How Many Normal (Relatively) Intelligent, Adult, Witnesses Without A Prior Agenda Does It Take To Have Any Provative Weight Towards The Unknown?

[Guest]

But at least I have an argument.

 

And I can suss stuff that's likely folklore from stuff that likely isn't.  Handy talent, as WSA says.  Quite handy.

 

Weak!

[Guest DWA]

^^^^As is running around yelling, "Weak!"

 

So.

 

We don't think eyewitness testimony is important, huh?  Really?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/faces-of-the-future-human-facial-features-photos_n_3391747.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D327205#slide=more301619

[Guest]

Not so sure he feels the love Saskeptic.  I remember a very sharply worded critique of his research by a fellow faculty member not all that long ago, a physics Prof if I remember correctly. The crux of this Prof's gist was, "Is this some kind of joke?" I'm sure he was just the only one to put his feelings on paper and publish them. What was said over sherry at the President's residence, hmmm?

Yes, physics I believe.  And?  You think Meldrum didn't see that coming or that he was surprised that faculty colleagues think he's a crank?  So what?  I've read equally scathing comments from run-of-mill faculty bluster.  And Meldrum has been successful academically.  He's a full professor.  He's made it.  I'm not sure of the stats, but probably close to 1/3rd of "associate professors" (my current rank) never make the promotion to "full" before they retire.  Meldrum has.  That means despite what some vocal critics think of his work at ISU, on balance he has the support of his faculty colleagues and, I might add, the support of at least 3 scientists outside of ISU from whom letters were likely solicited.  To make full professor, you've got to demonstrate a respected, international, scholarly presence as judged by your peers at your institution and your intellectual peers wherever they might be.  In my opinion, he hasn't done enough non-bigfoot stuff to cut it, so as far as I can tell, his bigfoot stuff was considered and judged to be a relevant scholarly contribution.

 

People like to point out what Meldrum has sacrificed to pursue bigfoot.  Consider instead what he's gained from bigfootery.  In addition to material wealth, he's practically a household name thanks to his TV appearances. 

 

No, I don't lose any sleep at night worrying about Jeff Meldrum.  He's doing just fine.

[WSA]

Well, even if he saw it coming, I'm sure it didn't sting any much less. Peer ridicule is not exactly a pleasant thing to endure, even from a physicist. Nor do I think he is a beaten man Saskeptic, and I'm not saying we should think that, but would you agree  it was not exactly the path of least resistance for Mssr. Meldrum to get where he is now?   And if it is such a wide-open career path to full professorship, why is he, as far as I know, the only guy who has taken it? In how many years?  You might consider there is a reason for that.  Don't get me wrong, I WANT it to be easier, but the stats aren't reassuring for those looking to do it. Might we assume the next one will be that much easier, for someone, because of his pioneering efforts? Hope so.

[Guest DWA]

I really don't think any more telling point for our case could be made than that Meldrum - a renowned expert in his directly-relevant field, none of whose assertions with regard to sasquatch has been seriously questioned by the mainstream - is so nearly alone.

 

But he's not totally.  And the ones starting to pop up are going to get the eyes and ears of an increasing number of sharp kids who want science careers, and whose curiosity meters aren't stuck around the ol' zero.

Max Planck is always right; the mainstream of science, significantly less so.  This is just another example.

[Guest]

We have moved away from the OP. We seem to be drifting and the proponents are doing the fringe science thing. That is, they argue that mainstream science has become staid and overtly protective of the status quo. Too conservative. Real work is being done by the maverick, the individual outside an establishment that is blinded by convention. Our Professor Challenger is not only doing the lonely work of real science, ignored by others who only call themselves scientists, no, our Professor is intrepid, a brave man, walking down that lonely street, at high noon, facing a gang of academic no nothings. Our hero. Standing for truth, justice, and the American Way.

 

Love the myth-making, guys. A necessary diversion, perhaps?      

[Squatchy McSquatch]

 

 

Wrt to OP's very valid question. How many normal (relatively) intelligent without a prior agenda does it take to have provative weight towards the unknown?

 

Answer: Just one. But that person would have to have dead or alive bigfoot body strapped to the hood of his truck.

 

Bringing in a body is where bigfootery fails every single time.

 

 

Second, if the notion that believeing in bigfoot would cost a scientist his job, please explain the employment of Dr. Don Jeffrey Meldrum.

 

Should Big(foot) Brother not have shut him down years ago?

 

It might be misleading to look at the bare tolerance Meldrum enjoys today while over lookng both the risk he took at the time he came "out" on this subject and forgetting the ridicule he endured from many of his peers at the time. Indeed, in some circles, he still does. Like here for instance.

 

Unless and until the time the announcement of, "I want to be a Sasquatch researcher when I grow up" isn't met with guffaws and rolled eyes, this field is not not going to be the choice of our best and brightest.  I think it deserves to be.  

 

Big plus.  That will be the signal that attitudes have changed.  That scoffers can't see how utterly locked the society is on this question is sufficient reason, in itself, to discount pretty much everything they say.  In a most fundamental way, they just aren't in touch with reality.

 

Oh.  BIG minus to the flat-earth post above you.

Yeah, that's really good.  Let's shut down scientific inquiry, and burn some books while we're at it too.  Just glad some people aren't in charge.

 

I'm not in favour of shutting down scientific inquiry or process. I'm not the one who has a problem with how Science works.

 

The evidence for bigfoot isn't strong enough to get science on board.

 

And, umm, dude, the earth is not flat.

[Guest DWA]

 

I'm not in favour of shutting down scientific inquiry or process. I'm not the one who has a problem with how Science works.

 

 

The evidence for bigfoot isn't strong enough to get science on board.

 

And, umm, dude, the earth is not flat.

 

Whoa! You have a scoop!  Stop the presses!

 

Yep, I have a problem with how science works when they say, this isn't real, and here's why, and somebody who isn't even a scientist can hear it and say:

 

Dude!  that doesn't scan from a scientific standpoint.

 

No, scientists don't impress me too much with their homework when that happens.

[Guest]

I want to be careful not to derail too badly, so I'll make this my last Meldrum post in the thread.

 . . . Saskeptic,  . . . would you agree  it was not exactly the path of least resistance for Mssr. Meldrum to get where he is now?   And if it is such a wide-open career path to full professorship, why is he, as far as I know, the only guy who has taken it? In how many years?  You might consider there is a reason for that. 

Oh I've considered the reason for that for quite some time.  Why do you assume that the reason is that scientists are frightened of criticism from faculty colleagues instead of the far more parsimonious explanation: the vast majority of scientists don't think there's a bigfoot out there to find?

 

Most folks here think that Meldrum is right about bigfoot because he is actively working on bigfoot. They don't seem to get that he has failed to make the scientific case for bigfoot.  This is why the closest thing to a peer-reviewed paper he published on the subject was his ichnotaxon manuscript in the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 42.  (This doesn't include the papers he's recently published in the journal he founded and he edits, The Relict Hominoid Inquiry.) That's it, for his entire bigfoot career.  Everything else has been done in public appearances, on television, and in popular books.  I'd argue that no one on earth (now or since, because I think Meldrum is more advanced than Krantz on the subject) is in a better position to make the case for bigfoot using the existing evidence we have, and yet Meldrum has (to the best of my knowledge) not even attempted to publish real scholarly publications on that evidence that would open his analysis to critical peer review.  Why?  Meldrum's a smart cookie, and he knows the evidence isn't strong enough to make that case.

[WSA]

Sas:  Chicken v. egg, yes. Hard to know for sure, so that is why I keep no stopwatch on a deadline for Sasquatch proof. Unless I'm mistaken, you can find lots of theories for which many, many academics don't want any part of, or who would categorically denounce them.  As they say, the only thing two experts in a field can agree on is the other doesn't know squat.

 

And sure, I view Meldrum as more of a banner carrier, for those needing some validation of their experiences, than somebody who is actually and actively doing the field work, but we need those kinds of pioneers in all areas of endeavor. He'd be the first to admit to your charges, I'm sure. He also seems to be a kind of a  clearing house for evidence and new initiatives, and he is a very succinct writer, and I don't put as much emphasis on peer review as you do, but it is a valid point.  I think he fills a useful role.

 

Have you read much of the Relict Hominid Inquiry, and if so, what do you think of the content? 

[Guest DWA]

If it just ain't real, and you just know that, and never mind why, you are going to treat a paper submitted for your review precisely how?

 

We all know, and so does Meldrum.

 

The case has been made.  The mainstream just doesn't want to review it. 

 

The case being made doesn't mean the case has been proven.  It has simply been made; and in the utter absence of a skeptical case that passes the barest sniff test, warrants open minds by all scientists on the subject until the provenance of the evidence is ascertained.

 

That simple.

[Guest DWA]

We have moved away from the OP. We seem to be drifting and the proponents are doing the fringe science thing. That is, they argue that mainstream science has become staid and overtly protective of the status quo. Too conservative. Real work is being done by the maverick, the individual outside an establishment that is blinded by convention.     

Not at all.  We are dead on the OP.

 

What you describe is, in a nutshell, the history of science.  It's just happening again.  Mavericks are always the ones who overturn paradigms.  That simple.

 

The OP asks:  do thousands of such observers as described mean anything?  We are just OK presuming them all defective or liars?

 

People who apply their science to evidence say:  They sure do.

[Guest]

Have you read much of the Relict Hominid Inquiry, and if so, what do you think of the content? 

Nope, so can't say. 

[WSA]

Hey, to help shortcut these circular discussions, I've devised this list. We are sort of like the scenario in the old bit about the prisoners who've told the same jokes so many times, they just give them numbers instead (Punchline: "Well, some know how to tell 'em... and some don't"). So here goes. If you are an opponent, just pick your number for your response:

 

1. Sasquatch doesn't exist.

2. You can't trust people to tell the truth.

3. People hallucinate things.

4. Some Sasquatch evidence is hoaxed, so you can't believe any of it.

5. A combination of #'s 2, 3 & 4.

6. See # 1.  

 

[Guest DWA]

I think most of them are No. 8 or 10.  Just a guess, based on no evidence, but hey, that's what they're doing.

 

(edited to add a deadly-serious emoticon)

Edited June 12, 2013 by DWA