• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Professor: Bigfoot exists, and science should care

Giordano said:
I have no problem with scientists looking for Bigfoot!
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true footer. However, scarce funds utilized to look for imaginary creatures, could be redirected to helping out actual, existing creatures.
 
Axxman300 said:
The single greatest problem in science is the lack of communication between the disciplines and sub-disciplines.
Click to expand...
Bold statement, that.

Axxman300 said:
Engineers hang with engineers, botanists hang with botanists, geologist with geologists, and so on. This is the main reason science moves as slow as it does. Everyone sticks to their branch instead of reaching out.
Click to expand...
Why is that? The knee-jerk reaction might be to assume that a lot of scientists are closed-minded, tunnel-visioned, silo-thinking automatons. Think instead though about how complex our own disciplines are. I can barely keep up with my email these days, let alone feel confident that I've got a deep understanding of the forefront of scientific advancement in my own field of wildlife ecology. It actually is quite difficult to understand one's own field well enough to also work effectively and insightfully with people in an entirely different discipline. This is why only something like 10% of NSF proposals receive funding. It takes more than storing your lunch in the same break room that the chemists use to really develop effective, transdisciplinary research.

Moreover, in my experience it's a rather small proportion of wildlife ecologists/zoologists, etc. who can articulate effectively why there's no such thing as bigfoot. By and large, "biologists" are just as susceptible as anyone else to 'footer talking points. Heck, if I were to adopt bigfooter talking points with my faculty colleagues here, I would make mincemeat out of them in a bigfoot debate. Some of them know some things about modern wildlife management, but they're woefully ignorant about evolution and paleontology. Thus, the chance that Dr. 'Footer Physicist has actually interacted with someone who could set him straight on this thing is a lot smaller than most folks realize.
 
I honestly am surprised by the reactions to my 2 posts here. Clearly I did not phrase the first one in a completely unambiguous manner. But by the second I thought I had made my position very clear, particularly if anyone remembers the positions I have consistently taken on the threads on Bigfoot.

1. I am a scientist and I am currently greatly suffering from a dramatic loss in Federal funding of what once was called investigator-initiated research. NIH and NSF grants are down to half or a third of what it was when I began, and a lot of that money now goes to big, government-initiated projects (which I find to be very inefficient and often uninspired).

2. Therefore I do not need to be told that grant money going to useless projects takes money away from useful ones. But I thought I made it very clear in post 1, and certainly by post 2, that I do not think that Federal funding should be used to support Bigfooting expeditions. I don't even think that private money that otherwise might be useful should. But honestly, I don't think that anyone supporting a Bigfoot expedition is likely to otherwise support good science. Also people buy $40- million yachts right now, and we generally accept that private citizens can waste their money anyway they wish.

3. If anything, I have seen more and more granting and science directed to things that were thought to have an immediate "payoff' and less and less money and science supported that simply asks "How does it work? Gee- that's odd- I wonder what it means" Yet in my field alone huge new medically and financially crucial areas were opened by research that looked at first to be indulging in very minor intellectual curiosity: recombinant DNA, CRISPR, etc. So I am always going to support the idea of scientists looking out of curiosity, not due to an ensured immediate payoff. One may think it is foolish, it may indeed be foolish, but it should be the individual scientist's choice. If they or their friends can fund it, not any "real" organization.

4. Therefore, if someone wants to look for Bigfoot, I am okay with that. Just don't involve me, or my money, or my tax dollars, simply because I think that is useless and as I have posted many times here, THERE IS NO BIGFOOT top find (being a scientist I would say at a 99.9999% level). But if they would rather spend their own money and time looking for Bigfoot than unicorns, or than sipping Starbucks, then I would like them to do it scientifically. I think it is useless, but I have the same opinion about stamp collecting (at least stamps are real) and I don't feel that I should tell either person not to do so if it makes them happy and doesn't affect my life. Also, given that they will not find Bigfoot, a scientific search would be more convincing to at least some others than would a non-scientific search.

Hope I clarified this.
 
