2010s: The Decade For Cryptos
Posted by: Loren Coleman on January 7th, 2010
“The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as Yetis are founded on grains of truth….Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold.” ~ Henry Gee, editor, “Flores, God and Cryptozoology” Nature (October 27, 2004).
Could it be?
Will the truth be told about what the Sasquatch was looking for when it crossed the road?
Will the next decade be the one where “cryptos” ~ a word meaning “cryptozoologists,” and used and/or coined by folks such as DWA, Ole Bub, and perhaps even first here, way back in March 2006, by draconica ~ come into their own?
What are your cryptid, cryptozoology and cryptozoologist predictions for the 2010s?
One thing I think I see on the horizon: “Cryptos” will be the new “in” word for the next decade, just as “cryptid” was for the last decade.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
I’d certainly like this to be the decade that cryptozoology comes into its own.
But it will only do so as a branch of zoology. This means that
1) no thesis of any kind, skeptical or proponent, is allowed in the discussion unless backed by evidence displaying frequency (lots of reports) and coherence (the reports seem to be relating consistent experiences by the observers). That means: none of this shapeshifting, orbing, disappearing or bury-their-dead stuff (no evidence meeting the above criteria, in fact no reason to believe these are required to explain anything, much less done); nothing that can’t be scientifically explained or that isn’t scientifically plausible, period; and an absolute end to the ridiculous thesis that all this evidence adds up to nothing but false positives. Unless the latter can be backed up, that would be by evidence, it should be unceremoniously laughed out of court.
1a) nobody ever again gets to say, without being laughed at, that it’s the proponents who need to provide the evidence. THEY HAVE. The skeptics are required to back up their thesis as well. THEY HAVE NOT.
1b) nobody ever again gets to confuse evidence and proof, without being laughed at. The cryptid proponents have far more evidence than science has for many things it accepts. What they don’t have is PROOF; that is science’s responsibility.
2) scientists stop scoffing. Scientists are PROHIBITED FROM SCOFFING, AT ANYTHING, AT ANY TIME, by the Geneva Convention; the Bible, Talmud, Koran and the Tibetan Book of the Dead; by the laws of the United States, as severally applied in the states thereof, and of all other countries worth a damn; and by all that is good, holy, Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet. Sorry, that’s the way it is. If you’re a cop, you can’t steal; if you’re a pilot, you can’t drink; and if you are a scientist, you can’t scoff. Scoffing is the hallmark of idiots; it is – just like the woo-woo shapeshifter theory – stating a conclusion unbacked by any evidence. A scientist who acts like an idiot has lost all right to be taken seriously. One more time, scientists. Only one response is allowed by any scientist queried who is not convinced of any cryptid: I wish the searchers well, and await the proof.
2a) scientists scoff at scoffers. (The only exception allowed to 2). )
3) the search for any cryptid proceeds in the same manner that the search would for any animal scientists suspect to exist. Same protocols; same requirements for evidence and proof. If they’re real, why not?
Let the search continue. But let it get serious for a change. New Year’s resolution, repeated annually as required.
MK Davis: thanks for the stable Patty. You can SIT DOWN NOW.
Yeah, DWA, what you said… and some more besides!
And now, Cryptomundians, we’ve got the people, we’ve got the expertise, we’ve got the technology, the curiosity, the vehicles, the gear, the archival data, the tools – we’ve got everything we need to do it, so let’s do it – let’s all get off our big fat armchairs, and get out there and make it happen!
And no more BScardi stuff – just the facts, man!
I would also like to add:
No More mention of OTTERS!!!
It gives these creatures a Bad Reputation they do not deserve!!!
Aside from that—I pretty much agree with DWA and ARTIST. Excellent posts, guys. 🙂
DWA- I agree 100%. About your analogy concerning scientists, though, it’s unfortunate that we do have cops that steal and pilots that drink. Scientists are human too, and no one is perfect.
One thing I would like to add is that in my opinion we have to stop sitting around waiting for science to start taking cryptozoology seriously. Any whining about “why won’t mainstream scientists look at the evidence? Why are we being ignored?” is not doing anyone any good. I’m sick of cryptozoology feeling sorry for itself.
We can’t really expect that mainstream science is just going to “come around.” No, I think if cryptozoology wants to be taken seriously as a branch of zoology, it has to take itself seriously first.
For all of the solid supportive evidence found, for instance with Homo florensiensis and its implications for the possible of proto-pygmies throughout Oceania, there are other hypotheses and practices within cryptozoology that offset these and make us look more “fringe.”
Allow me to illustrate. We have: far out, unsubstantiated wild theories of interdimensional beings muddying the waters, crackpots like MK Davis with his fantastical stories of massacres and braids, Biscardi with his tomfoolery (I love slipping that word in whenever I can), hoaxers of all kinds such as the “Georgia Boys,” and people squinting at and seriously debating blobsquatches that could be pictures of any one of a thousand things other than cryptids.
For every new animal discovery, for every find like the Flores hobbits or serious researcher like Meldrum publishing papers on his finds, we have the more fringe elements of cryptozoology muddying the waters and detracting from are credibility as a science.
While many in this field such as Loren and many others, approach cryptozoology from a scientific standpoint, there are many others who are dragging the field down by using it for their own gain, as a podium to peddle their “woo woo” theories, or just plain being unscientific about the whole process. With all of this going on, is it any wonder that mainstream biologists and zoologists aren’t jumping at the chance to embrace cryptozoology as a legitimate field of research?
I propose that if cryptozoology ever wants to be a respected, relevant field of scientific inquiry, then we have to “take out the trash” so to speak. We have to cut loose the fringe elements and out of control speculation, as well as the unscientific approaches that some use. We need to approach this field with a critical eye and an earnest desire for the facts, just as every other field of science does.
With all of the recent hoaxes and unwanted negative attention cause by things such as the media hyped recent photo of a man walking in the rain and Biscardi’s nincompoopery, among others (I’m looking at you MK), I think it is more important now than ever for us to start taking ourselves seriously. This is going to entail making a concerted effort by all parties involved to stop, step back, and contemplete “what’s wrong with this picture?”
When cryptozoology starts embracing the more grounded, scientific aspects of its methodologies, which it certainly does have, and jettisoning the elements holding it back, then and only then can it ever hope to be taken seriously by the greater scientific world at large.
