Why Are Skeptics Such a Negative Bunch?

Makin Waves asks: "Skeptics are very good at 'disproving' things that can't be proven in the first place, so, how about offering me a reasonable, rational explanation for all the cattle mutilations in Argentina instead? (200 at last count). A decent explanation must include the following...Where did all the blood go? What portable instrument does the cauterized cuts? Why won't scavengers touch the dead bodies? Why are there no tracks or blood around the bodies? Why do they take tissues that have a lot of nerves? Last but not least, if not aliens....then Who, Why and How? A Google search will get you all the info you need. For the lazy, this place has a lot of stories. C'mon skeptics, put your money where your mouth is. Maybe it was 'auto-suggestion' eh?"

Simple explanation. It's a bloody HOAX!!!

[xutopia]

Use Occam's razor when you have many theories to choose from. Use common sense when you do not have any.

You have skeptics wrong

[ReidMaynard]

You are viewing controversy in black & white.

When a new "unknown" is discovered (like this cow thing) people put forth theories (aliens, vampire robots, etc). A skeptic is someone who is unwilling to agree to your theory without evidence.

I think the statement "we earthlings are being visited by extraterrestrials" demonstrates this point nicely. While there is much antidotal testimony to support such a statement, there does not appear to be evidence (no alien corpses washing up on Miami beach, no alien spacecraft shot down by Syrian shepherds and on display).

Many skeptics also understand that usually the first theories about something are, in fact, incorrect.

Not "dis"-proving. Proving "non-proof."

[dschuetz]

Skeptics don't really disprove anything (I'm generalizing here). They simply prove that a proponent of an extraordinary claim are not able to prove that claims.

It's a "put up or shut up" argument. Are there dead cows on the side of the road? Sure, I suppose occasionally a cow dies here or there. And occasionally teenagers go out and kill a bunch on a lark (I'm guessing).

Are there cows with no blood, cauterized wounds (why cauterize them if the blood has been drained?), and that no longer appear appetizing to vultures? Hm. That's interesting. Where are these? How many? And, most importantly, have they been independently verified?

Skeptics are, as a rule, willing to believe. But nobody who's come forward with an incredible claim has been able to show that they were what was claimed in the first place. It's easy to say that you've been abducted by aliens. Anyone can do it. It's difficult to prove that you've been abducted, and without some kind of proof, skepticism is the only proper response.

It's been said by many (and I've already seen it mentioned here) that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That's what it comes down to.

If you can document, with careful undoctored photographs of dead cows, medical examinations of their drained bodies and cauterized wounds, surveilance of un-vultured corpses (with additional surveilance of other dead animals in the region at the same time to be sure it's not just a vulture holiday), and bring all that, properly reported and analyzed, then a skeptic might be willing to say that something weird's going on.

But bring them all that information, and then say "see, aliens did it!", then not only will you have an unprovable claim, but you're likely to cast a shadow on otherwise proper research. (good tip -- if you're trying to be an authority on cattle mutiliations, don't pose for a photo in a crop circle.) And don't forget, no matter how well-performed your research, it's still possible you introduced an unintentional bias in the methods or results, and the report that the deaths are "weird" might itself not even be valid.

I might also mention that the vast amount of bad science in the field of paranormal studies strongly discourages real scientists from getting into the field, so the posssibility of real, controlled, precice research into any of these is only hampered by the wackos complaining that nobody's listening to them.

So, no, skeptics aren't a "negative" bunch. To paraphrase Fox Mulder, many "want to believe." But to be comfortable in that belief, they need something more than badly-designed web pages and the Weekly World News.

So does "it was aliens" work?

[Scarblac]

Where did all the blood go? What portable instrument does the cauterized cuts? Why won't scavengers touch the dead bodies? Why are there no tracks or blood around the bodies? Why do they take tissues that have a lot of nerves?

That's a lot of questions. Add to it, Did the blood really go? How robust was the research into scavengers? Has there been any research into whether the meat was edible? Why are you talking about "they"?

Now, let's try "it were aliens" as the answer. How many questions have we answered? None. Do we get any new questions? Yes - How can aliens come to earth, How come no-one noticed them even with extremely refined rader equipment etc, and Why in heck would they do a thing like this.

An answer that answers nothing and only poses new, rather hard questions is not a very good answer.

Unfortunately the link is Slashdotted. I'd look into the facts first - how thorough was the research that makes those claims?

Last but not least, if not aliens....then Who, Why and How?

Those have to be answered if you argue it was done by aliens, too.

You can't have proof of fantasy

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your challenge is as usual, you're asking for an explanation of "facts" that aren't true. In every case when claims like these are investigated the premises collapse.

For example, you ask for an explaniation of the "surgical tools." Who says there any cuts at all, much less of "surgical precison."? Who says surgical tools are required? Whether the evidence is of anything "surgical" is a judgment call and it turns out that the judgment is wrong.

I'd like to know how you leap from "You can't explain..." to "That proves it was done by aliens in UFOs." Those aliens must have lousy note taking capability if they have to keep doing cattle disections to figure them out.

Scientific investigation does not begin with such premises.

You turned around at your desk and you were surprised that I was standing right behind you. How did I get teleportation capability? Do I have alien technology? Don't just tell me that you think I snuck up behind you quietly!

Here's the explanation for you to ignore because it doesn't have enough fantasy: http://skepdic.com/cattle.html [skepdic.com]

Skeptics *have* put their money up...

[jhealy1024]

C'mon skeptics, put your money where your mouth is.

You obviously have never heard of James Randi [randi.org]. He (and his foundation) have offered a $1,000,000 prize to anyone who can scientifically prove claims of the paranormal [randi.org].

Guess what. Nobody has ever collected. In fact, nobody has ever passed a preliminary screening test for the prize.

I don't have a copy of Randi's An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural [amazon.com] with me at work, but I'm sure there's an entry about cattle mutilations. You might borrow that book from the library sometime (or any of Randi's other books, or a tape of his PBS Nova special [pbs.org]). It would definitely give you some perspective, even if it didn't answer your questions about dead bovines.

Skeptics are skeptical because we believe that there are a set of rules to follow when observing phenomena and formulating explainations for them. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to believe. Just because I can't readily provide a rational explanation for dead cattle doesn't mean that "aliens must have done it." If that sounds like a cop-out, consider it this way: just because I can't provide a rational explanation of how a magician appears to levitate somebody on stage doesn't mean that he has supernatural powers. Most of us know that magicians don't have super-powers, yet most of us can't explain how their tricks work (at least, the good ones).

Add to that the fact that many people want to believe in the supernatural, even if they're proven wrong! Many people still believe that crop circles are made by visitors from another world, even though it has been shown (many times!) that all you need is a 2x4, some surveyor's tape, a few buddies, and 6 hours in the dark.

So skeptics aren't negative, they're just less easily excited. That may make them seem like party-poopers, but it's really just the fact that many people are waaaaaaaay too willing to believe.

Re:Scientific approach

[PD]

But, is someone justified in believing in invisible pink elephants? And, if someone believes in invisible pink elephants, would they be justified in believing in invisible blue elephants?

The point I'm getting at is without a good BS detector (scepticism) nobody will be able to decide what to believe.

"Mutilation"?

[mcglk]

I, for one, would be fascinated if animal mutilations---heck, even one---turned out to be of metaphysical origin. But having seen a whole bunch of pictures of alleged mystical occurrences (whether caused by aliens, satanists, radioactive ants, whatever), I gotta tell you, the metaphysical theories just aren't all that compelling.

Take this photo [crystalinks.com], for example, taken by an Alabama police officer in 1993. The website [crystalinks.com] says, "There is no evidence of scavenging birds, but rather a precise oval incision which removed the udder while leaving the underlying tissues untouched. The entire operation was bloodless."

It's true---there's no evidence of scavenging birds here, but that doesn't mean that this was an "incision" or "operation," either. There are some basic facts which most of these wide-eyed True Believers never seem to pick up on.

1. In most cases where an animal dies of natural causes, the body stays intact.
2. Once a body is dead, it doesn't tend to bleed much, even when the skin is punctured, particularly when the wound is caused above ground level.
3. Skin naturally retracts when cut for some time after death.
4. Animals (and bugs) tend to go after targets of opportunity with the least possible amount of effort.
5. Softer parts are usually easier to remove and eat, and some parts can be naturally pulled away from the body with some effort (such as ears, 'nads, and so forth). It's also easier to bite into loose skin, such as that around the belly of an animal.
6. Protruding parts are usually easier to remove, but nibbling around existing bodily portals is also good if you're not too particular about where your meat comes from, and most animals aren't particularly famous for their keen sense of microbiology.

In that image, I see a soft, protruding body part was removed. I don't see a "precise oval incision"---in fact, the edges are pretty ragged, and the skin has retracted and slumped away from the wound. It wasn't "bloodless"---there's clotted blood on the surface of the wound. It does appear that part of the wound may have been licked clean, but I see nothing inconsistent with a carnivore finding a dead animal, going after an easy tasty morsel, and leaving before the humans showed up.

Skeptics aren't necessarily curmudgeons. I think skeptics just find it tiresome that some of the most vocal promoters of metaphysical explanations aren't at all interested in finding out whether something's actually metaphysical or not---they just move on to the next "possibility" without stopping for even one moment to engage a single neuron. For a good example, see this breathless account [paranormalnews.com] on Paranormal News [paranormalnews.com].

Of course, photos abound. Here's a sampling

• Cow [geocities.com]. No details about this image were available; the article in which it appears [geocities.com] doesn't make it clear about what's being claimed for this case. However, it is not "bloodless," and it fits rules #5 and #6 above.
• Cow [geocities.com]. This comes from the same page referenced above. The article in question gives no details about the image itself---or even mentions it. But I see a fairly clean wound with evidence of retraction (at three o'clock in the image) and tearing (at four o'clock and from seven to nine o'clock). This wasn't a precise operation, and it's not clear what part of the cow this was from. The article purports the image to be of a case that occurred in 2000 in Alberta Canada. The dark area you see in the image (which I would ascribe to oozing tissue permitted to clot and dry in open air) is claimed to be "signs of high heat," whic

but skeptics support SETI

[cbogart]

Of course it's crappy thinking to say that if aliens are unproven, aliens don't exist. But in fact many people skeptical of alien cattle mutilations support SETI research, because they're open-minded on the question of aliens.

On the other hand it's also crappy thinking to say that if there is something unexplained going on, then the explanation is probably something Big that subverts the dominant paradigm and will make all those smug science people humble when they realize that an ordinary person had the answer that their billion dollar labs couldn't provide.

I think a lot of people feel intimidated by the inaccessibility of modern science so they're highly motivated to believe it's wrong about *something*. Hence the popularity of alternative medicine -- the evidence for it is sometimes questionable but the act of *choosing* it gives you more sense of control over your life and health, which may have more theraputic value than the pharmaceutical-plus-condescending-doctor combo could have provided.