Peer Review, The Scientific Arguments And Cross Applying To Bigfoot

[Guest]

Recently I came across some material that if applied to what we do here, would be thought provoking. For folks like me who have read the arguments put forth that the peer review process was the deciding factor in whether Dr. Ketchum's Study was valid, along with the numerous arguments regarding all the publicity surrounding the leaked material. It would seem that the definative definations of ''peer review'' while correct are equally lacking in that the ongoing scientific community has it's own controversy surrounding it.

While I fully expect not many will read these links, I would hope some do and cross-apply these argument's to Bigfootery to foster a more balanced overview. So to jump-start the discussion I'm posting some of the more controversial, or sound-bite worthy bits.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html

Peer review is usually quite a good way of identifying valid science. Of course, a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea, but by and large, peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake. However, it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals. There are many reasons for this, not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest, since they are themselves competitors for the same resources. It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors. Peer review is thus one among many examples of practices that were well suited to the time of exponential expansion, but will become increasingly dysfunctional in the difficult future we face.

http://attackmachine.com/blog/

The late Particle Physicist Richard Feynman explained what a true scientist does. Everything else is opinion or manipulation, wearing the cloak of science without the integrity that produces true results.

( http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm )

=== ===

Feynman: [edited] Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can to explain them, if you know anything at all wrong or possibly wrong.

If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.

When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea

for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

=== ===

Prediction is everything, and it must work more than once. Explaining everything after the fact is merely making up complicated stories.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3974#more-3974

esr> It’s never, ever a good sign when ‘scientists’ announce dramatic results before publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

This is not right. Scientists not only may but should court some forms of publicity before the peer review process is finished, since it can take over a year for journals to give their opinion, and journals quite frequently reject good science. E.g., http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/lynn-margulis-1938-2011/

What corrupts is not seeking an audience, but being driven by what non-experts will make of your results. So when Andrew Wiles explained his (wrong) proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem over a year before he submitted anything to any journals, he was doing nothing, wrong, nor is there anything corrupt about the practice of distributing preprints. The kind of peer review done by journals is not central to science in quite the way this point suggests.

To follow up, what I've seen is many research orgs eliminate data that don't fit the current BF model. So right out of the gate the current model is therefor ''flawed'' in this respect. Secondarily

the scientific community indeed doesn't have a compelling reason to investigate BF because of it's own internal upheaval, more than a lack of interest in the material itself.

It would seem to me, to redress this we as interested parties should be working with the science-based paradyme as it currently exists, to in a way force the issue. Understanding the current trends in scientific modeling and how to present the material initially for us lay-people collecting evidence is critical.

I would also hope folks like Parn, Saskeptic and a host of others would weigh in as well as casual readers of the forum.

[bipedalist]

Well for one, fast-track online publication could occur from what I understand for unusually prescient, ground-breaking pieces of work. Don't ask me for a citation, just something I had heard.

Sort of like fast-track drug approval in clinical trials in NIH/FDA I guess.

[Guest]

Whether we like it or not as individuals understanding the ''mechanics'' of how the scientific community operates is crucial to both understanding why the study of Bigfoot hasn't been mainstreamed, and how we can better format our evidence to the requirements.

[bipedalist]

I'm all for BF inclusion and formatted evidence to meet the requirements but who has the honoraria to keep me in the field for three months at a time disproving the null-hypothesis?

Exactly how many Wally Hersom's, Tom Slick's or Adrian Erickson's are there out there?

I'm still looking forward to my first Bigfoot conference, lol. Maybe I should be going to the Primitive Peoples one.

Edited to add, I've got four years of sound recording evidence that shoots the null hypothesis to smitherenes.....

Where and how do I format that body of work?!

[Guest]

@grayjay - Thank you for inviting me here to re-post my comment/question/hopes regarding our mutual problem of a meaningful venue for our research...

this thread I think is important and timely - without some Professional Society we are never going to rise above, either clubs and Bigfootery, or grand singular efforts such as Tribal Bigfoot, or any number of books (no book meets any peer-review). Beyond contriubting a DNA sample not much I can do in that arena...but in the field, we all can, because we are the only ones out there looking and taking notes with an eye toward BFs.

So, here goes!

Posted Today, 08:31 AM

@Southern Yahoo...great question! Scientific method require repeatability, the experimental design, if anyone employs, should give similar results.

My post in the Lindsay thread about a professional society of researchers brings that up - there is no classic, traditional peer-review for our work as yet... (and so many opportunities for us to set minimum standards on say even video submissions, like an affidavit, a full list of those present, and so forth!)

Biologists, etc today have very specialized and defined areas of inquiry..they aren't walking around looking at everything wondering if it is Sas...

It is a problem (leaving genetics aside as that is an area that lends to repeatability in results..) she had to be proving something.. and there is a bit of vacuum between the collection provenance and the PCR testing...

So, I tired to change my hypothesis as time/knowledge increased. At first it was...is there something in the forest making these anomalies...and the answer was yes,

then it was, what is it, and the answer was genus Homo..and then it was...are they smart? And many experiments aimed at that.

All the while trying to keep a background of remote video/sound/tracking etc...just getting my feet on the ground...and getting enough to bring a true anthropologist out...I failed there...as yet anyway.

And finally it was...can we meet? We came close! It may still happen, I however am broke, and depressed by lack of real venues to put research in...(and you all know the YouTube problem...and coolness too).....

So, ideally when I finish writing up..one could take any of the three of four working hypothesis and repeat results....not worrying about proving...(I think it will take more than one video, one paper, or 2 bodies)....the hurdles, the Myth, the consequences so big...

as a result of that approach I feel confident saying they can detect IR light, and a few other things... but, importantly, I hope someone can go out and do similar activities and get similar data.. and then what have I proved...LOL - that that experimental method arrives at those results...

not sure why it double posted..had to edit to remove..

but while here, sound analysis....how can I get any expert in birds to identify a mimicked bird call anything but that bird? Even if it's behavior is wrong, (and data on that for three years) has no spouses or fledglings, can never get an ID on, and so forth...without some clear frequency shift or something..it must become a Bird given BF's do not exist.... and so on.

So, coming up with a testable hypothesis there is tough...and my sound analysis skills infant...

and what about woodknocking - I can share a file with Cornell...they are all stumped...but so?

I got to a point where I thought perhaps it is better they are never "proved" - it seems it won't be up to me..so if they must be proved, then we need a way to communicate more reliably with the world...a society of research (not a club like we have now..about 15 clubs!) that allows anyone to submit and get objective review and a "nod."

okay..pipe dream I am sure, b/c I don't see myself doing all that unloved work! Who would, as we are all just part-time volunteers....?

[Guest Cervelo]

I think you've got a little bit of the apples and oranges thing going in general. We are not talking about some theory of strings, quarks or some other theories that border on the absurd for the common man. The proposition that a near human is walking among us is pretty close to saying the world was round! I'm sure many knew that it was true but few would put their lives on the line for it at the time. How you present the evidence that we currently have in order to gain acceptance is not really the issue. We have many models for how this process works and nothing put forth at this time has triggered the desired response. So learning how to package or sell the product is important but if the evidence was compelling enough it would "sell" itself. It would be the discovery of a lifetime for anyone much less anyone or institution involved in the scientific or academic world. There's some kernel of truth in every myth/legend/story and that's what inspires all discovery. It's not the presentation it's the perception and perception is reality. We are trying to apply a process that works well for known species and identification of sub- species or proving that an elusive animal has expanded it's range to something that confronts all sensibility on a whole range of levels for most people. Not saying to give up but I think we will learn at lot after the results/paper is presented.

[Guest]

At first glance it would seem to be an apples-to-oranges comparison, however how many unrelated studies out there across all spectrums HAVEN'T we as bigfoot enthusists and researchers looked at with an eye to advancing our own data?

We are uniquely situated to ''framing'' the hypothisis' relevant to bigfoot, since we're the primary evidence collectors. Trying to fit BF into existing fields isn't working for us.I would counter your ''primatology'' reference with, ''what studies in primate research applies to the data at hand?'' and reject the rest, move it along, see what studies in ALL OTHER FIELDS apply and then preliminarily begin working on a theory that fits the evidence. It may well be we are chasing our own tails in waiting for the ''one piece of groundbreaking evidence'' HOPING it will speak for itself.

Why aren't taking the lead in framing the concepts science will have to work with? Right now we have a blank slate to work with, to advance bigfootery it may be we have to reject the premise of the objections provided to date and just strike out with what we do have.

[bipedalist]

Well there is already a society called the Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers..... http://www.squatchopedia.com/index.php/AIBR http://www.bigfootresearch.com/

How active scientifically they would be is not for me to report as I've not become a member YET. However, I suppose this group is independent so I assume it would have some

protocols in effect as to how to select/elect members. Whether they have formal conferences, poster sessions, and such I can't speak to....but maybe a representative could fill us in?

I believe bipto and HairyMan are members and some others here. Thoughts?

[Guest Jodie]

I think it would be a lot easier just to go out and shoot one, and retrieve the body.

I do exactly what you suggest, Grayjay, I look at the evidence, and take things that fit from a broad spectrum of different fields. In doing that, I came up with an autistic aquasquatch that may or may not be in the primate family.

I do see your points, and I read the articles linked, I just don't think we have the wherewithal to accomplish what needs to be done in carving up the initial hypothesis.

[Guest Cervelo]

GrayJay,

It's really simple and the method has been used since the beginning

1) something gets reported

2) someone goes looking

3) they find it

Now if Bigfoot requires some sort of technology we don't have yet for the common man to see him or detect him. I'll take that ride with you. But changing the rules of the current scientific method to accommodate Bigfoot is not going to happen at least not for mainstream science. Did the DNA come from something sure it did. The interpetation of the results we'll see but we all know how that ends without a body, part, or a photo that even the biggest skeptic gos wow what's that!! But if the rumors are true we are already seeing how this works and rightly so. Dr. Ketchum may be very good at making sure the colt or calf I buy is from the lineage that the owners say it is, but she's not a Zoologist, does that matter maybe not to this crowd. But it could be like asking an airplane mechanic to design an airplane to the scientific community. They have a way of doing things that we need to be aware of sure. But like that old saying gos putting a bow on a pig changes nothing it's still a pig. Who knows maybe it will be embraced and the money will pour in but I doubt it. You drop a head, arm or amazing photographic evidence next to the DNA report then you got something!

Edited December 5, 2011 by Cervelo

[Guest StankApe]

Here's the problem . Most all other scientific discoveries are based on another discovery. (or other information that leads one to endeavor to another level of discovery). Plank leads to Einstein, who leads to Hawking...etc (or in our own history, one primitive species of man helps us describe and date a new discovery of a different fossil of primitive man). We stand on the shoulders of the giants before us and this makes a trail of information that is used by the peer review process to verify results.

When one claims to have made a completely new Species(or Genus especially) discovery, well you have to have a body most of the time. (unless it's a new species of known animals like a new spotted frog. we know what frogs are, we can say " well here 42 closeup pictures of said frog, a blood sample and a dna profile"!)Scence will go " yep, this doesn't match any known frog yet appears to be closely related to the 14 spotted frog, and since this has 15 spots, we will call it that!

But if you are trying to prove an animal exists that has never been described before scientifically (like Bigfoot) then you are required to pretty much fill in ALL the gaps as far as evidence goes. (not habits and life cycle , but a specimen IS required). If it' too big and scary to wrangle, at least some credible video evidence shot at close range would go a long way towards helping.

I still think that there will never be mainstream scientific acceptance without a body.

[Guest]

GrayJay,

It's really simple and the method has been used since the beginning

1) something gets reported

2) someone goes looking

3) they find it

Now if Bigfoot requires some sort of technology we don't have yet for the common man to see him or detect him. I'll take that ride with you. But changing the rules of the current scientific method to accommodate Bigfoot is not going to happen at least not for mainstream science. Did the DNA come from something sure it did. The interpetation of the results we'll see but we all know how that ends without a body, part, or a photo that even the biggest skeptic gos wow what's that!! But if the rumors are true we are already seeing how this works and rightly so. Dr. Ketchum may be very good at making sure the colt or calf I buy is from the lineage that the owners say it is, but she's not a Zoologist, does that matter maybe not to this crowd. But it could be like asking an airplane mechanic to design an airplane to the scientific community. They have a way of doing things that we need to be aware of sure. But like that old saying gos putting a bow on a pig changes nothing it's still a pig. Who knows maybe it will be embraced and the money will pour in but I doubt it. You drop a head, arm or amazing photographic evidence next to the DNA report then you got something!

I'm not saying change the rules of mainstream science, more like lets use ALL of it. To date we have been harboring many assumptions about Bigfoot...it's a primate...it's not, it's this and that and trying to force the evidence to fit whatever the current accepted theory is.

Where I'm going it throw the majority of it out and begin again with the assumption we don't know. The researcher who have collected the majority of the physical evidence, in conjunction with the audio literally have the chance to re-define the field of bigfoot. Mainstream science already isn't enthused, bigfoot just doesn't fit any field, it's not archeology cause we haven't found fossils, it's not primate research because Bigfoot apparently, or seems to have language and higher reasoning skills, and so on and so on.

We've been trying to pound a square peg in a round hole for years.

That square-peg thing isn't really working for us...however established studies applied to the evidence just might. It certainly will jump-start things and hopefully provide new models for us to work with. In doing that some researchers should be able to re-form the original theories and move forward.

Sure a body would be convienent, but since we don't have one and we're 50-60 yrs into this it's time to work with what we do have. For example,

http://www.ncvs.org/roar.pdf

Bigfoot being a total unknown as to biology, yet has been recorded producing the low hertz vocalizations obviously this study should have been snatched up as a gift by BF researchers. Bigfoot physical biology is a ''unknown'' but hey we have these recordings. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility their vocal chords are radically different than ours. If so how do we prove it? With the evidence at hand.

To always fall back on ''we need a body'' is yes, desirable, but until one walks in the door what else can we do with what we have? We can wait for a body or innovate our own thinking and follow the evidence.

[Guest Cervelo]

Grayjay,

I get what your saying and you know I'm actively looking, but I also believe that 99.9% of the evidence is not Bigfoot just something we can't explain. The only evidence I accept as valid is eyewitness/daylight/very close because there are only a few options. The fact that we are where we are at this point should really open ones mind to other possibilities. I'm not suggesting any of paranormal mumbo jumbo either. In my time spent in the woods I've had some really neat stuff happen which for most would be Bigfoot. Based on MMs experience and Sasyfoot I'm looking at one right now but that's not how it works in my opinion. When I see biggie as clear as I see all the other animals I'm in the club but until then... it's just a awesome walk in the woods!

[Guest parnassus]

I'm all for BF inclusion and formatted evidence to meet the requirements but who has the honoraria to keep me in the field for three months at a time disproving the null-hypothesis?

Exactly how many Wally Hersom's, Tom Slick's or Adrian Erickson's are there out there?

you forgot the Colorado bigbucks who is funding Meldrum, not to mention all the money that has been spent by the World Book Encyclopedia on Yeti/Himalayan expeditions, other foundation money in the late 50's to find Bigfoot, and all the money spent by History Channel and Animal Planet. A lot of money has been spent and continues to be spent.

Edited December 5, 2011 by parnassus

[bipedalist]

Thanks. So how about some citations on the Colorado benefactor or grantor?