posts cried out for a response, and I made extensive notes on what went on, hoping to whip them into shape eventually. The main problem, aside from the writer’s block that occasionally bothers me, was my lack of learning about the philosophical issues that are involved. I tried to find ways of skirting them, but then it felt as though I wasn’t responding to all the criticisms, or at least not treating them fully. Unfortunately, I’m no more learned now than I was, although I’ve acquired nearly a dozen books that would be useful to me when I get around to reading them.
That’s mostly because during the past eight months I’ve been absent from posting or even lurking on BFF, having become distracted by such issues as the financial crisis (on which I’ve printed out an eight feet stack of print-outs and made numerous posts), the Mac vs. PC cat-fight, and the global warming debate (where I’m awkwardly in the “skeptic” camp). So I probably won’t have much to say this time around either. I have lots of bits and pieces, but my ducks aren’t nearly lined up. Maybe next year.
“Scoftic” – that’s brilliant.
English is a language that is constantly adding new words or adopting new words into it borrowed from other languages. If one is allowed to ‘create’ words by putting together roots from ‘classic languages’ –such as one I coined, ‘megaornithophobia’, meaning the ‘fear of large birds’–why is one not allowed to take two other words and combine them together to make a concise word with a very understandable meaning?
We speak English. English is always changing. This isn’t French, where people have tried to impose laws upon the language in order to maintain its ‘purity’. I, for one, am going to adopt scoftic into my vocabulary, and tip my hat toward Mr. Knights for his donation to the lexicon.
I’ll leave it to the professionals to determine whether a word, whether “scoftic” or my username, has entered the general language or not. For those of you who defend “scoftic”, I have, a-hum, my own new word to add to your lexicons: scufftic. As in, “Due to the necessity of reaching remote locations in rough terrain, bigfoot researchers tend to drive scufftic vehicles.”
i wouldn’t want to called a “woo-woo”. that’s a means a whole other thing at my house!
Matt J is right. i don’t see what the big deal is. a word can be made up by anyone. that doesn’t make it any less of a word. if at least two people recognize the word and use it, then it is a word. doesn’t mean it will have longevity or popular use, but a word none the less.
what about “ginormous”, “normalcy”, and “stagflation”? no one is running around and calling those out even though they are recently invented.
sombody must of gotten their feelings hurt by being called a scoftic.
there is no such thing as a cryptid word!
Roger Knights: strength to your arm.
I think ’scoftic’ is legitimate for one reason that requires, by me at least, no defense: folks that practice that way of thinking seem, based on EVIDENCE, to be the only people who seem to strenuously object to it.
As I strenuously object to anyone tarring my skepticism by claiming to have brought the thought to it that I have, when his thinking clearly disputes him. I have long labeled this way of thinking a critical logjam in the progress of science; it deserves, I have decided after long thought, an instant pejorative.
I tried to come up with something else. As you yourself point out, that is way too considerate, when one takes into account that realism is being hijacked, and proponents are being, basically, made fun of. Not only does nothing work better. Compared to it, nothing else works.
Nightwing doesn’t recognize genius when he sees it. I do.
One of the best blogs in Cryptomundo history. And it may be historic in cryptozoology. It’s time for the argument in crypto to turn.
We keep hearing that crypto needs proof for legitimacy. It will never get it unless the mindset that forbids the open pursuit of the evidence, where it leads, is tarred, feathered and abolished.
Anybody can enter the big tent. But scofticism needs to be checked at the door. As witness everyone here who thinks I or anyone who thinks like me is a proponent for any cryptid, when I have not said a single word on this site that could lead a thinking person to think that.
Off to 100 posts.
@ maeko: I think there are cryptid words. Much like some cryptids themselves (the thylacine, Gigantopithecus), cryptid words used to be common, but have since fallen out of vogue or the vernacular as the language has evolved.
I wot what you mean, Matt_J!
I love this word: “scoftic”. It summarizes the people that Roger has described perfectly.
“Scoftic” is a good valid word from a brilliant mind.
Some points of clarification:
I don’t think it’s accurate to credit Roger Knights as the founder, or a founder, of the Bigfoot Forums.
The Crowley quote does not strike me as reflecting unhappiness with the term, although it certainly might have been when read in context.
I agree with DWA, MattJ, and Maeko. Wholeheartedly.
I have no problem with skepticism. And I’m almost certain that the majority of people here in Cryptomundo don’t either.
But when that skepticism is taken to such an extreme that it becomes Cynicism and Debunking instead of honest, open-minded (and ethical) scientific inquiry, then one is entitled to call it for what it is—”scofticism.”
Or, to be more blunt—”debunker.”
I have another term for it—
“Randiskeptic.” Like it???
As in—
“Joe Nickell was being very RANDISKEPTIC when it came to claims of Loch Ness containing a Monster.”
Nice entry, Loren and Roger. I like the word, though I’ll have to be careful not to put in an extra ‘f’.
I like the word.
A person who believes despite the evidence is a woo; a person who disbelieves despite the evidence is a scoftic.
Notice the key in both is belief, and specifically belief regardless of whether evidence exists or not.
It can indeed be a noun or an adjective.
“The Amazing Randi is probably the most famous scoftic; he is also one of the most amazingly scoftic skeptics in the history of skepticism.”
Scoftic kind of also resonates with Coptic, and cryptic.
“The Coptic Christian was cryptic in his scofticism of things cryptozoological; for he was a famous survivor of several frumious bandersnatch encounters and had seen several mome raths outgrabe.”
*smugly* “Show me the dictionary evidence.”
Just joshing. I like the word scoftic. Its a nice way to differentiate myself (an open-minded skeptic) from the dogmatically dismissive.
My take on this?
You know in older times the ones who denied that the Earth revolved around the sun and caused that paradigm to be extended way too long? Or how about those who laughed at the idea of viruses causing disease, or doggedly advocated medical treatment through bloodletting or treating our five humors? How about the ones who flat out denied the concept of plate techtonics? Or consider even more modern days when even the ones that stated flat out that a heavier than air vehicle would never fly, or that communication by phone was a fantasy?
Scoftics. The word sums it up beautifully in my opinion.
Skepticism is a necessity in science, but the fact remains that many paradigms in our history have carried on far longer than was necessary due to doggedly denying other alternatives even in the face of emerging evidence. Science has time and time again broken through strict and long held paradigms with the help of those who were willing to look beyond them, even if they may have faced ridicule or downright persecution.
Of course to do this requires evidence, but that evidence was often ignored or flat out denied. To believe for years that the sun revolved around the Earth or that life would spontaneously appear in water without proper evidence while denying new evidence to the contrary is to me just as bad as saying that aliens exist on our planet because they saw a light in the sky while denying that it could have been a plane.
Evidence needs to be given due consideration where it is warranted. Anyone not willing whatsoever to do that or who holds to erroneous ideas even in the face of emerging information is to me a “scoftic.” If this had not been done in the past, all of the “impossible” things we take for granted today would not have come to pass.
However, I will say that most of the skeptics at this site are not scoftics in my opinion. They are trying to get to the bottom of things in a critical and skeptical manner which is not a bad thing at all, and is even quite healthy for cryptozoology in terms of becoming more accepted as a mainstream field of science. I think that many skeptics here do look at the evidence, they just aren’t as convinced as some would like them to be. But they are here discussing these things and very few of them state unequivocally that cryptids cannot exist.
So to me, when faced with a question such as “Does Bigfoot exist?” a scoftic will say “No way. Not in a million years. It”s silly to even think such a thing. Case closed.” Whereas a skeptic would say perhaps “I suppose there is a chance it could exist, but it is perhaps unlikely because (blah blah blah). Maybe there are other reasons behind the sightings and physical evidence, so let’s look at that too before saying Bigfoot exists.” There is a difference, and I think the word “scoftic” is perhaps a good word to sum up the former.
Anyway, just some rambling thoughts. I prefer not to use any words that inspire negative flaming, so I try not to use scoftic here when at all possible. I just want to find the truth, not debate semantics.
“for instance CSICOP has a policy that it will not perform investigations. It publishes critiques instead.”
Fine, then these tools need to rename their organization, “The Committee for the Uninformed Critiquing of Claims of the Paranormal”…
Scoftic is brilliant and I intend to use it EVERY chance I get! As a matter of fact, I’m labeling it as a “word” in my word processing program so that I am not told it is a misspelling…
EVer since I first heard the word (and yes, I heard it here first folks:), it just sums up that certain mindset that we have seen creep into here and elsewhere.
Scoftic is a nice explanation of those who seem to like to hide behind the caviats of “science” while actually doing nothing of the sort. It describes the sort of individual that whines about being a skeptic when in fact they have little understanding of what the word skeptic really means. As I keep driving home again and again, we as cryptozoologists (amateur, professional and arm chair) are skeptical by our very nature. We have to be, because of all the hoaxing, mis-identifications, and just plain old ignorance.
What we not is close minded, and that is something else scoftics are notorious for. They give that mind numbing phrase that always makes me roll my eyes–”I would love for there to be a ___________ (fill in your favorite cryptid’s name here), I really would, but there is just no evidence to support it (oh brother).”
The true cryptozoologist does not announce that the mystery is solved and we are moving on–we never have…but we keep an open mind when average people come in to report seeing something out of the norm that does not fit their normal experiences for animals. The cryptozoologist investigates and builds evidence for the case that there are indeed animals roaming the world that have as yet to be found.
Scoftics do not do that at all…they keep trying to convince someone (and here I’m not really sure who, because in the case of cryptids, it has been my experience that it is pretty cut and dried–you either believe in the possibilities of such things or you don’t–most people I know are either open to the ideas of BF, NEssie and what not or they flat out roll their eyes at it), anyone that not only do the things not exist, but that people who do believe in the possibility are not skeptics, do not believe in science and are just plain old fashioned foolish.
In the meantime, ever since I came across the word, “Scoftic” it is in my personal dictionary and vocabulary, and there it will stay in my hip pocket to use at will…so I will keep the term alive in our collective vernacular until the day I die…then the scoftics may be able to rest a little easier…oh, except for the fact that I am teaching my five year old boy exactly what a “Scoftic” is and how to use the term appropriately…
“Knights has been clear that a “scoftic” is not the investigator who goes out into the field, examines the Bigfoot evidence and finds it was made by, for example, a bear or Ray Wallace.”
Absolutely not!
Those are called PROPONENTS.
Every shred of debunking that has ever happened in the cryptid field has been the work of a proponent. Scoftics lack the understanding to do it, almost by definition. (How can you determine something is fake when to you everything is?)
I agree with mystery_man that we don’t want to spend half our time here debating whether more scoftics or pseudoskeptics can dance on the footprint of an alleged sasquatch.
But just because this word annoys them so much, I’m going to use it at every opportunity. (M_m: personally I think scoftics only detract from the field. I’d be happy to have them leave in frustration. Speakinawich: Radford hasn’t posted around here in a long time, has he? I miss him. NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.)
Mr. Knights- Why not go to Urban Dictionary and add Scoftic to their lexicon?
And a Teachable Moment, for all you young cryptos out there.
This was from a poster on another thread. I won’t identify the poster, who doesn’t need to be embarrassed further.
“As for Patterson, anyone who perpetrates a hoax deserves to be thoroughly
questioned, investigated, hounded, whatever it takes, yes, in the name of
Science, to get to the truth.”
Not sure I’ve ever…I mean, wow. That IS Radfordesque. And couldn’t be more wrong. (Young cryptos: identify the redundancy in that sentence.)
That sentence sets Science up as Truth Inquisitor. Didn’t serve the truth during the Spanish Inquisition, and won’t here. To me – and to you, if you think right about this – Science is your servant, and not your master, and definitely not your priest and confessor and Pope; and it did all of us a massive disservice here. Patterson did everything a layman is – or ever should be – expected to do. He brought back the evidence. (Just like the intrepid fellow in the Champ video case. Just tossing that in.) FROM THERE ON IT IS SCIENCE’S JOB – not to hound the messenger, but to INVESTIGATE THE EVIDENCE.
When are we ever going to get it through our freaking heads that killing the messenger stifles the message?
THAT is why cryptozoology isn’t a science. And it will never be until evidence is dispassionately reviewed. If you think Patterson was, you are about as uninformed as one can be on this topic. Dr. DWA is lecturing you now.
Sometimes I think there is a pervasive let’s-stay-ignant! gene in the human genome that hasn’t been weeded out yet.
It’s just like Knights says. The let’s-roast-Patterson attitude is scofticism in a nutshell; “It’s a defense of the mundane in general (eg, opposition to cryptozoology)”.
A long-ago attendee of my high school said the following about his experience (which thank God preceded mine although maybe I was just lucky):
“During the 1960s while at [my school, which did well by me so I won't further embarrass it either] both within the hallways and classrooms it was common to try and squash an alternative thought by mocking the person followed with laughter. The attitude blocked an exchange of ideas and mutual respect.”
I give you scofticism. I give you what happened to Patterson; and what’s happened to the sense of wonder without which the world is a prison. So. We WANT that? Scofticism is so rampant in our society that if it had become a word 200 years ago we might live in a far different world now. Come to think of it: if not for scofticism, we might never have gotten the idea that we bore any kinship to monkeys and apes. Because that’s one area where we start asymptotically approaching them in behavior.
DWA- Maybe my post wasn’t clear. I didn’t say scoftics help the field of cryptozoology. I actually tried to illustrate through simple historical examples how I think the word represents rather well those in the past who have held back science. I said skepticism is good for the field and then tried to show what I perceive to be the difference in attitude that separates the two. I would hope that you know me well enough by now to know I don’t think irrational close mindedness does anyone any favors.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, awhile back I had actually mistakenly thought that you coined the word since you used it so much.
m_m: oh, I know you pretty well. And I know you much prefer enlightenment to confrontation. A good choice, by the way.
My post wasn’t about that. I just wanted to make sure you knew that I use scoftic so much for a reason. This is something in crypto – heck, in life – with which I think it pays to be confrontational. ‘Cause it can’t be reasoned with. One can only hope to enlighten others interested in the truth that it’s a paper tiger. (Hey, there is some enlightenment in there.)
And yes, that’s my excuse for my style. What it all comes down to with me is this: scoftics are barring us all from the world we could otherwise know, by scaring away the ones equipped to find out. And that ticks me off sometimes. And I’m going to start in on them and not pull punches.
So the plan is: you dive in, seeking the truth.
I’ll provide covering fire.
I’m onto DWA’s rant now…the real problem with the scoftic/debunker crowd is that they try to use words and phrases like “scientific approach”, and throw around edu-macated sounding words in an attempt (and here I’ll give some benefit of doubt and say that it may not be completely conscious on …some of their parts), to convince others that they have more credibility than cryptozoology people.
And that there is the fallacy boys and girls (think you’ve just stepped into the class following up DWA’s lecture…). The scoftics take and make the assumption that they are the ones who are skeptical and are emotionally uninvolved in the search, when it is a sham. The scoftic crowd is as passionate about their point of view as any cryptozoologist, though I have yet to hear one climb off that fence and take a stand.
#1, cryptozoologists are skeptical by nature. I don’t think I have to elaborate here, unless you reaalllllllllllly want me to again. #2, cryptozoologists are looking for the truth…yes, and even if it means they discover a seal instead of a sea serpent. #3, cryptozoology is open minded and uses scientific approaches to find out the truth.
Anyone that tells you different is selling their own brand of manure…either that or a monkey suit in a freezer.
…and springheeledjack’s text will be required reading in my class.
DISMISSED.
SKEPTICISM: Open mind. But not so open that your brains fall out.
TRUE-BELIEVERISM: Brains! Over here! [whistles]
SCOFTICISM: Mind so tightly squeezed shut that the brains are leaking out your ears. Need a paper towel? Never mind; looks like we need a mop.
Nobody likes the term I invented???
Ok. Oh, well.
I guess some words don’t “stick.” Don’t have the “resonance” of Scoftic.
For what is worth—great discussion.
Particularly Mystery_Man and DWA.
“for instance CSICOP has a policy that it will not perform investigations. It publishes critiques instead.”
Not after the debacle surrounding The Mars Effect, anyhow.
Munnin- Mars Effect? I must have missed that one.
well, cryptidsrus, I mean, we are discussing another term that antedates yours and sounds like it means the same thing.
(Plus you might think twice about enshrining Randi that way.)
But time always tells. I can try both and get back to you.
Something tells me I’ll get lots of opps. Because I’m pulling ‘em out whenever I encounter this kind of thinking from now on. It’s not honest; it’s not helping, in fact it’s calculated to hinder; and it’s not going unchallenged.
I keep saying this. Crypto goes around hat in hand, always speaking diffidently and courteously…to buffoons. Time for the Big Stick.
It’s the Randiskeptics that are gumming up the works, dammit.
(Satisfied?
)
Look – If Stephen Colbert can coin ‘truthiness’, a term that more than aptly (though not, perhaps, with the knowledge of the coiner) describes the “true-believer” crowd*, then I see no problem with Knights coining a term that describes the other bunch of nuts. Indeed, I use both frequently in conversation.
*Truthiness, from the Macmillan English Dictionary;
- the quality of stating facts that you believe or want to be true, rather than stating facts that are known to be true.
cryptidsrus- Randiskeptic? lol! That’s actually a pretty good one! So we have scoftics, pseudoskeptics, debunkers, and now randiskeptics? I gotta write these all down, I’m starting to get confused.
Ceroill – “The Mars Effect” refers to the results of research reported in a book by the French “neoastrologer” Michel Gauquelin, which were highly controversial. You can read one account of the involvement of CSICOP on this subject in an article called “Starbaby” by Dennis Rawlins, a cofounder of CSICOP, first published in 1981 in Fate Magazine.
Munnin- Thank you. I was previously unaware of this subject and its controversy. Very interesting on a number of levels.
m_m: don’t get confused by the terms. They all mean the same thing.
Actually, I think you can add wooptic. (OK, maybe I can work on that one.) Some of the things I have heard from scoftics are easily as funny as anything I’ve heard from woo-woos. And the difference in sophistication between our word for them and their word for, well, not us speaks much for education. We should really pat ourselves on the back here.
Man, no scoftics have posted here! Well, maybe there was one wooptic up at the top. I think it’s because they know anything they post on this thread will be used as a case study for the class. Actually, I’ve been doing that for some time now. And I’m going to keep this blog handy for use in all future such endeavors. I’ll do Knights-ectomies on ‘em. Yeah. That’s the ticket. Knights-ectomy. Yeeeeeeeeeaaaaahhhhh…..
My problem with scoftics – and I’ve said it before – is that they really think they can come to this discussion not knowing anything about it, and talk down to folks who do. That approach needs to get hooted down, vehemently, period. Crypto will never become a science until it is. Think about it. Does any practitioner of the hard sciences allow some rube to talk down to him? Cryptozoology is ALONE among the sciences in that it treats totally uninformed critics like equals. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Because the totally uninformed include hard scientists whom I can take apart like wet toilet tissue – and yet they continue to spew uninformed comments that betray their commitment to enlightened practice of their science.
Cryptos shouldn’t allow this. They need to police their ranks. And that means: putting science above all; sending the well-intentioned uninformed back to do some thinking and reading (Mr. Marlowe); and flat taking the scoftics to the woodshed.
Scoftics, as Knights points out, can’t even engage themselves enough to peruse the data; yet they think they know more than scientists who have! The guys they put on the sasquatch beat are flat yahoos. They know NOTHING. And it is so easy to show that that they should be embarrassed by it; except that they don’t know enough to know how embarrassed they should be!
O.K., I get it. I’m an idiot. I doubtlessly manifest a “fanaticism behind a pose of reasonableness” and favor “unreasonable dogma” because I am “not only biased but untrustworthy” and have an “Inner Nut” that is “prone to Slimy Scoftic Subterfuge.” Why am I such a poor miserable soul? Well, I commit the crime of crimes: I doubt the existence of bigfoot.
Let’s not dawdle here. This is not about alleged closed minds, or fanatics protecting moldy paradigms or projecting “scientism.” This is not about derailing compelling arguments by crafty subterfuges. And, for goodness sake, it’s not about saving Western Civilization as we know it.
No, this is about skeptics and doubters who challenge the methods and conclusions of pop-cryptozoologists. Mr. Knights wants to banish the pesky skeptical approach without argument to a netherworld of ridicule and excoriation. Judging by some of the postings following Mr. Knights’ lead, including a small chorus of Munchkins singing “Ding Dong, the Wicked Skeptic is dead,”
he has done his job.
I feel for mystery-man. I know he wanted to make his usual wise and temperate remarks.
Unfortunately, he has been misread and his thoughts have been gleefully mangled and employed in the service of others less wise and decidedly less temperate. Other posters somehow gleaned from his words the idea that pop-cryptozoology is virtually Copernican!
Now, I have respect for Mr. Knights. His critique of Greg Long’s The Making of Bigfoot should be required reading for anyone interested in the book. His criticism is fair and straightforward. Also, Mr. Knights has shown himself willing to concede to skeptical conclusions, as with the “Skookum cast” and the elk solution. This is admirable and an example for us all.
Also, I have sympathy for parts of Mr. Knights’ complaint. Plain cryptozoology is the study of hidden (and out of place) animals and as such should not be considered pseudo-scientific. Heuvelmans argued the search for hidden animals is the zoological equivalent to the paleontological search for hidden fossil animals. So I am distressed when some skeptics lump plain
cryptozoology with paranormal beliefs such as astrology, ghosts, or alien abductions.
But I part company with Mr. Knights when he excoriates and ridicules skeptics in the very manner he believes skeptics have treated those doing bigfoot research. He goes too far when he states skeptics lack original investigations. Does he acknowledge the investigative work done over the years by skeptics such as Nickell and Radford, for instance?
Also, there is something “cheap shot” about his treatment of Carroll’s Skeptic’s Dictionary entry on bigfoot. While I don’t appreciate Carroll’s seeming “Ho, hum” attitude toward the subject, Mr. Knights should have at least acknowledged the piece as a short synopsis of conclusions and not meant as an full examination. Does Mr. Knights, in castigating Carroll, mean to suggest bigfoot tracks are UNquestionable? Does he mean to imply the P/G bigfoot film was IMPOSSIBLE to fake? Is not Carroll correct to state there are no dead bigfoot bodies uncovered or discovered? Do we have bigfoot fecal matter, or is Carroll right about that too? (And we should have tons of the stuff, if we have giant apes among us—ask any gorilla researcher in the field.)
While Mr. Knights acknowledges not all skeptics are “scoftics,” I wouldn’t be surprised if he wants to nail any and all skeptics with his term if they disagree with his conclusions and approach in
principle. He could just as easily used the word scoffer, but then such a term would likewise apply to the anti-mundane crowd who DO scoff and hoot and holler whenever their favorite cryptid is reduced to a misidentification.
What I find most objectionable in Mr. Knights’
objections is his odd notion that skeptics are somehow impeding the search for bigfoot. In what way has CSI impeded the search for bigfoot, for instance? I dare say there are more pro-bigfoot web sites than there are CSI style skeptic sites. What funded research into the bigfoot phenomena has been cancelled because of interference by skeptics, uh, I mean “scoftics?”
Mr. Knights is on record elsewhere as arguing for government monies to fund a government research office looking into “strange phenomena,”
including bigfoot. While I agree such research would be preferable to other research so funded, something tells me Pres. Obama and Congress would be severely rebuked for spending money on bigfoot research.
Even if bigfooters were to get their promise land scientific expedition and research program, what happens if, after all is said and done, the scientific establishment concludes the bigfoot phenomena is a modern day myth and explicable more by cultural anthropology and sociology than by biology or zoology?
I believe Mr. Knights would probably accept such a conclusion, with reservations perhaps. But others probably would not. And Mr. Knights has given them a word to thoughtlessly employ for just such an occasion, when their belief in bigfoot has been so challenged.
(I’m not so sure the scientific establishment need be involved in the search for bigfoot. Why would any bigfoot advocate want this to begin with? The best way to shut up skeptics and doubters is not to call them names. The best way is simply to verify the existence of bigfoot, a very large and widely distributed North American land animal. Well funded animal trackers should be more suited to job than, say, a primatologist. And doubters are not the reason nothing much has been added to the inventory of bigfoot evidence over the years. If anything, advocates must not have the best strategies in place to establish and capture giant apes in the hinterlands.)
Remedial Class
I take it Mr. Knights does “believe” in the existence of bigfoot because he often refers to himself as a believer. How refreshing. Contrast this to DWA, who, while suggesting my type of “mindset” should be “tarred, feathered and abolished,” states that he has not “uttered a single word on this site” that could be construed by any “thinking person” as rendering him “a proponent for any cryptid.” Let’s forget the “mini-me” McCarthyism (“Are you now, or have you ever been a skeptic, uh, er, “scoftic”?), and instead diagram one of DWA’s favorite arguments.
Premise 1. People see what they say they see.
Premise 2. People say they see bigfoot.
Conclusion: People see bigfoot.
Of course, this reasoning leads to a secondary conclusion: people see bigfoot because bigfoot exists.
(Mi amigo. Put down that big, 2 litre bottle of Mountain Dew for a second. Tell me if you think my syllogism above does not do your argument justice. Where did I go wrong? What other conclusion should a real “thinking person” draw from your premises? Consider this just another “teachable moment.” [I'm really trying to help you bring your grade up, amigo.]) (Smile).
springheeledjack: For the sake of argument, let us pretend we have to choose from three answers considering the identity of the Champlain cryptid in the latest video. Our choices are:
1. Likely a harbor seal.
2. Likely a “super otter.”
3. It could be either a harbor seal or a “super otter.”
Please explain which answer you would choose and why. Please explain why you chose your answer instead of the other two.
Thanks.
jerrywayne: I’m confused.
Roger Knights is one of the most deferential and circumspect of Forteans. (A group that as a whole has a deferential character that would shame a Buddhist monk.) That he – that a guy like him – even saw the need to create a word like “scoftic” speaks to me of a crying need, one that even mystery_man – as gentlemanly and circumspect as *he* is – acknowledges.
And oh have I seen that need here. I have very patiently laid out the very plain case for the sasquatch, the case made, in no uncertain terms, by a pile of evidence far bigger than what exists for many species science acknowledges. I don’t call it proof; I don’t call the case closed or the search over. I have shown my honest skeptical credentials many, many times here. And yet I am labeled a true believer by people here whose posts show, more clearly than if I were tracking their every movement, that they simply didn’t read what I wrote. You shoot their arguments full of holes; and the same old arguments just keep on and keep on and keep on coming back. (I don’t know how they even stand. They’re more hole than argument.) Oh, you’d find a name for them.
Scoftics have found many insulting names for people to cover up their lack of interest in the evidence. They seem, from just what they say here, to be very boring people living very circumscribed lives. Why do they even come here?
Are you labeling yourself one? Sounds like it. Knights labels scoftics by their behavior when confronted with evidence. Nothing fairer could there be. If the word makes you uncomfortable….read a few hundred sighting reports. Worked for me. I used to think some of the things you do (for one: the continent-wide sasquatch is a joke). I was swayed by the evidence; it clearly speaks to the continent-wide sasquatch in terms any scientist should understand. But don’t come to me characterizing all of the reports when you can’t take the trouble to read them yourself. That is scoftical.
Can you imagine an astronomer giving me time of day if I asked him: how do YOU know, idiot, that Saturn isn’t just an LED in the sky and the sun a heat lamp? If you don’t think people who have put in the hard work to research cryptids deserve the exact same deference: you are a scoftic. Can’t help it; the definition labels your behavior. Evidence? What evidence?
And as to “If anything, advocates must not have the best strategies in place to establish and capture giant apes in the hinterlands.” You need to rephrase that. You need to say: science, which has the protocols, the experience, the time and the money, just looks at its fingernails and refuses to consider the evidence. Amateurs can’t confirm the sasquatch. No one will buy it until science says it’s real. How do I know? Fifty years of evidence that would long ago have confirmed a new cat, a new canid, a new bird. That’s how I know.
Scoftics don’t know – and don’t care – enough to understand that.
My spellcheck highlights “scoftic.” Time to change that.
And don’t come crying to me until you have paid dues that have converted more than one fully qualified scientist.
R!S!R!
And happy Father’s Day, amigo.
jerrywayne: not picking on you, I swear.
But you seem to think that the score on bigfoot is true believers, 300 million; skeptics, ten! You talk about bigfoot websites as some sort of national plebiscite on the sasquatch, when no one on them can use his proper name without risk of ridicule. And you talk about people scoffing at scoftics! You’re a bit confused, amigo.
Proponents are unable to scoff. You ever see the kid getting beaten on at the playground by all the other kids scoffing? My very problem with proponents is that they have a spine! (The evidence.) AND THEY DON’T KNOW IT!
I come on here tossing brickbats at scoftics for a reason: they need it. AND NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO BE DOING IT. They need to be chased off this board, in my opinion! When they understand manners – and show intelligence – of course they can come back. But they’re trolls here, plain and simple. Read Knights and you will know why. They have no business here; they contribute nothing. Mystery_man and things-in-the-woods and Matt Bille and Daniel Loxton and a few others here offer true skepticism, delivered without condescension. Now I think some true skeptics don’t have my exposure to the evidence; but they have acknowledged the most basic points of what can be done with evidence that doesn’t amount to proof. Scoftics don’t; they plug their ears and keep shouting. Information bounces off them like bullets off …oh, I can’t say ‘Superman’ here. I know this, FIRSTHAND.
Nope, this is where we snigger behind their backs and pick them last (if at all). This is OUR playground here. It’s a place where evidence is considered without bias.
(Unlike Fox News.)
Either scoftics can’t read or don’t want to; and Knights nails them cold.
jerrywayne: you flunk remedial class. Sorry, amigo.
No thinking person could come up with your post. Unless they really really clickheelsthreetimes WANTED it to be true.
Of course here’s jerrywayne’s favorite argument, put in the same format.
1) people see cows bears horses and people.
2) people innocently re-imagine them as giant apes.
3) people are CRA-ZY.
Did I get that one?
Thanks. Knew it. I DO, you see, pay attention.
No scoftic here, amigo.
Here’s another way of putting jerrywayne’s favorite argument:
1) A bedrock basic principle of psychology is that people see what they say they do unless they’re impaired by something, or don’t want to say what they saw.
2) People who don’t seem to be impaired or lying say they’re seeing bipedal apes.
3) Psychology is wrong.
Shoot, *I* could have told you that! LOL
And now, young cryptos, let’s play “Let’s Respond for Springheeledjack!”
Here’s the choices on the “Champ” video, as posited by jerrywayne:
1. Likely a harbor seal.
2. Likely a “super otter.”
3. It could be either a harbor seal or a “super otter.”
You’re SHJ. What do you say?
RIGHT! You in the front with the steely-eyed gaze of the scientist! You are correct in saying “Um, you forgot choice no. 4: not possible to tell from the clip alone.” Not a scrap of scoftic in you, young lady!
SHJ: you pick out her prize…!
-Yes, DWA. I said that, and I’m certainly not embarrassed that I did. It’s my opinion (yes, skeptics are entitled to opinions, the same as are true believers such as yourself) that Patterson perpetrated a hoax, and hoaxes need to be investigated and exposed, not swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
For you to then suggest a comparison of my statement to the Spanish inquisition is just asinine.
From your various rants and attempts at humor within this post, I gather that your definiition of “skeptic” is “anyone who agrees with your conclusions and opinions”. Those who have the temerity to hold other viewpoints, or to be more critical of the often questionable “evidence” that you quote, and those who are open to the possibility of certain cryptid’s existence, but very skeptical of most of the “evidence” of same, are “scoftics”.
The main reason that cryptozoology is not accepted as a science is that most of the “evidence” that is presented is very easily explained as some mundane item or common animal. But when a plausible mundane explanation it put forth, the true believers among the cryptozoology crowd immediately go up in arms, and instead of looking at the explanation and saying, “well that could explain it, It’s probably not really a Bigfoot in the basement”, they start going way out on a limb to try to come up with something, anything, to try to prove that their darling is not a hoax.
That kind of behavior is not condusive to true scientific reasoning.
Any new sighting of an unknown or mythical animal is suspect (and yes, Bigfoot has attained mythic status in many respects). A scientist looks for common explanations first, and if the animal does not fit any known animal, then announces the possibility of a previously unknown creature.
A skeptic has to keep an open mind to weigh all sides of the evidence and decide what is plausible and what is nonsense, A skeptic accepts or discards evidence and anecdotal information after weighing it against what is known and what seems reasonable.
“Skeptic” is not defined as “one who agrees with DWA”. And “scoftic” is not “one who disagrees with DWA”.
I’m a skeptic with an open mind but if I see something that smells like a hoax, a hoax is what I”ll call it. Throw all the brickbats you want.
WHOA…I hadn’t come back to this one soon enough!!!
I thought the whuppin was about done, but then it started all over again…good.
JerryWayne (And thanks DWA, for picking up the slack while I was away from the site), before I answer, we need to backtrack, and discuss the first of things.
You make the same error as many when you start lumping the word “Skeptic” in with non-believers. That is, has been, and most likely will be my gripe here. It’s like a badge that scoftics and non-believers looooove to put on their own vests, but ASSume they have a sole propriety to. unh-uh.
Cryptozoologists, believers and not, have got as much claim on that as any word as any scientist and more than the rest. IF you are into cryptozoology, you learn fast and hard all about skepticism. It’s what keeps the science alive, and it’s because there is soooooooooo much fakery, tom foolery, and good old fashioned misunderstanding by individuals running into cryptids.
You HAVE to sift through the data and see if there is anything left over that cannot be laid into what we label as “normal”. It is when you extract the known and there is something still there that you can begin to look for the cryptid creeping around the edges.
That is why this science exists in the first place: there are many (and I’ll say it again, many) creatures that are being seen, in and out of the water that are not yet known to science (and by that, I mean that we don’t have one sitting in the SMithsonian in a jar or in a display case).
The problem with the scoftics (and there are many…I’ll say it again, many), is they like to think they have the corner on the market called “skepticism.” It just ain’t so, and that will usually cue you into someone’s true nature when they start spouting about how they are skeptical in nature and the rest are just believing everything everybody says. It’s malarkey. Don’t tell me or any other cryptozoologist we’re not skeptical by nature.
Now, on to the main event. I’ve got three options, but they are all wrong (actually you’ve only got two, but now I’m just getting picky). 1) it’s a harbor seal…well it is possible. The problem is, from the footage it is not clear to be able to label it a harbor seal. 2) It’s a super otter…same scenario boys and girls…from the footage you just don’t have enough info to call it…and well, 3) that’s a fence sitter if I ever saw one.
There’s also 4) it’s something else entirely, and 5) it is a known critter that we haven’t been able to nail down because the footage does not give us enough info. And there’s always 6) It’s Champ, but that’s also off the chart because Champ could be any of the above.
The problem with the equation, like most of these things is that you set before me a cage with no door and no key just to see if I’d play.
The fallacy of the scoftic is that they take an either or attitude with no room for reasoning in between. Scoftics are as bad as the group of believers who believe everything trying to support their favorite cryptid no matter what they encounter. Scoftics start with the premise that there is no such thing, and no possibility of a such thing, and start looking at those who do entertain the possibility as crackpots, and people who “just want to believe.” AND once again the scoftic stands out because they ASSume that cryptozoology and its supporters are all that type of person, when in fact it ain’t so.
As for me, I do believe there is a Champ. I don’t have enough info to say that what was shot on video is that creature or not, but I believe there has been enough evidence surface over the years to support the existence of a larger predator in Lake Champlain that does not fit the usual species living there. I think it is a creature that has yet to be displayed in your favorite zoological museum, but as to what it is, I have not been able to figure that out yet.
I’ve got more, but it’s time to let someone else speak…for a moment or two…
kittenz: take a chill pill. And stick to stuff you know something about.
Class? There’s some scoftic earmarks in her post. But I’ve had my fun with her. This is a lab practicum. I’ll leave her to you.
Oh wait! Kittenz does hit it on the head here.
“The main reason that scoftics are not accepted as thinkers is that most of the evidence that is presented, they don’t even look at. The little bit they ever review is very convolutedly explained as some ‘mundane’ item or ‘common’ animal…. but when a plausible alternative explanation is put forth, the true believers among the scoftic crowd (all of them; they are true believers in the boring and mundane, and really true believers in not shedding the light of science on anything making them uncomfortable) immediately go up in arms, and instead of looking at the explanation and saying, “well that could explain it, maybe the sasquatch is real,” they start going way out on a limb to try to come up with something, anything, to try to prove that their darling inconceivable hoax just might happen. (Actually, they don’t even do that. They just shout hoax and go back to sleep. Research and scoftic can’t even go in the same paragraph; it’s a natural law. But anything that makes them comfortable, regardless the experience, credentials or credibility of the person putting it forward, they seize upon as proof that they are right. That’s how true believers behave, after all.)”
Right, kittenz. (There’s lots of scofticism in her post, class. But not that part.
)
And let’s take an in depth look at the first parable in JW’s statements…and by the way, I have no animosity here, toward you or any other, but it is time to look at facts, and fallacies. One of my favorite-est classes(since we’re using crazy words here…and since the English language was my forte in college many moons ago…I’ll make a few words of my own…just hope I don’t use “however”) was logic. And it’s because it’s all about looking for valid arguments versus what sounds valid.
Concerning the BF approach: (and by the way, I know enough of DWA to know that this is no where near his approach)
Premise 1. People see what they say they see.
Premise 2. People say they see bigfoot.
Conclusion: People see bigfoot.
People say what they see–true enough, AND we do know that people are prone to make mistakes. Heck, I got in a car accident this year and case in point, I was at the wheel in a multi-fender bender and I did not have proper recognition of what car hit me in what order. After talking it over with my wife, I realized that she had a better memory of the order of things than I did. However, (oops, I said it), while I did not get the order right, I knew that I had been hit by a toyota, a Subaru and then the toyota again…and it wasn’t a deer or a bear…you see where I’m going with this.
I’ll give you that people make mistakes about what they see…when you see something you don’t understand, the human response is to try to pin it into something that you can relate to. And if you don’t have much experience in the woods or on the water, it is easy to take a quick glance at something and say, I saw this big hairy thing moving through the woods through the trees, and well, I’ve never seen anything like it, so maybe it was bigfoot.
HOWEVER, that is where real skepticism comes in. When cryptozoologists (like those over at the BFRO) talk with witnesses, start asking detailed questions to see if it really might have been a bear in bear country…or were there enough oddities to the account that make it possible something else unidentified was seen.
Point two. People say they see bigfoot. That is fallacy. If you talk with people who have actually seen something outside their realm of experience, most of them are not willing to walk up on the witness stand and say that yes they did indeed saw bigfoot. I’ve talked to people on that count, and they seem to skirt the BF issue. They know they saw something odd, and they know what BF is, but most have been extremely reticent about putting the BF tag on it. So, I do not believe that people automatically jump to the BF conclusion–some do…and you will have that…But, most people are trying to still put what they saw into the realm of what they can understand. And for those who jump on the BF bandwagon…saying they caught one, or have one stashed or whatever, there’s your first red flag to wade through.
Point 3. Yes they do. Now some of them are storing rubber suits in ice in freezer lockers and trying to make a buck or get their fifteen minutes on youtube or in the media (don’t even get me started on the media or I’ll be here for another twelve paragraphs). HOWEVER, the real point is, that there are lots of people who are seeing something out in the wilds (and sometimes not so wilds) that does not fit into the known zoological record, and there has been enough of it over the years for cryptozoologists and other skeptics to at least keep an open mind. Some of us keep an open mind to the extent that we keep records of sightings, or even go out into hot spots to see if we can reproduce the results. Doesn’t mean we have all the answers, but it means we’re looking for answers.
And that’s how it’s done.
As for cryptozoology itself…I don’t really care if some idiot somewhere says “it’s not a real science,” because that is only some arrogance trying to assert itself so cryptozoology will be quiet and go away…which it ain’t. Cryptozoology is alive and well and we have accolades for ourselves everyday…there are all kinds of new species being found every day…in the oceans, lakes, jungles, you name it…sometimes things right in our own backyards…Loren can give you the current list
…
that’s cryptozoology at work: finding animals currently unknown…and just because it isn’t Loren or Craig or Rick or John or Arlene Gaul or a host of devout cryptozoologists who aren’t in on the catch every day does not mean it isn’t happening.
Cryptozoology is real, and it’s here to stay. I’m not going to waste breath arguing for its existence…it’s right there in front of you, and if you say otherwise, then chances are you’re a scoftic…
Okay, I’m on a roll now, but I won’t bend your ear much this time…promise.
The last thing I’ll say is…personally, if you don’t believe in the Big 3 (you know, the Beatles, The Stones and AC~DC…just kidding), hey that’s cool and all fine and dandy. Now, if you’re the discussing sort, I have no qualms about asking you why, and I may try to argue points or point out alternate perspectives, but I look at this whole business as not to try to make everyone else believe what I believe.
If you think I’m crazy for believing there’s a cryptid swimming in Loch NEss, I’m fine…doesn’t put a damper on my passion, doesn’t make me doubt it…I have read the evidence same as you, and in that long list of encounters, I find information and evidence that leads me to believe there is something out there that we do not know what it is.
I have NO PROBLEM with doubters or those who reject the idea. They’ve read the accounts, and they have made up their minds. That’s cool, we can all sit down over a beer, tea or whatever and live in harmony.
What I do not put up with is the people who come along and not only tell me I’m wrong, but try to shuck and jive (did I just date myself???) others with bait and switch arguments, come up with even goofier theories they can’t support, and claim to be all of the things a cryptozoologist is not without actually doing it. That’s a scoftic too.
And since we know jerrywayne does maybe read what I write, we know that what he was trying here
Premise 1. People see what they say they see.
Premise 2. People say they see bigfoot.
Conclusion: People see bigfoot.
…was for purposes of illustrating a scoftical (i.e., don’t read or don’t comprehend) take on what I think, which he knows can be expressed much better as follows:
Premise 1. People see what they say they see.
Premise 2. People whose credibility doesn’t appear seriously in question on any other count (e.g., scientists, whom scoftics love when they agree), with no incentive whatsoever to do this, and in fact a very substantial NEGATIVE incentive, say they see bigfoot. They provide consistent descriptions, and there are a LOT of them.
