Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 A question that often turns over in the back of my mind is the seeming unwillingness not only of Science, but of the general public to accept BF. Dr Meldrum, Dr Fahrenbach, et al can churn out report after report after report and no matter how much research they do, no matter how much evidence they bring to bear, all it takes is one man, either with a bunch of letters after his name, or even someone like Greg Long to say "it's all bunk", and the minds spring closed and the heads start nodding. This seems to be true even among people who would generally be considered fairly open-minded on most other topics. I submit that there is more going on than just snickering about BF (or UFOs, ghosts, what have you for that matter). The struggle BF proponents are facing is literally the power of the paradigm. The framework that shapes the collective view of the world People have an inherent need for a sense of orderliness in their lives, and anything that threatens to change order as basic a level as demonstrating a new species of bipedal primate that demonstrates human/near-human levels of intelligence kicks all that right out the window. Thoughts?
Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 I agree, but unfortunately at this point, it seems like a body or some other type of indisputable physical proof is going to be required to get the public to buy in. I think that hoax, after hoax has brought about a certain type of fatigue, people just don't want to hear it anymore. They want to see it. I know that you have definitely hammered home that DNA = critter, and absolutely DNA does show existence of a flesh and blood creature, but the public is going to want more. Most people have no interest in spending large amounts of time researching Bigfoot, or possibly trying to get DNA reports translated to them when the time comes. Sadly, with the attention span we are currently seeing, there is going to have to be some evidence presented that is simple and awesome.
Guest Twilight Fan Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 People have trouble believing something is real when they have never seen it with their own eyes or experienced it. I think it's only natural, and I'm like that myself. Trying to open up more, but it's a process...
Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 I agree, but unfortunately at this point, it seems like a body or some other type of indisputable physical proof is going to be required to get the public to buy in. I think that hoax, after hoax has brought about a certain type of fatigue, people just don't want to hear it anymore. They want to see it. I know that you have definitely hammered home that DNA = critter, and absolutely DNA does show existence of a flesh and blood creature, but the public is going to want more. Most people have no interest in spending large amounts of time researching Bigfoot, or possibly trying to get DNA reports translated to them when the time comes. Sadly, with the attention span we are currently seeing, there is going to have to be some evidence presented that is simple and awesome. I'm not going to disagree with this, and it's a shame. Modern life has made us, the so-called "curious ape" into decidedly uncurious apes. We don't have time to stop and really think about things. We're so busy just doing the daily grind that we are content to let "authorities" do our thinking for us. After all, they're "experts", right? Isn't that what we keep them around for? Fatigue initiates inertia, and inertia tends to build on itself. Ideas that are fresh are relatively "loose" and easy to move or overturn. The longer they go unchallenged, the more intellectual inertia they seem to gather, and the greater the effort needed to kick them back into motion.
Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 I think it is good that people have a certain level os skepticism built into them. Too many of them fall prey to quacks, deceptive spouses, seductive politicians, used car salesmen, and religious fanatics as is.
Guest Strick Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 I don't accept that the 'bar' of scientific proof is set higher for Bigfoot than for any other species. I'd be happy with DNA, a body or part thereof; hell, I'd even be happy with some really clear video of this species. Unfortunately, none of these have been forthcoming. If we accept that Bigfoot is a flesh and blood creature then there is no reason at all why an identical set of scientific proofs cannot be collected as would be necessary to determine, say, a new species of wood louse or dung beetle. In fact, due to the size and geographical range of the subject, collecting these proofs should really be whole lot easier than digging in the dirt to verify invertebrates. So no, I don't accept the premise of the thread - cool title though!
Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Science does not establish truth, it provides a mechanism for organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion, and not selectively. It does not matter how educated the person is or how many degrees they might have, is the evidence falsifiable? That is the only criteria that matters. To accept anyone's word on faith, whether proponent or skeptic, witness or a scientist, contradicts the basic principles and spirit of science. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you believe or don't believe. If you relegate bigfoot evidence to that standard then you have applied a religious outlook to the field, which reduces credibility, and hinders any progress establishing it's existence. Right now, all we have is someone's word that there is unique DNA, well we will see if the interpretation of that DNA can be reproduced. One scientist doing 150 experiments, DNA extraction, etc. means less than 150 scientist all working on the same experiment or DNA project.
southernyahoo Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 That depends on which science you are talking about. There are proven things in science and they are truth. It's not just an opinion that my cell phone works. There are other things in science that requires repeatability to be predictive and leads to a level of certainty. I don't know why it is still incinuated that one scientist is doing all the experiments and giving their own interpretation on DNA unless people are cherry picking information (doing the religious thing). I don't accept that the 'bar' of scientific proof is set higher for Bigfoot than for any other species. I would'nt say the bar is in a different place, it's just harder to say we have reached it, because the evidence overlaps evidence of an existing known , (us) and we are untrusting of ourselves to "not" fake or misinterpret such evidence in self amusement.
Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 I couldn't have said it better than CTFoot. Or Strick, for that matter.
Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 I think it is good that people have a certain level os skepticism built into them. Too many of them fall prey to quacks, deceptive spouses, seductive politicians, used car salesmen, and religious fanatics as is. Ironically, I could make a good case that often times those things are the result of not being skeptical enough, but going into details would put me outside the rules for this fora. Science does not establish truth, it provides a mechanism for organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion, and not selectively. It does not matter how educated the person is or how many degrees they might have, is the evidence falsifiable? That is the only criteria that matters. To accept anyone's word on faith, whether proponent or skeptic, witness or a scientist, contradicts the basic principles and spirit of science. Been saying that for years. Proponents and witnesses get put through the wringer. Why don't the Skeptics? Because their position supports the paradigm, which, rightly or wrongly, carries the stamp of established authority. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you believe or don't believe. It shouldn't, but all too often experience tells us that it does.
Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Mulder buddy, here is the paper from Nature on the discovery and description of a species new to science in 1993, the saola: Vu_Van_Dung_et al.1993.pdf When and if there is ever physical evidence for bigfoot on par with that presented in this paper for saola, then bigfoot will be a recognized species and no one will question its existence. It's that simple. Approximately 1.3 million species have been scientifically described, and all from some kind of physical specimen demonstrated to be distinct from all previously described species. A description of bigfoot without some kind of physical specimen (tissue supplying a unique, species-level signature should count) would amount to an unprecedented relaxation of taxonomic standards that well predate the Washington Administration.
georgerm Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 A question that often turns over in the back of my mind is the seeming unwillingness not only of Science, but of the general public to accept BF. Dr Meldrum, Dr Fahrenbach, et al can churn out report after report after report and no matter how much research they do, no matter how much evidence they bring to bear, all it takes is one man, either with a bunch of letters after his name, or even someone like Greg Long to say "it's all bunk", and the minds spring closed and the heads start nodding. .......................... Thoughts? Many zoologist work for conserative organizations like universities, city zoos, forest service or private companies. A person's degree and reputation are important components of sucessful employment. Now during conversation the topic of bigfoot comes up, eyes roll, and suddenly these people throw out their scientific way of thinking and redicule the topic. Some may have witnessed BF, but they clam up. Why is this? This point in time could be the deciding factor for a promotion, so just go with the flow and roll your eyes. Mock others who are bold BF supporters, sell your soul, and get that promotion. Now drive that new car down the road, knowing that you didn't have the courage to support one of the most important zoological topics of modern science............................bigfoot living and evading human detection.
southernyahoo Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 I couldn't have said it better than CTFoot. Or Strick, for that matter. You support this? Science does not establish truth If it isn't published by science authorities, who or what are you going to accept to give you the truth?
Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Mulder, There's no crying in Bigfooting. We involved need to stop crying and play with the rules that Saskeptic gave an example of. All persons that are trying to scientifically document a new species also follow these rules. I understand your frustration, you can believe that.
Recommended Posts