All things Science related. λν = c

[Lotus]

Since I have done a great deal of research regarding sasquatch in reputable scientific arenas, let me offer some bigfoot science, since this is a real science thread.

The argument that bigfoot does not exist because we have not found a body fails scientifically. In science, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Every year we find new species. Once upon a time, people argued that the silverback gorilla and the coelecanth did not exist because there was no physical evidence, yet now we know that these once crypto-species actually exist.

Further, in the damp forests of the Pacific NW, corpses decay so quickly that they typically leave no remains. In fact, there are several species which are known to exist yet we have never recovered remains from specimens of those species from the wild. Even scientists who are strongly opposed to the idea of bigfoot admit that remains would be very difficult to come by.

On the flip side, despite these limitations there are no physical remains from bigfoot, and science demands that there must be such evidence before we assent to bigfoot belief. Circumstantial evidence like they produce on "Finding Bigfoot" means nothing scientifically.

Therefore, when it comes to sasquatch, the most scientific attitude is one of agnosticism, neither believing nor disbelieving in bigfoot.

If folks want to learn more, there are several reputable books on the subject (along with a large mass of junk literature). I recommend Professor Jeff Meldrum's <Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science> as a starting point.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Since I have done a great deal of research regarding sasquatch in reputable scientific arenas, let me offer some bigfoot science, since this is a real science thread.

The argument that bigfoot does not exist because we have not found a body fails scientifically. In science, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Every year we find new species. Once upon a time, people argued that the silverback gorilla and the coelecanth did not exist because there was no physical evidence, yet now we know that these once crypto-species actually exist.

Further, in the damp forests of the Pacific NW, corpses decay so quickly that they typically leave no remains. In fact, there are several species which are known to exist yet we have never recovered remains from specimens of those species from the wild. Even scientists who are strongly opposed to the idea of bigfoot admit that remains would be very difficult to come by.

On the flip side, despite these limitations there are no physical remains from bigfoot, and science demands that there must be such evidence before we assent to bigfoot belief. Circumstantial evidence like they produce on "Finding Bigfoot" means nothing scientifically.

Therefore, when it comes to sasquatch, the most scientific attitude is one of agnosticism, neither believing nor disbelieving in bigfoot.

If folks want to learn more, there are several reputable books on the subject (along with a large mass of junk literature). I recommend Professor Jeff Meldrum's <Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science> as a starting point.

Thats awesome. I never realized how serisous people were about BigFoot until today. I cant belive how much crap there is out there about BF. I mean, there are forums just like this one devoted to the beast!!!! People are wayyyy to serious about big foot.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

The argument that bigfoot does not exist because we have not found a body fails scientifically. In science, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Although as Irving Copi stated:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

Like dragons, Sasquatch and any deity.

I'd rather go the route of Bertrand Russell's teapot.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Although as Irving Copi stated:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

Like dragons, Sasquatch and any deity.

I'd rather go the route of Bertrand Russell's teapot.

Copi's statement here is taken out-of-context. He said that such only applies to well-defined and delimited contexts, such as with a claim like, "There is no sock under the couch." As a general principle, Copi stands with "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." See Copi's <Introduction to Logic>.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Copi's statement here is taken out-of-context. He said that such only applies to well-defined and delimited contexts, such as with a claim like, "There is no sock under the couch." As a general principle, Copi stands with "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." See Copi's <Introduction to Logic>.

Given that no purported sightings of Sasquatch and friends have ever referenced a diminutive, lithe figure and that they are regularly observed to be 6'-10' and in excess of 500lbs there would be, AT THE VERY LEAST, some evidence left as a trail in what you assert to be 'damp forests'.

So that should cover well-defined and delimited contexts, unless they have some physics-defying special power.

Originally Posted by Lotus

Since I have done a great deal of research regarding sasquatch in reputable scientific arenas, let me offer some bigfoot science,

Dafuq?!?!??!? Big Foot science? Oxymoron much?

Originally Posted by Lotus

since this is a real science thread.

Be honest: Your study of Big Foot was an excuse to wring dry some poor saps grant to your seat of learning, wasn't it?

[mlmpetert]

I think im gonna offer signed prints of my BigFoot artwork.

$25 for the first 50
$10 thereafter

*Additional $2 charge for PayPal. NO EXCEPTIONS

Please pm me to order.