Re: Bigfoot found???
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":
Quote:
Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Scientific hypotheses must be posed in a form that allows them to be rejected. |
In the case of "bigfoot" we start with the observable phenomena:
People have reported seeing strange animals and finding strange footprints in the forest. Many of them (as with "UFOs") have been easily demonstrated to be known animals, other objects entirely or deliberate hoaxes. (For example, if there is one " bigfoot" sighting in a forest on a given morning, but six brown bear sightings in the same area of the same forest, the most reasonable explanation is that the seventh person also saw a bear.) A small residue of sightings don't have
immediate, obvious and provable explanations. These must be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but in general there are four possible explanations (hypotheses) for the physical evidence that people are finding in the forests:
1. The witnesses have simply failed to correctly identify an animal known to science or the footprint of such an animal. (People mistake one animal for another all the time - ask any dairy farmer during hunting season. People who nervous because of funny forest noise, under the influence of alcohol, or just not used to being in the woods are more apt to do so than others. And people who have gone into a forest with the preconceived idea of finding "Bigfoot" are the most like of all to "see" the creature - whether it is there or not. The size and shape of footprints can change radically due to weather and erosion.)
2. Misidentification of a non-animal or animal source. (Trees being mistaken for animals, eroded tire ruts being described as "footprints", for all of the same reasons mentioned for misidentifying animals above.)
3. Deliberate hoaxes.
4. A large animal, currently unknown to science, possibly a primate.
All of these hypotheses must now be
tested, either experimentally or through logical reasoning or by some combination of the two. You cannot simply choose to believe one because you like it.
At this point you would look at the locations, examine statements from other people in the area, look for evidence of deliberate fakery, and examine the area for evidence of a new, strange beast in the area.
After dozens or hundreds of such cases you might be a in position to offer a coherent
theory of "Strange forest sightings".
Quote:
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact. - United States Academy of Sciences |
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
I don't think Bigfoot exists and I also take what all the "expert" scientists say with a grain of salt also. Just because a bunch of people get together and agree on something, back it up with expensive research equipment, develop charts and graphs, build educated theory on top of theory doesn't make me believe in it either. It also doesn't mean that I don't believe - It basically makes me say Hmmm and wait for facts and proof.
