Peer Review, The Scientific Arguments And Cross Applying To Bigfoot

[Guest]

I think for those with plenty of time in the field, they would be confident they could demonstrate "BF activity" w/o proving BF exists w/n a community who accept that stipulation as a foundation for working hypothesis, that ultimately will help discover the truth....and then we can discard what we got wrong..

But we have that already. It's called "the Bigfoot Forums." There is also the BFRO and any number of other similar venues in which people who are confident in their ability to recognize so-called bigfoot activity discuss their observations with like-minded people in the hopes of coming to understand bigfoots better and, for some, lead to the collection of evidence that will prove to the world these things are real.

[Guest mxav]

But we have that already. It's called "the Bigfoot Forums." There is also the BFRO and any number of other similar venues in which people who are confident in their ability to recognize so-called bigfoot activity discuss their observations with like-minded people in the hopes of coming to understand bigfoots better and, for some, lead to the collection of evidence that will prove to the world these things are real.

EXCEPT

BFF: Is an internet forum, nothing more

BFRO: a for profit group with an agenda...

not the best places to start

[Guest]

EXCEPT

BFF: Is an internet forum, nothing more

BFRO: a for profit group with an agenda...

not the best places to start

Agreed and plussed.

It makes more sense to self-publish thru journal dues working towards a Journal of Bigfoot, a organization that folds independents and existing research groups into it. It also serves as a platform to go after the coveted ''National'' designation much like the National Zoo or National Aviary. We're at the point where it serves us better to sidestep obstacles than keep losing the same old battles over and over.The point is to move forward not remain stagnant or marginalized.

[Guest Jodie]

I hardly think BASF or Monsanto, Bayer ect....when working on new material go public by publishing. They work on things quietly and only present when mandatory, to protect their discoveries.

They do publish info about their research. I don't know that they go into specifics until patented, but a lot of their research is based on commercial applications resulting from other's previous research that was peer reviewed. If they want to make money they would need to present their developments, it would be mandatory in that way.

http://www.research.bayer.com/

http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/research-development-pipeline.aspx#/Overview

http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/careers/why-join-basf/our-offer/research-and-development

[Guest]

It makes more sense to self-publish thru journal dues working towards a Journal of Bigfoot, . . .

That's fine, but other than presumably having a print version, how is the content any different?

If people who think they found some evidence of bigfoot publish a paper that is peer-reviewed by people who will not demand proof that the evidence is actually from a bigfoot, then where is the increased rigor and/or legitimacy of the effort? You can call it whatever you want, but I don't see how it would be any different than what we do here. In fact, given that skeptics ask inconvenient questions on the BFF every day, one could make the argument that observations shared on the BFF actually receive greater scrutiny than what has been described in this thread as a "Journal of Bigfoot." If anything, I'm hearing that people want to publish a journal that uncritically accepts all manner of bigfoot evidence so that such "evidence" can escape the critical glare that might be shone on it here.

[Guest mxav]

Agreed and plussed.

It makes more sense to self-publish thru journal dues working towards a Journal of Bigfoot, a organization that folds independents and existing research groups into it. It also serves as a platform to go after the coveted ''National'' designation much like the National Zoo or National Aviary. We're at the point where it serves us better to sidestep obstacles than keep losing the same old battles over and over.The point is to move forward not remain stagnant or marginalized.

exactly, for it to work, no agendas, no one group controls the publishing process, etc....

Edited December 15, 2011 by mxav

[Guest]

That's fine, but other than presumably having a print version, how is the content any different?

The content would be VERY different in that hypothetically it would be presented in it's entirety for review by other researchers in the field. If you are presently of the notion things here are presented in their entirety you would be wrong. Even BFRO redacts portions of it's reports made public. Actually with a dedicated Journal more information would come to light and it would hardly be the proponent cheerleading exercise you outline.

After all Ornathologists have their own Journals...this is hardly different unless you wish me to believe they don't scrutinize each others findings? Same with Geologists, Neurologists ect...it's pretty normal cross the board.

I'm sorry Jodie I wasn't clearer, I used BASF ect to illustrate corporate entities get their findings into the mainstream using a slightly different route than other scientific researchers do. Yes they ultimately are supporting their patented material via other studies, but after they have patented their research. BF research could also be approached this way. The discoveries then becomes accepted after the fact, instead of putting the burden on the front end of the process.

[Guest]

The content would be VERY different in that hypothetically it would be presented in it's entirety for review by other researchers in the field. If you are presently of the notion things here are presented in their entirety you would be wrong. Even BFRO redacts portions of it's reports made public. Actually with a dedicated Journal more information would come to light and it would hardly be the proponent cheerleading exercise you outline.

So it would present information right now deemed too controversial for the BFF?

After all Ornathologists have their own Journals...this is hardly different unless you wish me to believe they don't scrutinize each others findings?

We ornithologists do scrutinize each others' work in journals - so do the mammalogists, herpetologists, anthropologists, etc. - and we can't publish things we can't establish to the satisfaction of our anonymous peers. As I mentioned upthread, I can't publish a paper on Wood Thrush singing behavior if it might have been Hermit Thrushes (or something else!) I was hearing.

