I’m not in favor of generalizations, and especially not ‘little tricks’ that supposedly tell you so much about someone, like, “If she isn’t wearing her engagement ring she’s not serious about her engagement.” Or, you know, she works someplace where it’d be dangerous to wear, or it needs to be refitted, or she’s not the kind to show off, or she’s not so unbelievably vapid to think that a ring is necessary in any way (and especially not buying the horrendous bullshit about diamonds in the first place.) That said, there are definitely situations that can set off warning bells, at least, because the pattern of behavior is undeniable. And just this morning, I was reminded of another one: “Keep an open mind,” especially when used in the context of something curious or mysterious.
On the face, it certainly seems like sound advice – don’t be dismissing any possible explanations out-of-hand, and this is certainly what it’s always meant to imply. In practice, however, it is overwhelmingly used to justify someone’s desire for some state of affairs that has never come to pass. We’re talking supernatural and religious explanations/causes, and cryptids like the Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, and ghosts and auras and astrology and so on and so forth. “You don’t believe in the chupacabra?! Well, I’m going to keep an open mind!”
Michael Shermer, I think, coined the adage, “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out,” which isn’t bad advice at all, but I still think it falls a little short – everyone is confident that they’re being perfectly intelligent and rational in their beliefs. I’m a little more specific: I don’t care about possibilities, I’m after probabilities, and what has the strongest evidence behind it. Because, in all honesty, I have considered, for instance, supernatural occurrences and the chance of a large hominid in the forests of the northwest North American continent – including whether we’ve actually established that such a thing could exist and how, and whether there’s a decent amount of supporting evidence, and how easy it is have multiple explanations for any given evidence, and the probabilities of those. Which is precisely why ‘Bigfoot’ falls to the bottom of my list of potential explanations: it scores abysmally bad against the rest.
Sometimes, it’s simply stupid. Let’s say that you’re hearing odd noises from a house, and “ghost” is one of those things that you’re considering with your ‘open mind.’ But if you haven’t proven some other explanation, there is no remaining ‘default’ option, or indeed any fixed list of things to consider, so settling on anything, or even thinking this constitutes ‘evidence’ in the first place, is corrupt in itself. And unfortunately, if we have not actually established the existence of ghosts or gods or Jersey Devils or whatnot, then there are no specific traits that can actually be tied to such, are there? Sure, plenty of people will tell you that ghosts appear in the period dress of their times and so on, but how does this even make sense? Are you telling me their clothes have a soul too? If someone says they saw a vague, undefined humanoid shape, can I tell them that it’s not a ghost, because ghosts have clothes and expressions? Or do we simply make up the rules as we go along, taking whatever someone says at face value and then attaching a label that’s supposed to apply to each and every story anyone cares to spout? Can I start a whole new set of criteria by telling people I saw a translucent being in the shape of an adding machine, which must indicate the ghost of an accountant? Hey, we already have more than a few accounts of ghost buses and trains because, you know, those must have unfinished business that prevents their final rest…
But okay, let’s jump way ahead and assume we have ‘enough evidence’ to claim that there’s such a thing as ghosts. What now? We’ve established, to some arbitrary standards, that ghosts exist – what are we going to do with this information? Interview them? Put them to work? Publish a paper on memory retention and development despite the lack of brain cells and functioning synapses? [I was talking about the ghosts, there, but hey…] Is there something that we can do with this information other than pat ourselves on the back and say, “I knew it!”? That’s the whole purpose of learning anything, right? Being able to use it? C’mon, I’m maintaining an open mind here.
Not done yet; what about considering that any given account, or indeed every last one of them, is simply a hoax? Or someone desperate for attention? Or bad vision, or bad mushrooms, or mental illness? Let’s keep an open mind here, and consider everything. Are we absolutely sure it’s not one of the forgotten gods? Are we absolutely sure it’s not a government conspiracy? Are we absolutely sure it’s not a glitch in the program that we inhabit (or a hidden level)? The next time someone tries to use this little ‘open mind’ admonition on you, have at it – hit them with everything you possibly can, overwhelm them with just how open bare, undefined, undeveloped possibilities can get. Be creative – we’ve just been urged to have no rules at all. And then, watch them hesitate, watch them splutter, watch them get defensive… because the only openness they were interested in, by a large margin, is just enough to let them come to a favored conclusion, and nothing more. Being open to the idea that they were completely mistaken is not on their list.






















































Some of the chorus frogs were already sounding off, but in a location where we couldn’t get very close, and all of the pics I shot from the greater distance lack critical sharpness, so I’m not even bothering with those. There were also several masses of eggs to be seen at two of the locations we visited, and I’m inclined to say, from the size of the masses, that they were bullfrog eggs, but I’m not even sure they were frogs. The smallest mass was a little smaller than your fist, while the largest would almost have filled a dinner plate. I may try to stop back and see what seems to develop – not even sure that would work, since I had enough trouble differentiating the tadpoles in my own pond.
At the first location off of Jordan Lake, I espied some clear evidence of American beaver (Castor canadensis) activity, in the form of clipped off branches 3-4cm thick, showing the distinctive teeth marks. This is not at all uncommon in this region; what got me was where they were, which was 2.5 meters (8 ft) in the air on a sloping limb. Now, beavers can stand upright and even do some limited climbing, which extends their reach much more than the expected half-meter, but this was well outside of even these accomplishments, especially since the base of the trunk was much more vertical. Instead, I’m almost positive this was evidence of the huge difference in water levels from recent rains; I know I’d seen the lake levels much higher earlier, and this would give an indication they were at least two meters higher than what we were seeing the other day. Mr Bugg was kind enough to pose under the limb, and he stands about 180cm – you can just see the two light spots on top of that crossing trunk, directly above his head.







You’ll be happy to know that the Eagle Scout, whose name I blanked out here so his future prospects as POTUS are not harmed, did indeed get his notebook back, and is probably spelling “lose” properly now every time too. But for my part, I had aimed to get the cover readable in the image while at the same time highlighting the lonely and ‘lost’ nature of the area, so needed a wide, low angle with the book close. Feel free to tell me if I succeeded or not, or even that you really don’t care either way.
Mostly, the topic is about the exhibit that just closed down, the impressions and aftermath, so of course I have to include a couple of examples. The initial display was 61 images, cut down to 32 a little later on – both of these are from the larger original. I’ve always been a fan of minimal presentation when it comes to wall display, so most of the images were ‘shadow-mounted’ on black foamcore (that might not be the technical term among the cognoscenti and I don’t care.) But I included a handful of full-framed images, three canvases, and a metal print which I really like – I would have been happy to sell it, but I would have immediately ordered another to display here at home.
I mentioned that the website for the 2nd Friday Art Walk used an image from my site as a thumbnail, and that image is 


And seeing it in person? Not very likely, unless you had at least a decent set of binoculars or a telescope and were paying close attention. I edited one of my frames of the total eclipse here to give a rough idea of what it looked like to the naked eye – of course, back away from the screen enough until you can hide it under your thumb to get a more accurate size estimate. The meteoroid, by the way, was estimated to be quite small, perhaps about melon-sized, and to have left a crater 7-10 meters in diameter, which is roughly the footprint of a smaller house. So actually pretty cool to have been visible at all from 800,000 kilometers away.