Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius
What do you consider evidence then? Most of the above items if found at a crime scene could send a person to prison for life, but somehow they bear little weight in a investigation into a massive country wide sighting of creature known as Bigfoot. I feel that little more than a body would prove the existence of this animal, only because of the mystery. The giant squid was a myth of sailors in historic times yet people believed in its existence, it wasn't until commercial fishing came along and actually snagged one and science inspected the body did they actually name it a new species. Only recently did a film crew actually catch one on film live.
Believe it or not most of the Earth still remains unexplored, hence why hundreds of new species are discovered all the time. So that fact is, bigfoot and many other unknown mythical monsters COULD exist without us knowing.
Scientist very much frown upon this idea because it leads to fact that aliens and other such living things can exist without our knowledge. Anyone who knows any scientists know that the mentioning of one of these phenomena/creatures is career suicide. So evidence is overlooked and tainted by biased science.
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Sagan)." Carl Sagan says it well.
Putting all your eggs in one basket isn't always a good thing to do in science. Many times when think we figured something out, we find we are just viewing from the wrong perspective.
By the way, I also mean no offense by any of my views.
|
Let me start by saying you are absolutely right. There is more to explore and discover than what we know so far. Mythical beasts may very well exist and it is common knowledge species are going extinct before we have a chance to name them. I would continue to say that I would love for bigfoot to exist.
But I disagree with your conclusions about science. Any scientist who could prove bigfoot exists would win all kinds of kudos, awards, book deals, etc.. (same goes for any popular other-worldly creatures). Scientists are humans and no doubt bring bias with them wherever they go which is why experiments are done which should attempt to eliminate any and all chances for bias. Why do some scientific reports conflict or offer contrary evidence? Most likely, if the science is sound, it has to do with not eliminating all these biases.
And let's be fair, it isn't like scientists are out there trying to prove unicorns, leprechauns, and tooth fairies exist either and many people believe(d) in them too.
Now on to your claims of evidence:
eyewitnesses - sorry a million people saying the same thing is still no good for science. this is by far the worse form of evidence and is the earmark of bad science. unfortunately, very convincing to juries - thank goodness for DNA.
film, video, other electronic recording - so far none has been presented that couldn't have been faked - no good for science.
Fingerprint/footprint expert - appeal to authority fallacy but even if we admit this testimony as evidence it is hardly convincing. The prints could have been made by an "unknown primate". That's true, they also could have been carved or could have been made by a human but when stretching them onto the big wooden feet to make the prints would have made them non-human. Another words, the evidence could have been faked and yes, faked well enough to fool an expert.
Hair - couldn't get DNA - no evidence - no good for science.
That doesn't mean that all the evidence IS fake or lies - but as long as they COULD be - they are useless for science. Now combine all that with a bigfoot body - hell a piece of bigfoot shit even - then we get the attention of scientists.
So you ask me what would be convincing evidence, my response is - anything that can not be faked or something else that is properly examined by scientists (note the plural). Like fur that we can get DNA from, some feces, bones, anything like that. But I should say even if we found some unknown primate hair, that still doesn't "prove" bigfoot. It could be a non-bigfoot unknown primate or some kind of strange hybrid. So yes, a bigfoot body would be the best proof of their existence though any of the other things i mentioned would certainly be strong evidence that there is something there. But so far we got squat as far as scientific evidence is concerned. One quick aside here... I have heard the claim that we haven't found any bodies cause they bury their dead!?! So we don't even have proof they exist and our conclusion as to why is they bury their dead! WTF? So we have no proof of the creatures existance and are surmising on its habits? this is one of the biggest, steamiest piles of logical fallacy out there regarding bigfoot.
And while i disagree that the evidence presented could send someone to prison, it is true that forensic evidence is FAR different from scientific evidence. The law expects yes/no, right/wrong, guilty/non-guilty but science doesn't work like that. With science - there is ALWAYS a shadow of a doubt (called error bars or margins). Sometimes it is just a little sliver, sometimes much larger but the shadow of doubt is always there.
And what is wrong with requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims? Would you believe I can breath under water without proof or just my testimony? How about i get a scuba diver to back up my story? Or produce a video of me underwater for an hour (couldn't fake that, right)? Believe me yet? of course you don't cause i can't breath under water! To believe me you would require the extraordinary evidence of me actually breathing under water and rightly so.
Ultimately the answer to whether bigfoot exists is independent of what either one of us believes. It either does or does not exist and you and I debating the virtues of the evidence does not change the answer. You are convinced by the evidence, I am not.