99% Sure Sasquatches Do Not Exist

[Wheellug]

I've never had to look at it that way. Did a few searches and you're right. The term 'Cryptid' is used in several descriptions of animals rediscovered. Also the description of Lazarus Taxa is used to describe the rediscovery of something found thought to have been dead.

Spiffy!

[Guest exnihilo]

There's no need to clarify for me because I had already clarified for you. Is there something you don't like about my definition of a cryptid?

Now Saskeptic, that’s not the game we were playing, is it? You asked me to define the term and I did – and I think the definition is a suitable one, though I admit it may be less helpful in the development of your argument than your own definition.

I think my definition is suitable because it includes the impact of the culture of science upon scientific efforts. The argument that ‘science has done enough already’ does not consider the impact of these cultural factors upon scientific investigations. While we know that science could never accomplish anything without the external focus imposed by scientific culture, this external focus may also exclude potentially fruitful investigations from the apparatus of science if these investigations could be construed as embarrassing. And the desire to avoid embarrassment (some may call it vanity) is one reason that existing schema are defended with such adversarial conservatism. So it is not surprising that we are left to contemplate the unfortunate truism that the paradigm usually cannot change in a major way until the older generation passes away – or is discredited.

[Guest]

Now Saskeptic, that’s not the game we were playing, is it? You asked me to define the term and I did – and I think the definition is a suitable one, though I admit it may be less helpful in the development of your argument than your own definition.

The problem is that it was less helpful in the development of any argumentation, including your own, as a result of its ambiguity.

By all means though, please regale us with your examples of cryptids that have since been discovered, and by "cryptids" I'm using your definition: species that scientists refused to look for because they were embarrassed to do so. (I hope you'll also be providing evidence that no scientists have looked for bigfoot because they are/were embarrassed to do so.)

[Guest]

Now Saskeptic, that’s not the game we were playing, is it? You asked me to define the term and I did – and I think the definition is a suitable one, though I admit it may be less helpful in the development of your argument than your own definition.

I think my definition is suitable because it includes the impact of the culture of science upon scientific efforts. The argument that ‘science has done enough already’ does not consider the impact of these cultural factors upon scientific investigations. While we know that science could never accomplish anything without the external focus imposed by scientific culture, this external focus may also exclude potentially fruitful investigations from the apparatus of science if these investigations could be construed as embarrassing. And the desire to avoid embarrassment (some may call it vanity) is one reason that existing schema are defended with such adversarial conservatism. So it is not surprising that we are left to contemplate the unfortunate truism that the paradigm usually cannot change in a major way until the older generation passes away – or is discredited.

Science is a cultural phenomenon and certainly is influenced by other cultural phenomena. However, science can and often does change with new evidence. As old theories are falsified, new ones are developed to take their place. There may be an old guard in the sciences but they do often yield to the new data when it comes in. I would not characterize peer-review and verification/falsification as antagonistic in general. Are there old-fogeys hell bent on preserving their place in the scientific ranks? Perhaps, but they are usually outnumbered by others who have their own agendas. The biggest difficulty in BF research is not acceptance but funding. There just isn't a lot of money to made here. There might be some, but it's limited in scope and not likely to be pursued by commercial interests and without reliable data not likely to be pursued by government either. The only way this will change is with something big. I'm not even sure a positive Ketchum Report will be enough to sway potential backers. A body is almost certainly mandatory now. There is too much public doubt about the reality of bigfoot to warrant much support for research without one.

[Guest StankApe]

Why not? I think a pretty good case can be made for them as cryptids. What do you think should rule them out?

I dunno, maybe it's my own personal definition of cryptid, but I've always felt that if we know an animal once existed. The fact that it may or may not be presently extinct doesn't make it a cryptid. It was real, we studied it, it went extinct. I find Thylacines no more a cryptid than the dinosaurs.

Just have always felt that cryptids were unknown animals, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Mappen Guarie (however it's spelled, the ground sloth of south america) ...etc Things that have a history of reported sightings but no physical evidence at an extent to prove it.

[Guest]

Things that have a history of reported sightings but no physical evidence at an extent to prove it.

That's cool. So do you prefer some other phrase for things like thylacines or ivorybills?

[Guest]

I put thylacine and ivory billed woodpecker reports in the cryptid category because of the lack of reliable evidence regarding them. True they were real at one time but apparently aren't anymore. Until they can be demonstrated to be still around we can't call them real anymore. Just like dinosaurs. If someone were to tell me they saw a real dinosaur I'd be resistent to believing them. This would be a perfectly good example of a cryptid today even though they were perfectly real long ago. Just so a bigfoot is a cryptid. If they're real then they're still cryptids because right now they are not believed to be extent. Once we classify them then they're real. But if they go extinct and a hundred years later someone claims to see one then they're back to being cryptids again.

ETA "not"

Edited December 15, 2011 by antfoot

[Guest vilnoori]

Hmmm, Lazarus Taxa. I like that. Cryptid just makes me think, "mysterious thing." The whole Lazarus thing is very much more descriptive, as long as you know your Bible.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

<snipped>

Aristotle. N.d. Historia animalium.

<snipped>

Props

This is my all time favorite read

[Guest StankApe]

That's cool. So do you prefer some other phrase for things like thylacines or ivorybills?

I dunno...umm, extinct critter folks think they seen? lol

I really have no "phrase" or anything for that group. I've seen what i suspect may have been a Florida Panther just north of my house (in a town called Vancleave 10+ miles north of my gulf coastal Mississippi home), now allegedly they aren't supposed to be here. (former range was here but gone since Victorian era) I may have been wrong and mis-Id'd a large Bobcat. But as I'm prone to skepticism and critical thinking I don't think I did... That doesn't mean I'm correct)

What would that be? it's not an extinct animal in the southeast, just in Miss, Bama and La.... Possiblity still exists that a few might still range here, or be expanding again due to more conservancy,

I reckon that if someone sees a thylacine or Ivory Billed Woodpecker that there isn't anything "cryptid" about it. Just interesting ... Though I get why the two groups of "critters" get linked together. Both kinda fall into the realm of interesting and incredible yet unverifiable. But what happens if a clear video of a Taz Tiger pops up? Is it no longer a cryptid?

[Guest BFSleuth]

For what it's worth, I remember this news story about the "discovery" of a new fruit eating monitor lizard:

http://www.livescience.com/6297-giant-lizard-eluded-science.html

Note the scientist's quote:

"...we are humbled because the species is not really new — it is only new to us as Western scientists," Brown said. "In fact, resident indigenous communities — the Agta and Ilongot tribes — have known about it for many generations. If only scientists had listened to them earlier!""

It seems that "discovery" of many new species are really all about "Western" scientists bothering to investigate animals that are already well known to local residents. Note that this particular species is in a heavily populated part of the Philippines. The locals have known about it because they prefer to eat the fruit eating monitor lizards because they taste better than the flesh eating lizards! This lizard was first "reported" to scientists decades ago, and in 2001 a photograph was taken and it took a few more years for scientists to "investigate" (ie. a local citizen brought a dead lizard from the local meat market for them to examine).

The methodology of science, requiring proof in the form of a type specimen, etc. by definition will rule out the "existence" of species until they can be properly "discovered" (or REdiscovered).

Maybe its time for scientists to give greater credence to sighting reports so they can devote resources for follow up investigation...

[Guest StankApe]

This apples and oranges if you are eluding this lizard thing to Bigfoot BFSleuth. Monitor lizards exist, we have cataloged hundreds of em. Often many descriptions of said unknown species of known genus sound so similar to known species that scientists assume it's the known species. Not to mention that with limited field work due to funding they want to spend as much time as possible doing the work they came there to do (which is often times not to find a new species but to study existing known species in the wild more closely).

Bigfoot,however, is not "just another monitor lizard" no matter how interesting a fruit eating monitor may be, it ain't a SQUATCH!! Science has taken a look into Bigfoot before and found nothing to work with and left it to the amateurs to sort out. If some great evidence pops up, then I think mainstream science will gladly embrace the new species of ape and undertake many studies to understand it further.

[Guest BFSleuth]

This apples and oranges if you are eluding this lizard thing to Bigfoot BFSleuth. Monitor lizards exist, we have cataloged hundreds of em. Often many descriptions of said unknown species of known genus sound so similar to known species that scientists assume it's the known species. Not to mention that with limited field work due to funding they want to spend as much time as possible doing the work they came there to do (which is often times not to find a new species but to study existing known species in the wild more closely).

Bigfoot,however, is not "just another monitor lizard" no matter how interesting a fruit eating monitor may be, it ain't a SQUATCH!! Science has taken a look into Bigfoot before and found nothing to work with and left it to the amateurs to sort out. If some great evidence pops up, then I think mainstream science will gladly embrace the new species of ape and undertake many studies to understand it further.

Actually, since I don't live in the Philippines I haven't spent much time "eluding" monitor lizards lol... I believe you meant something different than eluding.

Regarding the "apples and oranges", well indeed you are correct that lizards aren't bigfoot... unless we include Lizard Man. However, the point of my post is to note the situation of mainstream scientists, to their chagrin, not taking into account reports of species from local human populations that have extensive knowledge of them. This is a direct "apples to apples" situation, in that we have another "possible" species (Bigfoot) that has thousands of sighting reports going back hundreds of years, yet we don't really have any concerted efforts by mainstream scientists to do research to document it. In fact quite the opposite is the condition of the science regarding the species we are discussing on this forum, scientists that do take this subject seriously are marginalized by the scientific community.

I question your assertion that "Science has taken a look into Bigfoot before and found nothing to work with...". By "look into Bigfoot" what scientific expeditions or efforts are you referring to and what were their published results? I would be interested to see what their "efforts" consisted of and their methods of investigation. I'm sure it would be helpful reading so we can all take note of what methods not to employ in our efforts, and so not cover ground that has been fruitless.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I just knew when "vilnoori" mentioned the bible a few posts up that Serpents would come into the conversion.

Tim

[Guest StankApe]

Actually, since I don't live in the Philippines I haven't spent much time "eluding" monitor lizards lol... I believe you meant something different than eluding.

Regarding the "apples and oranges", well indeed you are correct that lizards aren't bigfoot... unless we include Lizard Man. However, the point of my post is to note the situation of mainstream scientists, to their chagrin, not taking into account reports of species from local human populations that have extensive knowledge of them. This is a direct "apples to apples" situation, in that we have another "possible" species (Bigfoot) that has thousands of sighting reports going back hundreds of years, yet we don't really have any concerted efforts by mainstream scientists to do research to document it. In fact quite the opposite is the condition of the science regarding the species we are discussing on this forum, scientists that do take this subject seriously are marginalized by the scientific community.

I question your assertion that "Science has taken a look into Bigfoot before and found nothing to work with...". By "look into Bigfoot" what scientific expeditions or efforts are you referring to and what were their published results? I would be interested to see what their "efforts" consisted of and their methods of investigation. I'm sure it would be helpful reading so we can all take note of what methods not to employ in our efforts, and so not cover ground that has been fruitless.

Dang my fast typing! I meant the word ALLUDE! not elude!

Scientists looked at the evidence available I'm sure. (what primatologist wouldn't have?) But being that there is no evidence of any merit really aside from footprints (which can be faked) and stories (which can be lies,mis-identifications...etc) there's nothing there for science to do much with.... I think all of us can agree with that, there isn't really any decent evidence, it's all sorta lousy.

What local people ? Indians? I don't see how listening to ancient stories about wildmen is going to assist any modern scientist in confirming the existence of Bigfoot. All he will learn is old stories and that they live in the woods... Hardly groundbreaking. It's not like we are talking about the middle of a jungle 500 miles from the nearest modern city where a scientist relies on local villagers for info. Modern science has plenty of Bigfooters to give them any potential evidence of interest. And frankly, every day that goes by without a decent picture (seriously they get pictures of clouded leopards and wolverines and all sorts of ultra rare animals on game cams) or a decent video, or something other than stories, a little bit more of my belief in the possibility of Bigfoot dies.

Edited December 16, 2011 by StankApe