——————————————

Indians from the Columbia River region of the north-western United States produced rock carvings that resembled the heads of apes. Anthropologist Grover Krantz (1982, p. 97) showed photographs of the heads to a number of scientists and noted: “Zoologists who did not know their source unanimously declared them to be representative of nonhuman, higher primates; those who knew the source insisted they must be something else!” Whatever the carvings may actually represent, Krantz’s findings are significant. Preconceptions seem to determine what scientists are prepared to see, and one thing most scientists are definitely not prepared to see is apelike creatures in the American Northwest.

———————–

Science is objective. But sometimes scientists aren’t.

Remember my assertion that, essentially, science is sightings, backed by degrees?

At least a couple people seem to agree. Read this.

I see what the problem is.

Ben really DOES cherrypick, doesn’t he.

He says this:

—————————————–

Finally DWA admits that he agrees with me!

He states that the passage, which includes:

“Sighting reports by themselves are not scientific evidence…”

“sums it up for him”

Excellent. Glad he finally came around to reality.

———————————-

On what point have I been in more consistent agreement with, I hope, everyone here, than on that point? Shoot. I PIONEERED that point.

Of COURSE sightings are not scientific evidence, Ben. Now read the REST of the paragraph!

And reading my posts is an indispensible aid to anyone who wishes to be carved up by m…sorry, to ARGUE with me.

I know Ben keeps hoping a sas will spend the night in some hillbilly’s truck and relieve him of the need to do any work. But we skeptics, we like to look at that evidence.

And DO something with it.

Along with the critical error of not understanding the scientific method.

But I’m sure now we’ll see another argument-from-authority post. Why, you can even hold your breath for it.

Some people, you just wonder when they’re gonna sniff the coffee. I’ve been with the reality camp forever now. I have faith Ben will join us someday.

But he cherrypicks, yet again, taking what he agrees with and disregarding the rest. Which of course you can’t do in science. You have to deal with all of it.

Ben should know that Realityville, from the scientific perspective, rests in understanding that THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH APPLIES.

Bigfoot sightings haven’t “failed.” (How does that happen? People fail, not sightings.) Indeed, they lead the way, if science would just follow.

Which science may not because of another cool quote: “Science is not about the search for evidence. Science is about the search for funding.”

That the money isn’t flowing that way yet doesn’t make the animal any less likely. The research? Well, yeah.

He states that the passage, which includes:

“Sighting reports by themselves are not scientific evidence…”

“sums it up for him”

Excellent. Glad he finally came around to reality.

The rest of the quote is “but they are what leads us to the scientific evidence.”

This is of course where Bigfoot sightings have clearly failed, as they have NOT led to scientific evidence.

I’d say “feel free,” but remember we now have Matt Moneymaker to contend with. He may come out with an edict that if you don’t swear to the authenticity of the KY Pancake House video, you can use nothing from the site, even with attribution.

So, instead I’ll say….use it while you can!

I found it on the BFRO website.

[pause for brickbats]

Don’t know what’s going on with the BFRO lately (and if the KY video is an indication, it is not so good). But to their credit (I think? Maybe they just stopped paying attention), their website – which I always recommend, with TBRC’s, to anyone wanting education on this topic – has remained largely intact. Whatever tangents some of their gang have gotten on do not mar what was put up on the site by people pretty competent to discuss this matter. Read.

——————————————

The use of subjective evaluation is what separates the legal perspective of witness testimony from the scientific perspective. Witness reports are considered “anecdotal evidence” by science, mainly because they are not testable. Yet many scientists are wise enough to understand that anecdotal evidence always precedes and leads to the collection of scientific evidence. In the history of science, scientific evidence has never been collected or even pursued until there has been enough anecdotal or indirect evidence at hand to merit an effort to collect the testable evidence. Thus without the collection and evaluation of anecdotal evidence or indirect evidence, there would be no scientific discoveries at all. This is the intrinsic relationship between the two types of evidence. Sighting reports by themselves are not scientific evidence, but they are what leads us to the scientific evidence. With respect to the pursuit of an unclassified species, the collecting of credible sighting reports is an essential part of the scientific process.
——————————————-

Sums it up for me.

Don’t know when this will happen. But barring dumb and undeserved luck, sightings will lead us to whatever-this-is.

I think it is important to talk about this openly and extendedly–it gives others things to think about as well as ourselves…what we believe and why…what constitutes evidence and what does not, because ultimately, it is an individual thing forged by each of us.

Thank you and goodnight!

SpringHeeled JAck