southernyahoo Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 ^No argument you make can provide the necessary evidence to form a useful theory because there is no empirical evidence that meets any sort of rigorous standard when it comes to sasquatch. Therefore "the need to show that the theory is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation" is not even close to being met. You may successfully argue for a "Hypothesis" regarding sasquatch but that is pretty well meaningless as that hypothesis has been waiting for proper evidence which would bring it into the realm of a real theory for hundreds of years. New evidence may be found however that supports a theory or downright proves the whole thing. Wouldn't that be fun? italicized phrase was added during edit. It seems that theory and facts are getting confused. If I have a good video of a squatch woodknocking then my theory on woodknocking is no longer a theory, it's fact. If I move towards a woodknocker to see if it was a squatch then I'm testing the theory. If I see it ,shoot it, and collect a flesh sample (forwarded to a lab), then I'm testing my theory (and perception) that I actually shot one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) I just did a refresher on scientific hypotheses, theories, and premise...I think we are testing it all at once, as Transformer stated. That is fun! Edited March 2, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Must be next Thursday then I'm sure of it. I will stay home and wait on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I think everybody is getting confused about the meaning of the word "theory." The scientific meaning of that word does not mean the same thing as the popular meaning. In science a theory is "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena." A theory is not a guess; it's an observation, based on facts, that can make predictions, and is basically about as concrete as anything gets in science. So no, there aren't any bigfoot theories. People can make guesses about them, but that's it, since there are no known facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Here are some facts. Thousands of eye witness reports, from all walks of life. Thousands of tracks discovered, hundreds of them cast. Several examples of unknown hair. (This alone confirms, if nothing else,something that grows hair, even primate hair, is out there). Audio, some of the audio is very very intriguing. An abundance of video, albeit nothing real definitive,but plenty that is pretty darn interesting. Etc. So I ask,and not in a snippy way at all,BlurryMonster, you have no theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I was momentarily confused about theory in science, and still not sure how I would apply it to bigfoot. Are there theories about other animals for an example?, Or are these just factual observations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Theory, if I remember from my college research paper writing days, is not generally a topic for a research paper. Instead, we submit a "hypothesis" that is testable, then do the test and see whether our hypothesis is supported by the data and report our findings. Here is an excellent link discussing terminology: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml In the case of Dr. Ketchum's paper I don't believe she would be submitting a theory, but rather a testable hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) I think everybody is getting confused about the meaning of the word "theory." The scientific meaning of that word does not mean the same thing as the popular meaning. In science a theory is "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena." A theory is not a guess; it's an observation, based on facts, that can make predictions, and is basically about as concrete as anything gets in science. So no, there aren't any bigfoot theories. People can make guesses about them, but that's it, since there are no known facts. Theories have been proven wrong on many occasions. A theory does not have to be a fact, that kind of defeats the purpose of a theory, doesn't it? A theory is a process used to prove facts to my understanding. If something is considered a theory, it has not yet been proven fact. .There are no definitive facts about BF. There are plenty of theories that are being tested in the field many of which may be wrong. Many vocal and visual observations have been made of BF. Hair samples, vocalizations, tracks and eyewitness accounts of a species can be used and have been used to make observations of the species in questions, observations are required to make educated predictions, which can then be tested in theory. Edited March 3, 2012 by Caesar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 It seems that theory and facts are getting confused. If I have a good video of a squatch woodknocking then my theory on woodknocking is no longer a theory, it's fact. If I move towards a woodknocker to see if it was a squatch then I'm testing the theory. If I see it ,shoot it, and collect a flesh sample (forwarded to a lab), then I'm testing my theory (and perception) that I actually shot one. If you have a video of a sasquatch then it must first pass the test of it being a fact or a possiblity of a misidentification or hoax. Only if it can be decided that based on all the evidence that it is most likely a sasquatch can you then go about using it to test your theory about woodknocking. But first you must have the film and its subject verified as being a probable sasquatch,right? Theories