Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The scientific method also kind of enforces humility. The peer review process means you better be sure of yourself. Certainly anything overly sloppy is going to be shown to be such.

Also keep in mind that what changes scientific consensus is….better science.

No woo peddler or non-science educated YouTube personality, such as someone convicted of tax fraud and spousal abuse as a random example has ever come even close to challenging any scientific consensus on anything.

The can talk utter bunkum about how chocolate is an octave of sun energy, or how tanning one’s nipsy and clackerbag somehow, I dunno, gives you super powers* all they want - but it’s still not science, and has no power to explain anything. Demonstrate the talker is quite happy to lie for a living sure. But not explain any phenomena we see in the natural world.

To quote one of Professor Dave’s recent debunks, and not aimed at anyone in this thread? Science isn’t dogma. You’re just stupid.

Understanding science is hard. The man in the street, Joe Average, isn’t exactly expected or particularly required to be able to read, digest and understand science. But the fun bit is, it’s there to be learned if you wish to. There’s nobody actively gatekeeping science education. It just takes time and effort to get oneself to the level where you could begin to properly critique papers, findings and theories. That’s not a flaw of the scientific method. It’s just its very nature. Complex stuff, developed over decades and drawing on numerous previous papers takes time to understand.

A given person being unable to make head nor tail of something like quantum physics or microbiology or chemical systems doesn’t make those disciplines and studies wrong.

*look it was such an unintentionally comical bit of media, the claims went forgotten.

It's also important to note that it doesn't really matter where the inspiration for a theory comes from. The truth of it is all that matters.

If you wake up one morning with a new idea about how gravity works, completely different to any current theories, it doesn't matter if it came to you in a dream, if the voices in your head dictated it to you in the shower or if some random drunk guy in the street told you all about it while throwing up on your shoes. If it's correct we can test that and find it out. If it's not, it's just one more failed theory.

One slight problem science faces now is that we've gone way beyond the point where the lay person can keep up with the frontiers of any discipline. Go back a few hundred years and we were still discovering basic principles about physics, chemistry, engineering and biology. Quite often these principles or discoveries could be elegantly shown via simple experiments and basic deduction. Nowadays, it's simply impossible for most people to understand the complexities of the quantum mechanical interactions involved in forming chemical bonds in high-pressure reactions, for example. That said, the process is still the same, and it is at least theoretically possible for most people to view a paper on any given research should they wish. Whether they can understand it is another matter. The fact you may not understand it doesn't mean it's wrong and it doesn't mean it's some grand conspiracy to keep knowledge out of the hands of the masses, it's just the natural result of how science continually builds upon previous knowledge. At some point you've built so high, a regular person can't see the summit any more.

Thanks for the reply Slipspace and I have to say I don't disagree at all with one thing you said in your posts; neither do I think any of it necessarily acts as a definitive reason not to direct study at the phenomenon.

You'll have to excuse this short reply my man, I'm currently at work and typing on this infernal device is painful.

I'll add more later, but all excellent points!

Yup. And I get that can be scary.

But stop and think about the every day things we use and consume, and how little the average person actually understands about their intricacies.

I’m typing this on my iPad. A device which within my lifetime was once the preserve of science fiction - like TNG’s datapads. I know it’s a computer. And I know processors work on switches. And that WiFi involves 1s and 0s and radio waves that.

But that’s about it, genuinely. Yet we inherently trust that such items work, and work well. Maybe not if you order from Wish or Temu of course. Then who knows what you’ll receive.

I have a very rough grasp of how my beloved air fryer works. That’s an item I couldn’t live without. But I don’t really know exactly how it works. It make hot, fan am blow the heat. Food go tasty yum.

My car. Again very rough grasp of an internal combustion engine, but that’s it.

Because most of the time? I don’t need to know how these things work. It’s enough to trust they’ve been designed by people that do know what they’re doing.

That’s not faith. That’s trust. So why not extend that trust to the scientific community? We know the scientific method is robust, and self correcting. And just because I don’t understand and have no chance of gaining that understanding, it doesn’t make the underlying science flawed.

Compare to claimed “miracle cures” for cancer. Well…which cancer? Because that’s quite the catch all for any number of diseases. And how does the cure work? Trust Me Bro isn’t an answer. But, conversely, for proper medicine and medical treatments “Trust Me Bro, here’s all the studies which explain in excruciating detail exactly what this treatment does and why it’s effective” is - regardless of whether you or I can understand the evidence.

The worst offender for that in my book would be claims about the medical community ignoring or actively suppressing the claimed medical benefits of Cannabis.

Not only are the benefits uncertain - because studies have been made? But that would be the same medical community that has drugs derived from much stronger drugs, like opium and cocaine, yeah? That one. And that when an active ingredient/chemical is identified, the job is to see if we can synthesise it to ensure a given medicine has the right dosage pill to pill or shot to shot, yeah?

Sorry. Went off on a tangent!

Heck the rate of scientific advance is such that even within one sector its very hard to keep up. That's why its always good to ask for a second opinion or a specialist when dealing with more serious/rare medical elements. Because chances are your general doctor could be quite far behind the current theories and practice. Not through any fault of their own, but simply because the rate of advance is too fast to keep up with multiple sectors AND also have time to actually treat people.

So getting other opinions and talking to specialists in a specific field can be very important steps.





Heck to go off at a tangent it would not surprise me if the development of AI helpers in tracking, processing and providing information; will one day be not only commonplace, but a required element in certain fields when the rate of study and the depth of understanding becomes greater.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yup. And I get that can be scary.

But stop and think about the every day things we use and consume, and how little the average person actually understands about their intricacies.

I’m typing this on my iPad. A device which within my lifetime was once the preserve of science fiction - like TNG’s datapads. I know it’s a computer. And I know processors work on switches. And that WiFi involves 1s and 0s and radio waves that.

But that’s about it, genuinely. Yet we inherently trust that such items work, and work well. Maybe not if you order from Wish or Temu of course. Then who knows what you’ll receive.

I have a very rough grasp of how my beloved air fryer works. That’s an item I couldn’t live without. But I don’t really know exactly how it works. It make hot, fan am blow the heat. Food go tasty yum.

My car. Again very rough grasp of an internal combustion engine, but that’s it.

Because most of the time? I don’t need to know how these things work. It’s enough to trust they’ve been designed by people that do know what they’re doing.

That’s not faith. That’s trust. So why not extend that trust to the scientific community? We know the scientific method is robust, and self correcting. And just because I don’t understand and have no chance of gaining that understanding, it doesn’t make the underlying science flawed.

Compare to claimed “miracle cures” for cancer. Well…which cancer? Because that’s quite the catch all for any number of diseases. And how does the cure work? Trust Me Bro isn’t an answer. But, conversely, for proper medicine and medical treatments “Trust Me Bro, here’s all the studies which explain in excruciating detail exactly what this treatment does and why it’s effective” is - regardless of whether you or I can understand the evidence.

The worst offender for that in my book would be claims about the medical community ignoring or actively suppressing the claimed medical benefits of Cannabis.

Not only are the benefits uncertain - because studies have been made? But that would be the same medical community that has drugs derived from much stronger drugs, like opium and cocaine, yeah? That one. And that when an active ingredient/chemical is identified, the job is to see if we can synthesise it to ensure a given medicine has the right dosage pill to pill or shot to shot, yeah?

Sorry. Went off on a tangent!

As Tim Minchin said - "you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

That’s not faith. That’s trust.

That's the crucial point in all of this. Faith essentially means believing something without evidence. Trust is something that's built up by reliability and experience but can be lost if that reliability is diminished. Evidence to show we shouldn't trust something is one obvious way of doing that.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yup. And I get that can be scary

I agree, which is why I think scientism is such a popular and tragic delusional belief system of the modern age, but I understand it’s appeal to those who can’t grasp science has limitations well documented and outlined by a litany of scholars from the enlightenment onwards; social scientists and psychologists have long accepted the trait towards religiosity in human beings and the trend towards hard and soft scientism proves they are indeed strongly on target with that observation.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a strong advocate of science, kept in its proper place with minds that can be honest about its limitations and appropriate uses.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sorry. Went off on a tangent!

Ha! I know how that can be it’s all good here,

I would like though to emphasize this thread was and is a place for people to offer up their theories and perspectives on the topic of Bigfoot and I don’t want it to descend into a hotheaded argument over epistemological truths and/or anti-religious jingoism .. or religious jingoism… or any form of jingoism at all.

With that in mind I’m interested in hearing any other theories or views or thoughts on the topic. If the skeptics wish to keep offering up possible social psychological, cultural or even scientific observations and thoughts that is cool, but let’s give everybody else who might be put off by that PERSPECTIVE (yes, that’s what some people hold no matter how much they scream it’s not ) a chance to have some fun sharing their thoughts too.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The scientific method also kind of enforces humility. The peer review process means you better be sure of yourself. Certainly anything overly sloppy is going to be shown to be such.

Also keep in mind that what changes scientific consensus is….better science.

Um… I am going to have to admit more than a little skepticism about that kind of faith. For instance:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18202

There were also some outrageously funny examples during my own academic days, but like I’ve said, this thread isn’t really about this topic so I’ll leave that there. My experience is that lunacy, narcissism and scandal occupies the corridors of academia and labs with as much frequency as any other human environment.

Scientism isn’t a thing. Because it’s not a faith position.

Can science be used irresponsibly? Sure. But so can pretty much anything.

Does science sometimes advance faster than society can keep up with? Yes. For instance, I’m an advocate for voluntary euthanasia. Whilst I pin no blame on Doctors, we’re at the point now where we can keep a person alive when nature would’ve long since seen them off this mortal coil. Speaking solely for myself? No thank you. If I’m diagnosed with something terminal, which will result in a long, drawn out death? I’ll cash in my Pension and Life Insurance, sort a couple of friends out, then go party harder than any man has ever partied before. And if my heart doesn’t give out from that partying? I’m straight off the top of the nearest cliff. Exception will be made if the UK does adopt legal voluntary euthanasia. And yes dear casual reader, I’m perfectly aware of the massive legal and financial issues voluntary euthanasia presents. No I’m not the person to say how that should work.

But science? Science is entirely neutral. It’s the pursuit of knowledge and universal constants. If someone tries to put that knowledge to illegal or immoral purposes? That’s not science’s fault, or responsibility.

To continue the medical example? Pain killers are an essential modern medicine. When prescribed sensibly and dare I say sparingly, they can massively improve the patient’s quality of life, either in the long or short term. But used or prescribed irresponsibly, they’re a sodding menace. I appreciate that as a Brit I have an entirely different experience of the medicine industry to those in the USA, so again I’m not going to go further into defining what I think is and isn’t responsible there.

Suffice to say a dodgy doctor prescribing for personal gain is no reason to start restricting that drug or medicine from anyone else - and it’s that doctor who should be punished. Or in light of a certain opioid, the manufacturer if they did indeed encourage doctors to just prescribe it, and hid just how addictive it is.

But ultimately? Science saves lives. In my own lifetime I’ve had four life threatening incidents. First immediately before I was born (induce me, or Mum and I were both dead), very shortly after I was born (stomach had no plughole. Keyhole surgery sorted that way back in 1980) age of 14 I went through a window and damn near bled to death (first aid, which is a form of medical science, basic as it is) probably saved me. Age of 16 appendix ruptured. Not only did that hurt a lot, but peritonitis is no laughing matter, even with then modern medicine.

Those who have persuaded you scientism is a thing? I’m sorry to say but they likely have an agenda, which involves discrediting scientific consensus - and they may very well be lying to you for profit.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Scientism isn’t a thing. Because it’s not a faith position

Yet you have faith its methods will produce intelligible results? And yes, no matter where pages upon pages upon pages upon pages of back and forth go, that will remain and always has been what is colloquially called a ‘mic drop’

This is well known, well understood and entirely logical. You EXPECT the methods used in the method to be repeatable and verifiable do you not? How is this so if only that which can be empirically verified through sense data is worthy of any consideration?

No, scientism is most certainly a thing. It is a religious position based on FAITH in the scientific method to provide a coherent worldview that can explain all things. I congratulate those who hold that faith position for all it has done and will continue to do for our kind while acknowledging the places it falls short of adequate explanatory power and seek more compelling and logical arguments (as I encourage other to do also… wherever and whatever that takes)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Those who have persuaded you scientism is a thing? I’m sorry to say but they likely have an agenda, which involves discrediting scientific consensus - and they may very well be lying to you for profit.

I’m afraid those who have persuaded me are in many cases long past from this mortal coil and monetary profit is, I assume, well and truly off their agenda. I thankyou, and sincerely I do, for your concern, but can assure you all is well here.

Anyway, if you had to summarize your thoughts on the Bigfoot phenomenon, what would you say as a whole?

So, just throwing this out, but there’s this notion in UFOlogy that a lot of people who have experiences with them never come forward because they don’t want to be associated with the uncomfortably omnipresent “believers” who spout all kinds of ridiculous nonsense and conspiracy theories. Looks like that might be a factor with Bigfoot sightings going forward.

Not faith. Trust.

Faith is when you believe something without any evidence.
Trust is when you believe something because it's been shown to work consistently.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, just throwing this out, but there’s this notion in UFOlogy that a lot of people who have experiences with them never come forward because they don’t want to be associated with the uncomfortably omnipresent “believers” who spout all kinds of ridiculous nonsense and conspiracy theories. Looks like that might be a factor with Bigfoot sightings going forward.

I couldn’t agree more here. In my experience it is incredibly difficult for people who have had such bizarre and inexplicable events in their life to openly talk about them with others. Fear of ridicule is by far the biggest concern and with very good reason. It’s a very sad state of affairs honestly.

I remember one evening sat with a man who spent 27 years in the military who was so nervous about others over hearing what he wanted to talk about that he had to close his business and make sure all the customers and staff had left before he would begin to recount his story. Even then, he needed reassurances from me constantly that I didn’t think he was insane etc

He was deeply troubled by what he’d seen and frankly, if it went down the way he said it did, I’d be no different at all.

The location was interesting to say the least.

Also, as I’ve mentioned earlier, I think much of the conspiracy theory nonsense is promulgated and/or encouraged by intelligence services as has been shown and admitted to be the case in many examples.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not faith. Trust.

Faith is when you believe something without any evidence.
Trust is when you believe something because it's been shown to work consistently.

Trust, faith, love, hate… it’s fine to use those words as you please.

You’re right really, to describe such a thing in terms of a relationship. Very accurate I agree.

What are your thoughts on Bigfoot?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, just throwing this out, but there’s this notion in UFOlogy that a lot of people who have experiences with them never come forward because they don’t want to be associated with the uncomfortably omnipresent “believers” who spout all kinds of ridiculous nonsense and conspiracy theories. Looks like that might be a factor with Bigfoot sightings going forward.

Pretty much this.

I posted earlier in this thread that being psychic must be terrifying, and may quickly drive you to madness as you question which thoughts are yours, and which are other people’s.

But what we can know is everyone who’s claimed to be psychic….has been debunked. And some are pretty litigious about it. Like a certain spoon bending weirdo. Doesn’t matter if it’s a medium, remote viewing etc. All comfortably debunked and singularly incapable of performing their feats in a controlled environment.

Cryptids? Honestly who knows. I’m pretty confident Bigfoot isn’t out there for the reasons given before (nothing ancestral suggested in the fossil record, multiple frauds confirmed and exposed etc) - but I accept it still could be. It’s just like, a really low chance. Nor do I believe Megaldon still exists. But the joy here is in the search, and examining what evidence is presented.

 XvArcanevX wrote:


No, scientism is most certainly a thing. It is a religious position based on FAITH in the scientific method to provide a coherent worldview that can explain all things. I congratulate those who hold that faith position for all it has done and will continue to do for our kind while acknowledging the places it falls short of adequate explanatory power and seek more compelling and logical arguments (as I encourage other to do also… wherever and whatever that takes)

Actually many scientists don't believe science will ever explain "All Things". It accepts that there will be many things that remain unexplained; or which might defy us for many years and generations until we've built up an understanding in other areas to then discover the next layer of things. Indeed many times discovering something new in science simply reveals a whole layer of additional things that we don't understand or that we didn't even know were there to understand.

The point is that the process in itself has elements of logical, repeatable, testable and verifiable testing. Each step along the way can be proven and thus can be taught, emulated and so forth.



The other side of the coin is simply believing something you are told from a book or another person or a single personal thought. With no reputability; no testing; no proof etc....
Yes this is very easy to do; and for a great many things this is a far as you often need to bother with. Most of us don't need to prove to ourselves through extensive study that the world is round.

HOWEVER the key difference is that if we DID want to do it then there's documented methods, tests, etc... that can be used to prove it. We can also see all the vast interconnected parts that rely on this understanding - aviation; communication; entertainment and so forth. We can learn those ourselves; those can be taught to new generations. They can do those very same tests. They can also take those tests, improve on them and increase the understanding of what's being tested.




Suffice it to say that through science we are able to hold this very conversation. Science allows us to have homes; electricity; running water; the internet and so forth.
Belief doesn't yield those results. You can believe in the internet as much as you want, but no amount of sitting there believing in your mind that it works will make it work. Instead building communications networks; powering them with electricity; creating code and computing - all those elements built upon studies, tests and so forth all does make it work.




And you are right there will be lies in science. There will be "fake news" that happens; lies; missinterpretations; missunderstandings. HOWEVER the fact that all science can be repeated means that eventually those will get caught. It might take time; but they will get caught, investigated and corrected as far as science of the time can manage.

Science also accepts “well, we don’t know” as a valid position. And to me, that can be an entirely honest one. And as Overread said, there is acceptance we may never know. Either in our lifetime, or at all.

For example, interstellar travel. Right now we can send probes and that into the far reaches of our solar system. But sending us smelly hoomans off to another world lies entirely outside of our current capabilities. There are pop culture thoughts on it (cryogenics and century ships and that), but we’re not there yet.

Cryogenics for instance. We can flash freeze anyone with liquid nitrogen, no problem there. That’s dead easy. The trouble lies in things like protecting the cells (frozen cells burst, which sounds painful), and finding a way to reanimate the frozen. I’m aware there are creatures out there, such as Tardigrades who can do it to some degree and those might provide the answer - or at least point us in the direction where an answer might lie.

And I understand there are hypothesies about being able to bend space, the ol’ travelling without moving. But the power needed is well beyond what we can provide, which is no doubt the least of the problems there.

Cold Fusion is something I think we’re edging toward - there were BBC articles that showed a UK lab had taken that further than anyone had before. Doesn’t mean that tech is just around the corner, but progress is progress is progress. Yet all current attempts and research may prove fruitless in the end.

Again that’s a feature, not a flaw of science and the scientific method. Where a hypothesis is proven wrong, we at least gain the understanding of why it was wrong. And so the next attempt can build off that knowledge and experience. And that knowledge is shared, not hoarded away.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Again that’s a feature, not a flaw of science and the scientific method. Where a hypothesis is proven wrong, we at least gain the understanding of why it was wrong. And so the next attempt can build off that knowledge and experience. And that knowledge is shared, not hoarded away.

I read all of your comments and I have to agree on much of what you say. I think your efforts to guard against blind faith in the absurd and/or insane and unfounded pessimism of the scientific method is honourable, intelligent and absolutely required in our current age.

I’m not anti science, I am pro science! I am just against logically refutable concepts posing as ‘the truth’ due to a lack of transparency about the basis upon which those concepts are even possible.

So the concept of a ‘universal’ in a worldview where such concepts cannot be accounted for and so on and so forth. I can tell you are a very well educated chap and I am certain you’re familiar with the arguments. I am also not against the fact you’ve chosen to come down on one position or another, after all, neither of us wish any harm to the other. Well, maybe I don’t know you that well… but I have a feeling you’re a likable character.

So to conclude:

I am an avid supporter and believer in our scientific method; but not all of the sprawling concepts and theories and conclusions some practitioners reach using said discipline. I agree it is the predetermined nature of the technique we have to build models, I just tend to think some of the theories are laughably short of anything approximating the level of certainty that is often implied by various champions… and so we have to proceed with an open mind and much caution.

