what is a "scientist" ?

[dmaker]

What would a solution look like to you that concludes with non existent? There isn't one, is there? It always puzzles me when proponents talk about "solving the mystery". What that really means is proof of bigfoots existence. There is nothing else. The irony is that the mystery has been solved. Time and lack of evidence has made the likelihood of bigfoot being real almost 0. But you will continue on talking about solving a mystery when in your mind there is no doubt, so what, exactly, is the mystery for you?

 

[WSA]

So, if I knew the solution, I'm not going to have to ask, right?

 

But what the solution does not include is the same 'ol, absence-of-evidence-is-can't-prove-the-absence-of-the-dragon-in-my-pocket-or-who's--just-afraid-of-Virginia-BF, blah, blah, blah...etc., rinse and repeat. 

 

There is an entry level requirement of at least acknowledging the open question, since I'm making up my perfect condition requirements.  I don't consider anybody who has reserved no doubts about the non-existence as fulfilling the aforementioned good faith pre-condition.  You got to put skin in the game or you don't count in this kind of exercise.   

[dmaker]

Mine was a genuine question. If there is no mystery around existence for you (unless I am mistaken), then what is the mystery you want to solve?

[Martin]

First you have to define the "special problem". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

5 hours ago, ioyza said:

I'm curious what knowledge a new graduate with a degree in biology would have that has relevance to bigfoot? A degree with just the title 'Biology' is going to entail mostly molecular and cellular biology, so what does that have to do with bigfoot? Because they're made of biology? They're also made of chemistry, and physics, so are chemists and physicists equally at an advantage when viewing a sasquatch while hiking in the woods? Does my advanced degree in bioengineering give me an upper hand?

 

You can argue for my advantage if you want, but I'll tell you: "of course it doesn't." It has given me a view of what practicing research scientists can be like and how they think, though. Many of them are not particularly great problem solvers. They know how to make their work look sexy on a grant. They come to me when their MS Word freezes. They shout "I HAVE A PEE AICH DEE!" when they find they can't win an argument (well, at least one particular French post-doc does). 

 

Look I don't mean to pan the whole scientific community just because I have the misfortune to work with some idiot-scientists at the moment, obviously there are many brilliant minds at work, but they (and I know this has been said a thousand times already but here's one more) are not thinking about bigfoot. Even if I were to allow that we were talking about someone with a new degree in Wildlife Biology (does anyone even offer that to an undergrad?), they would still only really have relevant knowledge if they had a particular focus in apes, and if they'd done field work. George Schaller, Dian Fosey, Jane Goodall. One is gone, the other two advocate for bigfoot study, imagine that.

 

I'll use this post as a testing ground for an idea that's been kicking around my head for a while, but don't have much practice articulating yet, here goes: 'Bigfootology' will never be a scientific discipline. Sasquatch will never bend to the scientific method, we will not 'prove' their existence scientifically. The basic overarching reason for this is the impossibility of control over conditions. In order to confidently reject a null hypothesis, we need to be able to set up experiments that have clear outputs for a given set of inputs, that allow for deduction of the mechanism by which the output was produced given our setup. No such experiment is possible when interacting with bigfoot any more than it's possible when interacting with humans; the intelligence of these beings precludes it. Control of experimental conditions in their woods is completely theirs, and we are their willing lab rats.

 

I do think Meldrum's career path highlights a valiant effort at solving this riddle. He pursued an area of study that gives him expertise in the one type of physical evidence in bountiful abundance, and has made great efforts in showing how a huge variety of aspects of footprint casts could only be produced by an unknown hominid - but ultimately, the clarity of the work falls short of overcoming entrenched biases. It's not sexy enough.

 

IMHO, 'Proof' will come about gradually as a snowball of more and more people being led to the aggregate evidence, being taught how to think about it, and getting out in the woods confirming it for themselves. The only possible exceptions are DNA, video, or a body. The former is very murky water, and the latter two are lightning-striking-your-winning-lotto-ticket odds. 

 

Umm....field biologists employ tactics I know nothing about as a hunter and outdoorsman.

 

Remember Todd Disotell's mosquito catching trick? Millions of blood samples just flying around. Bigfoot may be able to hide from humans.....but not mosquito's!!!

 

Brilliant! Welcome to science!

Mr. Bigfoot!

19 hours ago, dmaker said:

Yeah, and that person does not believe bigfoot to exist. So, that proves that reading a ton of reports has more than one conclusion. That is something you seem to struggle with. As you said, a scientist, which you are not, has read many reports and arrived at a different conclusion than you. You see, that is possible. I've read far more reports than you give me credit for. I actually kind of enjoy reading them for their folklore value. The reports are a great source of shared mythology. Granted, we approach them from a different mindset, but do not kid yourself when you think I am a stranger to the reports. 

 

Exactly. 

 

If only it was as simple as reading 10,000 reports and the animal materialized out of thin air. 

 

Plussed.

[Guest DWA]

4 hours ago, WSA said:

.....

What I am certain of is the futility of either side convincing the other it is mistaken. I just have no energy for that exercise, even if I once did. If we are going to solve this special problem we are going to have to act way smarter than we act right now. If that solution comes from any direction, even from a quarter I don't regard as friendly to my conclusions, I would be a fool not to accept it. ....

 

That.  If you're on my Ignore list, expect nothing more from me.  I know that well is dry.  I'm interested in water, from whatever quarter.

Edited May 24, 2017 by DWA

[Twist]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

That.  If you're on my Ignore list, expect nothing more from me.  I know that well is dry.  I'm interested in water, from whatever quarter.

 

And by "water" you mean a belief that strictly adheres to your already predetermined ideology? 

[WSA]

Special problem: No thing has ever been purported to leave this amount of trace evidence and not been bagged. Non-existence is not logical to a large and increasing number of people, but the belief in non-existence creates as large a conundrum to be explained.

 

 

What I hope to learn is: How could either of these be possible?

 

 

 

 

[Twist]

^^ bingo

[Guest DWA]

45 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

And by "water" you mean a belief that strictly adheres to your already predetermined ideology? 

That's flatly insulting.  I'm talking about *the evidence.*  Which leads in only one direction.

 

As shown by a simple fact:  no one who thinks this isn't real has an opinion based in it. Which means - and this is science talking, not me talking - that they don't have an opinion that counts, at all.

 

If you haven't done the work - and I have done *far* more on this than anyone who disagrees with me - don't come complaining to me about that.

17 minutes ago, WSA said:

Special problem: No thing has ever been purported to leave this amount of trace evidence and not been bagged. Non-existence is not logical to a large and increasing number of people, but the belief in non-existence creates as large a conundrum to be explained.

 

 

What I hope to learn is: How could either of these be possible?

 

Thinking about the evidence has taught me how they are.

 

(At least two somebodies have bagged one.)

Edited May 25, 2017 by DWA

[Twist]

 

23 minutes ago, DWA said:

That's flatly insulting.  I'm talking about *the evidence.*  Which leads in only one direction.

 

As shown by a simple fact:  no one who thinks this isn't real has an opinion based in it. Which means - and this is science talking, not me talking - that they don't have an opinion that counts, at all.

 

If you haven't done the work - and I have done *far* more on this than anyone who disagrees with me - don't come complaining to me about that.

 

You claim it's flatly insulting and proceed to back up my post to a "T" with every sentence.    

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Really if you are speaking of the Patterson creature. That is not bagged 

Only a body will suffice. Needs to be examined  ,tested. A nice film and anecdotal evidence is not proof of a mythical beast and you knew that 9500 posts ago 

[Guest DWA]

1 minute ago, Twist said:

 

 

You claim it's flatly insulting and proceed to back up my post to a "T" with every sentence.    

Um, no I don't.  (But you wouldn't understand so I won't explain. And no, you've shown me that.)  But you sure back me up.  You haven't read up and it shows.

 

1 minute ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Really if you are speaking of the Patterson creature. That is not bagged 

Only a body will suffice. Needs to be examined  ,tested. A nice film and anecdotal evidence is not proof of a mythical beast and you knew that 9500 posts ago 

No, not to a scientist. He doesn't need one.  Krantz, Meldrum, Bindernagel, Mionczynski, Schaller, Goodall, NAWAC, don't need to keep going here.  (Me.)  See?  See.  Any scientist worthy of the name pronouncing on this topic (1) has examined the evidence; (2) drawn the proper conclusions; and (3) thinks that proof might be cool but doesn't need it.  He knows.

 

(Patterson was not included.  Patty was clearly not bagged, right?  She's a real animal, that's been proven beyond reasonable doubt.  But bagged?  No.)

Here is how I know who's a scientist and who isn't:  PROOF IS NOT PART OF PURE SCIENCE.  Proof is for the ignorant people who pay you and the ignorant people who pay them.  Doesn't matter either to you or to anyone who's examined the evidence.  You all know it's out there and proof is a formality.  And so has it ever been.

 

 

[Guest Cricket]

Hello all!  I'm a new member and have enjoyed reading the posts .  A couple of you have essentially stated what I was thinking regarding what a scientist is (one who uses a specific methodology for inquiring about the world).  I would add that the goal of science is knowledge rather than 'truth,' and that knowledge about a given subject falls somewhere along a spectrum of weak to strong.  So far I've read a couple of the formal publications dealing with material generated by those looking into Bigfoot.  I think there is something important to bear in mind, and that is that science involves some kind of quantification in order to be able to extract patterns from raw data that may be meaningful.  Research that doesn't take it to the next level by doing that is not complete.  Observations can be made in a random way, OR they can be made in a way that yields quantifiable raw data with which analysis can be done.  Also, graduate students in science actually do their own research which forms the foundation of their thesis or dissertation, and they really can be pushing the boundaries in their area of specialization, even if they are students.  Part of the process is to become fluent in the work that has been done, true, but they aren't graduating as an expert in everything in a given field, but as an expert in the specific and much narrower subject of their research. 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

Special problem: No thing has ever been purported to leave this amount of trace evidence and not been bagged. Non-existence is not logical to a large and increasing number of people, but the belief in non-existence creates as large a conundrum to be explained.

 

 

What I hope to learn is: How could either of these be possible?

 

 

 

 

 

Large and increasing? 

 

I would say a very small contingent believes in the creatures existence, and with scientists it's a minuscule amount.

 

And it's all on us proponents to prove the existence of the creature by physical evidence.....the cavalry ain't coming. You might as well dump yer dental resin down the toilet.