June 1, 2007

Don't Mess With Nessie!

Hatched by Dafydd

So a badly photographed, information-free videotape is released that purports to be the Loch Ness monster... and instantly, Michael Medved touts it as "stunning evidence" that proves "Nessie" exists. Considering his infatuation with Bigfoot, and his belief that, except for a few bitter-enders, scientists all agree that Mr. Sasquatch exists, color me unsurprised.

But I'm a little perturbed that others are taking this so seriously. Honestly, this video is even worse "evidence" than those grainy films that purport to show ghosts or chupacabras or UFOs buzzing us darn near every week. Alas, I cannot find anyplace where I can get embedded code for the video; so you'll have to go to Power Line to watch it (I'll send you there instead of to Yahoo).

I'll wait...

(If somebody will give me a link to embedded code -- you can't put the code itself in the comment, because the filter will just strip it out -- I'll put the video itself here.)

I find it odd and rather disappointing that John Hinderaker would write, "I suppose I could be fooled as easily as the next guy, but the video seems fairly compelling."

Compelling? Would he accept it as evidence if introduced by the other side in a court trial? Let me start with the most obvious problem:

  1. There is no indication that the supposed "monster video" was actually shot at Loch Ness.

It consists of closeups on water, and one piece of water looks pretty much like another. Aside from the stock footage of Loch Ness intercut into the video, none of the actual "monster" clips pans back far enough to give us any indication what lake we're actually at; we have only the word of the people who took the video (and are currently exploiting it) that it was even recorded in Scotland, let alone that particular loch. And since I don't know any of them from Jamie, I'm unwilling to trust their word.

Sorry to be the bird poop in the punchbowl.

But let's give them that point; let's assume for sake of argument that this footage was actually shot at Loch Ness. What does it really show?

  1. Brushing aside the filler footage, the actual supposed "monster video" shows nothing but a dark oblong in or on rippling water.

A faint triangle on the right edge in one second or so of one of the shots could be interpreted as a wake, indicating that the object is moving; but it could also indicate the object is standing still, while the surface water moves across it. But it needn't even be a wake; it could also just be a dark streak under the water or a shadow.

In fact, the dark oblong could itself be a shadow; it's impossible to tell, and I've viewed the video perhaps seven times. It's like looking at a cloud and seeing a duckie, a horsie, or that charlatan, Anton Bruckner, in profile.

  1. We cannot even tell how big the oblong is, because there is no other object to give us a frame of reference. It could be fifty feet -- or a five-foot underwater log. Nor can we tell how far away it is.
  2. And if it were a snake-like creature moving through the water... then why isn't it undulating? Snakes, eels, and even Nessie's neck or tentacles would wriggle, not stay perfectly still, like a propeller-driven cigar.

But there is a large issue here, and it applies to much more serious issues than cryptozoology: This little boomlet of excitement is a perfect example of "the will to believe."

Medved so desperately wants to believe in the existence of "fierce creatures" previously unknown, that he will accept any claim, no matter how outrageous, so long as it feeds his need. But to some extent, and on other issues, we all must fight against that tendency.

The will to believe can blind us to obvious dangers, fallacies, and flaws in our own positions. For example, I truly want to believe that we can "stand up" a reasonably functional democracy in the Arab Middle East, in particular in Iraq; for this very reason, I must tread carefully when evaluating reports of progress.

It would be too easy to dismiss all setbacks or problems as trivial and trumpet every advance as highly significant. Thus, I must always try to put myself in the stockings of my opposite number: Suppose I were trying to prove there was no progress at all in Iraq. How would I attack the positive reports? I try as hard as I can to rip them apart, just as I rip apart arguments I oppose; then I evaluate my efforts.

If I can make a disturbingly good case against, then I'm skeptical of that report. But if my debunking attempt sounds like James Carville on crack, then I'm confident enough to run with the original story.

The test demands a tough, honest effort; however, it's a major reason why my positions are typically so hard for leftists to refute: I myself have already found all the obvious holes and filled them; to disprove me, you have to find the non-obvious argument.

Sometimes I am successful at putting myself in the other guy's moccasins; other times, I stubbornly cling to my will to believe. Worse yet, sometimes I successfully debunk some deeply held belief of mine!

For example, I knew that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ, 65%) had always been a war supporter; but I was convinced for a long time that he was one of those "we need a half million troops so we can colonize Iraq" types. I'm sure I must have said that very thing more than once. So when I read his claim that he was an early proponent of the very same counterinsurgency strategy that Gen. David Petraeus is now using in Iraq, I scoffed.

I began a post mocking him for revisionist history; but then I put myself in the position of a McCain supporter (tough, because I truly dislike him) and tried to knock down my own argument.

And I succeeded. Some basic research coughed up not one but a couple of speeches he gave long, long ago -- at least back to 2005 -- that unquestionably embraced a counterinsurgency strategy, which he distinguished from what we were doing at the time. So I had no choice: I deleted everything I had started writing and instead wrote a piece about McCain's prescience... and admitted my own wrong impression of him.

How many elite journalists ever do that? How many who write about our "collapse" in Iraq or the futility of persevering ever even try to make the opposite case -- honestly try?

If they do it at all, they deliberately make the argument against their position as stupid and illogical as possible. If you point this out, they usually say, "But that's how war supporters argue, because they're all stupid!" (Thus defeating the entire purpose of the exercise, you understand.)

Do supporters of the current immigration bill ever try to imagine how they would argue against it, if they drew that side in a debate? I do; I can do it easily -- and better than Hugh Hewitt can -- even though I support the bill. Just as important, do opponents honestly try to make the case for the current bill, just to see if they can? I haven't seen much evidence of it on either side.

Remember, as the Principia Discordia teaches, "convictions make convicts": If you are absolutely convinced of some proposition, you are imprisoned by it; you cannot even see counter evidence, and you are almost compelled to consider everybody who disagrees with you a fool. Since you don't pay attention to fools, how can you ever be convinced?

Oliver Cromwell had more or less the same idea when he wrote, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

So if you really believe in Nessie, try looking at that video through the eyes of someone like Martin Gardner or James "the Amazing" Randi; ask yourself, how would a skeptic debunk this video? Then seriously examine the arguments you come up with and realize how much more compelling they are than that silly, cloud-fantasy video.

And now that we have journeyed from the ridiculous to the sublime and back again, it's time to stop writing.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 1, 2007, at the time of 5:24 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2132

Comments

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Due to Global Warning, Bigfoot died almost three decades ago. "Nessie" lost its breeding partner some sixty years ago, so the video must be of "Nessie" taking a last breath in the now hot water of Scotland…clearly a video of an adult.

Anyway, my friend Pew is still around. Pew is almost a purebred Skunk Ape. His mom was raped by a Sasquatch (fleeing from Global Warming – from what i have heard), on her wedding day (yes, the Sasquatch had just murdered her new husband…moments after vows were exchanged). Pew turns thirty this year…

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2007 6:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Dafydd, Daffyd, Daffyd,

You disappoint me. Mythology is a good, even necessary thing, in the human psyche. "Let there be wonder."

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2007 8:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Everyone is a fool for something. A fool for a woman, for drink, for danger, or maybe even for myths of a rare exotic animal. Give Medved his foolishness, but just don't put him in charge of the National Academy of Sciences or the Smithsonian.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2007 9:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: Davod

"But there is a large issue here, and it applies to much more serious issues than cryptozoology: This little boomlet of excitement is a perfect example of "the will to believe.""

A couple of examples of misdirection - not eexactly on topic.

My wife cannot understand why I get so upset that supposed science shows spend an inordinate time showing real life dramas of how pre historic animals roamed the earth. Children grow up believing this is fact yet we do not really know.

With regards to the Iraq war and proponents of change - The general (I think it was Baptiste) who came out with the video a couple lf weeks ago being critical of the war. Although mentioned nowhere in the video or by his supporters, I heard some of his testimy and he wanted more tropps than those provided for the surge. He was negative because there were not enough yet the ad did not say this.

The above hissed in response by: Davod [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 2:23 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

Due to Global Warning, Bigfoot died almost three decades ago

Dafydd, You and Karmi are hitting pretty close to home here in Humboldt County, (Bigfoot Country)---you know, the part of the state north of Sacramento that no one knows about.

Bigfoot (Sasquatch) Lives!

I had the big feller over for a BBQ just last week and he told me he thinks the Gubenator is over-rated.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 6:29 AM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

I’m open-minded about Nessie and assorted other cryptozoological possibilities, but it is all academic until somebody produces a body; photos, videos, etc., just won’t cut it. As one researcher said about another intriguing possibility, “The first hunter to bring in the body of a Bigfoot, should get a medal; the second to do so should be SKINNED alive.”

I always thought that the most difficult to dismiss data about Nessie were the SONAR contacts; it certainly appeared that several large “somethings” were moving around in the depths of Loch Ness. Did anyone ever come up with a plausible alternative explanation for them?

Of course it doesn’t exactly help that “mainstream” scientists’ comments on this and similar topics so closely resemble the old joke:

Scientists have announced today that they are giving up their search for the Loch Ness Monster for two reasons:

A: It doesn’t exist.
B: It keeps eating our submarines.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 9:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: Phoenix Musings

I have noticed that some conservative commenters, many whom I admire and respect, seem to reinforce themselves--A feeds B who feeds C who feeds A. They create an echo chamber. They don't do it all the time. Some issues seem to unhinge them--Harriet Miers and immigration for example. Its almost as if when it happens they are upset because they weren't consulted before the decision was made. They act like they are the final word on the issue. I think that their positions give them a god complex sometimes, they become elitists handing out their wisdom to us lower lifeforms. I never get responses to emails when I call them on this.

The above hissed in response by: Phoenix Musings [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 9:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Rovin:

Humboldt County, (Bigfoot Country)---you know, the part of the state north of Sacramento that no one knows about.

My mother lives in a small suburb of Eureka.

FredTownWard:

I always thought that the most difficult to dismiss data about Nessie were the SONAR contacts; it certainly appeared that several large “somethings” were moving around in the depths of Loch Ness. Did anyone ever come up with a plausible alternative explanation for them?

Sonar picks up false positives all the time. It could be a log, or an oddly reflective patch of lakebottom, or anything.

Other problems with Nessie: What does she eat? Loch Ness is not exactly teeming with fish. And where would she have come from? I believe the lake only dates back to the last ice age... not to the dinosaur era (so she can't be, as usually depicted, a plesiosaur -- where were they before the loch was formed?)

Oh, and is there an entire, stable breeding populations of Nessies that have somehow eluded all searches, even in that tiny, confined area... or is Nessie herself 10,000 years old?

What really yanks my crank is that Medved believes passionately in Bigfoot, Nessie, and goodness knows what other fierce creatures... but he rejects evolution by natural selection as ludicrously unbelievable!

Oy.

Actually, that last point makes a kind of sense. Medved believes in cryptozoology and rejects evolution for the same reason: He does not have a rational or scientific mind.

I believe he has said that he did terribly in math and science classes at university, which is why he's a lawyer.

Unlike most who use the term, I actually have a definition of a "neocon" (which certainly includes Michael Medved). The original definition was "a liberal who became a conservative because of Ronald Reagan." Not happy with the timebound nature of that definition -- no neocons created after 1989? -- I expanded the definition to: "A person who thinks like a liberal but arrives at conservative conclusions.

Medved fits both definitions. In this case, "thinks like a liberal" means he acts on emotion, sensation, and some internal sense of what would be "cool," hence must be "right." This was as true back when he was an anti-Vietnam war protester -- Man, it would be so cool if we could just stop this whole war and live in peace with everybody! -- as it is today: Man, it would be so cool if we were especially created by God, not evolved from embarassingly dirty animals... and if God can create humans, why can't He create a plesiosaur in a 10,000 year old loch and have it live on aquatic manna?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 12:09 PM

The following hissed in response by: Seixon

The Loch Ness Monster, history's most successful PR bluff.

Anyone who looks at that video and believes in the Loch Ness Monster should be put on a list of inane morons no one should listen to about anything.

It was a hoax people! Always was! ******* it all.

The above hissed in response by: Seixon [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 3:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: charlotte

Yes, Bigfoot Lives.

Fred Thompson is 6'-7 and I believe!

The above hissed in response by: charlotte [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 3:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Other problems with Nessie: What does she eat? Loch Ness is not exactly teeming with fish. And where would she have come from? I believe the lake only dates back to the last ice age... not to the dinosaur era (so she can't be, as usually depicted, a plesiosaur -- where were they before the loch was formed?)

Oh, and is there an entire, stable breeding populations of Nessies that have somehow eluded all searches, even in that tiny, confined area... or is Nessie herself 10,000 years old?

Issues only if you don't believe in magic.

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 3:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: john.cunningham

For me, the questions of food supply and population numbers kill the whole idea. I am pretty sure that Loch Ness has not been in existence from before the last ice age. Also, one monster is absurd--if Nessie exists, there must be a population of at least a few score animals. Loch Ness, I believe, is very low in fish populations. So what are the nessies eating??

The above hissed in response by: john.cunningham [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 5:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Oh, come on you guys. Nessie is not one discreet creature. She is the product of an infinite number of infinitesimally brief manifestations of an infinite number of Nessies from an infinite number of universes. What's so hard to understand about that?

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 6:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

Dafydd,

My mother lives in a small suburb of Eureka.

I've lived just outside of town (Eureka) since '69. Send me an email when ya git up here to visit yur mom, (which I'm sure you do often), and I'll buy ya a cold one.

We can slip over to Arcata and mess with the HSU nutroots. Also you might want to make it up here on July 14th and 15th for our Blues by the Bay (which I am the talent laison again)

Rov

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 6:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Dafydd wrote: "Sonar picks up false positives all the time. It could be a log, or an oddly reflective patch of lakebottom, or anything."

True, but what made these particular SONAR readings so interesting is that the contacts were recorded MOVING around Loch Ness. It would be one thing if more advanced SONAR equipment used in later years no longer picked up these anomalies or if careful HOSTILE analysis of the SONAR recordings revealed some sort of wishful thinking on the part of researchers; otherwise, this amounts to the kind of half-assed dismissal of evidence that IMHO encourages rather than discourages this kind of thing. As for what would "Nessies" eat, studies have been done to show that Loch Ness COULD (though this PROVES nothing of course) support a breeding population of relatively large fish-eating animals.

Frankly I have always believed that the very worst way for "mainstream" scientists to react to these sorts of outlandish claims is to toss off some poorly chosen because poorly informed dismissal that the true believers proceed to hammer out of the park. I share your skepticism, but I also share the true believers' disgust with the following:

Dismissing oulandish sightings as "swamp gas", when there is no swamp, there is no gas, and there is no swamp gas. Blaming them on reflections of the moon when there is no moon. And (one of my personal favorites) claiming that something seen MOVING UPSTREAM is a "floating log". Of course I can also understand the frustration of dealing with hoaxters and the willingly gullible, but scientists do science no favors when they set out to debunk...

and miss by a country mile.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2007 6:45 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved