The big thing here these days seems to be cryptids (and more specifically bigfoot). I have been criticized for having the audacity to not assume all claims come from frauds, and for actually looking at the claims. Apparently, this is not how one is "supposed" to do such research.
Well, it turns out that my methodology is the correct one.
A recent article in Paleontologia Electronica discusses three ancient cryptids, specifically late-surviving pterosaurs. The conclusion is pretty obvious from the start--none of these were real--but the methodology is the part that's important. These researchers actually took the time to analyze the claims, and to assess the evidence in a rigorous and scientific manner.
The benefit of doing so is twofold. First, the advocates of late-surviving pterosaurs now have to fight this battle on the proper field: peer-reviewed literature, where experts assess the data and everything is in the open. It's not that the authors don't allow for criticism--in fact, the peer review process demands critical review, it's built in. Rather, it puts everyone on a level playing field. Second, it demonstrates proper scientific analysis at the same time that it rips apart an absurd claim. This not only demonstrates the cryptids to be false, but it also demonstrates how to go about assessing data on one's own. It can serve as an introduction to proper methods for evaluating claims among the cryptid community, where as "All bigfoot advocates are liars and frauds" can't.
Sure, it requires more effort. And that effort probably could be put to more useful purposes. But that's ignoring the context; we all do goofy things. I've got two books on dragon taxonomy; it's sometimes fun to do something entirely frivolous in a very serious manner. And frankly, if you don't like research, don't go into science or involve yourself in scientific discussions.
This article is doing what this website proports to do, but it does so far, far better. It is the standard we should aspire to.
Well, it turns out that my methodology is the correct one.
A recent article in Paleontologia Electronica discusses three ancient cryptids, specifically late-surviving pterosaurs. The conclusion is pretty obvious from the start--none of these were real--but the methodology is the part that's important. These researchers actually took the time to analyze the claims, and to assess the evidence in a rigorous and scientific manner.
The benefit of doing so is twofold. First, the advocates of late-surviving pterosaurs now have to fight this battle on the proper field: peer-reviewed literature, where experts assess the data and everything is in the open. It's not that the authors don't allow for criticism--in fact, the peer review process demands critical review, it's built in. Rather, it puts everyone on a level playing field. Second, it demonstrates proper scientific analysis at the same time that it rips apart an absurd claim. This not only demonstrates the cryptids to be false, but it also demonstrates how to go about assessing data on one's own. It can serve as an introduction to proper methods for evaluating claims among the cryptid community, where as "All bigfoot advocates are liars and frauds" can't.
Sure, it requires more effort. And that effort probably could be put to more useful purposes. But that's ignoring the context; we all do goofy things. I've got two books on dragon taxonomy; it's sometimes fun to do something entirely frivolous in a very serious manner. And frankly, if you don't like research, don't go into science or involve yourself in scientific discussions.
This article is doing what this website proports to do, but it does so far, far better. It is the standard we should aspire to.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1yvwZNc
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire