Seeing is believing: A reply I was interested to read Dr Loofs-Wissowa's contribution in the [17July] edition of the ANU Reporter. I felt compelled to write a brief reply to this paper; not to challenge the existence or non-existence of "big-foot", but to question Dr Loofs-Wissowa's view of science and what constitutes "proof'. Science is based on refutation. Every school boy and girl learns that refutation is one of the cornerstones of modern scientific method and process. In order to test a hypothesis, we must state the null hypothesis. In Dr Loofs-Wissowa's case his hypothesis would state "If big-foot exists, there must be empirical evidence of its existence". If no such evidence exists, then the hypothesis is rejected, until such evidence is produced. Dr Loofs-Wissowa is correct in stating that "proof" can mean different things to different people. If he chooses to accept that personal sighting of bigfoot confirms its existence, then he is entitled to adopt this as confirmation of the null hypothesis. It is unfair, however, for him to suggest that others who demand physical "proof' (skeletal remains, etc), are somehow intellectual Philistines, who are concerned with maintaining the status quo. This is clearly nonsense. Dr Loofs-Wissowa sets up a number of straw men in order to dismiss those who reject his beliefs. On reading his article, an outsider to the field could easily be forgiven for thinking that most palaeoanthropologists are concerned with supporting existing models of human evolution. Indeed, exactly the opposite is the case. We are continually revising such models. We are not banded together and sitting in our bunkers fighting to the last to keep bigfoot from breaching the castle walls. If physical evidence is presented which supports the existence of big-foot, you will have a massive flood of palaeoanthropologists applying for grants to study such a creature. Dr Loofs-Wissowa has chosen hearsay as his necessary "proof'; he should not attack those who demand a higher level test. Finally, Loofs-Wissowa has a bizarre understanding of scientific method. In suggesting that we must accept big-foot's existence until it is shown not to exist, he has left himself open to justified criticism. It is impossible to prove that big-foot doesn't exist for the same reasons we cannot prove that God or UFOs don't exist. If we adopt this upside down view of hypothesis testing, then any number of propositions can be put forward and accepted until proven otherwise. For example, I could hypothesise that water on Earth may run uphill of its own accord. Until hydrologists have checked every water source on Earth, such a proposition must be accepted. Even if every water course was checked and the hypothesis was refuted, I could then throw in the ad hoc hypothesis, that it happens only on Saturday morning at 3.30am . This approach is clearly unworkable. If this approach is taken to hypothesis testing (and no serious scientists could accept such a proposition) then our understanding of the world around us will collapse into a number of beliefs and faiths. This will throw us back into the dark ages. That is why I have felt compelled to write this reply. The issue of whether "bigfoot" exists or not is not the issue. The adoption of such an approach to research has serious consequences for society in general. To answer Dr Loofs-Wissowa's question "Yes -seeing is believing", but without physical evidence I should accept that others may choose to work within the scientific paradigm which demands a higher level of "proof' before they necessarily choose to believe it. David Cameron ARC Postdoctoral Fellow Department of Archaeology & Anthropology ANU Editor's note: A response from Dr Loofs-Wissowa will appear in the next issue. Source: ANU Reporter 27(13):2 31 July 1996 ------------------------- 'Wildman' and science I thank Dr Cameron for his reply (ANU Reporter 31 July) to my article on "Wildman" research ("Seeing is Believing", ANU Reporter 17 July) which is the more difficult to respond to as he obviously has not read it properly. Limited space does not help me either to respond adequately to this somewhat confused attempt to justify the hostile attitude of the anthropological Establishment towards somebody who dares hypothesise against generally held beliefs. As I said at the beginning of my article, such a person is immediately branded as being "unscientific"; now he is even being accused of taking us back into the dark ages and of being a danger to society in general (wow!). At least Dr Cameron takes me seriously. I note that for Dr Cameron "the issue of whether 'big-foot' (sic) exists or not is not the issue" but that he only wishes to question my "bizarre" understanding of scientific method and what constitutes "proof". If "Science is based on refutation", why does Dr Cameron not refute my hypothesis of the existence of "Wildmen" rather than telling me how hopelessly wrong I am in my assumptions and my approach? Instead he quotes the ludicrous example of hydrologists having to check every water source on Earth to disprove the hypothesis that water may run uphill on its own accord, only to be told afterwards that it does it only on Saturday morning at 3.30am! Dr Cameron does not seem to hold his hydrologist colleagues in high esteem as a real hydrologist worth his salt would reject such a hypothesis as being patently absurd, without even checking, by reference to the law of gravity and the vast body of empirical evidence supporting it. What I was simply suggesting, in a different form, was that mainstream anthropologists behave as if there existed a counterpart of the law of gravity in human evolution which made the continued existence of "Wildmen" equally absurd so that there is no need to refute any evidence presented in its support. And indeed, such a law does exist: it is called a religious dogma and it dates from 1789 when the editor of the 13th edition of Linnaeus' Systema Naturae took it upon himself to eliminate Homo ferus and Homo troglodytes from the system next to Homo sapiens because the Man created in God's image could only be Us, as obviously God cannot have been a "Wildman" (or "bigfoot" in Dr Cameron's terminology). Makes scientific sense, does it not? Thus, there is no need to even hypothesise the continuing existence of non-sapiens hominids because they do not and cannot exist. Who takes us back into the dark ages? Thus, "an outsider to the field could easily be forgiven for thinking that most palaeoanthropologists are concerned with supporting existing models of human evolution". Quite right; I for one would very easily forgive them as this is precisely my "null hypothesis". Now let Dr Cameron refute it. He is trying by saying that "exactly the opposite is the case. We are continually revising such models". That may be so with regard to some fossils in Africa but I have not yet "been presented" with "higher level proof" that would make me "necessarily choose to believe" that this is also so with regard to the possibility of the existence of "Wildmen". However, I may choose to believe him if he applies already now for a grant to study such creatures; he would not even have to go very far as there is overwhelming evidence of the existence of "Yowies" even in our region and dozens of competent amateurs to guide him in his scientific research. Why does he not take up the challenge? I think I know why: because he is afraid he may one day (or one night) find himself literally having to face the "Wildman" issue - not in his comfortable office but out there in the very uncomfortable bush. in reality. Helmut Loofs-Wissowa Source: ANU Reporter 27(14):2 14 August 1996 ------------------------- Triple Headed Kangaroo I can only sympathise with Dr Loofs-Wissowa in his perceived persecution by the ignorant unbelievers, as his research has some significant parallels to my own, namely, my search for the Triple Headed Kangaroo (THK) of Mt Ainslie. I can "prove'' its existence beyond any reasonable doubt, similarly to Dr Loofs-Wissowa's proof of the Wildman's existence: 1) I haven't actually seen a THK myself, but my friend with the big red nose down at the pub has seen one. He is eminently honest and reliable, and you can believe that too because I say so. 2) I have a photo. Sure, sceptics have pointed out that it's blurry, and in profile so that it looks like any normal single-headed kangaroo, but they would say it is doctored even if it were clear. 3) I have some fur and footprints of a THK, but again sceptics dismiss them as coming from a regular kangaroo. 4) OK, so no one has yet found any skeletal remains of a THK, but must there be?" (to quote Dr Loofs-Wissowa). I won't bothergoing into rcasonable justifications for this point such as dissolving heads or alien abductions. . . I can't understand why people are sceptical about Dr Loofs-Wissowa's proof of the existence of Wildmen. I can only hope he is willing to throw his support behind my equally valid research into the THK, as my proof s are almost identical to his. Replace the words Wildman" with "THK" in Dr Loofs-Wissowa's original article and you can see what I mean. Maybe then I too can go on a junket, er, fact-finding mission to Laos/Vietnam. A few testimonials from some ignorant and eager-to-please native farmers would seem to be enough results to satisfy the bean-counters hack home. Tony Puclin RSPHysSE Source: ANU Reporter 27(15):2 28 August 1996. ------------------------- In the absence of Prof. Helmut Loofs-Wissowa [who is overseas] , it falls to me - Helmut's unexpected confederate - to answer Tony Puclin. While I don't accept all of Helmut's points, I appreciate the most important one. Science does not reject (or ridicule) less parsimonious hypotheses, it merely says they are less likely to be true. Scientists (like everyone) are also subjective observers, relying on assumptions which may not be valid. So what seems 'vanishingly improbable' may be our failure to think laterally. I had reservations when Helmut asked me to help him work in Vietnam. I assumed the search for 'Sasquatch-like' animal to be a kind of neo-mythology, rife with liars. But questions raised to us in Vietnam were much more profound and were backed by such scientific leaders as Dao Van Tien and Vo Qui. They involved not only scientific but anthropological and logistical issues. Even tracking animals we know to exist in Vietnam is very difficult. Several workers have found significant differences from expected distribution of primates, particularly of rare leaf-eating monkeys. Limited research funds and travel problems aggravate our ignorance. Little wonder that three new large mammals were described from these forests recently. After this I would not presume to deny that an ape-like animal may still live in Vietnam's forests. What the Vietnamese call 'forest people' or 'Nguoi Rung', translates into Indonesian as Orang-utan, an ape known to exist in Indochina into the late Pleistocene. I don't know if these forest people exist. It remains an open question, at least for Indochina, and deserving of an open mind. What is really important here is that my colleagues in these countries have resources to allow them to better understand their natural heritage. That is not a joking issue. Our web page is URL: http//:coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/wildman.html Yours, Vern Weitzel Chair, AVSL IT is a pity that the "Wildman Controversy", instead of clarifying them, has further confused two rather different issues raised; namely the issue of the continued existence of such creatures, on one hand, and the issue of "scientific" proof on the other. Taken separately, both generate questions which are worth being seriously considered. Combine them and cheap polemics are the almost inevitable outcome. I personally do not care about the possibility of the continued existence of such creatures, one way or the other. But I do get concerned when I read that a member of this University takes it for granted that it is as absurd as the possibility of the existence of a species of triple-headed kangaroos. And I get even more concerned when such a person dismisses the oral evidence of indigenous people as "testimonials from some ignorant and eager-to-please native farmers". Perhaps Tony Puclin owes them, at least, a public apology before going back to counting his own beans? Or was it all meant to be merely (?) a joke, although I fail to see anything particularly funny or clever? But then the legendary tribe of trickle-brained oliphants (hahaha!), which is said to have roamed the foreshores of Lake Burley Griffin before it became extinct long ago, may have a very special sense of humour. Peter Sack RSSS Source: ANU Reporter 27(17):2 2 October 1996. ------------------------- Having just returned from Italy where I presented my findings on ''Wildmen" in Southeast Asia and Australia to an appreciative specialist audience at the Xlll Congress of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Scicnces, I now wish to re-join the "Wildman Controversy" back home at the ANU. Thus, I thank Peter Sack and Vern Weitzel for having come lo my rescue (ANU Reporter Letters, 2 October 1996) against the devastating attack hy Triple Headed Kangaroo researcher Tony Puclin (ANUReporter Lettters, 28 August 1996). But most of all I thank Mr Puclin himself for prcsenting us with such convincing proof for the correctness of my hypothesis that much of the mindless opposition to the acceptance of the existence of "Wildmen" is simply bascd on racism (ANU Reporter Comment, 17 July 1996). Like Dr Sack, I am appalled hy the fact that a member of this University dares to talk ahout "ignorant and eager-to-please native farmers" as obviously unreliable sources of anthropological information. While working in the rugged and almost inaccessihle Lao-Vietnam border (no "junket"!), I came to know the locals as honest and straightforward informants who knew the jungle around them better than any western scientist and who had never heard of Evolution or Creation, Homo erectus or Homo sapiens. All they did was to answer unsuggestive questions in a direct and factual way without knowing which answers would please me. I do not see any reason for doubting their testimonials and I resent Mr Puclin's insinuation of unethical behaviour on their or on my part. As I have extended my research on "Wildmen" into Australia where much information comes from Aboriginals, I wonder whether Mr Puclin would call these informants also "ignorant and eager-to-please natives"? It is, of course, his right to do so, but it would be rather bad timing! You are in big trouble, Mr Puclin, and in more ways than one. To liken Wildman" research to that of the Triple Headed Kangaroo is neither intelligent nor even funny. For a western scientist - as opposed to ignorant nalive farmers - it is simply cowardly and dishonest: the unwillingness or inability to confront a major human and scientific problem of our times with an open mind. It seems much easier to close your mind and to ridicule this prohlem to such an extent that il will disappear; it won't. Sleep well, Mr Puclin, and God (in the image of an ape-man) bless you! If this is the way things are done in the Department of Applied Mathematics, pcrhaps the RSPhysSE is soon due for a review. Helmut Loofs-Wissowa Facultv of Asian Studies Source: ANU Reporter 27(20):2 13 November 1996. ------------------------- After reading Vern Weitzel 's reasoned reply to my letter, I believed the Issue of the Wildman was closed, and unfortunately did not have the opportunity to defend myself against the surprise attack by the Wildman Dr Loofs-Wissowa (ANU Reporter 13 Nov 1996). This letter is an attempt to address some of the issues raised, namely the claims of racism and other personal attacks made by Dr L-W and supporters, and proof of the existence of the Wildman. Firstly, this silly debate about the Wildman has gone on long enough and Dr L-W should put up or shut up, ie. provide conclusive proof that this creature exists before making such extravagant claims. He pans the heathen unbelievers, saying they would refuse to believe no matter how much proof is provided. This is not so. The discovery of the Wollemi pines and the coelacanth are examples of the scientific community 's willingness to accept unlikely discoveries, despite his insistence to the contrary. It is not the resistance of the unbelievers to accepting solid evidence, but the failure of the Wildman hunters to produce it. Dr L-W, you knew the job was tough when you took it - if you want to be right and the rest of the world wrong, you have to convince us, not vice versa. Perhaps I should have used a simpler example than the three-headed kangaroo. There are plenty of "honest, straight forward informants" who (claim to) have seen the Loch Ness monster. Is Dr L-W willing to claim that this is "irrefutable indication" of its existence, and hammer the last nail into the coffin of his credibility? This proof was good enough for the Wildman. Or is there a difference in trustworthiness between Vietnamese and Westerners? I too "cannot help smelling the nauseating odour of racism here." "Honest and straightforward informants answer..unsuggestive questions.. do not see any reason for doubting their testimonials." The Margaret Mead affair (dismissed by Dr L-W as usual without explanation) demonstrates that his unquestioningtrust in the testimony of others, regardless of culture, is misplaced indeed. One cannot simply assume that his natives are going to be the "honest and straightforward informants" that he makes them out to be. Similarly, Dr L-W cannot be assumed to be objective, particularly when he obviously has such strong feelings about the results he would like to obtain. However, enough of "proof". Recently this forum has turned from a debate on the Wildman to an "attack Tony Puclin" fest, which I can no longer ignore. Firstly, the comment "...Aboriginals...would call these informants also 'ignorant and eager-to- please natives'?" Please, Dr L-W, try to avoid putting your words into my mouth. Also,jumping onto the racism bandwagon is not going to add respectability to vour research. "To liken Wildman...to the Triple Headed Kangaroo is simply cowardly and dishonest." Dr L-W, please ex- plain. My attack on yourscientific beliefs is cowardly and dishonest? Or is your real concern that your research is not capable of standing up to public scrutiny? Scientific theories are there to be challenged, and if you feel that an attack on yours is cowardly, then perhaps you are in the wrong business. Drs Sack and Dr L-W cry racism over the word ignorant (among others). The Australian Oxford Dictionary defines ignorant as "lacking knowledge; uninformed " But then I'm sure you knew that, didn't you, doctors? By applying this adjective to someone of a different skin colour to my own, somehow in your opinions that suddenly makes me a racist. Well, I know nothing about anthropology. Do you dare to call me ignorant on the subject? Or does your response depend on the colour of My skin? Be careful, you could be "in big trouble, and in more ways than one." As for "eager to please", it is well known by anyone who has been to Vietnam that many Vietnamese (particularly outside the touristed areas) will go out of their way to help or be polite to a foreigner. I have a Vietnamese associate who agrees with my description of the native hill people. Is it racism to describe one's own people in a manner which may seem distasteful to politically correct toreigners? I am "appalled" by Dr L-W's self-righteous indignation at someone who dares to question him. Unfortunately his rather personal attack on me cannot be adequately addressed in this limited space. Still, if he has the time and the funding to continue his vain pursuits, I wish him the best of luck - he will need it. Finally, far as public apologies go, perhaps Peter Sack owes one to the members of the RSPhysSE regarding the boorish insult in the last paragraph of his letter. Tong Puclin Source: ANU Reporter 27(21):2 27 November 1996. ------------------------- WHEN discussion descends to a personal attack, it loses scientific value. Protracting this debate in the ANU Reporter will only add to mis-information about unknown or poorly studied species in Indochina's ravaged forests. As suggested in my letter (ANU Reporter, 2 October) accusations of venality and gullibility are inappropriate. Instead, let's put things in context. We are hosting Mr Vu Ngoc Thanh from Vietnam National University - Hanoi. He will talk on Friday, 13 December at 4:00 pm, ground floor, Science Link Building, ANU on "Primate conservation in Vietnam." Mr Thanh will also discuss recent research on the putative Wildman. All reasonable people are welcome. Vern Weitzel THERE is a convention in written academic discussion that if one wants to reply to something one has to read it first. This convention does not seem to have been complied with in thc case of Tony Puclin's reply (ANU Reporter, 27 November) to my lener in the previous issue (ANU Reporter 13 November). I am asked to explain why Mr Puclin's attack (his word) on my scientific beliefs is cowardly and dishonest. This is not what I wrote. What I actually did write is that it is cowardly and dishonest for any western scientist not to "confront a major human and scientific problem of our times with an open mind", this problem being that of the continuous existence of non-sapiens hominids in our midst. I have no amends to make for this formulation as I see an unanswerable ethical question arise in the near future if nobody is prepared for it, not even academics. Sooner or later such a "wildman" will be killed (= man-slaughter) or captured, in Southeast Asia or in Australia: what are we going to do with him/her/it and how do wc protect these endangered creatures from becoming extinct this time for good (or rather bad)? Better think of this already now. Helmut Loofs-Wissowa Source: ANU Reporter 27(22):2 11 December 1996. ------------------------- More wildman Many readers may find the debate about Dr Helmut Loofs-Wissowa's "Wildman" (in numerous issues of the ANU Reporter) highly interesting beyond the actual existence or non-existence of the "Wildman" and similar phenomena, especially because of the emotionalism and non-adherence to principles of research methodology exhibited by some of the correspondences. No space is available to deliberate all the specifics of this controversy - a summary article may eventually be useful. Allow me an all-too-brief comment on the methodology. The various Philosophies of Science, Geography, History, Sociology, Anthropology/Archaeology, etc, use different methods and hypotheses/theories (only some have "laws"); yet all must follow some identical fundamentals of classical rhetoric that comprises principles of argumentation, debating, logic, identification of fallacies and crooked thinking, for instance, in an unemotional polite fashion. These methodologies also include techniques of describing observations, presenting evidence and considering influences of hypotheses and their testing. Yet, it appears that much of the above has been ignored by some critics of the "Wildman" hypothesis, as indicated by occasional purely emotional and sarcastic comments. May I propose that after studying books - like those, among others, by EPJ Corbett, "Classic Rhetoric" and RH Thouless "Straight & Crooked Thinking" - one ought to compare/contrast the principles of argumentation and logic with the statements in the correspondences to highlight the emotionalism. Perhaps the latter can then be avoided in future contributions. The style (or lack thereof?) of the "Wildman" debate indicates that our education system is inadequate in passing on certain attitudes necessary to communicate reasonably and fairly: ie graduates may be well "trained" to do an adequate job in some respects, but are not sufficiently "educated" in the above-cited humanities to argue or debate in accordance with the principles of their own profession's philosophy and ethics. Let Dr Loofs-Wissowa continue his quest in a more logical and congenial intellectual atmosphere! Dr KH Wolf Source: ANU Reporter 28(1):2 12 February 1997. The Last Word Dr Wolf's letter provides a good stopping point for the long-running "Wildman \" debate, which began in this publication in July 1996. No more letters on the subject will be published. Thanks to all who participated in the debate. Source: ANU Reporter 28(1):2 12 February 1997. -------------------------