A more appropriate Title for this thread might be "What I DON'T know about scientific research - which is a LOT!"...

This topic has come up several times, on several different threads, but it remains one of interest to me. After reading a posting by Giganto, who put it WORLDS better than I ever have, I got to thinking that the topic might be better served by its own Thread. We will see! I would probably be best served by quoting Giganto's posting here, and I may well do that, but with my limited time at the moment, let me launch things off and come back to that (apologies!).

Basically...

In reading posts here about the Patterson film, BF footprint casts, the (fairly) recent Canadian BF (maybe) video, etc... it occured to me that, as a layman, I was operating under a set of assumptions, or had constructed a worldview, that might be seriously flawed. In particular, I came to realize that, as a layman, I sorta assumed, in a mostly sketchy, not particularly carefully examined way, that there were "folks out there" who "looked into" just about anything. That if "I" -- read "anyone" -- produced a BF video, or photo, or footprint cast, or if "anyone" came up with some alleged BF hair, or scat, etc... that, "surely"... "someone" (read: scientist or expert) would examine and evaluate it. Rigorously.

When I think about this now, my holding to this belief was clearly NOT my finest moment. In my own defense, I can only offer up some clarification of why I describe my perceptions as "sketchy" and not particularly carefully examined -- it isn't the sort of topic I suspect most laymen give much thought.

When I DID begin to give it some serious thought, it began to occur to me that experts and scientists have before them a near infinite array of possible areas for inquiry. They MUST choose from among these areas. After all, they have finite time on their hands. They also need to make a living. Certainly, I would tend to think that scientists and academics would tend to have some basic "natural" curiosity. That being said, however, they have to also factor in practical concerns. Who is going to PAY for inquiry X or Y? Is there grant money in this field? What are the odds of success? Of publication? Am I likely to gain in professional... academic... public stature, through this research? Or am I likely to actually do myself professional HARM? In other words, scientists, academics, experts, etc, go through the same kind of basic evaluations that many of us do, in different contexts, weighing likely risks and rewards, and factoring in the practical necessities of making a living.

Given that... once a subject is seen as fringy or silly or ridiculous... once that perception has penetrated the "public consciousness"... how DOES one get a scientific examination of it to take place?

As a layman interested in BF, I often find myself wondering... is there already enough evidence, of sufficient pedigree, to make BF a real possibility worthy of consideration? Clearly, I have my biases and opinions - thus my presence here on this site! - but... what would happen if someone with really deep pockets convinced some Class A scientists, trackers, footprint experts, photo experts, etc, to really DELVE into all the available evidence? Please do not interpret this as being, in ANY WAY, an attack on those few courageous experts, scientists, etc, who HAVE weighed in on BF, who HAVE done research or work! I don't mean it to be taken that way AT ALL.

I guess I am responding, at least in part, to some of the skeptics here who talk about wanting to see scientific papers published, etc.... who hold up the lack of "serious scientific inquiry" as some sort of de-legitamizing stigma, or who point to it as proof that there is actually a paucity of decent (if only suggestive) evidence. To me, it seems more likely that BF "afficianados" face a DOUBLE challenge (assuming BF is out there!) - that is, they need to find evidence supporting the existence of an elusive, rare creature AND they have to get "someone" willing to LOOK at said evidence!

I grant you - produce a live BF, or a BF body, and this is not much of an issue (not trying to rekindle the photo/kill debate here, just noting what seems to me to be the reality - if you drive up in a pickup with a BF body in the back, you WILL get "someone" interested!). But come in with film, with footprints, with hair, etc? Or even a sighting by a group of witnesses, with supporting footprint evidence, etc?

SO...longwinded way of asking... once a subject becomes generally accepted as "unserious"... "silly"... "disreputable"... is it possible to GET serious study of it done?

Shadow

You're right - "scientists" don't just sit around waiting for alleged bigfoot evidence to analyze. At the same time though, I bet much of what you're considering as evidence has been thoroughly examined by appropriate experts. For example . . .

*Was not "sasquatch hair" from (i think) Alberta analyzed (gratis) by a DNA lab last year, and found to be bison? Does not the willingness on the part of the experts to analyze the sample FOR FREE illustrate how open the academic community would be to legitimate scientific inquiry on this creature?

*I read a lot here about how Jimmy Chilcutt and Jeff Meldrum are the most qualified people anywhere to analyze alleged sasquatch footprints. And they have done this, right? So i say, "where's the paper?" If the results are really as compelling as people here like to claim, then surely they are publishable in top-tiered journals. If the editors are biased from even reviewing such papers, then let's see those rejection letters.

*Is not Dr. Meldrum also involved with analysis of the Skookum Cast?


So it looks to me like alleged bigfoot evidence IS being examined by qualified people. The problem is that the evidence is like Sunday to Sunday: weak.

Meldrum is publishing a book, coming out 8/31/2006 (see Amazon to reserve your copy today!). He also published an article called "Midfoot Flexibility, Fossil Footprints, and Sasquatch Steps: New Perspectives on the Evolution of Bipedalism" in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 65-79, 2004 which can be found here.

Also, a journal will be coming out (hopefully in time for the Idaho meetings) that will include my own work, as well as additional footprint articles by Meldrum and Chilcutt.

Yes, Meldrum was involved with the Skookum cast analysis, as documented in Legend Meets Science.

Could you please provide a link... I tried to search Amazon.com and came up empty. :icon_bang:

Saskeptic:

The fact that a few pieces of "evidence" get examined, some as "acts of charity", is hardly the same as suggesting that there is a robust, readily accessible, and consistent "infrastructure" out there. Don't get me wrong - I am not claiming there is a big cache of high-quality, unexamined BF-related materials. What I AM suggesting is that folks - with all due respect, folks like you - like to foster the idea that what evidence there might be IS examined rigorously and enthusiastically, and found to be "weak". Frankly, I rather doubt that.

The fact that the same small handful of names are mentioned again ...and again... and again should make it clear just how FEW "experts" are willing to look into the matter and have their names associated with it. This is NOT a knock on those folks - not in ANY way. But is sure appears illustrative of the notion that, having been "commonly" relegated to the fringes by the popular media, BF is simply not taken seriously enough to generate real sustained academic interest, or to generate the kind of grants/funding that it would take to support any kind of serious, sustained effort. And I strongly suspect that those few who do buck the trend are thought of as "those BF guys".

Sas, I am a "fan" of science, if I can put it that way. I have no axe to grind with scientists or, for that matter, with BF skeptics in particular. However, scientists are, first and foremost, PEOPLE. The same things that drive, motivate, and influence human beings in general motivate scientists. The notion that scientists in general are less prone to group-think, or to be influenced by the perceptions of common culture is, I think, a risky one to embrace. I would go further and suggest that once certain subjects are seen as the kind of thing embraced only by the great unwashed masses, they are even LESS likely to be given serious consideration. Given the choice between looking into something that generates smirks and scorn in the popular culture AND in the scientific community, with no financial backing, and pursuing more "respectable" subjects where financial backing IS available, I strongly suspect MOST "scientists" are going to go with the latter.

Shadow

Here you go!

[quote name='ShadowPrime' date='Apr 14 2006, 05:58 AM' post='308823']
Saskeptic:

The fact that a few pieces of "evidence" get examined, some as "acts of charity", is hardly the same as suggesting that there is a robust, readily accessible, and consistent "infrastructure" out there. . . "


I'm with you about group think among scientists Shadow, and i agree that we're no different inside than anyone else. "If you cut me, do I not bleed?" But if your premise was that scientists ignore potentially valuable sasquatch evidence, then you've got to consider what evidence you mean and who are the most appropriate people to analyze it. I don't think we've got a cache of evidence that hasn't been given its fair shake:

Footprint casts - Most American "scientists" would have about as much to add to an analysis of footprint casts as some dude randomly selected from the deodorant aisle of your local Wal-Mart. Who does have the appropriate expertise? I'd suggest an expert on primate foot anatomy and biomechanics. Because Meldrum is certainly the latter, then I conclude that an appropriate expert is working on such data. If the best that expert can do with those data is place them in a book or a fringe journal, then I'm left to conclude (appropriately) that the data cannot withstand standard peer review. If I've got to work like a dog to get my papers on known species through the review process, then why should the standard be any lower for an undocumented species?

Hair samples - If DNA labs are in fact testing the samples, then I don't see the problem. Do we have widespread examples of potential sasquatch hair that labs refuse to analyze? If so, I'm fully on board with you, but I suspect that's not the case. Scientists love mystery. I expect that many "DNA" labs would be happy to analyze a potential bigfoot sample. If it comes back negative, you look open-minded - hardly a negative impression. If it comes back positive (whatever that means), you've positioned yourself to write the paper that will allow you to totally coast for the rest of your career. It's a win-win for a DNA lab.

Patty - Who should examine this? Photographic experts? Special effects creature designers? I certainly can't do anything with it. It's either a real sasquatch or a person in a suit. Well, what kind of "zoologist" is appropriately trained to make that call? Ask folks here what they think about DFoot's -a Hollywood creature guy - opinion of the film. To me, that's an appropriate expert examining the film. There may be other experts who disagree with him, but the end result is the same - inconclusive.

Eyewitness accounts - who should analyze these? Psychologists?

So what else is there? In terms of physical evidence that can be analyzed, you're dealing with things like plaster casts and hair samples, primarily.

So I think there IS sustained interest out there in analyzing bigfoot evidence. But the nature of that evidence means that only a small number of people are qualified to to examine it in the first place.

Well stated Saskeptic, however, playing the devil's advocate...


I don't believe that scientists ignore evidence, they just don't bother with it in the 1st place. Laymen are the ones footing the bill for most of the collecting/testing of evidence. Most labs will test anything you pay them to, and gladly.


Of course the standard shouldn't be lower. But you've avoided the obvious stigma associated with anything BF. Firstly, the fields of study that would qualify funding research for a BF paper are pretty limited. Crypto studies in general have to compete for the same funds as mainstream science. Pure, not-for-profit scientific research is funded prudently and no serious scientific study wants to make its way to the top of the "Crazy Research That Wastes Your Tax Dollars" list. Otherwise, mainstream research topics can dwell on the minutia, providing the subject matter stems from a foundation of well established science. Unfortunately for BF it sets up the infamous Catch-22 where it requires validation (a body) to be seriously considered science. Should a BF paper include a disclaimer that you need to suspend your disbelief while evaluating the content? Dr. Meldrum can attest to the stigma associated with BF research which all too often gets lumped in with the fringe stuff, such as the paranormal, UFOs, etc.


Sure, DNA labs would likely be happy to test potential BF samples but, as you know, this isn't the issue with DNA testing. The level of DNA testing on the samples has only been applied to rule out certain animals. This is not a test that's set up to prove anything. It's set up to exonerate or implicate a known candidate. A better DNA test can estimate the divergence from known ape lineages, including humans.


Sorry, but DFoot's analysis of the PGF does not meet scientific standards (no one's posts do). This isn't a science forum. Do you really think there's a research paper hidden in amongst Dfoot's posts? There is, however, a paper or 2 that could come out of analyzing the PGF since there has yet to be a formal, comprehensive photogrammetric analysis of the film. This is mostly due to proprietary issues, but if the source material were made available, you might be surprised how accurately a 3D model of Patty could be developed. Then we could test various null hypotheses such as "A Human Can Not Fit in The Suit", which would attempt to demonstrate that a creature suit is highly improbable. The suitmakers/photo experts would then need to show how it could have been done, which IMO hasn't been close to being demonstrated. At any rate, you certainly can't assert that the PGF is a dry well that just doesn't have a research paper left in it. And it's quite an assumption that any further analysis would end up inconclusive.


Actually, eyewitness accounts don't amount to much on their own, however, collectively they can tell a lot. A cluster analysis on the data might reveal the degree of hoaxed accounts. Combined with other statistical analyses, null hypotheses can be tested, conclusions can be drawn, (eg. probability ALL accounts are hoaxes or misidentifications are astronomical). And yes, the phenomenon itself is worthy of analysis. Why don't the skeptics submit a paper titled "The So-Called BF Evidence Is Weak!"? There's a million reasons not to write a paper on BF, even if you're a skeptic, but especially if you're a working scientist that is expected to publish or parish.


Image analyses, population analysis (foot size), hoax analyses, recently discovered casting artifacts, better DNA testing, Skookum cast, to name a few. And what about funding for collecting NEW evidence?


True enough, but interest isn't support. Would a BF paper be restricted to focus on issues that attempted to prove the existence of BF? It's easy enough to say "just publish the paper, stupid", but few are going to risk it on such a fringe subject, let alone get the funding to conduct the research. I guess qualified scientists with a keen interest in BF could write a paper in their spare time, as a research hobby. It would probably take less effort than the accumulated posts written by some on this forum. But what is to be gained and what's the motivation? Any reputable scientist writing a serious paper featuring an undiscovered, unclassified bipedal primate, knows they're in for a rough ride. Good luck using all your rejection letters to whine how the science journals just aren't playing fair. IMO, there's little incentive to write/submit a BF paper period. Science needs a body first, and even then some will wait for the peer reviewed paper before they believe it.

And the answer to the age old question "what came 1st, the chicken or the egg?", is of course the egg has been around much longer than the chicken. Better rephrase the question.