Where should professional scientists review bigfoot evidence?

[WSA]

Dmaker said: This is what I am talking about. This type of claim made constantly by you and DWA, and others. Where is one supposed to rebut his conclusions? They are not presented in the accepted scientific channel--peer review. You cannot hold up a lack of rebuttal to something as somehow a strength, when that something has never been presented to the proper channel for rebuttal in the first place.  You are claiming a victory in a game you never played.

 

That is precisely my point. 

 

I'd concede the point that we don't have peer reviewed studies, at least in the sense you are asking about. I can't vouch for Dr. Meldrum's reasons for not submitting those, or confirm he has submitted them only to be rejected. I know he had a profile in a 2007 edition of Scientific American, but that is about all I've seen.

 

But that is not the kind of rebuttal I am talking about, although I agree it would be appropriate if a peer reviewed article was published. BF studies so far is more (only?) an internet and self-published exercise. So, to use the example of Meldrum's conclusions in his monograph on primate locomotion, or Bill Munns' conclusions, I'd be satisfied if somebody, anybody, would and could rebut those on just the same level they were published.  Take them on point by point and tell me why their conclusions are wrong. That is a form of peer review, and one the field should welcome.

 

And talk about claiming victory...letting the desire to have a perfect review be the enemy of a perfectly good look at the evidence?  If you don't do the first kind, you'll never get to the more formal review you are asking about.  You got to start seriously looking at the evidence first, at whatever level you are able to get it.

 

My original point though was (and still is), with a few exceptions, IF a finding was published the nature of the evidence makes it difficult to share it to allow others to try and reproduce the results. No matter at what level you review the conclusions, that is going to be a hindrance tht will need to be addressed.

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

would and could rebut those on just the same level they were published. 

And where would that happen? On Amazon? On bigfoot websites? I'm asking seriously, not trying to be prickly. 

 

1 hour ago, WSA said:

Take them on point by point and tell me why their conclusions are wrong. That is a form of peer review, and one the field should welcome.

It's not really a form of peer review. A manuscript has no rules. One does not have to be transparent around methodology, nor does one have to include all the data. The Bindernagel book review I posted recently is a good example. Bindernagel can choose to cherry pick data in his book and ignore all inconsistent reports because it is his book. Peer review would almost certainly address that, perhaps even send it back to him with those comments. I do not think the field should welcome "a form" of peer review, especially one as flawed as discussing books on bigfoot websites. I think the field should welcome actual peer review. Perhaps the proponents need to press the scientific leaders of this field as to why they seem content to avoid peer review when it comes to this topic. 

Edited June 20, 2017 by dmaker

[hiflier]

14 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Perhaps the proponents need to press the scientific leaders of this field as to why they seem content to avoid peer review when it comes to this topic

 

Careful, you're starting to sound like me. It often leads to trouble of the jaws-snapping-at-the-ankles kind. Some folks here don't take well to 'suggestions'. They might think your trying to make them do someone's else's work.

Edited June 20, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

This topic has been up for discussion for decades now.  There is a lot of information, most if not all of it public.

 

There are journals (Nature and Scientific American being only two) that I am sure would be only too glad to accept an article by a skeptical scientist, or a team of them,ready to debunk all that information and show all of it a comprehensive false positive. Which, keep in mind, requires evidence proving the eyewitness reports and track finds, pretty much all of them, to be such. That this has never been attempted, and the effort restricted to cryptic sidebar snipes - the which I have seen in the latter of those two publications above, and, oh, it was lacking from a strictly scientific standpoint - is to me telling.  As is the continued skepto-whine that "you can't prove a negative."  Which of course one is not being asked to do, at all.

 

The Patterson film was ripe for takedown in 1968.  All Bill Munns was doing was work the skeptics never accepted for almost five decades, their work on their shoddy thesis.  All of his information was on the ground at the time. In their reviews of Legend Meets Science in the skeptical press, skeptics had the nerve to *ask Meldrum* why he didn't attempt to do their work for them.  And nope, no attempts to refute any of the factual content of the book.  I read them, and counter-commented, i.e., ripped them apart, so I know.

 

I think the reason this doesn't happen is...the skeptics can't do it. That is their fault and not the proponents' problem.

 

As to the proponents' submitting their positive assertions to be strangled in the crib by a backward cabal...hell with that.  Proponents should continue to publish straight to the public and let chips fall where they may.  The mainstream have shown themselves unworthy of the project.  Sometimes...you just gotta screw peer review.  And as with all science...evidence tells you when.

 

As MIB says:  we sure know what they should do.  Question:  are they as smart as we are?

[hiflier]

5 minutes ago, DWA said:

Question:  are they as smart as we are?

 

We're smart enough to know how to keep our jobs- and so are they. So the answer to the question is, yes they are as smart as we are.

 

On topic: "Where should professional scientists review bigfoot evidence?" Depends on the type of evidence. Different evidence should be reviewed by people in the fields that the evidence resides in. I'm not trying to be obtuse but everything is specialized these days so different evidence types should be targeted to the science fields that best address a particular kind of evidence. There could be some positive moves here to break that down if the dialogue could ever somehow move beyond the philosophical.

Edited June 20, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

 

2 hours ago, WSA said:

Dmaker said: This is what I am talking about. This type of claim made constantly by you and DWA, and others. Where is one supposed to rebut his conclusions? They are not presented in the accepted scientific channel--peer review. You cannot hold up a lack of rebuttal to something as somehow a strength, when that something has never been presented to the proper channel for rebuttal in the first place.  You are claiming a victory in a game you never played.

Watch me.  I am holding up a lack of rebuttal as a strength BECAUSE IT IS.  How many times now have we said it here?  Guess what? Buggy whips don't sell anymore and in the age of Internet and open science, the 'proper channel' ain't anymore.  Scientists are probes of reality, not arbiters of it; and their ganging together to sit fuming and waiting for something they shouldn't get, which I would hope they aren't doing, do science boys and girls, just ain't gonna cut it.  As WSA says elsewhere in this post:  they can damwell publish right where the proponents are.  New century, new channels, boys and girls, get with it.  Victory is claimed on the evidence, and the proponents win by the murder rule. Largely because the skeptics have no rebuttal.  No one's fault, that, right?

2 hours ago, WSA said:

 

I'd concede the point that we don't have peer reviewed studies, at least in the sense you are asking about. I can't vouch for Dr. Meldrum's reasons for not submitting those, or confirm he has submitted them only to be rejected. I know he had a profile in a 2007 edition of Scientific American, but that is about all I've seen.

 

Bindernagel has been all but selling sex on street corners to get his work in scientific conferences.  All due diligence is being done, and as per usual...only by the proponents.

[hiflier]

Thinking beyond the argument phase isn't as easy as it looks is it.

Edited June 20, 2017 by hiflier

[dmaker]

11 minutes ago, DWA said:

Bindernagel has been all but selling sex on street corners to get his work in scientific conferences.

Has he submitted to peer review? That might be easier than pimping himself on street corners. Just saying. 

Edited June 20, 2017 by dmaker

[hiflier]

See what I mean?

[dmaker]

17 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Different evidence should be reviewed by people in the fields that the evidence resides in

But the question is that if this evidence is not presented for peer review, then where should it be reviewed?

[hiflier]

I've already addressed that. Several days ago. Doesn't anyone listen? There are people that ALREADY study evidence similar to what the proponents of Sasquatch have. One cannot dump ALL of the evidence in whatever category it happens to be in onto one desk. The evidence needs to be divided and careful assessment of just who in any given field already studies such things targeted. There is only one general repository for every kind of research available The universities. I shouldn't have to give a detailed list of every kind of science and all of the subcategories that people specialize. All I can say is name it, and it's being studied.

Edited June 20, 2017 by hiflier

[norseman]

The lack of physical evidence is the reason why pro Bigfoot scientists write books and not peer reviewed papers. Which I don't begrudge them for doing so. Except for the fact that they speak out against pro kill researchers...... which then makes it look like they are protecting their job security.

 

Either they (the scientists) are playing wilds and woodsman and don't want any body in a fur suit getting hurt? Or they really think something may be out there, but would lose their monopoly as the Bigfoot whisperers, if the species was ever proven to exist.

 

I don't really trust the anti kill crowd's motivations, especially if they are cashing in.

 

 

[Guest DWA]

23 hours ago, MIB said:

Ok, I'll bite.   The problem is circular.   Peer review means submission to a journal, acceptance for review, then review by a panel of scientists either working for, or volunteering for, the journal.   Scientists .. y' know, the exact people who won't do the review for the paper they won't read.   You'll never get scientific acceptance of a paper for review 'til science has already accepted bigfoot. 

 

MIB

Might as well call this "the Bindernagel Catch," and go ask John why.

9 hours ago, MIB said:

Frankly, your assumptions seem to suggest some sort of idiot-savant "syndrome" among scientists ... so brilliant we have to hang on their every word, yet so stupid they can't investigate the very thing we're supposed to accept their view on unless spoon fed.    You don't think scientists know how to investigate things they're curious about?

I have to repeat this as my favorite line from this thread.  Here's dmaker, asking us HOW THE HECK! mainstream scientists can POSSIBLY GET THEIR HANDS on the VERY SAME STUFF WE HAVE!  AND ANALYZE IT LIKE WE DID! Sure glad I didn't have coffee in my mouth when I read that.

Edited June 20, 2017 by DWA

[hiflier]

10 minutes ago, norseman said:

Or they really think something may be out there, but would lose their monopoly as the Bigfoot whisperers, if the species was ever proven to exist.

 

Or they really think something may NOT be out there, but would lose their monopoly as the Bigfoot whisperers if the species was ever exposed to NOT exist- and even more so if they are cashing in. I'll take anyone here with a personal encounter over most anyone famous who hasn't had one. The rub is that most of the ones that have had personal encounters don't care if Sasquatch is publicly proved. So in limbo the subject remains for all of these reasons.

Edited June 20, 2017 by hiflier

[dmaker]

14 minutes ago, DWA said:

I have to repeat this as my favorite line from this thread.  Here's dmaker, asking us HOW THE HECK! mainstream scientists can POSSIBLY GET THEIR HANDS on the VERY SAME STUFF WE HAVE!  AND ANALYZE IT LIKE WE DID!

That is not what I am asking and you know it. I am pointing out your hollow claim that bigfoot evidence remains unaddressed when it has never been presented in the proper channel to begin with.

 

It's pretty simple. Peer review is where scientific findings are discussed and addressed. There should not be a special pass for bigfoot simply because the evidence would not pass peer review.