Come on over and see my first post, a long one, about being sciencey and “scientifical”

“Scientific”: It’s just a catchphrase!

I’m really excited about it.

Also exciting is the success of the Doubtful News site. It’s a lot of work but I get a feel for the way the media covers these stories and how the reader OUGHT to be wary and critique them. We’ve also had some personalities themselves visit and provide comments. I try to moderate pretty tightly but discussion is encouraged.

It’s a really busy time but I’m enjoying it. Thanks for visiting.

Follow on twitter @idoubtit and @doubtfulnews

Awful categories, aren’t they? No one fits neatly into one or the other all the time. I apologize in advance for using these words as descriptors. I couldn’t think of a good way to express what we mean when applying these as processes, not a broad brush label.

Everyone is skeptical about something. Some of us apply it more evenly or have embraced it more thoroughly (as a process we use to judge claims). Even true believers harbor doubts about aspects of their subject. Sometimes, the doubts win and they drift away from their believing community.

I’m not talking about God, I’m talking about ghosts and Bigfoot.

I want to share some interesting episodes that took place in what I’m calling my Bigfoot weekend of October 21-23. I discovered many people existing in the gap between skepticism and the paranormal. They can tell us a whole lot about these topics we might otherwise miss.

After the premier showing on October 21 of The Bigfoot Hunter: Still Searching in Waverly, New York, I had a memorable conversation with the featured Elmira Bigfoot Hunter himself, Timothy Holmes. In the short time walking down the street to the pub and waiting for others to arrive, Tim told me about how HE will be the one to find Bigfoot. They are all over, he says, describing his encounter in the Philippines, as well in the New York forestlands. With his typical ever present optimism, he assures me that he will also be the one who nabs the extraterrestrials who sometimes visit him – he knows how the eight species of UFOs work. (I didn’t get to ask how he knows there are eight and why he specifically used the word “species”.) He has even travelled outside his body, so he says. But, he warned, “Don’t believe everything you see on the internet. Those photos and videos are all faked!”

The people who made The Bigfoot Hunter movie started as Ghost Hunters, Inc. group who formed before the Ghost Hunters (trademark) became crazy popular. As kids, living in a boring town, they did it for fun, not money and not to prove anything.

I have never been on a ghost hunt. As I told Tim, I’m just not “lucky” like him to have experienced anything I would call paranormal. Over the past 10 years I’ve immersed myself in the rational literature and community. I feel comfortable there.

This gang is totally different, sporting a completely irreverent vibe that would not sit well with the seriously academic and dry Skeptic old guard. You can find them now doing the fantastic website about weird things, “Who Forted?”, where they take a measured but hilarious approach to the paranormal. I loved the site at first visit and offered to write for it. I’m guessing I’m the most skeptical writer there yet I’ve always felt welcome.

Hanging out with them in the bar after the movie, I can attest this was not your typical TAM bar crowd. Some of them still entertain the idea of supernatural forces. They have experienced things they couldn’t explain and are not yet prepared to brush off the paranormal. Most of the time, they would not attribute the unknown to “paranormal” explanations. They spot the faking, know the tricks, and get disgusted by the poseurs. Sometimes, they even are the poseurs (to the extreme) just for laughs. Full of ideas and enthusiasm, they are some of the most open-minded but reasonable people I’ve met. I feel I could talk to them for hours about what they have seen and heard. And, I’d laugh my ass off in the meanwhile.

Because of their residence in that odd gap area between belief and skepticism, they can’t be labeled. Ask their executive producer/promoter! He has a hard time trying to sell what they can offer because it does not fit neatly into a category. Are they skeptical? Are they believers? Are they serious? Is this a parody?

By looking beyond the typical skeptical outlets, I found a growing new category – those who used to believe and might still believe – spanning the gap between paranormalists and non-paranormalists. That is a FUN place to visit.

It is too easy to close yourself off to new opportunities to examine a topic from the other side and talk to people with a different worldview. It’s unfair to be dismissive of people’s experiences or their interpretation. Besides, people hate when you do that and they shut down. One can question their claims in a way that keeps the doubt from coming out instead of blatantly injecting it into the conversation. If skeptics have learned anything in the past few years, it’s that we can get valuable results, infiltrating the really woo circles like psychics and new age communities, through being polite and feigning ignorance. You see so much more from the inside. Why not take advantage of an open door?

So I did.

On October 23, I ventured into a very uncomfortable place on my own, the PA Bigfoot Conference. I was the oddball out demographically as well as with my worldview. On top of that, the silly circus of the previous week in which my picture was plastered on the Cryptomundo web site and once again labeled as one of those “skeptics” made me a bit nervous about being called out as a secret skeptic spy.

I wasn’t there to rain on any parades. I very much wanted to see how these events worked and what was discussed. I kept my skeptical thoughts to myself and tried not to roll my eyes too much, though it WAS difficult not to giggle sometimes.

I observed. The crowd responded positively to information I thought was patently ridiculous. They ate it up. They appeared impressed by non-credentials and pure speculation, amazed by a dramatic story taken at face value without question. It was a far different feel than the many science-based conventions I’ve attended.

I gathered up courage to walk around and talk to people immersed in the Bigfoot culture. The people from the PA Bigfoot Society were friendly and helpful; we chatted for a while. If you ask polite questions, and especially if you appear informed, they WANT to talk to you. It was difficult to avoid telling them that I felt affiliation with the skeptical cryptozoologists but I didn’t mention it. Because we had such a nice talk, I sort of wished they found out after. Would they have thought, “Hey, skeptics aren’t ALL raging debunkers”?

After receiving a lesson about footprint casts, including one they have on display as an example of fake, I asked about their scientific credentials. Admittedly, there was only one who had tracking experience as a wildlife biologist. They teach each other.

Back in the auditorium, the audience was a diverse mix of ages, including families and couples. It was not the stereotypical Bigfoot crowd of beards and camouflage outerwear. Many people looked not like researchers but as enthusiasts interested in the subject and what the speakers had to offer.

Sadly, I think many in the audience could have been fooled by one presenter who spoke about primate behavior as applied to Bigfoot. A confident speaker, his talk was speculative nonsense heavy on jargon. I heard people next to me say, “Habituation? Foci?” He’d lost them. But maybe they accepted he had scientific credentials. When I got home I looked for these credentials; he has some as a private investigator, not a primate specialist.

Dr. Jeff Meldrum’s talk addressed some of this. Essentially, Meldrum is a modern Grover Krantz. He is a respected researcher in his primary field – anatomy and anthropology. I’m pretty certain he feels that attention-seeking, self-styled experts running through the woods are dragging the credibility of the subject down. It was an odd spot for him considering many of the talks from this conference hinted at connections to the paranormal. For a report on Meldrum’s fascinating talk, see my news post on it.

Finally, there was a presentation by Stan Gordon. Stan is a nice guy who collects reports in Pennsylvania about all things weird. From what I can tell, he connects with people. They feel comfortable telling him their story. And, whoa, does Stan have the stories! Outrageous stories. But, for over 50 years, Stan has given someone that has experienced something unknown a way to express their confusion and fear. He provides a valuable service.

Several of those whom we skeptics consider far outside our circle have something VERY valuable to say. What struck me hard this weekend is that what they say is not really about Bigfoot, it’s about themselves, our society, and popular culture. It’s not simple.

It proved highly worthwhile to visit these two new neighborhoods. I was not ostracized for being of a different mindset. I was not dismissed outright because I didn’t run in there all argumentative or self-righteous. I might think your idea is looney but I usually won’t say it to your face. I roll it around a bit first and often realize there is a core of something curious there.

It’s said that engaging outside your normal circle is good for sharpening your arguments and to know the “enemy”. That’s true, but it also makes the other side less of an “other”.

Whenever we “otherize” people, it justifies denigration of them. Hence, the “scoftic” label applied to me and the straw man construction one group makes of the other.

I recommend attending non-skeptical, pro-paranormal events every now and then. We can’t learn by remaining myopic or dismissive. And, odds are, you WILL have a personal realization, maybe make some new friends, and enhance your experience by stepping into the unknown. Mind the gap, though, it’s a strange world out there.

