Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FuriousGeorge

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest spurfoot

Cervelo, I always previously heard that as a knock-knock joke.

Knock-Knock

Who's there ?

Ether.

Ether who ?

Ether bunny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...