The Science of Bigfoot Science Options

[Hairy Man]

Another nail in the coffin

Are you saying that you thought that Meldrum had personally casted all of the hundreds of prints he has, including the ones in his published article from 1967 (when he was 9)? I am very sure he has casted his own prints (such as those when he visited Paul Freeman) but in general, Meldrum gets prints from witnesses directly and from investigators looking at witness reports. He studies the prints and dismisses at good (as I recall him saying) 90% of what he gets due to misidentifications, poor quality, etc.

no way to confirm the test samples were evaluated and taken according to accepted protocols

What test samples? Of prints? Of soils? What accepted protocols?

they arent expensive and i dont know what school of forensics wrote the BOK and POI of what you were taught but theres a lot more out there in the science of impression analysis than just pouring a casting.

Yep.

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: Nov 20 2007, 02:52 PM

[Drew]

I think what LT is saying, is that there is no chain of custody, or standard operating procedure for a cast. We all saw what that did to the O.J. Prosecution. Also, Hairy-One are you saying that Meldrum gets a bunch of casts, but only keeps the ones that fit his theory? The other ones are thrown out as hoaxes, or bad casts.

[WmRoy]

Also, Hairy-One are you saying that Meldrum gets a bunch of casts, but only keeps the ones that fit his theory? The other ones are thrown out as hoaxes, or bad casts.

Ouch............. that sounds bad.............

[longtabber PE]

I think what LT is saying, is that there is no chain of custody, or standard operating procedure for a cast. We all saw what that did to the O.J. Prosecution. Also, Hairy-One are you saying that Meldrum gets a bunch of casts, but only keeps the ones that fit his theory? The other ones are thrown out as hoaxes, or bad casts.

Thank you, thats EXACTLY what i was saying.

All you just stated is a part of the scientific process regarding validation of evidence. ( and no theory, hypothesis or even "hopothesis" is stronger than the evidence that supports it)

I am finding it somewhat "odd" that some "scientists' dont seem to understand science- how it works, how it establishes itself, the precautions and steps necessary to produce and support theories and data, evidence collecting and analysis.

The steps and methods to enhance credibility are there for a reason. The seemingly apparant LACK of their use is one of the main contributors to the poor quality data.

If i did an FMECA on this subject, that would be the first failure mode

[HarryHenderson]

.....they arent expensive and i dont know what school of forensics wrote the BOK and POI of what you were taught but theres a lot more out there in the science of impression analysis than just pouring a casting.

At one time we had a regular contributor named Desertyeti (still a member but not a contributor anymore) who has a Ph.D in a very closely related discipline (Ph.D. Sedimentary Geology [emphasis on alluvial and incised valley fills, and ichnology]). In fact he broke the whole Skookum Cast™ debacle wide open ( please don't pelt me with rocks and garbage). I don't know/recall if he ever addressed Meldrum's work specifically (besides Skookum), but you might want to read some of the stuff he wrote here in case.

[longtabber PE]

Are you saying that you thought that Meldrum had personally casted all of the hundreds of prints he has, including the ones in his published article from 1967 (when he was 9)? I am very sure he has casted his own prints (such as those when he visited Paul Freeman) but in general, Meldrum gets prints from witnesses directly and from investigators looking at witness reports. He studies the prints and dismisses at good (as I recall him saying) 90% of what he gets due to misidentifications, poor quality, etc.
What test samples? Of prints? Of soils? What accepted protocols?
Yep.

>>>Are you saying that you thought that Meldrum had personally casted all of the hundreds of prints he has, including the ones in his published article from 1967 (when he was 9)? I am very sure he has casted his own prints (such as those when he visited Paul Freeman) but in general, Meldrum gets prints from witnesses directly and from investigators looking at witness reports. He studies the prints and dismisses at good (as I recall him saying) 90% of what he gets due to misidentifications, poor quality, etc.

That raises the obvious question. if he dismisses 90%- what criteria makes the other 10% valid? What benchmarks? What standards? what methods? What is the threshold of acceptance?

