Leaderboard

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.

That's why I phrased the question a particular way . A circle of trust is very small for most folks and you're lucky to have more than 1 or 2 real good friends in a lifetime . My self I have only 1 really that I've known for 45 or so years including both of us serving in the Marine Corps , best man at my wedding etc. . I get it though if a person like Dmarker has to see it himself. I read reports of family members in particular , fathers telling their sons what they saw or experienced in the woods when they had an encounter .It's stories like that where it might keep the question or legend going for some researchers . I guess what I'm trying to say is everybody is lying? Or people that have spent a lifetime in the woods can't tell the difference between a bear and something else .

Dmaker isn't saying that at all. Any scientifically categorized species he accepts........no matter if he has seen it or not. Again, this subject isn't a sub atomic particle in size. It's a large Primate. We need physical evidence before most people take this subject seriously. And I do not think that is being unreasonable. I think Dmaker has his quirks and inconsistencies, but this isn't one of them.

I've never seen an atom or an electron but I am pretty sure they exist. I have to accept the determination of others that they do. To accept absolutely nothing unless you have seen it with your own eyes rules out most of the animal and plant species on the planet. Strange way of dealing with the world if you ask me.

dmaker, Have you ever talked to folks who claim to have had a sightin' ? Maybe some folks are into this larpin' stuff, I can't say for sure. But myself, nope. I've talked to a elderly couple, who simply claimed to see a road crossin', nothin' fancy, just a quick road crossin'. It was funny, cause he said this grey upright thing crossed the road, his wife smacked him in the arm, looked at me an said it was brownish, he's colour blind. All she said was it looked big, harry an bent over, an it crossed the road. I've talked to a Native guy my sister-in-law knows, only reason he talked to me about his sightin' is because she asked him to, he didn't like talkin' bout it. I've talked to a few who have told me of sightin's by folks they wouldn't question their honesty. Nothin' grand or excitin', simple non extraordinary sightin's if it wasn't for the subject matter. "This also helps explain what I've always seen as an incongruency of action with proponents, particularly witnesses. Here you have someone that claims that without a doubt they have witnessed a hulking, 8 foot ape-man near to populated areas (many, many reports are nearby populated areas), yet they do nothing about it." Just my opinion, but I don't think folks are big on talkin' bout somethin' most don't believe. If you had a sightin', say a road crossin' at night, big as, hair covered, say a massive stride to cross road in two steps. Would you stop to investigate ? Would you tell folks ? Pat...

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that gaming theory fits well for bigfooting. At least for me it does. I've always struggled with the notion that someone could truly believe that bigfoot exists. Given all the time and the lack of evidence, etc, it just creates a sense of puzzlement to me that I cannot get around. Game theory has helped with that one. Bigfooting and enthusiast behavior make more sense when looked at from a gaming point of view. They don't truly believe, they are just pretending, mostly. Or some other version like, they are fooling themselves and deep down know it, but never really think about it or voice it. Denial in other words. This also helps explain what I've always seen as an incongruency of action with proponents, particularly witnesses. Here you have someone that claims that without a doubt they have witnessed a hulking, 8 foot ape-man near to populated areas (many, many reports are nearby populated areas), yet they do nothing about it. There is not often a call to emergency services or anything. Maybe they will talk about how they examined the footprints or something. That does not sound like someone who just witnessed what they claim. If you saw a grizzly near to a picnic area, would you not alert the authorities? Nevermind a giant ape. Also, discovering bigfoot would be a sure fire way to fame and fortune. We have many enthusiasts who claim regular contact with bigfoots. No effort whatsoever is made to collect evidence and be responsible for the discovery of the century. Nope. Let's just visit small web forums and talk about it there instead. That does not seem congruent to me. Game playing helps to explain those things that I've always found odd about this subject. If people truly believed, it seems they would behave a certain way. They do not, they behave the opposite most of the time. Why? Because it's all really just a game of sorts. It's a past time. You're not really meant to find bigfoot. Ever. You even have people like DWA who regularly twist the basic tenets of evidence in an attempt to distract and add legitimacy to the hobby. Anything to keep the game going and make it seem legit. Just never, ever, ever talk about the game. Remember, the first rule of fight club, is that you don't talk about fight club.

Well, comments like that will help to ensure a one sided conversation. I can't believe you actually just said to the entire membership here that if you don't agree with me, your opinion does not count. Your arrogance has reached a new height. I'd say congratulations, but you're probably already patting your own back.

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.