jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
This is for Chris. Hope it's helpful.
Here is a list of rules for cryptozoologists to take seriously if they want to be taken seriously, based on Loxton and Prothero (from ABOMINABLE SCIENCE). I've condensed, paraphrased, and quoted directly from their last chapter: “Why Do People Believe in Monsters? The Complexity of Cryptozoology.” Notice, most of these rules have been addressed or advocated by skeptics upthread.
Rethink fundamental assumptions. Instead of automatically assuming an odd occurrence is cryptid related, take a step back and ask the question: What really happened? Use Occam's razor. Think of the simplest explanation, the one with the fewest assumptions. Apply it to see if it fits the circumstance. Think of this aphorism: “When you hear hoofbeats in the night, think first of horses, not of zebras.”
Test the null hypothesis. As L. and P. relate it to cryptids, “...the default scientific assumption is that any strange observation can be explained by known natural causes, the less likely explanation --- cryptid activity or paranormal phenomena – should be accepted only when all natural causes can be ruled out.”
Meet the burden of proof. The evidence for Bigfoot must be strong enough to overcome established facts relating to its existence/non-existence. Do eyewitness accounts and tracks, both unverifiable as true evidence for Bigfoot, outweigh the history of failure of organized attempts to produce definitive evidence? Or, to quote L. and P. again: “It follows from the claim that eyewitnesses fairly often see cryptids that carcasses or bones of those cryptids should also fairly often appear – but they do not.”
Collect high-quality data. Where is the real evidence? Bones, bodies, hair, scat even? If you are going to collect eyewitness accounts, how about doing more with them than just nodding in agreement? I remember a sighting report written up by a local Bigfoot group concerning a young girl who saw what was essentially Patterson's Bigfoot, glimpsed in her backyard, in a town not 45 minutes from my apartment in Dallas, Texas. Despite all the improbabilities inherent in this account, the investigator from a Bigfoot field research team said the girl seemed honest and, in any event, why would she lie!
Don't use or publicize sub-par videos or photos, i.e., blobsquatches.
Be skeptical of your own data. L. and P. quote Richard Feynman: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Here is a list of rules for cryptozoologists to take seriously if they want to be taken seriously, based on Loxton and Prothero (from ABOMINABLE SCIENCE). I've condensed, paraphrased, and quoted directly from their last chapter: “Why Do People Believe in Monsters? The Complexity of Cryptozoology.” Notice, most of these rules have been addressed or advocated by skeptics upthread.
Rethink fundamental assumptions. Instead of automatically assuming an odd occurrence is cryptid related, take a step back and ask the question: What really happened? Use Occam's razor. Think of the simplest explanation, the one with the fewest assumptions. Apply it to see if it fits the circumstance. Think of this aphorism: “When you hear hoofbeats in the night, think first of horses, not of zebras.”
Test the null hypothesis. As L. and P. relate it to cryptids, “...the default scientific assumption is that any strange observation can be explained by known natural causes, the less likely explanation --- cryptid activity or paranormal phenomena – should be accepted only when all natural causes can be ruled out.”
Meet the burden of proof. The evidence for Bigfoot must be strong enough to overcome established facts relating to its existence/non-existence. Do eyewitness accounts and tracks, both unverifiable as true evidence for Bigfoot, outweigh the history of failure of organized attempts to produce definitive evidence? Or, to quote L. and P. again: “It follows from the claim that eyewitnesses fairly often see cryptids that carcasses or bones of those cryptids should also fairly often appear – but they do not.”
Collect high-quality data. Where is the real evidence? Bones, bodies, hair, scat even? If you are going to collect eyewitness accounts, how about doing more with them than just nodding in agreement? I remember a sighting report written up by a local Bigfoot group concerning a young girl who saw what was essentially Patterson's Bigfoot, glimpsed in her backyard, in a town not 45 minutes from my apartment in Dallas, Texas. Despite all the improbabilities inherent in this account, the investigator from a Bigfoot field research team said the girl seemed honest and, in any event, why would she lie!
Don't use or publicize sub-par videos or photos, i.e., blobsquatches.
Be skeptical of your own data. L. and P. quote Richard Feynman: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Last edited:
