“Let’s get this business about belief straight. The believers are the scientists, they’re the ones who are clinging to a belief. The people who think that there are Sasquatches are the ones who are investigating – the ones who have become convinced on evidence. The scientists are the ones going on pure faith and don’t actually know much about it and make darn sure they don’t know anything about it.” – John Green
“Belief is the providence of religion, and believing has more to do with faith than science. I accept or deny the evidence, the patterns of reports, the eyewitness testimony, and those investigations inform me as to whether or not I feel this is an event, a hidden animal, and/or a cryptid of interest to cryptozoology.” – Loren Coleman
The following what written by T. Peter Park in 2004:
As one leading contemporary Fortean, the cryptozoologist Loren Coleman, has stressed, “pursuers of the unknown, Forteans all, believe in nonbelief” (Loren Coleman, Mysterious America [New York: Paraview Press, 2001], “Some Concluding Thoughts After Some Years on the Trail,” p. 289). An “open-minded attitude to the many unexplained situations,” he
feels, is “the stock and trade of the Fortean.”
Coleman and his fellow cryptozoologists can “accept concrete answers, actual flesh and blood critters as the foundation to monster accounts.” However, he adds, “a psychological answer may be at work with some of
these accounts, and the rational conventional undiscovered animal answer may not be viable for all reports.” He sees “room enough to consider many possibilities.” However, he emphasizes that as a cryptozoologist he does not “believe” in monsters. Cryptozoology, he reiterates, is “not about ‘belief.’” Believing is “the realm of religion,” but “cryptozoology, like all sciences,” is “about gathering the data and evidence to develop trends, patterns, and evidence which lead to hard facts and discoveries” (Coleman, Mysterious America, p. 289).
Thus, Coleman suggests on the one hand that quite probably “some monsters in America are chimpanzee-like dryopithecines,” “some cats and maned lions are relict populations” of Panthera atrox, and “some lake monsters are unknown long-necked seals.” However, he feels that there is also “room” in his “cosmic jokebox” for “teleporting alligators, Dover Demons,” and “phantom clowns that imitate UFO’s in all aspects but flight.” (Coleman, Mysterious America, p. 289)….He professes himself “not afraid to say ‘I don’t know.’” (Coleman, Mysterious America, p. 289).
(From T. Peter Park’s long essay, “Forteanism and Experience Anomalies.”)
Aren’t we, in essence, in agreement with the so-called “Skeptics”?
I’m afraid that I can’t wholly accept your statement that “belief is the providence of religion.” There are many things that I and many other people “believe in” that are not a part of a religious belief system. I believe my wife and children when they say they love me, even though such an emotion cannot be measured. I believe that if I leave my shirt off on a spring day before I’ve had a chance to tan I’ll get a sun burn. If someone sees just one sasquatch, that person will automatically believe that there are more, if someone finds a new frog in New York, people who hear of the discovery will believe that it is real, even though they may never see said frog. I believe in radioactivity, in gamma and cosmic rays even though I cannot feel or see them. I believe there were glaciers which covered the Northern hemisphere, even though they were gone long before I was born. I’m certain that, with all the evidence you have collected that you ‘believe’ in sasquatch even though you may never have seen one personally.
Belief is not merely the provenance of religion. It is the provenance of the human mind to believe in those things that we cannot or will never see while trusting to others whom we find trustworthy to share their experiences that we may never have had or ever have. If we don’t have belief in our lives then we can only ‘believe’ in those things we personally have seen, touched, tasted. smelled, heard. And to not believe in some of those things we can’t see, etc. will not only impoverish our lives, it can shorten them considerably. Or have you never gotten a vaccination, which you can only ‘believe’ does any good at all.
Loren,
This isn’t just an issue with cryptozology. It’s apparent in a number of disciplines. Most notably climate science -whatever ones views on that are. Faith based belief from the public is one thing. But we see it there as well – on both sides of the argument at times. The sad part is that the media reinforces it. The Red Deer cave people story (wonderful read) you have published today is a case in point. The forensic “mockups” of what these fossils looked like is taken as “evidence” by the media, the public and some less scientific academics. Yet they are merely reasonable guesses. Flesh doesn’t fossilize, neither does fur. The species *could* have been covered head to foot and looked more like this:
http://www.themandus.org/
The above link is an excellent book, if you’ve not read it. Certainly outside of the box, not necessarily correct but certainly worthy of consideration.
bigfoots/graybear:
You “believe” all those things you “believe” based on evidence.
Believing in something means accepting it without evidence.
Speaking of true believers: if that craggy guy up there is James Randi, yep, he’s pretty amazing, and a true believer in a number of things.
I think too many people confuse the term ‘belief’. To believe is to accept on faith. To accept without evidence for or in spite of evidence against.
When I say “I believe there is an unknown primate in North America, often called Bigfoot” I am not taking that on faith, or despite evidence that shows no such animal exists. I am using my logic and rationale to weigh through what evidence there is and come to a conclusion. I may be right, I may be wrong, but the fact that I accept and understand that I may be wrong is pretty much the opposite of faith/true believer.
To fall under “True Believer” replace the word ‘belief’ in any sentence with ‘know’.
Such As:
I KNOW there is a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow.
I KNOW the crocoduck is real.
I KNOW there is a God(s).
I KNOW unicorns live in Wales.
I KNOW how the Universe came into existence.
There is no independent evidence for any of these statements, (lots of hypotheses and oral traditions but not evidence) therefore if you Know/Believe them you are a “True Believer”.
If you can replace ‘belief’ with ‘think’ in any of the above sentences and understand evidence may prove you right or wrong, AND be able to change your opinions in light of new evidence then you are not a “True Believer”.
It is true that we all “believe” many things in the conventional sense of the word. But, in almost all cases, we believe those things because of the evidence we have in our everyday existence. The believers that Loren and James Randi are talking about are those people unwilling to change their views as evidence comes in and new theories are developed.
Really, the better term here would be that we “accept” or “know” rather than believe. For example, I know a rock will fall to the ground if I drop it because I have seen it happen consistently. I do not “believe” that gravity makes it fall. Rather, I accept that gravity makes it fall because that is the best explanation given all the facts. It is possible that microscopic hummingbirds push rocks to the ground. But, until I see some evidence to the contrary, gravity remains the best explanation and the one I accept. The same goes for evolution via natural selection. In the absence of verifiable evidence to the contrary, I accept evolution as the basis for speciation.
So, at present, I do not accept that bigfoot (and that’s the plural) exist because there is no credible verifiable evidence to support the proposition (meaning a sample). But, there are hints and clues and credible people who “believe” they saw a bigfoot because that is what their personal experience tells them. That’s fine and those people can hold that belief in the face of contrary evidence. But, all that does, for me at least, is create an interest in having trained, credentialed, experts in the field trying to figure out whether there are such creatures out there.
Being willing to change your views on the basis of new evidence is what distinguishes science from belief. If someone drags a bigfoot out of the woods, no scientist will say it does not exist. On the other hand, every day thousand of people are willing to declare that bigfoot do exist on nothing more than one good piece of film and a collection of anomalies including blobsquatch photos, ambiguous howls, “tree knocks” of unknown origin, and eye witness testimony. I think it is interesting that Dr. Meldrum, an apparently reputable scientist, focuses on footprint evidence because that is, so far, the most tangible, verifiable evidence that can be subject to review by credentialed, reputable peers. That’s science.
Larry:
Science is also understanding that eyewitness accounts are evidence and must be treated in that light, if they possess frequency (lots of people are reporting) and coherence (what they are reporting is consistent).
One does not have to be convinced the sasquatch is real by the evidence. But the volume and depth of it – including the many guidebook-consistent eyewitness accounts, over a long period of time, by both Native and European observers, of an animal that Meldrum considers a plausible maker of the tracks – makes the sasquatch the leader among the competing theories, because it is the only one backed by a large, consistent volume of evidence.
Skeptics – read Randi up there – don’t understand this. They think there is no evidence because there is no proof, and they think that nothing is evidence that is not proof. (Jurisprudence, at the very least, disputes them.) If you put it to them this way, they may say, duh, or something to that effect. But their statements show what they believe.
Or should I say, believe IN.
(If you tell me you saw a unicorn, I will ask you to direct me to the Unicorn Database. Until you show me lots of people are seeing them, you have one tale.)
DWA: I am with you up to a point. I agree that the eye witness accounts, along with the footprints provide enough “evidence” to make further inquiry worth while. They do not, in and of themselves, do anything more than that. There have been many cases of people “seeing” things for which there is no other evidence. That consistent and voluminous data does not add up to something that can be accepted as fact. I’m thinking mainly of UFO’s, but ghosts, psychics and supernatural demons are in the same category. Are we really supposed to accept that ghosts exist because lots of people claim to have seen them and some have even taken pictures allegedly showing ghosts? Given everything else we know about how the universe works, I don’t think consistent and numerous reports add up to anything. The bigfoot question is much more grounded in science: there is one tantalizing piece of footage and numerous apparent footprints. Unlike ghosts or UFO’s the laws of physics don’t rule out an undisclosed big primate in North America. So, it’s worth a look.
Larry:
You’re saying exactly what I think.
The volume and consistency of the evidence add up to something science should consider worth a further look.
Proof? No.
But science sneering at the evidence because it isn’t proof? Unwarranted.
The only difference between proof and evidence is that science accepts the former.
I could argue that for the paranormal stuff you state, the consistency really isn’t there. “I saw the ghost of Andrew Jackson” is a waaay different thing from hundreds of eyewitnesses describing an animal, from scratch, with no reference point (and most don’t have one).
WinterIsComing:
“Saying that science is understanding that eyewitness accounts are evidence is just …well its wrong…that has nothing to do with science. If it can’t be tested or demonstrated and reproduced than it isn’t scientific evidence. You can’t say that listening to peoples eyewitness accounts uses the scientific method.”
That’s the skeptical misconception: that if it isn’t proof, it isn’t evidence.
Of course sightings are evidence. And sightings put a testable premise in front of the scientist: go there, and look, and you will find this.
Reproducible means nothing if science won’t touch the evidence, but just sneers without reviewing it.
“Listening to eyewitness accounts” is not accepting them as real. It’s reviewing them for volume and consistency, and for whether a further look is warranted. If every able-bodied clear-eyed man and woman in a town has seen something, and described it consistently, I’d have to consider something wroing with a scientist who would simply insist that they are wrong. I’d feel the same way given the thousands of accounts that there are, their extraordinary consistency, and their squaring with track finds.
I would, in fact, consider that scientist to be a True Believer In the Mundane.
Blowing off a notion without reviewing the evidence is not science. It’s scoffing, which is Believing In something in the extreme.
I think this would fall under the ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I agree we won’t find anything if we don’t bother to look.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, I can also see the scientists point of view. Due to the, let’s be kind and call them ‘showmen’, antics within the Bigfoot Community over the past 40+ years it is nearly impossible to take any claims of sightings seriously. This in no way reflects on the sincerely of the witnesses (who run the gamut from seasoned outdoors men to woodland novices to interesting folk who hand out garlic to large furry bipeds) or the veracity of the reports. The sad truth is for most researchers and scientist Bigfoot is tainted and until we get rid of that point of view very few scientists will ever look at it seriously. (the notable exceptions currently being Dr. Meldrum and Dr Ketchum)
This, quite frankly, sucks. But when grants are harder to find then hen’s teeth, many scientists can’t take the risk of being painted with the ‘kook’ brush. Outside of the mentioned Drs Meldrum and Ketchum, our best bet for actually finding indisputable proof rests solely on the shoulders of private researchers and someone like the late Steve Irwin. You need a charismatic, educated person to lure the public back into the ‘Hey, look at this! They can’t all be wrong, they can’t all be seeing things. Something is out here and it is our duty to find and protect it.’ Currently I don’t see a person like that on the horizon. And as amusing and entertaining as these Bigfoot as the boogie man movies are, they don’t help the situation.
flame821:
“I think this would fall under the ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I agree we won’t find anything if we don’t bother to look.”
