indiefoot Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Sure, but hair morphology in an of itself is far less reliable than DNA. I was refering to this. Perfect solution fallacy The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented. And, DNA analysis is far less reliable than a portion of a body, a portion of a body is less reliable than a whole body. Is the bar moving? What is the difference between skeptical analysis and looking for an excuse to reject evidence? Not meeting the bar of "proof" is not a logical reason to reject evidence, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 a whole body on a table for scientists to examine without restriction is proof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Is the bar moving? The only direction the bar has moved since Linnaeus is in favor of identifying new species from smaller and smaller pieces of material. The fact that we can even have a discussion about identifying a new species from its DNA signature illustrates this. I think I joined and started posting on BFF 1.0 in 2005, and I'm pretty sure that in my inaugural post I wrote something about needing a physical specimen to actually prove the existence of bigfoot and write a description of a new species. Where are you getting that I'm somehow moving the bar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Even scientists who are huge bigfoot proponents recognize the demand for a physical specimen... "I should reiterate my acknowledgment that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species." -- Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, page 273 (2006) "Science requires solid evidence for the existence of a new species -- footprints and sightings by local people are never enough. A "type specimen" must be obtained, which is then described in a scientific journal and continues to be available for other experts to examine." -- Dr. Grover Krantz, Big Footprints, page 3, (1992). RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Are you requiring only perfect solutions? Do you think one body will be enough? Part of a body will require a whole body, a skeleton won't be enough. Sorry, but this is an old canard. It's often used when we on the fence request photos, film, video, or any type of physical evidence. Horribly misquoting a line from an old Costner movie, Produce the evidence and the scientific world will come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 RayG, from a strictly "Zoological" perspective, I have no problem with the need of a type specimen, yet bigfoot makes large human tracks, thats an Anthropological issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 So you would disagree with Dr Meldrum and Dr Krantz? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 If bigfoot is an animal, no. If bigfoot is human, near-human, or a human hybrid, yes. A type specimen of a pygmy would be no more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 So you would disagree with Dr Meldrum and Dr Krantz? RayG I've already stated what I agree with and disagree with, I agree with JDL above. Krantz and Meldrum both being Anthropologists, won't change what bigfoot is, and it's DNA will tell. I do think that if the tracks Meldrum and Krantz have examined were found in fossilized substrate they would be considered as evidence of a giant form of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) A type specimen of a pygmy would be no more appropriate. Inappropriate (nay, revolting) as it certainly is, I haven't the least doubt that we've got just that in one of our museums or universities. Mike Edited February 14, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 "Thurston, what do you make of this crate of gigantic skulls I found in the back?" "Archibald, I have no idea what that dusty old junk is. Put it back before you get your labcoat dirty and come give me a hand with these preserved butterfly thoraxes. If we don't hurry we'll be late for the faculty mixer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I've already stated what I agree with and disagree with, I agree with JDL above. Krantz and Meldrum both being Anthropologists, won't change what bigfoot is, and it's DNA will tell. It sounds like you disagree with a type specimen being taken for emotional and not scientific reasons. It's not just skeptics calling for a type specimen, it's the very scientists that proponents hold up as bigfoot advocates. No one has suggested that a bullet is the only way to bring in a squatch either. Just to clarify, are you suggesting that science give bigfoot special treatment when it comes to taxonomy? That's certainly what it sounds like to me. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) It sounds like you disagree with a type specimen being taken for emotional and not scientific reasons. RayG No Ray, it's more philosophical than that. I would be more from the Peter Byrne camp than the Krantz camp. Edited February 14, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 It sounds like you disagree with a type specimen being taken for emotional and not scientific reasons. It's not just skeptics calling for a type specimen, it's the very scientists that proponents hold up as bigfoot advocates. No one has suggested that a bullet is the only way to bring in a squatch either. Just to clarify, are you suggesting that science give bigfoot special treatment when it comes to taxonomy? That's certainly what it sounds like to me. RayG I see it as an ethical matter. You don't take type specimens of humans or sentient near-humans or sentient human hybrids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Waynescod Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Too much evidence, too many pictures, too many crazy people running through the woods banging and screaming, It will only get worse for Bigfoot if somebody proves they exist. This should be our main concern! Enjoy their secrecy, walk quietly, and LEAVE THEM ALONE! Doesn't anyone here care about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts