Is Bigfoot “Bad” Science?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on May 22nd, 2007
In the post here on Cryptomundo regarding Ben Radford’s review of Jeff Meldrum’s book, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, Ben mentions his having just returned from Pocatello, and the fact that he met with Meldrum.
Here are some additional details of that meeting published last week in the Idaho State Journal.
Is bigfoot “bad” science?
POCATELLO – The editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Benjamin Radford, worries valuable research dollars are being wasted on topics such as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs and little green men.
Radford is convinced such researchers damage the name of science by studying fiction and calling it fact.
But Jeff Meldrum, a leading expert on Bigfoot and an associate professor of anthropology and anatomy at Idaho State University, takes exception to Radford’s label for his work – “bad science.”
The skeptic and the believer traded arguments Thursday night at the Pond Student Union ballroom after Radford concluded a speech delving into the harm that can be done when impostors are treated as the equals of scientists by the public.
About 50 people attended the speech, organized by ISU biology staff members and others.
Radford said he’s seen far too many people dedicate their lives to unworthy causes, only to retire after unfulfilled careers.
“It’s not what’s possible, it’s what’s probable,” Radford said during his 45-minute talk. “These things deal with empirical questions. Either it is or it is not. Either Bigfoot exists, or he does not exist.”
Radford noted many people believe in ghosts, aliens and other natural phenomena because they often misunderstand what science is. They consider personal anecdotes to be evidence which supports their claims supporting the existence of monsters and UFOs.
However, these stories cannot be taken seriously because people don’t take scientific considerations into account, such as control groups, validity, or the scientific method, Radford argued.
But Meldrum sees no reason why anecdotes should be so easily dismissed. Many Sasquatch sightings and stories have been reported by knowledgeable and experienced experts, such as forest rangers, veterinarians and wildlife biologists.
Regardless of the reported sightings, Radford claims that the evidence for Bigfoot is no better now than it was five, ten, or even 50 years ago.
Sasquatch enthusiasts argue that better evidence would exist if there were more money and more opportunity for research, Radford said.
“Research should follow good evidence and not the other way around,” Radford said.
Last year, Radford came to the Bigfoot conference at Idaho State University hoping to see new evidence, but instead found that a film from 1967 was still being analyzed as one of the most supporting pieces of evidence.
Another supposedly new piece of evidence was that of a body print found in the woods believed to have been left by a Bigfoot. Radford believes that the print could just as easily have been left by a kneeling elk.
Responding during the question-and-answer session of the speech, Meldrum asked Radford what constituted evidence to him. Radford answered that evidence should be tangible and testable. There have been no Bigfoot bones found or anything more concrete than an ambiguous print in mud, the skeptic said.
Even the 1967 film offers evidence to Meldrum. Every time the film is studied, Meldrum said something new comes up.
Furthermore, he said he and other scientists have compared the Bigfoot print – he notes it was actually found in clay – with a print from a kneeling elk.
They didn’t match.
When the elk print was made, Meldrum said Radford asked to see it but was denied access due to his lack of expertise.
Meldrum notes his research on Bigfoot is just one facet of his larger research at ISU. His main emphases are human locomotion and bipedalism.
If Bigfoot does exist, Meldrum said it would help humans to learn more about themselves, as well as the North American ape.
And if it doesn’t exist?
Meldrum still feels that his studies will have had a purpose – helping to prove that Bigfoot doesn’t exist is worthwhile, in his estimation, too.
Whether Bigfoot is real or not, and whether it is “bad” science or “good” science, the legendary creature is still leaving footprints on today’s scientific world. – Idaho State Journal
May 18, 2007
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
“I am open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists; you are certain that it exists.
Therefore, my friend, it is you who is closed-minded, as you are not open to the possibility that Bigfoot does not exist.”
Talk about word contortions. Ben, ya gotta loosen your belt a little more. I’m glad you are open to the possibility that bigfoot exists, that is a good step, but it really does require more then just saying it. I really do wish you could experience seeing one Ben. Then frankly your life as you know it would change forever. I wish I knew the secret to help you accomplish this but you seem to be such a long ways from getting there.
DWA- I suppose that is a good point about this being not a squabble so much as a learning experience of some kind. I for one definitely come away from these debates with a thing or two to think about from all sides of the fence. I guess I am a bit more patient than some of the others here, aren’t I? I suppose it comes from me having been a hard core denialist at one time and because of that Ben doesn’t seem to be really so bad as people think in comparison to the way I was. You would have hated me back in those days! 🙂
I can see what you mean about Mr. Radford not changing his views, but a lot of people in this field are guilty of precisely the same thing. I wish that instead of railing against each other, there could be some way to reach an agreement on what constitutes good evidence and good research, that way we could get on with the search. I know that is probably a pipe dream, but one can hope. Steadfast denialism will not help that cause and neither will holding on to any assumptions or poor scientific methods that may not be accurate. I for one am interested in ways that the current research methods may not be up to scratch and so I am somewhat interested in what Mr. Radford has to say, regardless of whether I agree or not. I in no way mean to speak for him and I am not trying to defend his position, but I tend to see Mr. Radford as just wanting Bigfoot research to meet some sort of standard that isn’t being reached, whether this is actually the case or not, and this suggests to me an interest in finding an answer to the phenomena rather than denying it. So in that respect, I don’t think discussions with him are totally unsalvageable. There has to be some approach where the mystery can be discussed in a constructive way.
I know that you, things-in-the-woods, myself, and others here are skeptics, and these are the opinions that I value around here. Mr. Radford’s ideas may at times be very critical, but I think that there certainly areas of Bigfoot research that are lacking and are susceptible to poor scientific practices, so I don’t mind if they are pointed out by someone for our consideration. It will only make the research stronger in the end if we can correct any of these possible missteps, and so I welcome anyone’s skeptical criticism.
I have no problem acknowledging that the lack of undeniable physical evidence after so much time spent is discouraging but, as you and some other posters here surely think, there may be reasons why other than “Bigfoot doesn’t exist”. In my opinion, considering all of the hard to explain circumstantial evidence, it seems at least likely enough to warrant further investigation. I say let’s make sure that investigation is done right.
“Talk about word contortions. Ben, ya gotta loosen your belt a little more.”
This is not a weird contortion at all; I think if you think about it for a minute, you will see the elegant logic. It’s crystal clear to me.
No one knows for certain what Bigfoot is, yet you claim to have seen something that fits that description. You are 100% certain that you could not have been mistaken.
You are certain that whatever you saw was Bigfoot, that it is impossible that you were wrong. That is closed-minded.
“I really do wish you could experience seeing one Ben.”
Me too. I’d love to see one.
Not only have we now TWO classic Radfordisms.
I’ve been paid one of the best compliments I ever have on this site!
I’m gonna step back here, as Ben slides from scoftic to ninny, and let the man be his own commentary.
But since I’ve been told many times that one of my specialties is giving good advice, my advice is that you might want to step back a bit, Ben. In previous threads, I had to hand it to you. You sidestepped and danced around and didn’t-say stuff and sent people on wild goose chases and threadjacked and had some credulous people – right after you insulted them, pretty much to their cyberfaces – actually complimenting you on being so NICE to them and such a thoughtful skeptic!
And now, well, um….go get dressed, man. I think all the effort finally caught up with you. I knew that the cycle of the more sense I made the less you thought I made would be a problem for you eventually. Maybe we’re there.
Remember, man. For all my incisive and illuminating commentary, I’m just a dude having fun on the internet. You have a CAREER invested in this. You NEED people to take you as seriously as they take me.
OK, more proof our resident scoftic is coming unglued.
“Jeff and others determined that it could not be any known animal (and said so in an ISU press release). That’s a pretty strong conclusion, and I hope that those who came to that conclusion will look objectively at the analysis and admit if they were wrong.”
Let’s parse. These scientists did science on the evidence, came to strong conclusions, beyond Ben’s ability to criticize, and now they’re supposed to look objectively at the objective analysis they made and admit THAT (what Ben really meant) they were wrong. On Ben’s say-so (what Ben really meant).
No, Ben. Scientists have done their science. YOU debunk it.
You can’t.
And keep in mind that this isn’t a piece of evidence I and many others conversant on this topic even care about, one way or the other.
If that’s stumping you, we won’t even bother you with the good stuff.
I recently suggested Ben was arrogant and dismissive.
I then felt bad about it.
I read some of the stuff mystery_man and Kathy wrote about how hard we all are on Ben, and felt even worse about saying it.
Then Ben posted this;
“It’s weird, whenever DWA posts something, it’s all blurry.
Like in the Peanuts TV specials, when the teacher talks and it sounds like “wah wah wahhh…” maybe my brain just knows from past experience that nothing sensible will be contained in the message, so it blocks it out.”
Ben may think BF researchers damage science (and, who knows maybe they do), but if people like Ben are the ambassadors of rationality then we might as well all give up.
Things-in-the-woods- You are right, that comment was a bit uncalled for, wasn’t it? I missed it at first and then noticed it when you mentioned it. It is definitely out of line, and this kind of flaring booby traps any good points Ben might make.
Yep, you got me. Even I get tired of it.
I just get tired of wasting my time with anonymous critics like DWA who don’t bother to read or understand others’ arguments. He says stupid and uninformed (yes, I wrote stupid, because that’s what it is) things like that all evidence is unverifiable anecdote.
And things like “These scientists did science on the evidence, came to strong conclusions, beyond Ben’s ability to criticize”…
Really? Exactly what “science” did Meldrum et al. do on the Skookum cast? The cast was so contaminated, by their own admission, that there was little forensic evidence. They looked at ambigious imprints in mud; that’s hard science?
Maybe you’d feel the same if you were in my position, having to clarify and re-explain to people like that. But you’re not.
One further little thing-
I agree that its a bad show that Meldrum didn’t let Ben have a look at the skookum cast. I can see no good reason why Ben shouldn’t be allowed to see it.
My question is; to what end does Ben want to see it? Is Ben now an expert in Elk biomorphology? Ben criticises Meldrum as being unqualified to talk about claimed BF footprint evidence. He also criticises Meldrum for drawing on the work of scientists acting outside their speciality.
What does Ben think he would have been able to contribute there?
Of course, its possible Ben just wanted to take a look at it out of curiosity. Fair enough. But then Meldrum’s refusal to let him see it is perhaps impolite, and petty, but hardly any impediment to the application of science.
(Or perhaps it’s just that Meldrum realised that even if he did show it to Ben, Ben would need further ‘scientific’ confirmation that it did exist- after all, we all know how unreliable peoples perception is… 😉 )
Ben, your career is a waste of time. (Hey. We AGREE.)
Try sas research. You might actually get somewhere, like MultipleEncounters, who’s gonna feel a whole lot better than you when he sees the fruits of his labor.
Heck, he already has. How’s your gig working?
“He says stupid and uninformed (yes, I wrote stupid, because that’s what it is) things like that all evidence is unverifiable anecdote.”
Never said that, intimated it, nor thought it. Because it IS stupid. Man, yer wheels are comin’ off.
If you would just try a new tact – like listening, brush up on that skill, and reading, go for some courses there – you might be fun to talk to.
But you need to pull the plug on this act, ’cause man it is getting old. Pretty soon you aren’t even going to be fun to make fun OF! 🙁
This site, wanted to make sure you knew, is about cryptozoology. It is about the QUEST, buddy. It is about CURIOSITY. It is about THOUGHT. It is about expanding our concept of the possible, something that science has been doing an admirable job of, given how often it seems to have its foot up its [sasquatch].
It is so NOT about whatever prison you’re shut in. At least get a cell by a window.
Well, things-in-the-woods, yeah.
Meldrum et al looked at a bunch of ambiguous contaminated impressions in mud and saw evidence of sasquatch. That’s not scientific. REAL science is looking at a bunch of ambiguous contaminated impressions in mud and being utterly certain it’s – wait for it – a KNEELING ELK! That is SO science, dude-san!
Of course, how do we know that cast even exists? How do I even know where qwertyuiop is on my keyboard? I mean, Ben’s right. None of us really has any power to perceive at all. Is that a door? Send someone else through first, man!
And, um, Ben? Puh-leeze omit from your act the comments on my intellect. They have a tendency to draw the audience’s attention, unerringly, to yer missing pants.
Hi Ben,
I understand that you get frustrated, we all do. We all need to try and rise above it. I don’t agree with everything DWA says (or necessarily his way of saying it), but you are simply wrong to say that everything he writes is rubbish. He actually makes some good, sensible, insightful points (and he’s also got enthusiasm for the subject like no-one I know). And as I pointed out elsewhere earlier (in fact in relation to pretty much every time you respond to something I post), you are not above ‘not bothering to read or understand others arguments’.
The thing is Ben, I’m pretty much ‘on your side’. I’m coming from near enough the same position as you (with a few disagreement over epistemology and your occasional lapses of basic logic) (in fact, on the grand spectrum of views on this site, so is DWA-although he won’t thank me for saying so). And yet, I’ve not encountered anyone more likely to put my hackles up. I fear that for all your best intentions, the way you go about putting across your arguments (at least on this board), you only serve to polarize the debate, and turn people away from perhaps thinking a little more rationally about their positions.
I think it’s sad that most of us on the ‘skeptical’ end of the debate seem to spend most of our time squabbling amongst ourselves (and I am including myself in this)- it reminds me of left wing student politics, the leninist-marxists fight with the trotskyists who fight with the socialists who fight with the Stalinists who fight with anarchists, and while all that is going on the capitalist machine rolls on and on…
I guess no one reads what I write, so let’s try this again. The Skookum Cast does not belong to Meldrum. He denied NO one the opportunity to see it. The call to not allow Radford access was by Matt Moneymaker alone.
And yes, I think that many comments made in here towards Ben are rude and pointless. Attack the idea, not the person (and please, unless you are two years old, don’t say that Ben started it first).
No wonder nobody can find the BIG guy… All this bickering has got him running far and fast…. I think I’d be running too…. Poor guy…
To be fair thing-in-the-woods, I have stopped reading DWA’s posts too. I’m sure there are some good points in them, but you gotta get through too much to get to it. Sorry, DWA…
And you are right Kathy….
Okay, so the conclusion is that none of can be bothered to read what the others write…
I’m outa here.
No, the conclusion is that if you attack the person and not the idea, no one is going to read what you post.
Poor Jeff and Poor Ben… I can tell from this brief article that both have been quoted out of context.
While I don’t agree with everything Ben says in his posts or articles I know that, when you have a real conversation with him, he is a likable and reasonable person, perfectly willing to listen and consider someone else’s comments (even if he will turn around and pick them apart).
While I feel Ben can be a bit “dogmatic” in his own dismissal of what he often calls “bad” evidence (what I call compelling circumstantial evidence that demands further scrutiny), he and other “hardcore skeptics” do serve a valuable role, in that, if our evidence is still compelling after standing up to that level of scrutiny, we’ll know we have something worthwhile. (And please Ben, realize I use the adjective “hardcore” only because I consider myself a skeptic as well,just a little more open than you can seem at times.)
Now, as far the research being a “waste” of “time” or “funds”, well, if I want to spend my vacation time and hard earned cash (or my evenings after work) purchasing and pouring over topo maps and annual rainfall percentages and the locations of historical sightings, I think we can all agree that doesn’t hurt anyone or cut into the availability of funds for any “worthwhile” scientific endeavors.
And if educational institutions are suddenly shelling out some cash for cryptozoological pursuits, tell me where to get in line, because these gas prices are impacting my ability to do research.
Dr. Radford (I’m assuming Dr.),
Thank you for your time discussing this matter in our forum. I just recently logged on and got up to date on these discussions. I am a thesis away from a master’s degree from Eastern Washington University and I understand the scientific process. My degree is coming in a social science, sports psychology, but even here we understand the need for scientific data and evidence to support our theses. I very much appreciated your skepticism on the Sasquatch debate because if these are one day scientifically proven to exist it will be from someone in your corner.
I found your ” closed minded ” argument the most effective because been open to all possibilities is in fact necessary when doing any type of research. Hopefully we have not scared you off because I believe your input is necessary and vital to continuing research in this field.
Don’t worry, things. I’m still reading you. 😉
If folks read – and I’ve noticed too many here can’t be bothered – it’s LACK of ideas that ticks me off.
And who cares who OWNS the Skookum cast? If Satan owns it, why didn’t Satan let Ben see it? The person isn’t the issue…only way too often in crypto, it seems to be.
[sigh]
Kathy is correct. It was not Jeff Meldrum but Matt Moneymaker who refused to let me see the cast. The reporter misunderstood.
DWA wrote — “And who cares who OWNS the Skookum cast? If Satan owns it, why didn’t Satan let Ben see it? The person isn’t the issue…only way too often in crypto, it seems to be.”
The problem, DWA, as you note, is with the individuals, not with the evidence itself (at least in the case of the Skookun cast which is what we are talking about in this case) and I don’t even care if your observation tells you it is “real” or “fake”.
The problem, it seems to me, is that some individuals seem to have a vested interest in the mystery remaining a mystery, so the rubes will shell out their nickel to peek under the tent flap. This goes for folks shouting “look at the amazing thing in the tent” and those shouting “ignore it, there is nothing here to see” (knowing full well that the best way to get someone to peek is to tell them there is nothing to see *cough* Penn and Teller *cough*).
And thank you, Travis (and Kathy), I appreciate it. I’m pleased to have real discourse with people who make an attempt to see other points of view.
ps. I don’t have a PhD, I have a BA, just to clarify.
Now, I gotta run. Until next time..
Ben Radford wrote: “Kathy is correct. It was not Jeff Meldrum but Matt Moneymaker who refused to let me see the cast. The reporter misunderstood.”
Ben,
Did you not get the opportunity to view the cast on display in San Antonio before or after your talk at the “Bigfoot in Texas?” exhibit?
I know that version was a “cast of a cast”, but it seemed to me that, if the impression I saw there was an impression of an elk leg, that fellow was pretty big, even for an elk.
Kathy – I read everything you write.
But wading thru some of the other convoluted comments gets a little tiring, ‘specially when they go over and over the same arguments ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Please, folks, let’s stick to the topix, if only in the interest of brevity.
When Ben Radford shouts B.S., he is right to some degree. There is no physical evidence to speak of. The testimony of people that have been close to one (and I’ve been as close as anyone), IS anecdotal and not verified by anything other than their word. I would also add that Ben is the ideal candidate for a ride-along with Multiple or Silvereagle, because he would gain something from a sighting and treat it with the respect of inquiry that such an occasion merits. Until a few skeptics are swayed, progress will be impeded by their misguided (but well-intentioned) objections. Until someone offers to show him otherwise, how is Ben to know that we are not all delusional? I had a face to face sighting in a suburb, not two miles from some of the most intensely monitored border in Canada. There are all kinds of sensors and optical devices aligned along that stretch of border because of smugglers. Doesn’t matter. They either don’t see them or won’t report them. My point is, there is plenty of evidence all over the place that is suppressed, ignored or destroyed. The powers that be are actively quashing reportage through official channels. Backdoor research is the only avenue open, so we better make the best of it. That means working together, not ridiculing each other on radio or the internet. If the attendees of this site could work together, progress could be made. That would require everyone acting like they are all grown up, though. As an aside, the ONLY good print is one you can follow!
I’ve just seen some more posts that might have done their time in Moderation Purgatory before getting here.
mystery_man and things-in-the-woods: as usual, great contributions. To tell you the truth, I soak off Ben (1) because it’s fun and (2) so you don’t have to. 😉
You know…? I’d almost be reluctant to put any evidence I found regaurding Big Foot on this sight for fear of ridicule… I honestly believe that if I took a honest photo or video of Big Foot & presented it to this site it would be bashed… It would be a man in a suit or it would be photo shopped… I wonder why that is…?
DARHOP:
What makes you think anything you put up here would be as good as Patterson/Gimlin?
My God, there’s a MOVIE of one, and people aren’t through bashing it 40 years later – even though no one’s been able to come up with anything indicating it’s not the real McCoy.
Back then, irrationality was allowed to rule the day, and zoology has suffered for it ever since. How could anyone have just jumped to the conclusion – seeing what else was available at the time, man-in-suit-wise – that it was faked? But that’s what happened.
We’re all now victims of a massive and terminal case of groupthink. We can’t even mount a decent-size effort to follow up something that, if it hasn’t been proven fake by now, I think it’s safe to say will never be. Because we’re all scared of taking that common-sense approach. We can’t come to consensus because each of us is afraid – jobs, family, things we want to keep – of even talking about it except in places like this.
I wouldn’t put anything up here either, not if I wouldn’t give it to a scientist to look at first.
But you wouldn’t give it to the Skeptical Inquirer, would you?
I’d settle for being happy I knew, and wouldn’t care who else did.
If you’ve seen one of these you’re one of the world’s luckiest people. Why care what the rest of us think?
On this topic, we are flatly irrational. And it’s too late to change that barring proof no one can doubt.
okay, I’m back for a bit more abuse…
“Did you not get the opportunity to view the cast on display in San Antonio before or after your talk at the “Bigfoot in Texas?” exhibit?”
Actually, I finally saw the cast in Pocatello, Idaho, last year. Rick Noll was very helpful and knowledgeable, not at all afraid to share evidence with a skeptic.
“If the attendees of this site could work together, progress could be made.”
Absolutely; this forum has some very sharp participants (and a few dimwits I won’t name), and I would heartily love a discussion/debate. Perhaps whoever organizes the next Bigfoot conference might arrange a debate/discussion with leading researchers. All this cross-talk and name calling gets no one anywhere.
Buzzardeater,
Ben, or any other person with a skeptical mind (myself included) is only going to benefit from one of those “ride alongs” if they have an undeniable visual sighting. Even prints, although they can help some suspend that skepticism or disbelief for a minute or two, aren’t enough. “Wood knocks” and “psychic communications” from ‘squatch aren’t going to cut it. Shoot, I’ve seen what appeared to be bare footprints deep into some of the nastiest muck and tangled brush I’ve ever been in, where no one in their right minds (I never claimed to be real stable) would be WITH shoes on, much less barefoot, and I still can’t say I “believe” in Bigfoot.
The only thing short of a body that will ever “prove” the existence of Bigfoot beyond a shadow of a doubt is a good, close, clear video or still photo. One that stands up to scrutiny. Even then some folks will choose not to believe (the same way some folks think the moon landings were staged). But wood knocks and hoots just aren’t going to cut it. Vocalizations and the like might be valuable tools in narrowing your search area, but they aren’t proof.
Permission for a ride-along field trip denied. Now get back to class before the hall monitors find you, and no, I won’t extend your hall pass. You have 5 minutes left on this one.
To Mr. Radford:
Ben, I respect you, your organization, and your magazine. You do a lot of good work. Where we part company is with CSI’s tendency to lump cryptozoology in as part of the “paranormal” and “pseudoscience.”
I argue that, even if you think cryptozoology is worthless in practice, it still does not belong there. The reason is that cryptozoology is a true science because it is based on falsifiable hypotheses.
One cannot disprove, for example, the existence of ghosts or visiting extraterrestrials – you might prove them, but you can’t disprove them.
However, the hypothesis “There exists a large predatory animal in Loch Ness” can be proven (by finding the critter) or disproven (if, for example, a thorough search with the highly sophisticated antisubmarine capabilities deployed by the US Navy showed nothing.) The resources to prove or disprove a given hypothesis may not always be available, but the logic still applies. You can argue cryptozoology is unnecessary (i.e., that finding new mammals is part of mammology, finding new insects is entomology, etc.), but once again, this does not invalidate the proposition that cryptozoology meets the basic definition of a science and ought not to be lumped in with the paranormal.
Regards,
Matt Bille
Hi Matt
“You do a lot of good work.”
Thanks, I work hard at it.
“Where we part company is with CSI’s tendency to lump cryptozoology in as part of the “paranormal” and “pseudoscience.” I argue that, even if you think cryptozoology is worthless in practice, it still does not belong there. The reason is that cryptozoology is a true science because it is based on falsifiable hypotheses.”
I agree; I don’t consider cryptozoology a pseudoscience, nor paranormal. Our organization doesn’t just focus on paranormal topics, we cover fringe science, quack medicine, critical thinking, miracles, etc. So I’d say we agree on this.
A word or two on terminology:
No, cryptozoology is not, strictly speaking, “paranormal.” At least at its best, it is also not pseudoscientific. (Mind you, I think we all agree that this field contains a great deal of pseudoscience.) Looking for unrecognized species is, in itself, a perfectly respectable, mainstream scientific pursuit. (Of course, cryptozoology might well be redundant, as MattBille suggests, since mainstream science does in fact search for and describe new species.)
When skeptics lump cryptozoology in with paranormal topics like ESP and ghosts, we’re not using language in a precise way. This is just a casual short-hand that reflects pop culture convention and the fact that there is great overlap between proponents of each of these topics. (ie, Many of the arguments for each are similar; people who support one of these topics are relatively more likely to support others.)
In the same way, UFOlogy is not strictly a paranormal area of research, although UFOlogical claims very frequently feature paranormal elements. On the other hand, homeopathy is not usually called “paranormal” in everyday speech—but in technical terms it’s about as clear an example of a paranormal claim as you could hope to find.
I love this!!!! I went away around 9am central and there were maybe twenty posts and I come back tonight a mere ten, twelve hours later and we’re closing in on a hundred.
Seriously, there are just too many things to comment on…whew! AND, I heard (alright fine, quibble, I read it, but relax Kathy…sheesh) Ben expound the possibility of Bigfoot…AND I heard (yeah, yeah, yeah) him say that he did not lump Cryptozoology in with pseudoscience–now he didn’t exactly give it his blessing, but it is a small step…
And DWA…sheesh people the man is passionate and he gets worked up when he’s on fire…all I have to say is stones and glass houses…DWA is not the first or last to get heated here—SO ignoring his words because he is who he is…well,
Kathy, that’s exactly why I don’t trust you to decide what BF sightings are valid and worth being catalogued and which are not (I’m shooting back to an earlier discussion, but…oh yeah, I’m gonna say it…are you ready for it….she started it!!!). You are doing exactly what you accused DWA of, attacking the man instead of the information.
Now, I do believe Ben had a good idea (I am seriously going to a bad place when I die for saying that…:) Debate.
I think we should get Craig and Loren and John and Rick involved in spring boarding our own debate on Crypto. Could we set a topic ahead of time…I don’t know throw out three or four topics for debate, have some kind of vote on which to end on…then give people a week or two to brush up on their knowledge of the subject and then devote a post here to that debate.
The Big Four (Craig, Loren, John and Nick) can set some ground rules, and decide on a time, make a post and then let us alllllllllllllll have at it.
Keep it civil, present facts and evidence as we all see fit and debate the pros and cons.
In the end, I doubt we will all change each other’s minds, BUT I think it will be fun, we can all learn some more about our topic and the whole debate process, and we might just accidentally do something constructive.
Weigh in people!
SHJ – where did I attack DWA? I said nothing about him personally – not his intelligence level, his career, or hygiene habits. I said that I don’t read his posts anymore because I can’t get through them. If you think that’s a personal attack, then you really should look up what it means…cause it’s not.
As far as deciding which reports are valid and which aren’t…I do it everyday…it’s about 1 out of 10. One of the valid ones is being posted on the website in the next few days, I hope you enjoy it.
I think I will assemble my own evidence, Kath, thanks anyway…
And as for attacks, I think if you can’t be bothered with his posts, then you shouldn’t bother commenting on him because you’re not even aware of what he’s saying or not saying.
Yeehaw! What took years now takes moments. Books, articles, commentary and criticism, and especially beliefs and feelings are reduced to one day’s worth of postings. Where in this accelerated cycle is any new evidence? Show me the Bigfoot. Are there bigfoot searchers in the forest reading this, and/or why not? Didn’t they take any satellite link-up communication devices? Will their touch of the keyboard scare away a survivor of the last great extinction? Someone is working hard at proof tonight, but it isn’t anybody here. Reminds me of priests arguing over how many levels of heaven exist, while someone is inventing and using the telescope. There are probably some bigfoot individuals who are working very hard to convince others that we exist, but since we never arrive, must be mythical.
This is all so disheartening. Apparently more than a few people don’t understand the difference between forensic standards of evidence and scientific standards. While eyewitness testimony and anecdotes may be permissible in a courtroom as evidence, in a courtroom the goal is to establish truth beyond a reasonable doubt–i.e., to establish probability. Scientific standards are much less forgiving.
Roughly half the people in the lifeboats when the Titanic sank said the ship broke in half and then went down; the others said it went down in one piece. The former were right, as Ballard’s explorations have shown. Where does that leave the sworn eyewitness testimony of the latter? It’s meaningless, because while eyewitness testimony may be evidentiary, it’s not evidence. And in absence of definitive, documented evidence — real evidence — the testimony of the former group is worthless, too.
Comparisons with dark matter and black holes aren’t valid. The existence of these natural phenomena was mathematically proven decades ago by Einstein. Math is proof. A carcass is proof. A sighting by one, ten, or a hundred people isn’t proof. If it were, Elvis could be found working at dozens of Michigan 7-11s. I personally remember my father picking up a 1963 Chrysler and holding it over his head when I was three years old, but that doesn’t mean it happened. As Mark Twain said, “Pretty soon I’ll remember everything, whether it happened or not.”
Mr. Radford is right (if he did indeed make the statement): The legitimate hunt for Sasquatch hasn’t much progressed beyond where it was five, 10 or 50 years ago. On the other hand, quackery, hoaxes and fraud are proliferating, with the most absurd videos being given oh-so-serious consideration in this forum and others. What does that tell us?
Show a scientist a video or a carcass or a bone that is subject to only one objective interpretation and you will have made a believer out of him. On the other hand, it’s much less intellectually challenging — and more fun — to bash Mr. Radford, isn’t it?
springheeledjack: Not to worry. The people that don’t read me aren’t the people I’m writing for. (I’ve never seen anyone here who writes for everybody. And no one should hold their breath for me to start.)
But thanks anyway. 😉
dontmean2prymate: and here you are, stuck here with us. 😀 Honestly, I might be willing to bet more bigfoot searchery got done here in the past 24 than in the field. (Radford excepted. Some roads have speed bumps.) I’d love to be proven wrong on that. That’s PROVEN.
I think we should be funding MultipleEncounters. (Speaking of anybody here.) Anyone want to take up a collection?
*ahem*
If I may, if anyone wants to fund any group, I’d suggest the TBRC. They are non-profit (tax deduction for you!), have an admirable, reputable board of advisors, and they have real people out in the field doing real research, using proven techniques for photgraphing rare wildlife, spending lots of their own money, and using up vacation time, to do the kind of footwork that needs done if this critter is ever going to be proven real.
Just a suggestion.
Don’tmean2prymate- I guess that since some of us actually aren’t in the field, or don’t have the money for it, or have wives and kids and, oh I don’t know, live half a world away from Bigfoot, then we shouldn’t talk about it? Is that what you want to say? Because I may happen to have a job, which by the way is teaching about science to young people, and I spend time researching other known animals, then I am not qualified to post about this topic and that we should shut our mouths? I’m sorry if that people coming together here to discuss things without having the means to actively search somehow offends your sensibilities. Some people cannot actively participate in this field no matter how much we would like to, due to many factors. I have a lot on the burner and I am involved with worthwhile pursuits other than clicking this keyboard, thank you very much. Coming here to talk is like people talking madly about sports, but don’t actually play, don’t you think? Like talking shop about a movie without actually having helped make it, I feel. The one’s who can go out there and find this evidence, do. The one’s who can’t, well, quite frankly I am happy this site is here and all us amateurs who are scaring away bigfoot with our keyboards can come together and talk about this stuff.
proriter: always great to be lectured to about evidence.
And always good to find out who’s in the boat that says: we’ll believe when one walks up to a hillbilly’s truck and sleeps in the rear bed.
Let’s talk evidence, dude. Thanks for giving me the Titanic to use against you. Whaddaya think happened there, hmmmm? The people who said one thing: evidence. The people who said the other: evidence. The people who found the ship followed up the evidence to a CONCLUSION. Sure some of the eyewitness testimony was wrong. ABOUT HALF OF IT WAS RIGHT. Without the followup, who would ever have known? Or cared?
(I could add: next to documenting a spectacular animal, whose discovery – I laugh when I write that, please, it’s been discovered, science just doesn’t know it yet – could indirectly lead to the protection of millions of acres of wild land from rape and pillage, who the heck SHOULD care about how many pieces the Titanic’s in? But that may be just me.)
The only thing I’ve ever said here is that it’s an irresponsible attitude for science to sit on its hands until it has proof dumped in its lap; for science to say that hand-sitting is its job; or for people like Radford (and it sounds like, you?) to encourage scientific hand-sitting because science doesn’t have proof yet. You yourself say – thanks for that! – “And in absence of definitive, documented evidence — real evidence — the testimony of the former group is worthless, too.”
How do you get definitive, documented evidence? YOU FOLLOW UP WHAT YOU HAVE, IN THE FIELD. To find out whether the two-halves people or the one-piece people were right, so to speak.
And math or no math, the sasquatch’s existence is a matter of much more import here on earth than is the existence of black holes. That science fails to understand this, or why it’s true, says much about science that, well, ain’t too good. More scientists need to get off their bloody butts, stop slandering and libeling the bravest of their kind, and DO something for the world. And ferpetesake have more fun. The halls of academe seem unbearably stuffy when somebody opens those doors.
And as to Ben: bashing is deserved when ignorance presents itself as arrogance. I’m not sure why he comes here. I wish he would stop. But I try to make it uncomfortable when he does, until he contributes something to the argument. Something, oh, you know, intellectually challenging.
And if this weren’t fun I wouldn’t be here. What about you? What the heck could anyone on this board be so disheartened about? 😀
I don’t think I could have phrased it much more clearly than proriter did in his last post. Excellent examples!
While I’m with you that we need hard, physical evidence (a bone, a body, a clear and unrefutable photo or video) , I just can’t agree with the above statement. When we are talking about advanced physics, so much of that must be taken on faith. I won’t pretend that I even begin to understand the math that is involved in these “proofs”, so to me, if I “believe” what these scientist say, there is no difference between that “belief” and the belief of medieval peasants who took the word of priests as gospel because they couldn’t decipher the Latin mass.
My own ability to understand or interpret the math aside, there are some experts who disagree with the math, who offer their own math (that I don’t pretend to understand) to prove that stars are not so distant/old, or are more distant/old than other scientists believe they are. Again, I can’t help but draw a comparison to medieval clerics arguing over interpretations of doctrine (and burning heretics at the stake).
I don’t KNOW that Bigfoot exists any more than I KNOW that star X is Y light years away, and so I search.
If admitting my own ignorance and seeking to correct that deficiency, in any way, makes me a heretic, I’m ready to play with that fire.
Radford’s acceptance or rejection of Bigfoot evidence and/or the likelihood of the Bigfoot’s existence, is irrelevant. Researchers do not have to get past Radford, to make their case to the general public. There will always be Radfords. Get used to it. Roll with the punches.
Many cryptozoological and supernatural topics, cause discomfort among people. Even widespread circumstantial evidence, will not persuade the Radfords to accept the existence of something that causes them discomfort. They are looking for irrefutable visual evidence for them to see up close and touch. Everything else will be discounted by the Radfords. Even running bipedal footsteps in the woods at night, with no flashlight showing and no sound of tripping, will be discounted by the Radfords. Which is about all they are ever going to get, if they are lucky.
The Feds currently have a policy of seeing to it that no body will be ever be available for viewing by the public. Dead bodies are way too scary. The Bigfoot tells some researchers back east, that the Feds are stockpiling Bigfoot bodies in cold storage. Even that cargo net of bodies spotted, prior to being coptered away after Mt. St. Helens, is still on ice. So they are likely still out there, just not available to either the public or to the Radfords because the Radfords are far too important to the Feds, for the purpose of arguing for the Bigfoot’s non-existence.
The Radfords will site only one film, and say that it is not enough. The Radfords will ignore the Freeman footage, the Redwoods footage and the more recent Sylvanic footage, which will soon be available at a theater near you. The Radfords will refuse to either view them on Youtube, or continue to claim that they were hoaxed, despite the unlikelihood of them being hoaxed.
The Radfords do not give credit to “highly likely” and “highly probable”. Absolutely irrefutable, face to face, visual evidence is all that the Radfords will accept. Since it is also highly likely, that Bigfoot is interdimensional and thus invisible most of the time, the likelihood of the Radfords ever being presented with irrefutable visual evidence is consequently, minuscule. So arguing with the Radfords of this world, is a complete waste of time. Time that you will never get back.
I don’t think I could have phrased it much more clearly than jeremy_wells did in his last post. Excellent examples!
(And thanks, Ben! 😉 )
One must always remember Dr. DWA’s Rule #145 (or is that #54. See what I mean about science? 😀 ) Scientific evidence is whatever science says it is. If you are a slave to someone else’s math, good for you. I say: yep, whatever there, Mr. Astronimicalperson, until better evidence becomes available. Not arguing with you or anything. But, um, you been there lately?
Footprints are kinda, um, more tangible than math, take it from me. And the evidence for the sasquatch is at least as good, actually it’s way better, than the evidence for the most distant “known” quasar.
Or for any fossil animal “known,” if you think about it.
Science sets its own comfort levels. Science decides what it’s comfortable with. And that becomes the shared cultural view of the real.
Until, of course, better evidence becomes available.
Science is an almost perfect discipline. Practiced by people no better than you and me. Genuflecting before its purple robes is sort of a risky game.
silvereagle:
You’re right when it comes to arguing with such as Radford.
Which I don’t think I and others here are doing.
I’m sure as heck not doing it. Because everything you say is correct. A body is all that will sway his ilk.
I’m educating people who come on here, and don’t know much about this topic and are looking to know more, about a kind of cynicism (call it what you want, scoftic is pretty good but only a word) that eats away at science, that chases it from legitimate areas of study (“no way am I exposing myself to that Skeptical Inquirer crap, I have a life and marmosets are more fun than scraping that off my boots”), and that misinforms a public that comes into the discussion with a pretty pathetic knowledge base as it is. (“So why hasn’t somebody shot one yet? Why haven’t we found a body? Why hasn’t someone hit one with a car?” “Duh, um, good point.”)
Believe me, I don’t waste my time here. Not only is shooting at Ben fun, it counteracts what he’s trying to do: scare folks away from serious inquiry.
Or whatever the heck it is he’s trying to do. He certainly can have the effect of doing that. For the un-inoculated, that is.
Now I would NEVER argue with you, silvereagle. Who knows what the bigfoot might do to me if I did. They might just turn my bed wrong way around in the middle of the night but I can’t be sure.
Not that they should. Heck, they should either like me, or owe me.
DWA: Sometimes you seem to stand a little too close to the fire… you say,”…next to documenting a spectacular animal, whose discovery…could indirectly lead to the protection of millions of acres of wild land from rape and pillage, who the heck SHOULD care about how many pieces the Titanic’s in?”
Well, ship designers, for one, should care.
And if she had floated longer, maybe more people could have survived, so their families should care.
And posterity: posterity should care, a LOT, about the lives and potentials lost when that ship went down, and should try its best to make sure it doesn’t happen again!
“But that may be just me.”