I have always had a problem with the “extraordinary” part of that statement. Claims require evidence. The fossil record is full of enough like the sasquatch that it’s not really THAT extraordinary. When lots of people say they are seeing something; it’s consistent; there is no good discernible motive for them to lie nor any clear evidence that they were impaired; and the species we are talking about is the animal kingdom’s preeminent observer…well, you don’t have to take it as proof. But you can’t explain to me why anyone should laugh at it.
Scientists should let the need for open enquiry overrule their urge to “be experts” and pronounce when they don’t know. It actually undermines my confidence in what they say.
Our ability and willingness to avoid seeing something we don’t want to see is what’s extraordinary. But there’s lots of extraordinary evidence of that.
” Due to the, let’s be kind and call them ’showmen’, antics within the Bigfoot Community over the past 40+ years it is nearly impossible to take any claims of sightings seriously.”
Not really. Not for me. The sightings, as I have said many times here, stand totally apart from the antics. I’ve read them, and I’ve talked to people who claim sightings and vouch for the scientific validity of the overall evidence. The sideshow is just that, a sideshow that I ignore except to laugh at it. If you see two kids in a zebra costume at the school play, is that evidence against the zebra? Same exact thing from a logical standpoint. I frequently hear the counter “but zebras are known to exist,” which is irrelevant. Sasquatch sightings describe something so far removed from the antics as to be easily separated from them. One knows this if one has read them, and I doubt anyone on this site has read more than me.
But actually, you agree with me: “This in no way reflects on the sincerely of the witnesses (who run the gamut from seasoned outdoors men to woodland novices to interesting folk who hand out garlic to large furry bipeds) or the veracity of the reports.”
Precisely. I cut the antics (and consider the ‘interesting folk’ part of the antics until they show me otherwise) adrift and let them float. It’s the sincerity, veracity and integrity of the witnesses I care about. Once again, one cannot take them as proof. But one can certainly consider them part and parcel of the enormous pile of evidence – more than has been accumulated for any phenomenon in human history that remains unproven.
And I know no one with my level of exposure to the evidence who disagrees.
Your point about scientists considering the subject tainted has merit. But really, scientists should know better than to go off half-cocked on a topic, or to pronounce on it without reviewing the evidence – something that too few of them do before spouting. It’s easy for me to toss the junk. Should be easier for a scientist, wouldn’t you think? Well, apparently not.
(I’d add John Bindernagel, Daris Swindler and John Mionczynski, at least, to the “notable exceptions.” Ketchum? Junk.)
bigfoots:
“its kind of funny because in court eye-witness testimony is golden…
but it seems like any eye witness testimony outside of the realm of a court room it is just merely scoffed at..”
Exactly.
The scientific attitude toward cryptid sighting reports means – no, it does – that jurisprudence’s attitude toward eyewitness testimony, as powerful a weapon as there is in a courtroom, is laughably, no, dangerously, deranged.
Period. Exact logical parallel.
And I should have added, bigfoots:
Or…it means that science is, in terms of the harm done to the integrity of the discipline, disastrously wrong.
semillama:
“The problem with the sightings are evidence argument is that it needs to be clear what sightings are evidence OF – Sasquatch? no.”
Then when I say I can place the murderer at the scene, because I watched the murder happen, you just laugh and tell me to go home, because all that is is evidence THAT I SAW something, like, um, a MURDER?
No you don’t. You call me in; and the appearance of lil’ ol’ me, just me, causes everyone on the defense table to sweat through their suits, and for the defendant to start imagining, hard, what a lethal injection feels like.
It isn’t proof; but o boy.
In other words: my testimony is evidence that the defendant committed murder.
Sightings of sasquatch are testimony to sasquatch.
Or we are killing people over trash.
“I will argue that sightings are important as a step in gathering actual scientific evidence that hopefully will result in the documentation of a new species. but on their own, even as a group, they cannot be taken as evidence of the existence of the species. ”
Um, you contradict yourself. There is a simple quick easy way to say your quote straight through the word “species.” And that is:
Sightings are evidence that the species exists. WHY IN THE WORLD! would it count as a step otherwise?
Right? Thank you.
Once again, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND PROOF!
(Science accepts the latter. Only difference.)
WinterIsComing:
You are still confusing evidence and proof!
“I wasn’t saying to sneer at all eyewitness accounts and write them off as nut jobs…but they aren’t evidence of anything..”
In other words: sneer at them and write them off as nut jobs. Same EXACT thing.
“And saying eyewitness accounts is golden is crap too…”
Then, why would you say they’re golden? Pray tell. I sure don’t. “Golden” is tantamount to proof. Did I say they were proof? No.
But nothing else short of proof gives you a better idea where the proof might be.
We are near-flawless observers. (Think of your average day, negotiated almost totally with your eyes. Think of everyone else’s. Same thing.)
When we say we see something, and there is no good reason to believe we are lying, and no good motive for us to lie, then it is irrational to presume that.
Saying that sightings are not evidence? Presuming that. Period.
Actually, in a court of law, eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
(http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html)
But disregarding the whole eyewitness angle, (for the sake of argument) I do feel the need to defend the scientist who are afraid to risk their reputations and careers to publicly lend their voices to the possibility that Bigfoot is real.
While you understand the nuances between many sightings and have a good idea of what passes the sniff test regarding witnesses the public, in general, does not. So all they get is the sound byte that ‘Dr _____ believes in Bigfoot’ and what comes to their minds? Blobsquatch photos and videos? Jokers with huge wooden feet strapped to their boots? The misinformation that the P-G Film was a proven hoax? Biscardi, Finding Bigfoot, that facebook group that sees Bigfoot in every photo and comes up with the most amazing analysis of details (I want their monitors, cuz obviously they have some cutting edge stuff in that office). And when they are proven wrong they never seem to issue a correction, let alone learn from their mistakes. (I half think they’re trolling the community)
While most of us on this sight realize that those examples are nothing more than idiots, tricksters and misinformation the public in general does not. Now, PERHAPS if science was better funded it wouldn’t matter so much, but when you have only your reputation to bring to the table as you fight for grants and funding in order to perform research many scientists cannot afford to take such a huge risk. Not to mention the finite money is being divided between cures for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers and diabetes vs renewable energy sources vs rumored bipedal primate in North America, where do you think the money is going to go? I wish politics and money didn’t play into science or medicine as much as it does but wishing doesn’t do us any good.
My hat goes off to the scientists and researchers who are putting their money, time and reputations on the line to keep plugging away at this research. I know you think Ketchum is a lost cause but, if by some chance, the DNA analysis can show that something unknown is out there our chances of getting funding have just increased dramatically. Whereas if it doesn’t show much of anything we haven’t really lost a lot from our current position.
Although I absolutely agree with your opinion regarding dismissing the subject out of hand. Most scientists know better than to do such a thing, they will normally respond with “I don’t have detailed knowledge on that subject” or “I haven’t really given it any thought” or the ever popular “That’s not my area of expertise” rather than simply stating something is bunk without evidence to back that opinion up.
“It doesn’t do science any good to just say something is real with no reason to accept it and if people want cryptozoology to be taken seriously instead of being seen as a joke than there need to be less people taking it on blind faith and more people being skeptical, because if you already assume it to be true, then you are more likely to see everything presented as sufficient evidence.”
Somewhere in there I’ll see where you disagree with me.
Nope.
But for people to stop looking at crypto as a joke, cryptos better start understanding how to look at evidence.
If science worked according to the murder rule, the sasquatch would be real.
THERE IS ZERO – ZERO – evidence for the skeptical fringe’s belief in the nonexistence of sasquatch. And it’s not because “you can’t prove a negative.” It is because there is a mountain of evidence the skeptical fringe has done nothing to debunk. If you can’t debunk it, it stands for someone to review and tell the rest of us what it is. When you ask a skeptic why sasquatch isn’t real, he ASKS QUESTIONS.
(Where are the bodies? Why hasn’t anybody shot one? Why hasn’t anyone hit one with a vehicle?)
WRONG! YOU BACK A SCIENTIFIC POSITION WITH EVIDENCE, not questions! If you haven’t done your homework, don’t be so dang obvious about it!
To say “that could have been a man in a suit” and presume that is true ain’t science, people. What is your evidence?
Eyewitness testimony has been the great discoverer in scientific history. One goes nowhere without it.
To say otherwise is to profess ignorance of the history of science.
flame821:
Well, you’re right about the unreliability of witness testimony…mainly because of all the reasons witnesses are motivated to misrepresent what they saw. Payola; eagerness to please; eagerness to incriminate; eagerness to protect; intimidation of witness; nervousness…etc. etc. etc. I’m not sure what reason there would be for someone to come out and say they saw something the world laughs at, other than that they saw it. There are very very few sighting reports I have read that bear a chance the witness was innocently mistaken. Dangerously deranged, maybe; lying like a rug, maybe. But if neither of those…doubtful. And I just don’t think a significant minority of them, much less all of them, are crazy people or liars. Possible; but I wouldn’t bet a real coin on it. And I’d give a plug nickel only under duress.
Your other points may be well taken. But that is no excuse for the scientific community to quash interest and curiosity among its members. It’s a violence done to science that needs to stop. No one should be afraid to say “this appears legitimate; it’s had legs too long. Maybe we should be encouraging more research rather than laughing at people spending their own time and money pushing frontiers.”
THAT’S science.
Technically sightings by people are anecdotal as all humans are subjective to greater and lesser degrees. -although the more unrelated witnesses in one area reporting the same thing does add a great deal of credence to any sighting.
Just for the sake of argument, think of how our cultures, race, and gender influence how we see the world, how we relay information and how we ‘hear/process’ data. Heck, consider the difference between how Western men and women see and process colours, which tends to go well beyond the gender differences of rods and cones in the eye. Or how Eastern vs Western Cultures see and describe the same photo.
Photographs, videos, etc. would be considered evidence. -once proven to not be hoaxes, honest misidentifications or other known animals
Hair, blood, scat and foot prints with proper forensic testing would be considered evidence.
A physical specimen, living or dead, would be considered the Holy Grail of evidence.
@DWA
I don’t think most of us on this sight disagree with many of your points. I think we just don’t give the same weight to data that you have. You seem to have had a person experience with this subject that reinforces what you ‘know’ to be true. Most of us have not so we have only the raw data before us.
Many of us feel the data is compelling and deserves a closer look but we also understand that the field is so polluted with hoaxers and showmen that it is ridiculously hard to get anyone with scientific clout to their names to take the time to really delve into the subject. And that’s not even taking into consideration the time and financial issues. We all regret and lament this situation but we know we have to find better evidence, gather more data, become almost cynical in our evaluation of the latest blobsquatch clip on YouTube, because we have to. If it can’t pass our basic evaluation, it certainly won’t pass closer scrutiny.
Mr. Coleman has made a career out of Cryptozoology, Mr Woolheater has been involved in this field for (I think) at least 2 decades. How many times have they come across a photo, footprint or video that didn’t give them second thoughts? How many have been posted on this site that haven’t gotten shot down as hoaxer or misidentifications?
I think this is where the ‘True Believer’ statement in the post came from. You will always have extreme outliers in any group. Some will never believe (flat earth, moon landing was fake) no matter what proof you give them. Some will believe anything that their ‘gut’ tells them is real (little winged faeries, inner Earth). Both of these groups are the ‘True Believers’.
Most of us lie in that big area of the middle, perhaps leaning a bit to one side or the other. Ideally that is where all the scientists and researchers should be too, but people being people, they don’t often do what they ‘should’ they do what they want.
WinterIsComing:
“ev·i·dence :that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
proof: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.”
You just defined “proof.” Twice.
flame821:
“…the more unrelated witnesses in one area reporting the same thing does add a great deal of credence to any sighting.”
The sighting reports to which this support applies are legion.
“You seem to have had a person experience with this subject that reinforces what you ‘know’ to be true. Most of us have not so we have only the raw data before us. ”
Actually, no. But I have the raw data. I’ve read it. Too many gloss over the sightings who haven’t read sighting reports. I’ve read tons. They are evidence, as strong as the footprints. (Hint: John Bindernagel.) That isn’t an opinion. But if you haven’t read them, you wouldn’t know that.
One cannot enter a scientific debate ignorant of the evidence. The reason the crypto discusson doesn’t sound like a scientific debate is that neither side is armed. OH, sorry. The cryptos are; but they can’t find the ammunition that they themselves have compiled.
Here’s the deal: cryptos are being massacred by the James Randi types, people who essentially do just what he says is wrong in his Bold Framed Quote up there. The reason? Cryptos by and large don’t understand the difference between evidence and proof, any more than Randi does.
The evidence massacre is overwhelmingly in favor of the cryptos, but they fail to understand this, and are getting “out-argued” by people who have no argument. You think I’m wrong? Why isn’t science on the sasquatch beat? The skeptics. That’s why. They just ask questions. And the cryptos answer with: they are the most elusive thing ever (they aren’t); they bury their dead (evidence?); they are In League With Saucer People (oh, OK). You ever notice how the skeptic fringe never argues with Meldrum? They can’t. They lack the chops. But they don’t have to, because people who don’t understand how to look at this lump Meldrum and Bindernagel (whom few proponents have read) in with Georgia Boys. They turn to the proponent fringe, and simply use those people’s own beliefs against them.
Sightings are evidence. NOT an opinion.
And until cryptozoology understands how to (1) work together and (2) use evidence…well, a sasquatch could come to your door every day for sugar, and science will never know.
And cryptozoology will never become science.
RSR! (Ask. Someone will tell you.)
Next thread.
OK.
I’m back.
I had to answer this from WinterIsComing.
“The default position on this topic has to be bigfoot isn’t real until proven…otherwise it’s just blind faith. ”
That’s wrong. There IS NO DEFAULT POSITION on something that is not proven to exist. That “default position” is Believing In Something, in other words, blind faith. Judgment in science is always suspended until proof is accepted.
Faunal models of North America don’t say “disbelieve that bigfoot nonsense, it ain’t real.” They don’t address bigfoot (or Tyrannosaurus rex, outside of its status as a fossil; or little green men from Mars) at all.
One of the great mysteries on this board is how so many seem to think that one of the board’s outspoken skeptics is a proponent of the sasquatch.
Um, that would be me. I am a SKEPTIC. It’s just that folks here are so used to arguing with people who call themselves skeptics while having blind faith in stuff – like Randi up there – that they don’t know true skepticism when they run across it.
Skeptics question every comfortable assumption. Including the blind faith that this sucker ain’t real. We question with evidence. Is the sasquatch real? You tell me. But the evidence says, very clearly, that science should be finding out.
Again. If you don’t think the encounter literature is evidence as strong as one can get short of proof (learn the difference), you simply haven’t read it.
“Finding Bigfoot” is trash. The truly exciting stuff, most in this discussion never see. Including, one is tempted to think sometiimes, the clowns on that show.
And it’s THEIR DATA. (Count on it: they couldn’t make that stuff up. Doubt me? Watch “Finding Bigfoot” once. Shoot, all I have to do is come here for my FB, and I know that.)
Sharon Hill recently said that while BFRO is careful and systematic, they fall well short of scientific. She’s right; and I rarely agree with the skeptic fringe. BFRO has an excellent tool for pulling together the accounts of eyewitnesses. How to exploit that data for scientific breakthrough? Uh, er, not so much.
I’ve heard more than once that the eyewitnesses are the most compelling moments of FB. Wonder why?
We’re the nonpareil witnesses in nature. Why would we pick this to uniiformly screw up?
If you’re curious, you should wonder about that.
And if you’re curious: you never have a “default position” backed by no evidence.
Because – on topic! – a scientist can’t believe in anything.