Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on April 17th, 2013

Are Hardcore Skeptics and Debunkers Actually Brain Deficient? Their Own Beloved ‘Hard Science’ Might Well Suggest Many Are.

We have all encountered them. The men and women of ‘reason’. The self-appointed guardians and vanguards of materialist dogma along with their absolute faith and belief in official government and corporate press releases. The debunker, the hardcore skeptic—how they love to compulsively ridicule and mock all they deem ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘conspiracy theory’—while also declaring anyone who thinks outside the box or questions the prevailing orthodoxy, a “moron” and a “tard”. Matters not how solid the evidence you present them with is, nor how flimsy their own state-sanctioned ‘hard science’ which they smugly offer up as their rebuttal; they are driven by a messianic compulsion to root out unscientific ‘idiots’ with all the zeal and fanaticism similar to that of a Dominican or Jesuit charging through southern France in the twelfth century seeking out ‘heretics’ for the burning. Irony does not even come into their myopic worldview—unless of course a government, corporate or university press office states this. Then is becomes an undisputed fact. Thanks to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christoper Hitchens, these Internet-bound warriors of rationality see ‘Creationists’ and ‘hidden Christians’ around every corner and seek to root them out and expose them as part and parcel of their own peculiar secular witch hunt mentality.

The reality is that apart from their own kind—other self-proclaimed non-‘idiots’—most people find such arrogant and obnoxious debunkers and hardcore skeptics to be strangely angry and boorish, and often confrontational to the point of hysterical. So many of them seem to lack basic social and behavioural skills when ‘debating’ with their ‘kook’ of choice. Their absolutism can be staggering at times. Yet, despite all this, they have somehow come to consider themselves ‘cool’ and even ‘sexy’ within the last decade. This is simply a lack of critical thinking on their behalf; a distorted worldview where only they are right and everyone else is an idiot.

However, when you strip down their whole mandate into its constituent parts, one soon finds that most of these ‘scientifically’ minded crusaders have no actual accredited scientific background, and the entire thrust of their endeavours remains nothing less than unconditional servitude and unquestioned devotion to authority figures and the status quo. They seek entrenched orthodoxy, not exploration and wonder. They see an open-minded individual as being akin to a brain being infected with a disease, or the mark of a witch. They act as if Creationists are a real danger to human survival, as if the US Bible Belt has extended beyond its absurd boundaries. Creationists are about as much danger to the advances made by scientists in the last two hundred years as Graneda was to Ronald Reagan back in the early 1980s.

It is only fair to point out that there are also healthy skeptics who genuinely do look at anomalies and unexplained phenomena within the natural and unseen cosmos with a cautious eye. They will at least indulge a novel or radical opinion and look at the evidence before taking a stance—often it is an arbitrary position—based on using the Scientific Method coupled with Carl Sagan’s “extraordinary evidence”. They are generally polite and only moderately condescending at worst.

The debunker and the hardcore skeptics, on the other hand, will even attack these open-minded Materialists, similar to how a flying saucer cult will have very public witch hunts of so-so members who have not shown their unconditional devotion to the messages sent from the ‘space brothers’. The irony is that many of the open-minded skeptics that they attack often have a scientific or engineering background, and these folks are being attacked by debunkers whose sum total of their own quest for reason and logic rarely extends beyond procuring a ‘Mythbusters’ DVD box set or having a poster of Richard Dawkins on their wall. Any Reductionist fence-sitters will be treated with ridicule and contempt—even fascistic vitriol and vicious insults.

There is simply no grey areas within the concrete consciousness of the debunker or the hardcore skeptic; instead, only a kind of scientific idealism—and idealism, both secular or otherwise, is really just a nice way of saying ‘fascism’.

So what gives? How come they behave the way they do? A complete lack of social intelligence? An inability to debate, share interesting banter and listen to what another person is saying which might be at odds with their own beliefs? Surprisingly, their own beloved science might well provide the answer to these questions. It may well be an over-stimulation of the left hemisphere of their brains leading to a kind of self-induced schizophrenia whereby the right hemisphere of their brain has been switched off. Hence, why they place no value on other forms of non-lateral intelligence: noetic wisdom and intuition.

Read the rest of the article here.

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

36 Responses to “Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?”

  1. Hapa responds:

    Very good post.

    No-nothing skepticism is one of the greatest dangers to science we have ever seen: if know-nothing skeptics had their way, the Wright Brothers would have never flown, Columbus and Magellan would not have set sail, and every type specimen attained from the likes of Duck Billed Platypus, the Mountain Gorilla, etc, would have been turned away as “Obvious fakes to anybody who has taken 1 course in biology, let along people with Ph.Ds in Zoology (and at first, this indeed happened to the Platypus: the first specimen brought to science was ignored and done away without a careful examination).

  2. DWA responds:

    Wait. There’s a REST OF THE ARTICLE…?

    Um, whoa. I think I may already have hit my Bile Quotient. [covers glass] Check, please.

    There are good points to be made here. One question I have never found the answer to:

    Why come to a place like this over and over again; state again and again a position based on nothing but belief in the status quo; earnestly joust with people throwing evidence at you from all angles; respond with none; and continually maintain, contrary to everything that science teaches us, that the position with no evidence backing it up is the one that must be correct?

    It is odd. I will never understand it, and I have never seen it close to beginning to be explained. I hope I can see that kind of discussion here. But based on experience, much of it here, I’m not hopeful.

  3. DWA responds:

    OK, I opened the curtain.

    Even though this passage

    Stress is then incurred upon their left hemisphere cognitive functioning and behavioural deficiencies result. They are not calling people ‘morons’ and ‘retards’ as a general insult or standard Internet ‘courage’—the debunkers and hardcore skeptics are deeply frustrated and near hysterical to the point where they see anyone who is open-minded and willing to indulge the mysterious as being akin to an alien life form.

    can explain anyone’s victimization in a heated discussion (witness my reference above to Redlining Bile Meter), I have gotta say that the full read, if not The Explanation, comes closer to an explanation of what I encounter discussing this topic with ‘skeptics’ (it’s not skepticism!) than anything else I have seen, heard, or read.

    When one asks “what is your definition of evidence?” and gets two, count ’em two, definitions of proof; when one says “‘no proof’ isn’t a conclusion,” gets the response “that’s not what I’m saying!!!!!!!”, then watches them essentially say “no proof” yet again; when one defines evidence, shows how the term applies, and hears….[crickets] in response; …[and he could keep on going]…

    …well, one reads this piece, and sees an explanation than which one has not seen a better yet.

    Sorry, way it is.

  4. sonofthedestroyer responds:

    The article describes many of the people posting comments here on this website
    Sometimes it makes me wonder if cryptomundo should be named skeptomundo

  5. sasquatch responds:

    When someone will not even look at the purported “evidence” then you should not waste time with them. They’ve got their minds made up. End of story, walk away.

    I run into it all the time-with cryptozoology & religious discussions in particular.

  6. springheeledjack responds:

    I have always lumped the “debunkers” and “scoftics” in the same category as the zealots who believe every picture is a sasquatch or a Nessie (“I do believe there’s a squatch in these woods…”).

    It’s just the other end of the pendulum and you have to contend with both on just about every controversial subject.

    One point I’ll make that goes along the lines that DWA was on–namely why people who categorically shoot down everything as myth and misidentification get on sites like this in the first place–to me it has that over zealous feel of “needing” everyone else to believe the way they do, because they “know” the truth and are trying to lead the rest of us savages to the promised land.

    Yeah. I don’t get them either. If you don’t believe in this stuff, why do you waste your time on the likes of us who want to investigate. It’s not like we’re poisoning the minds of the youth in some cult that ends with Kool-Aid.

    In the end, zealots are all on ends of the spectrum as the extremists always are.

  7. Vpanoptes responds:

    Wow. Can you spell “polemic”? How about “rant”?

  8. DWA responds:

    Given my adventures with ‘skeptics,’ I understand it, gotta admit, rant though it may be.

    This may be the only field in which the kind of thinking under discussion consistently gets an honored place at the table.

  9. Piltdown responds:

    Skeptics are important and valuable, because they may inject some needed critical thinking into the discussion and rein in some of the more…overenthusiastic…cryptid enthusiasts. Cryptic life-forms are interesting and exciting to contemplate, but I think a little detachment and objectivity are more helpful than near-fervid credulity.

  10. Goodfoot responds:

    Yo DWA: I feel your frustration, but I don’t quite (yet) accept the “brain deficiency” theory. Hysterical gun-banners? Yes!

    What I think is going on I have stated here before. Maybe more than once; make that probably.

    What I think is going on is FEAR, not a brain deficiency; the professional debunkers’ “arguments” bear all the classic hallmarks of a fear response. They are sore afraid of their carefully-contructed (though erroneous) little scientific applecart being overturned…

    Anyone who has ever watched Joe (last name withheld) at work debunking should be able to see the fear response in his words, and more importantly, body language.

    I could go on, but I don’t like to take up unnecessary space. Watch for it: FEAR!!!

  11. Goodfoot responds:

    FEAR, FEAR, FEAR. Look for it. It’s so obvious.

  12. gridbug responds:

    There are two types of people: those who are acutely aware that we have never been and will never be the absolute authority on absolutely everything there is to know in this universe and are therefore open to the infinite possibilities that await. And then there are those who are so threatened by the insecurity of not knowing that they choose instead to shut down all “crazy talk” when it comes to these same mysteries.

    Proud to be in the former. 🙂

  13. marcodufour responds:

    Goodfoot – I think these people are experiencing Cognitive Dissonance.

  14. PhotoExpert responds:

    Craig–Just a superb article you have written here! Outstanding! It is what I have been trying to convey to readers here lately. And that is that extreme scepticism is a religion. It is their belief system.

    DWA–Excellent commentary, as always!

    gridbug–I am glad you are in the former group. You are really in the third camp here at Cryptomundo. You are objective! Kudos sir!

    springheeledjack–Yes, you hit the nail on the head. Extremists are what they are! Isn’t it great to be in the middle camp as we are?

    Goodfoot–You bring up a very good and valid point. Because of the bizarre and dismissive reaction by extreme sceptics, that points to some kind of emotional response. You have so clearly pointed out that emotion–FEAR! I believe young grasshopper, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head! The part you posted about upsetting the apple cart is spot on. Awesome post! Kudos!

  15. DWA responds:


    Skepticism, yes.

    The kind of thinking that’s being talked about here: no.

    Jeff Meldrum is a skeptic; so was Grover Krantz; so is John Bindernagel. This is precisely why they are where they are. They are skeptical of the comfortable, toss-off assumption that the status quo is OK and cannot be challenged by evidence that it is not.

    Skepticism is questioning assumptions. ANY assumptions. Science should never assume anything; yet what bigfoot skeptics call ‘skepticism’ actually gives the word a bad name, and a bad reputation it doesn’t deserve. Because it assumes practically everything. It has a thesis for which it sees no need to provide evidence.

    Most of the discussion of cryptozoology is, as springheeledjack points out, dueling fringes. Sasquatch is the best example. One side firmly believes that we are talking about humans here, humans connected with spacecraft and the paranormal. (Or firmly believes that noise was a squatch; this area is squatchy; so let’s move on, because they are clearly here. Next episode!) The other fringe, carefully performing every wrong act of which they accuse the believers, firmly believes that there is no evidence, when those of us exercising a simple curiosity, born of long acquaintance with animals and nature, especially human nature, can clearly see there’s metric tons of obvious evidence that just as obviously isn’t being touched by the very people who should be touching it. We know this has happened repeatedly in the history of science; the Meldrums are always alone at the start.

    Yet all we hear is “no proof;” ridicule of those who hold an alternative view; and a total inability to understand what the true scientific mind does when confronted with something like this, which is:

    Behave like Meldrum, Krantz and Bindernagel.

  16. DWA responds:

    There is an excellent example of defeating the kind of thinking we are talking about here, housed in the best piece of writing advice I ever got.

    Ever get “writer’s block”? Know how to defeat it?

    WRITE. WRITE. KEEP WRITING and don’t stop to think. Shut down the analysis – run-on sentence, argh! misplaced modifier, aaagh! misspell, yikes! – and just write. dontcross anythign out keepgoing don’t backspace don’t cut paste anything liek that keep twriting. (Like that.) W. Somerset Maugham, when he got stuck, simply started writing his own name, over and over, until there was something else to write. Read him. You gonna argue?

    What those of us who have gotten into this, found the evidence out for ourselves, and gotten where we are on this have done is to shut out everything but what is in front of us. We determine what IT says, not what people who have not read it say about it.

    That is what science does. It considers – only – what is in front of it, and how that relates to other things. Not what people who haven’t gone there say about “what to think.” it keeps pushing no diedits no backspaces no spellcheck now nothoing pretty much (like that). That is how Einstein – maybe the purest scientist science has seen – did it.

    That’s how Meldrum and company are doing it.

  17. DWA responds:

    And to clarify the post on what that writing exercise tells us that is relevant to this post, which it occurs I might want to do:

    What I am saying is not “don’t think.” How can one write otherwise? What that writing technique says is:

    Turn off the voice that is telling you “don’t do this, it’s wrong/unorthodox/not conforming to consensus.” Let the right brain work unfettered.

    (Turn on the left brain when it’s time to edit. Oh you will have to edit, trust me. But know what? Less than you think you will.)

    That’s what separates the great writers – and the great scientists – from the rest. Or your best writing – and thinking – from your worst.

    Give your whole brain a chance to work, and the whole world comes into focus.

  18. DWA responds:

    I need to add something. My right brain is firing off noetic insights one after the other.

    Know how a bigfoot skeptic will state, as a certainty, that sightings are this (and not bigfoot); the footprints are this (and not bigfoot); none of the alleged finds and losses of phyiscial evidence, e.g., the Minaret skull, ever happened; etc. …and when one asks them for proof, one gets in reply, wait for it:

    Oh no. YOU are the one who needs to provide the proof.

    Perfect illustration of what we’re dealing with. Loose translation:

    What you are saying is loony. I don’t know why; I don’t need to say why; evidence is not something I need to bring to this argument. When one is right, one does not need to provide evidence. When one says, off the top of one’s head, that people one has never met are suffering from specific, or generic, types of brain malfunction that are by total coincidence generating biologically-consistent reportage from these people, very few of whom happen to be biologists, even though some are, well, that’s just what’s happening. Prove it? I’m right. I don’t need to prove anything.

    This is just what one would expect a person using only one half of one’s brain to say, right? “I only need to conduct half an argument.”

  19. mandors responds:

    I agree with Goodfoot that fear is a motivation/factor in many rabid “skeptics.” But we need to ask the next question: from where does the fear come? I think the answer is “orthodoxy.” So called scientists and scholars, purport to disseminate facts, when what in fact they spread is specialized knowledge. Whether this specialized knowledge is based on truth is another matter. It becomes dogma, and the specialists defend their beliefs with all the fervor of a 14th Century cleric.

    I can point to several examples. When I was a kid, the idea that Vikings may have come to North America, let alone founded settlements was dismissed as ridiculous, nothing but myth. The settlements are now National Canadian Historic sites. Almost two decades ago, it was proposed that Native Americans in Chaco Canyon practiced cannibalism. The archeologist was slandered and demonized, because the orthodoxy was (and is) that Indians were peaceful idealists living in (ahem) bucolic splendor. Turner had to go so far as to demonstrate human DNA in the coprolite to prove the theory.

    I could go on: The Out of Africa Theory, The Land Bridge Theory. There is often very good evidence that is ridiculed, and in the case of the latter covered up to prop up the orthodoxy. None of this is skepticism nor science, and sadly it is what many of the responsible cryptozoologists and Forteans face all too often.

  20. springheeledjack responds:

    Piltdown: I agree with you. It’s that objectivity that allows someone to decide against a hoax or a misidentification. However, the debunkers always try to latch onto the monicker of being “skeptics” when in fact they’re just naysayers without looking at the evidence…with an open mind. The other end of the spectrum is the zealots for the cause (I haven’t latched onto a good descriptor for them yet), who do the exact same thing, except they buy into everything.

    I look at us on this site as true skeptics: we look at incoming events, pics, accounts, etc. and then discuss the pros and cons of whether it’s legitimate or not and go from there. True skeptics look at every piece of information available and then make up their minds.

    Debunkers, scoftics, all-believers (eh, it’s the best I could come up with for now) and yay-sayers make their stance and then skew any evidence in order to support their beliefs.

  21. Goodfoot responds:

    mandors : The question then becomes, “where does orthodoxy come from?”

    Well, it often comes from the halls of academia, from situations that tend to reward orthodoxy and punish dissent, professionally.

  22. DWA responds:

    And where does academia start?

    “The Western system of education has created a kind of trial separation between the left and right hemispheres of the human brain. …”

  23. DWA responds:


    “I could go on: The Out of Africa Theory, The Land Bridge Theory. There is often very good evidence that is ridiculed, and in the case of the latter covered up to prop up the orthodoxy. None of this is skepticism nor science, and sadly it is what many of the responsible cryptozoologists and Forteans face all too often.”

    Did you know CONTINENTS MOVE? Not before 1968 you didn’t.

    Wait for somebody to come on here and say “that was first advanced as a theory…” (in the 16th century, pal, thanks for playing. Look how long it took to accept it).

    This is a classic example of the kind of thinking we’re talking about here. Things that make sasquatch look like, well, what it is, a fairly garden-variety primate, really, although OK kind of a cool one, just like the polar bear is kind of a cool bear, have been discovered, time and time and time again. Yet half-brain thinking fails to make the obvious connection. It ranks as mundane things that were earth-shaking (er, moving) when they were discovered, and forgets that the dance of the scoftics has recurred almost without cease on topic after topic forever and ever.

  24. Insanity responds:

    Often I see what I call ‘large overgeneralize statements’ as facts to suggest something can or cannot be. But no effort is made to break these statements into smaller questions and answer those to determine if the larger statement is accurate.

    In order to be objective, one has to be both a skeptic and a believer in a sense, but not just one or the other. If you always assume a hoax, that is not being objective.

    The absence of evidence does not always mean evidence of absence.

  25. corrick responds:

    Thank you for your sanity.

  26. eyeofstrm responds:

    ODD, I like that , definitely what Ranae on Finding Bigfoot has.

  27. springheeledjack responds:

    I’m just gonna get out of the way…DWA is on a roll:) Gonna sit in the middle camp with PhotoExpert and roast hotdogs…then set up the recorders and cameras to see if the big guy shows…

  28. springheeledjack responds:

    The hardest part of this cryptozoological business is staying the course when you’ve got one crowd laughing at you and rolling their eyes because you’re actually wasting your time on this stuff (of course they seem to forget they’re wasting their time on it too…and for even less purpose), and on the other side you’ve got the “there it is!” crowd seeing cryptids behind every shadow and roll of the water.

    What baffles and frustrates me the most in this whole affair is the amount of in-fighting that goes on inside the camp on the hunt for cryptids. I’ve noticed it most in the Bigfoot circles, and it annoys the crap out of me. Again, you get into layers of groups who dance (or outright cross) that line of skepticism and absolute belief, and I think that’s where the bulk of the problem lies. That and even within the skeptics there’s an “orthodox” at work and mainstream skeptics still verbally whup up on the more fringe skeptics.

    I’m taking DWA’s approach and keeping my head down, keeping from getting sucked into groups, and working the investigation from my angles. I’ll share information, I’ll offer my two cents, but I’m keeping my eye on the prize.

    Good thread, everyone.

  29. DWA responds:


    Oh, Piltdown’s being totally sane. No one here has any objection to his post at all; we all agree with it. As he says: the Meldrums and Krantzes are important.

    We just took the opportunity to point out the difference between skepticism and what isn’t. And an implication that that’s insanity…well, that’s the kind of thinking, that isn’t skepticism but rather something else, that is the subject of discussion here.

  30. DWA responds:


    “The hardest part of this cryptozoological business is staying the course when you’ve got one crowd laughing at you and rolling their eyes because you’re actually wasting your time on this stuff (of course they seem to forget they’re wasting their time on it too…and for even less purpose)…”

    Requoted for emphasis.

    He knows why he’s here, and I know why I am: we consider the evidence for cryptids compelling, and find them fun to talk about. (As well as rank on some of the odder behaviors we see in crypto. Show much? 😀 )

    Why are those parenthetical folks here? I have never gotten a good answer; and that’s where the “obsessive” comes in, ‘coz that ain’t a good answer.

    I’ve had one or two say to me “I find this a fascinating social phenomenon.” Oh. And so you won’t bother to learn why that isn’t all it is? I mean, I would go on a solar-physics site to go on and on about how our belief in a “Sun” is a fascinating social phenomenon, and not bother to take it any further than that…if I thought there could possibly be any point to that sort of behavior, I mean.

  31. DWA responds:


    “In order to be objective, one has to be both a skeptic and a believer in a sense, but not just one or the other. If you always assume a hoax, that is not being objective.”


    The leading proponents of sasquatch – not meaning to tar any cryptids I’m leaving out – exemplify this behavior. In fact, all the debunking of alleged sasquatch evidence has been done by the scientific proponents. Meldrum, Krantz and Napier – all proponents for the animal’s existence – have each actually made calls that I considered incorrect, on the side of skepticism. And the only “belief” that any of them have held on this topic can be expressed as: the evidence says [x]; I therefore conclude [y].

    As Piltdown put it, these and other scientists on the proponent side “inject some needed critical thinking into the discussion and rein in some of the more…overenthusiastic…cryptid enthusiasts.”

  32. Goodfoot responds:

    Another post that vanished. I don’t understand what is happening.

    I don’t understand what you mean, what vanished? Craig

  33. springheeledjack responds:

    “Meldrum, Krantz and Napier – all proponents for the animal’s existence – have each actually made calls that I considered incorrect, on the side of skepticism.”–DWA

    That’s actually another good point–in this business, even those who are on top of their game don’t always make the right choices. All of us have looked at something at one time or another and thought we had a good call, only to have someone else look at data and say, “Uh, hey, isn’t that a guy in a suit because…?” Well, at least I have.:)

    The point is that being a skeptic, and a true skeptic means that you help keep everyone honest, including yourself. Skepticism is part of the cryptozoologist’s arsenal–how the debunking crowd ever got to a position where they decided they were the only ones who were skeptical is beyond me (well I think all of us here at cryptomundo have done our best to take that word back and put it where it deserves to be).

    And hey, even the best make mistakes–there’s so many hoaxers, variables and just plain old pieces of the puzzle to sift through that it’s impossible not to have an account get the better of you once in a while. A GOOD skeptic will point out the fault in your argument, BUT they won’t beat you up for it AND try to discredit every other good call you’ve made on account of one misstep. That’s the true hallmark of a debunker.

    Oh, and Goodfoot–every once in a while I’ll write something up and try to submit and end up losing it too–I’m not sure if maybe two posts are coming in at the same time, or there’s some kind of internet hiccup or something else, but it’s happened to me on occasion too. I’m not I.T. so I have no clue.

  34. PhotoExpert responds:

    Goodfoot–I know exactly what you are referring to, when you talk about disappearing posts. Do not worry, it is not Craig or a moderator removing them or anything like that.

    What normally happens when you post here at Cryptomundo, you will see your post with small bold black lettering next to it that states: Your Comment Is Awaiting Moderation.

    There is a countdown button below it. You have 9 minutes or so to edit your post. When that time expires, it will pop up the Awaiting Moderation verbage. And then sometimes, the post just disappears. You have no idea where it went. The awaiting moderation verbage is gone and so is your post. That has happened to me. On a couple of occassions, I checked back hours later, after the post has disappeared and it is there! I do not know where it went but hours later, it is there as a permanent post.

    There has only been three or four times over the many years that the post actually just disappeared. I know one time it was a server problem as I found out later. Another time, it was simply gone and NOT removed by a moderator. I have a feeling it was either a Word Press issue or the ISP I was using was running slow. And on another occassion, as I posted, my internet connection failed or timed out. I thought it posted but it could not have posted, since I lost the connection.

    So here is something you can do, especially if you are doing a long post. Just BEFORE you hit the “Submit Comments” button, just copy the post and paste it as a Microsoft Word Document. Then hit the submit button. Wait an hour or two. If you do not see it, simply copy it from your saved Word Document and repaste it as a new post. No problem! If it has not disappeared, no problem! Then just delete it from your saved Documents files once it has permanently posted.

  35. DWA responds:

    Summing up:

    Matt Moneymaker thinks that everything that happens is a squatch.

    ODD holds that every time it’s a squatch, it’s not.

    What, exactly, is the difference? They’re the same. Every extreme has its equal and opposite. Surprise? Nah.

  36. DWA responds:

    Springheeledjack – because you have made good comments that need to be recognized and expanded upon, AND because somebody has to keep this going:

    “[I]n this business, even those who are on top of their game don’t always make the right choices. …”

    This is exactly why

    (1) I will call people on it who agree with me generally when we don’t agree, and I will say why, and

    (2) I don’t look at one’s degree, but rather what one is doing with that degree in the instant case.

    You don’t skate because you are prominent in the field, not when you are showing me that you are shooting from the hip, and not using that degree here.

    When Daris Swindler went from skeptic to proponent on sasquatch, based on his analysis of the Skookum cast; when Jimmy Chilcutt went after Jeff Meldrum’s footprint casts to debunk them…and wound up a proponent; and when George Schaller says “a hard-eyed look is absolutely essential,” they are showing me their chops, in the here and now, on the topic under discussion. (To someone afflicted with ODD, they have merely Gone Over To The Dark Side.) When someone just says “that’s unlikely;” gives a percentage chance, say 5%, but no explanation of where the number came from; or uses the incompleteness of the fossil record, or unsustainable statements about available forage, or what we know about known animals, to say no-way…well, that’s not showing me anything but a need to dust off that sheepskin, and start remembering that one is supposed to be a scientist, and open-minded, and curious. (And when one relies on that vast unexamined “consensus,” and shows, repeatedly that one has not examined this, well, that’s just ODD.)

    “And hey, even the best make mistakes–there’s so many hoaxers, variables and just plain old pieces of the puzzle to sift through that it’s impossible not to have an account get the better of you once in a while. A GOOD skeptic will point out the fault in your argument, BUT they won’t beat you up for it AND try to discredit every other good call you’ve made on account of one misstep. That’s the true hallmark of a debunker.”

    Right. Krantz, Napier, Meldrum and Bindernagel have made misstatements or premature conclusions. This doesn’t either make them wrong where they’re right, or allow people just looking for confirmation of their comfortable biases to hang on the wrong statements as proof that they are right and the other wrong, right down the line. That’s not how science works.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.