New comment on your post #297 “The Top Cryptozoology Stories of 2005″

Author : Benjamin Radford

Comment:

In his discussion of the ivory-billed woodpecker case, Loren Coleman states the following:

“What happened was that those that said they has either seen the ivory-billed or considered the possibility the birds might still exist were roundly ridiculed before this year’s rediscovery announcement.”

This seems to put skeptics in a bit of a bad light, but is this factual? From my reading of the story, most of the skeptics were quite justified in waiting for stronger evidence before embracing the existence of the woodpecker. In fact, as I recall, skeptics were not convinced by the initial evidence and requested more evidence; the researchers complied, the skeptics examined what was sent, and then agreed that the case was compelling. Where, exactly, was this “ridicule” that skeptics are so often accused of heaping on believers?

Surely simply doubting an eyewitness or requesting more evidence from claimants is not the same as “ridiculing” them. Can Coleman or anyone else provide any examples of eyewitnesses (or those who were open to the woodpecker existing) who were actually “roundly ridiculed”?

I guess we just have a difference in interpretation. I have to say that the phrase “These were shot with a cheap Kodak Instamatic camera and have some of the typical Bigfoot/Loch Ness monster fuzziness” sounds more of a fact-based opinion of a photograph than an attempt to “ridicule” the photographer. It does come off as faintly dismissive, but without knowing the fuller context of the comments, I’d say that if the camera used was in fact a cheap Instamatic, that’s a factual statement (that is not used gratuitiousy, but in the context of explaining the quality of the image), not a remark intended to ridicule the photographer.

As for the fuzziness of the photo, I would not have used the Bigfoot/Nessie analogy (because we are talking about very different contexts), but strictly speaking, I think the analysis is correct: like many cryptid photos, the first images of the woodpecker were fuzzy and indistinct. I admit that the comments are critical, but seem awfully mild compared to “ridicule”. Perhaps the book gives better examples of the proponents being “roundly ridiculed”; I’ll have to pick up a copy and see.

I confess that in my reading of Loren’s comments, I thought he was more referring to the RECENT reluctance of skeptics to accept the bird’s existence, even after strong evidence. If I misread that, then the error is mine!

In Loren Coleman’s round up of 2005 news stories, he states the following:

“What happened was that those that said they has either seen the ivory-billed or considered the possibility the birds might still exist were roundly ridiculed before this year’s rediscovery announcement.”

This seems to put skeptics in a bit of a bad light, but is this factual? From my reading of the story, most of the skeptics were quite justified in waiting for stronger evidence before embracing the existence of the woodpecker. In fact, as I recall, skeptics were not convinced by the initial evidence and requested more evidence; the researchers complied, the skeptics examined what was sent, and then agreed that the case was compelling. Where, exactly, was this “ridicule” that skeptics are so often accused of heaping on believers?

Surely simply doubting an eyewitness or requesting more evidence from claimants is not the same as “ridiculing” them. Can Coleman or anyone else provide any examples of eyewitnesses (or those who were open to the woodpecker existing) who were actually “roundly ridiculed”?

and this is Loren’s reply:

I am not worried about putting skeptics in a “bad light” but merely relating what has happened with past sightings of the ivory-billed woodpecker. This list was not about people but events.

Nevertheless, I find it remarkable than Ben’s comment quotes a statement of mine about people being ridiculed and then he asks me to come up with examples. Perhaps he should re-read the entire ivory-billed woodpecker segment again. I clearly quote two authors about these specific kinds of situations, and give some of the details of George Lowery’s ridiculing that took place when he showed his photographs at a 1971 ornithology meeting.

It appears Skeptics might be so defensive so quickly that they forget what they have supposedly just read.

:-)