Leaderboard

And by "water" you mean a belief that strictly adheres to your already predetermined ideology?

I'm curious what knowledge a new graduate with a degree in biology would have that has relevance to bigfoot? A degree with just the title 'Biology' is going to entail mostly molecular and cellular biology, so what does that have to do with bigfoot? Because they're made of biology? They're also made of chemistry, and physics, so are chemists and physicists equally at an advantage when viewing a sasquatch while hiking in the woods? Does my advanced degree in bioengineering give me an upper hand? You can argue for my advantage if you want, but I'll tell you: "of course it doesn't." It has given me a view of what practicing research scientists can be like and how they think, though. Many of them are not particularly great problem solvers. They know how to make their work look sexy on a grant. They come to me when their MS Word freezes. They shout "I HAVE A PEE AICH DEE!" when they find they can't win an argument (well, at least one particular French post-doc does). Look I don't mean to pan the whole scientific community just because I have the misfortune to work with some idiot-scientists at the moment, obviously there are many brilliant minds at work, but they (and I know this has been said a thousand times already but here's one more) are not thinking about bigfoot. Even if I were to allow that we were talking about someone with a new degree in Wildlife Biology (does anyone even offer that to an undergrad?), they would still only really have relevant knowledge if they had a particular focus in apes, and if they'd done field work. George Schaller, Dian Fosey, Jane Goodall. One is gone, the other two advocate for bigfoot study, imagine that. I'll use this post as a testing ground for an idea that's been kicking around my head for a while, but don't have much practice articulating yet, here goes: 'Bigfootology' will never be a scientific discipline. Sasquatch will never bend to the scientific method, we will not 'prove' their existence scientifically. The basic overarching reason for this is the impossibility of control over conditions. In order to confidently reject a null hypothesis, we need to be able to set up experiments that have clear outputs for a given set of inputs, that allow for deduction of the mechanism by which the output was produced given our setup. No such experiment is possible when interacting with bigfoot any more than it's possible when interacting with humans; the intelligence of these beings precludes it. Control of experimental conditions in their woods is completely theirs, and we are their willing lab rats. I do think Meldrum's career path highlights a valiant effort at solving this riddle. He pursued an area of study that gives him expertise in the one type of physical evidence in bountiful abundance, and has made great efforts in showing how a huge variety of aspects of footprint casts could only be produced by an unknown hominid - but ultimately, the clarity of the work falls short of overcoming entrenched biases. It's not sexy enough. IMHO, 'Proof' will come about gradually as a snowball of more and more people being led to the aggregate evidence, being taught how to think about it, and getting out in the woods confirming it for themselves. The only possible exceptions are DNA, video, or a body. The former is very murky water, and the latter two are lightning-striking-your-winning-lotto-ticket odds.

Why? What makes them more special than any other published phd? Because they believe in bigfoot, so they get an instant pass? How do you know what people read? That is not terribly scientific. There you go again fixating on the non falsifiable while waving your science flag. Do you understand how ironic that is? You garner zero scientific currency by loudly proclaiming your obsession with non falsifiable evidence. You think you are making one point, but all you are doing is discrediting your position in a very strong way. Reading reports is not "doing the work" Nothing can be proven from reports. That you think reading the reports constitutes scientific inquiry is so cringe inducing that it is beyond words.

Technically, a scientist is anyone who applies the scientific method when investigating a hypothesis. There were scientists long before there were scientific organizations, degrees, and scientific awards. Is an amateur astronomer who discovers an asteroid barreling toward Earth any less an astronomer than someone with a PhD in the science? The amateur is probably using a better telescope than Galileo had. On the other hand, is Bill Nye, the "Science Guy", really a climate scientist? After all, he only has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. The real question is: "What does society currently accept as reasonable qualifications for a "Scientist"? And the answer may vary from field to field, subject to subject, and political viewpoint to political viewpoint. Unfortunately; advanced degrees, experience, and resources are accompanied by a healthy portion of hubris.

I don't think this has been typed about on here yet, and it's a very interesting read. Sources might need to be triple check, but regardless as always.. I hope y'all enjoy 40,000-year-old bracelet Cheers!

Thanks BCW. I never go into the woods or forest with the expectations of finding anything. If one does that, they are just setting themselves up for failure. I always enjoy my time in the Olympics, especially the solitude. Our usual camp spot is 12 miles in from the nearest road where we park our vehicles, so the solitude part is rather easy. Our stance is, "Let's go camping. If we find something, cool, if not at least we're camping". We'll toss in some fishing also.

Yeah, and that person does not believe bigfoot to exist. So, that proves that reading a ton of reports has more than one conclusion. That is something you seem to struggle with. As you said, a scientist, which you are not, has read many reports and arrived at a different conclusion than you. You see, that is possible. I've read far more reports than you give me credit for. I actually kind of enjoy reading them for their folklore value. The reports are a great source of shared mythology. Granted, we approach them from a different mindset, but do not kid yourself when you think I am a stranger to the reports.

Your mule threw a shoe. This discussion was about scientist, not "experts". "Self proclaimed experts" were not part of the topic. A person who walks out with a new science degree is far from being an expert in his chosen field of study, and - if truthful - would admit that. He/she has simply been educated by people who have more knowledge and experience than he/she in their chosen field.. The opinions of graduates in any field of science are absolutely worth no more than that of a layman or self-educated scientist during a discussion about Bigfoot/Sasquatch simple because that graduate has never been taught about them. In their minds, those animals do not exist, because none of their biology professors even mentioned the subject. A modern brain surgeon is unquestionably an expert in his/her field, but you and your equine tools probably would fare as well in your shop at that chore as a newly graduated biologist (scientist) intending to study South American fruit bats.