Bigfoot And The Dragon In My Garage

[Guest]

Sorry for the dreaded consecutive post but I just wanted to point out that I tend to agree with Mulder in some respects that scientists do operate within a paradigm. Therefore, it is possible, and has happened in the past, that genuine evidence has gone unrecognized or dismissed for years until enough observations are made to shift the paradigm. You base your hypothesis on already established theories that may exist in a paradigm that doesn't have all the data needed to make the theories sound. In that respect, error is compounded by error. This happens on both sides of the fence in bigfoot world, whether you tend to be a "knower", a skeptic, or somewhere in between.

[southernyahoo]

Why is this out of curiosity? It seems like a perfectly valid question to me.

The answer is that falsifiability is required for a question to be scientific. If something isn't falsifiable, it can't be tested, and nothing can be learned about it. The way to determine if a hypothesis* is true is by seeing if the evidence supports it; if the evidence doesn't, then it probably isn't true (that's what falsifiability is - the ability to be proven wrong), and we have learned something.

*I tried to make the distinction between hypothesis and theory in my original post. If you need more clarification, I'd be glad to provide some.

This track is very detailed and larger than probably 99% of the human populations feet. One of my hypotheses is that a very large humanoid made the original impression with it's bare foot. Is it falsifiable? Is it testable? Could it be proven correct?

[Guest RayG]

Is it falsifiable?

Well, keeping in mind that "something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated", then sure, sculpt out some gigantic human-looking feet that look just like your gigantic human-looking casts, make some impressions with them, and then create casts of those impressions.

Is it testable?

I don't see why not. Mass produce a huge quantity of gigantic human-looking feet, make impressions, and then make casts of those impressions.

Could it be proven correct?

Of course...

Or at least his feet.

RayG

[Guest]

Um, yes it is. Would you care to provide a list of all the species that have been described and recognized by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature based on eyewitness testimony?

Existence and technical description are two different things. And we have far more than just testimony in any event (tracks, hairs, etc).

You might read this slowly so it sinks in: If the papers are published, then they have already made it through the process of peer review.

Translation: "If it comes to 'put up or shut up', I will do neither."

Again: here's the papers (or at least should get you started finding them ):

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/henner.htm

the full paper published here:

Dr. W. H. Fahrenbach in Cryptozoology, Vol. 13, pgs. 47-75 under the title: Sasquatch: Size, Scaling and Statistics

The claim that multiple faculty colleagues petitioned the ISU Administration to have Meldrum fired because he does bigfoot research is unsubstantiated. (I guess that's why you believe it.) Even IF it were true, however, it's irrelevant. The majority of his colleagues there - and his Administration - supported his work and promoted him to Associate Professor, with tenure. This may come as a shock, but when your colleagues vote to give you a big raise and basically assure you that your job is secure until you choose to retire, that's not really good evidence for bias against what you do.

No, it just means they didn't have a majority. If "scientists" were as all-objective as you claim, NONE would have challenged him on the basis of topic. Yet he WAS challenged on that basis.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Mulder

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Jodie, I think you misread what I said about falsifiability. As RayG pointed out, falsifiable doesn't mean that something is false, it means that something can be proven to be false. That is, if a statement is wrong, it can be shown that the statement is wrong.

For the hypothesis/theory thing: yes, in general conversation, most people use them interchangeably, but that doesn't make it correct. The two terms have distinct meanings in science and apply to two different things; when you're talking about scientific ideas, it's important to use terms correctly. Your understanding of the distinction is pretty good, though.

As far as science following paradigms, it's not exactly a secret that scientific knowledge tends to build on itself. It's actually pretty logical that such a process occurs; as more evidence comes to light, or understanding of that evidence comes about, we gain better understandings about things. But that isn't to say that new things don't, or can't, come about. It happens all the time, especially when new or groundbreaking evidence is discovered (or realized). For example, when Sahelanthropus Tchadensis and Orrorin tugenensis were discovered, the date for bipedalism in hominins was pushed back considerably, even to the point of our common ancestor with chimps. No one thought that before, but when the evidence was found, new hypotheses were presented, and new ideas were adopted.

This track is very detailed and larger than probably 99% of the human populations feet. One of my hypotheses is that a very large humanoid made the original impression with it's bare foot. Is it falsifiable? Is it testable? Could it be proven correct?

Yes, it's falsifiable - it can be shown that something that isn't a very large humanoid can make something very close to that. Yes, it's testable - you can observe animals making tracks and compare them to the prints; you can test to see if something like that track can be faked; you can research similar tracks and look for any known cause, or research done on them. And yes, it can be proven correct - if you find a very large humanoid that makes a track like that; of course, you would also need evidence to show that you did find such a creature.

Edited May 13, 2011 by BlurryMonster

[southernyahoo]

Yes, it's falsifiable - it can be shown that something that isn't a very large humanoid can make something very close to that. Yes, it's testable - you can observe animals making tracks and compare them to the prints; you can test to see if something like that track can be faked; you can research similar tracks and look for any known cause, or research done on them. And yes, it can be proven correct - if you find a very large humanoid that makes a track like that; of course, you would also need evidence to show that you did find such a creature.

Right, so I don't see how it is any different with any of the other evidence on proffer, it's objective evidence and we can evaluate and test various hypotheses. While there are some who have made absolute observations of the creatures themselves, they shouldn't necessarily be lumped with people making absolute conclusions from the evidence. I think this is a straw man argument created by bigfoot critics.

Was the intent of this thread to clarify scientific terms or to point out what is psuedoscience?

[Guest]

Existence and technical description are two different things.

Yes, that's why I try to consistently word my statements with phrases like "we lack evidence to confirm that such-and-such exists" rather than "such-and-such does not exist." When I did that upthread however, you complained that I was using science-babble to weasel my way out of an untenable position.

And we have far more than just testimony in any event (tracks, hairs, etc).

Pay attention Mulder. You are responding to a comment about alleged extant, non-avian dinosaurs, presumably sauropods in Equatorial Africa. Are you suggesting we have tracks and hairs from such creatures?

(Meantime, you do realize that no footprint, hair, or other physical material has been conclusively determined to have come from a bigfoot, don't you?)

Translation: "If it comes to 'put up or shut up', I will do neither."

No, the translation is exactly as I stated it. The process of peer review precedes publication of the paper. If the paper is published (in a journal of science) then it has, by definition passed peer review. (Is this thing on?)

Again: here's the papers (or at least should get you started finding them ):

http://www.isu.edu/~.../fxnlmorph.html

http://www.bigfooten...logy/henner.htm

Herbal tea, Mulder. That and a nap might help.

Your first link is not a paper. It's a website. That said, some of the ramblings on that link also appear in Meldrum's "ichnotaxon" paper, and I've already expressed criticism of that paper.

Your second link is to material in Fahrenbach's paper in Cryptozoology, and I've already expressed criticism of that paper too.

Again though, it seems like the bigger issue is that you cannot see the difference between these things you've linked that have not been subjected to critical peer review and real papers like this that have:

Brunet et al. 2002.pdf

This is how it's done, Mulder.

Note that there are 38 authors on the Brunet et al. paper. Do you honestly think that these 38 scientific peers of Meldrum's who published this paper describing a new species of Miocene hominid based on a handful of ancient bones are part of some scientific conspiracy to keep a bigfoot discovery from coming to light? The American Association of Physical Anthropologists boasts 1700 members (and that's just the Americans). That's 1700 scientific colleagues of Jeff Meldrum for whom a bigfoot discovery would probably be more exciting to each personally than the birth of their first child.

No, it just means they didn't have a majority. If "scientists" were as all-objective as you claim, NONE would have challenged him on the basis of topic. Yet he WAS challenged on that basis.

Again, your claim as to the reason some of Meldrum's ISU colleagues objected to his promotion is unsubstantiated. If I recall correctly from the new items related to that story, Meldrum's opponents were very clear that their objections were based on lack of research productivity from his bigfoot work, and not the mere fact that he was doing bigfoot work.

Again though, this line of argument from you is pointless. As I've already described for you, we scientists all have opponents. That's how it works. You've demonstrated nothing unusual about Meldrum's case. The objective fact is that he GOT TENURE.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Right, so I don't see how it is any different with any of the other evidence on proffer, it's objective evidence and we can evaluate and test various hypotheses. While there are some who have made absolute observations of the creatures themselves, they shouldn't necessarily be lumped with people making absolute conclusions from the evidence. I think this is a straw man argument created by bigfoot critics.

Footprint casts can be taken as evidence, since they're something physical. The problem with using them, though, is that it's very easy to question their credibility. They're very easy to hoax, so it would be very difficult to prove that one was real. Even the Bossburg print, which was considered to be the best print available for a long time has been shown to be a likely hoax*. What people thought were dermal ridges (and thus proof of being real) were shown to be artifacts of the casting process, and the foundation of the phenomena itself was a hoax. As far as I know, prints started with Ray Wallace making them with wooden molds.

*Ivan Marx was responsible for it. He made a fake film showing a "crippled bigfoot" hopping around, and the casts were made to go with it.

Now, that doesn't mean that prints can be discounted entirely, or just dismissed out of hand. But, it does mean that it's hard to take them as evidence by themselves. Something kind of similar would be crop circles. They started out as pranks, and they're fairly easy to make, so it's hard for many to see them (even the ones believers assert to be real) as evidence of alien visitation, especially with no other clear evidence for such claims.

Was the intent of this thread to clarify scientific terms or to point out what is psuedoscience?

Both.

Edited May 13, 2011 by BlurryMonster

[ShadowBorn]

It's also important to look at how the scientific method usually operates: a question or problem is addressed, and conclusions are made based on evidence or observation. In regards to bigfoot research, the method for investigation is usually done the opposite way; conclusions are made, and evidence is drawn to support that conclusion. That may sound fairly harmless, until you realize the bias inherent in that way of researching. Say I want to prove that dragons really did, or do, exist. I could point to stories about dragons and the fact that many cultures around the world have them as evidence. I could even say that since giant reptilian creatures did exist at one point, that one of them could be a dragon, and we just haven't discovered that yet. If I only examined those two points, I (and maybe others) would think that I have a good case for the potential existence of dragons, but I would be mistaken. I would be leaving out the facts that all those stories are very different, and those giant reptiles lived long before any person could have ever made an account of them, let alone that there's no evidence for them breathing fire or even looking like traditional dragons. How you look at the evidence matters just as much as the evidence itself.

My general point is that for the question of bigfoot's existence to be investigated in a credible and scientific manner, it's best to approach it scientifically. And to do that, it's important to know what is science and what isn't, which is what I'm trying to make a little clearer with this post. If the questions are approached in that way, it's much easier to draw credible conclusions, and to have those conclusions taken seriously by others.

BlurryMonster

Thank you for this information, It truely help understand my encounters and in a away I sort have taken this approach. I just did not know that this is what I was doing on my own. But this whole explanation really help me understand.

Even though one could not see that dragon in the garage the wittnes was doing everything possible to prevent proof. But that not what i see with these creatures or what others are saying about thier encounters. I want to find the proof and not be that person who sees that dragon in the garage.

What about the things that science cannot explain, how will that be accepted. Will science keep an open mind to that or will it be the interviewer who gives up on believing that the dragon in the garage is impossible to solve. If science is going to work it has to keep an open mind to it and accept all values of any expierment.Is not that most things were found by accident through science? maybe,I just believe that we should keep an open mind when it comes to these creatures we all call Sasquatch or what ever other name it has.

[Guest]

Blurry- I was reading what Julio was commenting on.....so what I'm gathering is you think we ought to rule out every other possibility before concluding we have a bigfoot in the area, if we conclude we have a bigfoot at all? I've never seen a bigfoot, or any definitive sign of a bigfoot, in my area, however, I did see something strange this past February. I think that the majority of members on this board already do the things you are suggesting since that is where most of my advice came from to rule out alternative possibilities for my "aerial it". Most are trying to figure out ways to get viable evidence for what they have observed after ruling out the other possibilities. I think you are sincere with your intent with this thread to demonstrate the difference between psuedoscience and science. However, it wasn't really clear from your initial posts what your intent was or what direction you were leading the conversation. You are brand spanking new to this version of the forum, I'm not sure if you ever belonged to the old forum, but I think as time goes by you will find that most of us are a bit more sophisticated than you seem to be assuming.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

It's always best to approach things with an open mind. Ideally, that's what scientists should be doing anyway, but open-mindedness should have some sort of limit. To put it in the words of the archeology professor I mentioned earlier, "It's always best to have an open mind, but not so much that your brains fall out." In other words, if the the evidence suggests that something probably isn't true, you don't really need to believe that it is, and there would be nothing wrong with not believing (especially if something else has better evidence). I hope that makes enough sense.

Blurry- I was reading what Julio was commenting on.....so what I'm gathering is you think we ought to rule out every other possibility before concluding we have a bigfoot in the area, if we conclude we have a bigfoot at all?

As for this, not exactly. I think the evidence should be looked at and conclusions should be drawn based on what is most likely. Since no conclusive evidence exists for bigfoot, it just makes more sense to look at things that have more evidence first. For example, once, I was in a meadow that was surrounded by trees (located in a bigfoot hotspot), and something was making a lot of noise, shaking pretty tall branches, and generally creeping me and my dad out. Could it have been bigfoot? Maybe (my dad certainly thought it could have been), but I know that elk live in the area (we saw some the day before), they get pretty tall, and one rubbing its antlers on a tree, like they do during that time of year, could probably make a ruckus like we heard. So, it's probably more likely that what I heard was an elk.

And yes, I was sincere with starting this thread. I expected to get some resistance, but I figured the possibility of educating at least some people on these matters was worth it. I wasn't a member of the old forum (nor do I know anyhting about it), and I don't assume that most people here are gullible or unthinking, but I still figured that some education in scientific ideas and critical thinking might help in general. After all, most people don't know that stuff without being taught (I know I didn't), and when it comes down to it, plenty of the posts on this site contain features of what I've been writing about. If you strip away all the beliefs, rhetoric, and controversy, all that really matters is the evidence and how it is analyzed. Better analysis usually equals better results (and more credibility), and I'm just trying to illustrate how good analysis is performed.

Edited May 14, 2011 by BlurryMonster

[Guest]

What makes you an expert in research methods? I haven't disagreed with you in general yet, and your elk example is right on target, but the point I'm making is that most of these posters on here that are serious about research were hunters before they got into bigfoot and belong to a wide variety of professions that require critical thinking skills. What kind of experience do you have that would make you stand out from the crowd?

[Guest]

Apparently the internet ate my first response, so here goes again:

Pay attention Mulder. You are responding to a comment about alleged extant, non-avian dinosaurs, presumably sauropods in Equatorial Africa. Are you suggesting we have tracks and hairs from such creatures?

I started with sauropods and then moved the converstation back to BF by pointing out that in the case of BF we have far MORE than just eyewitness testimony.

(Meantime, you do realize that no footprint, hair, or other physical material has been conclusively determined to have come from a bigfoot, don't you?)

But they HAVE been determined to come from a primate not matching anything on record. I would think that at a minimum THAT would excite the "science" community and make them want to know more.

No, the translation is exactly as I stated it. The process of peer review precedes publication of the paper. If the paper is published (in a journal of science) then it has, by definition passed peer review.

Tautology rears it's ugly head yet again: "I only consider published papers...papers are published only after "peer review"...therefore I do not consider it, and will not review it."

Herbal tea, Mulder. That and a nap might help.

Reported.

Your first link is not a paper. It's a website. That said, some of the ramblings on that link also appear in Meldrum's "ichnotaxon" paper, and I've already expressed criticism of that paper.

Your second link is to material in Fahrenbach's paper in Cryptozoology, and I've already expressed criticism of that paper too.

Let's see it then: your scientific studies, measurements and experiments that refute the observations and measurements of Drs Meldrum and Fahrenbach. Not vague handwavium about "bad data", etc. You should be easily able to demonstrate that if it is so.

Note that there are 38 authors on the Brunet et al. paper. Do you honestly think that these 38 scientific peers of Meldrum's who published this paper describing a new species of Miocene hominid based on a handful of ancient bones are part of some scientific conspiracy to keep a bigfoot discovery from coming to light? The American Association of Physical Anthropologists boasts 1700 members (and that's just the Americans). That's 1700 scientific colleagues of Jeff Meldrum for whom a bigfoot discovery would probably be more exciting to each personally than the birth of their first child.

You would think, yet they continue to sneer at his research and findings.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

What makes you an expert in research methods? I haven't disagreed with you in general yet, and your elk example is right on target, but the point I'm making is that most of these posters on here that are serious about research were hunters before they got into bigfoot and belong to a wide variety of professions that require critical thinking skills. What kind of experience do you have that would make you stand out from the crowd?

I'm not an expert in research methods, and I never claimed to be. I just have experience with reasoning skills/critical thinking, and I believe in spreading knowledge. As I said before, I didn't assume that no one here didn't have that knowledge (I've seen good reasoning, too); I just figured it was worth demonstrating these points, at least for the people that don't know about them (or need a refresher). This stuff isn't innate, and even some people that are usually thought of as rational or smart can be lacking in actual reasoning skills (I certainly know people like that). I didn't see anyone else trying to do this, so figured I might as well give it a shot.

What makes me stand out from the crowd is probably that I like teaching. I'm not here to argue for the sake of arguing or to be condescending to people. This thread was genuinely intended to be educational, and I'm glad that I've educated at least one person (julio126) in scientific reasoning. I also have a soft spot for bigfoot, having grown up in the Pacific Northwest and being a former believer. Although plenty of people seem to believe in bigfoot with an almost religious zeal, since it's supposed to be a biological entity, I feel it should be looked at scientifically.

[Guest]

Alrighty then, just getting a feel for what made you tick. I don't think you will find much disagreement here on the board that bigfoot research needs to be approached more scientifically. What I think you will find is that the serious researchers feel that is exactly what they are doing and resent the inference that it isn't. We don't have too many posting in the research area, maybe the thread should be moved there.....or maybe not, since this is more theoretical. You might get more of the type of discussion you are looking for in that forum.