Sensationalism and Skepticism
What is it about sensationalism? I came across a show on the Travel Channel that gave way too much credence to the Texas Bigfoot Research Center. They followed them around in the woods for a couple of nights, interviewing the researchers hard at work. I found myself more and more incredulous as I watched. Scientists who were skeptical of this groups dubious claims (which are on display at their website) were ridiculed for not doing research. My favorite was when one of the “researchers” called naysayers “armchair skeptics.”
I like the name calling so much because it implies that scientists don’t really do anything. We just sit behind desks and peer down from our ivory towers, heaping ridicule on the hard working minions in search of real scientific knowledge. Once again, these people fail to understand that the burden of proof lies on their shoulders. All it would take is a tooth or a leg bone. A lower jaw would seal the deal. A full skull would make the front cover of every newspaper in the US. Yet all we’ve got are numerous eye witness reports, the most unreliable of evidence, and a number of footprint casts, many of which are known to be hoaxes.
I loved the way they showed these footprint casts and talked of past reported sightings, as if these were solid evidence that these creatures exists. At best we could say that the question of bigfoot is unanswered. I think most scientist are highly skeptical. As one of the skeptics I came across noted, every time scientists have tried to confirm blood or hair samples, the results have come back as either inconclusive or belonging to something else (elk, bear, cow, etc). He points out that you can hardly blame scientists for being less than enthusiastic to spend their time and research money on something that’s been so unproductive over the years. I personally am of the opinion that bigfoot would have been found long ago if it existed, and the enormous geographical area over which sightings come from sounds more consistant with an urban lengend. Regardless, the burden of proof lays with those making the claim.
What frustrates me so much is why is our society so drawn to sensational reporting on science? As I write this post in front of the TV, the Discovery Channel aired a show on crop circles and gave it plenty of even-handed commentary it didn’t deserve. My wife even noticed a case where a lady claimed how bizarre two overhead lights were from a video of a crop circle. As the Discovery Channel played this video, they labeled it a “video hoax” in small print in one corner. They never mentioned this on the show. They never questioned the lady’s claim. They gave her a pass and treated her as an equal authority to the peer-reviewed scientists debunking the claims.
We discussed the program, and my wife admitted, “I’m really a little disappointed in the Discovery Channel. I expected a little more honest scientific programming.” It’s not like the Discovery Channel doesn’t know how to make an entertaining show with good science. Myth Busters does a good job. Two guys take the bizarre and show most of it to be junk and some of it to be true.
This matters to me because when our culture will accept poor science as entertainment, without any skepticism on what they’re learning, how can we possibly be expected to excel in scientific endevors? No wonder some can create false controversies so easily…
Add two more to the list. Bigfoot and crop circles. Make room in your science classes kids.