Night Walker, on 18 June 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:
The trouble is that some people
know they have Bigfoot living behind their houses yet the only evidence they can provide are fakes and misidentifications. When it comes to Bigfoot (and other mysteries) it is evident that things are not as they
seem...
That is incorrect - again, things are not as they seem.
"Scientific knowledge is by its nature provisional. This is due to the fact that as time goes on, with the invention of better instruments, more data and better data hone our understanding further. Social, cultural, economic and political context are relevant to our understanding of how science works." (
source)
That is, the process of science builds our collective knowledge base and it is our understanding of these "facts" that is constantly evolving and improving - not so much the "facts" themselves.
Perhaps this is a good example of "Do as I say, not as I do" since Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (author of one of the great fictional investigators - Sherlock Holmes) was taken in time and time again by spiritualist fakers and even children - remember the Cottingley fairies? Sir Arthur
thought that he
knew better. If we stick only with knowledge that we know (or think we know) then the development of our understanding is severely stunted by our own humanity. Science by-passes those limitations by favouring objectivity over subjectivity - the Sky, then, literally becomes the limit!
Science also documents and seeks to understand errors, failures, and when things don't work. How often did Sir Arthur admit that he got it wrong or was deceived? Can the folk who claim to live with Bigfoot behind their houses admit they are mistaken or faking? Do they
know better?
Is it not somewhat amusing to badmouth science on a media (the internet) that allows instantaneous communication between people from almost anywhere on Earth and which was created entirely via the process of science?
Science is, without doubt, simply the best process we have of understanding the world around us. "Skeptics" and "believers" can work together but this lack of understanding and even outright distrust of science (more often from the very people making sensational claims) is a major stumbling block.
I am, to my own horror, aware of Doyle having been fooled by those fake photos. My dissapointment at that fact cannot be described with words. Be aware, I'm not insinuating that one of my favorite authors is an unimpeachable authority when it comes to science, I was simply making a reasonable quote.
Don't get me wrong, science I have no problem with, however, scientists, being human and therefor imperfect and entirely susceptible to error, are whom I tend to distrust. It also doesn't help when I find scientists each holding vastly different opinions in different subjects. Scientists can, have, and will continue to make mistakes. We're all human, error within our actions is inevitable. There have been incidents where scientists have not only been wrong, but in some cases have falsified information in order to support their theories. Be aware though, I'm not by any means claiming that zoologists and such are involved in some kind of conspiracy to stomp on cryptozoology, I'm referring to incidents in the far past in very different subjects. In modern politics I see this more and more often, where 'studies' are conducted, but in reality are specifically designed to achieve a desired result. The same can be done in scientific studies.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on science, and I'm more than likely to get stomped in this discussion by those who are better versed in it myself, but I have noticed a few trends. I've noticed science is becoming more and more politicized today, being aimed more towards political objectives rather than for advancing science, which saddens me. Popular media takes science and twists it, or oversimplifies it, giving an incorrect presentation. People conduct studies aimed for specific political goals, which are manipulated and controlled, while some others are simply poorly done yet others tout it as brilliance. No scientist is completely free of prejudice, bias, or subjectivity. All outcomes will be influenced by the individuals working them. Thats why we have the scientific method and peer viewing, to help root out poor science.
Again, its not the science itself I'm suspicious of, its psuedoscience or manufactured science that I'm worried about, and with the vast amount of information flowing around today, its difficult to tell which is real science and which is psuedoscience.
I apologize if my work seems poorly constructed or unorganized. Its difficult for me to put my thoughts in physical form.
Anyway, cryptozoology could be made a bit more legitimate if it worked specifically on gathering facts and data, and then drawing conclusions afterwards. I admit, its possible that things such as Bigfoot are not real. But there is such a lack of reasonable data that its very difficult to make a reasonable analysis. Not to mention the idea of trying to research something which may or may not exist at all is understandably unusual and frustrating to scientists.
Oh, and when I said I sometimes laugh at scientists, I was not trying to 'badmouth' it. I apologize if thats how I came off on it, that was not my intention. I was referring to various phenomenon in which science has yet to explain or understand. Many of these involve things like human behavior, such as laughing, or blushing, or having facial hair, and famously, yawning. None of these seem to have a legitimate purpose, and yet they still take place. I've heard of other phenomenon as well that science is still struggling to understand, but have immense difficulty.
I admit that my previous post, and quite likely this one as well, have been presented poorly. Again, its very difficult for me to get my thoughts down in a reliable manner, and I've given some incorrect impressions, and for that I apologize. I hope that in the future I can get more of my facts straight and present my opinions in a clearer manner.
1
