• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cryptozoology fail: Loren falls for an obvious hoax

Lucian said:
It's not that hard to avoid falling for a parody site if you read the bit that says: "Please note: All articles on this site are works of fiction." Link
Click to expand...

Yes, this was the funniest part.

It was much funnier considering for the days before, LoCo was on the blog under a different post commenting about how he was a "skeptic". Here's one thing he wrote:

Most credible cryptozoologists have a classical skeptical attitude about all evidence, eyewitness accounts, and traditions that are brought to our attention. I need not “associate” with the Skeptical community, the scoptics, and the debunkers because I understand the cryptozoological method more than you seem to. I already lived here, long before you discovered cryptozoology.
Click to expand...

Also, I was sparring on twitter because for two of the last posts he pitted rational people against irrational cryptozoologists - picking a fight then spectating, claiming he was encouraging discussion, which is a HUGE joke. Then, he picks on me in a post.
 
idoubtit said:
It was much funnier considering for the days before, LoCo was on the blog under a different post commenting about how he was a "skeptic".
Click to expand...


I wish we could collect a tax every time somebody prefaces some woo with a claim to "skepticism," and then goes on to completely disregard the burden of proof and proffer some extraordinary claim as self-evident, as if invoking the word "skeptic" somehow confers credibility and immunity from criticism. It sort of reminds me of the old disclaimer, "I'm not racist, but..."
 
For a great many people, skepticism means that you don't necessarily buy what those nerds in the labcoats tell you is true. They are skeptical of evolution, climate change, etc. To them, people who accept the prevailing opinions of the scientific establishment on such matters are "scoftics."

If you'd really like a laugh sometime, one poster in particular on the BFF has over the last few months prefaced much of his comments to skeptics by calling out the logical fallacies he imagines we're making. Be forewarned though: the irony is sometimes overwhelming.
 
There is another way to look at the claim of "I'm a skeptic too" coming from those who promote fringe science. It's possible to look at the human subculture of fringe advocates in the same way we look at other fan bases like religion.

Cryptozoology is very close to religion in that for both we have artifacts, but no way to prove that they came from the sources attributed to them. In both subcultures we have people who "experience" things. The experiences are no doubt real, but there is no way to demonstrate they correspond to the objective reality claimed for them.

The notion that "I'm a skeptic too" for cryptozoologists is analogous to advocates of one religion dismissing the claims of another. We see this in the news presently, with debates occurring as to whether Mormonism is a "real" religion.

In my opinion it's really nothing more than a social game. One individual puts down the beliefs of another to elevate their own position.

There is some irony with Loren Coleman's "I'm a skeptic too" as it appears to be a disavowal of the paranormal beliefs of Igor Bourtsev. While Coleman appears to shun a paranormal interpretation of cryptid reports, he seems to wallow in numerology in his Twilight Language blog:

http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/

I must say, I honestly respect Coleman's cleverness in being able to come up with this stuff. The moral failing is that it's presented seriously, as opposed to Martin Gardner's brilliant fiction of Dr. Matrix:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Joshua_Matrix
 
tube said:
Cryptozoology is very close to religion in that for both we have artifacts, but no way to prove that they came from the sources attributed to them. In both subcultures we have people who "experience" things. The experiences are no doubt real, but there is no way to demonstrate they correspond to the objective reality claimed for them.
Click to expand...


True. Neither population possesses any testable, verifiable, objective evidence. They have only their claims and their "artifacts," easily-hoaxed objects that can be alleged to support the claims, but can never be proven to. If they were really skeptical, they would have enough objectivity to dismiss that flimsy "evidence" for the garbage that it is. So of course, from our position as critical-minded skeptics, both parties' claims of skepticism appear disingenuous. Because, you know, there's no evidence.


The Shrike said:
For a great many people, skepticism means that you don't necessarily buy what those nerds in the labcoats tell you is true. They are skeptical of evolution, climate change, etc. To them, people who accept the prevailing opinions of the scientific establishment on such matters are "scoftics."
Click to expand...


Yeah, the word "skepticism" has multiple interpretations. It could simply mean "doubtful," without any criteria or qualifiers. The crucial difference between that skepticism and scientific skepticism, is that the latter requires critical analysis and verifiable evidence that can be corroborated independently.

Science is not a bunch of people with postgraduate degrees, wearing white coats and issuing declarations from an ivory tower, though some types of ideologues may portray it as such. Science is a democratic process that arrives at its conclusions through exhaustive testing, and constant dissent and criticism.


tube said:
There is some irony with Loren Coleman's "I'm a skeptic too"...
Click to expand...


Absolutely. No small measure of irony, apparently.
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
For a great many people, skepticism means that you don't necessarily buy what those nerds in the labcoats tell you is true. They are skeptical of evolution, climate change, etc. To them, people who accept the prevailing opinions of the scientific establishment on such matters are "scoftics."

If you'd really like a laugh sometime, one poster in particular on the BFF has over the last few months prefaced much of his comments to skeptics by calling out the logical fallacies he imagines we're making. Be forewarned though: the irony is sometimes overwhelming.
Click to expand...

That can only be one person, and it made me LOL to read the above. So true.
 
Tube: not only are there relics in CZ, but there are people who would try to sell access to those relics, similar to the Catholic Church would guarantee your soul going to heaven, if you purchased a portion, or access to those jesus relics.

I think of the BFRO trips, the selling of casts by the bigfoot clergy, etc...
 
Heh, yeah. I remember visiting a church in Germany that had a room in back that held what was claimed to be a chunk of the cross Peter was crucified on. As I recall, admission was five Marks...
 
tube -- a museum in Renton is going to be (maybe already has started?) running an exhibit on Bigfoot. I am thinking of putting together a brief, pithy discussion of why BF is unlikely to exist, together with some references, and asking them to place it at the end of the display in the name of fairness and honesty. Want in on the fun?

Regards, MK
 
I may have started an international incident.

http://wp.me/p1Nw9h-zI

Check the comments with Lynne and Burtsev. And, curious enough, Craig Woolheater was at this conference. He did not recognize me. No one did far as I know or didn't say so. So, maybe that says something about how much people actually read the blog.

That said, Craig has contacted me on FB. More to come. Hmm. Interesting developments.
 
A babe and a half for sure. This from the link on Dr. Merldumb:

Dr. Meldrum expressed that he felt the conference was “orchestrated” with “publicity stunts” to promote tourism for the region. He was dismayed and perhaps a bit angry that the Russian group “exploited his credibility” for their means.
Click to expand...

I find this lovely irony.
 
Curious, especially after Meldrum made a daft comment in reply to Ben Radford who said most CZ books were exaggeration (true). And then some weird comparison between evolution literature dominated by creationist literature.

But on the other hand, he's hands and heads above the other conference speakers. I plan to writeup something about this past weekend but haven't gotten to it yet. It was eyeopening.
 
idoubtit said:
I may have started an international incident.

http://wp.me/p1Nw9h-zI

Check the comments with Lynne and Burtsev. And, curious enough, Craig Woolheater was at this conference. He did not recognize me. No one did far as I know or didn't say so. So, maybe that says something about how much people actually read the blog.

That said, Craig has contacted me on FB. More to come. Hmm. Interesting developments.
Click to expand...


I really can't see much difference between what Meldrum complained about over there, and what he participates in over here. Same silliness. Same unprofessional behavior. Same junk for evidence. Etc.
 
That's why I find it so ironic.

He sets about marketing himself for the position, and then complains about the job. Does he expect the Smithsonium to have him open an exhibition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom