dmaker

Where should professional scientists review bigfoot evidence?

185 posts in this topic

I hear quite often from proponents that the evidence for bigfoot goes unaddressed, or uncontested, etc, by mainstream science. I find this a bit puzzling as there are no bigfoot papers in respected peer reviewed journals. So, where then, should bigfoot claims be addressed, if they are not presented to mainstream science in the first place? There are plenty of books by scientific proponents such as Meldrum and Bindernagle. But there are no peer reviewed papers. There are also well meaning books by proponents who are not professional scientists, such as Bill Munns. There are also many presentations done at many bigfoot conventions across the land. 

 

But where is mainstream science supposed to contest, or address, bigfoot evidence if it is not presented in the currently accepted method? And, also, as a secondary question, why do people suppose that the scientific proponents have zero history of publishing peer reviewed bigfoot articles? 

 

I ask this question from time to time in various threads, and the proponents usually just choose not to answer it, and then a few threads later proclaim how the evidence stands as long as it remains uncontested.  So, where, exactly, should it be contested when it has never been properly presented?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have evidence that studies and research papers were not presented for peer reviews ?

In order for this to happen both parties have to be willing. Most scientists in wild life biology either don't believe in bigfoot so they dismiss any type of research presented .

Or they might have a leaning that  it could be possible but keep it to themselves .

 

You don't find that the case?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainstream doesn't contest theories existing out on the fringe, and proponents aren't going to be able get anything out in into mainstream with the data being as controversial as it is. In order for such data to be of any value to mainstream science, it has to be replicable. For instance, scientists need to be able to go out and have their own sightings, and record their own observations. The problem here is that the nature of this phenomenon prevents them from bing able to do so. 

 

As as far as journals go, the Relict Hominid Inquiry is one that publishes peer reviewed papers on this phenomenon, but I highly doubt that anyone trying to convince themselves that this is an entirely social phenomenon will like it, as the papers tend to contradict that.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll bite.   The problem is circular.   Peer review means submission to a journal, acceptance for review, then review by a panel of scientists either working for, or volunteering for, the journal.   Scientists .. y' know, the exact people who won't do the review for the paper they won't read.   You'll never get scientific acceptance of a paper for review 'til science has already accepted bigfoot. 

 

MIB

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

Do you have evidence that studies and research papers were not presented for peer reviews ?

In order for this to happen both parties have to be willing. Most scientists in wild life biology either don't believe in bigfoot so they dismiss any type of research presented .

Or they might have a leaning that  it could be possible but keep it to themselves .

 

You don't find that the case?

I don't have any evidence that papers were, or were not submitted. Ketchum was accepted to Nature, but failed review, as the story goes.

14 minutes ago, MIB said:

Ok, I'll bite.   The problem is circular.   Peer review means submission to a journal, acceptance for review, then review by a panel of scientists either working for, or volunteering for, the journal.   Scientists .. y' know, the exact people who won't do the review for the paper they won't read.   You'll never get scientific acceptance of a paper for review 'til science has already accepted bigfoot. 

 

MIB

I don't believe that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, dmaker said:

I don't believe that.

 

Your belief / acceptance is not required for a thing to be true.   

 

(Go ahead, finish the irony by saying you don't believe that to be true, either.  :))

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a taboo topic.  Period.  The books by the scientific proponents are public information and have gone unread, let alone critiqued.

 

The mainstream indicts itself with its own pronouncements. They're incompetent to peer-review this topic.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good science is seldom restricted by what is or Isn't seen as reputable. If  something is there to study then scientists will study it. If your evidence continually fails to come up with the apparently obvious answer then frequently it will point at something more subtle and difficult to define. There are no papers worthy of peer review in Bigfoot world because the data is so poor and can be easily accounted for with sociological factors.

 

Just because someone presents as a credible witness doesn't mean they don't have their own complex reasons for not telling the truth or being mistaken. This one fact alone is something proponents can't seem to get their heads around. 'They can't all be mistaken or lying right?' Um...yes...yes they can. There's loads of precedent and when I point this simple fact out some proponents can't compute and instead of engaging with my argument they put me on ignore. Enough said.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, MIB said:

Your belief / acceptance is not required for a thing to be true

Very true, but that cuts both ways. You, or any other proponent, fails to offer any evidence or proof of this taboo and bias that is constantly claimed. We do have Ketchum, who was accepted to Nature for review, but failed. This would seem to contradict you somewhat. Also, we seem to have no claims from scientific proponents of failed attempts to publish in peer reviewed journals. All we have is word of mouth about a vast taboo. But we do have contrasting examples and data such as the aforementioned Ketchum; or the very public Sykes study; or the fact that Meldrum is a fully tenured professor. And so on. I see this taboo talked a lot, but never demonstrated. 

 

But the main question I was asking is still unaddressed. Where then, if not peer review, should scientists address bigfoot evidence? The cry is that bigfoot evidence is ignored by mainstream science and that it all goes triumphant unless contested. Where should this take place then?  Anyone can publish a book that says anything the author wants it to say. Surely we cannot expect good science to be done in books where the main purpose is to sell copies, not to test evidence. Should scientists go to bigfoot conventions and demand public debate? 

 

Where should professional scientists address bigfoot evidence? The constant claim is that they do not, but I see no venue, other than peer review, where they should be doing so, and when there is no bigfoot evidence proffered for peer review, then where should the review take place?

10 hours ago, DWA said:

It's a taboo topic.  Period.  The books by the scientific proponents are public information and have gone unread, let alone critiqued.

 

The mainstream indicts itself with its own pronouncements. They're incompetent to peer-review this topic.

Contrary to maybe what you did in grade six, a book review is not considered science. 

 

Here is a critique of Bindernagel for you DWA. By a Phd.  

 

https://philpapers.org/rec/BUHJAB  (Josuah Blu Bluhs) 

From the opening paragraph:

 

" Bigfoot has been discovered! That is the contention of this book. And while the proposal sounds ridiculous, it is not damning with faint praise to say that this is the most sophisticated book ever written supporting the claim that Bigfoot exists. There are other good ones—John Green's Sasquatch: The Apes among Us (Hancock, 1978) and John Bindernagel's previous book, North America's Great Ape (Beachcomber, 1998)—but none that range so widely or so deeply. It's a pity, then, that the book fails so badly to prove its thesis. "

 

The rest of the review is behind a journal pay wall. $10, I happily paid. I like reading--contrary to what you may think of me, DWA. The gist of it is that Bindernagel cherry picked his data and simply excluded anything that contradicts the consistency of the reports. Of which there is no small amount. 

 

Sounds an awful lot like someone we all know.  

 

But still, this critique is not a scientific rebuttal. This is no substitute for peer review. It is not much different than the bickering and back and forth that occurs here. Especially so since pretty much everything DWA says is a parroting of Bindernagel.

Edited by dmaker
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Starling said:

Just because someone presents as a credible witness doesn't mean they don't have their own complex reasons for not telling the truth or being mistaken.

Just so. I noticed in one of DWA's necro threads an old comment from a poster here who was a "knower". I did not know that person back then, but that person now is a semi regular poster at ISF and a firm believer that bigfoot does not exist. Yet this post that saw the recent light of day due to DWA's new obsession, has comments like " I don't need proof, I KNOW bigfoot is real"  This from someone who now claims there is no such thing as bigfoot. Other than a social-psychological explanation, how do you account for something like that?

 

Edited by dmaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Where should professional scientists review bigfoot evidence?

 

Have you tried asking Inc's Magic 8 ball?

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...oh...BLUE LINES.  Should I be upset? :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dmaker said:

But the main question I was asking is still unaddressed. Where then, if not peer review, should scientists address bigfoot evidence?

 

Frankly, your assumptions seem to suggest some sort of idiot-savant "syndrome" among scientists ... so brilliant we have to hang on their every word, yet so stupid they can't investigate the very thing we're supposed to accept their view on unless spoon fed.    You don't think scientists know how to investigate things they're curious about?

 

It's plainly obvious that since bigfoot's existence is NOT scientifically accepted, there are no peer reviewed papers presenting proof.   Scientists who want to know about the evidence have to do the same thing as the amateurs like me who want to know about the evidence: dig.   There are plenty of relevant papers available.   Read them.   If they seem interesting, then dig into their sources and see if the conclusions are truly supported by the evidence.   Look at Fahrenbach's papers, Bindernagel's, Krantz', Meldrum's.  Others.  Look at what the Russian hominologists have published.   Lack of peer reviewed papers by no means implies a lack of scholarly works worthy of examination.   Read the books that were (gasp) published for profit.   Read some which were not.  Then contact those academics who have produced the papers and discuss the content with them.

 

Geez man, scientists are supposed to be smart yet when it comes to finding .. y' know, **investigating**, you're treating them like they can't think their way out of a wet paper bag.  

 

MIB

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That, pretty much, yet another of the many straws grasped at by the scoftic fringe, everything from "PGF is fake despite 50 years of intensive analysis that hasn't yielded a milligram of evidence that is the case"  (called "mind so open, brains fall out") right down to "capitalize on this typo in the proponent's sentence."

 

Where should scientists address it?

 

1. HELLO THE PROPONENTS HAVE!  They've written all sorts of scholarly stuff on it and this is pro bono, IOW they're mainstream scientists.

2. *I* have and I don't have a science degree and that's true of many others and the mainstream deniers are *children* to us, when it comes to this.

 

Do you want to send me some 'scientists' that I can teach, essentially, to pour **** out of a boot with instructions stamped on the heel?  Are you sure "here, read this" won't be sufficient? Tell them to bring their own sippy cups.

 

Contrary to what dmaker thinks, this has been answered resoundingly, by, you know, scientists, that would be people that investigate things and conclude based on evidence.  It's been answered six ways to Sunday.

 

Oh and btw as to that idiot-savant syndrome:  there are a lot of 'scientists' who might have problems with the boot-pour.  But everybody's good at *something,* even if there's little beyond it.

 

 

Edited by DWA
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites