>A scientist generally starts with the conservative working assumption that proposed new ideas are not true or that hypothetical new entities do not exist, and then revises her probability estimate upwards only when the evidence forces her to do so. A pseudoscientist typically starts with the assumption that a novel proposal seems to be true, and then revises her probability downward as the evidence leaves her no choice—if she is willing to surrender the possibility to any degree at all.
That sounds more like a verificationist idea of science than a Popperian falsification process. Is verificationism coming back in vogue in the sciences? Wouldn't it be a much better criticism to say that the cryptozoologists are not scientific because they do not make falsifiable predictions?
In the null hypothesis, supposedly the basis for all experimental science, you start with the assumption that there is no effect, and let the evidence force you to a different conclusion. In other words, you assume nothing out of the ordinary and take no position on the subject of study.
> Wouldn't it be a much better criticism to say that the cryptozoologists are not scientific because they do not make falsifiable predictions?
Yes, it would, but that's not a very popular definition of science these days. If it were, psychiatrists and psychologists would be immediately excluded -- they make plenty of predictions, but the predictions don't work out.
I like the similar argument for Alien visitors, we are approaching saturation in terms of cameras that can take videos and a highly discoverable channel for making such videos available (*tube) and so, like the neutrino detectors in mine shafts, if there is an "event" we'll catch it on camera. That gives us the ability to start computing the probabilities more accurately vis-a-vis alien visitation.
There's tons of UFO videos on YouTube. The problem is that if you exclude the obvious CGI and other hoaxes, that leaves a data set of unidentified objects captured on camera. But that provides little evidence as to what that object might actually be. There are many prosaic explanations: illusions, imaging artifacts, really good hoaxes, top-secret experimental aircraft built by us, ball lightning, etc.
I was thinking the same thing while reading it. We do have a way to go before consumer camera technology is good enough to capture moving spaceships (or even jet liners at night).
Cameras are not very good at catching sharp movement of low lit objects. Just to photograph sports clearly requires several thousand dollars in equipment and you can be as close as 50 meters most of the game.
That will change a lot over the years as sensor technology continues to improve and eventually your point will be important.
The approach seems fine when considering sightings vs (lack of) data for a specific potential-creature in a specific habitat.
But it seems rather flawed to group together all the various "large ape", "ape/human hybrid" type legends under the single umbrella of "bigfoot", so as to dismiss it as being "spotted too frequently to likely exist".
Why do this for "bigfoot" but not for giant squid? Surely the incredible breadth of "sea monster" legends and stories and sightings dwarfs the limited evidence that anyone had that a species of giant squids might exist.
Sea Monsters (such as Nessie) are in the same category as Bigfoot. The Giant Squid has been caught on camera, and bodies have washed up on shore, leaving real evidence.
No bigfoot-like creature has ever been found, nor any evidence. Is there a reason to differentiate between different varieties of them when none of those varieties have any evidence?
More accurately: there is not enough good-quality evidence vs. the sample size to tip the needle.
If we had very very few observations of Loch Ness -- like say if it was Lake Vostok -- but we had a few Nessie sightings, that would be different. But we have only a few Nessie sightings in a place that's constantly being observed and photographed.
I find the position that cryptozooligists never "abandon any discredited evidence" to be unfair. They're talking about a whole demographic here. There are likely to be more reasonable cryptozooloigists that disregard discredited evidence, and would happily admit to hoaxes in this area.
I think the majority would hacker news would be with me if I said that, on the whole, cryptozoologists are a little nutty. You don't need to resort to political smear tactics to say it.
However. You do need to use smear tactics if you want to create outrage. If that was the articles objective... then... good job I guess?
> I find the position that cryptozooligists never "abandon any discredited evidence" to be unfair.
Science isn't about what's fair, it's about what the evidence tells us. The fact that, in spite of no evidence whatsoever, Bigfoot stories, books and TV shows have escalated tremendously over the past 20 years, supports the claim you're objecting to.
> There are likely to be more reasonable cryptozooloigists that disregard discredited evidence, and would happily admit to hoaxes in this area.
Those aren't cryptozoologists, at least not gainfully employed ones. It's sort of like psychologists who know talk therapy is a waste of time -- they may still be psychologists, but they're not making a living at psychology.
> You do need to use smear tactics if you want to create outrage.
The article didn't need to use smear tactics, and it didn't use smear tactics -- it used evidence.
Hitting this link on a mobile device redirects you to the home page of their mobile site, not the mobile version of this story. Ugh. When will web masters stop doing this?
I think an interesting analogy here is the idea that there is (or was) life on Mars.
Most assumptions are that there is life on Mars and time is simply whittling away at the probability, rather than, as the article says, assumptions are made that there is no life and probabilities are increased as evidence suggests that there is.
> Most assumptions are that there is life on Mars and time is simply whittling away at the probability ...
Certainly not, at least not among scientists. To a scientist, there's nothing up there but sand and thin air, until evidence proves otherwise. Popular reports naturally enough get this scientific, appropriately skeptical outlook completely wrong.
I think you're wrong in both premise and conclusion.
"Cryptozoological creatures like [God] are (supposedly) large animals living in large areas, and both have decades of 'evidence' to suggest that we might film one someday—as we did the giant squid."
Nope. Doesn't quite work.