Conclusion: Given what we know about human behavior and human visual perception, something is odd here, and someone interested in finding out about the world – oh, say, a scientist maybe, because THAT’S THEIR JOB – would want to know what.
Note the non-scoftical tendency to use Big Words. But I trust, class, that you are staying with me. Skeptics are like that.
Scoftics, however, want to use little words, toss it off as fast as possible, and scare away anyone who might be interested in finding out.
Mine takes a bit longer to read. But anyone conversant with the evidence – a definite non-characteristic of the scoftic – would recognize it and say, bingo.
Roger: this is one heck of a teachable moment you are providing here. Kudos!
And don’t anyone come back to me with any technical quibbles about syllogistical structure. As any cryptozoologist knows: models guide when used properly. Improperly (as I have demonstrated here on this site more than once), they blind.
Boys, boys, boys, boys….
Ya’ll are going to hurt my feelings one of these days! (Grin!)
DWA,
No doubt you need a remedial class in reading, at the least. O.K, I’ll be kind and assume I didn’t make myself clear.
In a prior post on another thread, you stated that eyewitness accounts are not conclusive. After all those many hours you and I wrangled and got tangled up on the issue of eyewitness testimony, you agreed that you could not endorse the existence of bigfoot based on eyewitness testimony alone. That is my position
as well, and the position of many others who are often denigrated in your posts and dismissed as “scoftics.”
Now, in my post above I was addressing a different issue. You stated that no “thinking person” would ever get the idea that you are a “proponent for any cryptid” by reading your posts here. Now I ask you, politely, yet firmly: ARE YOU INSANE!
The syllogism I posted, gleaned from your comments and arguments, CONCLUDES that bigfoot exists! (And the conclusion is found in your writings, via your arguments, just in case you want to now equivocate or argue the syllogism is rigged.) So, my friend, you are making arguments that any person, “thinking” or not, would be given cause to believe: Yes indeed, DWA is a cryptid “proponent, (in this case, bigfoot).
This has nothing to do with not reading your posts. Period. Your posts are (unintentionally) confusing as you make up the rules of engagement as you go along. (As you admit above when you muff a syllogism).
Anyway, amigo, thanks for not picking on me!
(SMILE)
Springhealedjack
I do not think you are crazy for believing in Nessie or anything else. Funny about me, but I never take that route and wouldn’t now. I do like to discuss the issues, and I’m not above taking a shot or two. (I presume we are mostly grown ups
here.)
Where I take issue with you and others is on the underpinning of cryptozoology. If cryptozoology is to be taken seriously by the scientific establishment, it needs to conform to the scientific method, and strictly so. This seems to be objected to by Mr. Knights as he complains about such things as peer review and “rules” and the such. This is unfortunate.
While he seems to want to limit the admittedly pejorative term “scoftics” to alleged closed minded scientists and skeptics at CSI, I think he would really apply it as well to the scientific community as a whole. He does not do so, in my arm chair opinion, because the scientific community as a whole largely ignores the paranormal. He is not as offended with this as he is put out with those scientists and science promoters who DO take issue with the paranormal. (Also, he would like government funding for research into “strange phenomena” and probably doesn’t want to alienate scientists at large.) (And, I offer this caveat: my view is based on my impression only and Mr. Knights may want to take exception to my statements.)
Cryptozoology was basically founded by Heuvelmans and Sanderson. Heuvelmans had the right idea, I believe, in making the issue a issue of science and wanting to place the study of hidden animals within the purview of an established subbranch of biology, zoology.
Sanderson, while a zoologist, seemed to widen the issue, if not formally, then informally through his popular books, to include Fortean approaches and ideas.
I simply think this is a bad idea and have been rather surprised at finding so many Forteans at a site which deals with the animal world. If we undergird cryptozoology with Fortean concepts and its woolly beliefs, then, I’m sorry, we will forever find crypto books at the bookstore in the paranormal and New Age section, not where I would hope they should belong, in the science and biology sections.
And, I think it wrongheaded to appeal to the standards of conventional science AND hold a Fortean worldview. They don’t mix all that well.
At some point, they will be in conflict, as they are here with accusations flying fast and furious about who is a real skeptic and name-calling those who conventionally (and scientifically) want to limit the possibilities to as close to the everyday world as feasible.
My question to you came with conditions “for the sake of argument” which you did not take up. You did take my quiz a little too literally. My only point was that we have to discern what is more probable or plausible as a matter of method. If not, then you might as well include whatever you can imagine and in the end impede understanding, not enhance it.
Harbor seal of the three choices would be the most plausible because we know they exist and have been seen in Champlain. The “super-otter” is not known to exist anywhere except in the pages of cryptozoological literature, and on the monitor screen. It is a very fanciful (to say the least) alternative to the seal solution. And the third option fails because it gives equal credence to what is known and what is known nowhere but in the imagination.
AMEN kittenz!
DWA, Jerrywayne, both of you are ever-so-slightly grating on my nerves, to be quite honest. You both talk to each other as though the other is stupid – accusing them, among other things, of an inability to read – and refer to the others here as “class”, as though you personally were the masterful, wise teacher.
Scoftic, like it or not, is a word; the thing is to see that it is not misapplied. Jerry, at the moment, I cannot for certain say that you are one or the other, based on the discussion taking place here alone. There are certain things, however, that raise red flags in my mind as to your status as a skeptic.
DWA, as nice as it would be to have a discussion absolutely free of scoftics, it is impossible to keep them all away, and, further, scoftics may change – I present myself (okay, I was a kid then, but still) as an example of this.
JW,
What we end up getting is into a battle of semantics…and also indivdual perception of what Cryptozoologist and scoftic actually mean. And maybe therein lies the rub.
I will agree with you that cryptozoology is often seen as a pseudo-science that is an umbrella for the zoological as well as the paranormal. I think that happens often depending on who you are and what you consider crypto. That’s where the lines get fuzzy around here because people tend to pick one fence or another, or multiple. As for me, I see cryptozoology as the hunt for animals–real tangible animals that can be seen, studied and so forth. Things like mermaids which I think swim across that line get lumped into cryptozoology because people honestly don’t know what to do with them. As I said on the post for mermaids, they have always fascinated me–the accounts and what not, but I cannot fathom (like the underwater verbosity, do we…well I do) a creature that is actually half fish and half human…not without a lot of advanced genetics and some real weirdness which we don’t have.
And so, for people like me, DWA, I assume Mystery_Man, and Loren and the cast here at Cryptomundo, cryptozoology falls into the real creature realm, excluding the paranormal (the paranormal may be out there, but from our present mode of technology, you can’t really measure such things or even come into contact with said phenomena unless you’re in the proverbial right-place-at-the-right time, so I tend to ignore most of the “paranormal” “Stuff”:)
However, I think the “scientific community” by and large, dismisses cryptozoology because they assume it’s all mermaids and loup-garous and vampires and what not…partially because that is the label CZ has gotten and partly because they’re too lazy to look further than their stereotypes.
As for scoftic…I think the definition depends on your wielder…DWA and myself, well, I think we like to throw it around like a dirty word…heck, I know I do. I like the way it rolls off the tongue and gouges the eyes….as for my own personal definition…Scoftic, definition by SpringheeledJack (and yes, I saw you mispelled my name–tsk, tsk): a person or persons who begin any conversation relating to cryptozoology with a negative position (tranlsated as–they go into the arena with the idea that there is no possibility and they do not exist…and I would expect you to say that the naysayers are not acting that way, but I disagree…and again maybe it’s semantics and maybe not all the naysayers do this, or started this way, but there’s plenty that do…just try to deny it…).
But it goes further than taking a negative position…because what I see as a true Scoftic is someone who seems to do everything in their power to try to find any explanation for cryptids other than cryptids (relax, I see you rubbing your hands together), no matter how outlandish, and no matter whether it applies to a particular case or not, AND said person then extrapolates the one case to all cases and accounts.
And in the case of BF…making a statement like “People just don’t know what they are seeing…it is fact that people do not get their facts straight, and so to extrapolate when anyone is in the woods and sees something hairy, they assume it’s bigfoot when in fact it is just a bear…”
That sounds reasonable on the face of it, and in many instances I would say that is plausible. However (oh here we go again), that does not apply to every case. And what I am interested in is the cases where the usual explanations do not apply. That is what leads me to believe in cryptids. The one or five percent of accounts that do not add up to mundane, known explanations.
Scoftics also use unrelated, invalid arguments to try to prove their points. Example, the cryptomundo post last year with a man and woman (sorry forget their names) who shot a video of them talking about cryptids and the camera going back and forth between them. Meanwhile, each time the camera shifted, one of them was changing his shirt, appearance in some way to see whether viewers would notice.
THe point? They argued that since people could be taken in, or not see such changes, it somehow disqualified accounts of cryptids because people are not all that observant and as such, none of their observances can be trusted, or considered factual. It’s an invalid argument because A) it is apples and oranges, and B) it fails to correctly address the issues of cryptozoology (and we can get back into that argument later if you want).
To me, that is scofticism.
As for your test…it’s not a fair question on any front. You throw out the seal versus super otter, but you’ve fixed the test before it’s ever begun. That is not scientific thought processes going on either.
You are asking me to pick A or B, or A & B, based on an extremely finite amount of data just to see if I go for the crypto theory or the known animal, but the truth is, it could be A, B, or neither. It could also be a myriad of other choices, but the fact is we don’t have enough info to make even a good guess because of so few facts.
The test is invalid because it presupposes only two choices with little information. To answer within those confines is not only non-scientific, but also small minded and only engaging in a sophmoric exercise of “what if.”
With the Champlain footage what you should have asked is, okay, from your view of the material what conclusions did you come up with? Then I would have respected your question and gave an answer based on my research, personal knowledge, and estimation of the few facts available.
Is a seal a possibility? Is the super-otter? Is the Champy that Dennis Hall theorizes, or giant slugs, super-eels, other things not even considered…sure…they are all possibilities…but being possible does not mean explained.
That is the ultimate difference between cryptozoologists and scoftics. Cryptozoologists are looking for answers that include possibilities. Scoftics have already made up their minds that there are no possibilities outside a small finite number of known explanations and they are either unwilling or afraid to entertain the idea that the world is bigger than their experience.
SHJ: good posts. They highlight the distinction implied by the word ’scoftic’ very well.
CryptoInformant 2.0
You are right to complain. Personally, I’ve worried that my exchanges with DWA might be too harsh and offend, or bore, others. I know both DWA and I are capable of better work. (And amigo, I have nothing but respect for you, despite appearances.)
As a teenager in the 1960’s, I was the nerd that one Saturday spent hours in an old, dusty, disorganized used book store digging for Sanderson’s True Magazine articles on sasquatch.
So, the crypto bug has been with me for a majority of my life.
The reason I am here at this site is two fold (my interest in crypto is a starting point). First, I believe cryptozoology has elements of the paranormal and the Fortean which hinders it as a science.
Second, I think cryptos ignore negative evidence and too often fail to consider the possibility (at least) of non-existence as applied to favored (dare I say romantic) cryptids. If we are to approach the discussion of cryptids with the open mind everyone talks about, we MUST include the possibility that Nessie (for instance) does not exist in our inventory of explanations for the Ness phenomena. And include in a meaningful way, and not as something to scoff at and get rid of as fast as possible.
And I must mention this. If a scoftic is someone who SCOFFS (by definition), then there are very, very few scoffing skeptics that post here. Most of us skeptics here do not scoff, but are scoffed at.
And, some here seem to view their roles as some type of “enforcer” trying to drive away the more constitutionally skeptical. I’ll leave when the plug is pulled on me, or when Loren asks me to go. However, I think I have something to contribute.
Well, if jerrywayne can be big, so can I.
Backatcha, amigo.
CryptoInformant 2.0: if you have ever had your views misrepresented the way mine have sometimes been here, you might understand our exchanges better. Me, I simply avoid anything that grates on my nerves. I respond to jerrywayne because I see our exchanges as illuminating. Ben Radford I just toss off with one-liners. That’s a scoftic; in fact Knights could be using Radford as his prototype. But, despite appearances, there’s stuff in jerrywayne’s posts that merits detailed response in order to show people how our approaches to the evidence differ. Just pass over the parts you don’t like.
You make a point, however; from now on I’ll just point people to my posts and let them judge. They stand pretty well on their own. 
I can accept what jerrywayne says about cryptos as applying to the ‘fringe’ that does much to give crypto a bad name. I hold no brief for true believers. But I think there are folks out there who are applying the best of their science to this field. (For example: there is much of crypto in paleontology, if one thinks about it for a minute.) I don’t think that the ones applying their science to crypto should be lumped with the TBs. Scoftics show their colors when they do that.
I haven’t been following this thread very closely, as flame wars make me tired.
I like this last post by jerrywayne. I too was the nerd (for me it was the late 60s and through the 70s – I was 10 in 1970) looking for Bigfoot stuff, reading about the Hills’ UFO experiences, ghost stuff, anything woowoo I could find. But Spock was also a hero in no small part due to his logic, and Bones the skeptic was cool much of the time too.
I do agree with jerrywayne in what he posts here. We have to be prepared for crytpozoology to be multiexplanational (is that a word? LOL) That is, just as the UFO phenomenon is a mixture of folklore, misidentified planets/stars/airplanes etc., misperceptions, hallucinations, hoaxes, etc., with what is left over simply unexplained..or apparently Fortean in some way…so cryptozoology isn’t an “all or nothing” endeavor.
I have enjoyed many of the posts on perception, psychology, illusions, equipment issues etc. on the British ASSAP site (which mostly deals with phantoms and apparitions, but also includes UFOs and Forteana).
Whatever one thinks of cryptozoology, there have been enough cryptids which have been proven to exist (coelacanth, okapi, gorilla, and the many smaller species found in the last few years too) that cryptzoology as a true branch of natural history is no longer in doubt.
However, IF cryptozoology is proposed to be amenable to scientific inquiry, then skepticism is an inevitable part of it. Is cryptozoology a matter of science (inquiry, the scientific method, skepticism, replicability of results, materialism, empiricism, etc.) or is it a matter of belief and religion (scripture, the prophets, revelation, immaterialism, faith)? Or is it, really some of both? Does it vary by adherent/inquirer?