First, make sure you head over to Doubtful News, updated every day (except the occasional day where I’m not able to be online). The purpose of that site is to provide a one stop location for all paranormal and skeptical news hot off the internet. I work pretty hard to be first so check in often to find stories before they hit the mainstream. Some are ridiculous (alien and Bigfoot reports) and some are very serious (children’s health). But all are hand-picked to be interesting. And, we try to be funny. That sometimes works out. T and I were happy to have the blog syndicated on Skeptic.com as well.

Follow @doubtfulnews on Twitter for some live tweeting, like I recently did from the premier of the movie The Bigfoot Hunter:  Still Searching and from the PA Bigfoot Convention. I’ll have more about those events coming up here. Hopefully. Kinda busy…but it was a great weekend.

Don’t miss my guest post on Sheril Kirshenbaum’s site the Culture of Science.  I wrote about how paranormal investigators fool the public into thinking they are credible science.

Part 1: Playing “Scientist”: How The Public Is Misled By Paranormal Investigators

A few years ago, I attended a presentation by a popular paranormal investigation group which was hosted by a university student activities club. The room was crowded with people of all ages – kids, college students and local citizens. The audience was mesmerized by the information (or possibly just by the “celebrity” presenter) as I grew increasingly uncomfortable and dismayed. The stories were dramatic but their evidence was pathetic. Yet, people believed these researchers had recorded proof of actual paranormal occurrences.

This experience later translated to a research project of my own where I examined how these amateur research and investigation groups (ARIGs) presented themselves to the public. Specifically, I had noticed many of them claimed to be scientific. What did they mean by that? Did it have any merit?

Part 2: Picking Apart Amateur Research And Investigation Groups

With just a modicum of science experience, one can pick apart the amateur research and investigation groups (ARIGs) activities. ARIG participants do not generally show an understanding of the concepts of validity, controls, objectivity, bias, interference, statistical analysis, skepticism and peer review – or what we might refer to as the ethos of science [3]. That’s no surprise; neither does the average non-scientist citizen. Yet, as part of their promotion, ARIGs will co-opt use of the culturally established image of science as a stamp of legitimacy, a means to exhibit their seriousness and commitment to truth, to project competence, qualifications, professionalism, accuracy and honesty.

This is common. We find the same associations to science-like concepts used to promote health and beauty claims, political and religious-based ideologies and many products in the marketplace.

At the beginning of October, I wrote about my experience with the local school in A Tale of Fail: Schools pass on opportunities to teach skepticism over at the JREF’s Swift blog

It is an oft-repeated complaint that our schools tell kids what to think, not teach them how to think. Questioning of the material presented is not encouraged (presumably to maintain order in the room). Since my children began school, I noticed certain “facts” that arose from classroom information that I’ve had to address. Mostly, I do this directly with my child, not to the teacher. I provide the framework to be thoughtfully critical of what they have been told. I’ve not hesitated to tell my kids that the teacher is NOT always right. There is more to the story that is not given. The world is a complicated place and one should not simply accept whatever is being presented as truth, without thinking about it first.

I recognize I’m probably not going to persuade teachers to be a bit more accurate with the story of Christopher Columbus or to talk about animals in terms of evolutionary relationships (as I would prefer). It’s clear that science, art and music is marginalized to make way for intense reading and math so that standardized test score goals are met but I am willing to supply educational enrichment myself or through opportunities outside of school. But, I’m also convinced that golden opportunities within the classroom are frequently missed.

Last year, two situations came up where I chose to become directly involved. The results, you will see, made me less than hopeful about the state of education.

And today, a new post on the differences between science, paranormal, supernatural and everything in between is over at the Skeptoid blog:

When considering or investigating unusual claims, establishing the cause is the goal we try to reach. What caused this event?

Today we have thousands of self-styled “paranormal investigators” to help the public with such claims. Often, they attribute the cause as “paranormal”. But, what does it mean to attribute something to the “paranormal” or to be “paranormal”? Is it the same as “supernatural”?

The words paranormal and supernatural get thrown around a lot in skeptical circles, usually interchangeably. Though they have loose definitions that change over time and somewhat overlap, it’s pedantic fun to consider the distinction that can be made between the two. And, since I could rightly be called pedantic, here we go.

As always, thanks for reading.

Publicize. Sending links to aggregators helped. Facebooking and Tweeting helped. Having popular friends who Facebooked and Tweeted links helped EVEN MORE. One day, when Phil Plait tweeted a link, several hundred people popped in for a visit. But most didn’t stick around.

