TimB Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 There are standards in zoological nomenclature such as the ICZN that maintain lists of recognized species. If a species does not appear on that list then, by definition, "science" does not recognize it. Bigfoot is not on the list. Thank you for responding with a definition. So what do we do with phenomena that there is evidence for but is not contained in the ICZN? Does "Science" turn it's collective blind eye to the unknown? How, then, does "Science" grow? There has to be a component to "Science" that is legitimate in "Science's" eye without being confirmed. Tim B.
Guest Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Science "grows" when scientists, e.g., Melba Ketchum, Grover Krantz, Jeff Meldrum, John Bindernagle, Henner Fahrenbach, etc. conduct research and publish it in the scientific literature. There's a 113-page thread on the BFF describing one such attempt to do just that.
southernyahoo Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 I think the length of time involved in this study is indicative of how resistant science is to the existence of Bigfoot and a true test for DNA as a standard for acceptance. The subject is untouchable without biological proof, even though many other forms of evidence that could support the notion that they exist are well within the realm of science to study. It's just been a dangerous limb to venture out on without the premise fully established.
TimB Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Science "grows" when scientists, e.g., Melba Ketchum, Grover Krantz, Jeff Meldrum, John Bindernagle, Henner Fahrenbach, etc. conduct research and publish it in the scientific literature. There's a 113-page thread on the BFF describing one such attempt to do just that. My argument is that "Science" is the process before the paper as well. "Science" grows with each attempt to explain- regardless of success or failure. Papers don't magically appear and there is plenty of "Science" involved in new discoveries as well. "Science" doesn't discourage exploring the unknown. People proclaiming themselves as the mouth piece/arbiter of "Science" do. It's western European societal standards that make this process adversarial. Then "Science" suffers. Tim B.
Guest Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 I'd argue that "adversarial" standards - e.g., being forced to demonstrate something to the satisfaction of a body of scholars - is essential to the advancement of science.
Drew Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 The process before the paper is accepted, falls into the realm of properly preparing for those adversarial standards. The adversarial standards will not be met, if you don't properly word your hypothesis, collect your data, store your data, and present your data. If you don't set up the parameters properly, you will not even need to submit your findings.
TimB Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 The aspect of the adversarial process I was thinking of was the personal vendetta certain aspects of "Science" take upon themselves. There's a difference between diligence and self-appointed vigilantism. Here's a theoretical example- diligence is showing up to a research site and verifying the results of anyone that makes a potential discovery. Vigilantism, on the other hand, is showing up with a bowie knife saying you are getting DNA evidence one way or another. Theoretically of course. Tim B.
indiefoot Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 I guess what confuses me is the talk of lofty standards of proof before coming to conclusions on the one hand and the ad hom attacks based on flimsy gossip on the other. I guess science also gets to choose what standards they require for various conclusions.
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Tim, In order to avoid this concept from either party when constructing a model, they made laws. This is my basis for arguing with anybody here, no matter what side they are on, proponent/skeptic. I see nobody wants to stoop to this level because I guess it get's a little flashy after a while, so fine, I'll do it...........scientific method
Guest spurfoot Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Cervelo, I always previously heard that as a knock-knock joke. Knock-Knock Who's there ? Ether. Ether who ? Ether bunny.
Guest Cervelo Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Could be! I like it Couldn't decide on that or a "Ground Hog Day" vid LOL
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Only 2 days till the weekly ketchum lottery!
TimB Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Tim, In order to avoid this concept from either party when constructing a model, they made laws. This is my basis for arguing with anybody here, no matter what side they are on, proponent/skeptic. I see nobody wants to stoop to this level because I guess it get's a little flashy after a while, so fine, I'll do it...........scientific method I have always appreciated that you "stayed on task," Georgie. I wish we all would. Some people get SO personally invested, then spend their time going after the poster instead of the validity of the subject. Tim B.
Guest Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Reminds me of the Clovis vs Pre-Clovis debate; Clovis has been widely accepted for so long that even good evidence for Pre-Clovis is dismissed almost before examination by other archaeologists.
Recommended Posts