———————————————————

1. There seems to be a significant body of evidence for a large, bipedal North American primate, the validity of much of which has not been assessed.

2. Such scientific tests as have been conducted on evidence presented have proven inconclusive. The significant possibility exists either (1) that all the evidence presented is the result of either fakery or mis-identification of known animals or (2) that the evidence points to the existence of the as-yet uncatalogued primate species.

3. More than one mainstream scientist has expressed the clear opinion that fakery and mis-identification cannot be considered reasonable explanations of all the evidence presented.

4. Assessment of the provenance of evidence such as footprints and hair of the alleged primate is necessarily limited by the absence of a type specimen for comparison.

5. A reasonable case therefore exists for the mounting of a significant field effort to capture more compelling evidence of the animal, such as bones, a body, or significant photographic and video documentation, such as to pave the way for further research eventually documenting the species’ existence if such evidence is found.

——————————-

I think this is reasonable. Because it is. Whether science can see its way clear to devote the time and effort (and money) is, of course, an entirely different matter.

But that doesn’t lessen the reasonableness of the case.

I don’t think it’s overreaching a bit to say that anyone who considers this bottom line unreasonable really, REALLY doesn’t want proof of the sasquatch’s existence to ever be found.

Why? Well I can think of some reasons. But for most of us, they aren’t reasonable.

Believers and Unbelievers: cut that out! This isn’t about belief. It’s about EVIDENCE.

Skeptics: evaluate the evidence.

Biscardi and Radford: birds of a feather.

Say hi to your supervisor for me.

THANK YOU! This is the point I have been trying to make! This is exactly why it’s important for people to look closely at the arguments that Meldrum, Fahrenbach, and others make about Bigfoot– as well as those by skeptics such as myself, Dennett, Daegling, and Crowley.

I ask all interested researchers to learn about what good science is, then see how well most Bigfoot research stacks up.

Sadly, this is rarely done. Instead, many posters here jump to the defense of Meldrum et al. without looking closely at their methodologies, and often without really reading the skeptical analyses and critics.

believers- get out there and find the evidence
unbelievers- go and do some science that you feel is valuable
me- go and write your thesis before your supervisor kicks your arse.

goodnight. sleep tight. hope the things-in-the-woods don’t bite.

And to refuse to argue on the grounds that you don’t have a common-sense proposition makes an ignoramus.

I made the point-blank assertion that you consider NO research into this animal to be good science, on the precise grounds that the animal is unconfirmed.

And you, well, just confirmed it. In the face of history’s very stacked deck proving the opposite.

Um hum. A true “Professional.” The research can be considered done. “Professionals,” as Mr. Krantz advised us all, carefully channel the horse down the avenue of continuing to chase its tail.

Exactly why THIS is a waste of MY time. But thanks for sharing.

If so, we shouldn’t pay any heed to such an argument- however, it doesn’t follow that we should therefore reject all their arguments. Whether they back an argument with a call to accept their authority or not, doesn’t affect the validity of that argument itself- it just means we should assess that argument itself (If they argue that claimed dermal ridges on footprints suggest sas is real- or whatever it is they argue- but then say at the end ‘and you should believe me i’m a scientist’, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t engage with the argument about dermal ridges).

Such an argument is as invalid as the argument from authority.

I didn’t really think you could have been making such a sneaky move; just wanted to make sure . But having said that, i don’t think you even need to appeal to the knowledge psychologists and policemen and so on, to get us to accept that eyewitness reports are potentially dubious. We all know that, and, indeed, I think all of us have stated it here.

So anyway, specifically;

I wasn’t reducing scientific experiment merely to reports of visual experience; what I was saying is that science intrinsically involves, and relies on, such reports (it is also much else besides).

Furthermore, I would like to suggest that while it is true that scientists do engage in peer-review, and do critique each other’s methodology (and jolly useful that is too), that doesn’t really engage with the point I was making- they still typically take the scientists word that the results he said he produced (and ‘saw’ for himself) just were those that actually transpired (that when he says the subject reacted in a particular way, that is what the subject did). Relatively rarely are experiments replicated (at least, not every scientist who accepts the truth of such reports replicates those experiments).

But, anyway, I think we are in danger of getting a bit sidetracked here- the arguments I have been making have generally been with regards to the fact that I took you to be arguing that, essentially, as eyewitness reports are inherently problematic (i.e. they can be mistaken) we cannot put any credence in them, and that, therefore they count for nothing in the search for sasquatch.

As you have explained that you do not dismiss the relevance of such evidence in an a priori manner, then I don’t think we have a disagreement (at least on points of principle). I think we can both accept that such reports carry different amounts of weight depending on the context of the report (e.g. the report of a well informed individuals under controlled conditions- i.e. a scientist in a lab- carries more weight than an ignorant individual under confounding conditions- a scared city kid lost in the woods in the middle of the night). As such we should also be able to agree that such reports should be assessed on a case-by-case basis (and that some bigfoot eyewitness reports constitute better- in the sense of more reliable, even if not more true- evidence than others e.g. the scared kid versus the independently confirmatory reports of several individuals who claimed to see sas in broad daylight).

In fact, I do not even think that we fundamentally disagree over where we should draw lines across this continuum. The evidence that proves sasquatch is, as i have said, going to be a body.

Eyewitness accounts are never going to prove anything, but they might point us in a certain direction (they are useful, therefore, as i have been trying to articulate, in the scientific investigation of the question of the existence of sas, even if they cannot count as evidence that answers this question- one way or the other).

If we could agree on these I think that would a good, constructive first step. I’d be interested to hear if you do have a problem with any of them.