We know that cryptozoology EXISTS as an area of interest to many. But what is it? What is it to you?
Jerry, I agree with you that very few who post here – especially among those who make long, detailed posts – are true scoftics, though some may make errors in logic or deviate from true scientific thought in their arguments. That “quiz” you presented to SHJ, for example. I also agree that some apply the word scoftic a little too lightly. However, if you are looking for people who seriously lump the paranormal in with the cryptozoological, I think you are looking in the wrong place – Cryptomundo, in my experience, has focused solely on the purely cryptozoological, and I have not known either DWA or SHJ to take too seriously the more paranormal claims accidentally thrown in with our field.
So, when you argue with us against the Truthiness-crowd, you’re pretty much preaching to the choir.
See, now we’re getting somewhere…this dialogue is getting better—more positive and actually talking about scofticism.
I think skepticism is a word that belongs in the cryptozoologist’s back pocket…I’ve said that before, but largely I feel that cryptozoology and it’s “ists” do not get credit for being just that. That is what frustrates me when people come into the arena and start tossing being skeptical and scientific versus cryptozoologists and believers. Skepticism and cryptozoology go hand in hand.
And that is also the difference for me. I do not see scoftics as skeptics, but way over the line.
I have no problem with people who do not believe that there are swimming cryptids, hairy cryptids or any others (I have said this before too, and honestly I mean that…my own passions and beliefs are not diminished by those who refute the ideas). I do, however, have problems with the kinds of people who refute claims for cryptids using those roundabout invalid arguments, or coming up with a single theory of explanation for cryptid sightings and then expanding the one theory to denounce all accounts of a cryptid. I have seen that done more than once and done here…and well, when that happens the kid gloves come off and I pull out the .44 keyboard.
ANd JW, I think you are correct, in many instances the crypto world often falls into the paranormal, and it is because cryptozoology encompasses different things for different people. Personally, I am interested in the tangible creature that may be thumping around the world, not the really oddball stuff like lizardmen, mermaids, werewolves, etc. (even though these topics do fascinate me, they are not something I am going to spend time investigating because they are so mythical in nature). HOwever, there are crypto people who lump some of that into cryptozoology and so it puts another level or light on the science as a whole.
I love discussing the stuff, even when the ink bullets start flying. It can get nasty, but it can also get some real ideas on the table. There are many shades to cryptozoology, skepticism, naysaying and what constitutes all of those, and that is why we often get into these heated debates. I know what I define scoftic as, but others may see it as something else. Same goes for cryptozoology and skepticism.
Alright, I’m movin’ on unless someone has some other topic to delve into…
Lance Foster: What is cryptozoology to me?
It’s a branch of zoology, if it’s worth anything.
That means extreme points of view that don’t take evidence into account aren’t advancing it and aren’t worthwhile.
Roger Knights has invented something critical here: a way to dismiss the extreme opposite of woo-woo, abruptly, because it does nothing to move crypto forward as what it is – a science.
Scoftics frequently denigrate crypto, when their own behavior – and its tolerance by cryptos – is a large part of the problem.
You have to do here what you have to do to be welcome in any scientific gathering. Which is: back up every single thing you say, positive or negative, with evidence. The reason I sound like a proponent sometimes is that, in crypto, proponents are ahead by way more than the murder rule on points.
They have the evidence. By every scientific standard of what constitutes evidence. (Anecdotal evidence, i.e., eyewitnesses, has been critical to, indeed inseparable from, scientific endeavor from science’s beginnings, and proof and evidence are different, so let’s not go over that again.)
They have the evidence. Which is, of course, why we are all here.
SHJ says:
“I have no problem with people who do not believe that there are swimming cryptids, hairy cryptids or any others (I have said this before too, and honestly I mean that…my own passions and beliefs are not diminished by those who refute the ideas).”
Same here. Same with me. As long as they admit that their belief is just that – a belief – and not backed by a scrap of evidence. And as long as they don’t come on here sniggering at people who have done research and know more than they do.
The only reason I’m not on board with the sasquatch is what you have heard many a scoftic say here: how could something like that still be at large and undiscovered? What I am on board with is the EVIDENCE for the sasquatch, and its clear scientific merit. Individual scientists can recuse themselves. But they have no right to pollute the airwaves with uninformed opinions, backed by laughter, any more than you or I do. That’s ignorance and shouldn’t be tolerated. ESPECIALLY when it comes from a scientist.
The evidence has forced me to rethink the scoftical premise, and to discover, through research and lots of thought, that it is a most plausible thing that this is happening – that many, many people just could indeed possibly be seeing an animal for which the evidence doesn’t add up the way it should because no one can talk about it. As Sherlock told you, when the evidence says it’s happening, you better figure out how, because the evidence doesn’t lie. Not when the evidence behaves the way real things behave, and when the wall of ignorance that counters it is so standard-issue human that of COURSE it’s plausible.
What scoftics do doesn’t amount to lying. Unfortunately, it doesn’t amount to research either, or to thought; and we should feel free to laugh at it, until its practitioners either wise up and join in reasoned dialogue, or go away.
Jerrywayne: with regard to Knights’s comments this passage deserves comment:
“Where I take issue with you and others is on the underpinning of cryptozoology. If cryptozoology is to be taken seriously by the scientific establishment, it needs to conform to the scientific method, and strictly so. This seems to be objected to by Mr. Knights as he complains about such things as peer review and “rules” and the such. This is unfortunate.”
No, actually, it’s not, because that isn’t what Knights is saying. Peer review is the scientific method at work; I hope no one would disagree. What Knights objects to – and I think context makes that clear – is how scoftics treat science, as The All-Seeing Power Over All Things Unknown and Known. In other words: if it hasn’t gone through the process of peer review, it doesn’t exist.
I daresay the coelacanth and the okapi existed LONG before peer review was a gleam in an australopithecine’s eye.
Science is, as I have said here many times, our Arbiter of the Real. In other words, if science hasn’t confirmed it, we don’t accept it.
Which has no bearing on its ultimate reality, one way or the other.
Peer review is irrelevant if the evidence is being ignored when submitted. Which by default loads the scoftics’ guns.
THAT is, I think, Knights’s point.
DWA, I think we’re the only two on this post, but doesn’t bother me…
I like what you said up there too–that it is fine for A scientist to say, “nah, I don’t believe in __________”, BUT it is not okay to say that “no I don’t believe, and since I don’t believe, all of science doesnt’ believe. THAT is what a scoftic does…tries to come up with some hokum “Scientific” “evidence” and then not only apply it to all cases for a cryptid, but then goes on to say that since what they did was scientific, what was done by crpyptozoologists was not and therefore said cryptid does not exist.
Yeah. Alright, is this horse beat dead or what!
I think this dead horse is beat.
I’ve been sitting this one out, which is not really like me is it? I just figured everything that needs to be said is being said, I didn’t have the time, and to tell you the truth, this was becoming a bit of a maelstrom.
Jerrywayne- Thank you for your compliment about my comments. If you really mean it, then it is much appreciated. In the climate of this discussion it has been hard to determine what is sarcasm and what isn’t so forgive me if I’m not sure.
Anyway, interesting discussion. Sorry I didn’t have time to jump in much.
mystery_man,
My comments were sincere and I hope my overall tone did not mislead you to think otherwise. You are consistently the most thoughtful and levelheaded poster here, even as some of the rest of us may come across as a bunch of agitated jack apes, throwing our scat at one another.
As you may see, the term “scoftic” does set off some innate bitterness, purposefully by coinage, or just an unintentional bi-product, I do not know.
I’m with JW on this…if we have one point of stability on this site, it is Mystery Man.
You (MM) are what I consider the role model for this site–thorough, informed, questioning, and open minded.
The rest of us…well we all fall somewhere in between, especially when we get passionate about a subject. As for scoftic as a word…it’s in my vocabulary, and useful. Afraid it ain’t going away anytime soon, whether it shows up in the dictionary or not…
I might sound like a sycophant here for a minute, but I agree with what SHJ and Jerry said regarding Mystery-man. Definitely one of the key people in most discussions on this site.
Now, Jerry, I don’t think that the bitterness set off by the word is intentional, but I suppose you’d have to ask Knights himself about that one.
Jerrywayne, SHJ, cryptoinformant, thank you. Kind words indeed and deeply appreciated. I enjoy all of your posts as well.
It is good that this discussion took place, even though the word inspires so much emotion. A lot of people were able to get their thoughts out and “get it off their chest” so to speak. I have read all of the comments here and although it got a bit heated, I think it was constructive all things told. Everyone was able to say their piece, and we were able to further determine what everyone is thinking of when they say “scoftic.” Whether we all agree on these definitions or not, at least we could come to some understanding of where everyone is coming from and some of the reasons why the word conjures up such passion for each individual. A bit fascinating really. I also think it has wrapped up on a good note. I for one, will probably not use the word much, if only because the added heat it brings could distract from whatever discussion is at hand, which is to me not worth it.
Anyway, thank you all for the words of praise.
Scoftics, paranormalism
I would define someone as a “scoftic” if they meet the following criteria: they are prematurely or ignorantly skeptical, and they have a mocking (scoffing) attitude. Folks I have known who treat cryptozoology scoftically have almost all showed no real interest in crypto pursuits. For instance, since the advent of VHS, I have shown various friends and family the Patterson film. To a person, they had no interest in the topic and derided the film as “obviously” a fake. (“See how he walks, come on, it’s a GUY in a monkey suit!”) Whatever one might conclude about Patterson’s film, one thing IS obvious: it’s not obviously a hoax.
Another branch of scofticism surprised me by its irony. I knew a young woman who was into New Age mysticism. I thought she might find the topic of Nessie interesting. Instead, she was caustic and thought the very idea of Nessie was ridiculous. When I asked her how she could dismiss Nessie out of hand, and yet embrace Tarot readings uncritically (for instance), her
answer had a certain logic. She said the mystical arts cannot be proven or disproved, whereas Nessie could be proved, and should have been a long time ago if “she” really existed.
Once, my stepsister asked me if I really thought there might be an abominable snowman. When I said yes, she upbraided me with: “Well, don’t you believe in the Bible?” As she stomped away, I thought to myself: “What?” I still don’t know what she meant by the question, but I suspect it had something to do with evolution.
As to paranormalism and cryptozoology, I know most posters here do not mix the study of unknown animals with the paranormal. Unfortunately, others do, such as Nick Redfern, who mixes “monster hunting” and the paranormal with happy abandon, even as he calls himself a “cryptozoologist.” However, my concerns over paranormalism is not just in this obvious, overt mixture, but in a more subtle, underlying attitude that sometimes permeates cryptozoology.
I don’t have a good word to define my concern, so the best I can suggest is “fatalism.” It seems to me that cryptos and para enthusiasts share an underlying attitude of fatalism as it concerns the confirmation of their respective entities. For instance, a ghost believer may have a great interest in spooky photos or scary stories about ghosts. The believer watches “Ghost Hunters” and reads books on ghosts . The ghost believer is not duly concerned that ghostly apparitions have not been verified in any objective, conventional way. Rather, the believer is satisfied just to read more stories or gaze upon the latest photo. He seems to be resigned to belief without verification.
I see the same thing played out on the crypto front. For instance, the bigfoot issue. Enthusiasts read the sighting reports and are endlessly fascinated by the Patterson film. There are tracks here and there, and sightings here, there, and everywhere. All, of course, to be considered. Enthusiasts long for the day when the denouement comes. They look for the scientific endorsement down the road. Maybe tomorrow, or the day after, or maybe next year.
There seems to me to be a fatalism in this attitude or view of the situation. One can always hope things will turn out. But, we are discussing, after all, not ephemeral ghostly entities, but large animals of flesh and blood, widely seen and thus distributed. Bigfoot is not apparently relegated to the remote, densely forested areas of the U.S., but found also in farm lands neighboring towns, on roadsides, in brush country, near garbage dumps, etc.
Why then does the enthusiast remain complacent, seemingly satisfied to read more reports or watch the Patterson film again? We are looking for the tallest animal in the landscape, one of the largest and heaviest. Since reports give us impressions of a robust, healthy population of greater apes, we can’t excuse the absence of a specimen on a sparse, necessarily inbred population.
What makes the imminent verification of a bigfoot an unrealistic goal? Why have the enthusiasts and professional advocates not devised a strategy for capture? How is it that the gorilla was verified by westerners in the 1860’s, in a land truly remote to the West, and yet here in an industrialized land, highly populated, we have our own magnificent apes, and they have been reduced to mere apparitions?
Let me make my point clear. I’m not arguing here that a lack of hard evidence should be taken to mean there is no bigfoot (although one could make that argument). I’m arguing here that enthusiasts should demand an advocate national strategy for verification, but because they have not, they are falling into a paranormal-belief-like fatalism. To a degree, they accept the status quo.
I know some cryptos are looking to science for the final solution. Mr. Knights wants public funding for data collection of bigfoot information, apparently to force the hand of institutional science to finally acknowledge there is something real in the bigfoot phenomena. DWA apparently believes there will be a tipping point in the future, when the circumstantial evidence will force science to act. The thought is: Once science fields a team or teams, the outcome will be the long awaited solution.
Of course science will be the final arbiter as to what a bigfoot specimen represents. But there is no reason to expect a pie-in-the-sky intervention by science to do the hard work and solve the mystery.
Cryptos and bigfoot advocates must stop treating the bigfoot question as if it is a quasi-mystical phenomena. Does cryptozoology have a trace of paranormal blood in its veins? Or does this fatalism point to a buried doubt?
Well, not to sound like a sycophant myself, but need to echo everything else that’s been said about mystery_man.
That’s the kind of scientist cryptozoology needs. The rest of us? Well, can’t everybody sound alike, right?
Jerrywayne: you have put up one of the most interesting posts I’ve seen on this site.
You seemed to label yourself as a scoftic, or at least one as perceived by us, farther up here. Let me assure you: I never respond to scoftics the way I do to you, and the evidence is all over.
I think the fatalistic attitude Jerry refers to has several contributing factors – a lack of capacity on the part of armchair enthusiasts to actually take some time off to go looking, the (perhaps irrational) belief that someone else will do it eventually, and yes, for some, the factors you mentioned are probably part of it.
