Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Killing Bigfoot with Bad Science

bigfoot brian dunning jeff meldrum pgf

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 25 August 2013 - 02:43 AM

I thought this was an excellent article, albeit an older one. But it raises some comments and questions from me: Please read, it's good.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4011

1) Ray Wallace. I agree that Ray Wallace's fake feet can't be used to completely negate the existence of the creature Bigfoot. However, I believe the influence on the legend's growth and spread could've been significant.

2) PGF.How I hate to bring it up, but Dunning did in the article so I will briefly comment. I have always felt the thigh muscles looked real and huge, yet the face was not convincing for me at all.

This is what I am most interested in.
3) Meldrum. A good scientist "The work of responsible scientists like Dr. Meldrum is exactly what true skeptics should be asking the Bigfoot community for, not criticizing him for it."

Dunning had a lot of good things to say about Meldrum. If Meldrum is so good and credible and just what skeptics need, how seriously do we need to take his collection of prints? How do his academic credentials, knowledge, and activities weigh in? Do we defer to his expertise? Why not? How do you separate a good scientist from bad science? Or, cohabitate the two? etc

I think the three believer's cases of "bad science" he mentions are a given, even though we hear them all the time.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 25 August 2013 - 02:48 AM.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#2    Sakari

Sakari

    Rob Lester

  • Member
  • 14,454 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 25 August 2013 - 04:01 AM

I used to think Meldrum was a good thing. But, after further review, and correspondence, I know he is not. He actually almost fell for the " captured live Bigfoot " fiasco at that Texas Bigfoot joke of a club. He actually wasted time on it. Then the Blimp thing....

And, the casts....

How many Biologists are out there?.......A lot.

How many acknowledge they think Bigfoot exists?........1, Meldrum.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#3    NatureBoff

NatureBoff

    SandersonHapgood

  • Banned
  • 3,491 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 25 August 2013 - 04:12 AM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 25 August 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

I thought this was an excellent article, albeit an older one. But it raises some comments and questions from me: Please read, it's good.
Good article which criticises both sides of the investigations. His last paragraph reads:

Quote

I know you're going to listen to all of this and conclude that I'm the pro-Bigfoot guy. I'll admit to being a Bigfoot hopeful (a hope based more on emotion than on any actual likelihood), but certainly not a believer. My point is simply that both sides of every debate contain a lot chaff along with the wheat. Both sides of every skeptical issue believe that they're right, but even those on the side that is right (and by that, I mean whichever side you're on) can probably stand to clean up their act a little, no matter what the issue is.


Edited by NatureBoff, 25 August 2013 - 04:13 AM.

The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation.

#4    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 25 August 2013 - 04:39 AM

View PostSakari, on 25 August 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

I used to think Meldrum was a good thing. But, after further review, and correspondence, I know he is not. He actually almost fell for the " captured live Bigfoot " fiasco at that Texas Bigfoot joke of a club. He actually wasted time on it. Then the Blimp thing....

And, the casts....

How many Biologists are out there?.......A lot.

How many acknowledge they think Bigfoot exists?........1, Meldrum.

Oh, I am in your camp, Sakari.

I was referring to the article  and wondering how a skeptic reconciles this conflict. I'm trying to understand this POV on a "good, credible, knowledgeable" scientist as being unworthy of criticism, and even beneficial to skepticism , while at the same time, he has a bf foot casts collection, etc.

How we should separate his being unworthy of criticism as a scientist, yet at the same time, how should his bf beliefs effect his credibility as a scientist and worthiness of criticism?

Edited by QuiteContrary, 25 August 2013 - 04:45 AM.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#5    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 25 August 2013 - 04:51 AM

If we should accept him as a good, credible, knowledgeable scientist, why should we dismiss his foot casts? This is his "specialty". And if we then chose to accept his foot casts, we'd have excellent evidence for the existence of this creature. Would we not? And if we dismiss his collection how is he credible and unworthy of criticism as a scientist?

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#6    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 25 August 2013 - 11:57 AM

Criticism (as in being critical of something, weighing it's merits) is part and parcel of science. If any scientist can't handle critical views of their work then they simply chose the wrong profession.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#7    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,410 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 25 August 2013 - 12:11 PM

View PostSakari, on 25 August 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

How many Biologists are out there?.......A lot.

How many acknowledge they think Bigfoot exists?........1, Meldrum.

How many are willing to acknowledge a sasquatch-like creature could exist (not as a thought-exercise, but given the alleged physical evidence and witness testimony) in the area in question?

Answer - you don't know.

Normally, Sakari, I would agree with you as you exhibit critical thinking, but in this case you have let your bias override that.

Sure, Meldrum is the only high-profile, media-driven personality from that field expressing their opinion to the positive, regarding the question of sasquatch. But that does not mean he is the only biologist who might consider sasquatch a very real possibility.

Your comment above is an example of the "bad science" that is trying to kill sasquatch. And it comes from cynicism, not skepticism.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#8    MrBene

MrBene

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Joined:31 Jul 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rio Gallegos, Argentina

  • A regular guy

Posted 25 August 2013 - 04:22 PM

I enjoyed the article and I agree with many of his statements.


#9    Sakari

Sakari

    Rob Lester

  • Member
  • 14,454 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 25 August 2013 - 05:12 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 25 August 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

How many are willing to acknowledge a sasquatch-like creature could exist (not as a thought-exercise, but given the alleged physical evidence and witness testimony) in the area in question?

Answer - you don't know.

Normally, Sakari, I would agree with you as you exhibit critical thinking, but in this case you have let your bias override that.

Sure, Meldrum is the only high-profile, media-driven personality from that field expressing their opinion to the positive, regarding the question of sasquatch. But that does not mean he is the only biologist who might consider sasquatch a very real possibility.

Your comment above is an example of the "bad science" that is trying to kill sasquatch. And it comes from cynicism, not skepticism.



Maybe I should have said :

How many have come out and said........

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#10    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 25 August 2013 - 07:06 PM

One might ask, "How many scientist have come out bashing Meldrum?"

The lack of credible scientist who are bashing him and belittling his name and results speaks as loudly as the ones who would endorse his work.


#11    Sakari

Sakari

    Rob Lester

  • Member
  • 14,454 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:11 PM

View Postkeninsc, on 25 August 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

One might ask, "How many scientist have come out bashing Meldrum?"

The lack of credible scientist who are bashing him and belittling his name and results speaks as loudly as the ones who would endorse his work.

I have never seen nor heard bashing from Scientists to other Scientists in any field. They are professionals, and adults. I would not call the lack of " bashing " anything at all, except mature and normal.

Silence is not consent. Silence has never been consent. Silence will never be consent.

Edited by Sakari, 25 August 2013 - 08:13 PM.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#12    Skep B

Skep B

    Savant of Depravity

  • Member
  • 5,563 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duuuuuuuuuuuude

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:14 PM

or they just don't see it as worth their time.

When you know what a man loves, you know what can kill him


#13    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:18 PM

My OP isn't meant to be about bashing...it's about struggling with an existing credibility for a scientist's mainstream work, and extending that credibility to a collection of evidence (foot casts) for sasquatch. Or, secondly, lowering the (existing) crediblity of that scientist's mainstream work. Or, thirdly, co-existing the two.

Importantly and Because M's collection relates to his field of expertise, this is his thing. It relates to what he knows and studies-- anatomy, anthropology, functional morphology, vertebrate locomotion.

If you choose to continue to support him as a good researcher and respect his mainstream work in his field--
Should you/would you then, take this phenomenon of bigfoot more seriously and accept his expertise as applied to his foot casts as a well? Why not?

Edited by QuiteContrary, 25 August 2013 - 09:20 PM.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#14    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:09 AM

View PostSakari, on 25 August 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

I have never seen nor heard bashing from Scientists to other Scientists in any field. They are professionals, and adults. I would not call the lack of " bashing " anything at all, except mature and normal.

Silence is not consent. Silence has never been consent. Silence will never be consent.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Scientists in all disciplines point/counterpoint each other all the time. When they do it it's called scientific discussion and open debate. * snip *

Edited by Saru, 26 August 2013 - 03:43 PM.
Removed personal attack


#15    Skep B

Skep B

    Savant of Depravity

  • Member
  • 5,563 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duuuuuuuuuuuude

Posted 26 August 2013 - 03:28 AM

I wouldn't call point/counterpoint bashing.

When you know what a man loves, you know what can kill him





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users