Why we can't win.

I normally label articles like this as being an opinion piece. This time I'm not, because it's not really just my opinion. It is unfortunately a fact of life for the critical thinking/scientific skepticism communities, and I believe most of us have known this for years.


I have recently began responding more often to various pseudoscientific and blatantly false claims, such as one I've seen a couple of times recently. (I've been doing this partly because bad information aggravates the hell out of me, and partly because I want people to be able to look at all the information without any sort of fear mongering and come to a conclusion based on the data.)  This one in particular reads: "The FDA has changed the name of aspartame to AminoSweet!" First of all, the FDA doesn't name products, they only give guidelines on the labeling. As well, it was one company that is based in Japan that is changing the name, not every manufacturer on the planet. I pointed these two facts out, simply trying to point out the post was false, and try and give anyone that actually reads the comments a starting point to find the real information. Shortly after, the original poster came back with a comment that stated the FDA still allows poisons to be put into our food, and aspertame is a neurotoxin according to FDA investigator Arthur Evangelista (who is a former FDA investigator) I have written about aspartame before, and I am passingly familiar with some of the claims that folks make about it. Especially the neurotoxin claim. I pointed out that water and oxygen, when applied directly to a neuron, will act like a neurotoxin, killing it. The someone else asked to see water and oxygen tumors and posted pictures of the rats used in the highly flawed Seralini GMO/RoundUp study. I asked him what genetic line the rats came from, and he said GM Corn. WHAT THE HONEST FUCK!?! I asked about the rats and he says GM Corn? I pointed out that the genetic line of rats used in research are going to affect the way the study turns out. If they had used rats designed for diabetic research, the study would have shown drinking RoundUp causes diabetes. "Sorry Mr. Brimley, your diabetes wasn't a genetic issue. You shouldn't have been drinking RoundUp and eating GMOs while filming Cocoon." I pointed out the study that he has decided to use to refute aspartame was highly flawed. I did make an error here and not point out it had nothing to do with the original statement. I was just so surprised by it, and I was in full "learning moment" mode that I tried to show how that was wrong as well. Luckily, there was another member of Oklahoma Skeptics Society reading the thread, and he had good info that he added to the discussion. It basically ended with several statements that I've heard way too often lately concerning a surprisingly wide variety of topics, and I'm going to address them. Unfortunately, these statements demonstrate why critical thought will never completely prevail over superstitious thinking and bad information.

Before I go any farther, I have to mention that this is only the most recent example of a common trend that I have been seeing for a long time. 

Scientific Consensus

The first was "Why is it when a "scientist" (I added the quotes because they are rarely dependable or reliable scientists) has a finding that isn't part of the consensus, he's labeled a fear monger?" The simple answer is....because they are. If you have 1 scientist that reports a finding saying a common food or medical treatment is dangerous, sends out press releases before peer review, and they promote their findings, (and alternative products on occasion) and they claim it has very extreme effects, and no other group can reproduce it in any meaningful way, then yes, they are trying to scare people away from something that, at the least isn't harmful and at best is highly beneficial. This is the definition of a fear mongerer. The reason that there is a scientific consensus is because the findings are relatively consistent and can more than likely be trusted as fact. Granted, I am not really a fan of Monsanto, mostly due to their legal practices, but I fully believe that GM products are going to be the major contributor to feeding the planets growing population, especially with climate change altering growing cycles. But once again, the Seralini study had nothing to do with the initial conversation, it was a weird combination of the Gish Gallop and Moving the Goalpost. This entire tactic (invoking bad studies, wild claims about the dangers, and the Gish Gallop Goalpost) are often used by climate change deniers, the anti-vaccine crowd, anti-GMO advocates, creationists, and many other proponents of pseudoscience. Especially the ones that either have some sort of religious or political spin to them. They also tied in a conspiracy theory saying Monsanto is covering up any negative studies. Once again, way the hell off the original topic, which was misinformation about a products name change. Plus I doubt Monsanto has bought off 99% of the agricultural and food scientists. But people that rely on the "rebel scientists" are generally very distrustful of any sort of large establishment, such as governments and international companies. They tend to feel that governments and governmental agencies, such as the FBI, the CIA, the NIH, the FDA, the CDC, and the NWO (I had to throw that one in because a lot of these people believe there is an evil global conspiracy), as well as large companies, will lie and mislead the public for some nefarious purpose. They will think that the one person that works outside of the system and finds something no one else ever has is the only one telling the truth, and if you dispute the claim of the person, you will often be called a shill, a sheeple (damn I really hate that word), or naive. They will also tell you you need to open your eyes and do research. Which happened during the course of the original thread. When I said I do research things, and that is why I wanted to know what genetic line the rats were, and what the protocols used for his study were (which I already knew), the other person quit replying. I have to wonder if he went and actually looked into it a little deeper from sources other than NaturalNews and Mercola, or if he rage quit. My money is on rage quit.

