Scientifical Americans

by Sharon A. Hill

  After many decades of dedicated individuals researching and investigating these topics, in the eyes of the scientific community, no high-quality, reliable evidence exists that would shift the consensus thinking about paranormal phenomenon. Advances in technology and markedly increased interest by media corporations to delve into these areas have resulted in no significant discoveries that would turn the tide of established thinking. Therefore, scientists have adequate justification in ignoring the phenomenon (Marks 1986) as it does not pose any useful research questions or provide any credible data for them to examine. Yet, paranormal events seemingly still occur. That is, witnesses perceive them to be unexplainable and paranormal. When the scientific community doesn’t appear interested or they decry the topics as ludicrous, where does the public turn? They go to self-styled experts willing to step in as authorities. ARIGs relish this role.

  Bigfoot’s DNA

  In 2012, a team of professional scientists from the University of Oxford and the Museum of Zoology, Lausanne, led by Oxford geneticist Dr. Bryan Sykes, put out a public call to receive DNA samples from suspected anomalous primates including the Asian Yeti and the North American Bigfoot/Sasquatch. The samples would be prepared and genetically tested, then compared to sequences in the worldwide genetic database GenBank to ascertain with which animal they best aligned. The cost of the analysis was subsidized by a television production company who made a documentary program about the quest for answers to these mysterious sightings (Sykes 2016). The project was a true cooperative effort between amateurs who claimed they could obtain physical evidence for cryptids and experts who could assist them with unprecedented access to the latest genetic technology. A total of 57 samples were received from around the world, mostly from amateur researchers. Of these, 37 (presumably those of highest quality) were selected for genetic analysis. Eighteen were from eight U.S. states. Eight samples were anticipated to be from the almasty of Russia. Three samples were collected in the Himalayan region of Asia, and one came from Sumatra, supposedly representing the anomalous “man of the woods” orang pendek.

  Earlier in 2013, long-awaited results appeared from a similar project. A five-year study done by Ketchum et al. also collected from amateur researchers supposed DNA samples belonging to anomalous primates. While Dr. Sykes was a recognized academic expert in DNA, Ketchum was not. Critics identified several serious problems with the Ketchum study from sample collection, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions, to the scientists themselves. Dr. Ketchum, a veterinarian, lacked qualifications to be considered an expert in this academic area of genetics (S. Hill 2013). She and her team concluded that the results showed Bigfoot exists and is a human hybrid—a human crossed with an unknown primate. This implausible conclusion was disputed by academics who declared that her study was “very poorly executed” and “never gets close to providing the exceptional proofs that such exceptional claims require” as noted by Sykes (2016). The Ketchum study was disregarded as solid evidence for anything while the Sykes et al. study was regarded as the first credible attempt to identify anomalous primate DNA. Sykes’ results were published in July 2014 in the Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences B. Unfortunately, results revealed no anomalous primates in the lot. The sequences all matched 100% with known animals, there were no “unknowns” (Sykes et al. 2014). All the U.S. samples turned out to be from animals already existing in that area—cow, horse, black bear, dog/wolf, sheep, raccoon, porcupine, or deer. The Russian samples were also disappointing, as was that of the orang pendek. But two of the Himalayan samples were interesting and generated significant press coverage and positive press for cryptozoology. Samples from Ladakh, India and from Bhutan matched a fossilized genetic sample of an extinct lineage of polar bear, Ursus martimus, indicating an ursine lineage interpreted to be unknown in this area. As science typically goes, these interpretations were challenged by several other genetics and zoology experts who argued the samples were within the range of variation of normal bears.

  The Sykes study plugged into the heart of cryptozoology and reflected the efforts of ARIG activities. As it is practiced today by amateur Bigfoot hunters and monster trackers, cryptozoology is not done in a scientific way. Yet, this project was an excellent example of amateurs working with professionals, providing the raw material for analysis. Even though the conclusion was not groundbreaking, this teamwork is what is needed to make genuine discoveries (however unexpected) and come up with sound (and maybe someday, surprising) answers for amateur anomaly hunters. Cooperation between professionals, amateurs, and the funding source deserves praise—it served as a template for other such studies.

  9

  ARIG Portrayal of Science to the Public

  Science in the media is often framed as a form of entertainment, not as necessarily critical information. In Selling Science (1987), Dorothy Nelkin reminds us that scientists fill a role in press coverage: they appear as “wizards,” superior in knowledge and intelligence to the rest of us. The media portrayal of scientists creates a serious misconception of how science works. And, it places scientists on a pedestal of authority. Nelkin also says that press coverage of scientific findings is framed to appeal to the public’s desire for an easy solution to problem issues. By not presenting the entire process of scientific inquiry or discovery and by de-emphasizing important points of dispute or possible error, journalists leave readers with little to judge the reasonableness or truth of such findings, or even if they are scientific at all.

  Over half of the ARIGs that I researched used the culturally-established authority of “science” as a stamp of legitimacy for themselves. They stated that they were doing scientific research or following a scientific method. Only someone familiar with science or a scientist himself would carry the insider knowledge to see that ARIGs nearly always fall short of this mark. The following quotes from ARIG websites hint at why these groups appeal to scientific authority to promote themselves:

  … in order to provide proof of an observation, one must connect it to some “provable” reality…. The result of backing up observations with science enforces reduction of heretical activities and engenders trust with a client1;

  … where observations become more powerful than myth2;

  Our scientific approach makes us one of the most comprehensive and accurate in the field.3

  Why appeal to scientific authority to promote their group? Because they believe scientific proof is the “best” kind of proof. They understand that scientific results are valued in our society as the high bar in support of a claim. The use of gadgetry and trappings of science look impressive to the client or audience, applying a veneer of whiz-bang legitimacy on to the activity. As one group above noted, equipment readings help to quell the reputation of gullibility and strangeness associated with belief in ghosts. It’s not just your imagination, there is something going on here, they conclude. ARIG participants and leaders use the trappings of science to show they deserve to be taken seriously because they were committed to a rigorous method of getting to the truth. The sciencey language and equipment is a key to projecting competence, professionalism, and reliability for many groups. Those that invoke science reveal a strong desire to be seen as more accurate and better qualified than the group on the other side of town or on a TV show. By sounding sciencey, ARIGs attempt to create special boundaries around themselves analogous to how scientists wall-off their territory of expertise from amateurs.

  Attempts at establishing legitimacy by appearing to be scientific are observable in ARIGs’ emphasis on systematic methods of investigation, use of highly technical and superficially impressive equipment, a set of training processes for members, and certification, affiliation or connections to schools, organizations and institutions. Yet, they have only borrowed the authority of science—some say “conjured” it (Toumey 1996) in the sense that it comes out of nowhere, without foundation. The average ARIG member has no scientific training. Therefore, their formal understanding of scientific research does not va
ry from that of another layperson. ARIGs perceive science through pop culture and everyday experience, same as the public. Yet, they invoke it and attempt to speak the language and follow the processes they think they should to be scientific in their endeavors. Unfortunately, confusion and muddled thinking regarding what science is and how to do it was apparent in the ARIGs’ materials. ARIG member frequently cite topics such as psychology, electricity, geology, zoology, and quantum physics as related to the paranormal, but they only have a cursory knowledge of these complex fields that require several years of dedicated formal education. Individuals conducting genuine scientific research would reasonably be expected to understand critical scientific concepts such as validity, controls, objectivity, bias, interference, statistical analysis, skepticism, and peer review, but these concepts are almost never mentioned in relation to ARIG processes. ARIGs conduct research and investigations with what they believe are sound methods, but, like actors on TV, they are playing a role. That role-playing may convince an audience or each other, but is cannot produce high-quality results that will be taken seriously outside of the paranormal community.

  ARIGs will frequently take a certain attitude towards the usefulness of science dependent upon its utility for a certain situation. That is, they will invoke science in one setting to appear credible, but reject it in another setting when the objective truths of science appear to create a hurdle to their preferred paranormal explanation. In deference to their belief in an ultra-normal entity or conclusion, they will depict science as stodgy and closed-minded, blind to the obvious paranormal conclusion. As an underdog versus orthodox science, they assume the role of the hero, to be mavericks, or to state they are doing cutting-edge science. Claiming of a special heroic, rebel role is also an ego boost. They feel they “know” a truth that has not yet been revealed and amateurs can revel in a sense of revenge against the institution of science (Pigliucci 2010).

  ARIGs also represent to the public an accessibility that one doesn’t have with professional science. It is difficult to corral an astronomer to help investigate your UFO report, and the wildlife officer will probably not take your Bigfoot sighting seriously. But ARIGs are glad to do assume the role of knowledgeable expert who will take our strange claim seriously. Trained scientists will quickly spot flaws in this game. They recognize all the potential pitfalls in relying on eyewitness stories that may produce mistaken or unfounded conclusions. Expert zoologists, geneticists, astronomers, and psychologists see through the ARIG’s sciencey language and attempts to sound sophisticated. Sounding sciencey only works well for those without high scientific literacy.

  Scientifical in the Media

  Where an earlier generation was inspired by In Search Of… and Unsolved Mysteries, the wave of ARIGs of the 21st century have stated outright that they are inspired by TV shows such as Ghost Hunters, Ghost Adventures, Monster Quest and Paranormal State (Potts 2004; Brown 2008). Admitting they were influenced by these shows strongly suggests that they believed (at least at one time) what they were viewing had some reasonable basis. ARIGs admit to the practice of taking notes from TV shows and explicitly following their procedures. For a specific example, I note how ghost investigators adopted the term “reveal” as used on Ghost Hunters to describe the discussion of evidence with the client. And, some, but not all, Bigfoot hunters have adopted the inelegant term “squatchin’” to describe their efforts seeking Sasquatch which was derived from the show Finding Bigfoot.

  ARIGs present a view of what it means to do science based on what they have gleaned from imagery of all kinds, descriptions in books, magazines, movies, television, and radio—the same as what the non-specialist public views. The mass media relies heavily on a high entertainment factor to maintain audience attention. Therefore, the mass media tells an exciting “story” of science (Gregory & Miller 2000) that does not accurately depict how genuine science works from day to day and long-term.

  Walter (2013) looked specifically at faith plus scientific aspects of paranormal television shows in the early 2000s. She concluded that the portrayal of investigators, namely those from Paranormal State, was a display designed for believers using science and technology to support explanations for entities based on faith. Selected, even contrived, elements of science were adapted to this paranormal conclusion. The acceptance of nonscientific faith and anecdote contrasted markedly with the technology and stated scientific methods utilized. Walters remarks that this scheme goes back to Victorian times, to the first scientists who investigated the unseen world with what was then modern technology of galvanometers and photography. This type of portrayal, blending common beliefs of the public with the appearance of scientific rationalism gives an impression of “common sense” research and conclusions. To those who already believe in the paranormal, such depictions are reinforcing. To those that don’t, the strange mix of faith and science is “uncomfortable,” an “amalgamation of fact and fiction,” producing an “authoritative artificial body of knowledge accepted as true by believers” (Walter 2013).

  She provides an excellent example referencing a Paranormal State episode where the Paranormal Research Society (PRS) team is helping a woman named Lara who supposedly is possessed by a demon:

  Because Lara’s case is so severe, however, the PRS team determines to use experimental “scientific” means in order to aid the religious efforts of all involved. To this end, Ryan [Buell willingly subjects himself to the Ganzfeld Experiment, in which ping-pong balls are taped over his eyes and noise-cancelling headphones pump static into his ears; as he stares into a red light, he is meant to experience a sort of blindness. Through this sensory deprivation [parapsychologists] believe that the subject lies often to extrasensory stimuli and might be able to see entities and ear voices from the invisible world. In addition to the Ganzfeld apparatus, Ryan dons the Shakti Helmet, a device developed by neurotheologist Michael Persinger in the 1980s; Persinger argued that electromagnetic frequencies might very well facilitate clairvoyance and spirit communication. By combining the Ganzfeld experiment with the Shakti Helmet, Ryan hopes to attract the demons to himself while giving Lara a rest from possession and, through this, a glimpse at a future free from Satan’s grip…. Ryan narrates the demons’ voices and actions, thereby using “science” to validate their existence for viewers who already believe in them…. Through masterful editing, this stew of religious signifiers, scientific “data,” bits of history and testimony, as well as the reactions of the participants are woven together into a seemingly cohesive narrative imbued with meaning for believers.

  For nonbelievers, she continues, this narrative is “completely disjointed and utterly absurd” (Walter 2013). A similar situation manifests whenever the onscreen investigators attribute every anomaly of sight, sound, smell, or feel to the subject entity: a bad smell is connected to Bigfoot, a coldness is said to be a ghost. The factualness is manufactured for television. The editing amplifies the reactions and removes any doubt that might manifest. ARIGs that are experienced watchers of these shows will now equate these happenings with their beliefs. If they believe a house is haunted or a Bigfoot is nearby, this is the narrative they adopt. However, after trying field investigations for themselves, ARIGs will admit it’s not at all like you see on TV. The hours are long, the conditions sometimes downright awful, maybe dangerous, and the work often tedious, boring or difficult. Yet, guided by what they see described as “evidence” on TV, they obtain results, if not quite as dramatically, that they use to inform the public.

  All these witness accounts used to justify media stories and TV shows suggest to some observers that “there must be something to it.” But not many dig into the details to see if the core claims and evidence have merit, we just accept them into our respective worldviews. Thanks to the proliferation of these stories, there appears to be an awful lot of “smoke” that leads people to conclude “fire.” Instead, a cultural interpretation makes a lot more sense. We’ve become familiar with ghosts, UFOs, and cryptid sighting
s through media and social exchanges. The truth is not a single entity or monster, but a complex interaction of perception, reaction, and cultural ideas that keeps changing and spreading through society (Loxton & Prothero 2013).

  Sciencey-Sounding Language

  The most common means to create a scientific impression by ARIGs was the liberal use of the words science, scientific, or science-related jargon and titles. Peppering their language with “scientific” this or that–—methods, approaches, equipment, procedures, or solutions—is their avenue to add an air of seriousness and legitimacy to their work. Several sites had specific sections pertaining to the “science” of their activities. Commonly used terms (or variations) used in the text include sciencey-sounding words like “frequency,” “resonance,” “energy,” “quantum,” “magnetic,” “environmental,” and “electric.” They will preface use of these words by saying, “Experts theorize” or “A popular hypothesis is…” The words “theory” and “hypothesis” are science-speak and are used to convey a more sophisticated meaning to what another observer might call a supposition, a guess, or an idea. Using these academic terms suggests that the idea is supported by other persons. (See the section on Paranormal Theories.)

  “Quantum” is possibly the most popular sciencey-sounding word used by pseudoscientists in the 21st century. The use of “quantum” by non-scientists should set off alarm bells that the speaker is deliberately attempting to manufacture credibility he does not have. Quantum mechanics, a complex theory that requires immense background knowledge to understand, is so peculiar that scientists outside the field of theoretical physics have a difficult time grasping the concepts let alone being able to adequately explain it. The complexity and uncertain understanding by all except specialized scholars opens a wide space for creative speculation and misuse of the term.