cryptidsrus- Ok, I see what you’re saying. I’m amused myself at how many vastly differing results could be derived from one sample. Are you sure the researchers in the Dranginis case made a final decision rather than a provisional one, though? DNA can be corrupted, degraded, and the sample can be contaminated, which can all affect the test results. However in such a case as that, where the results are not so clear, I would think that most researchers would tentatively suggest what they are fairly sure it might be rather than making a concrete claim. So “probably” or “likely” the hair of a dog rather than “It IS” the hair of a dog. I agree, no firm stand should be made until things are absolutely sure, such as in the case you mentioned. If that is what they did, shame on them.

Anyway, thanks for the compliment! I guess what you said here didn’t really need my long responses, but I love to try and share what I know when I can. (and can be long winded about it, I know.)

Thanks for the post. I totally agree with what you’re saying. What I was saying (sorry if I did not get my point across) was that when one gets contradictory information about a sample brought in by somebody, like Dranginis’s sample, people are still willing to “jump on the bandwagon” and assign an identity to something that has not been fully determined yet. Instead of saying it is a “llama,” or “dog,” how about just saying it is unknown? In no way that means it is Ol’ Hairy. That’s all I’m saying.

The remark was basically aimed at “debunkers” who, when shown something that is not readily identifiable, go ahead and say “well, it’s this and this.”

“We can’t prove that it is Bigfoot, but we can’t prove what it is at all, either, so it is was probably an otter.”

I agree with you again that I did not make myself clear. Sorry about that.

You and DWA rock.

Actually, I’m not remembering a specific instance, mystery_man.

But you may be sure it’s right on the tip of my tongue for whenever that conversation about “what is science?” comes up. Maybe I move in the wrong circles.

Truth (Pluto, the Ninth Planet; coelacanth, a 65-million-year-old fossil) is ALWAYS provisional, always ready to be modified by what we NOW know. (African elephant? Two, maybe three species, let’s see here. Eastern coyote, check. Eastern cougar, maybe next).

But you have to start there. Or else, “unknown” is, well, ghosts, orbs, dimensional shifting, time travel, and all that other stuff science has no time for because of everything there still is to follow up.

ANOTHER mouse lemur? Right on it!

I’ve made a comment before that you liked and I will repeat it here for cryptidsrus. Basically what I said was that science is a series of provisional truths (the known) which are amended as new information is uncovered. (DWA, did you ever use that comment, by the way?) It is through paradigms, evidence, what we know, that we pursue this new information and the unknown passes into the realm of the known, thereby increasing our understanding of the world. Without looking at what is known, the concrete, we cannot really build upon our knowledge.

So we uncover evidence, look into it, and use that to pursue research that can supplement our previous assumptions. In order to do that, we need evidence to start with, without which we cannot even begin to start a course of pursuing new knowledge (the unknown). For example in this case with the Yeti, we can start by looking at these hairs carefully, comparing them with other animals, through which we might come to the demonstrable conclusion that there is something strange out there that needs to be confirmed through yet more investigation. But all further investigation flows from what came before, the “known”. Do you see what I mean? Changes to what we know comes in steps, with careful, scientific research, consideration, and rejection or assimilation of the incoming facts before moving on.

This is one of the foundations of science. I think in many ways, jumping to look at the unknown without a foundation and forming conclusions without evidence to justify them is the exact opposite of what science does.

cryptidsrus: if this is “an unknown creature,” then there is no way, ever, to prove it exists, short of a specimen. Something needs to be put before science that will compel science to take a hard look. The only way something like hair will interest science is if scientists are satisfied that it is (a) genuine hair, and (b) demonstrably, i.e., to their satisfaction, shown to come from nothing known to exist.

In order to show (b), you have to compare it to the things known to be, and show that, even though it’s genuine animal hair (the first thing you have to prove, for which you need the characteristics of known animal hair as your reference), it isn’t any of them.

Science has to work within the framework of the known; that’s the foundation on which knowledge is built. If there’s no foundation, science doesn’t pursue, which is why we don’t pour billions into following up, say, alien abductions.

First, if the hair does not match up to any known creature, then it is more likely from an unknown source and this points more to the actual existence of a cryptid. So in this case, it could be seen as a process of elimination. If through comparison it is not the hair of a creature known to inhabit the area (and not from a buffalo rug:) ), then it follows that we are probably looking at something new.

Second of all, even an unknown creature is going to have some basis in the natural world as we know it; evolutionary connections, patterns, adaptations, certain paradigms that it is going to fit into. Unless it is a complete one-off freak of nature, a cryptid is likely going to have some sort of basis in what we know of other animals’ physiology, ecology, and evolution. By comparing with the “known”, we can perhaps better understand were this “unknown” might fit into to what we know about life on Earth.

Third, we have procedures for dealing with the known, ways to test it, techniques built on scientific research that has been done before, a foundation if you will. If we had to start from scratch on every scientific experiment every single time, we would never get anywhere. So we use past research to guide us and this by definition deals with the “known”. This research will further be amended as we uncover new information, but for now they are using ways of identifying based on proven techniques.

Does this help you see why it is important to test against the known? If this is not what you meant, I apologize. I’m just trying to illustrate what I see as the basis of what they are doing.

Not required.

All you need is:

1. It’s not too abundant.
2. It’s so much a part of local culture that natives don’t make much of it (as the Sherpas don’t of the yeti).
3. If you say you’ve seen one to a scientist, and you aren’t yourself a scientist, you aren’t taken seriously. (If you are a scientist, suddenly you aren’t to be taken so seriously.)

All you need. Case in point: the sasquatch. (OK, 2. may not apply, except for those small towns in which everyone either has seen one, or knows someone who has).