have been proven wrong on many occasions. A theory does not have to be a fact, that kind of defeats the purpose of a theory, doesn't it? A theory is a process used to prove facts to my understanding. If something is considered a theory, it has not yet been proven fact. .There are no definitive facts about BF. There are plenty of theories that are being tested in the field many of which may be wrong. Many vocal and visual observations have been made of BF. Hair samples, vocalizations, tracks and eyewitness accounts of a species can be used and have been used to make observations of the species in questions, observations are required to make educated predictions, which can then be tested in theory. You are putting the cart before the horse I think. Facts are established by the best available vetting procedures at the time. You use those best available facts to form a theory. You do not go backwards and make a pronouncement and then go looking for facts to back it up. The reason why theories are being found to be false or not fit all the known facts are because the vetting procedures for the facts used to construct it may have been found to be lacking or wrong thereby making the facts wrong or NEW facts have come along that disprove the theory but do not necessarily invalidate all of the facts. There are actually no absolutes in real science and even though gravity is just a theory I do not think that many people would choose to dispute its existence because it is only a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I think we'll establish they actually exist first, then if I get that video, atleast I'll know it is real, and no different than some scientist getting video of a gorilla using a walking stick to gauge the depth of the water it is walking in. Other peoples opinion of it, won't matter. Could you imagine how insane primatologists would be if every video they take of their subject had to pass the cynical assumption test that it could be hoaxed, and all who were involved were implicit accomplices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Tracks being found are a fact, vocalizations are a fact, sightings are a fact, hair samples are a fact, these things happen in the real world, they can be observed and studied, they are facts. Compile these facts together and there are theories about BF. There is so little known about it that there are no definitive facts about the actual creature that many of us believe to be BF, but there are theories. It could be that all the facts researchers have compiled are wrong and there is some other logical explanation other then BF. I don't personally believe that. I guess we should start calling it the Big Bang Hypothesis now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 A comprehensive DNA study such as the Ketchum paper will decisively establish the nature of the Sasquatch. That means that in the future there will be little need for video. Instead, the priority is likely to become audio recordings of BF conversation to further enlarge the known vocabulary and syntax. The obvious goal will be to establish communication so that better relations can be maintained between BF and normal humans. Alleviating their misery and incidentally ours by teaching them sanitation, health practices and human customs will also be a communications subsequent goal if they have sufficient intelligence. They probably do have sufficient intelligence. Any hairy being living in the forest without toilet paper and soap and scissors is going to have inherent sanitary problems anyway. There is only so much that can be done to improve their situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Spurfoot I feel like you make a better argument them most as to how the human race may help BF if they are ever discovered. I don't necessarily agree with you though. Is it our place to say whether or not they are miserable. I find that some people in the most war torn, harshest countries in the world have been able to find more happiness in there lives then a lot of North Americans, even with all the comforts we enjoy. I don't personally believe our way of living is any better then BFs, or a lot of other mammals for that matter. It's all about perspective. No i'm not telling you to give up toilet paper, and if that's what your taking from this your missing the point. So what if they don't use toilet paper, scissors and soap, last time i checked humans are the only animals that do. Just because they are extremely elusive doesn't necessarily mean that they have the dexterity necessary to effectively use a tool such as a pair of scissors. I highly doubt domestication of BF will be possible, and if it was, to what end? Would our race seek to in slave this species? Maybe train them as a new bread of soldier? Do you really think the human race would do everything it could to help this creature, I'm one who believes a lot of humans would do everything in there power to hurt it. An extremely strong, bipedal, highly intelligent, domesticated creature would be very valuable to a lot of people in a lot of ways. Edited March 3, 2012 by Caesar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I can think of several nations that reportedly have populations that would be more likely to exploit them as weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Now your talking Bigfoot Army that would be awesome!!! That's my plan if I get my hands on some biggie DNA clone em up and take over the world...... Oh perhaps I've said to much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts