Guest BFSleuth Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I think Mulder's point has always been that the institutional dogma , is a resistance to a paradigm shift. I think you are correct, but I'll certainly let Mulder speak for himself. Yes, I do believe as well that the institution of Science, almost by definition, is supposed to resist paradigm shifts. Only when enough significant, peer reviewed evidence becomes available should the "body Science" consider a new paradigm. I think the point that Dr. Meldrum and others have made is also very valid, and I think Mulder has championed this concept, that while there hasn't been enoughevidence to effect a paradigm shift yet, there is enough evidence to warrant further serious investigation by scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I think Mulder's point has always been that the institutional dogma , is a resistance to a paradigm shift. They don't come easily in science A paradigm shift should not come easily because, by definition, there should have been an abundance of excellent science done to build the paradigm in the first place. . . . but perhaps proving it exists also proves so many people wrong that it becomes an embarrasment to boot. Proving bigfoot exists would require a piece of a bigfoot (any tissue sample will do) that can be proven to be from a bigfoot. (As far as I'm concerned, phylogenetic analysis of a tissue sample that pointed unambiguously to a non-Homo sapiens hominin in North America would do that.) Throughout the entire history of native people on this continent (i.e., artifacts from those cultures), in the entirety of the North American fossil record, through centuries of exploration, development, and dominion from Caucasian settlers, no single scrap of a bigfoot has been recovered. (Many are alleged; none have been shown to be authentic.) So who should be "embarrassed" by proof of a bigfoot if it was to materialize today? What would be the paradigm shift involved here? Would it simply be that we had to stop ignoring the witnesses and pretending that nothing exists as an extant hominid that we can't call Homo sapiens sapiens? I don't understand the second question, but I'll address the first. To me, the paradigm shift that I see people like Mulder calling for is the recognition of a species for which insufficient physical data exist to do so. Approximately 1.3 million species have been described to-date, and for every one of those there is (or was) a voucher specimen somewhere in a museum. I have never understood the relaxation of the standards of taxonomy that some people think should be applied in the case of bigfoot. If you are thinking of a potential paradigm shift in our knowledge of human evolution, I'm not sure a living hominin bigfoot in North America would bring about a paradigm shift in our understanding. It would be really cool and give anthropologists a lot to write about , but I don't think it would represent such a radical departure from how we understand things right now. It would be a hominin that did two unexpected things - dispersed to the Nearctic and survived to the present time. The far more baffling thing would be how it did that without leaving a trace of its existence. That's the part that we'd really have difficulty explaining and would require a paradigm shift. How would you, Saskeptic, recommend dealing with such a thing as a conservationist who would have to consider how to categorize this creature as either an animal with animal rights, or a human with human rights? Would this be a consideration for the institution of science where the truth can be told regardless of it's impact or would this be left to law makers who may not understand the philosophical dilemma? Okay, well I am a conservationist and deal everyday with problems of animals limited by the amount, fragmentation, and degradation of the habitats on which they depend. People write here all the time that the anecdotal accounts are the main source of their belief in bigfoot. If some of those accounts are actually true - as they would be insinuated to be if bigfoot was proven to exist - then we can draw some basic inferences about the general life history of bigfoots in North America: 1) They have a continent-wide distribution in temperate North America. 2) They generally inhabit forested environments. 3) They are generally larger and heavier than humans and likely omnivorous. Ecologically, this would make bigfoots rather similar to the American black bear. As forests have recovered and expanded following widespread clearing in the 19th and 20th centuries, black bears are increasing in population and reclaiming former range. Bears, however, get struck by cars when they cross highways, shot when they raid livestock or attack people, and are taken during legal and illegal hunting every year. Bigfoots face none of those risks. So bigfoot would appear to me to be a species for which the abundance of resources fueling the expansion of bears would also be a benefit, but for which there was zero risk associated with expanding in population and coming in closer contact with humans. In short, as a conservationist, I see no justification for "bigfoot" as a conservation concern at all. They do not appear to be "endangered" in any way, they have no reliance on a particular habitat type that is threatened or dwindling, and we can't even so much and get a decent photograph of one - let alone present a threat to them through mortal means. If there's a real bigfoot, it matters not whether it's a "human" or an "animal." It's not endangered. Even if it could be demonstrated that bigfoots were "people" and we entered into some kind of treaty with Canada to treat them as an aboriginal people with whom we would officially pledge to avoid contact, how