Significance of the Loch Ness “monsters” (Nessies) --- Some morals of the story
That Scotland's Loch Ness is home to a population of large aquatic animals of an unidentified species is not in itself of any great importance; it has no effect on the lives of most people or on societies at large. Nevertheless, the fact is worth noting for a number of reasons that do have large implications for public policies, because the story illustrates, indeed exemplifies that:
→ Once a belief has become sufficiently widespread, any amount of evidence may be unable to shake it[1].
→ What are usually accepted as the most authoritative or expert voices may be wrong.
→ Since such authoritative voices have been wrong about Loch Ness, perhaps they are also wrong on other issues. So one might profitably contemplate and inquire, on what other widely accepted matters may generally held opinions be wrong?
The fact that Nessies are real animals is not generally known or admitted, but it is demonstrated by several independent types of data, namely, eyewitness testimony plus a body of objective evidence that skeptics and naysayers have been unable to gainsay: the Dinsdale film of 1960; innumerable sonar echoes obtained consistently over many decades by different investigators; underwater photography (1972 and 1975) coincident with sonar detection of large targets[2].
However, Nessies had attained global recognition in the 1930s as a result initially of eyewitness testimony, followed by a couple of controversial still photographs; then a globally reported hoax perpetrated on a leading newspaper led to what remains the globally prevalent view that Nessies are a combination of misleading observations, deliberate hoaxes, and tourist-trade advertising.
Loch Ness “Monsters” --- Nessies --- are real animals
Nowadays, however, we have four independent types of evidence: film, still photography above and below the surface, and sonar echoes, as well as thousands of eyewitness reports. All four independent lines of evidence are consistent with one another and with the existence of living animals. In sharp contrast, the continuing arguments of naysayers carry the burden of asserting artifacts of a quite different sort for every type of evidence: Innumerable explanations can be suggested as to why eyewitnesses might be mistaken, but none of those explains away film, photography, or sonar data. The Dinsdale film is asserted to be a misidentified boat, but several determined efforts have been unsuccessful at filming a boat to look like the hump in Dinsdale’s film. Individual photographs have been a question on disparate grounds, but no single explanation explains away all the photographs. Various possible artifacts have been proposed to explain away the sonar data, but none of those has been supported by any demonstration that such artifacts can mimic echoes from apparently large moving objects — especially since such echoes have been reported by many different, independent searchers using a variety of instruments.
I suggest that if there had been no global excitement in the 1930s, the first international mention might have been the 1954 echo, obtained by chance by a fishing trawler going through the loch, showing sonar contact with an apparently large object. The Dinsdale film of 1960 might then have been regarded as potential support for the possibility of large animals in the Loch, and that hypothesis would have been confirmed by dozens of deliberate, almost invariably successful sonar searches. The underwater photographs of the 1970s would then surely have aroused serious mainstream scientific interest in identifying these creatures.
The accepted experts, the mainstream consensus, can easily be wrong
It is widely accepted nowadays that the consensus of the scientific community is trustworthy, that it can be relied on to be right on matters of sheer knowledge about the tangible world, including the animal world.
That the consensus happens to have been wrong about Loch Ness may not seem particularly noteworthy, since the question of whether or not Nessies exist has no significant implications for what affects most people, individually or collectively. But there is one episode in which the supposed experts were quite wrong and tangible harm did result therefrom for many people:
Eugenics theory, the belief that the genetic heritage of a population could be improved by hindering reproduction by people who were regarded as inherently inferior in some way. That theory was subscribed to by the consensus of pertinent mainstream experts, and as such was approved by the courts of justice. That resulted in the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans during the 20th century and as late as the 1980s[3].
On what other matters might the contemporary mainstream consensus be wrong?
The very general trust in “science”, which is actually a trust in the contemporary mainstream consensus, is sometimes justified by pointing out that science is carried out by “the scientific method” that requires confirmation of theories by the evidence. But science is in fact not carried on by the formula prescribed by the so-called scientific method[4].
Another common justification is that science is self-correcting, as evidenced by its continuing history of ever-improving and increasing success; though if “the scientific method” guaranteed correctness in the first place, of course no self-correction would be needed. In any case, what the history of science actually demonstrates is that theories are continually modified or discarded, which means that, at any given time, it is quite possible for any given contemporary theory to be merely awaiting self-correction, modification, or discarding.
My academic interest for several decades has been in a trying to describe and understand the enormous range of activities encompassed by what is commonly regarded as “science”. I made the study of controversial issues my specific focus, and that led to the realization that serious criticism of a contemporary mainstream consensus is actually quite common; and that in a quite significant number of instances, there is substantial evidence that the contemporary theory is inadequate or plainly wrong in some way[5].
Most startling for me was the finding that HIV is not the cause of AIDS[6].
Experience teaches me to expect to be criticized not only for that statement, but also for my belief that global warming and climate change are not the result of human activities[7].
Modern medical practices unfortunately exemplify quite a large number of instances where there is substantial evidence against standard treatment; dozens of books by eminently informed and qualified people overflow with details of that[8]. Among the points many people will find difficulty in believing are these :
→ Cholesterol is not the cause of cardiovascular disease; statins do more harm than good[9]
→ High blood-pressure is a normal accompaniment of aging, and artificially preventing that may not be a good thing[10].
How to avoid damaging mistakes? A Science Court?
Is there any way to decrease the likelihood of something like the eugenics-and-forced-serialization episode happening again?
The problem5 is that once a consensus has been formed within an expert community, that progressively becomes a dogmatic belief. Even strong evidence offered by contrarian minority experts has no effective influence, because the media — and thereby the policymakers and the general public — never become aware even of the existence of informed, evidence-based disagreement within the mainstream community.
Within that expert community itself, the respected professional publications judge potentially publishable material on the basis of the existing supposed knowledge, namely, the established consensus. So dissenting voices, no matter how expert and well informed and evidence-based, come to be published only on the fringes, in places that are easily ignored or described as pseudo-scientific5.
In order to guard against the long persistence of a misguided or mistaken mainstream consensus, it must become possible:
→ for soundly based contrarian views to become generally known.
→ To ensure substantive discussion between mainstream advocates and dissidents.
→ For the media the general public and policy makers to observe such substantive discussions.
While those observing the discussions may not be able to judge the experts’ differences over details of technical issues, it is entirely possible for lay observers to reach well-informed judgments of how the differing parties react to searching questions under cross-examination, and to draw appropriate conclusions.
That is how juries quite often reach sensible verdicts.
Hence the suggestion, quite often mooted over more than half a century, for something like a specifically Science Court to be established to guide policy makers over important public issues where considerable numbers of the acknowledged experts dissent from the mainstream consensus.
A full discussion of the possible establishment of a Science Court is in my latest book[11].
[1] “Old theories die hard — about Alzheimer's, among others”; https://henryhbauer.substack.com/p/old-theories-die-hard-about-alzheimers
[2] Henry H. Bauer, The case for the Loch Ness “Monster”: The scientific evidence, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16 (2002) 225–246; https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/16/jse_16_2_bauer_1.pdf
[3] Cera R. Lawrence, Oregon State Board of Eugenics, 3 May 2012; https://hpsrepository.asu.edu/handle/10776/5663; Philip R. Reilly, Eugenics and involuntary sterilization: 1907–2015, Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 16 (2015) 351-368; https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-090314-024930
[4] Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, University of Illinois Press 1992
[5] Henry H. Bauer, Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other
Heterodoxies, University of Illinois Press, 2001; Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How dominant theories monopolize research and stifle the search for truth, McFarland, 2012
[6] Henry H. Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, McFarland, 2007; chapter
[7] A politically liberal global-warming skeptic? https://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/a-politically-liberal-global-warming-skeptic; pp. 18-26 in Dogmatism, ref. 5
[8] What’s Wrong with Present-Day Medicine (a bibliography); https://mega.nz/file/gWoCWTgK#1gwxo995AyYAcMTuwpvP40aaB3DuA5cvYjK11k3KKSU
[9] Especially (but not only) in reference 8: Kauffman; Kendrick 2007, 2014; Ravnskov; also spacedoc.com
[10] Duane Graveline, “Blood pressure and heart disease”; https://spacedoc.com/articles/blood-pressure-and-heart-disease
[11] Henry H. Bauer, Science Is Not What You Think: How It Has Changed, Why We Can’t Trust It, How It Can Be Fixed, McFarland 2017; ch. 12.