2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest]

Whats going on in here guys

[bipedalist]

Same old same old "evidence vs. proof. your science is my pseudoscience, your scientist is my slop jockey" arguments.  

[Lake County Bigfooot]

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe.[nb 1] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist."

While we aspire to the first definition, I guess I am referring to Bigfoot Science as a body of Knowledge, some of
which meets the criteria of being rational. It is purely rational to conclude that something is out there leaving
footprint evidence of the type we have documented. It is rational to conclude that "something" is being seen

by 1000s of eyewitnesses.  It is also rational to conclude that another hominid would be walking the earth along

side of homo sapiens, given the history of our evolution.

[SWWASAS]

This thread is a perfect example of the State of Sasquatch science. Proponents vs skeptics. Blame directed at mainstream science. Lack of understanding how science works is a big problem. I feel I have to remind people that if they do data analysis, field work, and document and report it, they are contributing to science and the body of knowledge about BF. That body of knowledge is just as important as the one laying on a lab table that defines the species. Due to the reclusive nature of BF, collecting that body of knowledge may be the more difficult task and take far longer. For my purposes, proof of the species is an entirely different track than the one I am going down, but the body of knowledge is just as important as the dead one in the long run.

For the average BF researcher, proof of existence may drive us right out of the woods. If large areas are declared critical BF habitat, humans may be prohibited in those areas without reasons and permits. Then what do we do, watch "Finding Bigfoot" reruns and dream of the old days when we could do field work?

[norseman]

Id say it is not...... Because if the beast is never proven to exist? Then the body of knowledge your talking about may as well be about Leprechauns or Pixies.

It has to go from myth to reality in order for any real science to take place. Simply because real science takes lots of money.

For example, if a real animal is known to be out there an army of scientist would sift through a mountain of bear scat to come up with a legit turd.

Edited December 29, 2014 by norseman

[SWWASAS]

Define real science? Science I do is as real as from any PHD even though I do not have those letters following my name. I may never publish but you can be sure if anyone ever proves existence, I will happily share what I learn with them. Who knows they might even give me credit, but it normally does not work like that.

[Guest DWA]

Lack of understanding how science works is a big problem. I feel I have to remind people that if they do data analysis, field work, and document and report it, they are contributing to science and the body of knowledge about BF. That body of knowledge is just as important as the one laying on a lab table that defines the species. Due to the reclusive nature of BF, collecting that body of knowledge may be the more difficult task and take far longer. For my purposes, proof of the species is an entirely different track than the one I am going down, but the body of knowledge is just as important as the dead one in the long run.

 

^^^^This.  ALMOST ALL SCIENCE IS DONE BEFORE SOMETHING GETS PROVEN!  There is nothing more fundamental than that, and nothing else that almost everyone gets so wrong.  Science is the discipline of expanding human knowledge.  Waiting until proof happens to do something ensures that, well, proof never happens.

 

 

Id say it is not...... Because if the beast is never proven to exist? Then the body of knowledge your talking about may as well be about Leprechauns or Pixies.

 

That won't be science's fault.  That will be scientists' fault.  Huge difference there.  The data that is being gathered now is one of two things:  science in action or grist for the scientific mill.  Without it, forget proof.

It has to go from myth to reality in order for any real science to take place. Simply because real science takes lots of money.

 

Not really.  Nowhere in the most comprehensive definition of science is money mentioned.  The databases being kept by bigfoot organizations are science in action; how they are used is the question.  Analysis of footprints - which has all but proven they are from a non-human, animated source, namely an undocumented animal - could not be a better example of science in action than it is.

For example, if a real animal is known to be out there an army of scientist would sift through a mountain of bear scat to come up with a legit turd.

 

The science that is done after you prove something is, as I said, the tiny minority of science that is ever done.  Science is the activity of proving things.

 

For the average BF researcher, proof of existence may drive us right out of the woods. If large areas are declared critical BF habitat, humans may be prohibited in those areas without reasons and permits. Then what do we do, watch "Finding Bigfoot" reruns and dream of the old days when we could do field work?

[norseman]

Define real science? Science I do is as real as from any PHD even though I do not have those letters following my name. I may never publish but you can be sure if anyone ever proves existence, I will happily share what I learn with them. Who knows they might even give me credit, but it normally does not work like that.

Sure. But it's also akin to eating a mastodon with a toothpick.....in the black.

You don't have a university backing you with a genetic lab at your beck and call. You don't have an army of underlings finding and crunching thousands of samples to send to a lab.

The discovery of this creature will open doors to study, this field has never thought possible. Without that discovery we merry little band of brothers will continue to stumble around in the dark while others mock us.

This is why I do my research with a rifle, hunters do not need a PHD. Biologists, anthropologists and primatologists do. Yes we can all conduct science,but just because I chose to do scientific experiments in my basement does not make me NASA.

