Tag: bulverism

The original comments on this question (Am I, Jonathan Whitcomb, a “pterodactyl expert?”) were on a forum discussion thread on cryptozoology.com (about Dec 30, 2010 to Jan 1, 2011). I neither participated in that discussion nor badgered anybody to bring up the subject. Since most of those comments were very negative about me, and that page has become prominent online, I have replied to various aspects of it and will continue here with replies to some of the words of “ape man.” My critics are experts at writing bulverisms. (For general info on me, see the media page: Jonathan Whitcomb, subtitled “Pterosaur Expert.”)

A double misspelling of my first name (“Johnathon”) does not necessarily mean that “ape man” has been careless in his reading of my writings on the subject of apparent living pterosaurs (AKA “pterodactyls”), but other evidences suggest he has been careless indeed.

Criticism on “solitary” expert qualification

“Do you know what Johnathon Whitcomb’s solitary expert qualifications are? The expert qualifications listed in his book and on every creationist website? Here you go:

Jonathan D. Whitcomb, certified court videographer”

Answer

None of my writings even hint that my sole qualification as an expert is in my certification as a forensic videographer. I have mentioned how my experiences interviewing accident victims while videotaping them (for attorney firms) helped prepare me to interview native eyewitnesses on Umboi Island while I videotaped them. But communicating with eyewitnesses—that in itself has helped me to learn how to get to the relevant truth about apparent pterosaurs that are observed by people around the world.

What does “ape man” mean by “on every creationist website?” He seems oblivious to at least the vast majority of my online writings, for perhaps only about 1%-2% of them are about the Biblical-creationist relevance to reports of modern living pterosaurs. Is it possible that “ape man” has read most of my web pages and blog posts, which number over a thousand? Hardly likely. If he has read anything, it seems much more likely to have been from searching for creationist pages on living pterosaurs (I have written at least a few). But he seems to have read little, if anything, written by me.

The singular “book” suggests even more that he has read little if anything of my writings, for I have written more than one book. I would suggest to “ape man” that he keep an open mind about what it may take for a person to become an expert at something.

Criticism on “Minimal Research”

“He is a CREATIONIST who did minimal research about legendary creatures and fossil flying reptiles, then tried to mash them together.”

Answer

What is “ape man” talking about? One of my books? A blog post? A traditional web page? My scientific paper (published in a peer-reviewed journal of science)? Which one?

What research has “ape man” done? Why does he not quote something that I have written? As it is, I have no idea what he means. My best guess is that he has imagined many negative things about me and my writings and has written from his imagination.

Criticism on no Credentials

“Johnathon Whitcomb does not have any credentials that make him an expert on prehistoric creatures, not professionally nor academically.”

Answer

Mr. “ape man” seems to have forgotten where he is: commenting on a forum thread of cryptozoology-dot-com. The particular sub-topic is “prehistoric survivors,” under “cryptids.” Obviously that means sightings of apparent ancient animals like pterosaurs. Need I mention that there may be no paleontologist in the world, regardless of PhD’s, who is anything like an expert in sightings of apparent modern pterosaurs? To take this one more step, there may be no scientist, no professor, no paleontologist in the world who has as much experience with sightings of apparent living pterosaurs as I have.

To the best of my knowledge, I have written more original material on sightings of apparent pterosaurs (and the possibility of modern pterosaurs and related subjects) than all other cryptozoologists, all other paleontologists, and all other professors (of all branches of science) in all the world, put together, during the past eight years. Some of my writings have elicited technical corrections from those who are open minded to the possibility of modern pterosaurs; I am grateful for their suggestions. But it seems strange to me that “ape man” seems to believe that I am the least qualified person in the world.

###

“Pterodactyl Expert“

My lack of qualifications in paleontology is irrelevant in cryptozoology. I do not examine fossils of pterodactyls, I examine eyewitness testimony.

Bulverism

I once heard a Sunday school teacher say something like this: “A person who is damned is like a river that is dammed. When someone is spiritually hindered, that person has allowed a blockage to form, a blockage to progress.” I think we need to keep communications open, without fear. Bulverism blocks communication; that blockage needs to be cleared away.

In reasoning about the possibility of one or more species of extant pterosaurs, we still may encounter pure bulverism. Let’s take a closer look at this: Avoiding reasoning by making ones opponent appear so silly that further discussion is unnecessary.

I began my investigation of living-pterosaur eyewitness reports when I was a forensic videographer, an independent specialist for various attorney firms in Southern California. Perhaps more relevant, over many years I have sat on a number of juries, in both civil and criminal cases. I am aware that a trial attorney will sometimes try to make an opposing witness appear to have poor judgment or be unqualified in some way. I think this is not what C. S. Lewis meant when he invented the word “bulverism,” for the overall atmosphere in a courtroom is reasoning.

When someone publishes a web site with a URL that includes the words “stupid” and “lies,” and the point of the site is to ridicule those who promote the idea of living dinosaurs or living pterosaurs, “bulverism” probably fits (I will not link to that URL). Of course “libel” also fits, but the point is this: Individuals are attacked, real persons, me and my associates. Quotations of what we say can be hard to find on that site; the attacker’s portrayal of our motivations, easy to find. An average reader who gets very far on that site is unlikely to search out the actual words and deeds of living-pterosaur investigators. Why search for the writings of people who are both stupid and liars? But what if the critical mistake is in the one making accusations?

Let’s look at the various ideas offered and compare conflicting ideas through reasoning. Most writers have something useful to say, even when error is mixed with truth, so let’s concentrate on the merits, or lack thereof, of ideas and not the weaknesses, real or not, of those who write.

“Finding him credible supports your agenda.”

Last December, I wrote “More Critics, Less Reasoning.” If only more persons would think carefully before criticising! I still marvel that someone would be so dismissive of the possibility of a species of extant pterosaur somewhere on earth, so dismissive of any eyewitness account that contradicted their belief, so dismissive of the person who suggested an eyewitness is credible. Is it reasonable that everyone who disagrees with us, on any subject, must have unworthy motivations? Why should the subject of living pterosaurs be different, with only believers having an “agenda?”

I don’t know why Karl, in a comment on cryptozoology.com, said “Finding him credible supports your agenda.” Perhaps I have made that same kind of mistake in my life, but I feel that this approach, this bulverism, is a poor choice. I now recognize more clearly the value of open reasoning in communications. If Karl continues to believe I have questionable motivations, that is his choice; I hope he will someday choose better.

I once heard a Sunday school teacher say something like this: “A person who is damned is like a river that is dammed. When someone is spiritually hindered, that person has allowed a blockage to form, a blockage to progress.” I think we need to keep communications open, without fear. Bulverism blocks communication; that blockage needs to be cleared away.

For more information: Bulverism explained by Oloryn.