New PA bigfoot sighting? Set your skeptical flags flying.

Oh, dear. Out of the news loop for a day or two and another Bigfoot sighting comes along.

Ghost hunting entertainment – Paranormal State lecture

Penn State’s Harrisburg campus hosted a presentation by Paranormal State’s Ryan Buell (with Sergey along) on October 2. The event attracted over 60 people of all ages. Primarily, the crowd was students, some with their parents. There were obviously several fans of the show.

I have never seen the show. I can’t be bothered with watching another ghost hunter show when there are already so many that have a similar formula – set up techie stuff, go into scary places, look all green and creepy on night vision camera and freak yourself out. I can’t see the value in shows about hauntings. It becomes formulaic, same old stuff.

I had several objectives in attending Ryan’s talk: to find out what makes his show different (if it is different at all), to see how the show and investigator group related to my alma mater PSU (if at all), and to see a presentation of evidence.

I got a lot of stories, some sound and video clips, pictures and more stories. To his credit, Ryan made clear that his idea of legitimate evidence is something that convinces them. That does not mean that it convinces you. “Nothing [he has] proves ghosts exists.” It comes down to a matter of trust – do you trust the person showing you the evidence has been truthful and interpreted it correctly – and belief in what you think caused it.

Not the news

I’ve been observing the interesting (but infuriating) process of how “news” gets fed to the internet and major news outlets. My curious position has been one where I have firsthand knowledge of a situation (or pretty close to it) but am not obliged to comment on the “news” as it’s portrayed. So, I’ll be general.

As frequently occurs in American society these days, the real news portion of the story gets buried or nonexistent. Facts or information that might be valuable to an undecided citizen is painted over with opinion and personal beliefs equated with facts. I think that’s called the human element. (We tend to screw up the reality.) All is fair when political wrangling is in action. I can pick out logical fallacies like weed out of the garden: straw men, false dichotomies, arguments from authority. You name it.

Google News will alert me to stories on this given topic. What I saw was the same story recirculated around the AP wire for weeks. The wording is nearly identical in every instance – regurgitated from the press release from the activist organization. It contains a boatload of not-even-half-truths, mischaracterizations and promises of horrible outcomes. So, it shows me that most stories have made it to news outlets unfiltered, unchecked and uncritiqued.

The topic is also picked up by blogs. These are blogs with purposes (agendas). Blogs hosted by newspapers make it appear that the author is a journalist. Many are just self-styled experts on a topic or doing op-eds. These are opinions standing next to news hoping some credibility rubs off. If a link to such a blog is seen by others unfamiliar with its typical bent, it’s not immediately apparent that it might be biased. It might look like informed commentary or “news”.

One genuine newspaper picked up the story. The topic is addressed by what appears to be a working reporter. Several “facts”, however, are not corrected. Two sides are portrayed by using whatever statements had been released. It’s a task any 12-yr old who can read could do. The newspaper is located in an area of the nation that is particularly affected by the issue at hand. They are the interested party and are making their attempt to be the squeaky wheel.

The false view that was pushed, for political purposes, prompted a letter writing campaign. I’m not privileged to know how many letters were actually generated to legislators or how seriously they took them. The parties on the other side of the argument did not really go on the defensive but chose to wait until the wave washes over and dissipates – like most hot topics do. This tactic doesn’t always work. Try googling “town hall meetings” and see the hysteria fail to fizzle out. Did facts feed the town hall frenzy? No. It was unsubstantiated opinion and mischaracterizations.

This process plays out for dozens of so-called news stories every day. Google News and other “news” outlets treat opinion on par with facts. And, publications in print or on the web find people will chose to view fiction perhaps more often than non-fiction, depending on which point of view they hold and wish to bolster.

I’ve been educated. My conclusion is that about 90% of “news” is unsubstantiated, probably wrong, or an outright lie. The current media culture scuttles progress and results in poor choices. We’re being overwhelmed by raving hysterics. Haven’t we been through this before? It’s devastating. The voice of reason loses ground to the loudmouth irrational screamers.

Skepticism in a nutshell

On episode #208 of the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast, the SGU folks took questions from the audience at TAM7. The best question, I thought, came from my friend Bruce who asked how to explain a skeptics convention and skepticism so that a teenager might understand.

I’d go farther than the teenager. How do I explain it to my Mom or Dad or coworkers who can see my enthusiasm for the skeptical community? They have no idea if it’s a religion, a fun hobby, a political party, or just an odd obsession.

I was not satisfied with the SGU rogues’ answers but there were a lot of pertinent points brought up – promotion of science and science education, examination of the paranormal, logical and critical thinking. I don’t agree with Jay who said that a short answer isn’t the best. I think at least a brief introduction is a good idea. A little bit is better than a full-out presentation with examples that might freak them out.

It could be there is no suitable in-a-nutshell explanation but I’m going to try.

“What’s a “skeptic”?”, asks an acquaintance/family member during a casual conversation.

“Well,” I begin, “A skeptic and the skeptical community are people interested in science who consider claims made by others using very careful collection and evaluation of evidence. The evidence must be better than a blurry photo or an eyewitness story on TV where the event or description can’t be verified, examined or reproduced. So, many claims about special medicines, miraculous cures, UFOs, conspiracies, psychic ability, supernatural phenomena, etc. do not withstand a skeptical inquiry because the evidence is such poor quality.”

If you have the opportunity, you might add, “Most people can’t take the time to check the so-called facts they hear on TV or in print, even the internet, but the skeptical community examines these claims critically and points out the fiction. I’d like to think Bigfoot or ghosts are what people say they are but, after decades of looking, there is just no body of scientific evidence for these things. A skeptic can expose hoaxes, tricks, scams or the misuse of facts. They can spot something that sounds like science but is really just a put-on that sounds credible. So, the skeptical community serves a very useful role in society because they question what many people just assume to be true. Exposing claims that are likely not true allows us to stop wasting time, money or effort on them.”

Did I go over 30 seconds? Don’t get me talking about this stuff, I’ll prattle on…

Pennsylvania bigfoot sighting – just a story?

Cryptomundo is reporting a bigfoot (or dogman-type creature) sighting the occurred in western Pennsylvania on July 10.

The report should say “Jumonville” not Jammonville. This area east of Uniontown is rugged and heavily wooded.

I won’t bother commenting on Cryptomundo anymore because my words get edited or might not even appear. But, I noticed, as usual, the Cryptomundo commentators are impressed with the witness and her report. They find her believable. Yet, they easily slip into paranormal mode – Bigfoot can have pointy ears, the odd traits mentioned make it more believable, etc.

I see several problems with the report. At 6PM, the alleged time of sighting when the woman was driving, it was not dark. She reports she was going 35 MPH. That’s not very fast – something approaching the car would either look human (bipedal) or not (quadruped). How did it run away? On two feet? Did it run like a human? The report doesn’t say.

I don’t understand how it managed to “leap across the trunk”. How did it get behind the car? Apparently, she did not hit it but successfully avoided it. There are scratches shown on the car. (So what – lot’s of people scratch their cars up.) There are several details left out. Then investigators from the PA Bigfoot research group followed up on the report. They took pictures.

The pictures are what got me a bit flabbergasted. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA. It’s not the wilds as was suggested. Why was no one else around at 6PM on a Friday night?! The thing apparently ran from a school yard area through the parking lot of a convenient store. I have a harder time believing that there weren’t people around the store getting a pack of smokes, buying beer, picking up a pizza, hanging out. This makes no sense whatsoever.

The PA Bigfoot group has a closed forum and I am not currently intent on registering to listen in on speculation. This closed community aspect makes this type of forum nice for participants but excludes it from being scientific. The same can be said for Cryptomundo – a closed community ends up with warped thinking. No new input is incorporated. Mistakes are propagated, not corrected. They make little progress.

As a PA resident, I can tell you that bears are apparently all over the place right now. Did the witness see a bear? I can’t say. I think it’s more likely she almost hit a person. Having this close and unexpected an encounter with any living thing (except maybe a bug) is upsetting. If it was me, I would think that I would have chased after it, yelling to get people’s attention or at least go back and check to see if anyone else saw it. I’m sympathetic to this witness because she may think she saw something quite scary. I could and would not tell her she was crazy or wrong. This event was a matter of interpretation. So, nothing personal towards her, but the researchers’ intent is to consider this sighting as a real occurrence – outside of personal interpretation.

I’m not sure that’s possible. There is no corroborating evidence. It ends up only as a personal experience. I’m confounded about such reports. Because they make no sense and can’t be followed up, they actually have little value. Eyewitness evidence is weak and totally prone to error due to environmental conditions, physical constraints of the witness, emotional interference and the like. So, anecdotes can guide you where to look but can’t be used to support a claim such as this. If researchers really think there are big, unknown, physically implausible animals running into town on a Friday night, the Bigfoot organization needs to follow up better on this. I wish them well and I hope they find something better than a story.

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.

The red herring

Conclusion to “Sham Inquiry“
The coelacanth is a red herring

Mainstream science, which is respected and functions very well with its current methodology, excludes those fields who don’t pass muster. For a theory to be considered as an explanation for observations of the natural world, even the public realizes it ought to be scientific. Using supernatural qualities as necessary components in your theory will get you excluded from consideration outright by the scientific community. The public, on the other hand, finds the paranormal quite fascinating and is willing to give consideration to those that put on a good show.

Science shouldn’t loosen up and accept subjective evidence. When pseudoscientists can’t get in to the scientific “party”, they will continue to denigrate it. Many pseudoscience proponents will jump at a chance to show that science, up on the pedestal, has a flaw. At the same time, they want room made for them on the pedestal.

In researching three forms of sham inquiry for this project: cryptozoology, ghost hunters and creationism, I was amused to find one example used for all three to the same ends. In an attempt to showcase how orthodox scientists are wrong, proponents of ghosts, creationism and cryptozoology all cited the finding of the coelacanth fish in 1938. Warren [1] highlights that the discovery was unknown and unexpected. Therefore, he surmises, there may be many more unexpected findings left in nature to come to light, maybe perhaps we are just around the corner from scientifically proving ghosts exists. Creationists [2] love the prehistoric-looking fish because it appears to not have evolved – looking much like it did from the last fossil find 65 million years ago. If evolution is true, why didn’t it sprout legs and walk by now? The coelacanth is an iconic species for cryptozoologists [3]. Though it was not actively being sought, it still was vindication that an animal presumed to be extinct survived but remained hidden since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

The finding of the coelacanth was not an example of how science as an institution or method is misguided. Instead, the finding of the modern coelacanth is a testament to the wonder of nature to still hold surprises and to the fast-thinking museum curator who preserved the carcass as best she could then contacted a genuine expert to examine it before declaring the jaw-dropping discovery. One can only hope if the Loch Ness Monster is found, someone will be that diligent instead of negotiating a fee for viewing the remains and finding a “scientist” who will say what they wish him to say.

It is not valid for pseudoscientists to say they are subject to discrimination. Revolutionary ideas can receive serious consideration and acceptance if they follow conventional science protocol. Einstein’s work on relativity is an excellent example. [4],[5] Self-promoting fringe scientists may think very highly of themselves but it appears there really aren’t many Einsteins out there.

Evidence must be considered on its merits and discarded if not persuasive. Once a researcher has fallen in love with his theory, he is blind to disconfirming evidence. When a whole career is built upon research into a promising theory, he is loath to discard it. A genuine inquirer has intellectual integrity; a sham inquirer mainly has a goal.

The commonest examples of suspension of reason are those that validate one’s deepest beliefs while offering an illusion of privileged, insider status [6]. Therefore, we see sham inquiry that doesn’t get to the truth but instead makes a case for some proposition one wishes to be true. The end conclusion is already decided and enforced by a purposely closed community. The public is a willing follower if the story sounds believable or if it conveniently supports their prior held beliefs.
—————
[1] Warren, J. (2003). How to Hunt Ghosts, Fireside.
[2] Issak, M. (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook, Univ of Calif. Press. p. 99.
[3] Coleman, L., J. Clark (1999). Cryptozoology A to Z, Fireside. p. 66-68.
[4] Gardner, M. (1981). Science Good Bad & Bogus, Prometheus Books. p. 5
[5] Popper, K. (1963). “Falsificationism”. Scientific Inquiry (1999). R. Klee, Oxford Univ Press. p. 66-68.
[6] Levitt, N. (1999). Prometheus Bedeviled, Rutgers Univ Press.p. 92-94.

Elbowing in

Continuing with “Sham Inquiry“

Elbowing in on good science

The Journal of Scientific Exploration is the published by the Society for Scientific Exploration which describes itself as “a professional organization of scientists and other scholars committed to studying phenomena that cross or are outside of the traditional boundaries of science and…are ignored or studied inadequately…” Many of the members’ topics of research and methods are considered pseudoscience by conventional scientists. The journal is closed to outside contributors and criticism.

The journal contains many articles that reveal a deep hostility to science presumably because the scholars interests have been ignored or disparaged by the contemporary scientific community. Authors frequently characterize the scientific establishment as elitist, dogmatic and authoritarian. They denote themselves as visionary, oppressed, open-minded and comprehensive. They “know for certain the existing paradigms are flawed” and “know better than our opponents what is real and what is not” [1]. Along with complementary medicine practitioners and holders of religious viewpoints, the unorthodox scientists also want a seat at the table, wishing to merge with science, as complimentary [2]. They aim to do this not by proposing an alternate model but by changing science as it now operates to make room for their subjective methods [3].

In a paper entitled “Change the Rules”, the authors conclude that when phenomena are highly correlated with subjective parameters, science needs to expand the paradigm to accommodate them. Called the “science of the subjective”, the purported advantage would also be to improve the attitude, utility and image of science [4]. Very convenient, but only they are asserting that such improvements are necessary. It is a blatant attempt to blur the line between evidence and belief and demolish high standards of scientific quality that has served humanity very well over the past few centuries. Another example is the comments of the record in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial where it was noted that in order to accommodate supernatural causes, such as intelligent design, one would need to “broaden the ground rules of science” [5].

In one very disturbing but enlightening paper by B. Martin [6], he notes that scientist who are dissenters from majority opinion should take action to be accepted by mimicking orthodox science. This includes setting up institutions (even with one person) and specialized journals to add credibility, aim to publish anywhere, enlist patrons, seek different audiences (that is, appeal to people who will not critique one’s work), and build a social movement. This plan sounds remarkably like the successful creationist approach. One wonders if Martin, trained as a theoretical physicist, had the gains made by creationism in mind.

Along with the characteristics indicative of pseudoscience, a false science community will claim “the institutional moral authority” of science for themselves while trying to deny the same for their opponents [7]. A currently popular view is that public education should offer alternative paradigms as equal but different explanations of natural observations. This is presented as an attempt to be fair and open-minded by those who are actually not at all fair and open-minded. This method has been indicted as having more to do with religious and political ideologies than fairness [8] and nothing at all to do with science [9].

————-
[1] Jahn, R. G. (2008). “A Fourth-of-July Speech to my SSE Colleagues.” The Explorer: Newsletter of the SSE 19(2): 7-9.

[3] Bunge, M. (1995). “In Praise of Tolerance To Charlatanism in Academia”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences.
p. 106.

[4] Jahn, R. G., B.J. Dunne (2008). “Change the Rules.” J. of Scientific Exploration 22(2): 193-213.

[5] (2005). “Kitzmiller vs Dover”, US District Court For The Middle District Of Pennsylvania. p. 68.

[6] Martin, B. (1998). “Strategies for Dissenting Scientists.” J. of Scientific Exploration 12(4): 605-616.

[7] Toumey, C. (1996). Conjuring Science, Rutgers Univ Press. p. 94.

[8] Godfrey, L. R. (1981). “Science and Evolution in the Public Eye”. Paranormal Borderlands of Science. K. Frazier, Prometheus Books: 379-390.

[9] See Kitzmiller v. Dover.