Take Bigfoot, do I think it is ‘real’…. not necessarily no. Do I believe it has been proven to be false, of course not! It’s really that simple.

What about the ‘control system’ hypothesis of Jacques Vallee? Given the malleability of perception we can demonstrate in controlled circumstances, could there be any truth to this hypothesis?

P.S.

I should correct myself. I don’t think ‘hypothesis’ is helpful given the company here. I’ll be kind to Jacques Vallee and instead restate my question as:

What about the ‘control system’ idea… does this educated and informed speculation proposed by Dr.Vallee give us any pause for inspiration on the topic?

I will link a short clip where he outlines in a very brief and general way his attitude:

https://youtu.be/sP10HPJkJ4Q?si=KJA3k_6_bzHtQF0h

Obviously he is talking ufos here but in his books he is clear this relates to ‘entities’ as well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I’ll also reiterate earlier comments I made regarding some of the accompanying oddities reported by many a witness of the strange:

Disorientation, loss of time, nausea, ringing in the ears, electrical devices suddenly losing power or malfunctioning, the list goes on.

I’ve seen that referred to as the Oz effect. It also includes more subtle feelings that something isn’t right, a sense of unreality.

I don’t see any proof of sinister intelligence behind it.


As for science not proving everything, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem proves that you can’t, at least in the discipline of mathematics.

This is the same issue as Fairy and Alien Abductees reporting very similar circumstances.

That is suggestive that something is being experienced by those people. At the very least, some kind of head trip. Perhaps a form of sleep paralysis, which used to be put down to Demons and that (as did much of mental health, which is still a developing field)

What might it be? As ever I dunno. But here’s an article going into more depth you may like to read. And I’m pretty sure it’s what the Fortean Times article was based upon.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=0c58afc437d94f8e3316ce3f3537926be1beefa8

 XvArcanevX wrote:


I am an avid supporter and believer in our scientific method; but not all of the sprawling concepts and theories and conclusions some practitioners reach using said discipline. I agree it is the predetermined nature of the technique we have to build models, I just tend to think some of the theories are laughably short of anything approximating the level of certainty that is often implied by various champions… and so we have to proceed with an open mind and much caution.

What theories do you have problems with, exactly?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This is the same issue as Fairy and Alien Abductees reporting very similar circumstances.

That is suggestive that something is being experienced by those people. At the very least, some kind of head trip. Perhaps a form of sleep paralysis, which used to be put down to Demons and that (as did much of mental health, which is still a developing field)

Excellent, I wholeheartedly agree. [i]Something[/] is often being experienced here. Is it a 10ft tall gargantuan primate we have somehow not yet categorized; honestly that isn’t a view I take very seriously, but something odd is indeed going on… and we don’t understand it… much to the dismay of those involved in genuine …um… ‘events’

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What might it be? As ever I dunno. But here’s an article going into more depth you may like to read. And I’m pretty sure it’s what the Fortean Times article was based upon.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=0c58afc437d94f8e3316ce3f3537926be1beefa8

Thankyou, scanned it and it looks like an interesting read. I will read it more thoroughly later.

I’m surprised nobody has insisted we all live in The Matrix yet…. it’s a pitiful turn out for the obligatory gnostics. Ah well, soon I hope.

XvArcanevX wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Scientism isn’t a thing. Because it’s not a faith position

Yet you have faith its methods will produce intelligible results? And yes, no matter where pages upon pages upon pages upon pages of back and forth go, that will remain and always has been what is colloquially called a ‘mic drop’

This is well known, well understood and entirely logical. You EXPECT the methods used in the method to be repeatable and verifiable do you not? How is this so if only that which can be empirically verified through sense data is worthy of any consideration?

It's not about worthiness. It's literally about what science is concerned with investigating. The whole basis of science is investigating the natural world using empirical evidence and logic. So far it's been shown to work remarkably well. If you have an alternative approach you'd like to suggest it has to meet the fairly high bar set by science when it comes to explanatory and predictive power.

