dimfuture.net

We have mentioned the tendency of human beings to see things according to their preconceptions. And it would appear that the esteemed opposition to the Loch Ness Monster idea is every bit as susceptible to this phenomenon as the pro-Nessie crowd. In the short time after the Holmes video hit the net, a mind-shattering array of alternate explanations were put forth. To some people, the object in the film looked like a seal; to others, a fish. Some thought it was the reflection of an airplane. Some thought it was a length of tubing being dragged along. Or an otter. Otters are nice!

What this broad variety demonstrates is fairly clear: The image is not clear enough to be certain just what it might be. Anything that could be an otter or the reflection of an airplane is something that is hard to identify for certain. Most commentators, therefore, had the basic sense to qualify their statements. When engaging in a debate, armed with such uncertain data, a simple “it looks like this to me” is only reasonable.

Of course, this wasn’t some folks’ M.O. Let’s let them speak for themselves:

Yup, thats right. Its a duck no doubt about it. Anyone just a little knowledgeable about ducks will recognize it right away.

Um…the most common species of duck in North America is the Mallard? There is a sort of Mallard-like duck with a longer, broader bill called a ‘Shoveler’? Does that make me just a little knowledgeable about ducks? Apparently not, since I’m not recognizing it right away.

One Word SQUID!!!!!! Nothing MORE

Well, that was simple!

The image in the video is obviously just a long, thin wave running parallel to the shore. There doesn’t even appear to be anything solid “in” the wave - the water just looks darker at the bottom of the trough. It’s amazing to me the number of bizarre explanations people come up with when the obvious answer is staring them in the face. A
testament to the will-to-believe, I suppose.

Well put, there at the end. Belief is, indeed, the problem; it’s what gives people the images to overlay upon their perceptions. Like, say, a wave, and nothing more. Obvious! Now, the opposite of belief is skepticism, and skepticism is an excellent way to go with these things. Somewhere along the line, though, the word ‘skepticism,’ as applies to cryptozoology and other Fortean phenomena, became confused with ‘unquestioning belief in the status quo.’ The above commentators demonstrate this ably. Each is absolutely certain of an indefensible position; each, it seems quite likely, is congratulating themselves for cutting through the bullshit. The intolerable smugness of their phraseology makes this latter point pretty clear. But cutting through bullshit with different bullshit is not the intellectually superior position, really, as it turns out.

It is not my intention to propose that anyone who sees something other than a monster in this video is this sort of hostile, self-righteous pseudo-skeptic. Far from it! The point is, the problem of unquestioning belief, which is widely held to be the folly of the pro-Nessie camp, is also very prevalent among the anti-Nessie folk. It’s actually rather difficult to say how prevalent. Skepticism, therefore, is best aimed both at unusual claims, and entirely usual ones. This is how the progress of learning shall occur. And it is something very like an ideal of Fortean philosophy.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 18th, 2007 at 7:00 am and is filed under The Kessen Run. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.