Where should professional scientists review bigfoot evidence?

[Guest DWA]

...and I'm not saying the idiot-savant syndrome doesn't exist among a lot of scientists

[Twist]

Seems some want science to play on their field, with their ball, and their rules.   If not, cry bloody murder that no one will play with them.  

[hiflier]

So, again, back on topic. Let's say I have stick structures out in the middle of nowhere. I could talk to the Forestry Service in the area. They may know who has been hunting in the area. They may know who has been researching in the area. They may have made them themselves to observe something, or throw plastic over in a down pour. Not likely but they may at least know if the structures were there a week ago if they had been in the area. And that's only stick structures. There are anthropologists that study primitive dwellings and ancient sheltering as a focus of their work. Or postgrads in the field targeting that narrow subject as a thesis. It really doesn't take much to think of this stuff. But it also runs a high risk of being lambasted by someone who thinks I'm saying this to get someone else to do my work for me so I have to e reeeeeee-al careful here lest......((looks over shoulder for usual suspects)

 

3 minutes ago, Twist said:

Seems some want science to play on their field, with their ball, and their rules.   If not, cry bloody murder that no one will play with them.  

 

I LIKE this!  Plussed.

Edited June 20, 2017 by hiflier

[Incorrigible1]

19 minutes ago, DWA said:

...and I'm not saying the idiot-savant syndrome doesn't exist among a lot of scientists

 

How large of you.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The idea that all adequate science passes peer review is a fallacy often committed by denialists devoted to cryptozoology. Unfortunately, even among those who aren't in denial, very few properly understand the limitations of the scientific community and the scientific method. 

[hiflier]

Thought I'd bump the other thread because it also about peer review  OK, back on topic: Sonograms. There are wildlife biologists from universities who go into the field and already have entire libraries of known animal sonograms and KNOW how to read them. Somebody have a sound byte of an odd nature? I don't, so I can only 'suggest' contacting a local university or researching the biology department of one to see who does that kind of research.  Send an email with the sound byte or sonogram to see if they would be interested in assessing what the signature might be. Universities are an untapped reservoir of inquisitive individuals who just might present to sound byte and it's accompanying sonogram to their student for an exercise in studying odd wildlife sounds. Now I warn you, it takes an adult to do such things so, if no one is prepared to be informed that the sound byte isn't from an unknown primate? then I wouldn't attempt it.

 

But if no one is listening or understands that the peer review process has to begin with the proper people doing the study, i.e., scientists then the peer review process will not happen. Stepping into the world of science is something one must know has to happen. Then one must understand the avenues available. And then have the courage to take the step. The colleges and universities are far more accessible than private or corporate research groups and facilities. But hey, what do I know, I've never had an encounter so I'm not worthy to even be posting- according to ......... 

  

17 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

The idea that all adequate science passes peer review is a fallacy often committed by denialists devoted to cryptozoology. Unfortunately, even among those who aren't in denial, very few properly understand the limitations of the scientific community and the scientific method. 

 

But for some it's more fun to accuse science of sitting on their hands than science something specific to a certain field to work with.

Edited June 20, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

For progress to be made in academia, the mainstream community needs to be assured that it can replicate observations that are made and the results obtained from testing. Denialists use this limitation as an excuse to discredit complicated mysteries that end up falling outside of mainstream attention without understanding that this may be a shortcoming of the scientific community itself. It doesn't rule out the existence of phenomena that is yet to be understood.

 

Although less related, it's worth knowing that the scientific method itself rules out anything that isn't observable or testable. This is part of the reason why phenomena that's metaphysical in nature (e.g. consciousness and "esp"), hasn't gotten serious mainstream attention yet.

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest Starling]

It's ironic indeed that DWA references to Piltdown man and makes allowance for the 'sophisticated hoaxer.' Old Meldrum says the clincher for him becoming a believer was finding tracks that provided evidence of some anatomical feature that spoke of verisimilitude - WITHOUT  at the same time recognising the field was replete in resourceful pranksters that might well have anticipated the need for precisely that kind of forensic detail. 

 

Underestimating the tremendously wily nature of your fellow man in a subject like this is something even a credentialed scientist can do quite easily. ( there's, allegedly, a physics professor out there who's bought into the moon landing hoax...going against the entire scientific community...more fool him!)  Everyone's vulnerable to a scam once in a while. 

 

Dmaker's point is well made.  And no proponent has managed to come up with any good refutation that isn't a silly word salad full of excuses. The proponents want their cake and eat it, too. Either you have credible evidence the animal exists or you don't. DWA hilariously suggests that scientists would rather have there findings assessed in some kind of public court of the people - which is tantamount to saying Bigfoot evidence should be judged by rigorous exposure to the same human nature-lead, non-scientific social factors he denies might have something to do with creation of the myth/phenomena to begin with. Utterly, utterly contradictory and utterly preposterous.

 

I welcome scientists who treat the subject seriously and science wouldn't be doing its job if there weren't a few Meldrums about...but don't be a hypocrite and say the rules of science must make exceptions some time. We don't see peer reviewed papers that pass muster on the subject because there's ample evidence that what evidence there is is hopelessly contaminated by all too human mischief. This is a FACT and the following fact that has science demand, quite reasonably  'Make me a liar' leaves proponents angry and annoyed because, surprise surprise, they categorically cannot.

 

 

 

 

[dmaker]

So, it seems that basically the response is if bigfoot proponents choose to avoid peer review in favor of books and bigfoot websites, then professional scientists should not expect any peer submissions dealing with bigfoot and should instead respond to the existing books and bigfoot website articles?  That is where we have come so far. Note the response from proponents is not that bigfoot evidence should be presented in the proper channels, but that scientists should change the way things are done to accommodate bigfoot proponents. Why? Why should this happen? Why should there be fewer controls? Why should there be less transparency around methodology? Why should there be less access to the data? Why should all these, and more, be broken down in favor of bigfoot?

 

Oh, right. Bias and taboo. I don't doubt that exists on some personal levels. I doubt that there is this all encompassing and smothering blanket of it, however. As recent examples have shown. 

 

Why should bigfoot get a special pass?

Edited June 20, 2017 by dmaker

[norseman]

As a proponent, I'm not nor ever have asked for a special pass.

[hiflier]

7 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Why should bigfoot get a special pass?

 

Bigfoot doesn't need a special pass. Science needs the right kind of evidence and if it receives it? Science will know exactly what they are looking at. This isn't hard, folks. All it takes is remembering what you've already seen and read read.

Edited June 20, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

8 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

For progress to be made in academia, the mainstream community needs to be assured that it can replicate observations that are made and the results obtained from testing. Denialists use this limitation as an excuse to discredit complicated mysteries that end up falling outside of mainstream attention without understanding that this may be a shortcoming of the scientific community itself. It doesn't rule out the existence of phenomena that is yet to be understood.

 

Although less related, it's worth knowing that the scientific method itself rules out anything that isn't observable or testable. This is part of the reason why phenomena that's metaphysical in nature (e.g. consciousness and "esp"), hasn't gotten serious mainstream attention yet.

 

Pseudoscientific claims are often rejected because they have no theoretical foundation. This objection is not always valid...It is the reality and correctness of the observations that must be examined, and the theory will follow in due course if the observations are correct. ...[O]ur particle discoveries were totally independent of any theory. There was no theory, no paradigm to guide us. ...as new fields open through accidental discoveries, there may be no theory to support them. -  Michael W. Friedlander

[hiflier]

19 minutes ago, DWA said:

Pseudoscientific claims are often rejected because they have no theoretical foundation. This objection is not always valid...It is the reality and correctness of the observations that must be examined, and the theory will follow in due course if the observations are correct. ...[O]ur particle discoveries were totally independent of any theory. There was no theory, no paradigm to guide us. ...as new fields open through accidental discoveries, there may be no theory to support them. -  Michael W. Friedlander

 

Debating the point is fruitless. It's not even interesting. And does nothing to advance the Sasquatch subject. In fact I've seen little if anything that does. Why is that? THAT question has the potential for steering the Sasquatch question along more productive lines. Of course, the question is necessarily followed by another: Is anybody READY to move into those more productive lines?

 

Admittedly, it takes a certain level of focus and self discipline to stay the course- IF one in at all interested in moving ahead that is.   

Edited June 20, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

If you're only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you.  You never learn anything...Every now and then a new idea turns out to  be on the mark, valid and wonderful.  If you're too resolutely and uncompromisingly skeptical, you're going to miss (or resent**) the transforming discoveries in science, and either way you will be obstructing understanding and progress. - Carl Sagan

 

Critics who assert negative claims but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics" often act as though they...have no burden of proof placed on them at all. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence...Showing [that] evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it...in far too many instances, the critic who makes a merely plausible argument for an artifact***closes the door on future research when proper science demands that this hypothesis of an artifact should also be tested... - Marcello Truzzi

 

[all emphasis mine]

 

As long as the above characterizes mainstream talk on this topic, the mainstream must be avoided.  Engagement only occurs to the extent the mainstream comes around to the common sense laid out above, and done.  Druids don't advance science.

 

**Tell me about it, Carl.

***and one is not being made here to anyone familiar with the evidence

[hiflier]

10 minutes ago, DWA said:

If you're only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you.  You never learn anything...Every now and then a new idea turns out to  be on the mark, valid and wonderful.  If you're too resolutely and uncompromisingly skeptical, you're going to miss (or resent**) the transforming discoveries in science, and either way you will be obstructing understanding and progress. - Carl Sagan

 

Critics who assert negative claims but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics" often act as though they...have no burden of proof placed on them at all. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence...Showing [that] evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it...in far too many instances, the critic who makes a merely plausible argument for an artifact***closes the door on future research when proper science demands that this hypothesis of an artifact should also be tested... - Marcello Truzzi

 

[all emphasis mine]

 

As long as the above characterizes mainstream talk on this topic, the mainstream must be avoided.  Engagement only occurs to the extent the mainstream comes around to the common sense laid out above, and done.  Druids don't advance science.

 

**Tell me about it, Carl.

***and one is not being made here to anyone familiar with the evidence

 

Not on topic and off the mark......again. Harping the same points over and over only stagnate advancement here. Why do you persist? I've neer seen anyone so hell bent on stifling progress. Is there something you're not telling us?