Search
Categories
- Commentary (46)
- False Positives (10)
- Investigation Methods (23)
- Media Analysis (13)
- News and Events (35)
- [—]Phenomena (64)
- Cryptozoology (19)
- Ghosts and Spirits (6)
- Prophecy (1)
- Special Abilities (3)
- Strange Lights (3)
- UFOs (14)
- Real or Fake? (9)
- Spotlight (14)
- State of the Paranormal (1)
- Strange But True (10)
- Website News (7)
Archives
- April 2015 (1)
- January 2015 (11)
- December 2014 (15)
- November 2014 (16)
- October 2014 (12)
- September 2014 (6)
- August 2014 (5)
- July 2014 (12)
- May 2014 (1)
- March 2014 (6)
- January 2014 (12)
- December 2013 (15)
- November 2013 (8)
- October 2013 (13)
Analyst vs. Critic: Cryptozoology and Pseudoscience
In each installment of Analyst vs. Critic I take on an article written about suspected paranormal phenomena. I will examine the breadth and depth of the article and look for signs of bias and flawed thinking. I don’t do this to put down paranormal critics, but rather to inform those interested in serious investigations of the paranormal.
Today I will analyze a piece by Geologist and CSICOP contributor Sharon Hill; “Cryptozoology and Pseudoscience”
You can read the article in its’ entirety here.
I’m going to omit portions of these piece that are for background and provide no grounds for analysis. I also will not be a critical of this piece as I usually am. Hill clearly establishes this article as an opinion piece, as such it would be unfair to apply my usual criticism for the use of generalization and unsupported claims.
If this is true about Coleman’s deletion of Hill’s comments, I find this troubling. While I am a libertarian and a staunch advocate for freedoms I acknowledge Coleman’s right to delete comments as he so chooses. However this action is an indicator of one who isn’t interested in critical discussion about the subject at hand. Whether logical or illogical, critical discussion is a necessary mechanism to determine veracity.
I agree that no scientific background can be problematic. However if Hill is insinuating that a normal person cannot participate in the process or even create scientific tests I would strongly disagree. Formal education is not a necessity but some form of education is. But we also need to acknowledge the lack of scientific interest in the study of paranormal. Study requires objectivity and many scientists who investigate claims of the paranormal have demonstrated bias and illogical reasoning to support their hypotheses. Read more of my Analyst vs. Critic articles for examples of this. You may also find my article on the Participation Paradox to be of interest.
Hill’s own acknowledgement that the line between pseudo-science and genuine science is subjective opens the door for issues. From the perspective of the paranormal investigator, they should be concerned that even with genuine efforts to use scientific methodology they may retain the label of pseudo-scientists because of the stigma used to characterize all who are in the field. We should ask some questions. If we cannot get objective scientific participation in the field, can the work of paranormal investigators ever be accepted? Even if the work of a paranormal investigator follows scientific principals, will there be resistance due to the continued stigmatization of the field? The real question is are scientists being fair in their treatment of paranormal investigators? Does this treatment create an unfair standard? From my past articles you can infer my opinion, but I won’t open that door here.
Not all cryptozoologists can be characterized as having this pre-determined outlook, but I will agree that many do. I also agree that this bias can affect the results of an investigation. Many investigators are looking simply to prove a claim not evaluate it. But as must apply our critical thinking principals let’s turn this line of thought toward the claimant. I argue that many paranormal critics have this same bias and frequently demonstrate it. You can read more about that point here. And related arguments are made here.
I also need to point out that differentiating between who has and doesn’t have pre-determined objectives can be tricky. Some investigators blatantly tell us that they want to prove something paranormal but others don’t. I would suggest Hill use caution in applying this label en masse. I will be the first to say that my critique of some paranormal critics does not extended through the entire scientific community.
We agree but I think these issues plaque all sides. I have found very few who have demonstrated the objectivity and interest to evaluate claims of the paranormal without influencing the results and conducting inferior analysis.
I appreciate Hill’s opinion that amateurs and non-scientists can do science; an answer to my questions posed above. But I do not believe everyone shares this view. Call me crazy if you want.
Of course I agree with Hill’s vision of more scientific research into claims of the paranormal but I disagree with her examples of people doing excellent research in the field. Read more of my Analyst vs. critic articles if you want to see why. This highlight a central problem I see more and more examples of – scientists are not good at introspection. Yet introspection is a fundamental requirement of critical thinking. Without introspection even the best critical thinker can lose their way. Critical thinking is a battle against one’s own mind. It is a crusade to root out bias and illogical thinking. If this practice is not done to oneself, much less one’s colleagues, that leaves a great deal of room for poor practices to develop.
I would like the scientific community to keep itself in check and when they aren’t I will be here to offer the criticism they need to get back on track. I hope my readers will recognize this as a necessary duty if we want a field of critical thinkers and I hope you will act in the same capacity towards me. I would be disappointed by anything less.
Related Reading
The Harm of Unchecked Belief
How to Avoid Confirmation Bias – A Lesson for Skeptics and Believers Alike!
Where’s the Proof? The Scientific Method Applies Both Ways
The Participation Paradox
What Happens When We Have a Logical Stalemate… Science Wins??
You may enjoy: