Skeptical Pareidolia And Trackway Evidence

[Guest BFSleuth]

On oft used argument of skepticism I've noticed states that if something could be a hoax, then it must be a hoax or should be considered a hoax. Sometimes I've seen some statements of how something could be a hoax get stretched to the point that it rises to the level of what I will call skeptical pareidolia, meaning that the desire to debunk a particular piece of evidence seems to be so great that the skeptic is willing to consider the most far fetched theory of hoaxing without evidence to support such a theory that it seems as though the argument is falling within the range of a belief system rather than suspending judgement and looking at facts and evidence (which should be the foundation of correct skepticism).

I use the term skeptical pareidolia to describe this phenomenon because it compares favorably with the effort of some bigfoot proponents that "see" bigfoot in low resolution videos hiding in a few blurry pixels of shadows and leaves. In the case of the video evidence it is so blurry and ambiguous that the majority of board members dismiss the evidence or are at best noting that it is inconclusive. However, from the skeptical side of the argument it seems to me that a number of skeptics will jump at reaching a conclusion of hoaxing with scant evidence, simply a claim that something could have been hoaxed is sufficient evidence for them to conclusively declare that something is a hoax.

For example, if a new trackway is found near human habitation, that it is close to human habitation is in and of itself prima facia evidence that it could be a hoax and therefore it must be concluded that it is a hoax. The argument is disingenuous. A true skeptic would want to review the entire data before reaching a conclusion, or simply state after reviewing the evidence that there is not enough evidence to reach a conclusion, or after reviewing all the evidence come to a conclusion that is based on the evidence. Stating that there is a possibility of a hoax is not a piece of evidence.

In my experience on these forums I've rarely if ever seen the theory of "it could be a hoax" advanced with any evidence that it was a hoax or where a similar hoax was done to show how it was done. So far this year we have had three major trackway finds and a smaller trackway find. Two of these were in Washington State, one in Minnesota, and one in Oregon. Two of them were in deep snow, and two were in reservoirs with low water levels which afforded track casting. In each instance the "it could be a hoax" theory was proffered without anyone stepping up (pun intended) to show how it could have been done.

If it is so easy to make trackway hoaxes, then let's have some of these skeptics "step up" and do a trackway to show us all how it is done. Maybe go the whole nine yards and do it as a real time hoax, have "believing" bigfooters make the discovery and submit casts to Meldrum and show how easy it is to put one over on the bigfoot research community.

Until then I give as much weight to the "it could be a hoax" argument of these trackways as any other wild claim of bigfoot hiding in blurry pixels.

[Guest]

Well said! Being THAT "skeptical" is well into Debunkerism and blazing a trail rapidly towards Skoffticism...

[Cotter]

Good thread, I see it a lot too BFS. Yes, many things COULD be a hoax, but to deem them hoaxes w/o evidence is just as bad as claiming they are real w/o evidence. The edge cuts both ways on proponents and skeptics alike in that regard.

To address/add to a single point you made above, as i read the comment in another thread as well. But if a trackway instantly gets dismissed b/c of it's proximity to civilization, one would need to ask why a hoaxer would go through so much trouble to lay a perfect trackway in a difficult to negotiate terrain/environment, using 'state-of-the-art' stompers, only to have the trackway instantly dismissed as fake b/c of the location?

I employ an internal filter to most every post made on the BFF, scrape away the opinion, word twisting, pareidolia, and there are good points and observations made by both sides. Sort of a middle ground so-to-speak where the 'good info' is.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Then on the other hand, the Minnesota trackway was considered as a hoax because it wasn't as "many miles from human habitation" as reported by the team that discovered it. Never mind that they had to take snowmobiles into a remote location in order to discover a trackway that, from the "it has to be a hoax" argument would mean that a hoaxer walked at least three miles with stompers in incredibly difficult snow and terrain on the very slim chance that anyone would come along to see their masterpiece.

Just for once I would love to see someone try to create a hoax trackway, record the effort on video, and give some researchers a shot at examining the trackway to compare against the four trackways found this year. I know that some have said the Elbe trackway might be a hoax created by "bigfoot shoes" available from an artist online. Fine, go buy a pair of those shoes and go walk the mudflats by Elbe and see what results you get. That would be actual testing of a theory. Simply proposing a theory with no test is the same as seeing BF in a blurry video with no going back to HD video the area again to test whether or not it was simply a stump. Both are disingenuous.

Show us an honest attempt to create a trackway in the Elbe mud flats. Right now is a good time before the Pineapple Express starts dumping rain in the PNW. Then have some researchers come and cast the tracks and do an analysis, maybe try it as a hoax to see if they can tell the difference... put them to the test.

[Guest GreatBIGFoot]

Great post

+1

[indiefoot]

Many posts should have "There is no Bigfoot, therefore.... " in front of them. It is there whether it is written out or not. IMO

That mindset opens the door for many posibilities that would otherwise not be entertained, such as an army of well trained and well motivated hoaxers at loose in the world.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Nice thread topic BFS!

[Guest]

On oft used argument of skepticism I've noticed states that if something could be a hoax, then it must be a hoax or should be considered a hoax. Sometimes I've seen some statements of how something could be a hoax get stretched to the point that it rises to the level of what I will call skeptical pareidolia, meaning that the desire to debunk a particular piece of evidence seems to be so great that the skeptic is willing to consider the most far fetched theory of hoaxing without evidence to support such a theory that it seems as though the argument is falling within the range of a belief system rather than suspending judgement and looking at facts and evidence (which should be the foundation of correct skepticism).

I use the term skeptical pareidolia to describe this phenomenon because it compares favorably with the effort of some bigfoot proponents that "see" bigfoot in low resolution videos hiding in a few blurry pixels of shadows and leaves. In the case of the video evidence it is so blurry and ambiguous that the majority of board members dismiss the evidence or are at best noting that it is inconclusive. However, from the skeptical side of the argument it seems to me that a number of skeptics will jump at reaching a conclusion of hoaxing with scant evidence, simply a claim that something could have been hoaxed is sufficient evidence for them to conclusively declare that something is a hoax.

For example, if a new trackway is found near human habitation, that it is close to human habitation is in and of itself prima facia evidence that it could be a hoax and therefore it must be concluded that it is a hoax. The argument is disingenuous. A true skeptic would want to review the entire data before reaching a conclusion, or simply state after reviewing the evidence that there is not enough evidence to reach a conclusion, or after reviewing all the evidence come to a conclusion that is based on the evidence. Stating that there is a possibility of a hoax is not a piece of evidence.

In my experience on these forums I've rarely if ever seen the theory of "it could be a hoax" advanced with any evidence that it was a hoax or where a similar hoax was done to show how it was done. So far this year we have had three major trackway finds and a smaller trackway find. Two of these were in Washington State, one in Minnesota, and one in Oregon. Two of them were in deep snow, and two were in reservoirs with low water levels which afforded track casting. In each instance the "it could be a hoax" theory was proffered without anyone stepping up (pun intended) to show how it could have been done.

If it is so easy to make trackway hoaxes, then let's have some of these skeptics "step up" and do a trackway to show us all how it is done. Maybe go the whole nine yards and do it as a real time hoax, have "believing" bigfooters make the discovery and submit casts to Meldrum and show how easy it is to put one over on the bigfoot research community.

Until then I give as much weight to the "it could be a hoax" argument of these trackways as any other wild claim of bigfoot hiding in blurry pixels.

I like the way you think!

[Guest BFSleuth]

I would like to add that in the case of each trackway presented so far this year I have not personally committed to the idea that each was 100% BF that must have made the trackway. Based on the entirety of the photo or video evidence for the snow trackways (in Washington and Minnesota) I think it is likely that these might be BF, but it is not conclusive.

The London and Elbe trackways are exciting because they are cast and being studied. So far the evidence has not been fully presented. I've not formed an opinion, but it seems as though they might be authentic.

In any of these cases the substrate is repeatable, and for proponents of the hoax theory the door is wide open for testing your idea with full documentation. Elbe seems to be ideal for an immediate attempt, with the same conditions available right now. Fire away and give us evidence of your claim, I'll certainly be looking forward to seeing the results.

[Guest wudewasa]

On the other end of the spectrum, a trackway with large, distinct footprints "MUST be a squatch" is something that I can't accept right now, but I'm open to further developments and appreciate people sharing the information. Extremist stances don't accomplish much in this case. Hence the following clip.

[Guest BFSleuth]

^ true that...

I think trying to jumping to conclusions on either side of the fence is not correct. Until we have full presentation of the findings at London and Elbe I'm waiting to form my opinion.

[ohiobill]

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity)- attributed to Occam.

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes." Isaac Newton

Skeptics don’t necessarily disbelieve in the existence of bigfoot and are open-minded to the possibility of existence of a large unknown primate running around North America. They are using principles that have sufficed to bring us from the dark ages to the level of civilization we have now. When they say there is a possibility that the trackways were hoaxed it means just that – it is also a possibility and without evidence to disprove it should probably be considered the most probable.

BFS’s idea to test hoaxing scenarios is sound AND skeptical, how would you proceed?

[Guest Transformer]

^Very well put ohiobill! I would also like to point out that there have been very many tracks and trackways purported to be from sasquatch that have turned out to be hoaxed or misidentified. There have been absolutley ZERO tracks or trackways proven to be made by a sasquatch. Therefore, the default position must always be: "It is most likely a misidentification or a hoax but until the evidence is in I cannot state for certain what it is". That is how science works. When sasquatch is proven to be real then the default statement can be altered.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Transformer

[Guest mdhunter]

IMHO, having a default position to one side or the other is how science doesn't work. In other words a position of "needs further investigation" would be a safe position for something unexplained or unknown. A theory or hypothesis is speculation. A position is a belief.

A few innocent people have gone to prison because of cops positions. I walked away from a trackway a few years ago because I dismissed it as fake because of the MTB. I didn't know anything about a MTB at the time. Now I wish we had documented it and followed it further.

[Guest]

Just for once I would love to see someone try to create a hoax trackway, record the effort on video, and give some researchers a shot at examining the trackway to compare against the four trackways found this year. I know that some have said the Elbe trackway might be a hoax created by "bigfoot shoes" available from an artist online. Fine, go buy a pair of those shoes and go walk the mudflats by Elbe and see what results you get. That would be actual testing of a theory. Simply proposing a theory with no test is the same as seeing BF in a blurry video with no going back to HD video the area again to test whether or not it was simply a stump. Both are disingenuous.

Show us an honest attempt to create a trackway in the Elbe mud flats. Right now is a good time before the Pineapple Express starts dumping rain in the PNW. Then have some researchers come and cast the tracks and do an analysis, maybe try it as a hoax to see if they can tell the difference... put them to the test.

Don't you know, Sleuth? Proponents are the only ones who have to "prove" anything. Skeptics hold the intellectual "high ground" via that proposition that holds that "BF is not 'proven'. Therefore the burden of proof falls on the claimant that they in fact do exist."

In other words: "BF doesn't exist. Prove me wrong."

Which as we all know is a classic logical fallacy. But Skeptics don't have to apply logic to their arguments. They are presumed correct because they are employing "critical thinking" and "the scientific method".

When they say there is a possibility that the trackways were hoaxed it means just that – it is also a possibility and without evidence to disprove it should probably be considered the most probable.

Why? What makes hoaxing the "most probable" answer in the first place.

And whatever happened to following the scientific principle? If you want to posit hoax, then where's YOUR evidence?

It's your claim to prove, isn't it? That's "the scientific method".

So prove it, if you can.

^Very well put ohiobill! I would also like to point out that there have been very many tracks and trackways purported to be from sasquatch that have turned out to be hoaxed or misidentified. There have been absolutley ZERO tracks or trackways proven to be made by a sasquatch. Therefore, the default position must always be: "It is most likely a misidentification or a hoax but until the evidence is in I cannot state for certain what it is". That is how science works. When sasquatch is proven to be real then the default statement can be altered.

Classic psuedo-Skepticism, to wit: "If it not 100% demonstrably true, then it must be considered false."

Esp pathetic non-reasoning considering how routinely Science is proven to be wrong. Among other great Scientific "mistakes":

• stones do not fall from the sky (meteorites)
  
• animal [x] is extinct (coelecanth, 7-gill shark, et al)
  
• animal [x] does not exist [gorilla, et al]
  
• maggots are spontaneously generated by spoiled meat
  

good lists here:

http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/

http://ca.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment/top-10-disproven-theories_5.html

When dealing with the arguments of Skeptics, the generalization of Clark's Law should always apply:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist Science states that something is possible, he it is almost certainly right. When he Science states that something is impossible, he it is very probably wrong."

Here's a great modern case of Science completely getting it wrong:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8331-lizards-poisonous-secret-is-revealed.html

But how could venom production in these lizards have previously been overlooked? Fry suggests that blaming bacteria had become dogma. The Komodo dragon - a monitor lizard - will eat carrion, and their mouths are teeming with bacteria. "It was the classic red herring," Fry says. Also, while the toxins produced by these lizards might kill their usual prey, they have a less potent effect on people.

and

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090518-komodo-dragon-venom.html