Bigfoot And The Dragon In My Garage

[Guest]

2) "who tried to deny him that based on his work with BF evidence" This is another example of a claim presented as fact for which the fact has not been established. Thank you for illustrating my point.

http://replay.web.archive.org/20061129042056/http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/11/03/professor.bigfoot.ap/index.html

Care to fail again?

[Guest]

Nope I get it, you think you get to decide what is civil discourse and what isn't.

What is civil discourse and what isn't is pretty objective, and much of the Skeptical bloviating on this board falls far short of the mark.

[Guest]

I do. Seriously. Excuses ( in the form of ad hoc hypotheses and fingerpointing at "skeptics" ) are prominent parts of his bigfoot-related discourse. I find it embarrassing.

Only in Skeptic-land is offering reasonable, logical explanations to answer challenges and pointing out the biased and close-minded positions of certain so-called "scientists" called " making excuses".

[Guest]

It is in two others based on the AP article.

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13070076

http://www.standeyo....11.bigfoot.html

Thanks LAL. Those two are, of course, the same article. If the source is to be believed, then yes it does indicate the Meldrum was twice passed over for promotion to full professor.

[Guest]

http://replay.web.ar...t.ap/index.html

Care to fail again?

Mulder, observe carefully how LAL handled this. That's how it's done.

Here, you have failed yet again:

quote: John Kijinski, dean of arts and sciences, said there have been "grumblings" about Meldrum's tenure, but no formal request for a review."He's a bona fide scientist," Kijinski said. "I think he helps this university. He provides a form of open discussion and dissenting viewpoints that may not be popular with the scientific community, but that's what academics (is) all about." end quote

[Guest LAL]

Thanks LAL. Those two are, of course, the same article. If the source is to be believed, then yes it does indicate the Meldrum was twice passed over for promotion to full professor.

Funny the L.A. Times writer didn't get credit for the Camera article. In my day that was called "plagiarism". I guess now it's called "Wire Service".

[Guest]

Mulder, observe carefully how LAL handled this. That's how it's done.

Here, you have failed yet again:

quote: John Kijinski, dean of arts and sciences, said there have been "grumblings" about Meldrum's tenure, but no formal request for a review."He's a bona fide scientist," Kijinski said. "I think he helps this university. He provides a form of open discussion and dissenting viewpoints that may not be popular with the scientific community, but that's what academics (is) all about." end quote

I'll see that bet and raise:

Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department, called Meldrum's research a "joke."

"Do I cringe when I see the Discovery Channel and I see Idaho State University, Jeff Meldrum? Yes, I do," Hackworth said. "He believes he's taken up the cause of people who have been shut out by the scientific community. He's lionized there. He's worshipped. He walks on water. It's embarrassing."

and

On campus, Meldrum -- himself a hulking figure, with a mop of brown hair, a bristly silver mustache, and a black T-shirt with a silhouette of a hunchbacked, lurking Bigfoot -- gets funny looks and the silent treatment from other scientists, and is not invited to share coffee with the other science professors.

Over the summer, more than 30 professors signed a petition criticizing the university for hosting a Bigfoot symposium where Meldrum was the keynote speaker.

and

Meldrum wonders aloud how much longer he will be on the faculty.

[Guest]

double post

Edited May 19, 2011 by Mulder

[Guest vilnoori]

Every new scientific paradigm causes its proponents to be outcasts, at first. Sometimes they are not vindicated until years after they are gone. If sasquatches are proven to be real, he will be honoured a great deal for being perceptive enough, and honest enough, to be outspoken about a taboo topic considered a pseudoscience. Lets hope the field is vindicated early enough for him to live to see it.

And to some extent, all of us in this field of research go through the same thing. Anyone of any kind of standing, such as a physician, teacher, law enforcement officer or whatever if they have a sighting and are open and honest about it will go through the fire and will become ridiculed and ostracised to some extent. It comes with the field. Unfortunately we are not talking about a new specie of frog here, but a huge hulking forest monster that might actually be a real hominid. No one wants to believe in it. They will need their noses rubbed into the carcass practically to accept it because most people don't want to accept it, it is too scary, too threatening, too world turning. To some extent every paradigm shift is that way, but this field is particularly so because of the monster factor.

Edited May 19, 2011 by vilnoori

[Guest]

I'll see that bet and raise:

Psst: Mulder. Physicists tend to think everyone else's research is a joke. Also, mormons don't drink coffee.

Half-kidding aside, I never indicated that Meldrum didn't have opponents on campus. What I've been trying to communicate is that having opponents is not unusual. Are his opponents more vocal than most? Maybe, but we don't know because faculty feuds that don't involve celebrities usually don't make the newspapers.

One thing, however, is unequivocal, and you provided the evidence yourself: Jeff Meldrum was promoted to associate professor, earned tenure at a research university, and has garnered the full support of his college dean, all while devoting a substantial amount of his time and energy to the pursuit of bigfoot.

[Guest]

Psst: Mulder. Physicists tend to think everyone else's research is a joke. Also, mormons don't drink coffee.

Half-kidding aside, I never indicated that Meldrum didn't have opponents on campus. What I've been trying to communicate is that having opponents is not unusual. Are his opponents more vocal than most? Maybe, but we don't know because faculty feuds that don't involve celebrities usually don't make the newspapers.

One thing, however, is unequivocal, and you provided the evidence yourself: Jeff Meldrum was promoted to associate professor, earned tenure at a research university, and has garnered the full support of his college dean, all while devoting a substantial amount of his time and energy to the pursuit of bigfoot.

Only over the objections and attempts at obstruction of so-called "objective" and "scientific" peers.

Which has been my point all along.

When it comes to intellectual honesty and true objectvity, the Scientific Community "doth protest too much"...

[Guest]

Only over the objections and attempts at obstruction of so-called "objective" and "scientific" peers.

I'd like to just let these go, but you continue to camp somewhere out in left field.

What "attempts at obstruction" have you documented? Have Meldrum's colleagues been contacting the NSF and telling them not to give him any money? Have they been writing to editors and telling them not to publish his papers? Have they been pulling the fire alarm when he teaches his classes? Short-sheeting his bed? What?

Have you considered that someone could objectively review Meldrum's bigfoot research and conclude that it is unproductive? By our common scientific standards of publication rate and grant dollar attraction, that is objectively the case.

[Guest]

What "attempts at obstruction" have you documented? Have Meldrum's colleagues been contacting the NSF and telling them not to give him any money? Have they been writing to editors and telling them not to publish his papers? Have they been pulling the fire alarm when he teaches his classes? Short-sheeting his bed? What?

They tried to deny him tenure, signed a petition against a symposium he was keynoting, and have generally applied negative social pressure to him because of his chosen topic.

I call those all attempts at "obstruction", if unsuccessful ones...

Have you considered that someone could objectively review Meldrum's bigfoot research and conclude that it is unproductive? By our common scientific standards of publication rate and grant dollar attraction, that is objectively the case.

And will continue to be so long as the grant writers and journal editors continue to maintain their turf as "b'leever free" zones.

[Guest DWA]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2011 at 8:53 PM, Guest BlurryMonster said:

Now, how does this relate to bigfoot? Well, since the debate of the creature's existence usually boils down to evidence (as it should), it seems far too common that people address the issue of evidence with hypotheses that aren't scientific. For example, saying that we can't physical evidence of bigfoot because bigfoot doesn't leave physical evidence, or that it's hard to capture them on film because they stay away from people. Both are ways to explain a problem, but neither is falsifiable. It may seem tempting to throw out explanations like that, for the very fact that they can't be proven wrong, but asking questions like that is a good way to get nowhere, scientifically speaking.

 

One thing Sagan - and I know what he thought about this - didn't seem to understand about this is that the "debate," and I am being polite, is usually among people who don't have the foggiest idea what they're talking about.

 

He clearly never talked to a scientific proponent.  The 'skeptics' aren't; they blindly believe half-baked theories that don't apply to the evidence.  (Besides having zero idea what evidence even *is.*) The fringe proponents are the ones who say bigfoot doesn't leave physical evidence - it does, lots - and it hasn't been documented yet not because of its shyness, but because *in essence zero people are looking.* (The typical three-day backwoods by a bunch of amateurs might not turn up a deer or a rabbit, looking for them.)

 

The field could do well - in fact we might have had confirmation in 1968 - without anyone from either fringe, frankly.

 

And Sagan would have done well cleaving to a fundament of science:  Get the whole story before mouthing off like a knowitall.  Stick to celestial otherwise and leave animals to us.

 

 

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Sagan died in 1992.

 

Show some respect or please. just. stop.