Bigfoot And The Power Of Paradigms

[Guest]

I don't accept that the 'bar' of scientific proof is set higher for Bigfoot than for any other species.

I can easily dispose of this canard with a simple example:

Let us say I have a rural property: I tell you that I have some sort of wild canine on said property and you ask for evidence. I provide the testimonies of people who have seen wild canines on the property. I produce casts of tracks taken on the property that have been identified by canine experts as being those of a canine. I produce hairs found on the property that have been identified by expert hair examiners as being canine hair. I produce photos taken of wild canines taken on my property.

The entirely proper conclusion would be that I have shown that I have shown a good case that I have wild canines on my property. No reasonable person would say otherwise.

Substitute "non-human higher primate" for "wild canine", and SNAP! The mind goes closed, and suddenly that evidence is summarily tossed out as "hoaxes", misidentifications", etc. The scientific experts are suddenly no longer scientific experts, and their determinations are also dismissed out of hand.

Why? Because an unknown non-human primate changes the paradigm. A wild canine does not.

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.

John, you and I have had productive discourse on subjects in the past and will again in the future I have no doubt. However, I will never quietly submit myself to a partial, biased system of rigged rules.

People accuse me of being "anti-Science" around here, which I'm not. What I am is anti-bias. I want the same rules to be applied to the Skeptics as to the proponents. I am convinced that the case for BF can stand firm in such a truly objective environment.

[Guest]

. . . And if that rural property is in temperate North America, we already know of several species of wild canines that exist there. Why? Because somebody at some point collected one, measured it, described it, and proposed a unique scientific name for it in the literature.

Again, it's very simple Mulder. You can keep harping on this and whining about how there is a different standard for bigfoot, but there isn't.

1. If I say I saw an American Robin in my yard here in the U.S., no one will ask for any special documentation from me because robins are common and they frequent American backyards.

2. If I say I saw a European Robin in my yard here in the U.S., then I will need to provide some diagnostic evidence to support that claim, e.g., a really good photograph.

3. If I say I saw some kind of bird that is currently undescribed in my yard, then I will need to provide a physical specimen of that undescribed bird sufficient to distinguish it from the 10,000 currently described birds.

Your "wild canid" is a 1. Bigfoot is a 3.

[Guest Strick]

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.

This is true. But you can guarantee these guys would soon change their tune if they were in receipt of a Bigfoot corpse, body part or even DNA. They would have no choice but to look again at their paradigm. If you are suggesting that there would be a wilful attemp to cover up such evidence, then that has nothing to do with a different yardstick of scientific proof being applied to Bigfoot studies and everything to do with conspiracy theory, which is another story altogether.

I know that very few scientists take the subject of Bigfoot seriously and very few are actively looking of this species. But really, I can't think of any of the known species of Great Ape that would remain undiscovered today even if no scientist had ever bothered to look for them at any time, if you catch my drift. By this I mean tourists would, by now, have spotted Bushmeat Gorillas on Central African markets or spotted Orang Utans tied up behind dismal bars in Indonesia, as I have.

I realise that Bigfoot is most likely not a Great Ape, if it exists, but a kind of proto-human. I realise the world still has plenty of uncontacted tribes still out here in its remotest corners, but not in every state of the USA bar Hawaii, not tribespeople seven feet tall and covered in hair - I am reasonably sure those tribes would have been contacted by now.

Moreover, why wait for 'scientists' to make the discovery at all? Some of our greatest zoological discoveries have been made by amateurs. The Bigfoot community is blessed with so many enthusiastic amateurs out there very weekend with 'scientic' equipment bulging out of their shirt pockets that the Victorian scientists who found all the tribes and apes could only dream about.

Discovering Bigfoot for science is literally not rocket science. All it takes is a big enough car with a sturdy enough front end bumper and a tow to the nearest university or local TV station.

I know my post comes off as skeptical, but who knows? Maybe somebody, some day, might just do that.

I

[Guest]

John, you and I have had productive discourse on subjects in the past and will again in the future I have no doubt. However, I will never quietly submit myself to a partial, biased system of rigged rules.

People accuse me of being "anti-Science" around here, which I'm not. What I am is anti-bias. I want the same rules to be applied to the Skeptics as to the proponents. I am convinced that the case for BF can stand firm in such a truly objective environment.

You cannot compare apples and oranges. We witnesses (of which I am one) have the burden of proof to substantiate our claims. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with this. Saskeptic does not care if I claim I saw a Bigfoot or if I saw a Unicorn. Neither are a scientifically documented species. It is not unfair for him (or anyone) to ask for proof. It does not matter to me, who believes me. It matters what I can prove. The burden of proof is on me.

[Guest]

. . . And if that rural property is in temperate North America, we already know of several species of wild canines that exist there. Why? Because somebody at some point collected one, measured it, described it, and proposed a unique scientific name for it in the literature.

Again, it's very simple Mulder. You can keep harping on this and whining about how there is a different standard for bigfoot, but there isn't.

1. If I say I saw an American Robin in my yard here in the U.S., no one will ask for any special documentation from me because robins are common and they frequent American backyards.

2. If I say I saw a European Robin in my yard here in the U.S., then I will need to provide some diagnostic evidence to support that claim, e.g., a really good photograph.

3. If I say I saw some kind of bird that is currently undescribed in my yard, then I will need to provide a physical specimen of that undescribed bird sufficient to distinguish it from the 10,000 currently described birds.

Your "wild canid" is a 1. Bigfoot is a 3.

Thank you for admitting that the bar is not equal for all animal claims.

So much for "science".

You cannot compare apples and oranges. We witnesses (of which I am one) have the burden of proof to substantiate our claims. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with this. Saskeptic does not care if I claim I saw a Bigfoot or if I saw a Unicorn. Neither are a scientifically documented species. It is not unfair for him (or anyone) to ask for proof. It does not matter to me, who believes me. It matters what I can prove. The burden of proof is on me.

I'm comparing animals with animals. In the case of BF, the proponents HAVE profided good evidence: tracks, hairs, photos, etc. All valid evidence. To deny that is to deny reality. Just as saying that Skeptics are being perfectly fair to demand "proof" greater than that which would be accepted for any other animal is likewise denying reality.

Skeptics demanded evidence. Proponents supplied it. Skeptics dismissed it out of hand without offering any counter evidence.

Who is being scientific and who is not in this case John?

Edited July 9, 2012 by Mulder

[Cotter]

What I am trying to get my head around is HOW the paradigm was established in the first place.

Why is North America the only habitable continent with only 1 type of primate (human) living on it?

"Dr. Bill Sellers (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_08.html)says there isn't a good reason why there are no living primates in North America."

So, North America is an exception to the primate rule?

Additionally, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are the exception to the upright walking primate rule? (for hundreds of thousands of years, multiple upright hominids shared the earth, up until just recently).

So "science" has established a paradigm that is highly improbable and goes against what history, and present day anthropology/archaeology suggest.......

That is what I find most intriguing.

[Guest Coonbo]

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.

I'm with you on what you and several others have posted in this thread. I work in a University environment now, and in the past worked in a very science and technology based environment (NASA and the US Army Missile Command). EVERYTHING has to be proven conclusively in one way or another. So I am comfortable with the fact that there are those that will only acknowledge the existence of BF when there's a body in a lab somewhere that has been thoroughly studied and verified, AND THAT KNOWLEDGE RELEASED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. I also teach hunter safety and am an avid outdoorsman and am friends with several Conservation Officers. One of my brother-in-laws had a career with the Dept. of the Interior in mostly very remote parts of this country. When I've tactfully broached the subject of BF sightings with Conservation officers and my brother-in-law, it's almost like they ALL have been programmed with the exact same reaction of smug, amused denial.

I got the exact same reaction from them when I reported having a close range, very clear encounter, with a cougar, at a precise location, one morning on my way to work. I got the same smug, amused reaction reaction of denial from some of the University biology professors when I told a few of them about it. I got the last laugh this time though when, quite a few months later, the landowner where I had seen the cougar killed one in the woods right behind his house. The full body mount of that cougar can now be seen at the Northeast Regional Office of the Missouri Dept. of Conservation in Kirksville, MO. Except that the one I saw was female and the one the guy killed is male. I was told that I was wrong in my ID of the cougar as being female.

Then a few weeks later, we started hearing one squalling in the woods near our home. I reported that too. Again, same smug, amused reaction. Then a neighbor a mile or so away had a big rottweiler killed and carried off by something sounding like a big cat. The neighbor and his family heard the fight and the sound of it terrorized the whole family. They reported it to the Sheriff's Dept. the Conservation Office, and anybody else that would listen. Interesting thing, a few days later I was then contacted by a Deputy and a biologist from here at the University that does work for the Conservation Dept. Another landowner nearby had found the partially eaten body of the rottweiler and they had collected enough evidence from the site that they had positively identified it as a cougar kill. They were then very interested in my report of hearing it squalling. Exactly when (date and time of day) and where? I was even asked to listen to different recordings of cougar squalls to try to determine if it was a female in-heat that was looking for a mate. I was later told that DNA testing had shown that it was a female cougar and she has traced to native Missouri bloodlines. NATIVE MISSOURI?!!??? Now, just last year, you were saying there were NO cougars native to Missouri!

So, if there's this much denial and obfuscation that regularly goes on with something as common and well known as cougars, imagine what goes on concerning something as controversial as bigfoot.

[Guest]

That evidence is not good evidence Mulder. It may be good evidence for proponents who want to believe or even those of us who know they are real. But, as scientific evidence it just does not make the grade. If Saskeptic, Kitakaze, Drew or any skeptic saw a Bigfoot today and told you he now believed, explain to me how that would get us any closer to solving this mystery. What kind of prize do we win if that happens? A simple " I told you so"? I would get no satisfaction from that. It is not belief I need, It is PROOF. It seems so pointless an argument and the time could be spent trying to be more productive. Saskeptic is a very knowledgable man and I prefer to learn from him rather then to argue with him.

[southernyahoo]

You cannot compare apples and oranges. We witnesses (of which I am one) have the burden of proof to substantiate our claims. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with this. Saskeptic does not care if I claim I saw a Bigfoot or if I saw a Unicorn. Neither are a scientifically documented species. It is not unfair for him (or anyone) to ask for proof. It does not matter to me, who believes me. It matters what I can prove. The burden of proof is on me.

Do you have a plan to provide proof John?

[Guest]

Thank you for admitting that the bar is not equal for all animal claims.

Should I now thank you for insinuating that science should recognize new species based on no more evidence than that required for me to report a robin in my yard, i.e., my say-so?

Come on Mulder. It's perfectly okay to revisit your opinion based on the information contained in someone else's comment. Nothing bad will happen if you realize that you've learned something from someone else, even if that person is a "S"keptic.

Edited July 9, 2012 by MikeG
....Personal comment removed

[Guest]

I believe that Bigfoot is facing unfair bias. I think most of the bias is coming more from pseudo scientist, and popular press more so from main stream science. I think that bias affects how much main stream science will do to pursue the subject. Perhaps that bias even serves a purpose to some, allowing for the continuing over all denial of the obvious, thus keeping a lid on a can of worms they would prefer not to face.

I think a lot of good evidence, perhaps even good enough, that combined with all the other more known evidence, would indeed all add up to proof, is being kept in secret, for fear of the ridicule that comes with it. If its good evidence, then, as I stated before, the default ansrew is hoax.

If you present good evidence, that can stand up on its own, then they attack the people presenting the evidence. Anyone paying any attention to the subject at all has seen this. We see it with Krantz, Meldrum, Bindernagal, all the time.

I think mainstream science ignores it to a large degree, and the pseudo science "woo" saviors of the world make just enough noise to keep it that way.

[Guest]

Do you have a plan to provide proof John?

Not really. No. Like many, I do not profess to be an expert on a subject where there are no experts and I am still finding my way. I have only been at this since 2006.

[Guest Peter O.]

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.

Science does not establish truth? Then what is its purpose?

I think the above is an overly positivistic (pollyannish even) view of any human endeavor. Why would scientists be free of the biases, paradigm constipation, and social/technical determinants that the rest of us are subject to?

But that's just me and I reject positivism. Like Plato says in the Republic, they mistook the shadows in the cave for the things themselves.

Let us say I have a rural property: I tell you that I have some sort of wild canine on said property and you ask for evidence. I provide the testimonies of people who have seen wild canines on the property. I produce casts of tracks taken on the property that have been identified by canine experts as being those of a canine. I produce hairs found on the property that have been identified by expert hair examiners as being canine hair. I produce photos taken of wild canines taken on my property.

