Should we believe in the Loch Ness Monster?
An exercise in the formation of belief
By Martin Pitt
1. Introduction:
What
does it mean to say that someone believes in the theory of evolution, or the existence
of flying saucers or that genetically modified crops are safe? Should we accept evidence for cold fusion or
black holes? How far can we trust an
expert? The formation of belief systems
is an interesting area of philosophy in its own right, but has important
practical applications. Indeed, it is
relevant to some of the most difficult decisions to be taken by policy
makers. The nature of evidence and what
constitutes proof is at the heart of science and its history.
The
existence of the Loch Ness Monster is an interesting example for discussion in
the context of philosophy, religion or the history of science. It has the advantage that it is relatively
free of ethical considerations or religious pronouncements. Most people in the Europe and North America
will be aware of it, in at least some way.
Books and some websites are available for students or others wishing to
gather data. There are occasional
television programmes (e.g. on the Discovery Channel). It therefore has possibilities as a student
group exercise, or for individuals reflecting on their own beliefs.
It
must be stressed that the point of this exercise is the process, not the
conclusion. It is the formation of
belief which is being examined, not the belief itself.
2. The Formation of Belief:
Le
us say the proposition is put that “the Loch Ness Monster exists”. The response of some individuals is
immediate and negative. We may then
ask, how can you be certain of its non-existence? More fundamentally, what is it that you know does not exist? Thinking reflectively, have you had the
necessary information and have you defined the problem sufficiently to come to
such a certain conclusion? If not (and
this is probably the case) have you made similar judgments about other more
important matters, where you are equally ill informed?
Some
individuals may be equally positive.
Again, we may ask on what basis they make the judgement. Typically this is an accumulated feeling
based upon media coverage and a liking for such matters. This latter should not be dismissed, but
recognized as part of human nature.
People who would like something to be true are more likely to interpret
ambiguous evidence in that way. Likewise
people (including scientists) tend to be more critical of unwelcome data.
Some
individuals will claim to have an open mind.
Very well, we may ask what would enable them to come to a definite
belief? If this was a grave matter of
public health or of great financial risk, and you had to go one way or another,
how would you choose?
3. What is to be Believed (or not)?
Firstly it is necessary to
decide what it is that we are trying to conclude. The following is suggested as a rational and minimal basis for
discussion.
“That in the 20th Century
there has been a number of large animals living in the waters of Loch Ness.”
Thus we are concerned with
natural history rather than supernatural, but we should include the possibility
that a small breeding herd has died out.
Present non-existence would not disprove reports from earlier years. By large, we may say ‘more than 2 metres in
length’. Although witnesses have
claimed much larger (20 m) all that is required is something significantly
larger than the otters and eels known to be in the lake. (Would you accept a giant otter?)
It is not necessary to
include all the features which have been reported (head, neck, flippers, humps
etc.) since some of these could be mistakes or embellishments. It is probably reasonable (or is it?) to say
that the minimum requirement is a large aquatic animal.
4. What is the Evidence?
Sorting through the books and
films, the actual evidence (as opposed to opinion) seems to be largely made up
of the following:
·
A large number of vague
reports by people not specially qualified.
(Which does not make them necessarily untrue.)
·
A few more detailed and
sometimes impressive reports by people not specially qualified.
(An example from history is
the existence of meteorites. Ignorant
peasants occasionally reported that stones had fallen out of the sky. Intellectuals dismissed these reports.)
·
A modest number of
credible reports by witnesses with relevant knowledge (e.g. the Water Bailiff).
·
A small number of
photographs and cine film.
·
Sonar evidence of large
moving objects.
5. False Evidence
The data probably includes,
but is not necessarily limited to, the following:
·
Deliberate fraud
·
Wishful thinking
·
Exaggeration
·
Misinterpretation
·
Unconscious
embellishment
(Students could consider
these how these occur in the case of the Loch Ness Monster and also other cases
perhaps of some importance, such as witnesses identifying criminals.)
6. Opinion
And what is the expert
opinion? Here are four sources:
Dinsdale, T. (1961) Loch Ness
Monster, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul
the classic text, carefully researched, by a credible
witness
Burton, M. (1961) The Elusive
Monster, London, Rupert Hart-Davis
a sceptical view by a scientist from the Natural
History Museum
Mackal, R. P. (1976) The
Monsters of Loch Ness, London, Macdonald & Jane’s
careful scientific proof by a Biology Professor,
following a major study
Binns, R. (1984) The Loch
Ness Mystery Solved, Somerset, Open Books
a sceptical view by a journalist
Before asking which (if any)
is right, we should ask ourselves which we would like to be right. How will we react to the message, depending
on the messenger and context?
Tim Dinsdale has actually
seen the monster several times, and filmed it.
He is an engineer and seems a trustworthy, careful man who has gathered
together the evidence. Though we may
doubt some of it, how could there be such a body of data if there was never a
monster?
(But he is not a scientist,
and perhaps he is biased by his own experience.)
Maurice Burton has not seen the
monster, but he has studied the evidence and finds it unconvincing. He is a scientist from an august institution
who understands natural history and the nature of evidence. Surely we can trust his judgement that there
is no monster and the eyewitness reports are at best mistakes? (But he is part of the scientific
establishment who do not like to admit such things.)
Roy Mackal is a biology
professor who brings not only the reports but also experimental data and a
comprehensive view of the environment.
He clearly shows that a family of large animals can and do exist in Loch
Ness. (But he is an American.)
Robert Binns is a journalist
who exposes the mistakes and frauds which make up the evidence. Obviously the Loch Ness Monster is a
fiction. (But he is not a scientist,
just a cynical journalist assuming the worst of human behaviour.)
There are other books, and
related ones on other lake monsters.
Some may be similar to the categories given above. Most commonly the author appears to be an
amiable eccentric describing the hardships of an expedition which eventually
produced encouraging but inconclusive results.
(But perhaps there are monsters in other lakes around the
world. Perhaps they are only reported
by eccentrics because anyone reporting them is counted eccentric.)
There are books describing
ape-men in the Himalayas (the Yeti) and North America (the Sasquatch). Should evidence for or against these animals
affect one’s belief in the Loch Ness Monster, or vice versa?
Given that in most cases we
do not have the time, resources or specialist knowledge to weigh the evidence
directly, how can we recognize an expert?
And what happens if two apparent experts disagree? (Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen J.
Gould were undoubtedly major authorities with major disagreements on
evolutionary biology.)
7. A Personal Odyssey
It may be of interest to
describe my own formation of belief in this topic. It was reflecting on this process which led me to consider my
more general beliefs and prompted this article.
At the age of 18, with
limited anecdotal evidence, no expertise and certainly no deep thought on the
subject, my opinion was definitely mild disbelief.
At university, I met someone
involved with a group called the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau. By thinking (but very little more
information) I changed to open-minded.
More precisely, I reasoned
(1) it was possible that
there were large animals in Loch Ness;
(2) this was something
capable of simple proof;
(3) I did not know of any
reason why they could not exist;
(4) however, I did not know
if the evidence in favour was particularly strong.
Over each of the next few
Summers I spent several weeks by Loch Ness with the Bureau, eventually becoming
Group Commander for a week. (This was
useful personal development!) I talked
with people who had seen the monster, read books and examined the Bureau
records. I looked at films and
photographs again and again. I came to
the rational conclusion that the evidence as a whole was in favour. By this, I mean that it was sufficiently
strong to justify the investigation.
At the same time, there was
doubt. Some of the most praised
evidence I found less than convincing.
In particular, Tim Dinsdale’s cine film just looked to me like a boat,
with a clear propeller wash. (This film
had almost religious significance: it was an article of faith that it was not
and could not be a boat, because there was no propeller wash. It did not do to express a contrary opinion
in polite company.) There were
relatively few still photographs. Some
seemed to me so much like flotsam that they were scarcely worth
considering. It was possible the
remaining couple could be fakes.
As for eyewitness
observations, I personally saw floating debris, swimming otters, patches of
calm water appearing like dark ovals, the wakes of vessels reflecting off the
sides of the loch and making interference patterns. It was likely that a significant portion of reports were honest
misinterpretations of things like this.
However, it was unlikely that local residents who made their living from
the loch (such as the Water Bailiff) would make such a mistake.
As the years went on, the
Bureau diligently watched the lake with cine cameras and tremendously powerful
lenses. Though the champagne was broken
out sometimes, the conclusive film was never produced. My opinion changed to disbelief as follows.
8. Conclusion
On the basis of the evidence,
I believe that I was originally right to conclude that the Loch Ness Monster was
possible, and sufficiently probable to justify a search. There had been various expeditions from the
1930’s onwards (some of which had positive evidence) but each was so short and
limited that it could not be counted conclusive.
It is my judgment that the
work of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau, though largely the work of amateur
volunteers (such as myself) was sufficiently broad in its coverage of the lake,
and prolonged in time to constitute a proper search.
Therefore, if there had been
large animals living in the lake at that time, predating on fish, then they
should have been seen and filmed. This
was a proper experiment, with negative results which can be trusted. A valid hypothesis has therefore been tested
with a valid negative result.
However, as pointed out
before, non-existence during the search does not mean non-existence at any
time. Perhaps the herd died out in the
late 20th century?
I doubt this, because a
careful study convinced me that the amount of solid evidence was only a very few
instances which could be accounted for by error or fraud. Large living creatures would have provided
more evidence.
I now conclude that the Loch
Ness Monster does not and did not ever exist, and that I have good grounds for
this belief. However, I have held other
opinions, which were equally rational given the state of my knowledge and
experience at the time.
What is more important to me,
is how thinking this process through has enabled me to be more critical and
reflective of other beliefs I may form.
Martin Pitt is Coordinator of
Design Teaching in Chemical and Process Engineering at the University of
Sheffield. His interests include Risk
Assessment, Games Theory and Education.
While a student, he joined the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau, spending
several summers looking for ‘Nessie’, including a period as Expedition Group
Commander.