Guest Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 There may not be definitive proof as of yet, so official recognition does not exist, but I do not believe skepticism, particularly as it is presented here, on an internet forum is representative of the "scientific community". Many scientist are quietly optimistic, and do not share the opinions we so often see here touted as the standard scientific view. All we see here are individual opinions,how qualified that opinion really is, is extremely subjective.(on both sides of the fence) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 pot meet kettle, you're argument is hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 note (on both sides of the fence) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 You didn't include yourself in that description, not the skeptic/proponent thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) I do not claim to speak for science or proponents, I do not claim any "standard", I simply state my opinion on occasion, and seek to understand. I don't claim I am a scientist, or make any claim to some sort of superior knowledge of it. When I really want an answer to a scientific question, I call a scientist. You might be surprised how often their answer differs from much of what we see on here. Edited March 14, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Well alrighty then, I gathered from previous posts that you talked frequently with your friends, the scientists. Then you come back here to quote their opinions. Which seems to be extremely subjective from where I'm sitting, I'm just saying........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I do talk to them frequently, when I hear someone post something I want to understand more, then I ask, so I can have a better grasp of what it all means, and yes,I often post what I learn here,because I like to promote understanding. A good example of that is when you yourself where mentioning primers on a few occasions, I contacted a friend of mine who is very knowledgeable when it comes to that sort of thing,and received a good explanation. So I shared it. Is there something wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Well alrighty then, I gathered from previous posts that you talked frequently with your friends, the scientists. Then you come back here to quote their opinions. Which seems to be extremely subjective from where I'm sitting, I'm just saying........ My My Jodie is there really something wrong with that. Wow Edited March 14, 2012 by will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I do talk to them frequently, when I hear someone post something I want to understand more, then I ask, so I can have a better grasp of what it all means, and yes,I often post what I learn here,because I like to promote understanding. A good example of that is when you yourself where mentioning primers on a few occasions, I contacted a friend of mine who is very knowledgeable when it comes to that sort of thing,and received a good explanation. So I shared it. Is there something wrong with that? Not at all, maybe your wording just rubbed me the wrong way when you said we were all subjective in our opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I don't think scientists want to proclaim bigfoot is real without proof, proof is what scientists want first before they publish. Is this some kind of revelation (and six plusses - Oh my!)? Why would you expect those engaged in seeking truth to proclaim something to be real without the proof to support the claim? Is this one of those "science wants proof but science won't look for it" sentiments? If so, it's long past time for bigfooters to abandon that old canard, because it's demonstrably false. This entire thread is ostensibly about a scientist (and not just one we're led to believe) looking for it. This notion that science won't engage bigfoot is a slap in the face to real scientists like Krantz, Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Bindernagle, etc. It's insulting to me too - I'm a real scientist, and I'm here every day looking for some piece of evidence I might have overlooked that would suggest there's something to this bigfoot stuff. We need to cowboy up and recognize that there is no anti-bigfoot bias in science. There is a vehement "anti-paltry/misleading evidence" bias, however. If Ketchum - or anyone - has decent evidence, then there will be no opposition to the recognition of bigfoot. Period. The evidence required is not extraordinary - it's actually the most ordinary evidence one could possibly require: a piece of a bigfoot. That's exactly the evidence required for describing and naming all the other creatures in the world. If anything, the mere suggestion of describing and naming bigfoot solely from a DNA signature is a relaxation of nomenclatural standards. If Ketchum's analysis leads to a formal recognition of bigfoot based just on the DNA, then that would be an example of science bending over backwards to accommodate the evidence, rather than the other way around as several have expressed in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CT Seeker Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I don't see clear DNA evidence demonstrated by many samples clearing peer review as "science bending over backwards" because science along with needing clear proof, won't in fact bend over backwards in an arena dealing with an unusual finding. Otherwise, I'd mostly agree with your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 DNA is science, and I do recognize that science is engaged in investigating bigfoots existence. I'm certainly not claiming otherwise, I do however claim that doubt can cause inaction. We have for the first time, a very comprehensive study on minimal bits of biological evidence, which wouldn't necessarily be sufficient to describe the creature it came from without DNA. I'm quite pleased about that, because it will generate not just one unique DNA sequence, but many from numerous individuals. Proving a population is better than one unique specimen. I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth like this sentence below Saskeptic. Is this some kind of revelation (and six plusses - Oh my!)? Why would you expect those engaged in seeking truth to proclaim something to be real without the proof to support the claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Well said, Saskeptic, and an early use of my "plus" for the day...... To be fair, SouthernYahoo, Saskeptic hasn't put those words in your mouth at all. Those are clearly his words, and not dressed up as anything else. Your words appear in the quotation box above the line you quote. Mike Edited March 14, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Sas, As always you make sense!!! If only I could plus from this dang iPhone ++++++++++++!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I don't see clear DNA evidence demonstrated by many samples clearing peer review as "science bending over backwards" . . . If Ketchum's paper is published in a reputable journal and if it describes a new species just from the DNA signature then this would be unprecedented. I'm not suggesting that DNA alone couldn't be used to describe a new species, only that this would be a case of the thing in the museum drawer labeled "bigfoot" would be an electrophoresis gel or a figure from the paper, rather than a bone or a piece of skin. In my experience that would be unprecedented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts