What would happen if MonsterQuest found something?

I’m wondering…

What would happen if a show like MonsterQuest actually discovered something interesting to science during one of their investigations? I mean, they find curious things sometimes – like a structure – but they just leave it behind without explanation. But, what if they REALLY filmed an animal. What would happen to the film? Would they announce it, show it beforehand, drum up a huge premier viewing event?

It hasn’t happened so I’m curious. When scientists run to the public before screening discovery through the scientific process, they often end up with egg on their faces (ahem, Pons & Fleishman, bigfoot carcass).

It seems that these TV crew investigations are too quick. They only spend a few days in the spot and are frequently put off by adverse weather. They never get the results they wish for. It seems a real shame to always come back empty-handed. (Yet they are undeterred in their belief.)

So, what do you think? What if these teams actually found something? What would happen then?

Cryptozoology community – where is it?

Hi everyone, visitors, critics:

I was just wondering… what’s happened to the cryptozoology community? Can someone let me know? I’m looking for the best breaking news, commentary and quality discussion.

Here’s what I found:

Cryptomundo is not worth looking at everyday. It’s a platform, not a discussion group. The stories posted are questionable in content and over-hyped. But, it’s good for breaking news, I guess. That is, if you can stop from rolling your eyes at the credulity. I have a bad attitude towards CM because my replies were censored or deleted. Because dissenting opinion was not allowed, that’s no place for discussion. So, it’s hard to go there knowing I’m not allowed to participate. I find the money requests distasteful as well. Perhaps if they acted more professional and welcoming, I might reconsider.

Since a discussion on my Cryptozoology-Sham Inquiry post was occurring on Cryptozoology.com, I returned there and tried to post. I can’t get my posts to show up. They are in my profile as dead links and not visible in the thread. I’ve given up after 3 attempts and the moderator is unresponsive. Also, there are definitely web site problems and it’s a very web 1.0 format. Seems like a small group there.

There are various blogs and other old sites up. Some good, some awful.

I like Wildlife Mysteries, The Blogsquatcher and Jon Downes’ Still On the Track for daily news. Darren rules when he geeks out on cryptids. He is my source for carcass explanations. I don’t frequent those forums that spin off from the mystery mongering sites. Nor have I frequented the Bigfoot specialty forums. It’s too bad there isn’t a good general forum.

Any recommendations?

(I suuuuuurrrrrre wish Monster Science had a forum and more content! Hint, hint.)

Paranormal plagiarism

Some juvenile over at the Cryptozoology.com forum hijacked my post on Cryptozoology and Sham Inquiry without citing the web site. This is just another example of how paranormal communities, even so-called skeptical members, engage in unprofessional and childish behavior.

Regarding topics that rely on anecdotes and FOAF stories, there is unconcious plagiarizing and morphing of stories all the time. However, these get formalized as “facts” in books. I’m reading Randi’s book Flim Flam about how Charles Berlitz failed to check even the most basic claims about accidents within the Bermuda Triangle. This happens CONSTANTLY in popular paranormal stories. No one checks facts. The story elements added by the teller for dramatic effect become “facts” and get perpetuated in new books that copy the first! That’s why serious researchers seriously doubt this stuff.

There is a thing called primary sources, ever heard of them? For example, when I wrote a paper about Newton’s experiments, I was so paranoid about getting facts right that I got Newton’s own writings to reference. Then, I felt better about talking about the whole episode. I couldn’t just rely on the commentary others made about it, even experts.

I feel flattered (sort of) that my post got traction on the site. There are some good people and smart, thoughtful skeptics there. But, the fact that this goes on frequently and sources are not cited or checked out is so…Fortean. Fort took odd tales at face value. All the ridiculous stories he published credulously. Yo, people. That’s not science. It’s folklore, urban legends, old wives tales. For entertainment purposes only. Let’s step it up a bit.

Will The Othersiders just scare themselves?

The Othersiders is a new show on Cartoon Network where teen friends visit alleged haunted locations and perform so-called investigations, similar to the Ghost Hunters and Ghost Trackers. It’s fun to be scared and to imagine ghosts exists and places are haunted. I love all things paranormal and really wish  these supernatural concepts were supported by something more than good stories. Alas, poor ghost, I find popular ghost hunting activities extremely unscientific and self-deceiving.

The Othersiders will premier on June 17 – I have not seen any episodes yet (note the post date). From the website, we see they will be using the standard fair of sciencey-looking equipment – temperature indicators, electromagnetic field meters, night vision cameras (everything is in green), tape recorders.  Do they know what they are measuring or looking at? Since science has never described what a ghost should be or act like, why should one assume they are measuring the effects of a ghost?

There are also several other red flags on the website that suggest what the intent of this show will be. There is a ghost figure in the spinning night vision camera and other equipment, spooky sounds, “facts” about the places that are not facts at all but based on anecdotes, and the token skeptic who needs “hard core proof”.  The team members say “It’s real, it’s happening.” Sure it is, but WHAT is happening? I don’t think our interpretations will be exactly the same. However, I’m not in a creepy place at night expecting the unexpected.

Call me psychic (then again, please don’t), but I predict The Othersiders will follow the same formulaic pattern of all the other ghost shows. I bet I can make some spooky predictions about how it will go. See how many come true:

• Investigators will visit places already aware of the popular haunting stories of the place, predisposing them to expect an experience. They will know which areas have the best stories. Bet on them being uncomfortable in these locations. They have been primed.
• The focus will be on belief and terms like ‘proof ‘and ‘evidence’ will feed into that belief, not dispute it.  Stories and personal experiences will count heavily towards influencing belief.
• There will be a lot of “I don’t know what that was but it was very weird.” (Cue the jump to paranormal conclusion.) Token skeptic will be shaken up. It’s hard to be left out when everyone else is having fun with the story.

“After each investigation, we’ll put up our verdict and let you make your own decision,” notes the website. This is a standard disclaimer for all paranormal-themed shows. You decide (after we show you an edited, biased, unconfirmed version of the events). Remember, it’s not real. It’s an edited, manipulated situation on TV.

I find interesting how obvious it is when “paranormal investigators” scare themselves and each other. They have started with the assumption that what they are investigating is paranormal. Bad move, very unscientific. What is most disturbing about these shows is that they send a message to impressionable teens trying to make sense of the world – the paranormal is a genuine explanation. Instead of being happy with, “Gee, that was weird”, they assume, “It was a spirit that haunts this place.” After 200 years of looking for ghosts, we still lack substantial evidence for spirit entities  – the best we have are stories and personal experiences. If we just get more of that from The Othersiders, what a waste. We could sure use something different.

If I am wrong and The Othersiders promotes critical thinking and logical explanations, not the supernatural, I will certainly applaud the creators. So, watch it, look for these themes, and ask questions.

Questions: Are they promoting a pro-paranormal viewpoint? What are some more normal explanations for these occurrences? Are activities being manipulated – are you being primed for what to see and hear at the locations and from the instruments?  Are they so psyched about ghosts that they find every little movement and noise to be “paranormal”?  Do they consider those or discard them in favor of more interesting causes – like spirits? Are they just freaking themselves out?

Sounds like quackery

In my series Sham Inquiry, I spotlighted three examples of fields that sound a lot like science but have critical failures. Attempts to don the trappings of science are most irritating when they fool people into thinking it is real, cutting-edge science. I found more examples from the recent Newsweek article on Oprah’s promotion of quackery. Dr. David Cooper, a professor of endocrinology at Johns Hopkins medical school, a specialist in thyroid disease, sounded a bit perturbed at the antics of the Oprah-favorite Dr. Northrup:

“The problem is that this all has the aura of being scientific when a lot of it is wrong, or not proven
or just utter hogwash,” Cooper says. “No wonder it sounds very credible to the patients, and in my
opinion, that’s even worse. If it was all complete rubbish, people would be more likely to see it for
what it really is.”

Also mentioned is hormone therapy that confounds the term “natural” and the Law of Attraction utter bullshit labeled “very, very scientific” by those that hawk The Secret. If you have to point that out, it’s probably not.

Mix real scientific terms with utter gobbledygook and people eat it up. They can’t tell the difference. Much of this sounds very hokey to skeptics who are sensitized to pseudoscience red flags but not to the millions of sheeple who follow Oprah faithfully, without question. I suspect some of this lack of critical thinking can be reduced through the education process, however, people like to have charismatic leaders to follow and to think for them.

I applaud Newsweek for standing up to Oprah. It’s the number 1 emailed article in their “Life” section today. I encourage everyone whose Mom watches Oprah to send her this article.

Skeptic movement in flux

I’ve noticed over the past year, many changes in the skeptical community. There has been a huge surge in communication, podcasts and internet activity that allowed for growth and exchange among the 3 groups – Center for Inquiry (Skeptical Inquirer/CSICOP/CSI), Skeptics Society (Shermer’s Skeptic) and JREF (Randi’s). I always thought they each provided a different perspective and approached the philosophy with different tools and, certainly, different personalities. That is a great thing. What felt even greater was the recent sense that the cross-pollination could make for a united, more influential movement. Old wounds were being forgotten.

I’ve met lots of great skeptics over the past 10 years that I have been following these groups. It’s pretty awesome for us to be able to frequently come together in the same place. That’s becoming more and more frequent. We now visit each others neighborhoods (mostly in Las Vegas, I think) and mingle. Nice.

I don’t know what is going on at CFI these days. I’m skeptical of both sides (multiple sides, perhaps). See Hemant’s post on this. But, in this case, change is good. CFI needs a freshening up. Dr. Kurtz has great influence and vision but the guards must change. (25 years is the limit at any one job.) I firmly believe that organizations like this are HARD to manage. The ideas spark disputes and the opinions are contentious with all those geniuses in the room.

All I can say is, this is a fantastic community. I think we might have just turned and faced the same direction – forward. I hope so.

Edit: fixed some typos. 6/5/09

Uncoddled kids

I liked this article today from NY Times.

This is our parenting style. We don’t sign the kids up for endless activities, we don’t buy them tons of toys or spoil them with expensive things. They use their own money for the ice cream man and things they want in the story. They entertain themselves when they are bored. I let them play outside in the neighborhood. My older daughter sometimes walks to school (It’s several blocks – how dare I risk it!) I don’t believe she’ll be abducted since that is ridiculously rare. I don’t hover, I don’t micromanage – I expect them to pack their own school bags and do their homework. We certainly encourage and help and we have set limits and rules. They must learn to live in reasonable guidelines, just like those that exist in the real world. I give them independence and freedom to explore different things (I expect one day I’ll repeat to myself , “Hair grows back, piercings close up.”). They ask to join clubs, I might make suggestions but don’t push. They WILL NOT get cars when they are 16 unless they save their birthday money.

We weren’t overprotected when when we were kids. We knew the value of money and managed a lot on our own.  Now, we are both self-sufficient, well-adjusted adults that didn’t make dumb mistakes buying homes and status symbols we couldn’t afford. That’s the point. You don’t get coddled in life. You can be supported, encouraged and loved but to coddle – well, that’s just going to hurt you in the long term. Uncoddling (with benefits) is the new parenting.

Recommended reading: Raising Freethinkers by Dale McGowan.