My posts got some eyeballs but not enough. These days, as a long-established site, I get more traffic from people who access my archive content or static pages (on Paranormal TV shows). I also get hits from Google search on certain topics, like Bigfoot.

Photos. I have extremely limited time. It takes sometimes days for me to write a blog post that I’m pleased with. For all that work, I want as many people as possible to see it and for it to not be forgotten and buried. But, I soon noticed that many people found my posts because of the interesting images I used. They liked the pictures, not the story. That’s a little disappointing but I guess it can be seen as an advantage if you work it the right way.

Specialize. It took a while, but I finally focused the website into a rather narrow band of topics around fake science, pretend science and paranormal science wannabes –their methods displayed what I called “scientificity” and their actions were “sham inquiry”. I’m pleased with that focus but I realize I’m appealing to a small crowd. I attempted to attract some of the pro-paranormal viewers but they never hang around long enough to comment. More on that in a bit.

Contributing elsewhere. In Tim Farley’s excellent, common sense presentation, Please Don’t Start another Blog or Podcast, he gives a list of things you could do to contribute to the cause you feel is important. One that is not explicitly mentioned on the list is to contribute to existing podcast or blogs. Tim has mentioned this in other places because he has done it – contributing content to the JREF’s Swift blog and to the Skepticality podcast.

A little while back, I posted stories and interviews to SheThought.com. Due to the larger audience there, I got more hits on those posts than if I had put them on my own blog. The same happened with my pieces on Skeptoid.com blog . Even more hits were obtained on the WhoForted Blog when one of the posts got picked up by a “discovery engine”. That particular blog site, which is heavy on graphics, humorous and attracts both skeptical and paranormal viewers, featured my two posts with lots of photos and even an “original” image.

A huge number of clicks were displayed for a piece I co-wrote on the JREF’s Swift blog on a Norwegian psychic family. I’m not sure how accurate that is and I can’t be at all certain where the traffic came from but it read over 11,000 hits. I suspect the large hits may be because no one else on the internet wrote about this aspect of a worldwide news story. Got lucky on that one, perhaps.

As Tim says in another post, “Effective skepticism is about communication, and skeptical outreach demands we communicate with as many people as possible. Even the finest investigation report or essay…does no good if they’re never read by anyone”.

So, I have made a change for now. I’ve decided to make my website fairly static and concentrate on some research projects, print articles and blog posts in places that get the clicks. I also completed some print pieces that hopefully will be published soon. I’m interested to see what happens with them. Unlike blog posts, they seem more real, more permanent (regardless of “the internet is forever” business). Printed stories appear to be more special than a blog you can type out in an hour to add to the endless stream.

Finally, ignore all I just said, because I did something silly – I started a new blog. To be fair, it’s something that I felt was needed, it’s still in the trial mode and I have help with it. It’s a news blog with paranormal, pseudoscience and general skeptically themed story links. I did it because I was posting stories to Twitter days before they became hot items in the mainstream. I decided to create a “scoop” site. Within a week, it surpassed the visitors to my own established blog. I’m happy about that but it has nowhere near the traffic I would like. Spread the word if you can.

Oh, yeah, one more thing… I’m available for paid gigs, panels, events and a new career. Feel free to email offers. Thanks for reading.

This site features original content on the topics of science and the public, skepticism and popular paranormal subjects. Click on the categories section to see all posts on a certain topic. Be sure to visit the pages listed above, especially the “Best of…” page. Thanks for visiting.

Check out Doubtful News for the latest in paranormal and pseudoscience news for skeptics (because people really believe this stuff).

All of those are wrong.

What really happened?

Let’s look at the observations given. First, for several observations, it is not clear if the animals are reacting to the quake itself or any precursors. But in some cases, the times prior to the quake are given. So, not that many animals are indicating something BEFORE the quake but just reacting TO the quake. We all reacted to it too, no different than the howler monkey, snakes, cuttlefish, ducks, beavers, lions, tiger, and deer who appeared agitated or surprised. In the case of the apes, observations suggest that just seconds before (3-10 seconds), apes moved away or vocalized. This is a very short time before and they could have felt the initial waves seconds sooner than the observers. Not much help there. The flamingos flocked “just before” the quake. Again, they perhaps could feel the initial waves sooner and reacted. The lemurs were the most interesting, with reports that they sounded an alarm call 15 before the quake. This is one observation, though and we don’t know for sure if they were responding to anything regarding the quake. All-in-all, it’s interesting to see how the animals reacted. I would disagree that the went wild or berserk. To say they predicted it is very poorly supported. All we can say is the lemurs were observed to notice something alarming possibly 15 minutes prior to the quake: can’t say it was the quake or that they predicted it.

The media went overboard on this story.

Theory: Animals exhibit unusual behavior prior to an earthquake

While there are huge amounts of anecdotal data regarding animal behaviors before an earthquake, much of these observations are post hoc (after the fact) and so are not of good quality. However, there is some laboratory and controlled observations that show rather convincingly that animals do respond to environmental signals that are not detectable to humans. In some cases, certain earthquakes might produce precursor signals or environmental changes that animals may detect.

The most important point to consider is that each earthquake is unique and there are many variables at play. Therefore, animal behavior might give us an indication that an earthquake is coming, it will never be a reliable indicator for all quake activity. It is not reasonable to claim animal observations will “go far” in saving lives prior to an earthquake. We’d be running for safety all the time.

Earthquake Precursors

Now seems to be an opportune time to point you a summary of research into earthquake precursors and the state of predicting quakes. This was published in The Anomalist #13: Intermediate States but is also reproduced in three parts on this blog. Check out part one about animal behavior, earth sounds, paranormal-like effects and groundwater changes. Part two discusses earthquake weather and earthquake lights. Part three explains what may be happening before the fault ruptures and how this may relate to anomalous earthquake-related phenomena (AERP) including ion formation and aerosols, earth currents, changes to the magnetic field and the seismo-ionospheric theory. Then, it provides possible explanations to what has been observed.

This summary is in no way definitive and I’m sure there is much wrong with it. I also expect that much more research has been published since 2007 that either supports or disputes it. I found the subject to be an interesting look into the complexities of nature and how we may be peering in the wrong direction and missing some curious phenomena.

Today’s researchers are examining questions from a new perspective. They can organize and communicate better thanks to the internet. There are new types of books and media. I feel positive about the future of the field of cryptozoology and excited for new things to come. At The Amazing Meeting 9 (TAM 9) in Las Vegas in July, gathered together was a group of people that had everything to do with my positive attitude.

All the people in this photo contribute to moving the subject of cryptozoology away from the stereotypes and the paranormal realm and into the circle of popular cultural and scientific understanding. This group is no less excited by the idea that cryptids are real, unknown animals. It’s just that we are realistic about it. We don’t assume the stories can be taken at face value because we know mistakes are made. We do not come in with a presupposed notion about what a person saw. Our scope is larger; our conclusions are based on what we know is likely true, not what we wish to be true.

From left: S. Hill, B. Smith, B. Radford, D. Prothero, J. Nickell, M. Crowley, K. Stollznow, D. Loxton

Photo by M. Crowley

Everyone in the picture comes from a unique background and converged upon one of our favorite topics – monsters. None of us are zoologists. Some of us are scientists or have scientific training. (And, all of us know what the “null hypothesis” is.) Our outlook is based on critical thought and creativity.

The new cryptozoology is more investigation-oriented, actively examining the questions. No more credulous collecting of stories. We examine  the culture (the popular depictions of monsters, the psychology of monster hunting, and the activities of people who search for them) and the events (sightings, purported evidence) in books, magazines, blogs and podcasts.

Scanning the top 50 “cryptozoology” books at Amazon, it’s heavy on the relatively new genre of crypto-fiction. There are still many of the standard “unexplained mystery” books and cryptozoology field guides and/or compendiums that have little if any new material in them. We don’t need any more of those.

A rare beast is the book that takes a scientific and skeptical look at these subjects to reveal new information never considered before. We have those now (Radford’s Tracking the Chupacabra, Nickell’s Tracking the Man-Beasts and Nickell and Radford’s Lake Monster Mysteries). And there is more to come.

