Bigfoot found??? (1 Viewer)

[Chris Lockwood]

You wrote the dictionary?

I just don't buy the concept that anyone researching Bigfoot or anything else you don't believe in is automatically a crackpot.

I'm not even sure what the big deal is. If Bigfoot exists, it is just a large ape in the woods, not much different than animals you can see in any zoo. Certainly much less exciting than beings from another planet who build a ship and traveled here.

The only really amazing thing (if Bigfoot actually exists) is that none have been captured or found dead.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I wrote the sentence. And I didn't say people who believe it exists are crackpots, I said the people who believe they have "scientific" evidence which proves it exists are crackpots.

 

[Bryan^H]

The Big Bang theory.

Nearly all of the scientific community supports this idea. Although it hasn't been proven, and can never be proven. It still stands as fact among most. Crackpots!



I believe in Bigfoot.

 

[Ruz-El]

Except that the big bang theory works as a basis for how we currently understand the universe to be working, and is supported by things like Einsteins relativity, is gaining additional support due to advances in telescopes, better understanding of the baffling things brought up by quantum physics... and if a breakthrough on the origin of the universe happens that completely disproves it, then it will be tossed away.

All Bigfoot has is word of mouth stories, the equivalent of "My friend saw an Ogopogo last summer, Ogopogo's are real!"

A bit different I think, but this whole debate has been naff for months now.

 

[Bryan^H]

Yes, but it's still just a bunch of people that believe in something that can't be proven. The universe is infinite. The fact that this one theory has such following must tell you something.

Is this debate over? Is this thread over?

There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on the earth.
Wrap your mind around that.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

No, the fact that this one theory has held up to real scientific scrutiny, including papers published in accredited science journals, tells me something. A bunch of scientists using the scientific method to test and restest, check and recheck, and define and refine a hypothesis; that's called a scientific theory.

Without the scientific method, you just have a bunch of people who believe in something; that's called faith. No different than religion. It's fine to believe, but please don't hold it against us who require verification.

 

[BrianW]

Really? That's the one you're going with? That our minds are too small to comprehend the vastness of the Universe, so rejecting notions on the basis of scientific evidence would be closing our minds to all the wondrous possibilities of the Universe?

Is there anything I can say to compell you to adopt a more evidence-based view of reality?

Come to the Dark Side, Bryan. We have cookies.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Similar to the background radiation predicted by the Big Bang Theory, I say the Big Foot Theory predicts a background aroma, due to the Big Poops being dropped by the Big Foots. I'll be tuning my radar nasalscopes on the Pacific Northwest very shortly.


PS - And as usual, BrianW explains it much better than me. Damn physicists. (*sigh*)

 

[BrianW]

Well, not to brag, or anything, but I do, in fact, read true scientific, peer review journals like Popular Explosions and Dangerous Electronics on a regular basis. It was in a recent issue of the journal Cosmic Wonders and Amazing Stories that I got my information from. I think the article was called, "Big Bang Theory: Sounds Good, Don'tcha Think?". So, yeah, I've got it pretty together when it comes to all that science stuff.

P.S. If you've got the latest issue of Cosmic Wonders, don't order the X-Ray Specs advertised on the back cover. They're crap.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Godwin's Law states that first person who calls someone a Nazi in an internet thread loses, and that the discussion is effectively over because reason has fled. There should be a similar law covering the moment in a discussion of science when someone who has no idea what the words "theory", "hypothesis" and "evidence" mean in science declares that something is "just a theory" - by which he means "a work of fiction that some people happen to believe."

Bigfoot is not a "theory". Bigfoot is, at best, a hypothesis. (I.e, a "guess" - and I'd dispute even that in scientific terms. See below.)

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has a good, brief, definition of "hypothesis":



The first three hypotheses regarding "Unexplained Forest Sightings" would fit well into a general theory about the subject, and, in fact, would plausibly account for all such sightings. There is no "need" for a fourth hypothesis, because there is no scientific evidence of any phenonomenon that cannot be explained as one kind of mistake or another or as a hoax. The moment such evidence is produced, the "Theory of Sightings", being a scientific theory, could be expanded to include it. But, again, we're talking about DNA, skeletons, close-up, in focus photography or videography that stands up to rigorous scientific testing and which depicts a creature that cannot be a human or other animal in a suit, mechanical device, etc.

There is simply no reason, based on the current "evidence", to posit the existance of a living creature that frequents territory well-penetrated by modern humans, yet of which no living specimens have ever been caught, no clear and indisputable remains have ever been obtained and no clear and indisputable photographs have ever been taken. This is not a coelocanth, hiding in the deeps of the ocean in areas rarely fished until the time it was finally captured. It is alleged to be a creature that is frequently seen in areas routinely entered by well-educated people in industrialized countries, including people deliberately looking for "Bigfoot", yet none of them has ever come back with a single piece of evidence the stands up to genuine scientific scrutiny.

Finally Bigfoot actually fails the last test required even to rate as a hypothesis. It is "unfalsifible". Because it is generally very difficult to prove the non-existance of anything, ideas that are inherently unfalsifiable are genuinely considered as not subject to scientific analysis at all. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God through the scientific method, so (most) scientists and theologians rightly leave science out of that particular question.

But as an explanation for strange sightings and footprints, Bigfoot has the problem that we can't ever prove that none of them were caused by this hypothetical animal, no matter how many cases are explained as mistakes or hoaxes. We also can't prove (and neither can Bigfoot proponents) that they aren't caused by particularly ugly unicorns, or by Martians in very sophisticated Bigfoot suits who just like messing with us.

And because they can't be disproved (as the hoax, and mistake explanations can be in particular cases), we can't admit any of these notions to our list of hypotheses.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Don't worry, I know about the X-Ray specs. I did get sucked in by the "Gain 20 pounds of muscle" ad with the skinny kid getting sand kicked in his face. Those ad salesmen at Cosmic Wonders sure do know their demographics.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Hey, I did say the Bigfoot "theory" wasn't a scientific theory. Does that still trigger "DeMartino's Law?"

 

[Ruz-El]

It's great that we know so much about the Big Bang theory, but you do realize that in the end, Bryan^H is laughing at how much time is taken debating him?

I don't for a second believe that he's as fanatical in his bigfoot belief as we think he is, which is why this whole months long debate is ridiculous. And really, with all the in depth reasons that make it evident that there's a 99% chance that bigfoot doesn't exist, and for him to still throw out odd ball challenges instead of acknowledging it (acknowledge, not accept)... it shows he's unreasonable and further debate is pointless.

I'm waiting for another sighting of some sort before I return to this.

 

[BrianW]

Russell, I agree with everything you said, but I'd also add that it's all in good fun. I enjoy championing the causes of science and critical thinking whenever the opportunity arises. Would another hoax do just as well?

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

I think it should be noted that The Big Bang Theory is way funnier than anything I've ever seen about Bigfoot. (With the possible exception of the Six Million Dollar Man episode and the Venture Bros. parody of it.)

And nothing Bigfoot-related is as hot as Kaley Cuoco.

Finally Bryan should just thank his lucky stars that he hasn't been having this discussion with Sheldon - on a train!

Regards,

Joe

P.S.

"DeMartino's Law" - has a nice ring to it, don't it?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

The man has a point.

 

[drobbins]

As mentioned in this thread - according to the scientific method and other observations, the big bang theory is widely accepted. Also parallel universe theories and "wormhole" space travel are also taken seriously. With the infinite size of the universe, life on other planets is a good probability. Evolution is what the PC scientific community embraces.

I say that an advanced species of "Bigfoot" evolved on another planet and has mastered intergalactic travel through wormholes. By chance they have to get off one wormhole and make a connection with another on earth. This is why there are only rare sightings and footprints left behind. They are just passing through and are here for only seconds at a time.

This theory can be "proved" using all the same data mentioned by both sides of the debate in this thread.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Amusing. But not even close. If you wish, I can give you the reasons. But I really can't tell if you are serious, or just being funny; for discerning the difference between the two in this thread is almost impossible at this point.

 

[Bryan^H]

How dare you.

 

[Bryan^H]

That's not true.....that's impossible!