Reply to Skeptics | Live Pterosaur

April 27, 2011April 27, 2011

Objectiveness and Live Pterosaurs

Sometimes critics of live-pterosaur investigations mention a lack of objectiveness with those investigators, but I now look at potential objectiveness problems in the thinking of those critics. Rather than be guilty of bulverism by jumping into what may be wrong with the thinking of those who think differently than I do, I start with what one particular writer has said in disputing the plausibility that pterosaurs cause many of the sightings of apparent pterosaurs.

I will call him DCZ, this cryptozoologist who finds alternate explanations for sightings of live pterosaurs. I do not dispute all that he writes about the possibility of misidentification in reported sightings of the Kongamato. What we need is objective thinking while examining each individual sighting report.

DCZ says that the Kongamato originally referred to a water monster. He believes a large stingray could overturn a boat (“Kongamato” means overturner of boats), declaring that a pterosaur would never have enough mass to overturn a boat. I find a number of serious problems with that pterosaur-impossible assumption, although there may have been some instances of large stingrays being labeled “Kongamato.” The point is twofold: His dismissal of the pterosaur possibility is flawed and the dependence on the label “Kongamato” can cause problems as well as solve them.

How important that we understand that “pterosaur” does not refer to any particular species! How many pterosaur species may have lived in the past (and, I believe, in the present)! How few of them have left us fossils, compared with the innumerable ones that died without leaving any trace of their anatomy! Some paleontologists have become so focused on the precise details in the fossils that they have forgotten the ramifications of the obvious: A surviving pterosaur species may differ from pterosaurs that left us fossils. (And how few of those fossils have been discovered!) Looking at the enormous varieties of creatures now living, how enormous are potential differences!

Think about this: Can fossils of small turtles prove that reports of giant Galapagos Tortoises must be mistaken? With somebody ignorant of those giant tortoises of that Pacific island, could not any report sound impossible? Could not a knowledge of fossils of small or medium-sized turtles and tortoises seem to discredit reports of giant Galapagos Tortoises? Of course, if those with that specific ignorance allowed themselves to overinflate the importance of their specific knowledge. But with objective thinking, and at least a little knowledge about Galapagos Tortoises, that response appears ridiculous.

The point of that exercize? Reports of giant long-tailed pterosaurs in the southwest Pacific cannot reasonably be dismissed by just referring to small fossils of Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaurs. How ridiculous!

But another problem appears from examining the reasoning of DCZ in dismissing the possibility that any pterosaur could overturn any boat. How are small boats usually overturned? A human in a small boat makes a wrong move. Put yourself into that small boat and how would you react to an attack by a reported-dangerous flying creature with many teeth? How could you avoid making a wrong move for a small boat? How easy for a terrified human to overturn a boat that was dive-bombed by a Kongamato! What difference does it make if the mass of that flying creature is insufficient to overturn a boat by only an impact?

I suspect that a lack of objectiveness, on the part of DCZ, may have caused him to rely too much on the original source of the word “Kongamato.” The common meaning for that word, in Western countries, is “modern pterosaur in Africa.” Early native encounters with large stingrays are irrelevant to the many reported sightings of obvious pterosaurs in Africa.

March 22, 2011March 22, 2011

Bulverism Revisited

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.

March 1, 2011November 19, 2011

Marfa Lights, More Car Headlights

Many explanations have been offered for Marfa Lights, including the conjecture about car headlights. That explanation takes up much space on the Wikipedia page for the mystery lights around Marfa, Texas. It deserves a brief reference.

A group from The Society of Physics Students at the University of Texas at Dallas spent four days investigating and recording lights observed southwest of the view park . . .

It seems that those students were looking specifically at the highway where car headlights are often seen from the Marfa Lights Viewing Platform (The state-erected park as a whole is better known as the “Marfa Lights Viewing Park”). Perhaps nobody argues against the assumption that many visitors to the park see car headlights and take those for “Marfa Lights.” But there is something much deeper here in this remote area of southwest Texas.

Wikipedia makes almost no mention of James Bunnell, a scientist who has spent years photographing and taking video of the more mysterious Marfa Lights, some of which he calls “CE-III mystery lights.” But it is that type of light that is nothing like the night mirages of car headlights that Bunnell acknowledges may also appear mysterious, at least to common visitors to the view park.

Getting back to those four days of observations by those university students, what if CE-III lights had appeared to the south or southeast of the view park? Would any of the students have noticed? Perhaps not, for they were deeply involved with car headlights on a highway to the southwest. More important, the truly mysterious flying lights that are labeled “CE-III” only appear a few times a year, with many weeks in a row without any sightings. Four days in a row of observations of car headlights does not even come close to a sufficient investigation, if the nature of the truly mysterious lights are to reveal any of their secrets.

Let’s look at this from another perspective. Many kinds of night light can appear mysterious in unusual circumstances. Look in your rear-view mirror while driving through a fog at night; a train following your car might cause a mysterious light. A shooting star larger than one you have ever seen, if you see it near Marfa, Texas, may appear mysterious enough for you to tie it to accounts of “Marfa Lights.” The point? Those university students did not prove that train lights and meteors near Marfa are actually night mirages of car headlights; those students did not prove that trains and meteors cannot exist near Marfa.

January 10, 2011November 19, 2011

Smithsonian Attacks Ropen “Myth”

While writing about the pterosaur interpretation of Marfa Lights and the “Huntington Hypotheses” for one sighting of those mystery lights of Texas, I came across a Smithsonian blog post by Brian Switek. I do not question the honesty of Mr. Switek; in fact I agree with his point that an amateur video of a Frigate bird is not evidence for a living pterosaur, namely the cryptid called “ropen.” Nevertheless, a number of problems appear and they are serious.

. . . the chief advocates of living dinosaurs turned out to be hucksters, overly-credulous wildlife enthusiasts, or young-earth creationists intent on somehow disproving evolution . . .

The moderate length of that blog post is insuffient to adequately cover more than one of those three seemingly related ideas, but Mr. Switek avoids getting into details, instead criticizing a Salem-News article for mistaking a Frigate bird for a pterosaur. Of course that was a serious blunder in that report by Terrence Aym (and there were other errors in that Oregon news report, errors that Switek seems to have missed), but the error is Mr. Aym’s, not errors of the living-pterosaur investigators Switek soon mentions. A careful reading seems to indicate that Switek is trying to use this to discredit anyone who proposes pterosaurs live in Papua New Guinea.

The fifth paragraph actually names recent living-pterosaur investigators, but Switek seems to use bulverism rather than reasoning:

Then there is the problem of Aym’s sources. Both Blume and Woetzel are creationist explorers who have tried to promote the existence of living pterosaurs and dinosaurs. In fact, Woetzel has gone as far to propose these living pterosaurs as the “fiery flying serpent” of Isaiah 30:6 in the Bible . . .

Switek gives no evidence against any of this, apparently only mentioning the religious nature of Woetzel’s beliefs, as if that were enough to dismiss his ideas about living pterosaurs. I suspect Switek has never thought about Isaac Newton’s relationship to this, for Newton had religious beliefs similar to those of Woetzel.

I suspect Switek is also oblivious to critical responses to paleontologists like Darren Naish, for Switek then says:

Paleontologist Darren Naish has debunked many of the famous ones at Tetrapod Zoology . . .

The problems with this post are numerous, with no room here for many details; but since Switek seems to rely on this post by Naish, consider part of this response to live pterosaur criticism from Darren Naish:

The paleontologist Darren Naish has said, “Fossil evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that pterosaurs did not survive beyond the end of the Cretaceous.” He fails to realize that no group of fossils can overwhelmingly demonstrate the extinction of any species in any time frame, let alone all species of a general type. That is not what fossils can prove, even if paleontologists were able to recover all fossils that were ever formed.

Rather than delve into any particular eyewitness reports, Switek delves a bit into origin philosophies. He does not use the word “philosophy,” however, using the phrase “science of evolution,” and disparaging creationist philosophy. But in defending traditional ideas about evolution he makes the common reasoning-mistake of protecting his beliefs from every possible outcome, revealing that he is really protecting his philosophy. He states that modern descendants of pterosaurs should not be expected to resemble their ancient ancestors (therefore modern sightings of such creatures he believes must be wrong somehow). Then he immediately turns around by saying, “even if a long-tailed pterosaur were found it would do nothing to undercut the science of evolution.” In other words, whatever happens Switek’s philosophy is correct. I think that reasoning, if it could be called reasoning, is too convenient, revealing that it is a philosophy that is being protected, not science. True scientific reasoning does not include “whatever the outcome, whatever the evidence, my idea must be correct.”