How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions

[Dinwar]

The big thing here these days seems to be cryptids (and more specifically bigfoot). I have been criticized for having the audacity to not assume all claims come from frauds, and for actually looking at the claims. Apparently, this is not how one is "supposed" to do such research.

Well, it turns out that my methodology is the correct one.

A recent article in Paleontologia Electronica discusses three ancient cryptids, specifically late-surviving pterosaurs. The conclusion is pretty obvious from the start--none of these were real--but the methodology is the part that's important. These researchers actually took the time to analyze the claims, and to assess the evidence in a rigorous and scientific manner.

The benefit of doing so is twofold. First, the advocates of late-surviving pterosaurs now have to fight this battle on the proper field: peer-reviewed literature, where experts assess the data and everything is in the open. It's not that the authors don't allow for criticism--in fact, the peer review process demands critical review, it's built in. Rather, it puts everyone on a level playing field. Second, it demonstrates proper scientific analysis at the same time that it rips apart an absurd claim. This not only demonstrates the cryptids to be false, but it also demonstrates how to go about assessing data on one's own. It can serve as an introduction to proper methods for evaluating claims among the cryptid community, where as "All bigfoot advocates are liars and frauds" can't.

Sure, it requires more effort. And that effort probably could be put to more useful purposes. But that's ignoring the context; we all do goofy things. I've got two books on dragon taxonomy; it's sometimes fun to do something entirely frivolous in a very serious manner. And frankly, if you don't like research, don't go into science or involve yourself in scientific discussions.

This article is doing what this website proports to do, but it does so far, far better. It is the standard we should aspire to.

 

[Spindrift]

The big thing here these days seems to be cryptids (and more specifically bigfoot). I have been criticized for having the audacity to not assume all claims come from frauds, and for actually looking at the claims. Apparently, this is not how one is "supposed" to do such research.

Well, it turns out that my methodology is the correct one.

A recent article in Paleontologia Electronica discusses three ancient cryptids, specifically late-surviving pterosaurs. The conclusion is pretty obvious from the start--none of these were real--but the methodology is the part that's important. These researchers actually took the time to analyze the claims, and to assess the evidence in a rigorous and scientific manner.

The benefit of doing so is twofold. First, the advocates of late-surviving pterosaurs now have to fight this battle on the proper field: peer-reviewed literature, where experts assess the data and everything is in the open. It's not that the authors don't allow for criticism--in fact, the peer review process demands critical review, it's built in. Rather, it puts everyone on a level playing field. Second, it demonstrates proper scientific analysis at the same time that it rips apart an absurd claim. This not only demonstrates the cryptids to be false, but it also demonstrates how to go about assessing data on one's own. It can serve as an introduction to proper methods for evaluating claims among the cryptid community, where as "All bigfoot advocates are liars and frauds" can't.

Sure, it requires more effort. And that effort probably could be put to more useful purposes. But that's ignoring the context; we all do goofy things. I've got two books on dragon taxonomy; it's sometimes fun to do something entirely frivolous in a very serious manner. And frankly, if you don't like research, don't go into science or involve yourself in scientific discussions.

This article is doing what this website proports to do, but it does so far, far better. It is the standard we should aspire to.

That is the proper way to do it but dismissing bigfoot claims out of hand saves a lot of time and has a 100% accuracy rate so far. Once they haul a body out of the woods then that accuracy rate is sure to go down.

The other issue with doing things the right way is that it will still be preaching to the choir. Scientific analysis is always trumped by true belief.

 

[William Parcher]

I have been criticized for having the audacity to not assume all claims come from frauds,

Who said that to you?

"All bigfoot advocates are liars and frauds"

Who said that to you?

 

[Pup]

Sure, it requires more effort. And that effort probably could be put to more useful purposes. But that's ignoring the context; we all do goofy things.

Honestly, that's the only downside. But it's entertaining to demolish a poorly-thought-out claim or argument sometimes, and entertainment is valuable in its own right.

On a well-moderated history forum, where things can't devolve to random name-calling and insults, I like to engage sometimes with posters who have some of the more, ahem, creative ideas about history. Others just dismiss them or post "please don't feed the troll" warnings, though there are a few like me who also enjoy applying the slow torture. Most aren't trolls, in my opinion, but simply have never experienced a need to rigorously defend their views.

A combination of the Socratic method to draw them out, combined with evidence to show how they've missed huge swaths of context or misunderstood their sources, is probably a waste of time, but very enjoyable.

So yeah, it's in another field, but I can appreciate the attraction of taking wild claims seriously.

 

[River]

The big thing here these days seems to be cryptids (and more specifically bigfoot). I have been criticized for having the audacity to not assume all claims come from frauds, and for actually looking at the claims. Apparently, this is not how one is "supposed" to do such research.

Well, it turns out that my methodology is the correct one.

A recent article in Paleontologia Electronica discusses three ancient cryptids, specifically late-surviving pterosaurs. The conclusion is pretty obvious from the start--none of these were real--but the methodology is the part that's important. These researchers actually took the time to analyze the claims, and to assess the evidence in a rigorous and scientific manner.

The benefit of doing so is twofold. First, the advocates of late-surviving pterosaurs now have to fight this battle on the proper field: peer-reviewed literature, where experts assess the data and everything is in the open. It's not that the authors don't allow for criticism--in fact, the peer review process demands critical review, it's built in. Rather, it puts everyone on a level playing field. Second, it demonstrates proper scientific analysis at the same time that it rips apart an absurd claim. This not only demonstrates the cryptids to be false, but it also demonstrates how to go about assessing data on one's own. It can serve as an introduction to proper methods for evaluating claims among the cryptid community, where as "All bigfoot advocates are liars and frauds" can't.

Sure, it requires more effort. And that effort probably could be put to more useful purposes. But that's ignoring the context; we all do goofy things. I've got two books on dragon taxonomy; it's sometimes fun to do something entirely frivolous in a very serious manner. And frankly, if you don't like research, don't go into science or involve yourself in scientific discussions.

This article is doing what this website proports to do, but it does so far, far better. It is the standard we should aspire to.

The source of bigfoot claims has been proven many times over. It is people that fall into one of these three categories. 1) hoaxing/fabricating/lying 2) Deluded 3) Occasionally misidentification.

I challenge you or anyone to prove differently. We have many examples of each.

 

[Drewbot]

Who said that to you?



Who said that to you?

Yes. Who said that? Can you provide a link?

If you think providing science to the Footers is the right way to go, then you are just legitimizing their non-scientific claims.

Non Scientific Claims require only common sense refuting.

 

[Mudcat]

How do you analyze cryptid assertions? That's quite easy, you do it drunk and here is a quick drinking game to assist: Take a bottle of Bourbon or other high proof alcoholic beverage of your choice and every time the claimant makes the claims "It wasn't a bear" or "It wasn't a person" or "There was no one else there", you take a shot. You should quickly be drunk enough to analyze their assertions or too drunk to care.

But be sure to drink responsibly and never drink and drive.

 

[Craig24]

The source of bigfoot claims has been proven many times over. It is people that fall into one of these three categories. 1) hoaxing/fabricating/lying 2) Deluded 3) Occasionally misidentification.

I challenge you or anyone to prove differently. We have many examples of each.

You just confirmed Dinwar's approach. He said he was criticized for saying that not all claims are fraudulent and you reply that not all claims are fraudulent. What are you attempting to debunk here?

 

[Dinwar]

That is the proper way to do it but dismissing bigfoot claims out of hand saves a lot of time and has a 100% accuracy rate so far.

This statement would be true for "Bigfoot claims can be dismissed because the voices in my head say so" as well. Proper methodology trumps accuracy every time. The logic is simple: proper methodology includes mechanisms for self-correction.