The entirely proper conclusion would be that I have shown that I have shown a good case that I have wild canines on my property. No reasonable person would say otherwise.

Substitute "non-human higher primate" for "wild canine", and SNAP! The mind goes closed, and suddenly that evidence is summarily tossed out as "hoaxes", misidentifications", etc. The scientific experts are suddenly no longer scientific experts, and their determinations are also dismissed out of hand.

Why? Because an unknown non-human primate changes the paradigm. A wild canine does not.

Bingo! With the addition that this is partly because in various ways it offends human exceptionalism to take the Big Hairy Bipeds seriously. For example, how can something just plain-old hide in the woods from such an omniscient being? We put a man on the moon fergodssake!

Edited July 9, 2012 by Peter O.

[Guest]

That evidence is not good evidence Mulder. It may be good evidence for proponents who want to believe or even those of us who know they are real. But, as scientific evidence it just does not make the grade. If Saskeptic, Kitakaze, Drew or any skeptic saw a Bigfoot today and told you he now believed, explain to me how that would get us any closer to solving this mystery. What kind of prize do we win if that happens? A simple " I told you so"? I would get no satisfaction from that. It is not belief I need, It is PROOF. It seems so pointless an argument and the time could be spent trying to be more productive. Saskeptic is a very knowledgable man and I prefer to learn from him rather then to argue with him.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this, John. Short of a body, I don't see how professionaly examined hairs, cast tracks with distinct bio-metrics, and the expert opinions of primatologists "fail to make the grade".

You know and I know that if, for example, Dr Meldrum came forward tomorrow and said that after careful re-examination he was reversing his opinion and that BF is nothing but a tall tale, that his statement would unquestioningly be accepted by the Skeptics and waved around like a big loud flag as "proof it's all nonsense". It is only the counter-paradigm nature of his conclusions that causes Skeptics to cast mud on his reputation and credentials.

We would listen to Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al if they were talking about chimpanzees. We should, if we are being properly objective and intellectually honest, accept them when they talk about BF.

Should I now thank you for insinuating that science should recognize new species based on no more evidence than that required for me to report a robin in my yard, i.e., my say-so?

Oh no you don't, Sas...that is not the case I laid out, and you very well know it.

The BF case is more than just people "saying they saw it". There are also the hairs, tracks, pictures, audio, etc. There IS hard, physical, testable, examinable evidence that has in fact been tested, examined, subjected to statistical analysis, etc.

Come on Mulder. It's perfectly okay to revisit your opinion based on the information contained in someone else's comment. Nothing bad will happen if you realize that you've learned something from someone else, even if that person is a "S"keptic.

The only opinion I am revisiting is my opinion of you if you expect me to fall for you misquoting and misrepresenting me.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

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.

I do believe the bar is set higher for bigfoot. For one thing, invertebrates are commonly used in environmental monitoring studies because they are relatively immobile and don't have the ability to move to avoid polluted settings. Their immobility makes them easier to find.

Second, there are hoards of unclassified invertebrate species. Thus, few folks would be skeptical of a report of a new invertebrate species. Whereas, there are undoubtedly few large mammals yet to be discovered. It would make sense that any large mammal not yet discovered would be necessarily quite cryptic.

Third, the discovery of a new invertebrate species would not likely cause much of a paradigm shift. The discovery of a new species of great ape would result in a huge paradigm shift. The history of science demonstrates resistance to paradigm shifts.

There is a story in the news that illustrates some of the points above: Nasa scientists claim about new form of bacterial life disproved (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9385769/Nasa-scientists-claim-about-new-form-of-bacterial-life-disproved.html). Few people doubted NASA's report of finding a new form of life on Earth that thrived on arsenic. Seems that they should have been more skeptical. This story also illustrates the essential role of reproducibility within the scientific method.

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.

I doubt Karl Popper could have said it better.

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.

Because we have yet to see a paper or presentation of results yet, there is nothing to reproduce! You're last sentence is profound. If the Ketchum clan is holding out until they can produce the definitive paper documenting bigfoot, or if their journal editor is insisting on that, they are not understanding how science works. Regardless of what they produce, it will require independent confirmation and reproducibility or it will be bunk.