would we enforce that? According to the "witnesses", bigfoot contacts us. Whether public or private land, it doesn't matter. If bigfoots are real, then we're already interacting with them which would make the situation altogether different from that of, for example, the Brazilian government trying to keep modern cultures from contaminating some of their most isolated tribes. I can't see proof of bigfoot affecting our daily lives one way or another, except to promote the wonder of discovery of a new species. I see no downside - for anyone - of a bigfoot discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 ^ A most cogent and and insightful post, Saskeptic. I would that I could give you multiple +1's for that. I whole heartedly agree with your statement, "A paradigm shift should not come easily because, by definition, there should have been an abundance of excellent science done to build the paradigm in the first place." This is the way of scientific advance. Create a theory and hypotheses, test them, and build on a body of understanding. When anomalous findings come along then these are often overlooked until a new theory or hypotheses comes along to incorporate the anomalies into a new paradigm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I gave it a +1 as well, although I disagree a little. I think you may be assuming that paradigm shifts are achieved through facts alone. Throughout the history of mankind, they also have been achieved many, many times through repetitional blathering. That's my goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 The only real paradigm is "if they were there we would know" and that sounds less like science than attitude. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 A paradigm shift should not come easily because, by definition, there should have been an abundance of excellent science done to build the paradigm in the first place. If you are thinking of a potential paradigm shift in our knowledge of human evolution, I'm not sure a living hominin bigfoot in North America would bring about a paradigm shift in our understanding. It would be really cool and give anthropologists a lot to write about , but I don't think it would represent such a radical departure from how we understand things right now. It would be a hominin that did two unexpected things - dispersed to the Nearctic and survived to the present time. The far more baffling thing would be how it did that without leaving a trace of its existence. That's the part that we'd really have difficulty explaining and would require a paradigm shift. The paradigm shift would likely be how we interpret the supposed non-existent trace. We don't know that we don't have trace, we only know that recent homind trace is assigned to modern sapiens, because thats the paradigm. Authentication of such would not have been necessarily automatic given that we didn't know what we could ascribe to another extant homind prior to examinations of Neanderthals and other ancient hominids along with their artifacts and DNA. Archeological sites are limited to those "not" containing human remains because of the Repatriation Act. I'm not sure we could unearth a scpecimen of a new species of "human" without it falling under that act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 If Repatriation is the issue, then the paradigm shift you seek is political, not scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Politics could sure get in the way of science if that's what bigfoot is and we were looking for bones. Fortunately, not all remains or trace are bones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Thought I'd post, just to keep it going Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Imagine if her Facebook page was still around. People would be questioning her like crazy and all she could say is "soon". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Precisely that is the case. https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum?ref=ts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Well, as I've said before, I hope DR. K has the goods but the situation has been really mishandled from a PR perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Yeah that looks like the Facebook page of a scientist that has the most earth shattering and ground breaking discovery in science of the last 200 years right in her hip pocket. I guess it's too much to ask for just a tidbit, a hint or maybe even some kind of coded cryptographic message inviting her "followers" to decode it for the answer at this point. I'm hoping something comes from the British fellas or the Russians. That's where it's gonna come from the soonest, IN MY OPINION anyway. Nalajr Well, as I've said before, I hope DR. K has the goods but the situation has been really mishandled from a PR perspective. It could be viewed that way OR it just as easily could be viewed as though she has NOTHING and never has and this has gotten into something that she vastly over promised and couldn't deliver on and now she doesn't know how to get out with a graceful exit. Isn't that an equally plausible explanation for the set of circumstances at hand? Nalajr Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Nalajr, that's exactly what I'm thinking. This sudden silence makes me think she's trying to fade into the background. I find it odd that when Sykes declared his study Ketchum pulled the Facebook page and gone quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Imagine if her Facebook page was still around. People would be questioning her like crazy and all she could say is "soon". Sounds like your saying, she's drop her facebook page. As it is, her facebook page is still around. Just left there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts