Showing posts with label Brian Dunning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brian Dunning. Show all posts

Monday, December 27, 2010

2010 Countdown, 10 days of Appreciation: Day 07 Brian Dunning of

We want to spend the final days of 2010 appreciating those who have supported us this year. Three years ago, we could have never hoped for this much success. Our only goal was to search, dig and find the most topical Bigfoot news, and share it with anybody that listen. If we were lucky, we would make a modest contribution to the Bigfoot Community and find an audience. We have been more than lucky, thank you.

We will save the last day for our fans, without your tips comments and suggestions we wouldn't have the mass appeal we have. For now, we would like to recognize the skeptics. One of our favorites Brian Dunning.

Brian bruised us pretty bad in his post at the and maybe we threw the first punch. The truth is, we think that even-handed skeptics are a healthy part of the Bigfoot conversation. We have said as much last year when we presented Benjamin Radford's Top 10 Reason's Bigfoot is Bunk.

A self described Bigfoot hopeful (he explains this further by claiming the hope is based more on emotion than on any actual likelihood), Brian Dunning has made a great case against both sides of the Bigfoot debate at his site Thank you Mr.Dunning for keeping us on our toes and for being an even-handed skeptic.

Below is a great post where Brian shares the 3 worst skeptic arguments against Bigfoot. He, then, follows up with the three worst arguments for Bigfoot. See? Even-handed! Please also visit his site and listen to his podcasts (links provided at the bottom of this post)

Killing Bigfoot with Bad Science
Is anyone doing any justice to the Bigfoot claim?

Today, we're going down a dark forest path on the trail of Gigantopithecus Americanus: the North American Sasquatch.

I see many cases on both sides of the Bigfoot debate where bad arguments, bad science, and just plain weirdness is being put forth, doing great disservice to their own side of the argument. There are intelligent and productive ways to explore a subject and present a case, but I don't see it being done very often on either side of the Bigfoot debate. I'm going to present what I consider the top three ways that each side of the Bigfoot claim is shooting themselves in the foot, beginning with the skeptics.

1. Saying that the guy who confessed to making tracks disproves the entire thing.

In 2002, a Washington logger named Ray Wallace died, and his family produced the carved wooden feet that he used to make Bigfoot footprints all over the Pacific Northwest, beginning in 1958. The newspapers and TV tabloids lapped it up, reporting that the entire Bigfoot phenomenon was now proven to be a hoax perpetrated by Wallace. Well, I feel the time has come for me to come clean about something that I've wanted to get off my chest for decades. When I was a kid, I once made some fake Bigfoot footprints too. The cat's out of the bag. Bigfoot is now doubly proven to be a hoax.

Obviously, anyone who has any kind of basic understanding of research methodology can't accept Ray Wallace's story as proof that Bigfoot is a hoax. Sure, he made fake prints. So have a thousand other guys. They were doing it before Ray Wallace was born, and they're still doing it today. Anyone can be making those tracks. Anyone...

2. Saying the Patterson-Gimlin film is "the worst fake ever."

I'm not a Bigfoot believer but I will give credit where credit is due. The Patterson-Gimlin film looked like a real animal to me. The Discovery Channel's "duplication" of it looked ridiculous. It looked nothing like a real animal, and certainly didn't remotely resemble the subject shown in the Patterson-Gimlin film. Chewbacca looked more real than the Discovery Channel's Bigfoot suit. Hollywood's state of the art in gorilla suits in 1967 were Planet of the Apes and The Galileo Seven episode of Star Trek. Two loggers with no previous gorilla suit experience made a suit that was better than today's state of the art, and certainly light years ahead of the 1967 state of the art. I'm not saying the film's real, I'm saying give credit where credit is due, and admit that if it is a fake, it's astounding. If you disagree then go through a stabilized version frame-by-frame as I have.

The half dozen or so Hollywood special effects artists who have since "come forward" to claim that they were responsible for the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot suit, and the dozens of guys who have "come forward" to claim that they were the guy wearing the suit, are no more evidence against the film than Ray Wallace's wooden feet are evidence that no real Bigfoot footprints exist.

Critics of the film also say that the creature's behavior is unrealistic. I have no knowledge of what a real Bigfoot's behavior might be, but I have encountered bears half a dozen times, and they acted exactly like the Patterson-Gimlin creature: just walked away, unconcerned, with maybe only a look or two back.

3. Criticizing good scientists like Jeff Meldrum.

I've read old and new criticism of Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University, and I'm only mentioning his name in particular as one example. There are several prominent tenured professors at legitimate accredited universities who have done Bigfoot research. They are probably far, far outnumbered by professors who have done psychic or other paranormal research, but let's stick to the subject.

Dr. Meldrum is not the obsessed Bigfoot guy who lives and breathes it 24 hours a day, and exhorts his students to become believers. Rather, he has a long list of publications and edited volumes, none of which pertain to Bigfoot; he teaches six courses, none of which pertain to Bigfoot; he's an Associate Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology; he's an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology and the Department of Occupational and Physical Therapy; and he's the Affiliate Curator at the Idaho Museum of Natural History. He's not the Professor of Bigfoot. He carries as great a load of academic work in non-Bigfoot related studies as any professor. He's a real scientist doing real work. On top of all of this, he studies casts of Bigfoot footprints.

Dr. Meldrum is responsible for drumming up his own grant money from private donors to fund any Bigfoot research that he chooses to do. In some cases, he has received small amounts of matching funds from the university. If you feel this was a bad expenditure, then criticize the university regents who decided to write the check, don't criticize the person they gave the funds to. The work of responsible scientists like Dr. Meldrum is exactly what true skeptics should be asking the Bigfoot community for, not criticizing him for it.

Here is the way for a responsible skeptic to handle the Bigfoot claim. It's to say "You're making an extraordinary claim. Show me extraordinary evidence, and I'll believe it. Until then, I'm not convinced." Occasionally candidate evidence has come forward, like hair and stool samples, or the skull cap from Tibet. This evidence has been properly tested, and so far no new great ape species has been proven (and if I'm wrong about that, I invite your comments on the web site). A responsible skeptic's obligations do not extend to poking fun at the people who are looking for evidence, considering the lack of evidence to be proof of no evidence, or making personal comments about people. That's not good science. In some cases, Dr. Meldrum, and other scientists like him, are being better skeptics than the skeptics.

And now, I'd like to say a few words to those who mean to support Bigfoot but do themselves more harm than good with bad arguments. The wrong ways to support Bigfoot:

1. Stating that Bigfoot is an extraterrestrial, or comes to us from another dimension.

If Bigfoot claims are going to make any headway into mainstream science, it will be through zoological channels, not supernatural channels. Such claims are the most extreme form of counterproductivity, setting Bigfoot claims backwards all the way into the Dark Ages.

2. Being delusional: Seeing detailed Bigfoots in a blurry photograph that shows no such thing.

Half the Bigfoot web sites out there show numerous photographs of bushes and wooded areas, with certain areas circled. There's nothing within the circled area except other bushes; maybe a shadow, or a dark branch. But wait! Here's a detailed sketch of what's hiding inside that shadow. I'm not a psychologist so I won't presume to affix a label to this phenomenon; but seeing things in pictures that aren't there, and then obsessing over it, does not strike me as healthy. It's certainly more effective at raising concern for the claimant, than it is at convincing anyone that Bigfoot exists. If all you have is bad evidence, you're better off not presenting it.

3. Doing bad science: Seeking to support a preconceived conclusion.

Science doesn't work by starting with the goal of proving something and then assembling whatever evidence you can find that supports it. That's doing propaganda, not science. Start with a testable hypothesis, and then form a theory based on the evidence revealed by the data. Of course, following this method is going to make it pretty hard to come up with a theory that's supportive of Bigfoot, but that's what it's going to take if Bigfoot supporters hope to prove their point.

I know you're going to listen to all of this and conclude that I'm the pro-Bigfoot guy. I'll admit to being a Bigfoot hopeful (a hope based more on emotion than on any actual likelihood), but certainly not a believer. My point is simply that both sides of every debate contain a lot chaff along with the wheat. Both sides of every skeptical issue believe that they're right, but even those on the side that is right (and by that, I mean whichever side you're on) can probably stand to clean up their act a little, no matter what the issue is.

You should follow me on twitter here.

Brian Dunning

© 2006 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Alderman ,Jesse Harlan. "Bigfoot studies render academic an outcast." MSNBC. MSNBC.COM, 3 Nov. 2006. Web. 5 Nov. 2009.

Autumn Williams. "Bigfoot Photo and Picture Gallery.", The Legend Lives. Autumn Williams, 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.

Daegling, David J., and Schmitt, Daniel O. "Bigfoot's Screen Test." The Skeptical Inquirer. 1 May 1999, Volume 23.3: 3.

Davis, Marlon K. "M.K. Davis' frame by frame rendition of the Patterson Film." Bigfoot Encounters. Bobbie Short, 1 Dec. 2005. Web. 15 Nov. 2009.

Eagan, Timothy. "Search for Bigfoot Outlives The Man Who Created Him." The New York Times. 3 Jan. 2003, New York Edition: Section A, page 1.

Meldrum, Jeff. Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. New York: Forge Books, 2006.

Napier, John Russel. Bigfoot: The Sasquatch and Yeti in Myth and Reality. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1972.

Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian. "Killing Bigfoot with Bad Science." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 3 Dec 2006. Web. 27 Dec 2010.

Original Post Killing Bigfoot with Bad Science
Listen to the audio version of the post
Skeptoid's Cryptozoology Episodes

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Bigfoot Lunch Club Gets Skeptically Pwnd

First, let's talk about the word Pwnd (pronounced like owned, but with a P), a derivative from the word "Pwnage". You wont find it in the dictionary. We have to rely on the definition from the Urban Dictionary:
Pure Ownage as used in online gaming to stress your superiority on all levels. Spawned from the root word pwn, which originated as a misspelling of the word own. Hence this stupid word is two screw-ups away from anything close to english.

We will get back to the word Pwnd in a second, let's go to the beginning.

In our post "'Skeptics' Late to Debunking Bigfoot" We noted, how Bigfooters are usually the first to be skeptical about encounters and claims. The theme was that simple, and it was succinct in the post title. We can break it down though. Skeptics, (in quotes because we are not talking about real skeptics) were later than others to debunking a Bigfoot hoax. Simple. It seems Brian Dunning at SkepticBlog had issue with this theme.

To be fair, in our post we went further and critiqued Dunnings credentials as a skeptic. This is why we used "skeptic" in quotes, because real skeptics make better assumptions than Brian Dunning.

Dunning pushed back a few days ago and unfortunately, it turns out, that he still hasn't done his homework. He poorly ASSUMED Autumn Williams' synthetic hair analyses of a Bigfoot hoax was based only on the viewing of a you-tube video. Her analysis was, in fact, based also on hair photos that were emailed to her. If Dunning had read the post he was quoting, he would have figured that out. In this age of information how hard would it have been for Dunning to do this one-click research?

We think skeptics are honorable, pragmatic, critical and good at researching applicable evidence (or lack there of). Brian Dunning we wish we had empirical proof that you are deficient in these qualities, instead we can only provide evidence that you make poor assumptions due to laziness or ability.

Now, back to Pwnd.
Dunning admits to cooperating with John Rael of to promote the Bigfoot video hoax. He called it, "a fun little lark." Just to be clear the definition of lark is: a harmless prank. A "skeptic" that promotes hoaxes and then waits a week before admitting involvement?

Rael, who produced the video, claims in his own words, his objective:
I decided a few months ago to create my very own hoax video...I thought this might inspire some crypto’s to ‘defend’ or ‘promote’ the hoax.

Well, according to his site, the only person who "bit" was Tom Biscardi, a known hoaxer. What a coup! You got a known hoaxer interested in possibly cooperating with you in your hoax! That said, even Tom insisted on meeting Rael personally before committing any effort.

We don't know who got Pwned, since nobody was fooled by John Rael's video. He didn't achieve his self-defined objective. Rael admits he poorly assumed "a crypto's would 'defend' the video".

The only revealing thing from all of this was: two people who call themselves "skeptics" make poor assumptions, due to lack of will or ability to investigate/evaluate evidence.

Dunning's assumption fest
John Raels assumption confession

Please read our terms of use policy.