Is believing in sasquatch important as a researcher? Does having faith in bigfoot's existence ruin your objectivity as a researcher and categorizes you into a scientifically unrespected category? Are bigfooters and scientists lacking the important fundamental value of evaluating the evidence for such a huge range of purported sasquatch phenomena? Dr. Jeff Meldrum from Idaho's State University addresses those questions after the jump.
The following is an excerpt from "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" by Dr Jeff Meldrum.
The most stifling situation that can ensue from this subject is for the treatment of the question of the existence and nature of sasquatch to be reduced to an argument between "believers" and "skeptics." I am frequently asked, "Do you believe in sasquatch?" I invariably and firmly reply that a question of belief is simply not at issue. Belief generally connotes the acceptance of something as true in the absence of objective evidence or conclusive proof. It is usually equated with a position of faith. Science is about subjecting hypotheses to evaluation by marshaling evidence that may either refute, or lend support to a premise. Therefore, from a scientific standpoint I can say that a respectable portion of the evidence I have examined suggests, in an independent yet highly correlated manner, the existence of an unrecognized ape, known as sasquatch. This conclusion of necessity remains tentative and provisional since the interpretation of the evidence, however persuasive it may be at this point, remains ultimately inconclusive. It should be well noted that a pending conclusion has rarely provoked a scientist to abandon research that is backed by empirical evidence. Unfortunately, those scientists who have made the effort to systematically review and evaluate the data, and as a result are motivated, if not obliged, to pursue their intellectual curiosity further, are frequently labeled as "believers" and are judged incapable of further objectivity.
From the sidelines, ideological skeptics would wrap themselves in the banner of science and profess that they approach a controversial phenomenon from a rational and critical position. However, the extreme conservatism typically embraced by such individuals is not without its own pitfalls. Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society and publisher of the Skeptics Magazine, offers this caution in his manifesto: "The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between 'know nothing' skepticism and 'anything goes' credulity." This is a worthy aim, and Shermer's caution about the treacherous nature of the passage is warranted, the correct bearing to that middle course is sometimes as elusive as sasquatch itself.
It would seem that many skeptics run aground as they unwittingly list or deliberately steer toward the extreme of incredulity. This can result from a lack of motivation to become informed about the essential evidence, the simple impracticality of thoroughly evaluating every assertion that comes along, or even more fundamentally, the sheer lack of the requisite expertise to evaluate the evidence for such a broad range of purported phenomena. Whichever cause it may be, many professing skeptics do not allow their own ignorance of the primary data to prevent them from pronouncing baseless and often cynical condemnation of the subject and those most familiar with it.
You can purchase this must have bigfoot book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" by Dr Jeff Meldrum here.
No comments:
Post a Comment