As primitive man huddled around the campfire for protection and warmth he had but one mission statement: To stay alive.
He had also evolved two remarkable adaptive traits to help in this goal. The ability the reason and the ability to communicate with his fellows.
The ability to reason let him extrapolate. For example: (A) I have seen lions kill people. (B) I am people. (C) Lions stay near the herdsof antelope. Therefore, I am more likely to be killed by a lion near a herd of antelope. This ability to learn from observation helped him predict a possible future (one that might be undesirable) and take preventative steps to avoid it. This was a powerful tool for primitive man and led to some important behavior patterns, for instance, the hoarding of food to help survive cold winters.
Man came to realize that knowledge and experience were commodities just as important as food and so began man’s longtime quest to learn.
The ability to communicate brought a powerful tool to that quest. Where once a man had to experience everything he learned, now he could learn from the experiences of others. “I have seen lions kill people” became “I have heard that lions kill people.” Knowledge couldn’t be hoarded in the same way as food. It was more important to share knowledge than it was to keep it to oneself.
The problem with sharing information is two-fold. First, the source of the information may not be credible. Second, the information may have been distilled by the distributor. For example, instead of passing on the information about lions killing people and lions hanging out down by the antelope, the information might be passed on as “You’ll die if you go near the antelope” or “grassy plains are dangerous.” Both instances are inferences based on available data, but in some cases it simply isn’t practical to pass on all the underlying data, instead the conclusions are passed on instead. But what if the thought process that arrived at the conclusion is wrong?
And so the synthesis primitive man’s greatest abilities became modern man’s greatest weakness: gullibility.
Is there a solution?
Yes, there is. Man is also capable of another powerful skill: Critical Thinking. Unlike his natural talents, critical thinking is a skill that must be learned.
Critical Thinking is the skill to analyze second-hand information. To consider the validity of its source, to review the conclusions and their underlying data. It goes even further than that, one must also consider the motives, prejudices and perceptions of the source. In a word, one must be skeptical.
In this day and age so little of our knowledge of the world is “first-hand.” Much of our knowledge comes from television, movies, web sites and newspapers that are there solely to make a profit for their shareholders. Much that the research that comes from scientists and other so-called “experts” is funded by corporate sponsors or conducted in the hopes that the work will produce results that will lead to prestige or lucrative sponsorship.
Perhaps we place too much faith in their impartiality?
Perhaps we also place too much faith in what we perceive science to be?
What is science perceived as?
Undeniably, science has lead to some of the greatest achievements of the human race. It has also lead to the establishment of the Cult of Science. Its practitioners hold science in a divine reverence, along with its High Priests, the scientists. They tout the Scientific Method as the path to true enlightenment; that science is the only way to understand the world around us.
In fact, they are but shamans to a false god.
The Scientific Method does not offer us answers. Quite the contrary, it can only truly disprove scientific theories.
The Scientific Method – What does it really prove?
Let’s use our critical thinking skills and take a look at the “Scientific Method.”
The Scientific Method is a formalized methodology for arriving at and testing an hypothesis. There are four basic steps in the Scientific Method.
Observation of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
Use of the hypothesis to extrapolate the results of new observations.
Performance of properly performed experimental tests of the predictions by multiple independent experimenters
Firstly, you can see that the Scientific Method does not provide a mechanism for proving anything. The Scientific Method can only be used for disproving something or to provide a working theory, not proving a law or fact .
Let’s take an example and look at it a little more closely.
Observation
Observation is pretty straightforward. It begins with an event or an item that is observed by someone. This is where mysteries begin.
For example, you and two friends are walking down a remote trail in the Pacific Cascades, when suddenly you hear a sound behind you. Startled, you turn quickly, and there, right next to the trail where you just walked stands up a tall, hairy, manlike creature. It looks at you for a moment. You’re amazed at the incredible similarities and striking differences between the face looking back at you and a human face. It then turns, strides off on two legs into the dense forest.
Your two companions had a slightly different experience. One didn’t hear the sound, but turned in response to your turning around. She only saw something dark crashing into the foliage. The other was digging in his backpack looking for Fig Newtons and failed to see anything at all.
The ground was rocky and retained no footprints. You study the area and determine that, relative to the trees, the creature must have been 8 foot tall, with a stride of over 6 foot, otherwise it would not have been able to step across a small embankment as it did.
Hypothesis
Next you formulate your hypothesis. You start by comparing your observations with information you posses. The Cascades contain many animals, but few are capable of standing on two feet. The only native animal you are aware of is the brown bear. You’ve seen brown bears on the Discovery Channel and at the zoo. You’re pretty sure it wasn’t a bear, in fact, your observation of its face made you think more of a primate – a human or an ape. The problem is, it wasn’t like any ape you’d ever seen.
Fig Newton Boy says, “Dude, you saw a sasquatch!”
An hypothesis is born.
Extrapolation
At this stage, you take your hypothesis and develop conclusions that should be “provable.” For example, assuming the sighted object was a Sasquatch (your hypothesis) it must have gotten there somehow. Since your research (and you did do considerable research upon your return to civilization) showed no conclusive information on any sasquatch ever held in captivity, you decide that it is unlikely that someone “left” the sasquatch there and that it must have some association with that location. Assuming it lives in the woods, then there would have to be a population of them to account for the creatures existence in the first place.
If a population of Sasquatch live there, then by searching the area thoroughly you will find additional specimens or evidence of their passing. This is your extrapolation.
Experimentation
So far, you’ve followed the Scientific Method faithfully, but here’s where it all breaks down. It simply isn’t possible to search the entire Pacific Cascade range, but, you’ve got a lead, you know where one was seen once. You decide to base your search in that area. You search for weeks, but find no evidence. Meanwhile, hundreds of other researchers have conducted similar searches in other areas with the same results.
Does that prove the non-existence of sasquatch? Of course not.
So remember that next time someone tells you that sasquatch doesn’t exist.
Don’t believe everything you read
Another thing to consider. Scientists are human and like all of us, sometimes scientist fail. No one likes a failure. You’re not popular at parties and the government won’t give you big grants.
That’s where you must raise a cynical eye to any published research results. It’s not uncommon for scientists to reject or ignore test data that doesn’t fit with their hypothesis or even design their tests in such a way as to avoid exposing embarrassing or contradictory data.
No one can experience everything in their lifetime, you have to take some things on trust, but don’t believe everything you read. Consider the reputation of the source. Think about what hidden agenda they might have to cause them to wish to deceive you. Then, and only then, make up your mind..but leave it open for later.