Secondly, while it may be accurate, it fails to have any impact and--more importantly--is detrimental to the cause. Such dismissals as are common on this forum alienate the people we are trying to convince and shut down any possible conversation. No one's going to bother talking to someone who's SOP is to insult those on the other side--not even (and this is the important bit) those who aren't really convinced either way. In contrast, rigorous analysis may drive some away because it's boring, but it will not drive them away because of the toxicity of the discussion. More rigorous analysis has at least a chance of being heard, if not by the core of true believers than at least by those who remain unconvinced.

Don't get me wrong--there's a time and place for dismissal of an argument without further consideration. It's a valid tool. So, for that matter, is dismissal because the person is guilty of fraud (being a legal accusation, the time and place for this is when there is strong evidence for fraud). No rational person would expect a thorough disection of Ham's claims--though such disections are available. The issue is, dismissal and refusal to address the arguments is the SOP for many on this site. They over-use that tool.

Honestly, that's the only downside. But it's entertaining to demolish a poorly-thought-out claim or argument sometimes, and entertainment is valuable in its own right.

It also serves as good practice. Honestly, no one cares about dragon phylogeny--which makes it a very safe thing to play with. If you want to practice a computer program like PAUP or PAST, or if you want to do some practice exercises in using such a program just to keep up with it, you can make a character matrix for dragons and run the program without anyone getting overly upset. Doing the same with real organisms runs into the potential for you to think you've found something interesting when in fact you've completely screwed up.

You don't use Homecoming as practice; you practice BEFORE Homecoming.

Also, humans are creatures of habit. If we argue a certain way over and over again, we very soon find it bleeding into other types of arguments, whether we want it or not. Calling someone a fraud without suitable evidence is always wrong, but sometimes is considered acceptable. If that becomes a habit, you end up making ad hom attacks at conferences and ruining your credibility. I'll grant you that's the extreme end of the spectrum, but more moderate instances differ in degree, not in kind. Essentially, to be good scientists takes practice; and that means we don't get to allow ourselves the luxury of making such attacks a habit.

I challenge you or anyone to prove differently.

This is why I hate it when people quote an entire post of mine: it usually is a warning flag that they've missed the entire point. I'd prefer you read the post, figure out what the important concepts I'm trying to state are, and respond to those, quoting the important bits as necessary.

Here's a clue as to why I'm giving this advice rather than addressing your point: I've never argued against what you've stated (though I have argued that some folks here are FAR too swift to put folks in the "fraud" bin, and I find your second bin unnecessarily inflamatory ["misinformed" would be far better], I don't disagree with your three bins). Challenging me to prove differently is nonsensical, as I don't disagree with your assessment of causes of disbelief. My point was something else.

 

[River]

You just confirmed Dinwar's approach. He said he was criticized for saying that not all claims are fraudulent and you reply that not all claims are fraudulent. What are you attempting to debunk here?

I didn't say all claims were fraudulent. I'm saving time and effort entertaining the bigfooters by identifying what bigfoot actually is. (i'm not new to the phenomenon)

This statement would be true for "Bigfoot claims can be dismissed because the voices in my head say so" as well. Proper methodology trumps accuracy every time. The logic is simple: proper methodology includes mechanisms for self-correction.

Secondly, while it may be accurate, it fails to have any impact and--more importantly--is detrimental to the cause. Such dismissals as are common on this forum alienate the people we are trying to convince and shut down any possible conversation. No one's going to bother talking to someone who's SOP is to insult those on the other side--not even (and this is the important bit) those who aren't really convinced either way. In contrast, rigorous analysis may drive some away because it's boring, but it will not drive them away because of the toxicity of the discussion. More rigorous analysis has at least a chance of being heard, if not by the core of true believers than at least by those who remain unconvinced.

Don't get me wrong--there's a time and place for dismissal of an argument without further consideration. It's a valid tool. So, for that matter, is dismissal because the person is guilty of fraud (being a legal accusation, the time and place for this is when there is strong evidence for fraud). No rational person would expect a thorough disection of Ham's claims--though such disections are available. The issue is, dismissal and refusal to address the arguments is the SOP for many on this site. They over-use that tool.

It also serves as good practice. Honestly, no one cares about dragon phylogeny--which makes it a very safe thing to play with. If you want to practice a computer program like PAUP or PAST, or if you want to do some practice exercises in using such a program just to keep up with it, you can make a character matrix for dragons and run the program without anyone getting overly upset. Doing the same with real organisms runs into the potential for you to think you've found something interesting when in fact you've completely screwed up.

You don't use Homecoming as practice; you practice BEFORE Homecoming.

Also, humans are creatures of habit. If we argue a certain way over and over again, we very soon find it bleeding into other types of arguments, whether we want it or not. Calling someone a fraud without suitable evidence is always wrong, but sometimes is considered acceptable. If that becomes a habit, you end up making ad hom attacks at conferences and ruining your credibility. I'll grant you that's the extreme end of the spectrum, but more moderate instances differ in degree, not in kind. Essentially, to be good scientists takes practice; and that means we don't get to allow ourselves the luxury of making such attacks a habit.

This is why I hate it when people quote an entire post of mine: it usually is a warning flag that they've missed the entire point. I'd prefer you read the post, figure out what the important concepts I'm trying to state are, and respond to those, quoting the important bits as necessary.

Here's a clue as to why I'm giving this advice rather than addressing your point: I've never argued against what you've stated (though I have argued that some folks here are FAR too swift to put folks in the "fraud" bin, and I find your second bin unnecessarily inflamatory ["misinformed" would be far better], I don't disagree with your three bins). Challenging me to prove differently is nonsensical, as I don't disagree with your assessment of causes of disbelief. My point was something else.

You don't have to like what bigfoot is. (bigfooters don't!) However, it is what it is. Why should I play along? My definition was accurate. You're trying to offer special pleading to folks that have already had enough of it. Should I also entertain the idea of faeries in the back yard? (in the way you suggest, we should take these seriously each time until proven otherwise - no thanks. that is just silly and a huge waste of time.)

BTW, I read your entire post. (both of them) It is not an ad hom to say what bigfoot is. The truth is; most bigfoot claims fall into the first category. Why should we entertain anything other than the three categories listed? It is not a dismissal, it is correctly identifying the source of the phenomenon.

 

[Dinwar]

If you think providing science to the Footers is the right way to go, then you are just legitimizing their non-scientific claims.

Nonsense.

First, because science already contains any number of crackpot ideas. Bigfoot is far less irrational than some concepts that floated around a hundred years ago.

Second, because refutation is not legitimization. No one is saying prove them right--I'm saying that we should show them we can prove them wrong without resorting to attacking the people making the argument.

Third, I never said science. I said RIGOROUS. There is a difference. Rigor merely means looking at the claims in detail and examining the evidence for and against. This can be done with even the most insane ideas, as long as they pretend to use logic and evidence (I've yet to see a bigfoot advocate who doesn't at least pretend to do so).

It never ceases to baffle me that I can advocate using reason and logic and critical thinking on an allegedly skeptical forum, and people argue against me.

 

[William Parcher]

The source of bigfoot claims has been proven many times over. It is people that fall into one of these three categories. 1) hoaxing/fabricating/lying 2) Deluded 3) Occasionally misidentification.

I challenge you or anyone to prove differently. We have many examples of each.

IMO, your hypothesis is rushed and is not internally consistent. You say...

People fall into one of these three categories:

1) Hoaxing/fabricating/lying.
2) Deluded.
3) Occasionally misidentification.

