The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

It was the view of a dogmatic belief system; lack of knowledge; more so - a complete ignorance of contrary observations that conflicted with irrational beliefs. Plus, it wasn't centuries ago ...and it wasn't science trying to keep people stupid.

Come to Central Indiana where I grew up and the 'world' (all you know of it from there) IS certainly flat. In fact, having driven across Iowa, Nebraska and into Colorado, I'm convinced it's flat there too... until Denver. It's not until you remove yourself from the planet and gain a wider perspective that you finally grasp a 'world view'.

I'M very skeptical towards these statements !! where is the scientific data on this !!

[Guest]

Mulder,

For me, skeptical as I am, the door is still open to the existence of Bigfoot, if only slightly open. I agree that many folks, laymen and professional scientists alike, unfairly dismiss the possibility of Bigfoot's existence without further ado. I can see their reasoning, to a point --- negative evidence needs to be considered. But, there is a phenomena here that ought not be summarily dismissed.

That's more than some if not many would say...thank you for that.

Personally, I have more respect for the late Dr. Krantz than I do for Dr. Meldrum. Krantz was converted to Bigfoot advocacy by the evidence as he perceived it. Meldrum, like many Bigfoot believers including myself at one time, became a believer in his youth, prior to his formal studies in science. In this, he is like some "scientific" creationists who held firm unorthodox (relating to science) views in their youth and sought scientific credentials in order to present their unorthodoxies as gleaming with scientific understanding.

And you just lost the goodwill generated by your admission above. That is an unworthy statement, jerry, and you know that, or should know it. And it perfectly proves what I've been saying: Drs Meldrum, etc are being dismissed on the basis of what they "believe" or "have believed" without fair examination of their work.

And so it is with some journals, who Skeptics want to walk away from by tarring them with the "fringe" label rather than address the data they present (on whatever the topic of the day is).

Mulder,

You sourced a web site earlier that seemed to suggest human evolution was influenced by extraterrestrials mating with early Homos. You placed along with sources of current scientific understanding of human evolution.

Do you think this particular website is "fringe" and do you think it falls beneath the standards of a scientific approach?

I was citing them for the definition of H Sapiens Sapiens as human and didn't read any farther.

Even if they do claim that, does that make them wrong on the issue of the classification of Humans?

Furthermore, you are again exhibiting a variation of the "topic, not science" reaction that permeates the Skeptical community.

I may go back and look at that site further to see what their evidence is for their claim. Isn't that how objective science is supposed to work? Examining the evidence THEN making a decision rather than dismissing the claim w/o even examining it (as your dismissive attitude indicates)?

[southernyahoo]

No. not in the slightest. You could get the skeptics, or the scientists, to write a list now of all the science journals and place them in order from "most regarded" to "least regarded". That order won't change with the publication of the Ketchum report. I doubt whether any scientists are contributing to, or peer-reviewing for, journals which publish stuff on ghosts or UFO's or whatever. Their lack of credibility therefore isn't because of the subject matter, it is because there is no science involved.

There is a stubborness about your approach to this subject which verges on closed-minded, the very trait which you would abhor in a scientist. I say again, science is doing exactly what you ask of it, right this very minute, and all you need is a little more patience.

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

Mike

Mike I doubt that most skeptics would participate in that which I bolded. It would put them in a position where they would have to acknowledge that a particular journal is reputable and therfore forfeit that argument. I once challenged them to name a scientist that was reputable enough for them to accept an analysis favoring BF's existence, and never got an answer. Most replys were to the effect of " that isn't our problem".

[Guest]

I doubt whether any scientists are contributing to, or peer-reviewing for, journals which publish stuff on ghosts or UFO's or whatever. Their lack of credibility therefore isn't because of the subject matter, it is because there is no science involved.

oh really?

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc597.htm

here's a good example of a physicist who works on UFO topics

http://brumac.8k.com/bio.html

I won't hijack the topic further, but you really should research your response better.

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

Mike

You are right, and it is Skeptics who are refusing to see good work when published because the "wrong sort" of journals are publishing it.

If they want the "right sort" of journals to publish it, they'd better get busy getting them onboard TO publish these papers instead of ignoring/rejecting them because of their topic.

No, because of the quality of the science involved.

It will have a direct impact on where the results are published.

RayG

Circular reasoning fallacy. To wit: "Good" science is published in "reputable" journals. If it isn't published in a "reputatble" journal, then it isn't "good science".

possibilities:

There is no bigfoot and Ketchum's analysis is flawed.

There is bigfoot but Ketchum's analysis is flawed.

There is bigfoot and Ketchum's analysis is right-on.

In only one of those possibilities does a paper based on that analysis get published in a scientific journal.

It always amuses me when I post things about my own profession that people are so quick to dismiss/forget. Case in point, science advances more when an apple cart is upset than when more and more apples are added to it. We scientists live for the day that we can make some grand discovery, turning on its ear some idea or principle currently held to be true. I just had a co-author on a paper I'm about to submit tell me the other day that he feared the paper would not be published because it was "too confirmatory." In other words, it agrees too much with the mainstream thinking on this particular topic. This is the reality of science publication in 2012, and this reality is 180 degrees from comments I can find here pretty much daily. The "ivory tower," "gentlemen's club," and similar characterizations of scientists are outdated stereotypes, naive and driven more by Hollywood characters than anything I've experienced in my career.

If that were true, then Drs Kranz, Meldrum, Swindler, Schaller, and all the others would not be dismissed by the "scientific community" and would be taken seriously.

Since they aren't, we can only conclude that your statement about the biases of science is not accurate.

Mike I doubt that most skeptics would participate in that which I bolded. It would put them in a position where they would have to acknowledge that a particular journal is reputable and therfore forfeit that argument. I once challenged them to name a scientist that was reputable enough for them to accept an analysis favoring BF's existence, and never got an answer. Most replys were to the effect of " that isn't our problem".

Yep. And that's all they'll ever say, since otherwise they have to hoist themselves on their own petard.

[Guest Wookie73]

Why is it hard to understand that good science is published in good journals and bad science in fringe journals?

UFO's? really? Do you understand the complexity involved in traveling even extra solar system? Massive energy and time problems.

Stanton Friedman may be a physicist but that doesn't make his opinions on UFO's more valid than anyone else's.... (not to mention that if there was good scientific UFO evidence, a major journal WOULD publish it)

Did a scientist kick your puppy when you were a kid or something? Lots of anti-scientific rhetoric goin on.

[Guest]

Why is it hard to understand that good science is published in good journals and bad science in fringe journals?

Why is it so hard to understand that that is circular reasoning?

UFO's? really? Do you understand the complexity involved in traveling even extra solar system? Massive energy and time problems.

For us at our level of development, yes. For an advanced culture perhaps centuries or more older than ours, who knows?

Stanton Friedman may be a physicist but that doesn't make his opinions on UFO's more valid than anyone else's....

When he talks about the physics behind the pheonomion it certainly DOES make his opinion highly valid, as it's in his area of expertise, much as Dr Meldrum, Schaller, et al's opinions are highly relevant in the BF arena.

(not to mention that if there was good scientific UFO evidence, a major journal WOULD publish it)

And back to your circular reasoning.

Did a scientist kick your puppy when you were a kid or something? Lots of anti-scientific rhetoric goin on.

Hardly. It's not my fault that scientists are human with human prejudices that get reinforced by the orthodoxy of the scientific establishment. I applaud true scientists who objectively go where the facts lead them no matter how many applecarts are threatened as a result..

[Guest Wookie73]

It sounds like to me that you want scientists to spend their time studying "woo" stuff that has no evidence and include said woo in journals like Nature, regardless of their scientific validity because you like this stuff..... That isn't science. That's a belief system.

Present verifiable ,replicatable evidence for any of said woo, and you bet that a good journal would publish it. There's nothing circular in my reasoning of this. it just doesn't fit your little woo worldview so you dismiss it. In other words, you are doing exactly what you are accusing mainstream science of doing.

[Guest]

Case in point, science advances more when an apple cart is upset than when more and more apples are added to it. We scientists live for the day that we can make some grand discovery, turning on its ear some idea or principle currently held to be true.

Bindernagel's Discovery book echoes these sentiments completely but also explains the resistance in getting the evidence to be looked at without being discounted outright due to factors which he explains in detail. It is truly a fascinating book on the ideals and standards science should aspire to conform to and the reasons it often fails to.

[Guest]

If that were true, then Drs Kranz, Meldrum, Swindler, Schaller, and all the others would not be dismissed by the "scientific community" and would be taken seriously.

Since they aren't, we can only conclude that your statement about the biases of science is not accurate.

As usual Mulder, you continue to grind your anti-science axe to a nub while reality marshals on for the rest of the world to see. All four of the people you list are/were taken seriously. This can be seen by nothing more than the academic positions they obtained and held, but it is also reflected in these statements from their Wikipedia pages:

Swindler - "Swindler was generally acknowledged as a leading primate expert, having specialized in the study of fossilized teeth; his book An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy is a standard work in the field.^[2] According to Stein,^[3] His collection of primate tooth castings has been donated to New York University and is being digitally recorded in 3D for web use giving students all over the world access to the collection."

