All things Science related. λν = c

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Lotus

There is a large amount of "suggestive" evidence but, at the end of the day, it means nothing without incontrovertible physical evidence. So there's nothing to say about Bigfoot unless and until there is incontrovertible physical evidence. In this case, that is not what they have, since the hair tests came back as inconclusive.

Bigfoot's 'Screech' Caught on Tape? | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo!

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Bigfoot's 'Screech' Caught on Tape? | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo!

I said "incontrovertible." That supposed Bigfoot screech could come from non-bigfoot sources. That tape is not "incontrovertible."

What I was talking about was a body. Or a significant portion of a body. That would be incontrovertible. Until such evidence arises, there is not much else to say.

[mlmpetert]

^ that shit was definitely bigfoot

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

^ that shit was definitely bigfoot

too funny. Sorry Bigfoot doesnt exist, woulda been found by now.

but Matty ghosts do exist...ive had a couple wierd experiences there.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

too funny. Sorry Bigfoot doesnt exist, woulda been found by now.

but Matty ghosts do exist...ive had a couple wierd experiences there.

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": The Scientific Method Today

[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.