Guest Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Give me a break. We have to express total, complete, and undying love for science as if it is an expression of perfection? Give ME a break. How you got all of that from my comment is beyond me, Huntster. Feeling a little trigger-happy today? Et tu, norcal? I'm happy to discuss problems with the scientific method, limitations of scientific inquiry, even the serious shortcomings of the peer review process. Catch me on a bad day (like when I've just had a paper rejected) and you'll get more than an earful. But to reject that process wholesale as worthless or corrupt (as insinuated up-thread) is to deny how much we owe today to that process in terms of modern technology, life expectancy, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Feeling a little trigger-happy today? No more than any other day, especially when returning fire. I'm happy to discuss problems with the scientific method, limitations of scientific inquiry, even the serious shortcomings of the peer review process. You certainly used to be. We'll see about the future. Catch me on a bad day I think we just did. But to reject that process wholesale as worthless or corrupt (as insinuated up-thread) is to deny how much we owe today to that process in terms of modern technology, life expectancy, etc. That's close to my whole point: Nobody here is rejecting the scientific method or science as a whole as "worthless or corrupt". Some here are just rejecting science with regard to sasquatchery as "worthless", and maybe even a bit "corrupt". So drop the electrons, Sir Isaac Newton, et al. And spare us the "wholesale" stuff. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Huntster, I've read your posts and appreciate your perspectives. You bring a vast amount of field experience to BFF. However, your reaction to Saskeptic's comments are over the top. As far as science as a religion, I'm not sure how the mods would allow or censure the discussion of this perspective. Interstingly enough, I was discussing these same issues that you have brought up with a biologist yesterday, and he remarked at how paradigms have shifted over the course of modern biological inquiry. Keep in mind that the discipline of modern biology has only been practiced for around 200 years. For example, the shift from how dinosaurs have been represented. For decades, these creatures were seen as giant lizards. However, now they are pictured as birdlike and reconstructed as such. Another example is how early scientists viewed neanderthal. This species was an animalistic brute, the poster child of the caveman sterotype. Renderings of neanderthal today (influenced with archeological, genetic and paleological discoveries) are vastly different. Science itself is a constantly changing discipline. As new discoveries are made, we are forced to reevaluate our perspectives. Yes, there are disagreements between academics, and the peer review process can become political at times, but I would never throw out all scientific research when making a decision. This thread is about separating fact from fiction, not damning the scientific process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Huntster, I've read your posts and appreciate your perspectives. You bring a vast amount of field experience to BFF. However, your reaction to Saskeptic's comments are over the top. You have to be kidding, right? Is this not "over the top"?: I invite those expressing anti-science views in this thread to jettison all facets of their life (let's start with the Internet) that have developed through the scientific process My reply to the Professor was very pertinent to that silly statement. You are free to disagree with me and agree with the Professor, but I'll quite cheerfully stick to my position: Science is great........until you arrive at the door to sasquatchery. Then it becomes conspicuously absent...............with regard to the "professionals" as well as the "amateurs" (who are in the game simply because the "professionals" are not). Interstingly enough, I was discussing these same issues that you have brought up with a biologist yesterday, and he remarked at how paradigms have shifted over the course of modern biological inquiry. Keep in mind that the discipline of modern biology has only been practiced for around 200 years. For example, the shift from how dinosaurs have been represented. For decades, these creatures were seen as giant lizards. However, now they are pictured as birdlike and reconstructed as such. Another example is how early scientists viewed neanderthal. This species was an animalistic brute, the poster child of the caveman sterotype. Renderings of neanderthal today (influenced with archeological, genetic and paleological discoveries) are vastly different. All of that illustrates the infancy of science and how it is not the final word on anything. Especially when it is virtually silent (or ignorant) on a particular topic. Like sasquatchery. Science itself is a constantly changing discipline. As new discoveries are made, we are forced to reevaluate our perspectives. And when discoveries are not sought or obtained, the ignorant "perspectives" remain. Yes, there are disagreements between academics, and the peer review process can become political at times, but I would never throw out all scientific research when making a decision. And, yet again, nobody here is "throwing out all scientific research". Indeed, we're demanding some. And we're not getting it. This thread is about separating fact from fiction, not damning the scientific process. So why is the Professor coming up with such silly (and needless) defenses of the scientific method? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I invite those expressing anti-science views in this thread to jettison all facets of their life (let's start with the Internet) that have developed through the scientific process, including peer review of information published in scientific journals. Saskeptic, as the person who originally developed this thread, I need to clarify that my intent is not to generate anti-science views among forum members. My intent is to develop a discussion, that focuses on the need for individuals to be able to separate fact from fiction, when discussing characteristics that are attributed to Bigfoot. In fact, I think that if more, employed a factual, scientific approach, when shaping their view of Bigfoot, this thread would not be necessary. Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Let's keep this discussion on topic. The topic is not discussing whether science is wonderful or not. If you forgot what the topic of this thread is, I suggest you go back and read the OP. Or, read Lesmore's post above this one. Thanks, Splash Edited January 28, 2011 by Splash7 Lesmore beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Give me a break. We have to express total, complete, and undying love for science as if it is an expression of perfection? Are we talking science here, or are we talking religion? We cannot discuss the flaws of science as an industry (or, as in this case, as an ideology) because the scientific method is perfection, yet those who claim to express themselves as scientists can condemn or rule over everything else simply because they are scientists? Humanity now finds itself being increasingly ruled by those who claim scientific superiority in just about every way. People are using their supposed scientific superiority to dictate what we eat, wear, how we transport ourselves, how we heat our homes, how many children we have, how to control how many children we have, and on and on and on. We even find science being used to condemn religious faith. Yet we cannot point out how science as an industry cannot or will not even take action in simple biological questions like whether or not sasquatches exist like people have claimed for eons? How is my acceptance of science, for example, with regard to electricity and electronics (which I'm utilizing to communicate with you right now) somehow to deny me the right to condemn "science" for it's refusal to invest in sasquatchery? Hell, as a military man, do you think I don't often condemn the military sometimes for it's foolishness in so many areas? Why can't you see and admit the flaws of science as an industry? Is science God? Perfection? Beyond question? Foolproof? Huntster, I don't think that Saskeptic is saying ..."Is science God? Perfection? Beyond question? Foolproof?" Not at all. I think you would agree with me that his posts have been balanced, based on logic and supported by evidence. Not dissimilar from your posting style, in fact. Les Edited January 28, 2011 by Lesmore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Not proven facts about bigfoot: That they exist. They migrate. They communicate via tree knocks. They construct shelters. They hate canines. They mimic the sounds of other animals. They're able to "throw" their voices, exhibit ventriloquism. They're territorial. They sense and avoid trail cameras. They utilize infrasound. They utilize telepathy, teleportation, or supernatural abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Facts: 1) People have been reporting bipedal apes or primitive hominids throughout recorded human history 2) These reports continue 3) There is fossil evidence to prove that such creatures existed in the past 4) Science, as an industry, has not shown enough interest in the above facts to invest much in finding any more facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) This is a toughie, and speaks directly to the nature of inquiry. I think, if we are to discuss "fact," we have to break that idea down somewhat. I think there is an experiential modality: observations made by witnesses/researchers can be considered factual, if debatable and prone to subject biases. But, from an experiential point of view, internally to the witness, they are facts. There is a faith/belief element here as well: I see the sun come up and move through the sky. AS a lay person in most things, I have to trust in the work of others to know the FACT that in truth the Earth is rotating. I don't know about the rest of you guys and gals, but I have never bothered with a personal inquiry that questions the fact, and I lack the ability, resources, and drive to "check the math" and the astronomy behind that...which bring me to WHY I have faith in the notion that the earth spins on its axis....that whole science/repeated testing by someone/peer review bit, which leads to the idea that..... There is a pure quantitative aspect of fact, in that the "facts" about bigfoot would be gleaned from the many reports that would corroborate what witnesses/researchers tell us. If many many reports share many of the same kinds of details, we can be fairly sure that many witnesses and researchers are seeing/finding the same things. So pick your poison: Personal experience, or faith in numbers.....or both if you are a luck AND dedicated researcher. For most people, there is still an aspect of faith involved at some level, I think. Faith in WHAT is the question...The fiction to me would be the outliers...or one could just view fiction as "facts that have not been recognized yet....that fiction part is the tricky part <shrug> Edited January 29, 2011 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 The scientific method is an inherent part of proving a fact .All facts are born from what can be observed by the senses, to include the sense of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Facts: 1) People have been reporting bipedal apes or primitive hominids throughout recorded human history 2) These reports continue 3) There is fossil evidence to prove that such creatures existed in the past 4) Science, as an industry, has not shown enough interest in the above facts to invest much in finding any more facts Your anti science attitude doesnt help your cause. It has its place, alongside critical thinking, although it does have limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Even those who have seen bigfoot can only be certain about aspects of the appearance for the one specimen that they saw, that's about it. I am the queen of conjecture on this forum, but if you notice, I also change my mind a lot too. I'm not married to any one opinion if someone can show me some kind of circumstantial research that might make their stance more plausible. The point of conjecture is to pinpoint a place to start when you are trying to observe and understand these creatures. Either your experience confirms your opinion or it doesn't. A lot of times your experience leaves you with more questions than anything else. As for peer review, I think it is related to this topic because the topic is about trying to separate fact from fiction regarding what we know about bigfoot. How can you do that without using the scientific method? Each and everyone of us participate in a form of the peer review process when we participate in discussions on this forum. We establish relationships with other researchers and develop trust in order to share information, that is a form of the peer review process even though it is not officially recognized. Peer review includes validating research methods. Now what we do won't necessarily be accepted by main stream science because we have no set documentation or standardization for the processes we use, some are even highly offended by the suggestion, but what you do as researchers is no different than what goes on on a larger more organized scale in any kind of field of research. My work in epidemiology with HIV is an example of where the peer review process works, and it works the vast majority of the time. No system is perfect but if we did not have the peer review system we might be using products and medications that are made like those in China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Your anti science attitude doesnt help your cause. I'm not anti-science, and I don't have a cause. It has its place, alongside critical thinking, although it does have limits. What does? Science, or my critical thinking? Or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Facts: 1) People have been reporting bipedal apes or primitive hominids throughout recorded human history 2) These reports continue 3) There is fossil evidence to prove that such creatures existed in the past 4) Science, as an industry, has not shown enough interest in the above facts to invest much in finding any more facts I agree with these points but there is more to the picture. Although I will number them to correlate with what you stated, they are not necessarily counterpoints,.... just more. 1) People have also been reporting fictional creatures throughout human history. 2) These reports continue. #3 is where the meat is for me. 3) The fossil evidence implied above in your #3 can be used as one model for an important part of the scientific method, prediction. If we use Giganto (or a close relative or anything else) as a model, we can ascertain things through prediction. We know like another large, dry nosed ape from Asia, the orangutan, it would have certain traits and we try to apply these traits in the sense that at least they are known to exist. It doesn't mean they are true, but it's a starting point for prediction. If we try follow the model and give new traits that don't fit in the evolutionary tree, like eye shine which is only known to exist in primates as their much smaller wet nosed relatives from Madagascar, this breaks the model of prediction and is therefor dismissed. It doesn't mean it's right, but this is the process as we know it. Which helps explains your #4. People that are upset about the eye shine comment hopefully will make it to #4. 4) Science, as an industry will not show enough interest in the above facts to invest much in finding any more facts (dismissal due to lack of prediction) because of we refuse to separate fact from fiction when it comes to bigfoot. And when I say "we" I mean you. Not you, but the other guy. If "we" don't want science to take a gander, keep it up and report in every time you see the eyes of horse, deer, or whatever and yes, even bigfoot in the dark. If it doesn't fit any model of prediction, it will ensure the topic of this thread to survive forever. Sorry to pick on the eye shine folks. Give me another trait and I'll substitute. It doesn't mean that the trait won't ultimately be true or untrue, it's all about he process of getting to the truth or untruth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts