Scientifical Americans

by Sharon A. Hill

  Spirits or entities. Many ARIGs connect cryptids to myths and legends of native people. The animals may not be flesh and blood physical beasts but gods or demons in animal form, guardian spirits, or protectors.

  Zooform phenomena. These are materializations of animal-like creatures. They are said to be conjured by human thought, also known as tulpas. Because they are not biological entities, they have supernatural behaviors.

  Aliens or alien pets. Some cryptids are so weird in their descriptions that people think they are not from this world. They are aliens sent to explore earth, or, they are alien “pets” left here when the UFOs exited. They can also have paranormal qualities such as instantaneously blipping out of existence or associated with a UFO sighting, their assumed transport.

  Mutants and hybrid animals. Animals found long-dead or reported from fleeting observations may not be readily correlated to their familiar living state. Some illnesses, injuries, genetic abnormalities or anomalies and decomposition effects render a common animal to looking abnormal or very weird, preventing immediate identification. When witnesses are not familiar with these conditions, they assume that’s what it is supposed to look like. Trying to make sense of an identification based on what they know, amateurs resort to concluding the creatures are some genetic mutant or a hybrid monster. Media reports will latch on to extraordinary claims that the weird sightings or remains are from experiments gone wrong or escapees from a secret government testing lab.

  Misidentification of real animals, people or things. Many tree stumps have been labeled “Bigfoot” in photographs. Any dark object among the vegetation that vaguely resembles an ape-like form becomes a “blobsquatch.” Any decomposing carcass or hairless carnivore is labeled “Chupacabra.” Waves, birds, floating debris, and swimming deer are reported to be lake monsters. Pareidolia is rampant in cryptozoology. Night-vision cameras can capture real animals and people with enough vagueness to be counted as unusual. Unfortunately, many witnesses and even researchers put little effort into identifying the creature as something already known, and quickly resort to making it mysterious.

  Inter-dimensional visitors. As with UFOs and ghosts, the “visitors from other dimensions” is a catch-all, open-ended, no-rules explanation. A portal to the other dimension allows the animal to disappear without a trace, as is often reported with cryptids.

  Hoaxes. Hoaxes are part and parcel of cryptozoology. From people modifying real animals to look odd, releasing non-native animals to freak out the locals, fake footprints, photos and videos including people dressed up in costumes, the hoax must always be considered. Hoaxes make the news and give the hoaxer a jolt of satisfaction.

  From all these examples we can see that most paranormal theories are speculative, vague, and esoteric ideas that are highly creative and interesting but are difficult or impossible to test and have no prior plausibility to be true. Speculation is useful to create new ideas, but the follow-through must occur whereby the idea blossoms or dies. Novel ideas have come out of science but the scrutiny of such ideas takes a huge effort (Dolby 1975). ARIGs’ creative theories come with ample imaginative thought and are delivered with sincerity and commitment, but little to no evidential support. Instead of saying “I don’t know,” ARIGs create an explanatory framework that is satisfying to them and an audience may accept it. Many of these theories sound sciencey and plausible to those who don’t know much about physics and biology. Yet, the evidence used to promote such fringe ideas is not convincing to professionals in related fields, not helped by their inherent implausibility, they are completely rejected by mainstream science.

  Paranormal theories meant to explain weird experiences ultimately create more problems than they solve since we would have to rewrite much of what we already have established to be true. The solution ARIGs use to maintain their favorite theories is to skip the scientific gauntlet and appeal directly to the public. When these colorful and interesting (but baseless) ideas are picked up by the public, they gain popularity. Reliable knowledge and scientific conclusions are considered boring, tossed out for the more exciting and controversial “theories” which can be more aptly called “wild guesses.”

  Contacting Scientific-Minded Groups

  To provide greater resolution into the reasoning why certain groups exhibited strong scientificity, I contacted via email thirty groups that clearly advocated a “scientific” method in their name and/or website presentation to request additional information about how they apply “science” or consider themselves “scientific.” Of the thirty, eight replied to the questions listed below.

  • What is it about your methods/procedures do you consider “scientific” in nature?

  • Do you utilize methods that are non-scientific? Please describe what these methods are.

  • Are any of your members trained in scientific methodology? That is, do they have experience in conducting scientific research outside of paranormal investigation?

  • What forms of data could you supply to the scientific community to consider?

  Of those who did reply, they exhibited a guarded attitude and suspicion in speaking to me. When asked directly about the scientificity of their groups, the representatives included qualifying information or, surprisingly, immediately retreated from a strictly scientific methodology: “I wouldn’t say that are [sic] methods are necessarily scientific,” one wrote to me, even though that was clearly stated on their website. One group, who stated that they were unbiased but that use a “scientific approach with a religious basis,” responded to a question regarding what it is about their methods/procedures that is considered “scientific” by replying, “Some of our scientific methods are trying to find an explanation for what may have occurred by in depth [sic] research and investigation to try and explain and/or re-create what may have occurred under controlled conditions.” I did not, however, see any evidence of in-depth research and controlled conditions in their reports. This suggests they were not thorough in their documentation or they regularly did not fulfill those standards.

  Another representative qualified their data sets by noting they may be unreliable or mistaken. They understood it may be impossible to attribute any event to paranormal activity. Another noted that their data “must largely be accepted on trust—trust that they haven’t forged or altered it.” They also admit that their methods are “experimental, untested and unverified.” One ARIG leader expressed the feeling that the scientific community would never consider any of the evidence and that there cannot be scientific proof of an afterlife. These responses were odd in that they deviated from their public web statements. How quick they were to back down when called on their scientific credentials! Those who admirably admitted that to be strictly “scientific” is difficult and that their results will likely not convince the scientific community recognized they are not recording evidence of paranormal activity in a consistent, repeatable manner. And no one collection of data has been enough to confirm a haunting to a wide audience. But paranormal questions don’t easily lend themselves to direct testing under controlled conditions. To do so is extremely difficult, time consuming, and would cost a great deal to carry out.

  A few ARIGs are adamant about being scientific and do not demur, insisting that they have very high standards. One ARIG leader, who is not a scientist, stated that she teaches classes in the scientific method for paranormal investigators. There are no state laws against impersonating a credentialed scientist in this manner but it smacks of pretense.28

  When asked what evidence they could provide to the scientific community, groups acknowledged the shortcomings of their evidence or provided just vague answers. ARIGs do not typically submit evidence to the scientific community. Only a rare few groups have members with any connections to an academic. ARPAST is one well-established group that portrayed a high degree of scientificity on their site. I contacted them as one of the thirty groups but they did not respond to my questions. ARPAST is unique in that they state on their site that they
are “collaborating with doctors, scientists, universities, and other legitimate science-based organizations to build and utilize a research database.” Access to the database is restricted to “legitimate scientific research organizations only.” I requested access to this database under the auspices of this research project by completing the application as required but received no response. No names or credentials regarding the aforementioned professionals noted could be found nor were any citations given to suggest use of the database for research. Thus, I could find no evidence that backed up the claim that they are collaborating with scientists, nor did I find results of such collaboration. If they indeed are doing that, it’s either not been useful or results of such research was not shared.

  In their replies to my questions about why they consider themselves scientific, ARIGs indirectly revealed that they were fully aware they were doing a good bit of acting for the sake of looking more credible. They understood that this was not formal science, that it was an approximation. ARIG spokespeople appear confident and comfortable appealing to the public’s sense of what is scientific (based on television portrayal of science), but they equivocate when confronted by a knowledgeable inquirer. They perceive this weak spot even if they don’t admit it to each other or themselves. When probed to think about it, they show awareness that a more accurate scientific process would be more rigorous, far more difficult, and perhaps a lot less fun than what they do now. Ghost hunters already find it boring to listen through hours of audio recordings. Cryptid- and UFO-seekers sit out on cold nights in remote areas. It’s not glamorous! They seem to wish to do science the best they can but only to a point; then the effort becomes too laborious or impossible.

  10

  Methods and Evidence

  “Evidence” is anything put forward in support of an argument. A broad term, many different kinds of evidence can be identified depending on the situation you are in including facts, judgments, observations, experimental results or collected objects. There is strong evidence and less-strong evidence. Part of collecting evidence means paying attention to the context in which the evidence is collected. Evidence can be high or low in quality and anywhere in between. Empirical evidence, such as experiments and recorded observations, is required in science. But empirical evidence can be worthless if not scrutinized, controlled, and focused. Thus, the method of examining the data is critical. In science, the empirical method means moving from observed facts to explanatory theories. (See the section called What Is Science in Chapter 8.)

  Not all ARIG websites have evidence from their investigations available for public viewing or even have it in a format available to non-members. Several sites state concern for their client’s confidentiality and display no results without permission. Most sites do have one or more categories of evidence for public access, typically photographs, audio recordings, and video clips. For some ARIGs with a strong belief and a lesser emphasis on scientificity, it’s not important to ask for evidence or proof of a claim. As with religion, it’s socially improper to ask a person to justify a belief (Denzler 2003). Belief is often deemed to outrank any “proof” for many people. Invested believers don’t require evidence and often don’t care what others think about them.

  While viewing the evidence, it’s important to distinguish between data and interpretation of that data. Equipment used by ARIGs are tools to measure environmental conditions. The equipment itself does not make a conclusion; it produces data that must be analyzed and interpreted before it can applied to a certain conclusion. Several pitfalls lie in the path from obtaining the data to making conclusions from it, especially if the context of the evidence is ignored. What follows is a brief summary of the various examples that appear on ARIG websites as evidence and the means by which they collect the evidence typically attributed to paranormal causes.

  People as Instruments

  The typical ARIG process often described on their websites consists of eyewitness interviews, site visit(s) with equipment setup, collection of data in usually one, but possibly multiple, days/nights, analysis of data, presentation of the results to the client, and a write-up or record of the investigation. This process varies depending on the data set collected (e.g., in the case of a UFO sighting or no-data-collected, there will be no presentation of results). Since the focus is on an unusual phenomena, ARIGs are faced with the problems of non-reproducibility and subjective interpretation. In other words, this is a difficult subject to study in the real world that is messy and influenced by countless factors outside the investigators’ control. However, throughout time to present day, the evidence most used by ARIGs is the least useful in terms of getting to the truth—eyewitnesses testimony and anecdotes. Personal experience and testimonials comprise almost all the persuasive evidence in books on these topics. It is simply recorded and accepted at face value. Testimony is privileged over empirical data by most people (Blancke et al. 2016). They will intuitively trust the witness and not examine the claims of the witness too deeply, if at all. A common instruction given to ARIG investigators by leaders tell them to trust their feelings, that “you are the best instrument.” It’s true that you are the best instrument to produce subjective feelings, but not objective results. Extensive experiments and large formal and informal studies have, without a doubt, determined that humans are very unreliable observers. As an example of the real-world ramifications of this issue, consider the people who were put in jail by convincing eyewitness testimony alone only to be later released by DNA or other physical evidence that acquitted them. Yet, we’ve all heard people say “I know what I saw!” The hard truth is that they do not know what they saw. They have interpreted what they saw. Their senses gathered information and their brain built an impression of it based on the individual’s existing worldview and experience. Then, it was stored in memory and later related to another person. Errors can occur in each of these steps to foul the factual account.

  Scientific research is designed to minimize mistakes and bias of personal perception as much as possible. People are “complex instruments” of observation because of our mistaken perception and misinterpretation (Morrison 1972). Yet, ARIGs commonly note that they use themselves as the primarily tool, erroneously assuming that humans are a reliable instrument for recording data through perception: “We should be using ourselves as the first tool, then, technology … our minds tell us what’s real and what isn’t.”1 This is precisely upside down.

  Special weight is provided to those witnesses in professional positions such as policemen, doctors, pilots, or scientists. Even stories told by respected witnesses like pilots, or trained observers like scientists, are prone to be mistaken or embellished to the point of being wrong (Loftus 1996). While some may be trained to observe in their area of expertise, such observation skills do not preclude errors in perception or translate to other types of observations, especially under less-than-ideal circumstances. Even though it is a commonly circulated analogy, human memory is not at all like a tape recorder.

  Some people are what Lamont (2007) calls “believers in waiting.” When asked, they will say they are skeptical of the existence of ghosts, UFOs or strange creatures but are ready and willing to believe given their own experience. Because the average person is not at all well-versed in understanding how flawed our perceptions and memories can be; if they have an experience that they interpret in a certain way, that interpretation becomes a memory. That memory is re-formed each time it is related. Because humans are cognizant of the context of a situation, if the experience is later related to a sympathetic listener, the presentation will be different than if related to a doubtful listener or a less enthusiastic audience. How the event is subsequently described to others changes the memory. Famous paranormal cases are notoriously inconsistent over years as people’s stories change or they “remember” something new. Telling your eyewitness testimony to a listener can be less an objective account of what happened than a personal catharsis. In that sense, testimony loses important inform
ation and gains possibly misleading information for the person who is collecting memories of eyewitnesses as evidence. Anyone who conducts any type of investigation should understand the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and memory. Use of individual personal accounts as the main evidence, requires understanding of the limitations and problems that can occur with perception, retaining memories, and retrieving and retelling from memory. An indispensable volume on how this process can go wrong is Eyewitness Testimony by Elizabeth F. Loftus (originally published in 1976, now updated).

  Disagreement is heated between those who accept these anecdotes at face value and the more skeptical audience who knows that this form of evidence is sometimes useless to determine what factually happened. The reliability of eyewitness testimony and anecdotes forms an unbridgeable chasm between those who accept or do not accept paranormal claims. For some, the anecdotes are all that are required. For others, the stories are unverified and not reliable as evidence at all. The truth may be somewhere in the middle as anecdotes over time might suggest that something interesting is going on but the anecdotes themselves are not sound data. Anyone who says that our minds are arbiters of what is real (or not) is misguided and could be dangerously misled by that assumption into making flawed conclusions about many aspects of life.