Further, a religion is typically characterized as an organized system of beliefs, rituals and rules used to worship a god or group of gods. Maintaining one particular irrational belief does not a religion make.
(Although I'm sure "What Would Bigfoot Do?" bumper stickers would sell quite well.)
It most comes down to the human condition, the need in our psyche for some mystery, things to keep our eyes and mind active, even when occasionally the rational part tends to point out the unlikeliness of the creature or event.
Some like Bigfoot, some Aliens, some Nessie - me personally, I am fond of the tales I was told as a young child of a few remaining dinosaurs in the large remaining land masses, such as Central Africa, and Brazil. Probably unlikely, yet, nice to dream that perhaps, maybe, a few select dinosaurs are at this moment hiding away.
[+] [-] jimmyhmiller|12 years ago|reply
That sounds more like a verificationist idea of science than a Popperian falsification process. Is verificationism coming back in vogue in the sciences? Wouldn't it be a much better criticism to say that the cryptozoologists are not scientific because they do not make falsifiable predictions?
[+] [-] api|12 years ago|reply
But if cryptozoologists are unscientific by the Popperian criteria then so is SETI.
[+] [-] lutusp|12 years ago|reply
Actually, it's an informal statement of the null hypothesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
In the null hypothesis, supposedly the basis for all experimental science, you start with the assumption that there is no effect, and let the evidence force you to a different conclusion. In other words, you assume nothing out of the ordinary and take no position on the subject of study.
> Wouldn't it be a much better criticism to say that the cryptozoologists are not scientific because they do not make falsifiable predictions?
Yes, it would, but that's not a very popular definition of science these days. If it were, psychiatrists and psychologists would be immediately excluded -- they make plenty of predictions, but the predictions don't work out.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wtvanhest|12 years ago|reply
Cameras are not very good at catching sharp movement of low lit objects. Just to photograph sports clearly requires several thousand dollars in equipment and you can be as close as 50 meters most of the game.
That will change a lot over the years as sensor technology continues to improve and eventually your point will be important.
[+] [-] givan|12 years ago|reply
Professor Jacobs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Jacobs has researched the subject scientifically for decades.
[+] [-] 8_hours_ago|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] roc|12 years ago|reply
But it seems rather flawed to group together all the various "large ape", "ape/human hybrid" type legends under the single umbrella of "bigfoot", so as to dismiss it as being "spotted too frequently to likely exist".
Why do this for "bigfoot" but not for giant squid? Surely the incredible breadth of "sea monster" legends and stories and sightings dwarfs the limited evidence that anyone had that a species of giant squids might exist.
[+] [-] lhc-|12 years ago|reply
No bigfoot-like creature has ever been found, nor any evidence. Is there a reason to differentiate between different varieties of them when none of those varieties have any evidence?
[+] [-] api|12 years ago|reply
If we had very very few observations of Loch Ness -- like say if it was Lake Vostok -- but we had a few Nessie sightings, that would be different. But we have only a few Nessie sightings in a place that's constantly being observed and photographed.
[+] [-] GhotiFish|12 years ago|reply
I think the majority would hacker news would be with me if I said that, on the whole, cryptozoologists are a little nutty. You don't need to resort to political smear tactics to say it.
However. You do need to use smear tactics if you want to create outrage. If that was the articles objective... then... good job I guess?
As a side note: squatchers is a great name.
[+] [-] lutusp|12 years ago|reply
Science isn't about what's fair, it's about what the evidence tells us. The fact that, in spite of no evidence whatsoever, Bigfoot stories, books and TV shows have escalated tremendously over the past 20 years, supports the claim you're objecting to.
> There are likely to be more reasonable cryptozooloigists that disregard discredited evidence, and would happily admit to hoaxes in this area.
Those aren't cryptozoologists, at least not gainfully employed ones. It's sort of like psychologists who know talk therapy is a waste of time -- they may still be psychologists, but they're not making a living at psychology.
> You do need to use smear tactics if you want to create outrage.
The article didn't need to use smear tactics, and it didn't use smear tactics -- it used evidence.
[+] [-] wmeredith|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codezero|12 years ago|reply
Most assumptions are that there is life on Mars and time is simply whittling away at the probability, rather than, as the article says, assumptions are made that there is no life and probabilities are increased as evidence suggests that there is.
[+] [-] lutusp|12 years ago|reply
Certainly not, at least not among scientists. To a scientist, there's nothing up there but sand and thin air, until evidence proves otherwise. Popular reports naturally enough get this scientific, appropriately skeptical outlook completely wrong.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] everettForth|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woodchuck64|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JackFr|12 years ago|reply
"Cryptozoological creatures like [God] are (supposedly) large animals living in large areas, and both have decades of 'evidence' to suggest that we might film one someday—as we did the giant squid."
Nope. Doesn't quite work.
Further, a religion is typically characterized as an organized system of beliefs, rituals and rules used to worship a god or group of gods. Maintaining one particular irrational belief does not a religion make.
(Although I'm sure "What Would Bigfoot Do?" bumper stickers would sell quite well.)
[+] [-] static_typed|12 years ago|reply
Some like Bigfoot, some Aliens, some Nessie - me personally, I am fond of the tales I was told as a young child of a few remaining dinosaurs in the large remaining land masses, such as Central Africa, and Brazil. Probably unlikely, yet, nice to dream that perhaps, maybe, a few select dinosaurs are at this moment hiding away.