Only then we will truly be able to come in out of the cold. It’s not going to happen on its own.
In my humble opinion.
Greetings All!
I am going to put forth two thoughts on the decade before us:
1) The Ivory-billed woodpecker will be proven not to have gone extinct.
2) “Cryptos” of the “out-of-place” type will be seen (probably belatedly) as a piece of the puzzle that is climate change. Animals as well as plants will search to find the biome they need, and their ranges will “creep” and jump. In my opinion, this is already happening, but in the next ten years it will be acknowledged as coming from climate change.
Yeah, what you guys said…scoffing, take the hunt to the field, save the otters, and take out the trash!
Really, I think we need to escalate things, each and everybody in their own places–find your cryptids, find people near you into the same thing and organize searches. The more people in on the research, the investigating and the exploring, the better our odds each time of getting something solid.
I’m with MM too, we have to quit worrying about the naysayers…except here when they rear their little beady eyed heads and start misquoting facts, twisting definitions, or just plain old make invalid arguments…there will always be scoftics, it’s the nature of the beast…let them believe (or not). We spend out time concentrating on the cryptids and we can make the next decade worth everybody’s while…
Oh, and I think we should all chip in and get Ben R. a hat…his head looks cold…
I can’t wait, I bet we discover at least one cryptid this decade. I know we’re getting closer but I still bet we actually prove the existence of at least one known cryptid. I think we’re very close to proving the existence of Ropens and I bet we do in the next decade or two, along with several other cryptids. I personally can’t wait and I would volunteer my time and money (if I had either right now) to track down, hogtie and photograph any cryptid so skeptics and scoffers would have to admit they’re wrong and that Cryptozoology is fully legitimate. I can’t wait! As a matter of fact, once the weather turns warm in the spring I’m going to spend even more time in our woods and swamps looking for more Pterosaurs! 🙂
Dear fossilhunter
You missed the point.
“Cryptos” are the people; “cryptids” are the unknown, hidden, yet-to-be discovered species.
I predict that in the next 7 years someone will photograph or video one or more Sasquatch in some form of high resolution.
And that this material will have a limited impact scientifically on the species much to the Bigfoot Communities and mines disdain.
However, I believe the material will give Professors Meldrum and Coleman the evidence they’ll need to slowly convince mainstream scientists to enter the search and find viable specimens of the species. I hope I’m the one to get the photos. 🙂
Greetings!
Whoops! Who’s sleep deprived? What?! 🙂 Although I bet some Cryptos move within the next ten years too! Sorry about that!
m_m: couldn’t agree more; my post is really yours, said another way.
Crypto has to clean itself up and make itself presentable to the mainstream. One can simply not expect mainstream scientists to drop what they’re doing to review the evidence (although some exceptional ones have). I’m not quitting my job next week to become a fulltime Bigfooter; so how can I expect anyone else to? All I’m asking is that they stop scoffing. (“I wish the searchers luck” takes less time to say; and back to your real job.)
And you’re right that folks will do things that are Simply Not Done in their professions; because they’re human, you have to expect it. But I’m not asking scientists to do something that extremely difficult. Reining in the emotions (THIS IS POPPYCOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) is, isn’t it? something we require scientists to do; in fact, they pride themselves on doing it! Scoffing is an irrational, emotional response, and unbecoming a scientist. All I’m asking is a concerted effort by them to channel their excess humanity elsewhere. And cutting back on the drinking and stealing would help too. 😀
Cryptozoology is, in my opinion, guilty of two major sins: (1) accepting too much into the discussion that isn’t backed by evidence and (2) being too polite to people who aren’t polite themselves (as if those, Ben Radford, are the people crypto has to convince. You aren’t). The hard sciences slam the door, hard, on blatant idiocy and things that don’t meet the requirements of evidence. So should crypto. When it does, now we’re getting somewhere.
M_M: something really worth adding with regard to this: “people squinting at and seriously debating blobsquatches that could be pictures of any one of a thousand things other than cryptids. ”
Loren has lots of those exercises here. While some of the opinions expressed are certainly unfortunate from a hard-science standpoint, the exercises themselves have a very practical purpose and I’m OK with the practice; in fact, it’s actually central to crypto, which is of course about unknowns.
For one thing, it sure isn’t Loren’s fault that there are slow news days in cryptozoology. In the hard sciences, in fact, you (at least the general public) hear no news at all until it is really news, i.e., new facts, confirmed to science’s satisfaction. As crypto (we hope) comes of age, we’d expect to see much more space devoted to search protocols and expeditions in the field. (And more to legitimate finds, one would hope, as more people use better protocols and bring their science up to speed.)
For another, the general public has an opportunity in crypto to get in on the ground floor in ways that are much tougher to do in the other sciences. Precisely because it is (at its best, anyway) on the frontiers of science, the inputs of laymen have a disproportionate impact. Virtually all of physics is the findings of hard-core academic physicists. The same is true with mainstream zoology. By far, most of crypto – the central evidence for some marquee cryptids, in my opinion – is the reports of encounters with unknowns, the overwhelming majority by laymen, whose frequency of encounters and consistency of description are pretty much all that makes their accounts noteworthy – other than it being an apparent stretch to simply consider them all nuts, liars, mistaken or some even-harder-to-credit concatenation of the three that somehow behaves just like biological data. Then you have the occasional, well, movie, which lends lots of spice (and further ground for intelligent discussion) to the debate.
Then there are the blobsquatches.
Wild animals being, for all intents and purposes, impossible for laymen to photograph (the exceptions being captive or otherwise acclimated to humans), we shouldn’t be holding our breath for a clear photo on a camera phone. We simply won’t get any. Yet another area where crypto needs to catch up to reality: the naïve assumption that better technology in the hands of the masses will for sure yield results. No it won’t. To serious wildlife photographers, who scoff at the sasquatch and thus will get no photos of one, sure, it helps them, which means it doesn’t help crypto at all. To the rest of us: it’s like giving you a plane and calling you a pilot. So: all we get will be blobsquatches. Now. Which ones are clearly phony, or just innocent junk…and which ones are interesting? That’s worth figuring out…as well as figuring out how to figure out. Just like the old Dick Tracy “Crimestoppers” segments dispensed some elementary but important observational tips to non-cops, who then had a tool they could possibly use to help out one day, so this kind of photoanalysis might help develop an “interesting shots” database, which somebody might run a make on and go: there are some patterns here. Let’s follow up. (And the intrigue might influence more than one wannabe zoologist to turn his/her degree to account pursuing the crypto angle. And maybe more than one of them can take proper advantage of the photo technology as well.)
One can deduce nothing from a photo; but one can determine looking at a lot of them which ones might be something of interest; where they were taken; and what else in the way of potential evidence might be coming from there.
So, bring on the blobsquatches. Every one yields some intelligent comments, which could be seen as possible building blocks for a science. Baby steps.
Very valid points as always, DWA & m_m; although I’m still one of those who feels we shouldn’t shun the more fringe cases of high strangeness just because it might scare away scientists to take Cryptozoology seriously. To cherry-pick evidence is not very scientific (although we of course must be mindful of checking the background and trustworthiness re. the events and the witnesses).
And I’ll leave it at that 😉
PS: I still stand by my prediction of a few years ago, that sooner or later we’ll see a pretty convincing CGI hoax of Bigfoot posted at Youtube, made by some amateur.
Red_pill_junkie:
“I’m still one of those who feels we shouldn’t shun the more fringe cases of high strangeness just because it might scare away scientists to take Cryptozoology seriously. To cherry-pick evidence is not very scientific (although we of course must be mindful of checking the background and trustworthiness re. the events and the witnesses).”
I think that scaring away scientists is THE critical thing to avoid in crypto. ANYTHING that avoids doing that serves the crypto cause. Why? Because science is entrusted with the proof in our society. There will be no proof if they’re scared away. We will never get beyond where we are.
And what scares scientists away like nothing else going? Scattergun stuff that is all over the place. Including stuff that scientists – correct or not! – dismiss as pure nuts. Which is crypto’s central problem.
You’re right about cherry-picking – at least the way I define it, which is “selecting only that evidence that supports one’s argument.” (A classic scoftical tactic.) But we’re not talking about cherry-picking. We are talking about following up the evidence. How can one follow up scattergun evidence that is all over the place? If the sasquatch is real, says me, it is simply a critter; the “high strangeness” is our not being able to confirm something flesh and blood that multitudes have seen, and described VERY consistently. The evidence that can be followed up is the evidence that follows a consistent pattern. What does a black bear look like? Exactly: it’s not thirty feet tall; it didn’t come here in a spaceship; it doesn’t run forty mph on two legs and it isn’t pink with polka dots. If somebody saw that, adjust her meds. (Or at least don’t notify the local zoo to send people here pronto to catch it.) If she describes a black bear, she probably saw one (caveats you note applicable of course).
This is why I tell people: read sighting reports! The vast, the overwhelming, the almost-without-exception universe of what I have read on websites is describing an animal in the same ways real people in the real world every day describe the animals they see. Why do I read no pink-polka-dot-came-from-saucer reports? Several reasons:
1) Follow-up proved them to be pranks;
2) They are not consistent in what they describe;
3) There are waaay too many reports, by people whose basic sobriety and credibility held up under cross-examination, that consistently describe the same kind of animal, with subtle glitches and variances that are one of two things: either reflective of apparent differences among individual animals or precisely what one would expect from people trying to describe something they are still trying to convince themselves they saw.
Cherry-picking is wrong; nobody advocating science could advocate it.
But if you don’t establish a search image, based on the bulk of credible (appearing) reports, you have, by definition, nothing to search for. And no way to look. And you’ve scared away the searchers to boot.
red pill junkie…
I think this is how we approach the “Fringe stuff.” I think we can discuss it, we can look at the information, and then at some point we have to catalogue it as fringe, or perhaps in a separate category.
I think what DWA is saying is that cryptozoology, for the present, is a dumping ground–it’s too cluttered with things that fall into a supernatural category or something even further out there…and I think a lot of people tend to lump Fortean with Cryptozoology, because in the larger scheme of things, they are both “Fringe” topics. What DWA and MM are proposing is refining cryptids and staying focused on cryptozoology as what it is: the study/hunt for animals not recognized by science.
But, let’s face it, all cryptids began as fringe accounts at some point or other in history. What happened, is that people began to keep track of the sightings and accounts and for certain cryptids, the body of such incidents continued to grow. I think here, we can discuss things relating to cryptozoology, and then we leave it to individual cryptozoologists to decide which cryptids they want to keep track of and hunt down.
I agree, though, we have to keep the science of cryptozoology focused, so that it does not become diluted with all things Fortean to the point that no one takes anything seriously coming out of the crypto quarter.
I think we are doing that–individual scientists may turn up their noses at Cryptozoology, but there are more people turning toward it…or at least keeping an open mind. Which is all I ask of anyone.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I don’t care if you believe, and I don’t care if you are convinced it’s bunk. Just keep an open mind, so that if you do encounter something falling in the realm of cryptozoology, you can add the information to the growing database so that serious cryptos can use that info to find their cryptids.
That, and Ben’s hat…it’s cold where he lives…he really needs one…
DWA- Nice post. That was a very thoughtful and reasoned response on the role of photos in cryptozoology, but that was not really what I meant.
I appreciate that wild animals are difficult to photograph. I also don’t really expect that we are going to get crystal clear photos of cryptids smiling and posing for the camera (although that would be nice. 🙂 ) Some photos are indeed worth looking at, but those were not the ones I was talking about.
When I made that comment I wasn’t necessarily addressing the many photos that are out there that are mysterious or blurry or where it is not immediately obvious what the photo shows. There are many photos and pieces of video where the reaction upon looking at them is “Well that’s odd. I wonder what in the world that is.” This type of photographic evidence is important because while it certainly might not be a cryptid, it is also not immediately obvious that it is anything else in particular either. These photos and videos are important and I wouldn’t discourage taking a look at them.
The recent Eric Olsen “Champ video” is a good example of this. The video obviously shows something swimming in the lake, there is nothing ambiguous about that. In this footage it is just not immediately clear what it is. What is it? Is it a dog, a deer, something else? I don’t know, but I’d like to find out. This is the type of footage that holds the kind of value you are talking about.
There are many other examples of photos that are similarly inconclusive yet you can look at them and not really comfortably write them off right away as a tree trunk or a bear, or a play of shadows. It is these types of photos and videos that I am interested in and which I feel are of the greatest importance to cryptozoology.
So you see, I am not proposing doing away with all photos or videos that are unclear or not of a professional animal photographer quality. In fact, there are some areas of science that routinely work with photos that are unclear yet compelling enough to try and figure out. Look at astronomy. Where would we be if some astrophysicist didn’t squint at a telescope image and say “Hmmm, what is that?”
To reiterate, I am not condemning looking at mysterious photos.
No, what I am addressing here are the true blobsquatches, which by their very definition are practically worthless as evidence of anything. These are the photos that when shown to someone who doesn’t already have the preconceived notion that it is supposed to be a cryptid won’t come to that conclusion in the slightest. These kind of photos are at times not even good exercises because they are of such low quality that there can’t even be a useful debate about them.
I remember a photo not too long ago on Cryptomundo that was a bunch of leaves and shadows, and maybe, just maybe, there was a shadow that could be a sasquatch. Is looking at shadows and postulating that it is Bigfoot really gaining any favor with scientists for cryptozoology as a field dedicated to a scientific approach? As one myself, I’d have to say no in my opinion. The same goes for photos that could quite easily be a tree trunk or piece of flotsam in the water. They could be of something unusual, but these photos just do not yield enough visual information to be much use for anything other than unfounded speculation.
So squinting at a blurry picture that looks very much like a tree trunk, surrounded by trees, and seriously proposing that it might be sasquatch is just unproductive in my opinion, and it makes people laugh at cryptozoology which I would have them stop doing. Thankfully, Cryptomundo is largely free of this sort of thinking, which is why this is a great venue for these discussions.
Another species of photo I should have mentioned before is the one that is clearly not a sasquatch yet it people seriously entertain the thought that it is one without any real reason to make that conclusion other than desire to believe. Belief should not be a factor in these things. Our conclusions should come from careful, deductive analysis, not what we think would be cool. An example of this type of photo is the recent media hyped photo of a man in the rain that I mentioned in my other comment up there. The complete disregard for Occam’s Razor is a red flag that an unscientific approach is being adopted.
This is the sort of thing I was talking about in my comment.
It isn’t even really the photos themselves that are the problem, but the way in which people approach them. A lack of scientific or critical analysis detracts from the seriousness of crytozoology, period. Of course you can entertain that it might be a photo of a cryptid, but it should not immediately be your first conclusion especially when there just isn’t enough in the photo to honestly be able to make an assumption either way. If you get one of these blobsquatches I describe and can appreciate that it could be a lot of other things other than a cryptid, fine. But there are those who latch onto a picture of a brown blob and embrace it as a sasquatch, cherry picking points that support this conclusion while simultaneously disregarding the possibility that, well, it might just be a tree trunk.
The true blobsquatches should be exercises in critical thinking, NOT embraced or treated as good evidence of cryptids. So bring on the photos, but let’s look at them in a careful, critical way that any responsible scientist would expect.
As for your comment about letting people in “at the ground floor,” I have nothing against this. The layman can have a lot of good contributions, and there are many amateur scientists that make very good observations. For instance again with astronomy. I find this field to be similar in some respects to cryptozoology since there are a great many amateurs making solid contributions and squinting at anomalous objects. Cryptozoology should absolutely be praised for valuing the input of amateurs and laymen.
As you know, I am a biologist and I actually currently teach it at a high school level. I can tell you that I am all about encouraging people out of the field to think on these things and ask questions. But being an amateur does not give people a license to do away with a scientific approach. You can be an amateur biologist, for instance, but it does not mean you can ignore the basic principals of biology.
So yes, amateurs in the field are welcome. Non-scientist cryptozoologists are important, but even if they are not scientists, I think they should make an effort to act like one in their approach.
The presence of amateurs in this field should never be an excuse for us to accept crackpot theories or an unscientific approach. Like I said before, this is just going to detract from cryptozoology’s seriousness as a legitimate pursuit.
Oh, good: a chance to warm my fingers by typing a lengthy comment —it’s FRREEEZING here in Mexico! how are you guys doing with this Arctic climate?
First of all: thanks DWA and Springheeledjack for the comments.
I understand your position. I think it has merit. But I also think that in this world there are two methods in which the scientific paradigm is changed.
1) Incontrovertible evidence is found that force the establishment to review the orthodox theories maintained so far; or
2) The ‘old guard’ slowly steps out of the picture (i.e. they die) and are replaced by newcomers that are not afraid to look at the data with fresh ideas. And thus stuff that was once rejected is now part of the canon.
There’s of course #3: a mix of the previous 2 😉
So I understand the urge some folks feel to ‘make the case’ for their field of interest. One investigator has said on numerous occasions that he doesn’t dismiss the possibility that *some* of the phenomena that he investigates might have a weirder explanation than the one he considers; but that he personally is only interested in those cases that seem to indicate just his theory. And he’s entitled to that, of course; but to me, that’s like a prospector throwing away rubies and emeralds, because you’re just interested in diamonds…
And Science always advances more when trying to find an explanation for the out-of-place stuff. That’s why we’re coming up with these wacky theories like dark matter and dark energy —even dark flow! all are Cosmologists goth fnas of The Cure? :-P— so we can try to explain the acceleration of the Universe expansion.
Is Bigfoot a yet-to-be-discovered higher primate, or is it something else? While I tend to incline to the former (that’s why i hang out here so much!) I admit it: I haven’t made up my mind yet! And that’s why I’m free to look up and ponder upon the ‘fringier’ stuff where different outcast Fortean disciplines seem to cross paths. And you know what? there’s a lot of good stuff hidden behind the covers!
Like you guys, I would be immensely happy if tomorrow I read in the papers that Bigfoot was discovered and is now endowed with a proper taxonomical name; or that the aliens finally landed in the White House lawn —I too have fantasies of that big “TOLD YOU SO!” I’d have the chance to shout at certain people 😉
But, even if these things never come to pass in my lifetime, it wouldn’t bother me that much. For I’ve come to understand that this passion for the “outer stuff” is more of an introspective journey that an extrospective one.
I’ve come to realize that, in searching for the mysteries of the world, what I’m really trying to do is find out about myself 🙂
Saludos,
RPJ
Well, it isn’t exactly warm here either, but temp truly is relative to where you live…:)
As for the scientific paradigm, yeah, I see it as a stodgy closed system a lot of the time, especially when it comes up against something new AND especially when it comes up against something that challenges the “known” equations. And for the most part, that is probably a good thing–it forces people to and new ideas to be sure of their facts before the standard rules can be challenged. The downside, is that it also encourages a lot of close mindedness on new ideas of thought.
For example, cryptozoology, and BF. The idea of a large, unknown primate still wandering the world, and our continent, no less, is enough to make many people roll their eyes, scientists and non.
Interestingly enough, I see a fourth method of changing that scientific paradigm, and that is exposure to the public. Case and point for me, was the perceptions of the dinosaurs. Robert Bakker was a proponent of dinos being warm blooded and much different than was accepted (and I know he’s not the only one, and I know those ideas were out there before he was able to push it, but let me finish before you poke me full of holes), and in large part due to the Jurassic Park movie, those new ideas were laid out to the public, and have become much more respected. Bakker met a lot of resistence to his ideas, but awareness with the public helped others who were like minded feel able to stand up and reevaluate what dinos may have really been like.
Okay, now I’m over simplifying, but it still stands true. It didn’t force the scientific paradigm to change, per se, but it opened the door for a much more open minded approach to looking at dinos and how they might have really behaved.
And despite what I said, I do believe we should throw things into this arena that straddle that fringe/Fortean line…because, if for no other reason, we may stumble upon a new cryptid that was perceived as “supernatural”, odd or whatever.
I think our jobs here, are to look at what’s being seen and encountered, see if there is something corporeal to it, and then make a determination.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think where DWA and MM are concerned (and I agree with them too) is that if you throw anything into the Crypto arena, it just bogs down and literally becomes another Fortean sub species. And while I have no problem with things Fortean (and I enjoy that end too), cryptozoology has to make a stand on what exactly it represents and then move on from there, excluding things that do not fit its profile. Doing so will help cryptozoologists concentrate on physical critters and hunt them down for true worldwide discovery.
M_m: I agree with you, and wasn’t trying to say you were approaching this wrong. I share your problem with *how* photos are looked at. But that’s why I think they *should* be.
You say that “It isn’t even really the photos themselves that are the problem, but the way in which people approach them. A lack of scientific or critical analysis detracts from the seriousness of crytozoology, period. Of course you can entertain that it might be a photo of a cryptid, but it should not immediately be your first conclusion especially when there just isn’t enough in the photo to honestly be able to make an assumption either way.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. What I (for one) try to do when these photos show up is give people tips in *how* to evaluate them. Letting people in on the ground floor leaves the floor wide open to bad dancers. But the good ones can show the interested ones the steps – and hopefully show visitors from “outside” crypto that there are people with some skepticism and analytical chops that are “inside” crypto. That’s needed traction for the science. That’s all I’m saying.
Red_pill: can’t really argue with you. It will be the “new guard” in zoology – the Darren Naishes – who elevate crypto. But they will want a base for the search; and I’d argue, and so it sounds would Naish, that the data “votes” a landslide to the flesh-and-blood sasquatch that is consistently described by lots of apparently good observers. For the other stuff, I would want to keep an open mind. (I did just say you can’t scoff, right? Well, you can’t.) But unless there are lots of clearly consistent reports suggesting search protocols, I’m just not sure where you can go with the high strangeness, yet.
red_pill_junkie- I think the thing that a lot of people don’t realize about the canon of science now is that the paradigm established so far has a very good reason for being adhered to.
A lot of what we accept as fact now has been built up to and added to over years with peer reviewed evidence that has been picked apart from every angle and has so far resisted efforts to falsify it. It is as close to the truth that we have been able to come to with current data and methods. A lot of the information is so solid that a scientist can use what has come before as sort of a jumping point from which to pursue their own hypotheses. After all, progress would be incredibly slow in any field if every scientist had to start completely from scratch in order to get to their point.
There is also the concept of what is called “consilience,” which is to say that the data that has contributed to this big beast we refer to as the “paradigm” has been reviewed, amended, and added to by scientists from every field of science; from such far flung disciplines as geology, biology, astrophysics, chemistry, you name it. The data across these fields tends to show a convergence and support predictions made in other areas. All of these fields have converged with their respective contributions, things that tend to fit together, to slowly paint the picture of a rough semblance of how the natural world works to the best of our knowledge so far. Scientists are actually quite eager to falsify the work of others, so if that is unable to be done, then whatever remains, especially if it fits in with predictions made by other fields, is pretty solid.
So you see the paradigm is not a product of close mindedness or “orthodox ideas,” but rather a vast store of information confirmed through countless experiments, peer review, and consilience from all fields of science.
The paradigm can be changed or altered, and has been many times in the past. We are absolutely going to make astonishing new discoveries in the future. But this is a matter of the evidence presented and how well it holds up to scrutiny and falsification rather than any “close mindedness” among scientists in general.
In this sense, I think you will find changing the way things are seen now is not going to be as simple as the “old guard” dying out or stepping away. New, young scientists are not going to just start tossing out what we have built up through countless experiments, observations, and years of peer review. They are still going to have to contend with a very reliable, thorough documentation of what we have discovered so far.
Those who are proposing these new ideas you mention are well aware of this, and you will see that they are going to try and go about a scientific way of justifying their observations as well as find how they might fit into the current paradigm rather than just expect these ideas to be accepted. A lot of these new hypotheses are considered fringe even within their own fields, and so it is going to take a preponderance of evidence to show not only why they are right, but why the years and years of scientific calculations and observations up to now, across all scientific disciplines, are wrong or should be re-thought.
In short, far out new ideas are not going to be any more accepted than they were before in the absence of evidence to the effect that they should be. Like you said, evidence is key.
Of course we don’t know everything. I’d say we actually are only starting to scratch the surface of understanding how the universe operates. But all of these new ideas and hypotheses are going to have to go through the same processes that we have always gone through to get close to the truth, and they are most likely going to fit in somehow with what we already know rather than completely overturn it. I’m all for approaching new phenomena with a fresh take, but in the end we have to build a solid foundation for which to base a case on whatever hypothesis we have come up with, just as we have always had to do.
As far as “making the case” for one’s field, I think science is (or at least should be) about finding the truth, not about proving one’s personal ideas right or wrong. For instance with the phenomena you mentioned. Now I think studying these things is a completely legitimate pursuit. Latching onto one possibility while tossing others is quite simply unscientific, and with all due respect to the individual you noted, if what you say is true then I’d have to say he is not being a responsible scientist nor intellectually honest.
A good scientist is going to try and find that out in a careful, meaningful way that is going to add to our knowledge of the phenomena rather than make it a laughing stock. Is it airplanes, illusions, some weird weather phenomenon we don’t yet understand? Maybe it is aliens but don’t you want to know what it really is rather than take that stance from the get-go? The same thing goes for other “fringe” areas. Go ahead and study them but do so with an honest desire to find out what is really going on rather than what you want to be going on.
If you produce the evidence and make your case in a scientifically sound way, backed by evidence and subjected to peer review, then you are more likely to make an honest contribution to changing the way we see the universe. The more careful you are in your research, the more credibility it is likely to garner. That is the way it is and I wouldn’t want to see it any other way. No changing of the guard is going to change that.
This is the approach I advocate with cryptozoology and one I’d like to see further progress in in 2010. For instance, is sasquatch a bipedal ape? I don’t know. Nobody does at this point. But there is a lot of stuff that I just find hard to explain so far and I am curious as to what is really going on without necessarily any need to believe that an undocumented ape is the source.
So red_pill_junkie, I am certainly not against the pursuit of fringe ideas, it is more the approach to this research I see a problem with at present. It is important to keep an open mind, but not so open as to let your brain fall out.
Now my fingers hurt. And I’m still cold over here in Japan. 🙂
SHJ- I should have addressed my above comment to you as well. Please read it to understand why I believe the paradigm to be an important body of information and not necessarily a “stodgy” obstacle to open-mindedness.
M_m: You say something I sort-of-did; but you said it much, much better.
The “new guard” in any science holds the key to changing paradigms. Most critically, they combat the stodginess that is most certainly there (and that comes neatly encumbered with another term I prefer, scoffing). But that’s the same for the young in any field. One thing the young must do first, however, is get their papers approved by the old guard. In the process of doing so, they’re going to learn that we did a lot of work here, sonny; work is what this field is about, and work is what you will do, a LOT of it, before you overturn Paradigm One.
Within my lifetieme, dinosaurs were seen as big, slow-witted, scaly, cold-blooded animals. They weren’t lizards? Why not? They sure sounded like them; and the anatomical differences didn’t seem all that telling to a layman like me. But you know? There are some pretty active lizards out there; and a new generation of scientists started looking at the evidence in new ways, and making a major series of fossil finds that not only were the basis of their new thinking (accumulate your evidence first) but got their thinking under the noses of the old guard, many influential members of which didn’t scoff – largely because it would be hard to scoff at fossils that clearly supported, in ways any grounded scientist could see, the new thinking. Now, the paradigm is to interpret all finds in terms of active animals quite unlike the dinosaurs – or mammals, or birds for that matter – of a generation or two ago. But a lot of good old science had to happen before that did.
Those of us – most prominently the scientists – who have taken a good look at the evidence for the sasquatch and the yeti can very clearly see that the evidence meets the tests of science, and should be followed up to a conclusion. But the evidence we see meeting the tests is not the high strangeness; that lacks the frequency and coherence that meets the tests. It could be anything, including very needy people who feel a need to mouth off, MK Davis, and have found a pulpit. I know of no one who has approached the evidence with an open and scientific mind – and who has seen as much of it as I have – who doesn’t think, at the very least, what I do.
But until you have approached a phenomenon from that angle, all you have is something that will make most people laugh, and no one look. The sasquatch could be the high priest of an extraterrestrial religion, and hold the secrets that would allow all of us to shapeshift, morph, and drum to our hearts’ content and never need to work a day again in our lives. And free love to boot.
OK. Now how far has that gotten us? Ask Jeff Meldrum.
Max Planck
Okidoki, who first? 😉
Springheeledjack, I agree with both you and m_m that the scientific paradigm has a reason for being reticent to include new wild ideas if those ideas are not being backed by good-enough observation, data & evidence. We all of course remember the famous quote by the late (and great) Carl Sagan:
Which is of course understandable, for the reasons perfectly explained by m_m in the comment above.
But of course, therein sadly lies a paradox: *what* is the yardstick that objectively measures whether the evidence is extraordinary enough or not to back the claim?
Like you guys, I have a good enough confidence in the scientific paradigm, and I do know that eventually new ideas can and will be included in it. The paradigm after all, is nothing but our best approximation to how Nature works, and it will always be that way.
It is the speed in which those new ideas are accepted the factor that many of us are not satisfied with.
Yes, public acceptance can be a strong weapon. But one wit no small amount of controversy; because a tactic that is aimed at influencing the public’s opinion in supporting your claims, is by definition propaganda 😉
The only way to prevent that is if the public has a genuine inention to educate themselves in pursuit of the truth. And one thing we’re learning through modern psychology, is that in the human condition there’s no such thing as a true objectivity. We have a tendency to easily accept the arguments that reinforce our personal belief system, while dismissing ideas that challenge it. That’s why some folks like to watch Fox News, while others prefer MSNBC.
(That quote is by yours truly ^_^)
This reminds me of a recent discussion I had @ TDG, about whether a ‘paranormal’ mystery is an irrationality —understood NOT as the dogmatic skeptics apply the term (“it cannot happen”), but merely as something that cannot be addressed by reason— or rather, an uncertainty (an unknown). And we came to the conclusion that you cannot say something is irrational until you understand it to be, prior to that you can only say that it appears to be irrational. In that sense, maybe the only irrational thing that exists, it’s an unwillingness to examine an uncertainty!
So, applying that to Cryptozoology, I guess that the problem is that if we wish to ‘weed out’ that which should be left outside the realm of the discipline, then we begin to have problems. If we say that Cryptozoology must deal *only* with unknown flesh & blood animals; then, do we have enough evidence at this point to determine which cryptids are flesh & blood, and which aren’t? Should Mothman & the Dover Demon be considered entitities outside the realm of study of ‘hard’ Cryptozoology? if so, why?
I guess what I’m trying to say is, that I agree with you in trying to ‘make a case’ with the strongest available evidence for a given cryptid, like Bigfoot. But that we should always be mindful NOT to throw away the odd data that doesn’t agree with our established preconceptions. Let’s leave the data and preserve it so that future generations might get the chance to improve the paradigm after we are gone.
Like DWA, I’m also not sure wher the high strangeness could lead us to. But we shouldn’t dismiss it on that basis alone.
Now, let’s go with Mistery_Man:
Like I wrote in the lines above, I agree that the evidence has to hold up to scrutiny. But at the same time, there has to be a willingness to look at the data in the first place, right?
And here’s the problem, my dear m_m. You know as well as I do that, ultimately, there’s no such thing as Science as an independent entity. There are only scientists. Men and women who, ideally, ascribe themselves to a rule of conduct to follow in oirder to pursuit a search for truth. And it’s a method that has given us as a species enormous benefits.
But, in the end, scientists remain human. And as such they will display a certain amount of subjectivity one way or another. And that’s why a scientist that has a vested interest in an established theory will show a greater resistence to study divergent data if ti conflicts with the theory that has granted him success and notoriety.
It is interest to notice that, nowadays, some of the most interesting radical ideas have come, not from leading investigaros, and not even from young newcomers eager to find a comfortable position in Academia; but fom senior laureate scientists that have reached the age of retirement, and are now free to ponder upon the kind of ideas that would seriosuly undermine the career of lesser researchers.
And that’s simple to understand: they have nothing to lose anymore 🙂
Why do you think Jane Goddall ventured to say on an interview that she believes there’s a case for the existence of Bigfoot, only a few years ago instead of early in her career? 😉
Agreed. One can get tired of reading or gathering anecdotal evidence of fringe phenomena. The thing the Fortean disciplines need to do in the XXIst century is to determine WHAT to do with the evidence.
But, like I said in a previous comment, maybe some of the fringier stuff exists only to challenge us on a personal basis… instead of focusing on advancing the scientific paradigm, perhaps we should also focus in see how the fringe allows us to grow as persons.
Let me ask you guys this: Has Cryptozoology contributed in making you a better person? and if not, why do you keep studying it?
Red_pill: I’ll go first:
“Let me ask you guys this: Has Cryptozoology contributed in making *you* a better person?”
Yes, it has; because it’s helped me understand why you have to play by science’s rules.
Evidence can’t be followed if there is nothing to follow, and no one wants to follow it. The non-strangeness evidence for the sasquatch suggests when, where and how to search, and what to search for. The high strangeness suggests either one of two things: strange people, or data that can’t be followed because there’s nothing to attach to it.
If it’s zoology you are looking for animals; and the way to do it is to follow a body of reportage that seems to suggest pretty consistent appearance, behavior and habits. If they’re beaming up, we’ll just have to wait ‘til they want science to see them; I’d rather not wait, personally.
Ah, it’s been a couple of days, but I was hoping this discussion would still be raging on:)
I’m going in reverse order, cause it’s my modus operandi today…
I’m with DWA on the zoology idea…applying to cryptozoology that is…for me cryptozoology has always meant the investigation/hunt/active search for unknown animals…or something like that…and to me it’s physical critters that maybe are out there on the radar like ocean going, LARGE critters, or BF, or thunderbirds–take your pick.
However, going to what you said above RPJ, I do agree with you–
“If we say that Cryptozoology must deal *only* with unknown flesh & blood animals; then, do we have enough evidence at this point to determine which cryptids are flesh & blood, and which aren’t? ”
That is the rub…and above I was basically agreeing with you…what is considered “fringe” may in all reality be fact down the road. Just because some account is an anomaly does not make it false or supernatural…often with accounts, we certainly only have one sliver of perception on an event…and that’s what makes cryptozoology so damn difficult. It’s like the old story of the 7 blind mice who individually encounter an elephant, but each only encounters a piece and they end up with six different ideas about what the “it” is, until the seventh mouse can put it all together. With BF, I think we’ve got a lot of the pieces in front of us, but we need a few more…that and the seventh mouse.
My point is I agree with you…I am never for discounting a particular sighting, no matter how odd…or at least not on the basis that it doesn’t fit with everything else…because sometimes it may actually be the one odd piece that may lead us to the bigger picture. I once got into a long, drawn out argument here over BF sightings…arguing about deciding which sightings were valid enough to keep as useful to the database, and which could be thrown out. I still argue that you do not throw anything out because if you do throw one piece of the puzzle out, you might be throwing out a key piece, even if it doesn’t seem like even a piece of the puzzle. And it is because we are up against so many unknowns. We don’t have a clear idea of what is out there, and so flushing information away based on an idea that an account is too far fetched or “just doesn’t fit” doesn’t cut it with me…and then my other BIG problem with that scenario, is who exactly is it that is making the decision on what stays and what goes. Yeah.
MM–on the stodgy thing…oh I get it, and my “stodgy” comment is more directed at those in the scientist attire at their scientist desk getting asked about cryptids or ozoology and condemning it with the paranormal and the crackpots. To my mind, the true scientist is always open minded–doesn’t mean they believe one way or the other, but the possibility is always out there. IF every square foot of earth is raked over (and I mean simultaneously) and no BF is found on the planet, then it is okay to say, there is absolutely no BF…doesn’t mean there wasn’t ever one…but you see what I mean. I think cryptozoology based on the scientific model for investigation is the way to go. IT helps with weeding out the blobsquatches, the crackpots, and actually categorizes down the evidence to repeatable reproduceable accounts—large hairy bipeds, in the case of BF…
AS to RPJ’s last question…it absolutely makes me a better person. I’ve been reading about this stuff and studying this stuff since I was 12. It has furthered my education–I’ve read more on biology, zoology and forensics since I got out of school than I did when I was in school. I’ve learned more about human psychology too:) I love a good mystery, and if nothing else cryptozoology has given me drive and discipline to build tables of data to test my own theories about these cryptids. And just plain old fun–don’t even get me started…even if I never lay eyes on Nessie personally or Champ, the pursuit is worthwhile for what I have gained and what I can add to the equation.
Looks like mystery_man’s last comment, as well as my own, have been lost in the ether 🙁
Well, hope you guys had a chance to read them. If I can I’ll try to remember what it was I wrote (I think I was kind of interesting, but I can’t quite recall).
Red_pill said: “We have a tendency to easily accept the arguments that reinforce our personal belief system, while dismissing ideas that challenge it.”
Maybe I should have put that on the list of things that will make “crypto” a respected word: analyzing what’s there rather than saying the safe thing.
All too often here I see kneejerk debunks. I see them far more often than I see “that’s Bigfoot!” Neither approach is good for crypto. To come up with a convoluted story that explains why that unexplained thing is “really” a deer is nothing more than being a true believer in what you want to see. (Totally aside from violating Occam’s Razor.) Purported cryptid video or photos are one of three things:
(1) clearly a mundane subject, USING ONLY CLUES AVAILABLE RIGHT THERE (I’ll get to that in a minute);
(2) clearly a cryptid (shoot, not even Patty has passed that test, and probably no single anything can); or
(3) unclear, but pointing to either “interesting” or “mundane.”
Too many times I see people saying that’s a person (or a cryptid, or a deer/bear) using “clues” other than what is right in front of them. Or, even worse, and actually much more common: not using clues at all, just firing a totally clueLESS (usually mundane) uneducated guess out there with no backup. As red_pill says: “The only way to prevent that is if the public has a genuine inention to educate themselves in pursuit of the truth.” And, r_p, pursues that intention more vigorously than many do here.
If you’re going to comment on these photos and vids, guys and gals, it would help to make yourselves a resolution in 2010 to learn something about animals – both known and unknown – so that the things you say on Cryptomundo won’t make mainstreamers who come here snicker and go: they expect us to take this seriously? Not only that, but you sound a lot more interesting when you analyze what’s right there and go “intriguing” than when you just try to be the first one to say “horse” and get in good with the other numskulls on the playground.
Thanks, guys, for a great exchange.
red_pill_junky- haha, yeah there’s not much we can do about it with the trouble with the site and all. I think you’re right, it recall it was something interesting. 🙂
Anyway, it was great discussion and I liked hearing everyone’s ideas on the matter. I’m sure there will be other opportunities to discuss these things. 😉
Sorry, that should be red_pill_junkie. I always do that with your name for some reason. No offense intended.
None taken m_m 😉
If I recall, you wrote quite a few interesting and valid points defending the scientific paradigm. After explaining that I also share with you a passion for everything that Science touches, I wanted only to remark that we should try nonetheless, to at least preserve those odds reports that are very difficult to pigeon-hole; because who knows? maybe someone tomorrow, in 10 or 100 years might look it with new eyes and extrapolate from them a wonderful new insight from the natural world.
I also proposed we could make some sort of mantra for Cryptos to follow in the year 2010, so we can actually see some improvementes in the discipline. It went something like:
* Science is our friend, NOT our enemy.
* The scientific paradigm is there for a very good reason.
* As far as Cryptozoology is concerned, there are NO paranormal phenomena; only uncertainties regarding some natural events. Events that can and should be studied & investigated.
* A crypto should refrain from trying to see Cryptozoology as a method for selfish gain; such as validating one’s personal belief system (case in point: Creationism), or even worse: as a way to make a profit at the expense of the hard-earned reputation of the discipline (case in point: Tom Biscardi).
* Cryptozoology should be seen as the perfect excuse to help a crypto gain a helpful understanding of science, and a deeper appreciation of the natural world.
* No more mangy bears mentioning!! [OK, I added this one today ;)]
And, once again, Muchas Gracias to you, to DWA & springheeledjack for this wonderful exchange of ideas. It is because I’ve had the chance to expand my horizons with the input of such intelligent people, that I too feel Cryptozoology has made me a better person.
Alright, I’m having such a good time with this post that I can’t quite move on yet:)
Only two more things: 1) BAck to what DWA was saying about the knee-jerk-debunks (personally I think we have a new phrase for 2010…goes right in there with my other favorite word–scoftic), I’m tired of the people too who get on, take a sighting and sum it up in two words—bear, guy in a suit, ya-da ya-da ya-da.
THat’s easy–it’s always easy to roll your eyes and make a blanket statement. BUT, that’s not why this site is here. IT’s here and we’re here to evaluate all things crypto–which means if you think something, put your money where your mouth is and back it up. Give the rest of us some evidence from your perspective as to why you think the furry thing in the photo is a Lepus Reptilicus…or a dude in a coat…whichever you prefer…
Don’t just throw a solution out there and not back it up. Give something to the discussion. Because that IS what this place is for and all about. We get something, we discuss it, dissect it, with all of us working to get at the truth…not necessarily to prove that it’s Champ selling t-shirts at the Mall…
And secondly, I’m with you RPJ–this has been a realllllly good discussion between all of us, and these are the sidelines that I like best because we can hash out some good ideas. Thanks to the rest of you free thinkers!
Alright, moving on…
red_pill_junkie- I can absolutely go with those points you mention in your mantra. That is pretty much exactly what my mantra would be like. I concur. And yeah concerning the “paranormal” being just the “normal” that is as yet not understood, I think that is one of the things I mentioned in my lost post if I remember correctly. You have my agreement there as well.
SHJ- I agree. This site is here to make us think, and to try to figure these things out together in a meaningful and insightful way. We are not here because we “believe” but rather because we are kindred spirits trying to uncover the truth, attempting to shed light on the dark corners that science has not yet illuminated.
Although we all sometimes have our disagreements, I quite frankly feel like I am in good company here. Our approaches may sometimes differ, but in the end we are all here for the same reasons. Finding the truth.
I love these types of discussions and many thanks to especially SHJ, DWA, and red_pill_junkie for the thoughtful exchange. Sorry my other posts didn’t make it up, but red_pill_junkie seems to have read it RPJ I’m glad that it might have made you think a little bit about that perspective.
Excellent stuff everybody. Look forward to getting together and really sinking our teeth into another useful exchange like this in the future.