Drewbot said:
Spoken like a true footer. However, scarce funds utilized to look for imaginary creatures, could be redirected to helping out actual, existing creatures.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that? The Bigfoot threads are not where I spend much time (ironically because I think that there is no Bigfoot and trying to convince the people who claim that there is seems mostly useless to me). But the posts that I have made make it very clear that I do not think that there are Bigfeet. Also as stated above,if you read my posts in this thread, you would realize that I do not believe that anyone who wishes to look for Bigfoot is likely to help out looking for actual, existing creatures. Even if they did, would one want that? "I quit looking for Bigfoot and I am here to help you find an ivory-billed woodpecker. Oh look, there is one on that Burger King! And look, another one on that car! And I saw several in the pet store yesterday! And one on in that tree pretending to be a leaf! Glad to be of help!"
 
Here is the lecture on video. I watched the first 15 minutes. It pretty much sucks and Dr. Richard Stepp PhD is boring. He mentions giving money to Meldrum and then it suddenly dawned on me that we discussed this guy back in 2009 because he was pumping money towards Meldrum. Stepp has been a Bigfooter for years.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ge2EWN-QBs
 
Giordano said:
Why do you assume that?
Click to expand...

Why do I assume that you spoke like a true Footer?
Because you did.

That is one of the primary arguments of the True Footers.

Science needs to look for Bigfoot.

The skeptics are intentionally making the scientists afraid to take on such an endeavor.
 
Drewbot said:
Why do I assume that you spoke like a true Footer?
Because you did.

That is one of the primary arguments of the True Footers.

Science needs to look for Bigfoot.

The skeptics are intentionally making the scientists afraid to take on such an endeavor.
Click to expand...

Somehow either I am failing to get my idea across or people are reading into it things that are not there.

I did not say that science needs to look for Bigfoot. If anything I have repeatedly said that it is a waste, and that science has looked for Bigfoot before and found that it doesn't exist. I said that it is okay by me if someone wanted to waste (I used this specific term) their time looking for Bigfoot, and that if they did so I hoped that they would look scientifically.

Frankly it is this over the top response that I think plays into the idea that "scientists are afraid to take on such an endeavor." I don't believe that it true. Scientists have looked without finding anything and if one wishes to look again using novel methods that is just how science is done. Do I think that they will now find anything? No. Would I give a nickel to someone to do such a thing or advise anyone else to give their nickel? No. But scientists don't just reach a conclusion and then never look again. Sometimes it is worth it. Sometimes not. But the concept is legitimate, if you believe it is worth your time and money. I don't, but no skin off my teeth if someone else does a Bigfoot search instead of their vacation.
 
The Shrike said:
Bold statement, that.


Why is that? The knee-jerk reaction might be to assume that a lot of scientists are closed-minded, tunnel-visioned, silo-thinking automatons. Think instead though about how complex our own disciplines are. I can barely keep up with my email these days, let alone feel confident that I've got a deep understanding of the forefront of scientific advancement in my own field of wildlife ecology. It actually is quite difficult to understand one's own field well enough to also work effectively and insightfully with people in an entirely different discipline. This is why only something like 10% of NSF proposals receive funding. It takes more than storing your lunch in the same break room that the chemists use to really develop effective, transdisciplinary research.

Moreover, in my experience it's a rather small proportion of wildlife ecologists/zoologists, etc. who can articulate effectively why there's no such thing as bigfoot. By and large, "biologists" are just as susceptible as anyone else to 'footer talking points. Heck, if I were to adopt bigfooter talking points with my faculty colleagues here, I would make mincemeat out of them in a bigfoot debate. Some of them know some things about modern wildlife management, but they're woefully ignorant about evolution and paleontology. Thus, the chance that Dr. 'Footer Physicist has actually interacted with someone who could set him straight on this thing is a lot smaller than most folks realize.
Click to expand...

The reality is different. From UCLA to MBARI the vast reality is that the engineers hang togeter, the chemistry crew hangs together, the Piniped folks cluster together, the Cnidarian gang, etc all seem to be socially insulated.

Honestly, I don't care. I don't care about Bigfoot either. The point is that if Mr. Physics wants to look for Bigfoot he can get off his butt, find money (and there are plenty of wealthy folks who will fund Woo), and head out into the woods. He shouldn't be critical of the Biology Department because they see no reason to waste time and money on something that doesn't exist any more than it would be fair to jump his case because he hasn't solved faster-than-light travel, or built a fusion reactor yet.

My larger point is this: If you believe in Bigfoot - grab some gear and hit the forests of the Pacific Northwest and look for the thing.

Is it a waste of time? Maybe not. The UK has almost 80 years of water and biological samples from Loch Ness that have helped give clear picture of climate change. As much as it hurts some people, the only reason they have these samples is due to the many expeditions to search for a monster that also never existed. At the time those expeditions were a waste of time, but the samples and data collected have come in handy for an entirely different reason today.

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B457867.pdf

http://www.lochnessproject.org/adrian_shine_archiveroom/papershtml/LOCH_NESS_sediment_cores.htm

Nobody found the Loch Ness Monster, but they have used the collected data to reveal a real monster in climate change.
 
Giordano said:
I don't, but no skin off my teeth if someone else does a Bigfoot search instead of their vacation.
Click to expand...
Generally, I can agree with you on this Giordano, but when you examine a bit more closely, there are some red flags to raise. The "live and let live" sentiment that is so pervasive among erstwhile skeptics is the reason for Tim Farley's What's the Harm? compilation. Yes, it's a more tenuous thread from bigfoot --- harm than antivaxx --- harm, but I think that's the point Drewbot is trying to hammer home for you: Woo is woo and 'footers should get no quarter in academia.
 
The Shrike said:
Generally, I can agree with you on this Giordano, but when you examine a bit more closely, there are some red flags to raise. The "live and let live" sentiment that is so pervasive among erstwhile skeptics is the reason for Tim Farley's What's the Harm? compilation. Yes, it's a more tenuous thread from bigfoot --- harm than antivaxx --- harm, but I think that's the point Drewbot is trying to hammer home for you: Woo is woo and 'footers should get no quarter in academia.
Click to expand...
I fear that you are playing into the Bigfooter myth here that academia is not even allowed to explore the possibility of Bigfoot. Personally, I don't see the concept of a limit in this regard if a scientist wishes to look. Quantum theory arose because people were willing to re-examine what was believed to be very firmly established ideas in science. And these prior ideas were not wrong per se, but there was more to reality than had been previously known. So I do not like the general idea of "Well we already know that so we should stop looking."

I am well aware here of the truth in the old saying that "They laughed at Einstein but they also laughed at the 3 Stooges" (indeed they never laughed at Einstein). I am trying to be very clear that I am not reiterating the stupidity of "Well we don't know everything yet". It is very clear to me that there are no Bigfeet based on the existing evidence. Some concepts are so improbable, idiotic and convincingly proven wrong by science that anyone of any intelligence would not bother to spend time or effort re-examining them. I include here the existence of Bigfoot- I would place an investigation of the existence of Bigfoot approximately 145,258,290.891-th in my hierarchy of questions worth looking into. Because of the enormous weight of the evidence that Bigfoot does not exist. I would not look for Bigfoot or pay a nickel to have someone else do so. But I inherently do not think that scientists should be in some way prohibited from asking any question that comes to them. They can look for unicorns if they wish as far as I am concerned. If on their own "dime" and their own effort. Perhaps ideally they should be doing something useful instead- but in academia one is typically paid to teach whereas one's research topic is unpaid "spare" time (ignoring grants, which I already stated I would not favor for Bigfoot investigators).

Now in academia people are rewarded for revealing and proving some unknown fact. Is a Bigfoot investigator going to find Bigfoot? Not in my view. not ever. Should the continuing lack of finding Bigfoot lead to a devaluing of the researcher's abilities and judgement? Of course. But I would not bar them in advance from taking the gamble, even though I view Russian Roulette with an automatic as representing much, much better odds in terms of survival/success.

This is not saying that it is okay for the anti-vax creeps to spread their lies: it is just saying that academics should be free to continue to investigate, in better and better ways, if vaccines are safe (sometimes a particular vaccine does have a problem). I don't think that Bigfooters are correct to spread their nonsense or establish a department of Bigfootery- but if they want to continue to explore if Bigfoot is real, again on their own dime, I feel okay with that. Ideally the more negative results that they obtain will help convince some people of the truth that Bigfoot doesn't exist, but of course I don't think that will be the case for the most committed Bigfooters.

To be very extreme- I see the odds of a perpetual motion machine being zero based on known physics. Anyone seeking to invent one I would view as crazy or ignorant. But if, on their own time, they had an idea for how to build one, I would want them to test it scientifically.
 
Pterodactyl said:
Giordano, how many woodknocks would you estimate you execute in a given week?
Click to expand...

Zero. And I am totally uninterested in determining scientifically if knocking on wood benefits people. I don't believe that it does, nor do I think that it is worth studying for this reason. But if someone else wanted to invest their own time and money in doing such a study, it would be no skin off my teeth. And I would hope that they did it scientifically so that they don't come up with a false result (i.e. that it is useful).

I think that the Sykes study itself was very valuable- I did not and do not think that there is a Bigfoot, but it was certainly worth resolving what these "Bigfoot" samples really were. Unfortunately I think that the obvious conclusion, that these is no Bigfoot, has been (not surprisingly) ignored by most Bigfoot advocates and a small piece of the interpretation of the data relating to specific bear species was wrong. But it was worth examining an issue that many people still thought was unresolved, even though the existing data said that it was resolved.

Honestly I am still surprised by the response my comments have received- I keep feeling that there are some who haven't really read my comments except through a filter expecting to see something that is not there. In the labs I've been in, the joke has often been: it is called "re-" search because you must repeat the experiments multiple times. We do this to be certain that the results are reproducible, even if we are pretty certain from the first experiment that we already know the result. When we learn of more sensitive or better approaches, we often re-examine some of the same questions to be certain that we haven't missed anything the first time (or times). Logically because one's time, let alone money, is limited, one balances what one believes is "worth" re-examining versus what one believes is not, or moving on to totally new things. Different researchers strike different balances. I would not re-investigate if knocking on wood had an effect, but I might re-investigate if a specific oncogene plays some role in mammary cancers even if a paper was published indicating that it did not- it depends on my scientific judgement as to the publication and if it was worth it or not. If I could get money to do so would depend on if I could also convince a panel of other scientists at NIH that it was worth it, but I wouldn't want anyone to say to me, "We know the answer and you are forbidden to work on it even if you fund it yourself."

But I do fear this conversation is just supplying ammunition to the Bigfoot advocates' false position that scientists are not permitted to investigate Bigfoot. From what I can see in biological academia, scientists are permitted to investigate anything that they wish based on their own judgement. And when they have investigated Bigfoot in the past, they have found that he does not exist. And when, free as they are to investigate it again, they will find the same thing.
 
Giordano said:
But I do fear this conversation is just supplying ammunition to the Bigfoot advocates' false position that scientists are not permitted to investigate Bigfoot. From what I can see in biological academia, scientists are permitted to investigate anything that they wish based on their own judgement. And when they have investigated Bigfoot in the past, they have found that he does not exist. And when, free as they are to investigate it again, they will find the same thing.
Click to expand...
We already have biologists who are investigating Bigfoot. The NAWAC has a core member (Alton Higgins) who is a biologist.

NAWAC said:
Alton Higgins belongs to a growing group of persons who have encountered Bigfoot. And he isn't just anybody: Alton Higgins is a biologist and teaches at Mid-America Christian University in Oklahoma City. "Theoretically, I can't claim to have seen a bigfoot, in that the existence of this creature has not been proven." Nevertheless, Higgins claims to have seen an animal in 2002 in Oklahoma that is not contained in any guide to mammals. "I saw a gigantic, black animal, which ran away from me with great speed on two legs," says the 57 year-old. He observed the animal from a distance of about 40 m under perfect viewing conditions.

Higgins has pursued Bigfoot for 10 years. In 1998 he found a 40 cm long footprint in Washington State. "I couldn't assign it to any known animal." Today he is a member of the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy, a group of scientists and outdoor enthusiasts who operate under the banner of the documentation and protection of Bigfoot...
Click to expand...


There are other biologists who also claim encounters and say yes to Bigfoot existence. I'm unaware of any who have later said no. It seems that once a person claims an encounter they never say no to Bigfoot no matter what research and investigation follows. Is like a one-way ticket. Once an encounter is claimed no amount of further investigation ever causes them to be strongly skeptical or denialist. IOW, no amount of science causes them to change their initial bias. Science has no effect on these specific scientists.
 
Giordano said:
I fear that you are playing into the Bigfooter myth here that academia is not even allowed to explore the possibility of Bigfoot. Personally, I don't see the concept of a limit in this regard if a scientist wishes to look. Quantum theory arose because people were willing to re-examine what was believed to be very firmly established ideas in science. And these prior ideas were not wrong per se, but there was more to reality than had been previously known. So I do not like the general idea of "Well we already know that so we should stop looking."

I am well aware here of the truth in the old saying that "They laughed at Einstein but they also laughed at the 3 Stooges" (indeed they never laughed at Einstein). I am trying to be very clear that I am not reiterating the stupidity of "Well we don't know everything yet". It is very clear to me that there are no Bigfeet based on the existing evidence. Some concepts are so improbable, idiotic and convincingly proven wrong by science that anyone of any intelligence would not bother to spend time or effort re-examining them. I include here the existence of Bigfoot- I would place an investigation of the existence of Bigfoot approximately 145,258,290.891-th in my hierarchy of questions worth looking into. Because of the enormous weight of the evidence that Bigfoot does not exist. I would not look for Bigfoot or pay a nickel to have someone else do so. But I inherently do not think that scientists should be in some way prohibited from asking any question that comes to them. They can look for unicorns if they wish as far as I am concerned. If on their own "dime" and their own effort. Perhaps ideally they should be doing something useful instead- but in academia one is typically paid to teach whereas one's research topic is unpaid "spare" time (ignoring grants, which I already stated I would not favor for Bigfoot investigators).

Now in academia people are rewarded for revealing and proving some unknown fact. Is a Bigfoot investigator going to find Bigfoot? Not in my view. not ever. Should the continuing lack of finding Bigfoot lead to a devaluing of the researcher's abilities and judgement? Of course. But I would not bar them in advance from taking the gamble, even though I view Russian Roulette with an automatic as representing much, much better odds in terms of survival/success.

This is not saying that it is okay for the anti-vax creeps to spread their lies: it is just saying that academics should be free to continue to investigate, in better and better ways, if vaccines are safe (sometimes a particular vaccine does have a problem). I don't think that Bigfooters are correct to spread their nonsense or establish a department of Bigfootery- but if they want to continue to explore if Bigfoot is real, again on their own dime, I feel okay with that. Ideally the more negative results that they obtain will help convince some people of the truth that Bigfoot doesn't exist, but of course I don't think that will be the case for the most committed Bigfooters.

To be very extreme- I see the odds of a perpetual motion machine being zero based on known physics. Anyone seeking to invent one I would view as crazy or ignorant. But if, on their own time, they had an idea for how to build one, I would want them to test it scientifically.
Click to expand...

As to the red above, actually a number of quacks, incompetents and just plain crazies have indeed laughed at, yelled about, tried to overturn and more Einstein's discoveries in favor of their own crackpottery!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Spoken like a true footer. However, scarce funds utilized to look for imaginary creatures, could be redirected to helping out actual, existing creatures.
Click to expand...
That didn't stop Cornell. They rorted the system for a decade chasing the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

State and Federal government departments spent over $20 Million in that time, over 2/3s of which was for land acquisitions to protect this non-existent bird's habitat. In 2007 the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed spending $27,785,000 on this non-existent bird through to 2010 - 3 years!

It was pretty evident from the outset that the "sightings" were dodgy, and, just like the case of bigfoot, the more they looked, the less evidence they uncovered.
For the record, I'm a birder and a big believer in funding pure research - but this scam smelled squatchy from the get go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom