It's Armeggedon week on the History Channel, and aside from the Discovery Channel, they do a pretty good job of "hyping" events that can kill us, ruin our earth, and just plain make life miserable. When they showed "Super Volcano" (The Discovery Channel) last year my 12 year old didn't sleep for a week, we started calling her "Worst Case Scenario Girl".

But tonight the History Channel showed a show called "Asteroids" or "Meteor" or something like that. One of the astronomers they interviewed made a comment that made me think of the Bigfoot phenomena, he said, and I paraphrase, in regards to meteorites: It took scientits centuries to believe what the common man knew all along, that rocks fell from the sky.

He then followed up that that is often the situation in scientific circles, the "common man/woman" will see an event or phenomena, but scientists are always the last to react to looking at what happened.

Sounds kind of familiar.

Jon

Yea and the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese.
If these so called Scientist know every damn thing like some of them think they do then none of them would have jobs.
All over the world local people see and believe in many things that these "scientist" say are not real. Most people now days think that any time a scientist says something that it is a fact and that is just not the way things are.

I am not the smartest person in the world. But I do know enough to know that humans have not even came close to learning everything about this earth and what is on it. Every day some place someone is seeing something new that is not in any books or anything yet. And you can bet anything you want that chances are the local people know all about it and think nothing at all about this "New animal".

Them so called scientist that find the new animals go around telling the world that they discovered it when in fact the local people always know it was there. The only ones that can say that they are really the first to find something is someone who goes deep in the oceans and finds something. And even then who knows a fisherman from the local area might have seen them hundreds of times already.

Sorry, I will edit that immediately...

Jon

No way!! I liked it !! Theres one way to make science interesting to high schoolers everywhere.

Sort of ties into our celebration of somebody "finding" North America.
The people already living here didn't even know they were lost...

Sorry Jim,

I did try to edit it but now I can't. Maybe I have just renamed the procedure for breast augmentation.

Jon

The progression of science and the wisdom of man seems to invariably show that what was thought conclusively to be true was in fact partially, mostly, or entirely wrong, according to the new science and wisdom of man.

When did what I recall to be the theory of evolution become commonly accepted as "scientific" fact, as some here would stridently assert?
To be concise, but not simplistic, we suddenly sprang to life from a rock accidentally? Science or faith? Chihuahaus and great danes are dogs. Kitty cats and lions are cats. Some moths are black and some are white. Therefore, untold countless accidental mutations progressively improved to construct eyesight and a fish turned into you? And you accept that because he said so? Oh...they said so.
PhDs and H2SO4s behind someone's name does not necessarily mean they are the most-qualified,unbiased, objective, non-agenda driven observers.

Just the other day on radio somewhere, I heard an PhD postulate most conclusively that bigfoot is fiction and I'm an idiot for believing otherwise. I'm certain some here would definitely take his side on half of that theory but I would have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to challenge his credentialed expertise.

Something missed however in defense ( sort of) of scientists is that for every one good idea or theory they miss.. there are about 1000 stupid ones that they get presented with, that they turn out correct on.

Absolutley - not to mention the viking settlements in newfoundland, long before Columbus set off.

Sounds like Dr. Daegling. He wrote a whole book on his suppositions without bothering to look at the evidence. He once roomed with Dr. Meldrum.

As to evolution, you seem to be confusing it with abiogenesis. Evolution only deals with life after it starts. How it started is a whole different field. I know of no hypothesis that claims we sprang from rocks, although there are organims today that are little more than rocks themselves. Much happened before cellular life began, and the combining of building blocks (common throught the universe) into self-replicating molecules and protocells could have occured on rocks, or even within them, but that's about as close as it gets.

In science an hypothesis is proposed and everyone tries to shoot it down. That's how science works. There's that old "in light of new evidence" thing. It doesn't mean the scientific method is wrong, it means science is self-correcting. And that's one of the good things about science. I find the new discoveries to be incredibly fascinating. If they upset my old belief system, so be it. I can change my beliefs without notice.

The "Scientific Method", as it's often called, is a Catch-22 situation. It's key to solving complicated questions accurately. But, like everything else, it must be moderated with common sense.

If one uses the scientific method as a tool, it's a wonderful thing. But if you use it as an ideology and guidebook on how to live life, you're in for some tough times.

Hey, just ask Lloyd!

Vikings made it all the way to Heavener, Oklahoma.

Science it a bit like a charging bear, it needs a decent sized slug to bring it down. One of the things that sticks in my mind was the "There can't possibly be another planet beyond Pluto" all the inconsistancies in the orbits are explained by *wave arms wave arms wave arms*.... until they found Quaoar and Sedna, which I notice have now been termed "Planetoids" so they can say they weren't actually wrong. And there was quite a history of "amateur" astronomers and mathematicians either observing them or predicting their positions with a fair degree of accuracy. Scientists today forget that the foundations of many sciences were laid by "amateurs" the professional scientist was a rare animal until the 20th century. Even Einstein wasn't a professional scientist at the time he came up with his special theory of relativity, he was an "amateur".

Heh, you watch if Bigfoot is found, he'll get a whole new classification, so any professors that said it was impossible for a large hominid or primate to be in North America, will still be "right".

Now an amateur, from the root of the word, is one who loves the field. One who loves the field attempts to enrich it for it's own sake, for the love of doing it and for the love of the subject. A professional has his livelihood depend on the field. He has a fiscal interest in it. Now, not all professionals are like this, but if you don't believe that people would lie and cheat to protect their livelihoods and things they have a financial interest in, then you can't have met many people. Therefore while some amateurs and professionals in a field may be misguided, there are a few professionals at least who will deliberately obstruct it's development according to their vested interest in it. To academic professors of high standing, it's all about being "right" if they continue to be "right" they are not replaced. No risks can be taken in the game of being right. Evidence that does not fit you pet theory will not be recognised. What is particularly brutal is that in the last 30 years, the habit of dismissing evidence because it does not fit the theory, has replaced the true scientific method of dismissing the theory if it does not fit the evidence.

Science is unfortunately setting itself up for a fall. Theories are now vehemently defended as if they were cast in stone entities, instead of fluid, dynamic working models that embrace new evidence and modify themselves to reflect it. It's the all or nothing polarisation, the digital rightness instead of the analog fluidity that is ruining science. This means that theories are now set up like fortresses, and only massive full scale assault will have any effect on them. A single piece of evidence is like an arrow, it bounces off the wall. No arrow is seen as great enough to break the fortress, yet the arrows would penetrate the theory if the walls weren't there. Then the theory itself would reconfigure to account for the arrows, instead of being artificially protected by the stone wall. So, we have science setting up as the unassailable fortress, it is itself telling the world that nothing but a major wall breach can affect it. So that posturing becomes dangerous in that groups of people such as the creationists seek to blow it out of the water decisively. There is no more, "our theory could be about 20% wrong, we will amend it" it's polarised, all right or all wrong, and science has encouraged this attitude.

True seekers of knowledge will recognise that the more one knows, one realises how much more one doesn't know. Every answer brings 10 new questions. Those who push the borders of the circle of light, see how much more darkness there is. Science these days is standing with it's back to the darkness, saying "Wow, look at all the light we've got... it's big, it must be bigger than the dark". They are at a very dangerous point now, they have started to look backward instead of forward. Imagine the hub of our circle of light has a pole, the pushers of the borders of the light are all tied to it with long, very stretchy, elastic ropes, as long as they run forward against the tension, they push back the borders. If they lose momentum, if they turn to take a sinful arrogant pride in the amount of light behind them, what will happen? The bungee cord of inevitability will snatch them off their feet, our circle of light will diminish. Made small by the arrogance of our pride in it's greatness.

Flash.

Wow.

Great post, Flash.

Here's a book science critics would enjoy: Science is a Sacred Cow, available on Amazon for $2 at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007FNI4...glance&n=283155

I posted a "review" there consisting of two or three dozen quotes from the book, to give you its flavor. (There should be more such reviews on Amazon.)

You're correct Flash! One of the greatest problems in science is that scientists are quick to point out that science is self correcting, yet they seldom allow it to happen. Scores of books, magazines and periodicals are full of quotes like these,

"Preconceptions are rarely acknowledged, because this, after all, would be “unscientific.� And yet preconceptions are an individual scientist’s guide to how to view the world with a degree of order that allows structured questions to be asked. The anonymous aphorism “I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.� is a continuing truth in science." (Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, 1987, p.19)

The other negative side to science is the general publics view of science. They dont know enough about it to care and are satisfied when given a "scientific" sounding answer, even if its based on nothingness.

Said state we are indeed. :help:

Motivation is a key aspect of marketing...

And what's more motivating than telling someone they're going to be smashed flat?

"Hey, buy this product and you won't die."

Works for me... and a bargain at any price!

I don't even know what the damn thing does, but I've got three of them... just in case...

Yes, part of the problem is that people in general and politically, want simple yes/no answers from scientists, they cannot (or refuse to) comprehend the full implications of arcanely scientific qualifications of answers. Thus one might say that science may have been forced into the behaviour of being a right/wrong yes/no authority. Quite often when science "fails" the public, it's more a case of the scientists said one thing and the public heard another. Adding to sciences complex image problems is the tendency of TV advertising to stick a man in a white coat in commercials for all manner of snake oil. That's going to be a long term loser for the scientific establishment.

I read that the lady who discovered that the Coelecanth was still living, found it on a fishermans boat or pier, where they had apparently been eating them for some time.

I can picture the natives dining on "Filet de Coelecanth" saying "This extinct stuff tastes pretty good."

Just 'cause no educated scientist seen one don't mean they ain't out there.

" i cant draw any conclusions, i only have 16 years worth of data!!!"

Maybe that's why they go extinct. They just taste too damned good for their own good.

Now I'm getting hungry for a coelecanth and spotted owl casserole.

....and you don't like woodpecker???

Oh, Hunny likes Woodpecker...trusssssssssttttt me........

I'm scared! Someone hold me!

Not for all the pixie dust in China.

Woodpecker was the best bird I ever tasted. I did not learn what it was until after I had already had some.
We was hunting and came upon a guy camping out in the middle of no where. He was cooking and invited us to join him. After eating a while I asked him what we was eating as it was so good and that is when he told me woodpeckers lol. I sort of did not believe him until he showed us a couple of more that was not cleaned yet.

Personally I like the Prince Madoc theory also. If it was good enough for L. L' More it's good enough for me.

Jon

The woodpecker-in-distress call is one of the most productive calls for bringing in predators like coyotes, foxes, cats, etc.

They must taste good.

I'm game to try it, but the little red headed flickers we have up here wouldn't even be a good mouthful.

I need a BIG woodpecker. Say, about 3' long.

People actually kill & eat woodpeckers? That's amazing! By the time ya get rid of the feathers, subtract the skin & the bones... What the heck is left?

And then there's that spotted owl stew post... People eat them, too? Now how many owls or woodpeckers do yall figure ya need for a serving? 2 or 4 or 6 or 8?

Laugh if ya want, and consider me the official BFF party planner, but I just gotta know! I'm really serious...!

Luncheon for 100... "On the menu today is grilled woodpecker, wild rice, broccoli & carrots with a hint of basil, accompanied by a crisp mixed green salad... Cream of mushroom or owl's nest soups are the selections of the day...

Mind-boggling! That would certainly stop my mother-in-law dead in her tracks! What kind of dessert do you plan for this meal??!! :help:

Good old apple pie (the kind Gramma bakes)!

I think I'd better let WM handle this one...

Well the time I had some I had 2 but could have eaten a couple of more if he had them already cooked up.
I would say they are about the size of a quail or dove in size after cooked and all, Maybe a little smaller but not much. The guy said at the time that most times he made them in a stew sort of thing. But right then he had them cooked up fried in bacon grease.

I am not sure where he got them all but he had like 10 of them things that day. I do not remember ever seeing that many in the woods in one day in my life. Maybe he had some way to call them or something I really have no clue but he had them. I have also heard of others saying that they have eaten them over the years after that day. Seems like every time I tell that story others say they have tried them also.

Littlefoot,

You need to read Carl Hiassen, a novelist from Florida, he has a great character called Skink. He'll eat anyhing.

Jon

ummmm! I wonder how smoked coelecanth would taste. Side of Ivory Bill slaw. Pass the primordial soup, please.

Flash, I enjoyed your posts. Very clearly stated, and on the money.

BSF

I don't know how he would have caught that many woodpeckers, but my brothers would spread cow feed outside the barn door, then wait behind a couple bales of hay and when the quail showed up for breakfast...Kaboom!

They thought I was a wuss because I wouldn't eat them. Do they taste like chicken??

Sunflower

Man... every so often I stumble across a passage so eloquently expressed, I'm consumed with envy that I did not write it. For example:

This is definately worthy of appearing in a book of quotations. Two enthusiastic (and opposable) thumbs up!

"Quail or dove"-sized woodpeckers sounds like red-bellies or flickers. Flickers are supposed to be kind of unpalatable from eating so many ants and accumulating formic acid. I can't imagine red-bellies taste that much better, but they do take quite a bit of fruit in their diet to supplement their mainstay of grubs. Of course, I'd gobble down buffalo chips as long as they're fried in bacon grease . . .

Either way, ALL woodpeckers are protected in the US. Those caught collecting them for any purpose without a state or federal permit could face some annoying fines. More gravely, they could also face the ire of angry mobs of post-menopausal women with chickadee appliquees on their sweatshirts, swinging heavy binoculars over their heads like extras in Braveheart.


As for "science"'s fallibility, y'all are welcome at any time to return to a Middle Ages' world view. Your frustrations against the scientific establishment as a whole are too sweeping, in my estimation. Advances in agriculture, medicine, energy, communications, engineering, genetics, - take your pick - all indicate that the tremendous majority of scientific research applications lead to predictable outcomes, i.e., the scientists CAN actually tell their heads from holes in the ground.

For example, I doubt anyone ever "declared" that coelocanths were extinct. The coelocanth was just one of innumerable species known from some period in the fossil record, and not recorded in later strata or known from recent specimens. The logical conclusion, based on that information, was that coelocanths no longer existed to leave fossils behind. So when some fisherman hauls one up and a scientist is quoted as saying "that's impossible," that's just the scientist's way of stating that it would be more parsimonious to presume the identification was in error - which happens all the time - rather than the highly unusual result that the species had persisted for eons without leaving fossil evidence. Once western scientists had a chance to examine the evidence firsthand, they let out a collective "I'll be damned." What's wrong with that? This story is not the gaff that many people like to think it is. Rather it seems to have played out exactly as it should have. For a scientist, an open mind is a good thing, but a gullible mind is a disaster.

One more example:

An illiterate native shaman prepares two teas - one of leaves and one of stems - from the same plant that she knows helps to alleviate fevers. She discovers that the stem tea works much better, and subsequently makes that preparation for all her patients from that point on.

A tenured professor who's published over 200 scientific papers on evolution, biogeography, and hominid anatomy is interviewed for a TV documentary and says "There is no way that bigfoot-type creatures can exist anywhere but in the minds of the believers."

Which one is the scientist?

I submit that it's important to separate a person's job from their action at any given moment. When a so-called scientist says that bigfoot can't exist, then he's not speaking as a scientist, he's speaking as an idiot.

Sounds very reasonable. Thanks for that advice. I'd hate to kill one just to find out that they're poor table fare.



Yup. You're right again. (Damn those G-Men; they can even ruin your meal!)



Yet again, I've gotta agree. I'm generally too critical of science.

But with respect to the sasquatch phenomenon, I don't think I'm off the mark too far.........



That isn't my claim. I think their heads are in holes in the ground, and they can't tell their......ummmm, you know........from holes in the ground.

(Just joking :new_devilsmiley: You know me, Saskeptic; always playing with words!)



Excellent example. I agree.

Thanks, xjay, for changing my understanding of American history, especially its European exploration. I didn't before know about Oklahoma's Runestone State Park in Heavener (pronounced HEEV ner).

Learn about it for yourself at Magellan's Log: Vikings in Oklahoma. Although it would appear that the Vikings did make it across country all the way to the lower Great Plains, who knows if they ever returned home to tell their tale.

On the subject of re-writing science and history, Gloria Farley, the same researcher who identified the rock carvings in Heavener as being Norse runes instead of Indian petroglyphs went on to uncover more physical evidence that several other pre-Columbian cultures (that is, anything before 1492) had explored central North America. The 491 page hardback book documenting her findings is used as a history textbook at Heavener High School.



SOURCE: "In Plain Sight" by Gloria Farley.

If you think it is difficult to get scientists to accept evidence for an ape species in North America, wait and see how long it takes before historians rewrite their textbooks that Columbus was not the first explorer in history to "discover" the western hemisphere.

And don't forget St. Brendan the Navigator, who is reputed to sailed to Newfoundland from the west coast of Ireland (and back) in (i think) the 400s AD, a mere 1000 years before Columbus. He and his band of merry monks made the arduous trek in kayak-like boats of hazelwood frames covered in greased cowhides. . .