Part of the problem with the situation is that too many people think of proving Biff's existence like a court case. Take a murder case: They find the murder weapon under someone's bed - prosecutors feel that this is evidence that the person who owns the bed is a murderer while that person's mother might feel that this is evidence that someone is trying to frame her baby. To win a court case, prosecutors gather as many different points of evidence that all seem to point in a given direction and hope it weighs enough in the minds of the jury that the conclusion can only be denied by an unreasonable level of mental gymnastics.
Science is different. It's not about evidence, it's about proof. To say a Biff exists scientifically, the only thing that qualifies is a Biff (or part of one). The entire planet could be covered in 30 inch footprints and wrapped in a coccoon of unidentifiable hair and it still isn't enough for biology to accept the existence of a new creature without actually having a specimen of the creature itself.
Anyway, the point is that when dealing with any subject that's currently outside the sphere of science (ghosts, cryptids, religion, etc), discussing the evidence and why you think it points in a given direction is an interesting activity, if for no other reason than it gives us an insight into why people believe what they do. Saying, "THIS is a fact and THIS is why I believe that fact is evidence of something.", while someone else says, "HERE'S why I think that fact is evidence of something else.", is good discussion. As long as everyone involved in the discussion understands that science requires proof level evidence to actually claim the evidence is what you're saying it is and that there's almost never a way to prove a negative then the whole thing is just a good mental workout.
they knows what evidence means ... they just don't care about the paperwork
Edited by third_eye, 25 February 2013 - 03:10 PM.