Bigfoot and the Epic Scientific Fail
A friend of mine who's been following this Bigfoot story sent me a link today, saying "things don't look good for the Bigfoot people."
No kidding.
He, like most people (I suspect), are following this for the sheer novelty of it. That's great, and I hope that's why it's making news.
Key words: I hope. Because, while it's an entertaining sideshow, this entire Bigfoot thing seems to be a case of scientific research done horribly, horribly wrong. Let's just enumerate how they screwed this one up by reputable scientific standards:
- The remains were immediately attached to the "Bigfoot" legend, without any testing or comparison to anecdotal accounts (Bigfoot sightings are usually in the Northwest, aren't they? Then how is a find in Georgia connected to it?)
- This find was immediately announced to the media, even before testing began taking place.
- From what I understand, all we've heard about it is talk. The remains haven't been shown off, nor have additional photos of the find.
- They've been somewhat selective in who they allow to examine the remains and the findings.
No, no, no, for the love of everything that is good and holy, NO. Let's assume (charitably) that the remains are real. You study the remains; you open it up to scientific inquiry from other researchers--not just those who happen to believe in Bigfoot. You come up with an understanding as to how this relates to existing species--and then you have other people in that field of expertise check your work. If it happens to explain some of the "Bigfoot" sightings, then so be it. After all that, then you have your big media press conference.
(Seriously, anyone else getting flashbacks of James Cameron's "I found Jesus's grave!" press conference?)
This is why I hope whatever media coverage these people have gotten is simply the sideshow effect. Because the media should have ignored them long ago if it's a matter of real scientific inquiry. A couple of photos should not pass muster.
What's interesting is, after following this a bit, I feel like I'm falling in with all the hand-waving about science education that goes on in this country. They might have a point, although they're usually finger-pointing at creationism.
If that's the case--if scientific understanding in this country really is that abysmal--then the problem isn't creationism. And it's not a religious problem, either--it's an overall superstitious mindset that is corrupting religion as one of its symptoms.
You can lay the blame on fundamentalism or superstition, but healthy religion should be promoting discernment. A search for the truth rooted in the idea that what we think we know may indeed be wrong--and if so, we need to adjust our understanding. To put that another way, good science. Seriously. Pick up some C.S. Lewis and tell me that he'd be a rabid creationist if he was alive now (especially since, in some cases, he mentions evolution in a fairly neutral light--as if it's a matter of scientific course). Read some of John Wesley's sermons and journal entries--heck, the man recommended that the clergy be well-read in a diverse number of subjects outside of religion. His reading list would have put us to shame. And I think you could even claim that some of the New Testament writers would take issue with people who think every whim that goes through their head is the voice of God*.
The sad thing is, this thinking permeates our lives on a lot of different levels. How would things be different if we evaluated everything not on a consistent, overall track record, but on random, anecdotal evidence that stuck with us? Where does that leave our critical thinking? Our job performance? Our judgments of others?
I suppose that's overly dire, but it is a good question. Unlike the people calling for better science education, I don't have an answer. I don't know that it's merely an educational issue; it can be informed by our understanding of science, but it's also a philosophical worldview issue. One might also argue that it's a societal problem--I don't know of any examples, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone could point to examples in mainstream society (other than religion, and outside of education) that would encourage this sort of thought pattern.
Actually, I'm not sure there is an answer, or whether I care.
I mainly wrote this because the whole Bigfoot thing seems like an unscientific train wreck, and that makes me want to rant.
* I John 4:1-2 is the example that popped in my head. (Yeah, I had to actually look up the chapter and verse number, so the fact that I can point to a reference doesn't mean I'm some well-read genius.)
See more articles from: Mystery Meat • Serious Commentary
The Chef
No, I found Bigfoot.
(Although, admittedly we've had Bigfoot/Skunk Ape sightings in this county, and we ain't far from where they claimed to catch this sucker. How much do you want to bet that they just found the body of some hairy redneck who wandered out into the woods while he was drunk and died of exposure?)
The Chef
"Researcher says Bigfoot just a rubber gorilla suit "
The Maitre d'
Holy crap.
See, this is the type of thing that legitimate scientific inquiry prevents. Sure, it's not as fun to say "Some guys say they found Bigfoot; we're going to test out their claim and report our results in a week" as immediately calling a high-profile press conference on the other side of the country. But it's also less embarrassing than saying "Yeah, you know that Bigfoot thing? Turns out two guys just stole some furry costume and stuffed it in an icebox."
Dollars to donuts alcohol figured in prominently to cooking up this cunning plan.
The Maitre d'
What's sad...
The Chef
Yep.
The Maitre d'
It's kinda different.
What mindset is a cryptozoologist defending? "Oh, man, I may have been wrong about that weird species of hairy apes living in the woods." If that can bring down someone's entire worldview, then it wasn't much of a worldview.
I guess, of course, that I'm assuming they have pure, idealistic motives, and aren't out to make a quick buck, though.
The Chef
Some are - some aren't.
Of course, the UFO and cryptid communities (which do overlap somewhat) do have their share of outright hoaxers and charlatans.
The Chef
Not to say...
The Maitre d'
Which is really the sad thing.
I can't understand creationists doing that. If only they had some sort of book, you know, that they believed contained instructions for life, such as "thou shalt not bear false witness." Seriously, if promoting your religion requires violating your religion, you're doing it wrong.
The Chef
Sad but true.
The Maitre d'
If you want to blow a creationist's mind...
So should you ever find yourself in a flame war with a creationist, point them to this book. Because they'll either (a) have to call one of the great Christian writers of the 20th century eeeeeevil*, or (b) the scales will fall off of their eyes and they will see evolution isn't really out to destroy their faith.
I find this a common theme: to be a fundie, you have to consciously avoid the whole of Christian history. I mean "avoid" in the sense of "don't condemn, just never learn about," because if you're exposed to it, you'd either not be a fundie, or you'd have to condemn pretty much everyone back to and including St. Augustine.
* Depending on how hardcore creationist they are, they may have already done this, which makes all of this a moot point.
The Chef
Creationists will never see the light
Sir Silverware
http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html
The Maitre d'
"10 Things Christians and Atheists Must Agree On"
And yeah, I gotta admit Cracked was one of those sites that inspired Chainsaw Buffet. So I don't think we'll be crushing them anytime soon (let's face it, they used to be a magazine in competition with Mad, and we're just a bunch of antisocial geeks who think we're funny.) But if you can get the word out and make the crushinating happen, well, we'd be mighty grateful.
reaperman
The Maitre d'
Still pretty?
reaperman
Thanks...
The Chef
Indeed.
The Maitre d'
Avatar puts it best...
"YES! Yes it can!"
The Chef
Soulless science...
The Maitre d'
Soulless science
(Well, you probably would if it was used to construct the Immortal Reagan's robot body, so I guess that's the wrong question to ask.)
The Chef
You, good sir, have no soul.
So why do you persist in your heresy of soulless science?
Sir Silverware
Another silly link
I rather enjoyed this one. Unfortunately, this is YouDumb and they allowed comments.