Guest Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 And back on topic we go.... While Dr.Ketchum's work on the 911 tragedy is commendable, it also is not Bigfoot related except in a very peripheral way. On the contrary, it's very much related. Any lab good enough to be consulted on such a major forensics case is more than qualified to work on suspected BF dna. And let us not forget, it isn't Ketchum's lab per se that is doing the work. The samples have been sent "blind" to multiple independent labs with Ketchum's operation serving as co-ordinator and clearinghouse. The lab chosen to process any alleged Bigfoot DNA was decided upon by the folks who wanted the work done. The issue of qualifications apparently wasn't a problem for them. It could be said in all, they have the right to engage the services of whomever they chose in a free-market situation. The question is reliability of result, grayjay. The Skeptics are trying to tear down Ketchum's qualifications in order to undermine the resulting evidence analysis. That can't be simply passed on the basis of "they have the right to engage the service of whomever..." The issue is too important to handwave that way.
Guest gershake Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 According to sources I deam credible, I believe it is. Yessssssss
indiefoot Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I wonder if all scientific papers and the scientists associated with them are put through this type of personal background investigation. I'm surprised any scientific progress takes place at all. I have concluded that "critical thinking" has two very different meanings depending on the context. 1
Guest parnassus Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Actually, most scientists go through multiple personal and professional screenings, as they are selected for university positions, not to mention professional licenses, training programs and educational programs, BBB etc. Most universities do background checks and informal google searches, and have ethics programs in place that regulate certain aspects of their financial conduct. Bad apples sometimes pop up but are generally caught by the transparency of the scientific process. Scientists are among the "cleanest" occupations.
Doc Holliday Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I wonder if all scientific papers and the scientists associated with them are put through this type of personal background investigation. I'm surprised any scientific progress takes place at all. I have concluded that "critical thinking" has two very different meanings depending on the context. i agree. would some guy doing analysis on any other material be subject to the same scrutiny? i'm not so sure they would be.critical indeed. perhaps ketchum is biding her time, or perhaps she sees the reaction w/ the BF crowd and thinks "Good Grief, whats wrong w/ some of these people?" idk.
Guest Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 So we can assume that Dr. Ketchum has already been subjected to enough investigation to more than suggest she is "clean"?
Doc Holliday Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 So we can assume that Dr. Ketchum has already been subjected to enough investigation to more than suggest she is "clean"? marks got a point. if parn is right with his post , then she has probably jumped through all the hoops required to establish herself as "clean "previous to this BF circus, or she wouldnt be in the field now.
Guest slimwitless Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 Actually, most scientists go through multiple personal and professional screenings, as they are selected for university positions, not to mention professional licenses, training programs and educational programs, BBB etc. Most universities do background checks and informal google searches, and have ethics programs in place that regulate certain aspects of their financial conduct. Bad apples sometimes pop up but are generally caught by the transparency of the scientific process. Scientists are among the "cleanest" occupations. So...would an unapologetic interest in Sasquatch affect a scientist's chances of landing a prestigious position?
Guest Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 Actually, most scientists go through multiple personal and professional screenings, as they are selected for university positions, not to mention professional licenses, training programs and educational programs, BBB etc. Most universities do background checks and informal google searches, and have ethics programs in place that regulate certain aspects of their financial conduct. Bad apples sometimes pop up but are generally caught by the transparency of the scientific process. Scientists are among the "cleanest" occupations. My original response got ate so reposting: I don't buy that for a minute. I've seen too many examples of scientists committing fraud to believe that, including: the British climatologists that got caught cooking their AGW data last year the so-called "peppered moth" experiment various cold fusion claims the Korean geneticist who claimed to be cloning humans
Guest parnassus Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 Dr. Ketchum is not a scientist. She is a vet and an entrepreneur. Furthermore, she is self-employed... she isnt being scrutinized for employment or promotion by universities or other employers. She is a smart person, and a professional, but is she is a self employed for profit businessperson (and one with a bad BBB rating.)
TimB Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 She received her Doctorate from Texas A+M in Veterinary Medicine. I think you're downplaying her scientific credentials. The fact that she's a successful business person shows that she has a common sense component to her intellect as well. I wish that the people who try to tear people down personally and professionally on this board would be subjected to the same scrutiny. Present company excluded of course... Tim B.
indiefoot Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 I would think she qualifies. A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.WIKIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
southernyahoo Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 Dr. Ketchum is not a scientist. I'm with indie, by what definition could you exclude Dr. K.? A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms. Dr. Ketchum IMO is in the perfect position to make this discovery, and I think most understand why.
bipedalist Posted August 1, 2011 BFF Patron Posted August 1, 2011 How could you be a veterinarian and NOT a scientist? They do internships, fieldwork in zoology in some cases, animal husbandry and are trained almost as if preparing to become a physician. The training speaks for itself.......scientist written all over her. Scientist entrepreneurs are a dime a dozen; and, some of the best scientists in the world in genomics, genetic engineering, etc. are in the private sector....and wait for it....they are top notch scientists. To throw in a professional vs. scientist vs. entrepreneur diversion is 'high straw' for sure. How about a thread on applied science next?
JDL Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) How could you be a veterinarian and NOT a scientist? They do internships, fieldwork in zoology in some cases, animal husbandry and are trained almost as if preparing to become a physician. The training speaks for itself.......scientist written all over her. Apparently there are scientists...., and then there are Scientists. Edited August 1, 2011 by JDL
Recommended Posts