Jump to content

Modern Researchers Are Bypassing Traditional Academia


gigantor
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest ajciani

I wouldn't equate anything TV entertainment to science, but at least they are out there trying to document something.

I did have a thought though. If we stuck a price on all of the money and time that bigfooters have sunk into research on their own, how much would that be? What complicates things, is that those hobbyists do not have quite the same value as a graduate student, and because the time is dispersed among many, the learning is reduced.

That is, if 20 hobbyists spend 1300 hours in the field, it is not the same as a graduate student spending 1300 hours. The student already has some ability to collect data and samples, and to discriminate from the start. When it comes to learning what to look for, the single student gains 1300 hours of experience, while each of the 20 hobbyists only gains 65 hours. The hobbyists might exchange some of what they learn, but maybe they only gain a 100 hours equivalent. On the plus side, the hobbyists might cover more ground, but if bigfoots are as widely distributed as they seem to be, that might not be a benefit.

Anyway, I think 1200 to 1300 hours in the field is about what $50,000 to $60,000 would buy from a student.

Tell me that 75% of the one hundred fifty people searching in the Uwharrie National Forest on Sat. and I'd be more open to those prospects.

Huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View Postbipedalist, on 10 February 2011 - 07:56 AM, said:

Tell me that 75% of the one hundred fifty people searching in the Uwharrie National Forest on Sat. and I'd be more open to those prospects.

Huh?

Sorry, should read:

Tell me that 75% of the one hundred fifty people searching in the Uwharrie National Forest on Sat.(you know the so-called massive grid search) are scientists and I'd be more open to those prospects.

That's it, phraseology problems about as frequent as picture uploading problems today I guess, I fixed the phrase, now how 'bout somebody fix the picture upload attachment feature. Please. B)

Edited by bipedalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ajciani

Tell me that 75% of the one hundred fifty people searching in the Uwharrie National Forest on Sat. have rifles and will shoot. That will keep them hoaxers away (and maybe bag a biggie too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, should read:

Tell me that 75% of the one hundred fifty people searching in the Uwharrie National Forest on Sat.(you know the so-called massive grid search) are scientists and I'd be more open to those prospects.

That's it, phraseology problems about as frequent as picture uploading problems today I guess, I fixed the phrase, now how 'bout somebody fix the picture upload attachment feature. Please. B)

If you could find that many desk-jocky scientists to be in one place at a time I'd be shocked. Even in more mainstream fieldwork it's usually a couple of lead guys with undergrads lugging equiptment. Unless it's a strictly volunteer situation in which case that would still be a high percentage of "scientists" who all happened to have free time to pursue a ground search. Pretty unlikely, but we can hope!

Ourselves, researchers & enthusiasts couldn't get it together to take Kane's gauntlet challenge up, so asking others to rally or expecting them too isn't very sporting.

JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not criticizing Meldrum, I'm applauding him. He's found a way around the glass ceiling and it is lifting many others with him.

This will eventually shake the Ivory Towers and they'll realize there's good money to be made from the subject, I think it has started happening already. I can't help to draw a parallel to global warming, a few rouge scientists questioned the orthodoxy and now there's all kinds of research being done which contradicts the dogma of AGW. It will happen in this case also.

That's the beauty of science.

From my perspective it was a nonacademic who shot the first harpoon into anthropogenic global warming -- Stephen McIntyre, a Canadian businessman who happens to be a math genius, proved the hockey stick, the most venerable graphic of the AGW alarmists, to be an indefensible artifact of flawed data and flawed methodology.

Academia is the bloated, incompetent, and corrupt ***** of the political elite. That's why political correctness, not science, dominates the discussion of AGW in academic circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoot Proof

They can fund all the circus pony shows they want.... they will NOT get the goods, ever, only ratings. This is why we are not privy to real researchers positive results and know this, there are many! They are the ones with ethics and have the subjects best interest at heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that researchers today are successfully avoiding the "Ivory Towers" (i.e. universities and academia) by using commercial enterprises to fund research. Witness all of the BF shows paid for by the History channel, the Discovery channel, the National Geographic channel, etc.

I'm pretty sure you have that perfectly backwards.

The "Ivory Towers" never showed one iota of interest in the subject at all, and that is despite the PG film, lots of trace evidence, and even many individual scientists openly stating that it is long past time for an honest look into the phenomenon (Schallar, Goodall, others). Thus, nobody is really trying to avoid them. The phenomenon has essentially been completely abandoned by the ivy covered walls of intelligencia.

What you're witnessing is the natural revolution of scientific inquiry moving toward those inquiring and away from those dictating.

Edited by Huntster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The catch in all that is that no matter how much data, evidence, etc is collected, analyzed, collated and presented, in the end in order for it to mean much of anything they will still have to go crawling back like beggars to the Ivory Towers Crowd for approbation before bf will be accepted.

You're 100% right. Like the lay approaching on their knees from afar for blessings from the mullahs, the one who finally obtains a sasquatch carcass will have to wait for some sort of academic god to announce that it is truly a sasquatch carcass before the official celebrations and evolution propaganda to begin.

I still wonder who that deity is? Nobody seems to be able to name him/her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me that 75% of the one hundred fifty people searching in the Uwharrie National Forest on Sat. have rifles and will shoot. That will keep them hoaxers away (and maybe bag a biggie too).

Oh, oh.

Let's see if you get grilled on morals, ethics, and intentions like somebody else I know did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can fund all the circus pony shows they want.... they will NOT get the goods, ever, only ratings.

Yes and no.

Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were essentially doing the same thing as the folks making documentaries on Discovery. Patterson was putting a 1960's style documentary together in an area he knew had lots of sasquatch activities when they literally stumbled upon a creature.

He thought he had the goods. In a big way, he did. It remains the best photographic evidence to date, and for some, it IS the goods. At the very least, it strengthened the call for an official inquiry, especially from the California Dept. of Fish and Game.

And in a way, you're right: it was not really the goods. The CDFG didn't give any more of a rat's *** than academia.

However, I place the blame for that not on Patterson, the film, or those following in his footsteps.

I blame those who like to believe themselves to be in the driver's seat of scientific inquiry, because they aren't inquiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ajciani

The "Ivory Towers" never showed one iota of interest in the subject at all... Thus, nobody is really trying to avoid them.

What you're witnessing is the natural revolution of scientific inquiry moving toward those inquiring and away from those dictating.

I recently had a similar thought, but it dealt with the division of life sciences between biology and anthropology, and the constitution of anthropology departments.

Basically, if it has anything to do with monkeys or apes, it is in the realm of anthropology, so the biologists and ecologists leave it to anthropologists. Meanwhile, anthropology departments seem to be more focused on sociology than on getting into the field to do the biology and ecology work. The ones that do get into the field like to travel to exotic places for extend vacations, on which they do some "primitive cultures" research. The number of anthropologists with field biology and ecology know-how has been dwindling.

So we are left with a situation in which there is basically no one in the Ivory Tower to come out and look for bigfoots. For example, the ones studying boobs are more interested in the societal implications of breast feeding, than on how it is that humans developed boobs in the first place. Given the chance to go out and study a proto-human creature with proto-boobs, they wouldn't even know where to begin, and would rather go to Uganda to see if the locals provide breast feeding rooms for the customers in their stores.

If someone in the Ivory Tower makes the bigfoot discovery, you can pretty much bet they will NOT be an anthropologist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, if I made comments about bigfooters as disparaging as the comments about scientists I see in this thread . . .

Come on, people. Quit whining about how academia hates bigfoot and do something about it. Here are some things you can do (in no particular order):

*Find a bigfoot, a piece of a bigfoot, a fossil of a bigfoot, or at the very least a convincing photograph of a bigfoot.

*Encourage those doing bigfoot field research who think they've actually got some quality evidence to engage mainstream science by publishing their findings in mainstream journals. (Hint: we ivory towerians don't watch Monsterquest. The vast majority of scientists in the U.S. have never heard the words "Skookum" and "cast" in the same sentence.)

*Write letters to YOUR representatives in Congress calling for federal funding of field research to find bigfoot.

*Write letters to the USFWS and your state wildlife department commissioners warning them that they could face legal action if they failed to conduct bigfoot expeditions and such an endangered species was subsequently discovered within their administrative area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, if I made comments about bigfooters as disparaging as the comments about scientists I see in this thread . . .

There are entire threads dedicated to foolish amateur bigfootery. Here's just one. And such analysis is fine. In fact, it should be expected when the supposed pros leave the endeavor to whoever takes up the charge.

Come on, people. Quit whining about how academia hates bigfoot and do something about it.

Do you want the whining to end, or the glaring observation? Just STFU?

Here are some things you can do (in no particular order):

"You"?

Why me? I'm not a biologist, anthropologist, police officer, wildlife biologist, primatologist, or dog catcher. I'm Joe Sixpack.

Why not you? You're a biologist, right? Indeed, why not the biologists who are actually paid by the public to manage our wildlife resources?

we ivory towerians don't watch Monsterquest.

My suspicion is that (unlike me) you do watch TV.

Sitcoms, perhaps?

*Write letters to the USFWS and your state wildlife department commissioners warning them that they could face legal action if they failed to conduct bigfoot expeditions and such an endangered species was subsequently discovered within their administrative area.

I would, but that would likely jeopardize my personal life.

Probably like you, too, but I'm admitting it. Can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why me?

Because you and others are the ones complaining about some sort of problem.

Why not you?

I don't see a problem. I'm a biologist who's invested his own time to become educated about the bigfoot phenomenon. My conclusion is that there is no bigfoot outside of folkore. Therefore, I find it completely reasonable that most rank and file biologists aren't involved in bigfoot research and that such a creature is not recognized by wildlife agencies.

My suspicion is that (unlike me) you do watch TV.

Sitcoms, perhaps?

An insult, Huntster? Classy. I do watch television when I get the chance; I don't watch Monsterquest. I think I watched most of one episode once. I don't know anyone outside of the BFF who regularly watches that and similar programs. Thus, complaints that scientists "ignore" great advances in bigfoot research are unfounded: scientists are not aware of such breakthroughs because they don't appear in the mainstream scientific literature.

I would, but that would likely jeopardize my personal life.

Probably like you, too, but I'm admitting it. Can you?

Cop out. If I really believed in a cause, I would have no qualms about speaking out about it, and I have done so in the past. For crying out loud Huntster, you bang away on this topic all the time, why don't you simply write an anonymous letter to the powers that be so you can at least plant the seed? And not just Huntster, what about the rest of you folks? For any one of you who've ever claimed that "science ignores bigfoot" or some such, have YOU contacted biologists and elected officials about your concerns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parnassus

Success in science results from getting it right. Success on television results from providing entertainment that allows advertisers to sell you things you don't need.

Where is the truth more likely to come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...