The only thing about the Skookum cast of which I am certain is that I am not in a position to evaluate what it may be, even if it were sitting in front of me.
For many of us, we likely have to rely on the judgements of those with expertise in relevant fields (e.g. tracking, primates, ungulates, etc.). Is that a fallacy? Well, it depends. Argumentum ad verecundiam is the fallacy of appealing to authority, but it is more accurately described as appeal to inappropriate or misleading authority.
Is it inappropriate to appeal to authority in assessing the Skookum cast?
I'm not sure yet...inappropriate is too strong of a word here. My impression is that it's premature, but may be appropriate in the future.
Here's a checklist on argumentum ad verecundiam from the fallacy files website. I take issue with a few of these points, and I'll lay out my concerns below.
To sum up these points in a positive manner, before relying upon expert opinion, go through the following checklist:
1. Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:
2. Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else's. If so, proceed to the next question:
3. Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:
4. Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:
5. Is the authority's opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority's opinion.
If an argument to authority cannot pass these five tests, then it commits the fallacy of appeal to misleading authority.
My concerns are with points 4 and 5. Point four suggests that motivation or bias can be factored into dismissing an argument. That smells of ad hominem to me. Motivation or prejudice should be cause to scrutinize evidence and arguments, but isn't by itself justification to dismiss an argument. Sometimes the used car salesman is telling you the truth and can back up his statements with evidence.
Point five suggests that expert consensus is the way to go once all other criteria are met. In reality, this is what we have to go with to make everyday decisions where one is forced to make a choice, has to rely on expert opinion, and can't suspend judgement to wait and see (e.g. what course of treatment to use for a tumor).
So, what's the consensus on the Skookum cast? Well, we don't know yet. There are a handful of evaluations by some very intelligent folks who do have relevant expertise. Convincing Daris Swindler, given his expertise in primate anatomy and his own previous skeptical stance regarding Bigfoot, should be enough to make other experts sit up and take notice.
To really get an understanding of a true consensus of experts, the results of the study of the cast should be submitted to a reputable scientific journal for peer review. If the data that points to a sasquatch are sufficiently compelling and it can be quantitatively and qualitatively shown how other explanations do not fit as well (principle of parsimony), the results should be made available to the appropriate peers for scrutiny, especially those who hold contrary views. The results will stand or fall on their own merits (and a good journal editor will sniff out unjust or overly critical assessments and make the call him/herself...that's their job). If it can be shown to experts in wildlife biology that this impression is unequivocally an undocumented primate, it deserves to be published as the lead article in Science.
A submitter may revise and resubmit if their are some minor concerns that the editor wants addressed before publishing a paper as submitted. If it is rejected, the submitter will have the documentation from the reviews. If a submitter feels they have been treated unfairly, he or she may submit to another journal. If the results are solid, the paper will get published eventually.
That hasn't happened yet with the Skookum cast (to my knowledge). I do look forward to Meldrum's chapter on the cast in his upcoming book. However, a book doesn't get the same level of peer review that a professional journal does. That's nothing against Meldrum or anyone else...it's that way in almost every field and profesional books are still worthwhile to publish. I would just like to see the cast pass that higher standard in a widely circulated and esteemed peer-reviewed journal.
If the cast can meet that standard, appealing to authority would be entirely appropriate. Whether it does or does not, I would like to know that a paper was written up and submitted.