Why do you care what we do?
Another statement that was made during the discourse, and I am paraphrasing, was  "Why does it matter if we don't want to eat this stuff? Why do you care what we do? Everyone should be allowed to keep things out their bodies they don't want!" I agree wholeheartedly! If you want to avoid consuming something, by all means, do it. More for me. Especially you have a legitimate reason for avoiding them. Say you have PKU, then yes, you have to avoid aspartame, and for good reason. But just because you're scared of something after visiting some Woo Woo sites, you really shouldn't be posting misleading and false statements purposely designed to scare people into doing the same. The original post was created specifically to invoke a fear response from people that are already wary of big companies, chemicals, and the government. It was set up as a warning that the scary gubberment is letting Big Chemical try and sneak one past the unsuspecting and gullible people. These damn things are the meme equivalent of the guy on the corner with the sign that claims the world is ending soon. They are false, there is no evidence, they often smell a bit funny, they get creepy after a while and seem to follow you around the internet.

I won't believe your "Science"
You want to piss me off, say "You can show me all the studies and science, and I'm still going to believe what I want." This is basically the last thing that was said in the thread, outside of being accused of starting a fight, and me reiterating my initial position (and I actually received a sort of, almost apology) These anti-science sentiments have been getting more and more vocal in the past few years. When you say this, basically what I hear you saying is "I don't care how reality works, I'm going to make up my own thing so I can feel comfortable and justify my life choices to myself."  This sort of thinking is the cause of so many problems when it comes to the results from research. Some people won't believe any research unless it jives with their previously held beliefs. Then, anything that disproves that is part of some huge corporate/governmental/military cabal bent on global domination and the complete subjugation of the population. And yes, it does escalate that quickly. The most aggravating part of this type of thinking is that the more evidence you provide, the more that people will dig in and hang on to their beliefs. This is called The BackFire Effect and you can read more about it on The Skeptics Dictionary. These are the type of people that, as critical thinkers, skeptics, humanists, and scientifically literate people, we need to convince the most to look at all the information. Yet, and let's be honest with ourselves, we know that nothing we do will convince them to look at other evidence. You can try and convince them, but as soon as you push a little too hard, suddenly you're a bully, you're hassling them, you're blinded to the truth, etc. If someone presents me with evidence that is contrary to what I feel is a fact, admittedly my first response is to dismiss it. But then I realize that my personal bias' have kicked in, and I will look at their evidence and try to keep an open mind. And my opinion has been changed by doing this. I have rarely seen anyone from the pseudoscience side of things do the same. (And they call skeptics close-minded?)

Conclusion
The best way to deal with a fight you can't win is normally to just walk away before the damage is irreparable. However, we just can't do that here. As several other people have pointed out in the past, skepticism in the intersection of scientific literacy and consumer protection.

We can't just say "Screw you guys! I'm going home!" We have to continue the good fight and yes, it is a battle on multiple fronts with various opponents using different tactics. (And yes, I know that the phrasing I'm choosing makes skepticism sound fairly combative, but when peoples lives are at risk, then yes, it is a fight.) Instead of focusing our time and energy on the hardcore, full tilt woo woo bullshit believers that we know are never going to change, let's focus more on the fence sitters and the general public. Let's try and provide good information that people can look into and come to an informed decision themselves. It may not always be the right decision, but at least they will be using all the available information. As a whole, people are sensible, rational creatures that do respond well to facts, and when presented with all the available information, generally they will make an informed choice, politics not included. We also need to work harder to inform the general population on what makes a study good or bad, how to read a scientific paper, and how to properly interpret data for themselves instead of relying on others to do it for them. (Remember when only the clergy could read the bible and the congregations had to rely on the priest to tell them what it meant?)  We also need to show people how to distinguish blatant propaganda and scare tactics from factual information. This is why critical thinking and scientific literacy need to be core classes in elementary schools. Until then we will always be dealing with James Randi's "Unsinkable Rubber Duckies"

  

 I didn't reply to the initial Facebook post to be a self righteous dick. I simply intended to put accurate information out to help people make an informed decision. Of course, by the end, I seemed to be the bad guy for attacking their beliefs, though that was never my intention. I just have an issue when people seem to rely on Facebook memes to make decisions concerning their health and nutrition.

Recent Podcast appearance!
This isn't related to the topic but I really wanted to promote it. I am a contributor on a podcast called the Unseen Podcast. It is primarily devoted to astronomy, astrobiology, and space exploration (I have no idea why they let me on, but they did) We recently did our Halloween episode, and I was the host. We had: C-Webb from The Paranormal Skeptic Academy podcast, David Flora from the Blurry Photos podcast, Mike Bohler from The Skeptics Guide to Conspiracy (and he's also a regular contributor on Unseen), and Paul Carr, the main host, and Marsha Barnhart as panelists. We spoke about cryptids, conspiracy theories, evidence, UFOs, played the drinking came created by yours truly, and got really damn silly. If you've ever wondered what I sound like, are a fan of C-Webb, Blurry Photos, or Mike Bohler, you should really check it out. You can find The Unseen Podcast Episode 31 here! Thanks for reading, and hopefully listening to the episode. I am hoping to start my own skeptical podcast, with my wife and son as co-hosts, in the next couple of weeks, though I will still be a regular contributor to both the WOW! Signal podcast and the Unseen Podcast.

Calling Bigfoot! Bigfoot, the BFRO, Finding Bigfoot and the evidence. (now with sounds!)

Hello folks. Recently, C-Webb, host of The Paranormal Skeptic Academy podcast did a show on an episode of  Finding Bigfoot. Episode 19 of PSA, to be precise.  He did an excellent job of breaking down the episode, and showing the mental gymnastics that true believers will go through for their beliefs. He also provided natural (and more reasonable) explanations of what the crew experienced, as well as their victims. Oops, I meant their witnesses. Yeah, witnesses, that's the ticket. You can find the episode here. You really should check it out. Like I said, it's really well done. Plus, he's funny as hell. At the end of the episode, he even gave me and the blog a shout out, which I greatly appreciated, and I owe him a few beers, or other drink of choice.

Something C-Webb mentioned got me to thinking, and as we all know, that's dangerous. He spoke about how it's more than likely that the BFRO crew was confusing cattle calls for Bigfoot calls. I have had an idea for a while to do a write up on the Bigfoot calls. These have become a very popular form of "proof" in the bigfooting community. If you've ever seen the Finding Bigfoot show on Animal Planet, you've probably seen the green night vision scenes where everyone is howling like a mad man. These are supposed to be imitations of the infamous bigfoot calls, which I still don't understand how you can imitate something that you don't have evidence for it's existence. Might as well imitate a unicorn. That actually sounds like more fun. But I'm going to take a look (a listen) anyway.

Bigfoot Calls
For a long time, castings of barely distinguishable blobs or extremely detailed footprints were the best proof of Bigfoot. Then came the blurry photos and shaky videos that were considered the pinnacle of Bigfoot evidence. Now, it's the seems that the mysterious calls that are supposedly made by Bigfoot are the hot new evidence. You can find them all over YouTube. Or if you're like me, you have people send them to you on Facebook. And e-mail. And Google+. And in real life. And everyone wants me to explain them. One of the main issues with trying to figure out these calls is that the video and audio recordings are normally lacking a lot of context I would need to make a reasonable identification, such as time of the year, the geographic location, or even the time of day. For full disclosure, and for those of you that are new to the blog (yes, I do this kind of thing a lot) I am not a biologist, botanist, chemist, physicist, or any other sort of -ist. My main qualification to discuss cryptids is my many years of tracking wildlife, and the occasional person. I do hunt, not for sport, but to supplement feeding my family and to protect my family's livestock. I have tracked everything from rabbits and skunks to wolves and cougars, and if I want to brag a bit, I'm pretty good at it. I have spent a lot of time out in the woods and wilds and I am fairly familiar with what goes on. With that said, a lot of the noises that the Bigfoot researchers claim are from a mysterious humanoid ape are mostly normal woodland animals. If they aren't just pranksters messing with them. These calls, for the most part, seem to consist of low pitched growls and grunts, and the occasional scream. I have also seen them yell "That's a Squatch!" when it's obviously a cow lowing. Seriously, something is going Mooooo, and they think it's Bigfoot. Which makes me think of:

Your typical Bigfoot aficionados tend to mistake a lot of noises for Bigfoot. I'll get into the main issue about this in a moment. First for your listening pleasure, here are some animals that may be commonly mistaken for Bigfoot. I am unable to post the sounds directly in the blog. Instead, I'm going to link to the noises. Enjoy, but as a warning, don't have the volume maxed out on your computer. Some of these are pretty damn loud.

Here is a good example of some of the odd noises that elk make. Notice that a lot of the deeper noises are very similar to the ones that a lot of bigfooters claim are made by the elusive Sasquatch.

Here are some vocalizations made by black bears. Notice the similarities, again, to some of the noises that almost made Moneymaker and crew pee their pants in excitement.

Here are some cute noises made by mule deer.

Here are a variety of noises made by pigs. once again, some of them could easily be confused for a larger animal.

Here are some examples of the sounds made by cougars (No, not those cougars, I meant Mountain Lions!)

Here are a bunch of videos with a variety of noises made by whitetailed deer. Noisy bastards, aren't they?

And of course rabbits, squirrels, wolves, coyotes, pack rats, skunks, opossums, raccoons, and everything else that lives in the woods makes some sort of vocalization.
(As a side note, I have often wondered why Ranae hasn't pointed out more natural explanations, then I realized that 1) the episodes are probably edited that way, and 2) she seems to have journeyed to the dark side in recent episodes, becoming more of a believer than a skeptic.)
Keep in mind that a lot of the BFRO investigations occur in rural areas, which means that there are cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, horses, mules, donkeys, various sorts of fowl, rabbits, and other animals that make a wide variety of noises. If you're not familiar with all the sounds that these animals make, it can be easy to mistake them for an unknown animal. As well, a lot of their investigations take place in areas that are inhabited by all sorts of wildlife. If you look at my previous post, which you can find here, you will see where I found that many of the areas that have reported Bigfoot sightings are also areas that have a native bear population. I have been unable to find a map of the locations of the recordings of supposed Bigfoot calls, but given the areas of the sightings, which look like this:

(the map came from reddit. I am unable to determine an original source.)

and the areas that have, say elk populations, which look like this:

(map from ar15.com)

(there are pockets of elk living in Oklahoma and other states as well, so this map isn't definitive, but it's the best I could find)
and here is an example of the territory of the territory of several large predators in the U.S.:

(Map from m.extension.illinois.edu)

(once again, there are pockets of these animal all over the country, so no map can be viewed as definitive. There are black bears, cougars, and wolves in Oklahoma and Northern Texas, for example)
and here is an example of the territory of the whitetail deer:

Map from Buckbegone.com)

All these maps, I was able to find using Google and just putting in various animals and territory map.

You also need to consider wolves, coyotes, deer, pigs, rabbits, birds, and bears all have a wide variety of vocalizations that aren't normally heard on wildlife documentaries. (they still make those, don't they?) These sounds can be unusual if you aren't expecting them. Combine the unfamiliarity of the sounds with the need to prove that the creature exists, and presto! You have a Bigfoot call.

Another issue I have is the equipment that the various Bigfoot research crews use. (and there are a hell of a lot of these groups, some of them seem to be in direct competition with each other. It's kind of entertaining to watch the insults fly back and forth.) Much like the ghost hunter groups, these people have some pretty serious equipment (FLIR cameras, night vision, super sensitive microphones, audio enhancers, etc.) and a lot of the times, they don't quite seem to know how to use them properly. They aren't as bad as the ghost hunters in that they aren't using an infrared kitchen thermometer to measure the air temperature, but they're close. They have the sensitivity of the mics set to a point where some of the sounds they pick up and record are distorted. Same goes for the hearing enhancers that they use. They also don't seem to take into consideration that noises in the woods are going to be warped. Also, sitting there in the dark, expecting that a creature is prowling around can cause your imagination to run wild at the smallest sound, which when amplified, can easily cause someone to mis-identify the source of the noise. Or you will start to hear sounds that aren't actually there. I'll admit, it's happened to me on occasion while tracking something. I'll be sitting there, and after a while, I will have auditory hallucinations. The thing is, the rational part of my brain kicks in, and I realize what's happening.

If you've read my previous Bigfoot post or my poorly written one on cryptids in general, you already know what my major issue with these researchers is. How the hell do they "know" this is Bigfoot behavior? If you watch the show, or listen to any Bigfoot researcher, they will always make definitive statements that "such and such is how a Bigfoot acts". They have no way to substantiate these statements. There are no bodies to test, none of these creatures have actually been studied in the wild, and to be blunt, there is no solid evidence that they exist. Therefore, they can't claim that the sounds they claim are coming from a sasquatch are actually from a sasquatch. They ignore all the plausible explanations and jump right to the make believe. Instead of eliminating possibilities, they simply add another. No matter what, that's not how to science.

Yes, you do use calls to attract animals. If you're going after a predatory species, you primarily use the call of their prey. I.e., if you want a coyote, you make a sound like a rabbit in distress to attract them. When trying to attract prey species, such as deer and elk, you have several options when it comes to calls. You can use a female call to attract a male, or a male call to attract a male. This primarily works during their breeding season because the males are looking for a mate, and trying to chase off competition. (How do they Bigfoot researchers know when the breeding season is? Does Bigfoot have a season? What do the males sound like? The females? The juveniles? These are questions that I have, as of yet, to hear a consistent answer.) Sometimes it will work out of season because they will come out of curiosity, You can also use the call of a juvenile to attract the females, especially if they live in herds. (Once again, how does a juvenile Bigfoot sound?) With animals such as hogs, calls can work all year long, and in a variety of conditions. But they are a cautious animal, so you have to be pretty damn convincing in order to attract them. (And just standing out there yelling  Sooouieee will not work) Calling is a viable tactic to attract a wide variety of animals, but you first have to know about their life cycles, habits, if they are carnivores, herbivores, or omnivores, and you have to know what they actually sound like and be able to reproduce the sound. If you've seen the Finding Bigfoot show, you'll quickly notice that there is no consistency when it comes to the noises that they think the creature is supposed to make. They make a bunch of different howling and grunting sounds, and if anything happens to make a noise, it's confirmation that they are doing it right. The problem with the show is, you don't know know it's edited, so there could be a half hour or more between the initial call and what they claim is a response. Normally, when an animal responds to a call, it happens within a few minutes. Anything longer than that, and it's probably just a random vocalization.

Real quick, I would like to mention "The Knock", which in the Bigfoot community is another form of communication that sasquatch use. This sound seems to be a solid piece of wood striking a tree. I personally have never heard it, except when watching a Bigfoot show. I imagine it could be several things. The most rational ones would be :

1. Something with antlers or horns hitting the side of a tree
2. A squirrel or other tree based animal throwing a rock against a tree (yes they do that. sit under a tree with squirrels and eventually they'll start throwing things and dropping things at you.)
3. A crow, raven, or other corvid type bird dropping a rock or hard bit of food
4. Someone with a wooden baseball bat pranking the bigfooters.
5. Random falling objects hitting a tree

If you watch these shows, you'll see that they never quite look for the source of these sounds. They just go running off in random directions, making a ton of noise, which will scare any animal off or warn a prankster that someone is coming. They should try and pinpoint the direction of the sound, carefully go towards it, and examine everything to see if they can find what might have made the noise. They might be surprised at what they find, and slightly disappointed. Something else that they never seem to take into consideration is that sounds can be misleading in the woods, especially at night. They may be farther off than you think they are, or they may originate from a slightly different direction.

It would be cool if Bigfoot and some of the other cryptids actually existed. I would love it. It would be a new avenue of study for biologists, conservationists, environmentalists, and other fields of study. But unfortunately, the evidence isn't there. It sucks, but that's the truth.

So until next time, Be Good, Be Skeptical, and Be sure to eat your veggies.

The Skeptical Okie