Jerrywayne:
your post asks questions that I think skeptics should be asking, and listening to the answers. (Scoftics, of course, don’t know or care.) It asks more, maybe, than I will answer in this post, but might as well start.
I’ve said this many times here: confirming an animal scientifically – particularly one against the existence of which I believe the scientific mainstream holds an intrinsic scoftical bias – is much more complicated than seeing one, orders of magnitude more complicated, in fact, than thousands, or even millions, of people seeing them. And every one remaining an island, because none of them can talk about it (except anonymously or to a few trusted people) without being laughed at. (Or fired.)
Ninety-nine point nine nine nine nine percent of the animal sightings I have had in my life I have zero evidence for, other than what my eyes told me. (And the eyes of others if they were there.) This is true of all of us, by the way. For field biologists, no less, the percentage would not vary much from mine. To bring back anything, of any kind, that can begin the road to confirmation of something no one is full-time researching yet is, actually, too much to ask, because most animals are all but un-photographable, unless they are either assiduously pursued by experts or have become accustomed to regular human presence (habituation). Bison and elk in Yellowstone, for examples of the latter; rabbits and squirrels in your yard. Sasquatch generally do not go in the habituated category. It flat-out gobsmacks most people to see something they knew didn’t exist; the camera will be, at the very least, an afterthought, and they probably won’t have time to use it. (Patterson went prepared for precisely what happened; and you see that his film wasn’t exactly flawless.)
Try getting a shot of a wild wolverine or cougar or wolf. Or of an ape – yes a known ape – that hasn’t essentially been habituated. Don’t promise me you’ll do it before you die. This typifies the host of daunting problems faced by full-time experts; and most of the people looking for cryptids aren’t experts at what they are doing. Most aren’t even scientists. And as has been pointed out here before: enthusiasm isn’t the only component required in the toolkit of scientific confirmation. And in my opinion, even the most serious cryptos are lacking several critical tools.
As to the “fatalism” you talk about. Well, not sure I’d say that about Bigfoot researchers. Most I hear about are devoting every second of their lives they can to the search. Now. Count up the hours spent at the real job; with family; with friends; commuting to one thing or another; vacations; shopping and eating; re-charge time alone; …you’re getting the picture. A researcher may get an average, if lucky, of an hour or two a week at this. Should they spend more? Um, who needs that? Is science waiting for them or something? Not that I can see. They’re amateurs. It’s their hobby; they seem to be quite happy just doing it. I find it funny that the most serious and scientific of them seem to find compelling, or at the very least intriguing, evidence of several different kinds on every field effort. (And no, I am not including Biscardi and his ilk in this or anything else serious.) Not the same as proof, of course. But you’d think it would be interesting to somebody. It sure is to them. I’m sure that fatalistic is the last thing they feel.
Me? I’m curious. That’s it. I’m not a Bigfooter and at the moment don’t plan to be. This blog is my main contribution to crypto (and not too shabby if you just ask me). One of the reasons I get so exercised at certain lines of thought on this site – like the one under discussion on this blog – is that those people could not be doing more to obstruct science if they were doing it with clear intent. (Which – uncomfortable in the extreme with anything they don’t understand – some of them, at least, may well be.) At least one-half of proponent time is getting past scoftical attitudes. (Which, if you are keeping track, leaves one half-hour to one hour per week to actually look. The majority of which cannot be spent in the field, because it counts reading up; networking with other researchers; commuting to sites, and other ancillaries.)
As long as researchers need to swim against the scoftical tide, who can blame them for not wanting to drown due to exhaustion? Not me. I’d like the scoftical tide to stop, utterly. It’s a total waste of the scoffers’ time as well as ours; it’s a drag on the search, which not only contributes nothing but detracts much.
I sense absolutely *no* complacency among those who are actively searching. The despair I see is among those who don’t review or understand the evidence, and just “want to believe.” They fail to understand that the funny stuff on YouTube (with one exception, OK, three, that I can think of) doesn’t even count; it’s not evidence one way or the other. Yet you’ll hear the want-to-believers – who are doing no more for crypto than the scoftics, really – groaning every single time a laugh-out-loud hoax gets quite predictably debunked, or quite predictably simply sinks from sight. “OMG, another blow to crypto….” Um, if you think that, can I suggest knitting? Tangible results, fast! A man in an ape suit is, to the sasquatch, as two high-schoolers in a zebra costume are to the zebra. Nothing, to be precise. The evidence is abundantly clear on this: what people are seeing in the backcountry of this continent is most assuredly not men in ape suits.
The extremes in this discussion are what keep serious scientists away. And you don’t want to do that, because serious scientists have established search protocols; equipment; and the ear of the journal editors and the public at large. AND THE MONEY. Which means the TIME as well…once the mainstream considers the necessary time worth spending.
THE MAINSTREAM MUST DO THE WORK! THE MAINSTREAM MUST DO THE CONFIRMATION, PERIOD. Because they get paid, full time, for it. And, when THEY come back with a movie, NOBODY will scoff at it. Wanna bet me? If the film has “National Geographic Society” on it, you can stamp that one mission accomplished.
What you mistake for fatalism is not enough hours in the day for amateurs to spend on something that yields nothing but personal satisfaction. Which won’t pay the bills.
It’s not pie in the sky to ask science to simply do its job. Which is: earn your keep by showing us the wonders of the world. (As you note, Knights seems to be doing that.) Shoot, Science, we pay your travel expenses. Stop the see-no-evil crap and take a poke at wonder. I think it’s justified for proponents to recognize that anything for which there is this much evidence, and science still can’t get interested, is going to be tough to prove. (When your living depends on not seeing something, it is going to be awfully tough to make you see it.) But I also think that the old argument that science just needs to go where the good bets are has been critically weakened by the accumulation of compelling cryptid evidence, at least as to the willingness to even discuss this matter in serious circles.
I for one believe that a serious rearranging of resources to hunt for hairy hominoids is, oh, about a half-century overdue. I’d rather find them than two more teeny frogs, or one wowser about the peculiar powers of the left eye of Jackson’s chameleon. Not that those aren’t fun mind you. But this would be funner (fun, if anyone stops to think about it, is a large share of the true value of science); it would likely give us knowledge that much serious could be done with; and if the right people kept talking, it would happen. (And yes, some of them are already talking. But not enough of them, and not enough talking to get this endeavor to critical mass.)
Another problem, of course, is that proponents take different tacks, and have pride of ownership of their own tacks, and a peculiar inability to cooperate. Schisms in crypto hurt crypto. In fact, they are harming crypto as much as the fringe elements are. So. With all that friction dragging crypto back, I’m amazed the time is devoted to it that is. That does NOT speak to fatalism, not in my book.
It’s not fatalism that plagues crypto. It is the absence of – I hate to use a near-pejorative here – a mainstream within crypto that adheres, religiously, to scientifically-tested search protocols. And uses them on the abundant evidence. Right. And it is also the presence of scoftical thinking, which is all but exorcised with extreme prejudice from every ’serious’ science.
If that ever happens, that union over search protocols combined with the woodshedding of the scoftical mindset, you might see results within weeks, never mind months or years. Although, yes, the true mainstream of science will have to get on board at some point for us to move from holy-cow-might-be to proof. (It will also have to exorcise the scofticism that too many of its practioners level at crypto.)
Not that those of us who are simply curious are holding our breath that this is going to happen.
But I have a question to ask you.
Over 50 years since Bigfoot entered the lexicon. And not a single indication that any of the marquee pieces of evidence for the sasquatch are anything other than what the proponents say they are.
What does that point to on the skeptics’ part?
Laziness is my guess.
(I needed to say one more thing about pie in the sky. The proper placement for that label is with those mainstream scientists who keep hoping against hope that less-than-part-time amateurs will confirm cryptids.)
Lake Monster “Quiz,” Fortean Possibilianism
As the saying goes, if you have to explain the joke, it must not be funny. Well, my Champlain quiz didn’t go over well, no joke. But, perhaps, I DO have to explain it.
I could have included thirty or so known animals that live in or around Champlain, as well as a half-dozen or so hypothetical “unknowns.” My point did not involve solving the mystery of the Olsen video; rather, I was concerning myself with what kind of preliminary solutions we should consider.
To that end, I chose one “solution” representing the known animal (seal), one representing the unknown (super otter), and one answer that did not distinguish between known and unknown. This was to make the question manageable and yet retain the heart of the matter (for me). Also, I was not going for an absolute answer, but a “likely” solution (as in, what is more likely, the Olsen video represents a seal or a super-otter.)
I chose a harbor seal and super otter because Loren had suggested both as possible solutions ( he seems to come down in favor of the known, including a regular otter.)
If I read you correctly springheEledjack, you are suggesting that seal and super otter are both live options as candidates (as well as other candidates). Respectfully, I don’t have to be a “scoftic” to disagree with you.
You allow super otter on the list of solutions on the ground of “possibility,” as in: “It’s possible the video subject is a super otter, just as it’s possible its a seal.” (So, you would have taken the third option on my “quiz.”)
Trouble arises when you suggest one should include an array of “possible” solutions or face charges of small or closed mindedness, as well as labeled a petty person blindly defending a narrow world view. In other words, only a “scoftic” would not consider all of the “possibilities.”
As I see it, the problem with your analysis is that you fail to take into account that not all “possibilities” are created equal. A scientific approach would do exactly the opposite of what you advocate. A scientific approach would seek to limit the “possible” number of solutions. Why? Is science closed minded? Are scientists a group of “blue meanies” bent on spoiling everyone’s fun?
No, scientists would be looking to a “most likely” solution, not a mere “possibility.” Mere “possibilities” are unhelpful in finding real solutions. I respectfully suggest you err, SHJ, because you treat solutions as equally possible, even when they are not equally probable.
I ask you: What makes a super otter on par with a seal as a possible solution? The super otter is pure conjecture and is not known to exist except in the writings of cryptozoology theorists. How could a pure conjecture be a live option on par with a known animal? Secondly, Heuvelmans conceived the super otter as a solution to some type of sea serpent reports. This might make some sense, but if you transport this hypothetical animal from vast sea to confined lake, you have a host of problems. For one, it is extremely unlikely that a breeding population of Giant Otters would go undetected or unverified in Champlain. Otters are surface dwellers, very active on the water, intelligent and gregarious, socially bound. Can you imagine a colony of twenty-foot long otters and still imagine that they inhabit Champlain but are “unknown” there?
What is the real “possibility?”
Furthermore, I believe it is not the “blue meanie” skeptic (“scoftic”) who is defending a world view here. Your championing of “possibilities” is suspiciously Fortean. Only a Fortean would propose explanations on a “possibility” basis rather than on probability or plausibility.
(A word on Fortean skepticism. Some folks posting here consider themselves the true skeptics, while skeptics like myself are really just closed minded “scoftics.” I do grant the argument that Forteans are skeptics. They can be very skeptical, even too much so towards science, in my view. I enjoy reading Fortean Times and they occasional have great skeptical articles. I refer everyone here to the July 2007 issue, for a skeptical piece that refutes the series of events presented in the film “The Legend of Boggy Creek.” Be that as it may, modern Fortean thought still prefers to cultivate mystery for its own sake, and sometimes leads to unfortunate gullibility.)
To remove my point from cryptozoology and place it elsewhere for the purpose of illustration, let’s consider this scenario. A fellow looking at a starry night sky and sees a light in the sky like a star, but moving at a constant rate. What is it? Technically, it is unknown. What options do we have to explain it? Most people would suggest a distant commercial airliner, or maybe a satellite.
But, what if the fellow said there are many possibilities. Perhaps airliner, or satellite, or maybe a craft from Mars. What?, you ask! A craft from Mars. Well, the fellow says: Hey, it’s a possibility! You later learn that the fellow believes we are being invaded by beings from Mars, or at least it’s a possibility. So, it is no wonder one of his live options reflects his world view.
(Personal note: I post from a company computer, off the clock. I am sitting here at my desk. There is no air conditioning. No fan or breeze. I am in Texas! It is June! The last three days have been
over the 100 degree mark. So, if my post does not make sense to anyone, or lacks focus, and you guys take me apart: I’m going to blame it on heat stroke!) (SMILE)
Jerry, the problem with your test regarding Champ is not, at heart, that it only presents three options – no, it is that it seeks to narrow the field down to 1 option before actually doing in-depth work; that is, cultivating pre-conceived notions. That is not to say, of course, that a researcher should not have his own private thoughts on the matter going into it, but they certainly should not let those thoughts take the wheel and steer them towards one conclusion or another. That’s bad science.
Good science [skepticism] is much like the 13-year old who super-glues the top of a ballpoint pen, takes the pen apart, puts a liberal amount of baking soda in, pours some vinegar in, snaps it together quickly, and points it up to see what happens. The child knows the rocket may not work – but he also knows that it may work, so he goes ahead and tries it to see if it works.
Bad science is more like the young man who goes through the exact same procedure after betting his friend $10 that it won’t work, and then is so confident that nothing will happen that he aims the pen at himself.
Scofticism is the boy who pours the vinegar on the floor, throws the baking soda out the window, and melts the pen-casing on the stove, then goes and tells his friends that the pen-rocket didn’t work.
DWA,
Thanks for your post. We’re becoming a regular Rick and Capt. Renault.
Your point is well taken that we all have fleeting glimpses of nature that, although experienced,
are not confirmable afterwords. There is no reason why this type of experience would not pertain too to a bigfoot sighting.
My concern, however, lay with the fact that bigfoot sightings occur in areas that would allow maximal conditions for confirmation and/or capture. If bigfoot existed only in the vast pacific northwest, I could understand the absence of a specimen. But, now we are told bigfoot dwells in states like Texas, for instance, and I am forced to wonder why bigfoot remains an unknown animal. Either there is no bigfoot in places like Texas, OR there has been no real, serious, and well thought strategy for capture.
Perhaps I have simply arm-chaired it too much to appreciate the real difficulties in confirming bigfoot. I am not helped by a certain coyness within the bigfoot ranks.
Let’s take the MonsterQuest episode with Dr. Meldrum and the rock throwing bigfoot. Does Dr. Meldrum believe that a bigfoot ransacked the cabin? Does he believe he traced the real outline of a bigfoot print on the screw trap? And does he believe that rocks chucked at the cabin and his party came from the hand of a bigfoot? If he does, then he and/or other advocates had a very hot area in which to launch a well planned capture of the animal(s) in question. Instead, everyone packed up and went home, and other advocates weren’t even remotely prepared to move in to take advantage of a very hot spot, with an apparently incautious, aggressive bigfoot lurking about.
Amigo, I’ll address other points of your post soon. I unexpectedly must call it a day.
CryptoInformant 2.0
I must say that I couldn’t disagree with you more. You seem to take the notion that all “possible” options are equally plausible, on the face of it. I would suggest the idea that you would give equal credit to a super-otter solution compared to a more mundane explanation, preliminary to investigation, is not really a reasonable, much less scientific, point of methodology. Science is much more cautious and discerning than the possibilian Fortean worldview.
I let my previous post stand. But please let me know why you think the super otter is a real option for you?
Jerry – The point where I feel you make your mistake with that quiz is the word “preliminary” – before you even go into it, you’re asking someone what it is. The plain fact of it is that we don’t – indeed, at this stage, can’t – know exactly what Champ is. Now, personally, I highly doubt that it’s a “Super Otter” for several reasons, a big one being the fact that the Super-Otter was originally conceived as an explanation for a marine grouping of cryptids, rather than a lake cryptid – but the Super-Otter could just as easily be replaced with something else, with no effect on the actual outcome.
It’s fine – indeed, natural – to have your own opinion going in about what’s more likely, but to draw your conclusion before doing the work is unscientific.
As to your question – the otter was just an example in this case, I’m honestly not certain what Champ might be.
DWA,
BTW, I’m glad you don’t see me as a “scoftic.”
I’m still hurting for time, so I want to run something else by you (and hope we don’t move too far out of bounds for the post topic.)
Perhaps it would be helpful to turn the fatalism issue upside down: perhaps there is something about the animal itself (if it exists) that gives us the reason why there has been no confirmation (and thus not simply the fault of advocates.)
I can think of a few avenues to explore here.
First, is the population numbers for bigfoot so low that we really wouldn’t expect much success at confirmation unless a major, really major, focused and dedicated years long campaign was underway?
Secondly, is bigfoot simply too smart for us? You have stated in the past that from your vantage point, bigfoot isn’t necessarily all that intelligent.Well, if we extrapolate from apes we do know, bigfoot ought to be at least in the same league of intelligence as chimp or gorilla. And that is impressive enough.
Third, why have gorillas and chimps been verified, yet bigfoot has not? Is it because such apes have social lives and communities and hence give searchers more clues and targets that eventually allow more ready confirmation?This tact would suggest bigfoot is less social and leads a more solitary life. This seems to be confirmed by sightings, yet also seems to run counter to ape behavior.
And fourth, does bigfoot have a great advantage that other apes do not (as relating to its status as unknown?.) Does its bipedalism save it? Can we hang our hat on this most simple of explanations? The fact it is bipedal confers upon it the elusiveness that seems more mystical and clever than it really is?
I offer these thoughts, as a skeptic.
Jerrywayne: lemme go quick on these:
“BTW, I’m glad you don’t see me as a “scoftic.” “
People who ask good questions and listen to the answers aren’t scoftics.
“I can think of a few avenues to explore here.
First, is the population numbers for bigfoot so low that we really wouldn’t expect much success at confirmation unless a major, really major, focused and dedicated years long campaign was underway?”
Scientific confirmation requiring what it does (first: open minds to evidence), it will require much more than has been done. I don’t expect the pop figures for the sasquatch to be high; informed estimates (i.e. extrapolating from admittedly-unreliable volumes of sighting reports, using techniques used by wildlife biologists) say there aren’t many. I saw 6000 for North America once, which for a continent-wide animal is way scanty. I’d go with that (while thinking it could be a lot higher without being dense; remember that a lot of sightings for something like this are probably not reported). I don’t necessarily think it pays for an animal that lives the way this one seems to live to be social (see more below), something that tends to up population densities.
“Secondly, is bigfoot simply too smart for us? You have stated in the past that from your vantage point, bigfoot isn’t necessarily all that intelligent. Well, if we extrapolate from apes we do know, bigfoot ought to be at least in the same league of intelligence as chimp or gorilla. And that is impressive enough.”
I’d agree, and I would certainly say intelligence helps. People working with chimps and gorillas that haven’t been habituated to people say, essentially, good luck seeing them. I just don’t think they’re as smart as, or smarter than, us, an admittedly wholly subjective assessment (as are all human assessments of relative intelligence, in my opinion). Too smart to hang around long enough for amateurs with limited funds and equipment to get proof is, well, it’s ape smart. But the TBRC, to mention one group, seems to get compelling-yet-inconclusive events on every field trip they take.
“Third, why have gorillas and chimps been verified, yet bigfoot has not? Is it because such apes have social lives and communities and hence give searchers more clues and targets that eventually allow more ready confirmation? This tact would suggest bigfoot is less social and leads a more solitary life. This seems to be confirmed by sightings, yet also seems to run counter to ape behavior.”
Actually, the sasquatch’s social life has been compared more to the orangutan’s – an essentially solitary animal except when mating (or a female with suckling young, who may also have a male in attendance from some reports). But yes, social animals give you more to search on (noise for one thing).
“And fourth, does bigfoot have a great advantage that other apes do not (as relating to its status as unknown?.) Does its bipedalism save it? Can we hang our hat on this most simple of explanations? The fact it is bipedal confers upon it the elusiveness that seems more mystical and clever than it really is?”
It can from all evidence move far and fast. And I think it has to, to take advantage of the scantier biomass in the temperate zone. I think it may have the largest home range, by far, of any terrestrial mammal. But I think that this – a factor with a number of documented species as well, like wolves (social!) and wolverines and cougars – takes a back seat to the fact that sightings don’t accumulate to critical mass, but tend to concatenate to 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 etc. = zero, because the evidence is reported anonymously and not taken seriously by the scientific mainstream. In other words: lots of people see them, but they might as well be imagining them for all the interest that garners from full-time paid scientists. (If Bill Gates became a squatchaholic, now that could change.)
“I offer these thoughts, as a skeptic.”
And you sound like one, and that’s the way one should sound, amigo. Trust me, I’m flummoxed too. It’s just that the evidence makes me think about how the hell this could be happening, and all but forces me to conclude that it might well be. I do think that science has what it needs to confirm – if it gets interested enough to command the money and the time.
The nuance that has come very clear to me in assessing this is what a great gulf can loom between evidence – any amount of evidence – and proof, which is only proof if science says it is. 99% of all Earth’s scientists could have seen a sasquatch – for all we know. ‘Cause durn few of them are talking, and the ones that do tend to want to remain anonymous. So even they aren’t talking to each other.
And if they don’t talk to each other?
Zero proof, and as so many of them think, at least publicly, almost that much evidence.
I might want to add something here.
Jeremy_wells terms himself an open-minded skeptic (like me, like mystery_man, and like others here). Now I happen to be able to infer that he’s a Bigfooter. (He can correct me if I have misinterpreted the evidence.
)
Scoftics, I think, automatically lump cryptos into the “true believer” camp. If you say anything that puts the possible existence of a cryptid in a positive light, you’re a true believer, as far as a scoftic is concerned. I’ve been labeled one, despite a history of posts that make my skeptical stance on cryptids pretty obvious if you can read the King’s E. Cryptos – as I believe springheeledjack has said on here more than anyone else – have to be skeptical. There is so much crap to sift through, once a cryptid has gotten public cachet, that there’s no other way to make headway in getting evidence. (As I have said here: when cryptid evidence is debunked, it is cryptos doing it; they’re the only ones who know enough to do it intelligently.)
DWA, you make a good point on the fact that “evidence” is most often debunked by cryptos, rather than by the scoftics themselves – scoftics have a general habit of clicking their heels three times and wishing really hard for it to be a moose – cryptos[that is, skeptics] go out and take a few videos of meese and see if there’s a good resemblance.
CryptoInformant 2.0
Thanks for your comments; they have allowed me to understand your criticism better. I realize that I need to make my position clearer.
First, I was addressing the Olsen video, not Champ. Be that as it may, perhaps my post is relevant to “lake monster” phenomena in general.
I suggested it is reasonable to look to mundane solutions preliminarily as a normal, fortuitous course of action. This is not closed mindedness on my part. If we have ambiguous evidence, as in the Olsen video, we have no reason to explore more extravagant explanations, such as super-otter or plesiosaur. Why? Because we have no real evidence such animals exist. Why compound the mystery with more mystery, so early in the investigation? The ambiguity of the evidence anchors us to solutions that are more plausible, and probable, on the face of it, given the known fauna of the area. This ambiguity precludes the NEED to think “outside the box,” as far as solutions go. And remember, we are striving for a probable explanation, not any ole “possible” solution.
Now, if the evidence is compelling enough, we move to a wider option of solutions. For instance, the Patterson film. We cannot seriously begin to match the film subject with any known animal, so if the film compels us, we look beyond the mundane to postulate solutions involving unknowns (bipedal apes unknown to zoology, giant “wild men” unknown to anthropology, etc.)
Of course, issues are sometimes more complex than an Olsen/Patterson differentiating comparison would led us to believe. The fault line between the more cautious and the more adventurous sometimes leads to bitter exchanges between “scoftics” and “woo woos.”
Nickell has offered his “best guess”: the Olsen video depicts a moose calf. He admits his explanation is “tentative.” Whether he is correct or not, there is really no reason to be outraged by his “guess.” His remarks are much more cautious than cryptos acknowledge. (BTW, I showed the You Tube Olsen video to a long time hunter and outdoorsman and asked his opinion.
He said it looked like a swimming deer to him.)
On the other hand, Loren has given the super otter a place at the table of explanations (surely, very tentatively). Yet, this brash, unnecessary suggestion went virtually unchallenged on principle.
As some cryptos always seem agitated by “scoftics,” I can tell you as a skeptic I am often disappointed and dismayed at the general willingness of cryptos to entertain extravagant “possibilities” (solutions) that are not necessary, given the evidence.
DWA,
A couple of quick comments. First, your comment about the social life of bigfoot likened to that of an orangutan. This is interesting because it suggests an interpretive pattern. Professional bigfooters like Krantz and Meldrum propose bigfoot is a remnant ape (“giganto”) that is considered a relative of the orang. Also, the “land bridge” explanation for the introduction of bigfoot on this continent suggests orang kinship (via, Asian distribution.) Anyway, this is a pattern, if only a tiny one.
Your comments on the possible range of bigfoot and the necessity of taking “advantage of the
scantier biomass in the temperate zone” does highlight a problem. An animal as large as bigfoot is purported to be would actually need to conserve energy, if its diet is typical for large apes.Free ranging bigfoot makes sense if it has adapted by becoming omnivorous.
Meldrum has recognized the problem of bigfoot having enough protein in its diet, if we allow it only a gorilla/orang type diet, given the type of food sources in North America. His solution is to give bigfoot the same food source as the bear: fish. Now, this begs the question. If bigfoot is utilizing rivers in the same fashion as bears do, where is National Geographic when you need it?
Hmmm… Now, that quiz makes a little more sense when you put it solely in the context of the Olsen Film – as, looking back at previous posts, I note it was meant to be – but, preliminary conclusions (that is, before looking at the film and making comparisons between the film animal and known animal) still isn’t a good conclusion. Rather, that quiz should be used, if at all, after the first viewing of the film, to get one’s general impression of the animal. If they answer with a known animal – moose being a popular one, for whatever reason – then you look into the moose option, and see if it matches the moose.
By the way, this is actually pretty funny with the Super Otter option – judging by the video, and the animal’s deliberate, beeline movements, I think otters are a highly unlikely solution, be they Super, Captain, or otherwise.
Jerrywayne:
Points taken on your response to me. And at the moment, nobody can take it any farther, barring either (a) scientific interest or (b) something none of us can foresee at the moment.
But this passage from your response to CryptoInformant deserves comment.
“I suggested it is reasonable to look to mundane solutions preliminarily as a normal, fortuitous course of action. This is not closed mindedness on my part. If we have ambiguous evidence, as in the Olsen video, we have no reason to explore more extravagant explanations, such as super-otter or plesiosaur. Why? Because we have no real evidence such animals exist.”
Well, yes and no.
I definitely agree that one looks at the mundane first, but not necessarily if one must do so by hammering something ambiguous into something mundane by sheer inability to conceive of its not being mundane. (And of course the same pertains to doing so with the crypto angle, e.g., seeing a hill of brown hair and immediately jumping to sasquatch with nothing else to go by. Or saying the Olsen vid is a plesiosaur, period.)
When you say that we have no reason to go beyond the mundane, well, I’m not sure at all what that is in the Olsen video. And it looks to me like nothing science has documented. Which could mean a number of things, only one of them being “something science hasn’t documented.”
What I think needs to happen is this: folks look at it, and ask: what are we willing to do to clarify what that is? And then do it. Keeping an open mind.
Because “mundane” is by no means the obvious conclusion here. And it’s not that we have no evidence. It’s that we have no PROOF. Critical distinction there.
DWA,
I’m glad we agree we should consider mundane explanations initially, concerning ambiguous evidence. However, I disagree with you that this could lead to “hammering” the ambiguous into the mundane because of “sheer inability to conceive of its not being mundane.” Actually, I’m concerned with likelihoods and probabilities and not so much with conceptualized possibilities. Faced with ambiguous evidence, I know some cryptos believe this gives them license to consider any solution, extravagant or not. I disagree with that point of view, and go farther to suggest that it is this possibilian attitude that brings more disrepute to cryptozoology than a whole host of “scoftics.”
You seem to be suggesting that the Olsen video is not all that ambiguous and that it may possibly be identified as an unknown animal: “it looks to me like nothing science has documented.” Of course, if you are merely saying the video subject is unidentified or unidentifiable, I agree with you. On the other hand, if people looking at the video see a deer, moose calf, otter, seal, dog, and “nothing science has documented,” etc., then in fact the video is ambiguous and we should entertain the mundane explanation as most likely.
(Because the evidence itself is not compelling enough to eliminate the known in favor of the unknown.)
Jerrywayne:
“Faced with ambiguous evidence, I know some cryptos believe this gives them license to
consider any solution, extravagant or not. I disagree with that point of view,
and go farther to suggest that it is this possibilian attitude that brings more
disrepute to cryptozoology than a whole host of “scoftics.”
This could be a chicken/egg thing. But then again maybe not. That attitude definitely draws scoftics, no doubt about it. Scoftics don’t show up for nothing; they’re like sharks that way.
I mean, does anyone see the scoftical mindset in areas where the discussion stays rational, as in classifying new species of known animal types? Generally seems not. I’ve long said that both attitudes need to be recognized as not seriously entertained by cryptozoology, as they represent irrational extremes. Problem is, of course, that both attitudes seem, to many, to sum up crypto (“believers vs. nonbelievers”). That’s the issue, because it ain’t about belief but about analysis of evidence. And believers and nonbelievers don’t even care about the evidence. They think what they want to think, not what evidence advises them to think.
“On the other hand, if people looking at the video see a deer, moose calf, otter, seal, dog, and “nothing science has documented,” etc., then in fact the video is ambiguous and
we should entertain the mundane explanation as most likely.
(Because the evidence itself is not compelling enough to eliminate the known in
favor of the unknown.)”
I’m not sure I can entertain as “most likely” any explanation for which there is no evidence, mundane or otherwise. This is the problem I run into with folks who want to consider the P/G film a man in a suit until otherwise proven. There having been no piece of evidence that that film was faked, I can’t entertain any explanation as “most likely,” particularly when there is a lot of evidence that it isn’t a man in a suit. Based only on evidence available, science MUST say about that film: indeterminate. It violates science to say otherwise in the absence of evidence supporting the call.
What I was getting at is that I can’t say, looking at that video, that any known animal looks like a possibility to me. Because it doesn’t look like any (unless you say a really big reptile, of a kind not now known to live in that lake). Since I don’t have any evidence that tells me that there’s a big (or even pretty big) unknown animal in Lake Champlain, then I simply have to say: there it is, world. Have a look, and decide whether more investigation of that lake is warranted. I don’t think there’s any reason to bias the discussion toward any explanation, when the available evidence favors none of them. I consider that, in fact, harmful to crypto, as it is the opposite of the “possibilian” (i.e., woo-woo) attitude, in that it puts blinkers on the investigation for no good reason.
Remember, if Champ (or the sasquatch) is real, then they are as likely as any other explanation. This may be the thing that scoftics (and many honest skeptics) can’t get their arms around; they automatically consider the cryptid alternative “way out, and therefore behind everything else in probability,” when obviously, if the cryptid is real, it’s as real as the cottontail rabbit. Crypto, in my opinion, can’t operate as a science unless the subject of study is considered a very real – and equally likely – possibility to everything else. Before, of course, reviewing the evidence. That’s not “possibilian;” that’s open-minded. And skepticism, to me, means not leaning toward ANY explanation unless a preponderance of evidence favors that explanation.
DWA,
Thanks for your interesting post, amigo. I think the fault line between our different approaches is much clearer now.
“I’m not sure I can entertain as ‘most likely’ any explanation for which there is no evidence, mundane or otherwise,’ you write. Also, you say, “skepticism, to me, means not leaning toward ANY explanation unless a preponderance of evidence favors that explanation.”
I’ll grant the Olsen video subject in unidentified. However, are we to thus unable to suggest “likely” solutions? Are we dismissed from differentiating between good solutions and bad, between offering ordinary solutions over extraordinary solutions? Or are all proposed solutions then within the realm of real possibilities because the video does not conclusively support one single solution over another?
With ambiguous evidence such as the Olsen video, it would not be improper to look beyond the video itself, to gain context and perspective. Here, not all solutions are created equal. Some are more likely than others are (and conversely, some solutions are less likely than others are.) Why? And how are we to tell given the ambiguity of the Olsen film? Well, you look at other aspects of the video, not just the subject itself.
For instance, an otter solution would trump a plesiosaur solution. Why? Otters exist, for one reason. Otters are known to exist in Champlain for another. So there IS evidence for an otter solution, indirectly to be sure: because this candidate can be placed at the scene of the crime, so to speak.
Contrarily, the plesiosaur solution has no such advantages. There is NO evidence plesiosaurs exist, in Champlain or anywhere else. Also, you have to consider the context of Champlain and plesiosaurs: cold climate, frozen-over lake, absence of definitive sightings (where is a breeding colony of plesiosaurs to hide in the well visited lake?) and the like.
So, in this fashion we can contrast the likelihood of known animal solutions (otters, seals, errant terrestrial animals, turtles, etc.) with the obvious implausibility of at least the more sensational “possible” solutions, such as plesiosaur, “waterhorse,” “super otter,” zeuglodon, and so forth. It boils down to a simple formula: someone sees, films some ambiguous animate object in the water: what animals do we know inhabit that body of water or surrounding regions? (this formula pertains to ambiguous phenomena; obviously, if we have a stunning video of Godzilla exiting Champlain, we would have to reformulate the formula!)
You may decry this formula as it relates to Champlain, so let’s apply it elsewhere. Here, in Texas, for all its size, we have only one true lake.
Everything else is reservoir. Near Dallas, they built a new reservoir just a few years ago. Now, let us suppose the Olsen video was taken there.
Are we still suppose to give as much credence to exotic solutions as mundane? Can we not rule out plesiosaur? Are mundane solutions not to be entertained because we really don’t “know” for sure what the animal in question is?
Now, your rejoinder to the type of analysis I’ve offered above is “if Champ… is real, then [it is] as likely as any other explanation.” You then chastise “scoftics” and “many honest skeptics” with “automatically” considering the “cryptid alternative” as less probable than a mundane solution. (Or, in other words, exactly what I do above [Smile].) I suggest you are begging the question here, as your premise assumes your conclusion. You assert “automatically” the equal balance of known/unknown solutions, when in fact that is the very issue that is being contested.
Since there is no clear reason to believe a very large unknown animal exists in Champlain (your words: “…I don’t have any evidence that tells me that there’s a big (or even pretty big) unknown animal in Lake Champlain…”), why chastise skeptics who simply sustain the obvious?
Of course, I have not exactly represented your viewpoint. All of the above was for the sake of argument. It was predicated on the ambiguity of the Olsen video. You state the Olsen video is not really so ambiguous after all, and can’t hold a mundane solution. You state it doesn’t look like any known animal to you (and thus, an ordinary solution is not even possible.)
Jerrywayne: The way I’d sum up my entire response to your post is this: Don’t rule out possibilities.
I never said put them first, or only consider them. I said don’t rule them out. You may think you’re not doing that. But a good way, I think, to read your post is: cryptids are way out there, and should be put behind all other possibilities. You may not think it sounds that way. But that’s the subtle cancer gnawing away at scientific inquiry. Anyone who bucks the “reasonable” explanations is stymied by the general lack of will to inquire. Trust me on this: many, many people who might otherwise go “hmmmmm” like mystery_man and I and others did are instead cowed by everyone saying: let’s be reasonable here. When that isn’t reasonable, because no evidence backs it. And they just clam up for fear of being thought kooks if they keep open minds.
It’s that mindset that – if allowed to continue – ensures that crypto will never become a science. (Ably abetted by its opposite: the Olsen video is Champ!) These are the extremes I want ruled out of the conversation. We have no idea what that is in that video. The “suggestions” are to me way out there, because I have never seen any of the known animals postulated here look like that in the water. If that’s a deer, you pick my hat, and I will eat it. Same with bear, moose, and the elk that have the same chance as Champ of being seen in Vermont. Otter and seal are way doubtful. And we are talking animals all of which I’ve seen in the water; and this video is nowhere near as bad as many of the known-animal advocates are making out it is.
Yet my view is labeled extreme, despite the fact that no evidence backs any other viewpoint. Scientifically known is not evidence! If Champ is a real unrecognized species, then it’s as real as a rat. I want to know what is in the video. “Suggestions” that have nothing to do with the reality of what is in the video are, totally, useless here. This is, as I said, what skeptics can’t get their arms around. It’s not kosher to willy-nilly postulate way-out-there “mundane” explanations. I have seen not one suggestion of a mundane explanation that didn’t appear to me to be pulled from what the commenter wanted to see, ‘cause they sure ain’t in this clip.
You have to have free inquiry in crypto. It’s about the unknown. Which is why, when folks come on with paranormal explanations, instead of saying, woo-woo, I say: well, science can’t confirm that, yet, and I’d like to stick to what science can confirm now. I think, actually, that it’s ignorance cubed to laugh at paranormal explanations, because I will pop your bubble with the following cannon: any evidence for that wild scoftic guess, or did you pull it out of Champ’s rear end? I don’t traffic in the paranormal because science doesn’t, yet, and I think cryptids are critters that operate by generally known rules.
I think it has become so embedded in this field to toss out woo-woo “mundane” explanations that it’s like blinking, or toenails growing; people don’t even see what it is they are doing when they are doing it.
Which is killing zoological inquiry, softly. Through a subtle form of, yes, scofticism.
When you don’t have compelling evidence for what it is (show me anything deerlike about that clip), you don’t know, and aren’t even close, and anything you toss up is a wild, wild, woo-woo guess. (I really want to expand the use of “woo-woo” to “mundane” explanations that are, well, woo-woo.) This has become a crypto-debunking parlor game. But it is not in the proud traditions of scientific inquiry, and does nothing to get us away from square one.
Don’t believe me? My prediction: this weird and compelling video – like the Peguis sasquatch, remember him? Of course not – will sink from sight like a stone.
And we won’t be a jot closer to knowing what’s on it.
Ever.
And everyone, what, wants that?
Groupthink stinks. History is more emphatic on few points than on that one.
Oh, and on this:
“You state the Olsen video is not really so ambiguous after all, and can’t hold a mundane solution. You state it doesn’t look like any known animal to you (and thus, an ordinary solution is not even possible.)”
This is the kind of leap I’m talking about, the kind that can’t be justified.
That clip looks like no known animal.
What does that mean?
Read the sentence again. That is what it means.
I didn’t say there is no mundane solution. I’m saying that, without an attitude that says, what is that? rather than one that says that can’t be unknown so it’s a….
We will never find out what it is. Because those who want to know will be shouted – or maybe it’s murmured or whispered – down.
Here are some interesting comments…
“…this discipline [cryptozoology] has had several startling victories in recent years, showing clearly that we would be unwise to dismiss claims of previously-unknown species. Indeed, literally thousands of species are both discovered and become extinct every year.”
“While the skeptical attitude is all well and good, but there’s always the baby-in-the-bathwater problem hanging over us. Mind you, I don’t expect any baby ape [referencing the Florida "skunk ape"] about to be found in the Florida swamps, but I’m willing to be shown. Always. And I would not be at all surprised to see another major animal, heretofore only legendary, walk out of the wilds and into the record books. In Viet Nam, not long ago, just such a thing happened when a completely ‘new’ species of antelope- with very distinctive features- was discovered. So, they’re out there…!”
This comment was made by blue meanie “scoftic,”
James Randi! (at randi.org)
DWA,
If you say “that clip looks like no known animal,”
then I can reasonable conclude “it doesn’t look like any known animal to you.” You write, “I didn’t say there is no mundane solution” [to the Olsen video]. Previously, you wrote: “What I was getting at is that I can’t say, looking at that video, that any known animal looks like a possibility to me.”
I have two short points to make. First, I think you are certainly entitled to your minimalist take on crypto evidence. If all you want to do is look at a video and ponder the image and nothing else, be my guest. If you want to exclude a wider look at the issue, such as considering “likely” scenarios based on knowledge of local wildlife or perspectives gleaned from knowledge of the area, feel free. If you want to postulate the possibility that the Olsen video represents an animal unknown to science (and even if the animal type in question could reasonably be thought to have been identified ages ago, given the slow, not-so-elusive, high visability, and unshy behavior of the video subject), please do.
Second, since I disagree with your approach, there is no reason for me to accept it. This state of affairs does not make you “extreme,” nor does it make me closed minded.
Jerrywayne:
“If you say “that clip looks like no known animal,”
then I can reasonable conclude “it doesn’t look like any known animal to you.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
What kind of known animal does that look like to you? (Don’t say “deer.” Please.) But note – and how open-minded can you get? No more, I don’t think – how I steadfastly maintain that I can’t conclude that it’s not a known animal. On what basis could I? The evidence for an unknown animal? Without proof of an unknown animal – and a compelling look, which this ain’t, could be tantamount to proof – I can’t conclude anything. It could be a very weird occurrence involving something mundane. Even driftwood.
“If all you want to do is look at a video and ponder the image and nothing else, be my guest. If you want to exclude a wider look at the issue, such as considering “likely” scenarios based on knowledge of local wildlife or perspectives gleaned from knowledge of the area, feel free.”
Now come on, amigo, you know me better than that. Of course you take the wider look; you take every animal or other object you know of that could conceivably be found there, and run it against – wait for it – the image in the video. Too many people seem like they’re ignoring the video to postulate a Pet Favorite Known Animal. Again, I invite anyone to show me one piece of evidence for a known animal that makes sense based on what those look like in the water, and compare with this one. I haven’t seen one yet; and I’ve seen posts that assert certainty. I’d be willing to bet that seal or otter – almost the only choices I can conceive of among known animals – ain’t what this is, because this doesn’t look or behave nearly like what I’ve seen from those animals in the water.
Here’s what I do with this video. I say, I do not know what that is. And then I decide what I want to do with that information. There is nothing here on which a conclusion can rest.
Video, like still photography, does not have to be conclusive. Add this to the long roster of backup for that.
One little pet peeve, Jerry – you mention the chilly weather in the Champlain area as something ruling out plesiosaurs. I would like you to note that plesiosaur fossils have been found, in large number, in parts of Australia that, when the animals were alive, were within the Antarctic Circle – even during the Cretaceous, a really cold place.
Now, I’m not saying that I favor plesiosaurs as an explanation for Champ – or, in particular, this video – merely that we cannot immediately rule them out. (However, plesiosaurs do have one ironic advantage over what seems to be a popular theory for this video – the otter. The advantage is that we have no real behavioral data for plesiosaurs, whereas otters are known far and wide as spazztastic furballs. Thus, we know that otters don’t behave like what we see in the video, while we don’t really know whether plesiosaurs did(do?).)