I wanted to share this blog posting from Brian Dunning for a couple reasons.
1) Brian is awesome. I think I've said it before, but if you're interested in skepticism and science at all, and don't already listen to his podcast Skeptoid, you really should.
2) and more importantly, I thought the posting highlighted ideas and modes of thinking that are prevalent within pseudo-science in general. There are great examples of logic centers being turned completely off.
There's not much extra explaining to do about this. The information exists by sending an e-mail or picking up a phone and calling wildlife biologists/zoologists or park rangers. It's a good example of either massive cognitive dissonance, outright lying (which I suspect in the case of some bigfoot groups), or an unparalleled level of ignorance/critical thinking skills.
You don't have to know everything, but you should train yourself to have a general idea of how to go about getting the knowledge you seek.
But I suspect the reason many of them don't ask qualified scientists has to do with the next example:
I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing this explanation, and hearing it passed as a reason for not trusting anyone who has the proper training. At a certain point, I have to wonder if it isn't an excuse to not speak to anyone who they know will point blank disagree with them.
As we've already discussed on these forums before, you shouldn't be afraid of disagreement, as it helps you refine your arguments. If your evidence is good, and your arguments solid, you will bear up under the scrutiny.
Brian commented,
1) Brian is awesome. I think I've said it before, but if you're interested in skepticism and science at all, and don't already listen to his podcast Skeptoid, you really should.
2) and more importantly, I thought the posting highlighted ideas and modes of thinking that are prevalent within pseudo-science in general. There are great examples of logic centers being turned completely off.
The Erickson Project fact page Wrote:Q: Why have there not been sasquatch bodies or bones discovered?
A: For the same reason no one discovers the body or bones of most predators that have died of natural causes. When ill or nearing death they hole up in very secluded areas, and die there. Their carcass is eaten by other predators and the remaining bones are consumed by porcupines and other rodents.
Brian Dunning Wrote:This is not true. There is no example, that I know of, of an extant animal whose remains have not been discovered in the wild. Corpses of all large land animals in North America are found frequently. Carcasses of all North American bears, mountain lions, and wild canids are found all the time, and who met their ends without humans present. Their ancestors are also known by extensive examples in the fossil record. The true expectation is that if the animal did exist, its remains would have been found many times by humans.
There's not much extra explaining to do about this. The information exists by sending an e-mail or picking up a phone and calling wildlife biologists/zoologists or park rangers. It's a good example of either massive cognitive dissonance, outright lying (which I suspect in the case of some bigfoot groups), or an unparalleled level of ignorance/critical thinking skills.
You don't have to know everything, but you should train yourself to have a general idea of how to go about getting the knowledge you seek.
But I suspect the reason many of them don't ask qualified scientists has to do with the next example:
The Erickson Project fact page Wrote:Q: Why have they never officially been studied by scientists?
A: Scientists in general are not risk-takers. Because a sasquatch is so much like a human they can be hoaxed. Scientists are afraid to make a mistake. As a result it has been safer for most of them to steer clear of the phenomenon.
I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing this explanation, and hearing it passed as a reason for not trusting anyone who has the proper training. At a certain point, I have to wonder if it isn't an excuse to not speak to anyone who they know will point blank disagree with them.
As we've already discussed on these forums before, you shouldn't be afraid of disagreement, as it helps you refine your arguments. If your evidence is good, and your arguments solid, you will bear up under the scrutiny.
Brian commented,
Quote:It is hardly possible to be more wrong about scientists than this. Every professional researcher I know would want nothing more than to find something new and exciting. “Steering clear” of new discoveries is a good way for a scientist to lose his job; not to keep it. Scientists are not employed in the hope that they will discover nothing. A better reason that so few scientists have dedicated time to sasquatch research is that there is no good evidence that the creature exists; thus it would be a waste of resources that could be better applied to fields more likely to produce results.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
