THE SKEPTICAL SPIDER
The Skeptical Spider is a monthly column from Relax. I'm an arachnologist. which takes an unapologetic stance on science and skepticism with just a touch of humor. While it's focus is primarily arachnology, there is nothing that is off limits. It may contain some harsh language and may deal with issues and present concepts which some individuals may find offensive. If you wish to submit an idea for future topics, leave a comment on this post.
This month's subject is:
CRYPTOZOOLOGY EXAMINED
For every science, there seems to be a pseudoscience that trails happily along in its wake, gaining proponents even though they seldom make any real discoveries for themselves. Sometimes these are precursors to modern scientific disciplines (for example, the science of astronomy and the pseudoscience of astrology) or are completely new ideas that have formed after major discoveries in a legitimate scientific field (example: Deepak Chopra's "quantum consciousness" hypothesis in the wake of real discoveries made in quantum mechanics). Biology in general, and zoology in particular, has it's own pseudoscience counterpart - cryptozoology, the "study of hidden animals". This has seemingly become quite a popular subject for the layperson, something that seemingly responsible "science" program channels (Science channel, Discovery, and Animal Planet) have picked up on. Animal planet has released no less than three pseudoscience documentaries ("Dragons: A fantasy made real"; "Mermaids: The Body Found"; "Mermaids: The New Evidence", at least two of which were not properly and clearly labeled to viewers as fiction) and Discovery began it's 2013 Shark Week run with a similar pseudoscientific, cryptozoological mockumentary "Megaladon: The Monster Shark Lives."
To reiterate the position I'm taking on this, I should acknowledge the fact that, in my pre-academic life, I was a big proponent of cryptozoology. And that is the hub of which this essay rests, the things which I eventually realized weren't accurate with that position. There are, at best, two credible personages in the cryptozoology movement - the first is Idaho State University professor of anatomy and anthropology Don Jeffery Meldrum, who collects and has analyzed perported Sasquatch foot-casts and has extensively analyzed the infamous video (more on that later); the other is host of the Animal Planet series "River Monsters" Jeremy Wade, if he can even be said to be a cryptozoologist (he defines himself as simply a biologist). Most other personas in the "field" are nowhere near reliable, taking too much stock in eyewitness testimony (the lowest form of evidence in science). Then there are the outright frauds, like (as I will discuss in detail later) "Doctor" Melba Ketchum, who claims big things about sasquatch. But more on that later.
A Brief Overview
Cryptozoology is often billed by proponents as the study of hidden animals. By hidden, they mean undiscovered by science, although several of the animals they search for (dubbed cryptids by believers) have existed in the past; such animals include Megalania and the Tasmanian wolf. (A partial list can be found here.) The lure of the unknown is powerful, and the idea of discovering a new animals is something that drives every imagination wild. But is cryptozoology really what is claims to be, the engine that searches for new zoological discoveries? Are they on the precipice of a new ape species, or a totally new form of life that feeds off the blood of goats in Latin America?
We first have to establish what science is, and what science is not. For example, science is the appropriate use of the scientific method to discover truths about the natural world in which we live. Physics, chemistry, and biology are the three main examples, on which all other disciplines (organic chemistry, biochemetry, theoretical physics, arachnology, anthropology) are based. Preceding those, and perhaps the only discipline with the ability to prove anything with certainty, is mathematics. Science does not look to prove things, rather, it looks to disprove them; this is done with a pair of hypotheses (usually a pair, although, in more complicated scenarios, more than two hypotheses can exist), a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default position, and it is the hypothesis which is always worked on initially. (Example: "Giant spiders do not exist in the Amazon rain forest.") The alternative hypothesis is, essentially, all other hypotheses that are not the null (Example: "Giant spiders do exist in the Amazon rain forest.") and it is important to note that, unless the null hypothesis is shown to be incorrect, nothing is ever done with the alternative hypothesis. Null and alternative are widely used in statistics, but can be applied to all science disciplines.
Another aspect of science is that the scientific process takes into account the well known pitfalls of the human brain. The human brain, as remarkable as it is, is not perfect. Healthy brains commit logical fallacies all the time (we are, for example, prone to think that if one thing follows the other, the first must have caused the other, which is obviously not always the correct assumption), and have even been known to hallucinate. Fear, or other strong emotions, can alter the way our brains receive, interpret, and store information in what is known as a "flashbulb memories" which, although people may swear by them, are often found to be erroneous. Primo Levi, the Italian-Jewish chemist and writer, once described memory as
Human memory is a marvelous but fallacious instrument. The memories which lie within us are not carved in stone; not only do they tend to become erased as time goes by, but often they change, or even increase by incorporating extraneous features.Despite popular opinion, and what people may claim until they're blue in their face, people don't always know what they saw. Of course, if there are more eyewitnesses, it can be assumed that the details are more accurate; after all, what are the chances that multiple people will have the same hallucination or make the same mistake in assessing the situation they are looking at? This could be debated, but there is no reason to assume that more eyewitnesses means that the story is accurate. The brain is suggestible, a suggesting that that floating log may be the Loch Ness Monster may taint other eyewitnesses on the seen who, until recently, thought they were just looking at a log (this is essentially how the purported phenomena of "electronic voice phenomena", or "EVP", works; nobody can understand what it says until somebody makes a suggestion, and then everybody can suddenly hear it crystal clear.) The group of people may simply just be out to make money or get attention; with things such as cryptozoology apparently good moneymakers, "seeing" the Nessie might be assessed as a slick way to make some cash. Or it may be a simple mistake by all of them; expecting to see the legendary Scottish lake monster may lead them so take every floating log or every wake as evidence of Nessie (or the monster herself). Such mistakes are known as pareidolia, or apophenia.
A well known case of apophenia is the face on mars. Subsequent,
better quality,photographs show the lack of any facial features in the
famous Martian geological formation; the original face was nothing more
than the brain looking for meaning in random patterns.
Perhaps the most important thing science allows the human brain to do is to objectively assess a situation or a concept. Humans are not the best when it comes to being objective; we've all our pet ideas or pet peeves. A well known example of this is called the confirmation bias - people will look for evidence, but will only accept the evidence which fits their existing worldview or opinions. Any evidence which would negate that worldview - however qualified and accepted that evidence may be - will simply be ignored. This is one of the most common, and most intellectually damning, of all the logical fallacies. The other being the famous post hoc ergo propter hoc, in which two events are seen, and the immediate conclusion of the human brain is to assume the first event caused the second.
Cryptozoology is chalk full of such logical fallacies. Cryptozoologist believe that the giant lizard Megalania prisca is still alive in the Australian outback, despite all evidence to the contrary, because of a few anecdotes from farmers. This is utter poppycock; as an animal that fed on the Australian megafauna, Megalania would, without a doubt, be taking out cows at least once in a while, and we would probably expect to see kangaroo populations take a hit as well. This would all prompt a search for the missing animals and, ultimately, the lizards discovery. This is because farmers, wherever they are, depend on their herds for their livelihood; if even one goes missing, they're going to bug out about it until they either have their cow back or some answers in lieu of the cow; likewise, game wardens aren't likely to sit around while kangaroo and other native species populations inexplicably decrease.
But there is one cryptid which may, in fact, be at least more plausible than the rest, even though the search for it is as laden with poppycock as the rest of cryptozoology.
But there is one cryptid which may, in fact, be at least more plausible than the rest, even though the search for it is as laden with poppycock as the rest of cryptozoology.
Sasquatch - The Great American Non-Human Ape?
If there is one terrestrial cryptid that has serious street credit, it is undoubtedly Sasquatch. The reported North American ape has a level of credibility few other cryptids have for the simple fact that, as the famous skeptic Michael Shermer is quoted as saying in Don Jeffrey Meldrum's book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science:.....while occasionally eliciting an acerbic snicker, [it] enjoys greater plausibility [than the jackalope] for a simple evolutionary reason: large hirsute apes currently roam the forests of Africa, and at least one giant ape - Gigantopithecus - flourished some hundreds of thousands of years ago alongside our ancestors.Also known as "Bigfoot", Sasquatch is a large, bipedal, non-human ape that is said to roam the wilds of North America, particularlly the Pacific Northwest and the upper potion of California. The story originally appeared in the public eye in 1958, with the famous Bluff Creek trackway, now believed to be a hoax. It is widely held by skeptics (myself included) that while it is possible for such a substantially sized animal to exist in North America, many of the reported sightings and trackways are wrong identifications or outright hoaxes.Several individuals have indeed come out claiming to have hoaxed people, including: Tom Biscardi (a cryptozoologist), who hoaxed people on the paranormal radio show Coast to Coast AM; the son of Ray Wallace, who hoaxed the original Bluff Creek footprints, who has in his possession the original wooden feet used to perpetrate the hoax; Bob Herionimus claims to have been the Sasquatch in the Patterson/Gimlin film (the subject lovingly referred to as "Patty"); Rick Dyer and Matthew Whitton, of Georgia, United States, claimed to have had a dead non-human, native ape in their possession, only to reveal that it was nothing more than a monkey suit in a freezer. In 2012, a man in Montana, who had actually dressed in a Ghillie suit to hoax a Sasquatch, was actually hit by two cars and killed.
One of the photographs of the Gerogia bigfoot hoax.
Spoiler alert: carcass made in China.
Well, before we close the case on this, we have to remember one thing: if people can't be famous for doing good, they'll go for infamous for doing something stupid. Many debunkers jumped on the story when Bob Heironimus claimed to have been the man in the suit at Bluff Creek when the P/G film was shot. Why would he lie? Well, aside from the hoaxed Surgeon's Photograph of Nessie, Heironimus would have been involved in one of the most successful hoaxes in recent history. His walk in the monkey suit would have tricked millions; he would have a lot to gain by claiming to be the hoaxer, as it turns out. And, indeed, it would seem he is telling the truth, as he passed a polygraph test - until you realize that polygraphs are unreliable and incredibly controversial themselves.
The P/G film brings us to the person involved with the Sasquatch phenomena who is perhaps the most qualified to make any claims about it - Professor Don Jeffrey Meldrum of Idaho State University. Holding B.S. in biological sciences specializing in vertebrate locomotion and a Ph.D. in anatomical science with an emphasis on biological anthropology, Meldrum is a far cry from the other "cryptozoologist" such as Matt Monkeymaker, Loren Coleman, or any of the other Sasquatch "researchers" (who have apparently all decided that hunting for an unknown ape cannot possibly be done without some style of cowboy hat).
Professor Don Jeffrey Meldrum of Idaho
State University. With a large collection
of "Sasquatch" trackways, he is also probably
the only popular Sasquatch researcher with such
a handsome and professional-looking beard.
Professor Don Jeffrey Meldum interviewed by Joe Rogan
on the show Joe Rogan Questions Everything.
Despite his qualifications, Meldrum has found himself at odds with other respectable authorities. When an anomalous photo of a creature surfaced (image below), forest officials identified it as a bear with mange, while Meldrum said that the limb proportions were not proportional with the limbs of a bear. Having a background in vertebrate locomotion, Meldrum's main interest in the Sasquatch reports is footprints. As such, he has collected a large sampling of Sasquatch casts.
And then there's this. An ape, or a bear with mange? Does
anybody have any idea? Anybody at all?
These casts are what set the Sasquatch idea apart from other, more nebulous cryptozoology ideas. While most "cryptozoological mysteries" revolve almost entirely around eyewitness testimony, the Sasquatch movement has (rather refreshingly) objective evidence which can be seen by anybody, and which (more importantly) has been collected, looked at, and catalouged by a person with the proper background to be doing such work. Meldrum is a likable fellow, with the proper background to evaluate the evidence, which is (alarmingly) a rare thing in a "discipline" with such rabid proponents as cryptozoology. Where's your Jeff Meldrum, Loch Ness?
The "Doctor" Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA "Study"
On the opposite end of the spectrum from Jeff Meldrum is Melba Ketchum, a person who even outdoes Matt Moneymaker (the lead "investigator" from Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot) in terms of Squatchiness. Based in Texas and the figurehead for the Sasquatch Genome Project, she recently made headlines when she announced the findings of a DNA study. The results of this were astonishing for two reasons: (1) the announcement was made before the article on the findings had even been successfully submitted to any scientific, peer-reviewed journal, and (2) it not only verified the DNA tested as belonging to a Sasquatch, it was announced that it was a hybrid of a non-human/unknown ape and a human female, and that, to further complicate the issue, they should be issued human rights under the American Constitution. Yeah, you read that right.
Melba Ketchum, lead author of the "Sasquatch
DNA study" and figurehead of the "Sasquatch
Genome Project".
Is this the conclusive proof everybody has been waiting for? Will this finally solve the mystery of the non-human North American ape? Spoiler alert: no. Not only did Ketchum catch a lot of trouble from skeptics, but she was ridiculed by people in the Bigfoot community itself. Think about that - her paper and conclusions were so out there that people who believe Sasquatch is an alien from a UFO were making fun of her. That's a hard thing to pull off.
The Issues with the "Study"
Issue #1: The major submitter of samples was also a major financier of the project.
The first issue with this study is that, while Ketchum claims to have done everything needed to prevent contamination of the samples tested, she did not collect said samples herself. She was sent them from another party; as such, no matter how careful her and her team were not to contaminate the samples, no direct statement can be made on the purity of the samples. They may very well have been contaminated before they came into her possession. They were collected from "dozens of individuals and groups from thirty four separate hominin collection sites across North America" (from Ketchum's own paper). Essentially, they studied random submissions from people who had told her they had access to unknown ape genetic material.
This doesn't seem so bad at first. This is how most genetic testing is done - somebody claims to have a sample they want analyzed, they find a genetics laboratory that is willing to do the work, and they end up - some time and some cost later - with an answer. Sometimes the answer isn't what they want - such as "this shows that your werewolf was really a raccoon", "this man wasn't the killer", or "these Sasquatch samples are at best inconclusive, at worst outright frauds" - and other times the answer is what they wanted to hear.
One of the submitters even went so far as to release the above photograph of a "sleeping juvenile Sasquatch". It seems totally legit - if you think a generic, somewhat-human looking lump of random fur is enough to prove the existence of a legendary creature, as cyrptids are sometimes referred to. Some, if not all, of the groups which submitted evidence have names that smack of confirmation bias: "Arizona Cryptozoological Research Organization"; "Crypto Four Corners"; "North American Bigfoot Search"; "TexLa Cryptozoological Research Group"; "The Erickson Project"; "The Olympic Project;" and "Weird Research and Investigating the Haunted". Oh, yeah, another side note that utterly destroys the objectivity of this so-called "study" - one of the primary individuals who funded this research was Adrian Erickson, the person who founded "The Erickson Project" and who took the above picture of a sleeping "Sasquatch".
Yes, that's right. The guy who is paying Dr. Ketchum's team to "discover" this unknown ape species through genetic research also happens to be one of the guys who brought them their samples and photographic evidence, all while maintaining he's in contact with real-life non-human, North American primates. According to the Sasquatch Genome Project, Erickson started his Sasquatch project not to determine if such a creature actually existed (because, remember, he's sure he knows what he saw), but to verify what he thinks he encountered. If this isn't a clear case of confirmation bias, we must not know what confirmation bias is.
"I'm Adrian Erickson, and I have no idea
what a null hypothesis is."
Issue #2: Lack of proper peer review of the article, The DeNovo Journal, and claims of bias from "mainstream" science journals.
Another issue with the study is that is was never properly peer-reviewed by a major scientific journal. Dr. Ketchum, of course, attributes this to an inherent bias in the way science works. Such a claim is usual in those who do not understand the checks and balances which are built into the process of science; by using peer-review from experts around the world, all vying for substantial scientific recognition among their peers. This means that, if there is a bad idea or a faulty study, it is going to be called out, and eventually culled from the herd of ideas making their way through the scientific community. This is why science is the most important way by which we know what is true and what is not true.
Ketchum's claims of turning away her study because it found a new human/ape hybrid species is bloody bollocks. Such a discovery would make whoever discovered it (in this case, Ketchum et al.) and the journal it appeared in famous overnight. Scientists don't go down in history for being yes-people; Darwin, Galileo, Einstein, and others are all famous not for finding evidence which supported prior concepts, but for discovering ideas which overturned or severely modified preexisting scientific principles. In science, the most exciting thing is not the validation of the null hypothesis, but the rejection of the null hypothesis; it may ultimately lead to a Nobel Prize. There's no doubt that, if the Ketchum "study" had been a legitimate scientific endeaver, Nature would love to publish the article. It would be the publisher of one of the major news stories of the new century.
So, what did the Ketchum do once the bullies of mainstream science rejected her obviously brilliant and not-at-all-biased-or-incorrect study? She bought - bought - a small journal known as DeNovo, which she then used to distribute her study. Originally, it could be bought for $30 dollars, which is rather steep for an online journal. Especially when said online journal only has one article in it.
DeNovo - Accelerating science, or science fiction?
Issue #3: Online behavior for the Dr. Melba Ketchum Facebook page.
Another main issue isn't so much with the article or the study itself, but with the way Melba Ketchum and crew run the Melba Ketchum Faecbok page - namely, if you're not offering your unquestioning support to their quest to overcome the Sasquatch-denying bigots, then you're blocked from commenting. And don't try to message her (or them?) asking how they can verify the validity of their results, because they won't get back to you. Trust me, I've tried. They later took down the message feature so that only they can post things, and the only people who can comment on their posts are people who are telling them what a wonderful job their doing. Now, can we say that the entire project is bunk simply because they don't want to deal with skeptical critics of their work. Of course, not. But we can say that such behavior is most unusual, especially from somebody who really should have anticipated such a reaction from scientifically literate people.
Meanwhile, In Arachnology.....
To compare the fruits of cryptozoology with the fruits of other biological sciences, let's choose a discipline almost at random. Arachnology - the study of spiders, scorpions, and their kin. Reddit, Facebook, and online science websites were set ablaze when a bizarre, silken fence was discovered in the Amazon rainforest. While not technically a subject of arachnology (the species of animal which made this has yet to be identified, and it may be a moth or butterfly just as well as a spider), it is a perfect example of the redundancies of cryptozoology. This is a bizarre biological puzzle that has people scratching their heads, and not once was it made to be something it's not. It's been hypothesized that whatever made this fence and cocoon/eggsac may be a species previously undiscovered by science.Why didn't cryptozoologists ever talk about things like this? Probably because cryptozoologists seem to think that all "hidden animals" are big, sexy beasts and not small insects, arachnids, or microorganisms, when the truth is almost the complete opposite. For example, ~43,000 species of spiders are known, and it's estimated that at least that many remain unknown to science. On the few occasions when cryptozoologists look at the possibility of undiscovered spider species, they always assume it's a giant spider (or sulfugid), even though such a thing would be a clear violation of the square-cube law.
What a surprise; once again, History misrepresents science
and promotes ignorance on something that should be
perfectly obvious.
While it is indeed possible that these could have been made by a caterpillar of a moth or butterfly,
it seems more likely that, given the complexity of the silk-work, it would have been made by a
spider - organisms known for their elaborate silk weaving.
Scientist love to name things. Especially if they can name if after themselves (although their findings are often named after the major financier of their research). This is what makes the central principle of cryptozoology so outlandish - they seem to believe that scientists have stopped looking for new things completely. Any scientist would love to be the one to find a new species and have his name go down in the textbooks. Zoologists are always looking for new species, and they're usually better trained in the use of scientific devices (as well a critical thinking and scientific methods) than the self-proclaimed cryptozoologists. Arachnology has found several new species of spiders and is discovering more about them every day. It was recently suggested by evidence that spiders may have personalities. Think about that - spiders, the very animals so many people fear, may have personalities, making them more like to us than before. We value personalities in ourselves, we see them in dogs, we see them in cats and other complex beings - to discover evidence which suggests that spiders have personalities is utterly amazing, something that can blow the mind.
Another example from arachnology that trumps anything cryptozoology could produce are the recent spider discoveries. Two new species of previously unknown spiders were found in Uruguay. The story was reported on Science Daily on October 3, 2013. The two species, dubbed Chaco castanea and Chaco costai, were discovered in river coastal habitats. Before that, in July 2013, a one centimeter long wandering spider called Ctenus monaghan was discovered during the filming of a documentary called "Wild Things."
"By all means, keep looking for el Chuparabra. That way you
won't squish me."
Where Does That Leave Cryptozoology?
Allow a blunt assessment of the "field" of cryptozoology - it is at best an unregulated, unscientific hobby in which the vast majority of self-labeled "researchers" lack the objectivity and scientific training to substantiate the claims which they assert, and, at its worst, cryptozoology is the promotion of outright frauds and fables to honest people as truth in exchange for money. New species are discovered all the time, but cryptozoologist routinely tell the public that science has stopped looking, or is hiding and/or ignoring evidence of unknown lake monsters, chimeras, or ape/human hybrids. They insist that every unknown animal is a sexy mystery when the majority of unknown animals are tarantula-sized or smaller. Cryptozoologists themselves are unnecessary; of the animals they claim support the field of cryptozoology, not one animal has been found by a cryptozoologist. Every animal has either been found by complete chance (the Coelocanth, long touted by cryptozoologists as proof their field is necessary, was found by a fisherman), by respected explorers, or by mainstream zoologist. While cryptozoologists cite the discovery of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), the mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei), the Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis), the giant squid (Architeuthis dux), the colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni), and the okapi (Okapia johnstoni) as animals that were once thought to be cryptids, they remain unable to accurately and reliably predict the discovery of new animals. While it could be said that the discovery of the giant and colossal squids could be legitimately used as examples of prediction, their predictions never ventured much beyond their supposed existence; they have not been able to, for example, accurately predict the habitat or life styles of these animals.
As James Randi has famously said, "enjoy the fantasy, the thought, the story, but make sure that there's a clear sharp line drawn on the floor. To do otherwise is to embrace madness." When we hear stories of legendary beasts, it is alright to enjoy the though that they might be out there, lurking in the underbrush or in the deep lakes of the hidden back country. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a good campfire story. But the danger comes when we take them too seriously, when we give credence to ideas and propositions that are outlandish and without any evidence. It is not wrong to tell somebody that they may have been hallucinating when the saw the Dover Demon cross the street, for that does not mean they are crazy. It simply means that their brain is as fallible as the rest of ours, and that they, like us, need to constantly remember that what we think we see isn't always what we think it is, just as how answers we get to some questions - like is there a monster in the depths of Loch Ness or Lake Ogopogo - are not the answers we wish we had found.
That concludes this month's column of the Skeptical Spider. It has been written by R. Troy Peterson, founder and arachnologist at Relax. I'm an arachnologist. If you wish to see more content, feel free to like the Relax. I'm an arachnologist. Facebook page. R. Troy Peterson is an arachnology student at Central Washington University, and specializes in using arachnids to promote science and skepticism and a general love of arachnids to the public. The views contained within this column are strictly those of R. Troy Peterson, and do not reflect those of Central Washington University, it's faculty, or any affiliated organizations and/or persons.