Schaller - "Schaller is recognized by many as the world's preeminent field biologist, studying wildlife throughout Africa, Asia and South America.^[1][5] . . . Schaller's conservation honors include National Geographic's Lifetime Achievement Award,^[4] a Guggenheim Fellowship,^[27] and the World Wildlife Fund's Gold Medal for: "Contributions to the understanding and conservation of endangered species".^[1] Schaller has also been awarded the International Cosmos Prize,^[11] the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement,^[28] and he was the first recipient of the Wildlife Conservation Society's Beebe Fellowship.^[27] Schaller's literary honors include The National Book Award (for The Serengeti Lion in 1973).^[29] In September 2008, Schaller was awarded the Indianapolis Prize for his work in animal conservation.^[30]"

Krantz - " . . . a professor of physical anthropology at Washington State University, perhaps most famous to the general public as one of the few scientists not only to research Bigfoot, but also to express his belief in the cryptid's existence. Throughout his professional career, Krantz authored more than 60 academic articles and 10 books on human evolution,^[1][2] and conducted field research in Europe, China, and Java.^[3][4]"

Meldrum - " . . . is an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. Meldrum is also Adjunct Professor of Occupational and Physical Therapy and Affiliate Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Idaho Museum of Natural History. Meldrum is an expert on foot morphology and locomotion in primates.^[1]"

Every one of those guys is/was well-respected in their fields and "taken seriously" by the "scientific community." Heck, one of those names is George frikkin' Schaller! But that doesn't mean that they haven't/didn't face criticisms in their careers for certain positions they held or statements they had made. No one is immune to that. I have intellectual "adversaries" (for lack of a better word) among my colleagues, but their critiques of some paper I've written or some area in which I do my work don't mean the scientific community dismisses me. If the latter were true, I wouldn't be allowed to keep this comfy chair in my cozy office, and I'd have trouble publishing anything from my lab. That's not the case for me, nor is/was it the case for Meldrum, Swindler, Schaller, and Krantz.

[Guest]

It sounds like to me that you want scientists to spend their time studying "woo" stuff that has no evidence and include said woo in journals like Nature, regardless of their scientific validity because you like this stuff..... That isn't science. That's a belief system.

Use of multiple perjoratives and catagoric dismissals noted.

Present verifiable ,replicatable evidence for any of said woo, and you bet that a good journal would publish it.

Because in the Skeptic worldview "good" journals publish "good" evidence, and if it isn't in a "good" journal then it's not good evidence.

Oh, and again with the weasel words ("verifiable", "replicatable").

Never mind the institutional resistance to publishing "fringe" material in "mainstream" journals.

There's nothing circular in my reasoning of this.

On the contrary, it is the essence of circular reasoning, but you refuse to see or admit it.

it just doesn't fit your little woo worldview so you dismiss it. In other words, you are doing exactly what you are accusing mainstream science of doing.

More perjoratives ("woo") and a poor attempt to turn the argument back on me when it is the failings, biases and blinders of institutional science that is at issue.

[Guest MikeG]

Oh, and again with the weasel words ("verifiable", "replicatable").

This is turning nonsensical.

What on earth in any way is weasel-worded about requiring evidence to be verifiable or replicable? If it isn't that, it isn't evidence.

Mike

[southernyahoo]

possibilities:

There is no bigfoot and Ketchum's analysis is flawed.

There is bigfoot but Ketchum's analysis is flawed.

There is bigfoot and Ketchum's analysis is right-on.

In only one of those possibilities does a paper based on that analysis get published in a scientific journal.

Well, unless all editors of said journals felt the same as you, then it wouldn't be published unless the analysis was accompanied by a complete specimen. In which case we'd be SOL if it were a new member of the genus homo.

The other possibility and 800 pound gorrila in the room, is that the true reality of what bigfoot is, is just too darn scary for most scientists to get involved with.

No scientists = no science= no validated evidence = perceived woo = Genuine evidence hangs in limbo.

[Guest MikeG]

No scientists = no science= no validated evidence = perceived woo = Genuine evidence hangs in limbo.

Patience = Melba Ketchum = science = validated evidence (if published in peer reviewed journal as expected) = wooless

Mike

[Bonehead74]

The other possibility and 800 pound gorrila in the room, is that the true reality of what bigfoot is, is just too darn scary for most scientists to get involved with.

This.

[indiefoot]

http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2011/10/ancient-marine-worm-tracks.html

Unless I am missing something the tracks in the above article are not verifiable, yet they are taken quite seriously. Their various tests and examinations can be verified and repeated. Now what if those same tracks were found in the soft mud off the Gulf Coast?

Proving the existence of a BF like animal/person would prove a great many powerful men and women embarrassingly full of hooey. They aren't apt to like that. Now those in various fields that have taken a more neutral stance or ignored the phenomenon completely will be in a better position to go forward with new information. Very similar to the stances taken on this discussion board.

Science, politics, and religion are all very similar, in my opinion, in their goals and methods for accumulating investment dollars.

As for Dr. Ketchums report, I assume she found out that she had to provide a mountain of results pointing to a new taxonomy listing before the findings became too big for the rug.