Another on the horizon is by Donald Prothero and Daniel Loxton. From this preview, Dr. Don tells us he has looked not just at the idea of cryptozoology but the people involved. Similarly, Brian Regal has done the same in Searching for Sasquatch: Crackpots, Eggheads, and Cryptozoology. I’ve spoken with both gentlemen to relate my own research into amateur investigation groups and how they use science as a mark of credibility. Regal explores the relationship between amateurs and professional scientists in his book. Don and Dan comment on the pseudoscience label for cryptozoologists in their forthcoming work. I continue to examine how this lack of true scientific ethos may affect the public’s idea about how science works. On this blog and in various other places, cryptozoology is an example I use to illuminate sham inquiry and “scientifical” actions.

Cryptozoology is a little behind in not having a decent dedicated forum or reliable news site. It’s getting better. I see new sites coming along *  The most respected crypto site (which isn’t really one at all) is Darren Naish’s Tetrapod Zoology. When Darren does cryptids, he does it right. I’m encouraged by this kind of attention to the subject led by Darren and others. Join the Monster Talk Facebook group for fun links. The best forum for high-functioning discussion of cryptids, especially Bigfoot, is the JREF forum. It’s not for the weak-willed. They will shred a shoddy claim faster than you can put on costume and run through the background of your family’s vacation videos. Critique is critical! The field has lacked publically accessible, smart critique for too long and now we are getting that. You can actually now find the others sides of the story.

Monster Talk, is the best crypto podcast. Featuring B. Smith, K. Stoltznow and B. Radford. (The Minnesota Iceman episode featured M. Crowley, other episodes featured Darren Naish, Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero and Joe Nickell), they look at the evidence and see how it fits in with our already established knowledge about nature. No fantastic speculation, except in jest.

Junior Skeptic magazine, an insert in Skeptic magazine, produced by D. Loxton, frequently features cryptids. It’s aimed towards those of us with the MOST passion for learning about monsters – kids. How I would have loved to have this when I was a kid!

What’s to come? Well, I hope the nonsense dies down. Unsupported speculation, a weekly blobsquatch, hoaxes, hype, commercialism, “professional” research groups, and TV for the incredulous (Finding Bigfoot) cheapens the subject. Yet, we observe that people WANT to hear about monsters as real entities. They tune in to a TV show that claims to have proof or they pass on news articles that appear to show monsters in our midst. It’s hard to balance that wonder and excitement about mystery with a rational examination that almost always gives us a more mundane or disappointing result.

“But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing. “ – Thomas Paine

At least now, the options and outlets for ideas and news are greatly expanded. That’s an excellent thing.

————–

* Here are some sites you should check out. You may not agree with everything there but you can post your comments and have a reasonable exchange with the authors and other visitors.

Bigfoot Evidence

Ghost Theory

Bigfoot Lunch Club

WhoForted? 

Cryptozoology Online: Still on the Track

Loch Ness Monster Mystery 

Shuker Nature

Follow cryptozoology news on Twitter by saving the search for the hashtag #cryptozoology

The so called “facts” given are as follows:

• Where Has Bigfoot Been Seen? Bigfoot has been spotted all over the world. People often see Bigfoot in wooded areas or high in the mountains.
• What Does Bigfoot Eat? Bigfoot is an omnivore. This means he eats both plants and animals. Researchers say Bigfoot eats nuts, berries, fish and deer.
• How Does Bigfoot Act? Bigfoot is shy. He likes to live with others of his own kind but doesn’t like being around people. He doesn’t like to have his picture taken so it’s hard to get him on film. Bigfoot talks to each other by making loud calls across long distances.
• Does Bigfoot Hurt People? No, Bigfoot doesn’t try to hurt people on purpose. Sometimes though, when people accidentally wander into his territory, he’s been known to throw rocks at them to frighten them away. Bigfoot isn’t trying to be mean. He’s just trying to protect his home and family.

Well! It’s the Internet, we can pull facts out the air, I guess.

I submitted this comment to the site (which is not frequently updated or complete):

How do you KNOW these “facts” about how Bigfoot behaves? We have never caught one and no scientist has ever observed one to determine what they eat or if Bigfoot is “mean”, etc. This is guessing without any evidence except what others have said. Those are stories, not knowledge.

Centuries ago, people knew “facts” about witches and demons. Are those real too?

The Is Bigfoot Real site says: “Our mission is not to make you believe or not, but to supply the information and let you be the judge.” How can one make a sound judgement when the information is flawed to begin with? How can one reasonably decide when only one point of view is given. It’s a biased point of view – it’s obvious the writer does think Bigfoot IS real and is delivering information to skew one to that point of view as well.  And, worse, the author is delivering this information to kids.

We can’t stop people from putting stuff on the Internet but we can call out nonsense when we see it. Don’t click on the links to the Is Bigfoot Real site. It’s best that stuff like that just gets buried and remains obscure.

By the way, I have a kids monster site. It needs updated (volunteers wanted!) but it’s here: Seeking Spooks and Monsters

“Even if there are long-standing legends of strange events occurring at some location, to suggest that a place is haunted just to freak people out is contemptible.”

“Ghost tours and monster festivals are fun. But, their apparent frivolity disguise an underlying invitation to buy into an idea just because it’s entertaining while having no basis in reality.”

Commenters remarked that I might be getting too worked up over it. Meanwhile, I found this commentary from a local who thinks his town needs one of them monsters to draw tourists and he is not beyond creating one from scratch.

I’m pretty certain many of these monsters have been created from scratch just for this purpose. I have a particular irritation with the Raystown Lake monster, Raystown Ray. The rather obvious manufacturing of stories, horrible photo “evidence’ and complete biological implausibility do nothing to dissuade attention from the media and the continued push to publicize the monster.

It’s awfully enticing to believe something mysterious and monstrous lurks in your nearby woods or lake. Makes camping and boating trips a bit more exciting, doesn’t it. (There’s not too much difference between celebrating local myths and our religious holidays.) The problem is, too many people take too much of this stuff at face value. They don’t question WHY the stories might exist. The origin is human, not monstrous. Well, if you consider that someone might be out to make a buck from your gullibility (a “hauntrepreneur”), that’s kinda scary.

The first relates to my interest in amateurs being scientifical. UFO researcher Budd Hopkins presented the results of a study he conducted at a conference about UFO abductees. According to Robert Sheaffer (Skeptical Inquirer V. 35 No. 3 May/June 2001 p 25-27), he was roundly taken to task. Hopkins devised an image recognition test supposedly to determine if children were being abducted. He also conducted a Roper poll to find out how many Americans believed they have been abducted. His research lacks the basic protocol of credible research. Why? Hopkins is not a scientist. He didn’t know how to construct and execute a proper, valid study. Hopkins has no credible standing in the scientific community and the idea that people are being abducted by aliens out of their homes every night in our busy, crowded, surveillance-heavy, alarm-triggering world is ludicrous. Hopkins failed at being scientific.

Another point that has been brought up on the comments on this blog and also in Sheaffer’s column is that independent researchers, unaffliated with universities or hospitals, do not have to pass their research proposals through an Institutional Review Board. These boards (IRBs) examine the ethical and scientific appropriateness of research done under the auspices of that institution and can disapprove research plans if warranted. When this oversight is lacking, there is the potential that poorly designed studies could result in harm to the participant or be scientifically useless or deceptive. Research (with human subjects) done without IRB review are skirting a critical check in scientific protocol. Unchecked, but superficially scientific, work like that by Hopkins can give the public the impression that science can be done this way. Pretty awful.

The second example is given by Dr. Steven Novella. Today’s homeopath, he writes, “…looks to cloak himself in the respectability of science. That is the path to acceptance, official recognition and reimbursement.” (Skeptical Inquirer V. 35 No. 3 May/June 2001 p 28-29) Right! If it sounds sciencey, people are apt to believe that it is valid and true. we, as a modern society, still hold that science does the best job of seeking out and revealing the closest think to truth about the world. Too bad homeopathy is utter silliness. After Hahnemann (the founder of homeopathy) put forth the idea that an essense of a substance formerly in the water was retained, Beneveniste and others tried to be more scientific and show that water molecules created a memory of the substance. Nice try but water doesn’t work that way. And, homeopathy doesn’t work at all. Yet, ask people who use it. I’d bet they assume it is supported by science.

Now, I’m primed to find lots of examples of how people promoting products and subjects use sciencey processes (but not good science) primarily as an attempt to impress an audience. It happens all the time. Watch for it.