RSS
Home
Skepticism Examiner short-sheeted by Cryptomundo
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Bigfoot? Credit: Balakov
This ought not be surprising, I suppose, but the leading Bigfoot hunters feel I short-sheeted them for writing what I thought to be a surprisingly deferential post entitled "When people you respect believe in Sasquatch".
Most of Loren Coleman's ire seems to be directed at perhaps an overzealous effort on my part to praise a researcher of Sasquatch whom I personally know, when Coleman's own name pulls up many, many more searches on Google. (My own mug comes up at the top of the page when you search "George F. Will" on Google News -- does that mean I write columns for the Post?)
If I am guilty of overly effusive praise of one of Coleman's colleagues in an effort to start a civil debate, I fail to see how this can be described as "short-sheeting". It's more along the lines of Obama's constant reference to the areas in which he "agrees" with his opponents in a debate, which he was also criticized for -- though, oddly, not for "short-sheeting".
Knowing Noel, I know him to be academically rigorous, thorough and well read. Calling him a leading researcher is no less substantiated than Coleman's description of me as a "successful writer". Some might consider me "failed", "cynical" or "bitter" depending on how you define it. (Coleman begins with a photo of me winning the Grand Prize in the L. Ron Hubbard Writers of the Future contest, which would seem an odd thing for a skeptic like me to win. One would think such an inquisitive, scientific mind like his would want to look into that. Am I a Scientologist? Weird.)
For instance, I doubt Chris would make such an academic error as Coleman does in this post (though, I am more than capable of it). Aside from my praise of a former mentor and colleague of Coleman, his main faults with my post are not attributable to me, but to a block quote pulled from National Geographic -- a piece I had chosen as an example of some surprising level of credibility Bigfoot has among people with credentials when compared to something like Atlantis or alien abduction. In Coleman's post, no such distinction is made, so that it appears as though I am the author. I attribute this to sloppiness more than malicious intent, but still...
What Coleman has done, quite unwittingly, is remind me of why I have always been so skeptical of "researchers" of Bigfoot and the like. Coleman's lashing out seems more a knee-jerk reaction to my choice of capitalization: "(please note the capitalization for this set of individuals closer to professional debunkers than traditional thoughtful skeptics) who do play the bullies of the intellectual schoolyard, quite well."
The whole point of my post was to point out the high caliber of people (Jane Goodall) who actually put credence in the existence of Sasquatch, and how I've had to put more credence in it and revise some of my own biases as a result. The essence of the post was this graph here:
As any good scientist will tell you, the greatest breakthroughs are counter-intuitive, so a good scientist needs to keep an open mind. The flip side of that is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a phenomenon is real, it will hold up to scrutiny. So science is a continual balancing act between open-mindedness and skepticism, considering every possibility, then doing everything you can to knock it down.
I look forward to getting a copy of Chris's book and DVD, and hopefully can talk him into an interview, and expect it would be an chummy discussion (I respect him too much for a debunking that goes for the jugular).. So I am open to considering the evidence, but as of yet, have seen nothing that convinces me this is anything beyond something fun to contemplate.
This is how I chose to begin the discussion: by saying I would attempt to keep an open mind, but that researchers have the burden of extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims. This is how Coleman characterizes it: "They ["Skeptics", with a capital 'S'] also seem to constantly short-sheet folks with their shallow arguments against open-minded hominological investigations."
Such lashing out is something we Skeptics with a capital 'S' have become accustomed to from theologians, not serious scientific investigators. I can only imagine how Coleman will react when I actually move beyond the pleasantries to the meat of the actual debate. I haven't even started yet. The only objection that can be made is that I am unconvinced, but have found many more credible people believing the theory than I expected, and want to learn more. Who, here, is demonstrating the benefit of an open mind?
Coleman's reaction is that of an evangelical believer, not a sober investigator, and so far, it is the guy with the much lower google ranking who has done a far better job of representing Coleman's position than Coleman has.
Related Articles:
Comments