As layman our best chance at this is to rub science's nose in this and make them look. Once they look? Everything else will fall into place IMO.

Edited December 30, 2014 by norseman

[SWWASAS]

Things will fall into place. Perhaps lack of scientific acceptance give BF time and those of us that are their advocates time to get our act together for their benefit. I have been considering giving a presentation to the County Commissioners here in Clark County WA to give them the same protections they have in Skamania County. While this may make the commissioners look like nut jobs to the general public, when existence is proven, they will seem to be the enlightened ones.

[Guest]

For the average BF researcher, proof of existence may drive us right out of the woods. If large areas are declared critical BF habitat, humans may be prohibited in those areas without reasons and permits. Then what do we do, watch "Finding Bigfoot" reruns and dream of the old days when we could do field work?

 

That is the annoying thought. When or if the species is discovered it'll be the folks who have done all the hard work that will be pushed aside while those who scoffed or ignored will come to the forefront and take over. That sucks monkey nuts.

[norseman]

Things will fall into place. Perhaps lack of scientific acceptance give BF time and those of us that are their advocates time to get our act together for their benefit. I have been considering giving a presentation to the County Commissioners here in Clark County WA to give them the same protections they have in Skamania County. While this may make the commissioners look like nut jobs to the general public, when existence is proven, they will seem to be the enlightened ones.

AFTER the discovery? I would support protection legislation nationwide.

That is the annoying thought. When or if the species is discovered it'll be the folks who have done all the hard work that will be pushed aside while those who scoffed or ignored will come to the forefront and take over. That sucks monkey nuts.

They will not close off habitat to recreation. Logging and dam building? Probably.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Still awaiting the release of the Sykes book, which a while back I had started a thread about

the title change. Cryptologic had Adam Davies on who explained what Sykes had experienced while

in America, which was an extremely close encounter, I guess mostly vocal. To say that he is hooked

on the possibility is not accurate, he is more or less convinced of the reality. I do not think

he will relent on attempting to document the DNA component, so that is in the favor of discovery.

[Guest DWA]

That is the annoying thought. When or if the species is discovered it'll be the folks who have done all the hard work that will be pushed aside while those who scoffed or ignored will come to the forefront and take over. That sucks monkey nuts.

Well, yeah, it does.  But of course, the thing that has gotten humanity into the multiple messes we're in is our insistence on being able, all the time, to do what we want, where we want.

 

Bald eagles and grizzly bears and wolves and cougars and wolverines and snail darters and spotted owls haven't closed off the American wilderness.  If the evidence is any indication, sasquatch may be doing better than they are, in the Lower 48 at least.  There will be plenty of time after the mainstream gets interested to rub their noses in their indifference and scoffing.  But protections will probably be needed, and they should be implemented, and mainstream research will help determine what they should be.

 

One of my most frequent arguments here on this issue is the "umbrella species" argument.  By protecting the habitat of a key top-level player, we protect everything in the ecosystem.  There is enough evidence already to provisionally consider the existence of a wild nonhuman primate in North America established, pending only full taxonomic classification, which is an "after proof" item anyway.  We could be doing plenty by simply pressing for Congressional approval of wilderness and park proposals that have been languishing for years, in some cases decades.  And using an argument that environmentalists have been using for decades:  we don't know near everything that's in there, or of what value to the planet it might be.

[norseman]

DWA:

The science that is done after you prove something is, as I said, the tiny minority of science that is ever done. Science is the activity of proving things.

-------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense, Jane Goodall did more to advance our understanding of Chimps than anyone else. And she was far removed from discovering them, that happened generations before.

[Guest DWA]

Nope.  What was Jane doing?  PROVING NEW STUFF ABOUT CHIMPANZEES.

 

ALL OF SCIENCE, really, happens before one proves something!  You are trying to prove the next thing after this thing.  Or else, why bother?  The problem is that the only science most scientists know how to do is:  take this thing you know; combine it with this thing you know; and get this thing you now know.  (That's pretty much everything Jane did.)  Things like sasquatch are different.  When everyone starts denying what people's eyes are telling them, no one starts with the most obvious grist for the mill:  the reports of people whose eyes are telling them this is real.

 

To simply deny all of that, out of hand, is so contrary to everything science alleges to represent as to constitute scientific treason, really.  One thing science has told us:  humans who hallucinate stuff; lie; or insist - in the face of intense ridicule - on an "innocent misidentification" (that a cow or a bear they saw is in fact an ape!?!?!?) are exceptions to the general rule, which is that humans don't do those things.

 

Most of the animals we know, we learned about from following evidence that in itself was considered inconclusive.  Once one knows it exists, everything one learns about it one learns by following evidence to a new fact.  One of the biggest fallacies of this field is that when we "Find Bigfoot" we're done.  We won't even have gotten started yet; and the first thing we will have to do is follow inconclusive evidence to a determination of what, in fact, it is.

Edited December 30, 2014 by DWA