#2 seems to be an uninformative and unnecessary category because it says nothing about what kind(s) of claim (or evidence) that a deluded person would present. IMO, any claim offered by such a person would fall into either category #1 or #3.

IMO, there are only two informative, internally consistent, and helpful categories.

1) Hoax/fabrication/lie.
2) Honest misidentification.

But some would say that you must include a third category.

3) Claim or evidence derived from an actual Bigfoot creature.

 

[River]

Nonsense.

First, because science already contains any number of crackpot ideas. Bigfoot is far less irrational than some concepts that floated around a hundred years ago.

Second, because refutation is not legitimization. No one is saying prove them right--I'm saying that we should show them we can prove them wrong without resorting to attacking the people making the argument.

Third, I never said science. I said RIGOROUS. There is a difference. Rigor merely means looking at the claims in detail and examining the evidence for and against. This can be done with even the most insane ideas, as long as they pretend to use logic and evidence (I've yet to see a bigfoot advocate who doesn't at least pretend to do so).

It never ceases to baffle me that I can advocate using reason and logic and critical thinking on an allegedly skeptical forum, and people argue against me.

Reason, logic and proof point to exactly what I've said the phenomenon was. Does it not? Unless someone proves differently, I would not bother to waste time or effort looking into any faerie/bigfoot claims. Would you? If so, why? Logic? Critical thinking? Give me a break!

 

[Spindrift]

This statement would be true for "Bigfoot claims can be dismissed because the voices in my head say so" as well. Proper methodology trumps accuracy every time. The logic is simple: proper methodology includes mechanisms for self-correction.

Secondly, while it may be accurate, it fails to have any impact and--more importantly--is detrimental to the cause. Such dismissals as are common on this forum alienate the people we are trying to convince and shut down any possible conversation. No one's going to bother talking to someone who's SOP is to insult those on the other side--not even (and this is the important bit) those who aren't really convinced either way. In contrast, rigorous analysis may drive some away because it's boring, but it will not drive them away because of the toxicity of the discussion. More rigorous analysis has at least a chance of being heard, if not by the core of true believers than at least by those who remain unconvinced.

Don't get me wrong--there's a time and place for dismissal of an argument without further consideration. It's a valid tool. So, for that matter, is dismissal because the person is guilty of fraud (being a legal accusation, the time and place for this is when there is strong evidence for fraud). No rational person would expect a thorough disection of Ham's claims--though such disections are available. The issue is, dismissal and refusal to address the arguments is the SOP for many on this site. They over-use that tool.

It's over-used because there is rarely if ever a new argument. And it still comes down to the fact that no matter what method you use, true believers are still going to believe.

 

[Dinwar]

You're trying to offer special pleading to folks that have already had enough of it.

No. I am expecting you to live up to your own standards. The fact that you find such a task onerous tells me that you don't actually hold the standards of philosophical skepticism, and that you really don't care about critical thinking.

BTW, I read your entire post.

You are either lying or have trouble with reading comprehension, because what I most certainly WAS NOT talking about was what bigfoot is. I'm discussing tactics, not outcomes--and I've made that abundantly clear.

Should I also entertain the idea of faeries in the back yard?

In my opinion, yes. However, I take a rather unique approach to it--I think there may be some connection between fairy stories and contact between hominin species, which got twisted and distorted into the current fairy stories. At the very least, it's an interesting question; I'm not sure it's something we can answer, but it's no obviously irrational nor does it obviously violate any scientific laws, meaning it's at least not trivially false.

But you persist in missing my point. If you don't want to believe in fairies, use whatever reasons you wish, or none at all. I don't care. WHEN DISCUSSING CONCEPTS WITH OTHERS, if you actually value rationality and critical thinking, it is incumbant upon you to rigorously analyze the other side's arguments. This is basic critical thinking, and there is no rational shortcut around it. To be blunt, I don't care what you believe--again, you and I are in agreement about bigfoot, though I find your terminology intentionally perjorative. I'm interested in how we discuss it.

As such I will not respond to anything else that deals with "what bigfoot is". If you persist in attempting to discuss that issue, all it tells me is that you have no interest in discussing the actual topic of this thread.

 

[River]

IMO, your hypothesis is rushed and is not internally consistent. You say...

People fall into one of these three categories:

1) Hoaxing/fabricating/lying.
2) Deluded.
3) Occasionally misidentification.

#2 seems to be an uninformative and unnecessary category because it says nothing about what kind(s) of claim (or evidence) that a deluded person would present. IMO, any claim offered by such a person would fall into either category #1 or #2.

IMO, there are only two informative, internally consistent, and helpful categories.

1) Hoax/fabrication/lie.
2) Honest misidentification.

But some would say that you must include a third category.

3) Claim or evidence derived from an actual Bigfoot creature.

My bolded. It is necesary because the deluded may actually believe their assertions, regardless of their authenticity. Can you state it was a lie if the person is not lying and actually believes it? What if they really saw it. (due to their condition) I'd rather say it because it is fitting. Your #3 is false. There is no bigfoot creature. There are people that would have your category 3 listed with faeries and other silliness as well. If one were to entertain that notion, we may as well look into the possibilities of mermaids and other things such as shadowman, and vampires right? If not, why not?

 

[River]

No. I am expecting you to live up to your own standards. The fact that you find such a task onerous tells me that you don't actually hold the standards of philosophical skepticism, and that you really don't care about critical thinking.

You are either lying or have trouble with reading comprehension, because what I most certainly WAS NOT talking about was what bigfoot is. I'm discussing tactics, not outcomes--and I've made that abundantly clear.

In my opinion, yes. However, I take a rather unique approach to it--I think there may be some connection between fairy stories and contact between hominin species, which got twisted and distorted into the current fairy stories. At the very least, it's an interesting question; I'm not sure it's something we can answer, but it's no obviously irrational nor does it obviously violate any scientific laws, meaning it's at least not trivially false.

But you persist in missing my point. If you don't want to believe in fairies, use whatever reasons you wish, or none at all. I don't care. WHEN DISCUSSING CONCEPTS WITH OTHERS, if you actually value rationality and critical thinking, it is incumbant upon you to rigorously analyze the other side's arguments. This is basic critical thinking, and there is no rational shortcut around it. To be blunt, I don't care what you believe--again, you and I are in agreement about bigfoot, though I find your terminology intentionally perjorative. I'm interested in how we discuss it.

As such I will not respond to anything else that deals with "what bigfoot is". If you persist in attempting to discuss that issue, all it tells me is that you have no interest in discussing the actual topic of this thread.

Horse crap. Tell it like it is. I do not have to play into the silliness.

 

[Dinwar]

~sigh~ I'm done. I really am. Apparently discussing rhetorical tactics is beyond folks here.

 

[River]

~sigh~ I'm done. I really am. Apparently discussing rhetorical tactics is beyond folks here.

Don't get frustrated because of me. I'm only one poster. I'm sure there are many footers that would love your response and time playing along with bigfoot claims.

 

[tsig]

Nonsense.

First, because science already contains any number of crackpot ideas. Bigfoot is far less irrational than some concepts that floated around a hundred years ago.

Second, because refutation is not legitimization. No one is saying prove them right--I'm saying that we should show them we can prove them wrong without resorting to attacking the people making the argument.

Third, I never said science. I said RIGOROUS. There is a difference. Rigor merely means looking at the claims in detail and examining the evidence for and against. This can be done with even the most insane ideas, as long as they pretend to use logic and evidence (I've yet to see a bigfoot advocate who doesn't at least pretend to do so).

It never ceases to baffle me that I can advocate using reason and logic and critical thinking on an allegedly skeptical forum, and people argue against me.

It's not your advocating using reason and logic that people take exception to it's your implication that no one else but you has ever used reason and logic.