>>What test samples? Of prints? Of soils? What accepted protocols?

all the above- testing the print, the soil of the print- everything gets tested

[Hairy Man]

I think what LT is saying, is that there is no chain of custody, or standard operating procedure for a cast. We all saw what that did to the O.J. Prosecution. Also, Hairy-One are you saying that Meldrum gets a bunch of casts, but only keeps the ones that fit his theory? The other ones are thrown out as hoaxes, or bad casts.

I am unclear what you mean by "only fits his theory"? As a scientist, he has to identify what the cast is...known animal, so poor of quality can't tell, hoax or unknown. I know that a cast that I sent him that was a bear double tap he mailed back to me. What those percentages are in each category, I don't know...but I'm not sure what difference it makes. The man gets hundreds of unsolicited casts and weeding through them hardly be called "fitting his theory."

[longtabber PE]

At one time we had a regular contributor named Desertyeti (still a member but not a contributor anymore) who has a Ph.D in a very closely related discipline (Ph.D. Sedimentary Geology [emphasis on alluvial and incised valley fills, and ichnology]). In fact he broke the whole Skookum Cast™ debacle wide open ( please don't pelt me with rocks and garbage). I don't know/recall if he ever addressed Meldrum's work specifically (besides Skookum), but you might want to read some of the stuff he wrote here in case.

I havent fully read this site ( theres a lot of good stuff here but I'm eating this elephant one bite at the time) but I do focus on his, apemans and a few others who are high up the food chain comments.

Let me clarify this point ( I think its gotten lost or skewed) I'm not commenting on the body of his work ( i dont know his work, havent reviewed it etc)- I'm commenting on specific areas of his work where it crosses other disciplines such as those i have experience in ( forensics, and others) and the techniques used and what has been released.

[Hairy Man]

That raises the obvious question. if he dismisses 90%- what criteria makes the other 10% valid? What benchmarks? What standards? what methods? What is the threshold of acceptance?

He has many papers that detail what qualities he looks for in prints. Why would it surprise anyone that he would dismiss 90% of what he gets? The man is very well known and gets sent hundreds of prints that he doesn't ask for. I get unsolicited Native American stories and pictures of rock art all the time...am I less scientific because 90% aren't at all even related to bigfoot, let alone usable?

P.S. that doesn't mean of course he doesn't keep track of what he is sent and what the results are...I am very sure he can say xx percent a year are bear; xx are this; xx are that.

P.S.S. I just realized that we have completely taken over this thread on a totally unrelated subject. Maybe we should talk about this somewhere else, like over in the thread about Meldrum's article. Sorry for the derailment!

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: Nov 20 2007, 03:30 PM

[longtabber PE]

He has many papers that detail what qualities he looks for in prints. Why would it surprise anyone that he would dismiss 90% of what he gets? The man is very well known and gets sent hundreds of prints that he doesn't ask for. I get unsolicited Native American stories and pictures of rock art all the time...am I less scientific because 90% aren't at all even related to bigfoot, let alone usable?

It doesnt surprise me he dismisses 90%- what surprises me is that his dismissal percentage is that low.

I cut him no slack regarding him getting hundreds of unsolicited casts- he put himself in the position of being the "front man" and that comes with the territory.

If thats an issue- he should post a detailed criteria of what he expects in a sample and instructions on how to send them and if it doesnt meet the criteria, dont send the sample.

Now, the minute he does- he just gave hoaxers a literal blueprint on how to make a more "acceptable' fake and set himself up for further embarrasment when some engineering grad student gets with a cohort in an anthropological science and decides to make some high level forgeries just to fool him and then reveal it- that too comes with the territory.

I think he might ought to consider re evaluating the qualities he accepts and maybe up his rejection percentage to 99% or higher

[Mon0705]

He has many papers that detail what qualities he looks for in prints. Why would it surprise anyone that he would dismiss 90% of what he gets? The man is very well known and gets sent hundreds of prints that he doesn't ask for. I get unsolicited Native American stories and pictures of rock art all the time...am I less scientific because 90% aren't at all even related to bigfoot, let alone usable?

P.S. that doesn't mean of course he doesn't keep track of what he is sent and what the results are...I am very sure he can say xx percent a year are bear; xx are this; xx are that.

This still comes back to the idea that we have to find a 'happy medium' between what is accepted in science and what we can do in the BF community. What LT is saying is that tossing 90% of your prints, for whatever reason, would be viewed by the scientific community as the equivalent of me running 30 experiments and tossing 27 of them so I only had the three left that fit my theory.

The problem is that by virtue of BF, we're confronted with having to selectively omit evidence as a forgery. Not that Dr. Meldrum isn't dealing with those situations, but someone else needs to go through the prints with different criteria, toss their own 90% based on their own criteria and come to the same conclusion...hopefully that a large hairy bipedal ape exists.

[longtabber PE]

P.S.S. I just realized that we have completely taken over this thread on a totally unrelated subject. Maybe we should talk about this somewhere else, like over in the thread about Meldrum's article. Sorry for the derailment!

yeah we did and i'm as guilty as any- I just go with the flow sometimes.

At least we entertained the masses. Thats half the fun of blogging.

Probably need to start a new fresh thread titled along the lines of scientific analysis methods or techniques or something like that. I wouldnt attach a name to it to stay focused on the method and technique, not the person

[Mon0705]

yeah we did and i'm as guilty as any- I just go with the flow sometimes.

At least we entertained the masses. Thats half the fun of blogging.

Probably need to start a new fresh thread titled along the lines of scientific analysis methods or techniques or something like that. I wouldnt attach a name to it to stay focused on the method and technique, not the person

[longtabber PE]

This still comes back to the idea that we have to find a 'happy medium' between what is accepted in science and what we can do in the BF community. What LT is saying is that tossing 90% of your prints, for whatever reason, would be viewed by the scientific community as the equivalent of me running 30 experiments and tossing 27 of them so I only had the three left that fit my theory.

The problem is that by virtue of BF, we're confronted with having to selectively omit evidence as a forgery. Not that Dr. Meldrum isn't dealing with those situations, but someone else needs to go through the prints with different criteria, toss their own 90% based on their own criteria and come to the same conclusion...hopefully that a large hairy bipedal ape exists.

>>>The problem is that by virtue of BF, we're confronted with having to selectively omit evidence as a forgery. Not that Dr. Meldrum isn't dealing with those situations, but someone else needs to go through the prints with different criteria, toss their own 90% based on their own criteria and come to the same conclusion...hopefully that a large hairy bipedal ape exists.

Exactly, not only blind and double blind testing- but from testing from other applicable sciences- that bolsters ones position greatly, as you stated- when someone ELSE ( using different methods) reaches the same conclusion as you

[Hairy Man]

It could be higher than 90%, that's just what I remember him saying.

I would think that criticism might be true if he didn't keep records on what he is being sent, which I stated I am certain that he does (just like hoaxed/misidentified reports are kept in the system but aren't published). I don't know what Meldrum's checks and balances are, but I'm sure there are some in place.

P.S. Yeah, maybe the moderators can move this great discussion to another thread? Otherwise, it will be lost in here...

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: Nov 20 2007, 03:42 PM

[longtabber PE]

It could be higher than 90%, that's just what I remember him saying.

I would think that criticism might be true if he didn't keep records on what he is being sent, which I stated I am certain that he does (just like hoaxed/misidentified reports are kept in the system but aren't published). I don't know what Meldrum's checks and balances are, but I'm sure there are some in place.

P.S. Yeah, maybe the moderators can move this great discussion to another thread? Otherwise, it will be lost in here...

I agree its a good and fruitful discussion even tho its far from the OT ( I think its had the posts of the day)

but they will have to do it ( I'm an ME and EE, not a computer guru) and I'm not sure of the thread starting protocols here ( yes i know they are there in the thread- but I'm an engineer, we NEVER read instructions until we break it first)

>>> I don't know what Meldrum's checks and balances are, but I'm sure there are some in place.

Just as a casual observer and you apparently know him- you might want to suggest he publish them in a checklist format and let a few others in different disciplines review them- that might take some heat off of him ( he also needs to remain vigilant because he just published a blueprint for more elaborate forgeries and you can bet your bippy someone (s) going to try to set him up)

[Hairy Man]

I sure up'd my post count today.

I only bug Meldrum when I see the opportunity to brown nose. I just saw him so I'm good for a few months.... (just kidding...)

[HarryHenderson]

This is a split thread (it required actual work too, boy was I stupid) from 'The Four Categories of BF' thread focusing on Meldrum's work and methods. The debate is surely worthy of its own home and it would be a shame for it to 'get lost' in the middle of another thread. The thread's title is open to BRIEF (first hour) discussion if you don't feel it fits, otherwise it is what it is. And please stay on topic in this one.

[longtabber PE]

This is a split thread (it required actual work too, boy was I stupid) from 'The Four Categories of BF' thread focusing on Meldrum's work and methods. The debate is surely worthy of its own home and it would be a shame for it to 'get lost' in the middle of another thread. The thread's title is open to BRIEF (first hour) discussion if you don't feel it fits, otherwise it is what it is. And please stay on topic in this one.

I'm in the beer drinking mode now so wont be fully operational until after duck hunting tomorrow.

I would suggest you drop any names as that could reasonably be viewed as possibly "attacking", ridiculing or being critical of another individual and thats not the idea or goal.

If this goes to fruition- its about methods ( good or bad) their flaws, effectiveness and betterments- not about the individuals employing them.

Speaking for me, I was never attempting to be critical of him ( the scientist) but many of my posts could have been viewed that way. That was not the intent.

If the goal of this thread is to bring methods to the table, discuss the applicable science, effectiveness et al- then names shouldnt be a part of it.

Just my thoughts

[Ace!]

...
In the end, it all boils down to a "could be" hypothesis based on a "what if" scenario- thats as far from empiracle science as one can get.
...

I thought a hypothesis was a "could be" and scientific techniques/methods were applied to "prove" the case, or not.

I read his book, and his CV. I'm educated, but not a physical scientist. I understand "techniques" or methods but don't typically apply them in my line of work. Anyway, seems he has a "dataset" provided to him and he is applying what he "knows" to them to prove whether they could be made by something. To say they were made by a "primate" or animal doesn't prove the existence of bigfoot, but it might prove they weren't made by some other means (a guy running around with wooden carvings of feet). Honestly, I don't think track casts available are enough to "prove" something made them; but again, it might prove something didn't make them, and then what we are left with are options to believe or not believe the possibilities out there. Some people might then "create" new possibilities, like an unknown primate. My thought though is there is a number of things you can do with the casts, and he's doing something. Again, doesn't mean he's proving the existence of something at this point though.

Maybe it's science, and maybe because we don't have proof of a bigfoot it's not empirical. If we had proof of a bigfoot, maybe then it could be empirical. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis. Seems that's what he's doing. We don't have a known, so it makes hard science hard.

I think if you say 99% should be dismissed you're making a requirement of the findings before examing the data provided. Maybe 80% are actual prints of a bigfoot, it it exists at all, maybe 10% are, maybe 1%. You're making an expectation of the data before looking at it.

[longtabber PE]

I thought a hypothesis was a "could be" and scientific techniques/methods were applied to "prove" the case, or not.

I read his book, and his CV. I'm educated, but not a physical scientist. I understand "techniques" or methods but don't typically apply them in my line of work. Anyway, seems he has a "dataset" provided to him and he is applying what he "knows" to them to prove whether they could be made by something. To say they were made by a "primate" or animal doesn't prove the existence of bigfoot, but it might prove they weren't made by some other means (a guy running around with wooden carvings of feet). Honestly, I don't think track casts available are enough to "prove" something made them; but again, it might prove something didn't make them, and then what we are left with are options to believe or not believe the possibilities out there. Some people might then "create" new possibilities, like an unknown primate. My thought though is there is a number of things you can do with the casts, and he's doing something. Again, doesn't mean he's proving the existence of something at this point though.

Maybe it's science, and maybe because we don't have proof of a bigfoot it's not empirical. If we had proof of a bigfoot, maybe then it could be empirical. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis. Seems that's what he's doing. We don't have a known, so it makes hard science hard.

I think if you say 99% should be dismissed you're making a requirement of the findings before examing the data provided. Maybe 80% are actual prints of a bigfoot, it it exists at all, maybe 10% are, maybe 1%. You're making an expectation of the data before looking at it.

>>>I thought a hypothesis was a "could be" and scientific techniques/methods were applied to "prove" the case, or not.

Thats correct but for a scientifically valid hypothesis- the hypothesis can be a "could be" but the facts supporting it need to be solid ( they are the "stilts' that the hypothesis sits on)

>>> Anyway, seems he has a "dataset" provided to him and he is applying what he "knows" to them to prove whether they could be made by something. To say they were made by a "primate" or animal doesn't prove the existence of bigfoot, but it might prove they weren't made by some other means (a guy running around with wooden carvings of feet).

His data set doesnt meet the criteria because nothing in his dataset has been established as legitimate data

>>>I think if you say 99% should be dismissed you're making a requirement of the findings before examing the data provided. Maybe 80% are actual prints of a bigfoot, it it exists at all, maybe 10% are, maybe 1%. You're making an expectation of the data before looking at it.

No- I pulled 99% out of my head

The point was there need to be accepted standards applied that can be reviewed to establish the validity of any sample ( thats a testing criteria review- that can be reviewed itself)- that cannot hinge on a a persons opinion

[billgreen2005big...]

hey researchers good evening wow this is a wonderful new thread about dr. jeff meldrum & sasquatch research i realy like the above opinions as well. please keep the replys comeing indeed. thanks bill green

This post has been edited by billgreen2005bigfoot: Nov 20 2007, 05:47 PM

[longtabber PE]

hey researchers good evening wow this is a wonderful new thread about dr. jeff meldrum & sasquatch research i realy like the above opinions as well. please keep the replys comeing indeed. thanks bill green

I prefer to keep Dr. Meldrum's name out of it for reasons stated upthread.

[Minister_of_Info...]

>>>I think if you say 99% should be dismissed you're making a requirement of the findings before examing the data provided. Maybe 80% are actual prints of a bigfoot, it it exists at all, maybe 10% are, maybe 1%. You're making an expectation of the data before looking at it.

No- I pulled 99% out of my head

The point was there need to be accepted standards applied that can be reviewed to establish the validity of any sample ( thats a testing criteria review- that can be reviewed itself)- that cannot hinge on a a persons opinion

longtabber, please let me know when you've solved the ontological problem of categories, and quantified the physical essence of various life-forms with an equation, so I can notify the department of philosophy.

Thank you.

And now we return to your regularly scheduled program...

This post has been edited by Minister_of_Information: Nov 20 2007, 06:41 PM

[longtabber PE]

longtabber, please let me know when you've solved the ontological problem of categories, and quantified the physical essence of various life-forms with an equation, so I can notify the department of philosophy.

Thank you.

And now we return to your regularly scheduled program...

As i stated before- not my field of expertise

I am not qualified or even interested in qualifying or quantifying ontological problems ( or anything else)

I'm also not interested in commenting on the "physical essence" of various lifeforms ( way outside of my degree field)

Also, I'm not a philosopher- I am a scientist who is grounded in PHYSICAL science. I give no credence to pseudo science, metaphysics or wishful thinking- I'm a FACTS and DATA guy.

I deal in REALITY only and if BF is reality, then its existance falls into that category

Let me explain my stance from the original Ghostbusters ( dont remember the exact wording)

Ackroyd's character said " you dont know how they are in the private sector, I've worked in it, they EXPECT RESULTS"- thats how i view it- show me results or get out of the game.

Please let me know when you get EVIDENCE that can be examined under a microscope and may come up with something other than "inconclusive"

You're welcome now regularly scheduled programming can resume

[Minister_of_Info...]

Hey Doc, the point (you appear to have missed it) is that the life sciences contain elements that are subjective and cannot be quantified in the way you propose. Articulated maybe, but not quantified as in a rigid set of criteria. This is the problem with having an engineer tell a biologist how to do his job.

[Melissa]

Lets define what the "Scientific Method" is.

Scientific Method (Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition)

The Scientific Method

The scientific method has evolved over many centuries and has now come to be described in terms of a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps. First, information, or data, is gathered by careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. On the basis of that information a preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed, usually by inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a number of implications that may be tested by further observations and experiments (see induction ; deduction ). If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law; if additional facts are in disagreement with the hypothesis, it may be modified or discarded in favor of a new hypothesis, which is then subjected to further tests. Even an accepted theory may eventually be overthrown if enough contradictory evidence is found, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, which was shown after more than two centuries of acceptance to be an approximation valid only for speeds much less than that of light.

Role of Measurement and Experiment

All of the activities of the scientific method are characterized by a scientific attitude, which stresses rational impartiality. Measurement plays an important role, and when possible the scientist attempts to test his theories by carefully designed and controlled experiments that will yield quantitative rather than qualitative results. Theory and experiment work together in science, with experiments leading to new theories that in turn suggest further experiments. Although these methods and attitudes are generally shared by scientists, they do not provide a guaranteed means of scientific discovery; other factors, such as intuition, experience, good judgment, and sometimes luck, also contribute to new developments in science.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, it would appear to me, that by collecting data and recording information, and casting aside what you find holds no information - even if they are casts of tracks done by more than one person, is helping to build toward a hypothesis.

Which is science. Where else does one start?

If this is not done, in some fashion, where do you start? I find that last bolded sentence very interesting.. Who would have thought intuition played any role in science, let alone luck?? I sure did not.

This post has been edited by Melissa: Nov 20 2007, 07:34 PM

[Flashman]

Nice observation Melissa. Need that bold text in 72 point font.

[longtabber PE]

Hey Doc, the point (you appear to have missed it) is that the life sciences contain elements that are subjective and cannot be quantified in the way you propose. Articulated maybe, but not quantified as in a rigid set of criteria. This is the problem with having an engineer tell a biologist how to do his job.

WRONG

This universe is common unto itself ( Newtonian physics)

So if there is "life"- it must exist within the laws of physics and biology

To quote ( and paraphrase Deming)

If it exists- it can be measured- if it can be measured, it can be managed

Theres nothing "subjective' to it ( as in open to interpretation)

if BF exists- he exists as a mammal, he exists in this universe and thus is subject to what other mammals are

FYI- biology is as empiracle and unforgiving as my field

>>>life sciences contain elements that are subjective and cannot be quantified in the way you propose. Articulated maybe, but not quantified as in a rigid set of criteria.

Thats a load of crap- if a biological entity exists, it has to be physical, leave traces of its presence, eat, sleep, reproduce, expell waste- the whole 9 yards just like the rest of us. All of that is measurable and quantifiable. The only question is "have we discovered it yet"- once discovered, its all measurable

>>>This is the problem with having an engineer tell a biologist how to do his job.

Thats why you NEED an engineer ( even tho the biological sciences agree with me) to keep you grounded in SCIENCE and not in wishful thinking- making things up to suit metaphysics so you can have at least a premise of an argument

[Flashman]

Dunno if I agree with all of that, on account of to all appearances, this is one "animal" that we practically need a full "psychological profile" on before we can start finding verifiable trace evidence. Therefore, only the people who take the subjective measure of building such a profile of the critter are likely to come up with the goods.

The forensics will put the murderer away, but to even get close to finding him, we've gotta work on the profile. The profile is scientifically and evidentially useless, but the only other way is dragnetting the entire planet or getting real lucky.

[longtabber PE]

Lets define what the "Scientific Method" is.

Scientific Method (Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition)

The Scientific Method

The scientific method has evolved over many centuries and has now come to be described in terms of a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps. First, information, or data, is gathered by careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. On the basis of that information a preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed, usually by inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a number of implications that may be tested by further observations and experiments (see induction ; deduction ). If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law; if additional facts are in disagreement with the hypothesis, it may be modified or discarded in favor of a new hypothesis, which is then subjected to further tests. Even an accepted theory may eventually be overthrown if enough contradictory evidence is found, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, which was shown after more than two centuries of acceptance to be an approximation valid only for speeds much less than that of light.

Role of Measurement and Experiment

All of the activities of the scientific method are characterized by a scientific attitude, which stresses rational impartiality. Measurement plays an important role, and when possible the scientist attempts to test his theories by carefully designed and controlled experiments that will yield quantitative rather than qualitative results. discovery; other factors, such as intuition, experience, good judgment, and sometimes luck, also contribuTheory and experiment work together in science, with experiments leading to new theories that in turn suggest further experiments. Although these methods and attitudes are generally shared by scientists, they do not provide a guaranteed means of scientific te to new developments in science.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, it would appear to me, that by collecting data and recording information, and casting aside what you find holds no information - even if they are casts of tracks done by more than one person, is helping to build toward a hypothesis.

Which is science. Where else does one start?

If this is not done, in some fashion, where do you start? I find that last bolded sentence very interesting.. Who would have thought intuition played any role in science, let alone luck?? I sure did not.

Good, lets do exactly that

>>>]First, information, or data, is gathered by careful observation of the phenomenon being studied.[/

That doesnt apply because the 'careful observation" isnt exhaustive or empiracle- its subjective

>>>On the basis of that information a preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed, usually by inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a number of implications that may be tested by further observations and experiments (see induction ; deduction

Even logic must give way to reason and facts- the FACT is the hypothesis is formed on less than empiracle data, it pretty much ends there, everything else is speculation

>>>If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law; if additional facts are in disagreement with the hypothesis, it may be modified or discarded in favor of a new hypothesis, which is then subjected to further tests. Even an accepted theory may eventually be overthrown if enough contradictory evidence is found, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, which was shown after more than two centuries of acceptance to be an approximation valid only for speeds much less than that of light.

You just made my point for me ( although I doubt that was your goal)- the hypothesis' proffered dont past any tests- at best, they are wishful thinking, at worst- BAD science- if they passed any test, there would be FACTS to debate- not theories

>>>All of the activities of the scientific method are characterized by a scientific attitude, which stresses rational impartiality.

none of that exists when one operates from a premise of "belief" ( impartiality goes out the window- thats what I have said many times upthread- again, you made my case for me even tho i doubt that was your intent)

>>>Measurement plays an important role, and when possible the scientist attempts to test his theories by carefully designed and controlled experiments that will yield quantitative rather than qualitative results. Theory and experiment work together in science, with experiments leading to new theories that in turn suggest further experiments.

we are SADLY lacking in that department arent we? ( that was also my point upthread- theres been NO testing or controlled experiments- again, you made my argument for me, Thank you)

>>>So, it would appear to me, that by collecting data and recording information, and casting aside what you find holds no information - even if they are casts of tracks done by more than one person, is helping to build toward a hypothesis.


the problem is the data isnt verified thus the results are flawed

>>>Which is science. Where else does one start?

at square 1- using all means to find the truth

>>>If this is not done, in some fashion, where do you start? I find that last bolded sentence very interesting.. Who would have thought intuition played any role in science, let alone luck?? I sure did not.

intuition is a guiding factor- not an empiracle result of testing

hope that helps

[Melissa]

How do you verify data on a subject that has not been proven to exist??

Where do you start without a hypothesis?? Which is a very important part of the Scientific process.

Now you are arguing with an Encyclopedia definition??

[longtabber PE]

How do you verify data on a subject that has not been proven to exist??

Where do you start without a hypothesis?? Which is a very important part of the Scientific process.

Now you are arguing with an Encyclopedia definition??

>>>How do you verify data on a subject that has not been proven to exist??

you dont and you cant- thats why one doesnt promote opinions as fact- you simply eveluate the data you have with the BEST methods available and stop there

>>>Where do you start without a hypothesis?? Which is a very important part of the Scientific process.
Sure and I never said any different

>>>Now you are arguing with an Encyclopedia definition??

No, just defining it, explaining it and putting it into proper perspective