" Science Says Bf Does Not Exist..." So What?

[dmaker]

Seriously..so what?

I know that this is the image that science wants us to have of it:

http://www.holoscien...loom_County.jpg

But we really need to stop and ask ourselves just how warranted that image is.

Who gave Science the sole and absolute authority to declare truth and falsehood? Was there a vote? I seem to have missed it. Did any of you vote for this grant of power to Science? Or did you miss it too?

In reality, the words "Science says..." are nothing more than a meme, a trigger for the conditioning that we've been subjected to in school from the day we start. Invoke the magic words "Science says..." and the bobble-heads start nodding, the brain shuts down, and we just stop thinking.

This in spite of the ample evidence that "Science" is as flawed and fallible as any other human institution. "Scientists" are nothing more than flawed human beings with all the prejudices and foibles we are subject to. The only difference between us and them are a few years of schooling and a bunch of letters after their names.

Now I fully expect the usual suspects to come swarming in with accusations that I am "anti-science". I'm most emphatically NOT. The scientific method is a legitimate tool for inquiry. That said, it is NOT infallible, and not always the right tool to be using. And it NEVER not EVER should it's produce be treated as some sort of revealed truth from on high, immutably fixed and never to be questioned.

ALWAYS question. ALWAYS think for yourself. To invert another meme that used to be drilled into us via kid's programs: "the group" is NOT always right.

*ETA: I've said all this before in other threads, but with the newbies around I thought it would be a good issue to bring front and center into the open as it's own issue.

So science that refutes Bigfoot = Bad But Meldrum, Krantz, Bindernagel, Swindler and Chilcutt = The Holy Disciples of Bigfootery and are never wrong.Convenient.</p>

Edited February 1, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

Its not so much that "science" accepts it that that matters, but if society will.

That is true, and circles back to my point about the conditioning we have all undergone by the educational system to accept whatever "science" says uncritically.

OH....here we go AGAIN...

If ya wanna believe...please do so. I have no problem with this. However...don't try and bridge the gap between your *belief* and what is considered science. Ergo, no matter how hard you try..BF will not be categorized as being in the animal kingdom...ie, not within taxonomy...until such time it meets the criterion. So...don't continue to bang your head against this wall...it's a lost cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWyEc7FAMTg

As I stated...you can't bring BF into the animal kingdom without the proper credentials. That will never change...so trying to *argue* around this is futile. Carry on.

And who gets to decide that those credentials are, ronn? What makes Science the one with either a ) the moral authority or b ) the absolute integrity needed to make that decision?

So science that refutes Bigfoot = Bad

Please show me ANY science that "refutes" Bigfoot.

But Meldrum, Krantz, Bindernagel, Swindler and Chilcutt = The Holy Disciples of Bigfootery and are never wrong.

1) I never claimed they were 100% right. Meldrum has in fact modified his opinion occasionally when he made an error (Snow Walker).

2) The people you call the "Holy Disiples of Bigfootery" have more scientific evidence on their side than the Skeptics do. Then again, if they only had one piece of evidence on their side, they'd be zillionaires compared to the Skeptics.

Convenient.</p>

What's "convenient" is that Science claims to have the authority to set the bar of "proof", and Science further claims to have the authority to define what evidence it is even willing to accept.

As it stands "science" (the process, not the methodology) is a rigged game.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Mulder

[Guest wudewasa]

Yup, let's ignore science and start acting like this guy-

[Guest]

Where are all the peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals that say BF does not exist?

[salubrious]

"science Says Bf Does Not Exist..."

For now. Astrology was considered a science once upon a time too. Sometimes 'science' (meaning in this case the people of science, not the technique of science) can't find their collective rears with both hands. So you have to take the good with the bad and deal with what you personally are going to believe on your own terms.

Neither changes reality though.

[clubbedfoot]

well that settles that....

[Guest]

The people you call the "Holy Disiples of Bigfootery" have more scientific evidence on their side than the Skeptics do. Then again, if they only had one piece of evidence on their side, they'd be zillionaires compared to the Skeptics.

What's "convenient" is that Science claims to have the authority to set the bar of "proof", and Science further claims to have the authority to define what evidence it is even willing to accept.

First of All, you can't call it "scientific evidence" or even "evidence" when this MATERIAL is kept under lock and key with only the most hardcore of squatchers such as Meldrum and Ketchum are granted access. And I suspect this is a lessons learned doctrine, since every piece of alleged BF biological material has been debunked when submitted to a scientific and academic institution.

Second, skeptics don't need evidence and we have no obligation whatsoever to obtain it because we're not the ones obsessed with trying to prove a myth. But once again, footers are attempting to shift the burden of proof to the mainstream and skeptics alike by demanding they prove a negative. Seriously, why not just tell academia - "IF YOU CAN'T PROVE BF DOESN'T EXIST, THEN WE DEMAND YOU ADD IT TO THE ZOOLOGICAL DATABASE !!!!! Unfortunately, all the whining, temper tantrums and petitions to President Obama will not lower scientific standards.

As it stands "science" (the process, not the methodology) is a rigged game.

Yes, it is rigged. Rigged to prevent unicorns, mothman, chupacabras, thunderbirds, mermaids, and of course, Bigfoot from joining the animal kingdom.

BTW, you do realize the words process and method are synonyms, right?

And who gets to decide that those credentials are, ronn?

The same people who determine who gets to perform heart surgery, root canals and laser eye procedures The same folks who grant people the aurthority to decide whether a bridge, tunnel or aircraft is safe to use. Academia, Governmental agencies, Regulatory Bodies- take your pick.

[Guest]

Science has never been in the position of absolutes. What science requires is a preponderance of evidence. Much of science deals I'm theories, which require, of course, a preponderance of evidence supporting them. Science accepts the possibility of theories being proven wrong, and often, many prevailing theories are proven wrong. Given that they is, so far, no concrete evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot, science can not say whether it exists or not. Anyone who says different is blowing smoke up your bottom.

Horsecrap! You yourself mention preponderance of the evidence. Proponents have eyewitness accounts, cast tracks, audio, video/photo/film, forensically typed hairs.

What do Skeptics have?

Nothing.

Oh they storm and thunder about how every piece of evidence on proffer is "hoaxed", or "misidentified", or otherwise "not evidence", but that's just more of the same old song and dance. When pressed, they cannot back their arguments with verifiable evidence.

So where is the "preponderance of evidence" leading? Right towards BF, that's where.

Yup, let's ignore science and start acting like this guy-

*image removed*

You mean this guy, right?

[LeafTalker]

All this is strange to me... For me, where BF is concerned, science could not be less relevant...... For me, all the fun in BF is in my own experience of BF. I don't need to bring Science into it anywhere. If I had to lug Science with me every time I went into the woods -- when I'm already carrying bug spray, my lunch, some water, a tin whistle, maybe a book, and some goodies for my friends -- I'd have to hire a porter.

For whatever it's worth, I completely agree with you, Mulder. And if I were someone who, in my work, on a day-to-day basis, had to deal with scientists, I would most definitely be interested in finding a way of talking to them that made sense to them, and I would most likely use ideas and language like the ideas and language you have used.

Thankfully, however, that's not the case.

No disrespect meant. I know how much fun it can be to argue, and I would never deny anyone that fun. Discussions that include the words "science" and "Bigfoot" are just not that fun for me. (I'll show myself out now.)

[Guest]

Bigfoot isn't real. Blobsquatches, misidentified siting data, mishandling of pro ported evidence, casting of tracks which the maker cannot be confirmed, hoaxes, greed, gullibility and culpability of the conveyance of belief.

Doesn't make it real or lay the foundations of proof. Bigfoot is mythical and part of a societal delusion.

Nothing more.

[LeafTalker]

Bigfoot isn't real. Blobsquatches, misidentified siting data, mishandling of pro ported evidence, casting of tracks which the maker cannot be confirmed, hoaxes, greed, gullibility and culpability of the conveyance of belief.

Doesn't make it real or lay the foundations of proof. Bigfoot is mythical and part of a societal delusion.

Nothing more.

Aw, geez, Ed. And I was really pullin' for ya a while back there, too. (Wasn't a member then, so I couldn't do it on this board, but I sure did it from my little chair in front of my little computer!)

I guess now I REALLY have to show myself out.

[Guest]

There needn't be any involvement of science in bigfootery. People are welcomed to enjoy bigfoot on whatever terms they like.

If, however, the claim is that there is this so-far uncatalogued species we know as "bigfoot", then the proper evaluation of that claim should be scientific. After all, it is scientists who maintain said catalog. It is scientists who conduct research and write papers to determine what "species" means. It was scientists who decided to write descriptions and name every species of life on earth, and scientists who came up with rules for how to do that. It is scientists who developed the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which outlines the standards for how new species are to be named. It is scientists who pooled their resources to develop societies and publish journals in which the records of descriptions of new species are archived. It is scientists who work diligently to write descriptions of new species today, and it is other scientists who pore over those descriptions and write letters to other scientists expressing concern or acclaim for the description. It is scientists who decide if the feedback received supports the publication of those descriptions in journals paid for and read by other scientists. This whole business of naming different species is itself a scientific construct, started by scientists for scientists.

So I'm sorry Mulder, but your premise is flawed. To claim that science should not be the arbiter of which species are recognized and which are not is something like complaining that the IOC has no standing in declaring Olympic records. It's tautological that they do because one day a bunch of people got together and decided to keep records on Olympic performances. It's their purview because they started it. If you manage a 65' triple jump in your backyard, great! But you can't complain if it's not recognized as an Olympic record.

[Guest]

Aw, geez, Ed. And I was really pullin' for ya a while back there, too. (Wasn't a member then, so I couldn't do it on this board, but I sure did it from my little chair in front of my little computer!)

I guess now I REALLY have to show myself out.

Bye

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The science community as a whole has never agreed that Bigfoot does not exist! Good scientists don't make baseless conclusions.

[Guest]

The majority of scientific community has agreed there is no basis for the existence of Bigfoot. Just look at the number of scientists not looking into it.

Good scientist looks at the lack of supporting evidence and deems their time and resources are better spent else where.

Bigfoot isn't real. A survey of the available evidence over the pasted 50 plus years supports the conclusion. It's nothing more than a delusion of society and a futherance of biased belief by an unstable segment of that society.