|
Pseudoscience
of Animals and Plants
A Teacher's Guide to Non-Scientific Beliefs
by
John Richard Schrock
TYPES
OF EVIDENCE FOR ANIMALS
1.
Actual specimen or substantial parts sufficient to provide
an undisputed identification. Probably nothing less
than this will be required for many claims, since it is
possible for other forms of “evidence” below to be misidentified
or even forged by individuals seeking publicity. There
are cases of such forgeries based on contrived partial evidence
but a whole critter that can be directly inspected is fairly
conclusive evidence that one exists. That a specimen is
not an aberrant form of something "normal" or
that it represents a new species may require additional
evidence, however.
2.
Fecal analysis. Waste materials can be quite distinct
for various animals but much is unresearched or undescribed
and comparative material for extinct or unknown animals
is usually not available.
3.
Footprints, “tracks,” or scratch marks. Some fossil
animals are described and known only from their tracks in
ancient mud. But deducing the animal that made the tracks
is an uncertain task with many assumptions. The Paluxy
Creek report of man footprints alongside dinosaurs tracks
revealed under additional examination, that the “human”
prints belonged to a small dinosaur with claws! The marks
made by the giant squid on sperm whales are prints left
on living tissue. Because the whale continues to grow,
the size of the sucker marks on the whale cannot be used
to infer the size of giant squid (“The Giant Squid” Sci.
Amer. April 1982 Reprint No. 1515).
4.
Sound recordings and sonar. The range of the prairie
mole cricket in Kansas, as well as the rediscovery of tropical
birds presumed extinct, is often made on the basis of hearing
their songs. Because aberrant calls are possible, it may
not provide the conclusive evidence for an animal’s existence
that scientists would prefer. And when a sonar sweep was
made across the Loch Ness, failure to find anything did
not provide the absolute disproof that some would require,
either.
5.
Bones. The Piltdown forgery went undetected for
some time, but today's dating techniques and larger collections
of vertebrate skeletons for comparison make bones better
evidence. The legendary “onza,” an animal varying from
the standard mountain lion or cougar, did not gain acceptance
based on one skeleton. However, the killing and preserving
of a whole specimen (ISC Newsletter Vol. 4 No. 4,
Vol. 5 No. 1) may confirm its identity.
6.
Photographs. Oftentimes there are problems with
scale and interpretation even when the photos are submitted
by witnesses in good faith. And of course the technology
to “fake” photos has advanced.
7.
Tissue analysis. The new biochemical techniques
are allowing fish and game officers to analyze and identify
the meat of endangered species for illegal import cases,
and may have growing use in cryptozoology. However, these
techniques usually require comparison tissues, tissues that
are not available for extinct or unknown animals.
8.
Eyewitness reports. The only “substance” of most
National Enquirer articles, the eyewitness report,
is rarely evidenced when it stands alone. For example,
several ornithologists reported seeing birds “anting,” a
strange behavior where birds pick up formic acid ants in
their beaks and probe through their feathers. The process
fumigates for lice, but was not accepted until more eyewitness
accounts and photos were available.
Pseudoscience
is not always a bothersome static that gets in the way
of our conveying “proper” science facts. It provides some
excellent opportunities for students to develop rigor in
thinking, gain an appreciation for that middle ground where
we don't yet know, and see the tolerance limits to human
knowledge. Indeed, I think it would be difficult (and less
exciting) to teach these mental gymnastics if all our students
came to us with absolute reliance on the current dogma and
no misconceptions, myths, or pseudoscience for us to work
from. What is disturbing is that so many graduate with
no reduction in such fuzzy thinking, and that acceptance
of misconceptions, myths, and pseudoscience in the U.S.
is rampant and increasing.
A conscious
effort has been made in compiling this issue of the Kansas
School Naturalist to avoid offering any short-cut formula
or easy answers for a teacher to use in countering pseudoscience
in the classroom. Some sensational claims gain acceptance
because they rely on a little knowledge of current science
breakthroughs (i.e. the mammoth-elephant hybrids from frozen
eggs in an era of in vitro fertilization and cloning).
Such cases illustrate how “a little science understanding
can be dangerous.” The solution is more understanding and
more practice in reasoning. There simply is no effective
substitute for knowing absolutely all of the science you
can possibly learn and applying your greatest powers of
reason. The more practice students can gain examining the
real world and engaging in intelligent discussion, the more
likely they are to develop an attitude that will help them
solve problems throughout their lives. This “scientific”
attitude is an excellent way of life, whether they enter
a science career or not.
Next
Section:
- references
|
