Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

[quote=Chico23231;992022]:laughing2 too funny. Sorry Bigfoot doesnt exist, woulda been found by now.

but Matty ghosts do exist...ive had a couple wierd experiences there.[/quote]

List of new threads needed:

1) Myths and legends and the tangible proof they exist.

2) Discuss the supernatural, unprovable events of your life.

I would suggest, however, the "Science Related" thread be reserved for facts and theories subject to testing by that tried and true method known as (shocker) "The Scientific Method": [url=http://www.scientificmethod.com/index2.html]The Scientific Method Today[/url]

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

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.

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

[quote=Lotus;992116]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.[/quote]


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.

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

Meanwhile, i thought it would be cool to see a picture of BigFoot driving a BIGFOOT. Nothing!!!! Well, at least until recently......


[IMG]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-zhP4XX9kNxY/UQrtz8N_CsI/AAAAAAAAAZg/0lwFHngYrT0/s512/Untitled.png[/IMG]

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

[quote=Lotus;992116]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. [/quote]

Although as Irving Copi stated:

[I]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.[/I]

Like dragons, Sasquatch and any deity.

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

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

Let's get back to some real science news shall we

[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/uk-britain-richard-idUSLNE91301X20130204]England's King Richard III found after 500 years | Reuters[/url]

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

[URL="http://gizmodo.com/5980796/first+ever-incredible-footage-of-a-thought-being-formed"]First ever footage of a thought being formed[/URL]:

[I]A team of Japanese researchers has achieved something incredible: they've captured, for the first time ever, a movie which shows how thoughts form in the brain.

OK, so it's a thought forming in the brain of a zebrafish. And OK, its the fish's reaction to seeing food, so it's probably along the lines of "HUNGRY!". But we shouldn't play this down: this is a fundamental leap forward in our understanding of how brains work.[/I]

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

[URL="http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/black-hornet-nano-uav-helping-keep-soldiers-safe-in-afghanistan-2013024/"]Black Hornet Nano[/URL]

Coming to a street near you, real soon.
[I]
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) are becoming an ever more common site in the skies, but they are seen in their greatest numbers over combat zones. It makes sense to use them there as they can remain airborne for many hours monitoring, and even attacking a target without putting a soldier’s life in danger.

Drone technology is always improving though, and a new unit is helping to keep UK soldiers safe by its ability to quickly check what’s around the next corner while at the same time being small enough to fit in a pocket.

It’s called the Black Hornet Nano Unmanned Air Vehicle and measures just 10 x 2.5cm and weighs a mere 16 grams. It looks very similar to a miniature helicopter, but inside you’ll find a tiny camera alongside the motor and battery that allow it to fly.[/I]

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

Nano technology is really facinating stuff and may revolutionize how we prescribe medicine. However the caveat to that is that insurance companies may need acces to some of our genetic information.

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

[quote=RedskinRat;992966]Although as Irving Copi stated:

[I]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.[/I]

Like dragons, Sasquatch and any deity.

I'd rather go the route of Bertrand Russell's teapot.[/quote]

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>.

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

[quote=Lotus;993183]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>.[/quote]

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, [I][B]AT THE VERY LEAST,[/B][/I] 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.

[quote=Lotus;993183]Since I have done a great deal of research regarding sasquatch in reputable scientific arenas, let me offer some bigfoot science,[/quote]

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

[quote=Lotus;993183] since this is a real science thread.[/quote]

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?

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

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.

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

I think people dress up like big foot to smuggle home grown out of the forest.

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

[quote=firstdown;993226]I think people dress up like big foot to smuggle home grown out of the forest.[/quote]

How is it 'Home Grown' if they're in the forest?

Re: All things Science related. λν = c
 

Redskin Rat:
There actually are several people at research universities who study sasquatch. Hence there is a "bigfoot science," whether you are aware of this or not. Your being dismissive does not change reality.

My research into sasquatch occurred as part of a project on a different topic, for which an element including sasquatch research was a helpful sidebar. Neither I nor my school received a dime of grant money for this research, which was published in a good academic journal.

If you want to opine that sasquatch doesn't exist, fine, join the very large club of people who agree with you. But I was talking about a scientific attitude toward sasquatch.