Logical, yes. However, any article that begins by suggesting a comparison - or even mentioning in the same breath - sasquatch and jackolopes is already starting out on the wrong foot as far as I'm concerned. It's like saying, "Obviously, I don't take this seriously and neither should you."
QUOTE
If such cryptids still survived in the hinterlands of North America and Asia, surely by now one would have turned up. So far all we have are the accounts. Anecdotes are a good place to begin an investigation--which by themselves cannot verify a new species. In fact, in the words of social scientist Frank J. Sulloway of the University of California at Berkeley--words that should be elevated to a maxim: "Anecdotes do not make a science. Ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred anecdotes are no better than ten."
I employ Sulloway's maxim every time I encounter Bigfoot hunters and Nessie seekers. Their tales make for gripping narratives, but they do not make sound science. A century has been spent searching for these chimerical creatures. Until a body is produced, skepticism is the appropriate response.
Just for the record, I'm not equating encounter reports with science. No one (who wants to be taken seriously) is. However, that doesn't mean you can discount them. That's called living with your head in the sand...