[Guest]

As for the continual references to Legend meets Science, I've read the book, and I've seen the video, and it comes up very wanting.

I have yet to see any scientific refutation of the evidence presented therein.

The bottom line is that you see no difference between fish and bigfoot becaue you simply want to believe,

You obviously don't know me, or you'd know I don't "believe", I KNOW. I've seen one, and at close range (~30').

Look at your avatar and chosen display name. It's clear as day.

You obviously don't understand irony either.

Do you have any real evidence to back up your assertions or just the same parroting of Legend meets science and it's "experts"?

Lots of people with scientific credentials cited in LMS. Sounds like legitimate experts to me.

Where are YOUR experts, and where are their analyses to refute Dr Meldrum, et al?

I keep asking, and the Skeptics are still silent on that subject.

That would be good for me, i think all we need is something that can be unmistakeably attributed to a new species.

Tim ~

We have hairs, we have tracks with unique biometric indicators, etc.

Your side just doesn't want to admit it.

[Guest StankApe]

I think saskeptic is onto something here. The innate problem with attempting to establish a scientific journal about Bigfoot is that it isn't really a very scientific subject as of this moment. You can't really have accurate peer review of conjecture ,anecdotes and perceptions. If you want other Bigfoot researchers to look at your pictures of scat, footprint casts and recordings of suspected calls/wood knocking. I'm sure they will be willing to do it. I also think that some of them would be more than willing to tell you that ,in their opinion, that some if not all of your "data" is flawed or not Bigfoot.

However, the inherent flaw in all of this is that there are no actual Bigfoot "experts". Nobody has studied a body. Nobody has a detailed listing of their anatomy,habits, mating rituals, food sources...etc So all the resulting Journal would really, truly be, is a magazine where Footers debate over anecdotal and suspected physical evidence. (not to mention who dictates the criteria for membership as a "Peer Reviewer" ? I've been interested in Bigfoot for 25+ years, does that make me a legitimate Peer? Does someone have to have spent so many years beating the brush with nothing to show for it but suspicious casts and a blurry video? )

See the problem here? If Bigfoot is proven real, the bodies on the slab, and David Attenborough is planning his next documentary about him. THEN you could have a National Journal Of Sasquatch to contribute and edit Peer Reviewed scientific papers. Until then, I'm afraid all it would be is a neatly edited summation of an average BFF thread...

Edited December 15, 2011 by StankApe

[Guest]

No, Stank, I DON'T see a problem. We have good scientists doing good science and the community ignores/rejects it out of hand w/o ever engaging it.

[Guest mxav]

No, Stank, I DON'T see a problem. We have good scientists doing good science and the community ignores/rejects it out of hand w/o ever engaging it.

Nope, what you're peddling is just blind belief. It's old, frankly.

[Guest]

So it would present information right now deemed too controversial for the BFF?

Goodness! THAT wasn't even implied....lol.

And I will also respectfully differ with your ever narrowing of the parameters you chose to rebut. Journals are published, printed and taken seriously without the strictly drawn lines you insist on defending. What was said was not all info by BF researchers is shared, for their own reasons, but would more likely be in a National Journal of Bigfoot. I'm fairly shocked you decided to ignore the ''National'' designation as that alone would turn bigfootery on it's ear.

For anyone not realizing the implications of that do a little research. It's a game changer.

[Guest]

Goodness! THAT wasn't even implied....lol.

Well can you please be explicit about what you mean, then? If you don't explain, I'm left to interpret your intent.

As for the significance of "national," again, what do you mean? How does a "national" journal of bigfoot solve the problems of uncritical peer review? The BFF is already international, so how does going national somehow legitimize the endeavor?

I have long advocated that bigfoot researchers simply attempt to publish the work they think is publishable. We have numerous journals that would be suitable already, including Henry Gee sweeping off the welcome mat at Nature for crying out loud. If those researchers are not confident that their work is publishable in mainstream journals, then starting a journal of bigfoot is fine. But how that legitimizes the work is beyond me. Can you please explain how publishing a paper based on analysis of anecdotal bigfoot encounters in a journal that seeks to publish anecdotal bigfoot encounters advances the science of bigfoot beyond anecdotes?

[Guest]

Nope, what you're peddling is just blind belief. It's old, frankly.

Then Dr Meldrums track analyses, Dr Fahrenbach's track trait distribution paper, his creature size vs elevation study, and all the other hard science done on this topic is what? A mass hallucination?

Be very careful, as several of the scientists you are impuning are forum members.

I have long advocated that bigfoot researchers simply attempt to publish the work they think is publishable. We have numerous journals that would be suitable already, including Henry Gee sweeping off the welcome mat at Nature for crying out loud.

Apparently not, if the rumors about the Ketchum study being rejected by Nature are true.

If those researchers are not confident that their work is publishable in mainstream journals, then starting a journal of bigfoot is fine. But how that legitimizes the work is beyond me. Can you please explain how publishing a paper based on analysis of anecdotal bigfoot encounters in a journal that seeks to publish anecdotal bigfoot encounters advances the science of bigfoot beyond anecdotes?

Scientists make observations and they call it "data".

Non-scientists make observations and Scientists dismiss it as "anecdotes".

Typical Science BS.