XvArcanevX wrote:
No, scientism is most certainly a thing. It is a religious position based on FAITH in the scientific method to provide a coherent worldview that can explain all things. I congratulate those who hold that faith position for all it has done and will continue to do for our kind while acknowledging the places it falls short of adequate explanatory power and seek more compelling and logical arguments (as I encourage other to do also… wherever and whatever that takes)

Scientism is a concept created by people who don't understand science. It's an excuse to attempt to discredit the scientific while providing nothing substantial to actually refute the discoveries and advances it's allowed us to make.

For example, I note most of the people ITT that you would likely claim are followers of scientism have defended their position and explained why they find it compelling. You have levelled vague criticisms, but not actually put forward any firm refutations or theories yourself. I think there's an element of hypocrisy there, though I don't think it's intentional. Taking the quote above, can you provide an example of the "more compelling and logical arguments" you believe we should acknowledge? It's becoming increasingly difficult to engage with you here because there's not much of substance to discuss.

Science isn't a worldview. It's a way of investigating the natural world. It doesn't claim to be able to explain all things. It's the opposite of faith-based since it is inherently falsifiable. As others have pointed out, there are bad/immoral scientists, just like there are bad/immoral doctors. That's because scientists are people. The thing that makes science different to a faith-based position is that it is intrinsic to the discipline itself that any attempt to subvert the discipline through lies, deception or other nefarious means will, in principle, be discovered and corrected by the scientific method itself. It sucks that one dodgy scientist was able to persuade large numbers of people that vaccines can cause autism, but if you look at how that claim was refuted it was with more, better science.

XvArcanevX wrote:
I’m not anti science, I am pro science! I am just against logically refutable concepts posing as ‘the truth’ due to a lack of transparency about the basis upon which those concepts are even possible.

I am an avid supporter and believer in our scientific method...Take Bigfoot, do I think it is ‘real’…. not necessarily no. Do I believe it has been proven to be false, of course not! It’s really that simple.

You claim to be pro science and a believer in the scientific method yet you clearly don't understand it at all. There's no way for science to prove bigfoot doesn't exist. That's not how science works. In some areas we can positively prove a certain hypothesis which might be incompatible with a competing hypothesis, thereby disproving it, but that's not the same as proving something false on its own. I'm using the colloquial "prove" here since all conclusions in science are tentative by their very nature. When it comes to bigfoot or other cryptids the best we can do is examine the given evidence and ask whether it's compelling or positively points to the existence of a certain creature. At the moment the answer is generally "no". Take the video posted a page or two back of some guy talking about witnessing something where he lives. It's kind of telling that the video has apparently been labelled as proof of both bigfoot and some sort of dogman, which just shows how unreliable that kind of evidence is. If that's the sort of evidence someone finds compelling it's no wonder they're prone to believe in all sorts of things that are not generally accepted as real.

XvArcanevX wrote:
What about the ‘control system’ hypothesis of Jacques Vallee? Given the malleability of perception we can demonstrate in controlled circumstances, could there be any truth to this hypothesis?

From what I can gather it seems like a bunch of supposition unsupported by anything testable. It's a possible explanation for various phenomena, but there doesn't seem to be much evidential support for the theory.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


What theories do you have problems with, exactly?

You know, when I go fishing, certain large specimens I am seeking require I really have to think about how I approach my quarry. They seem to become more keenly attuned to food that is poorly presented; such as a luminous orange piece of corn dangling midwater or a lure moving in some such unnatural manner.

I learned this fairly quickly, and I avoid those mistakes where I can now. If I insist on dismissing these types of considerations as I attempt to secure my quarry I’ll just keep being pestered by the youngsters; who really aren’t much sport at all.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the legend of the Sasquatch?

Also, important distinction? Science seeks to explain, not prove.

Evolution is an explanation of how species develop, specifically from a common ancestor. And it goes well, well beyond Darwin’s theories. Biggest difference? Darwin had no idea DNA and RNA even existed.

Evolution is however, a fact. Species change and adapt over time. What is still being studied is the mechanism, or even mechanisms.

And importantly? Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. That would be origin of life research, such as Systems Chemistry which is aiming to understand how life could develop in a prebiotic environment.

Beware of false dichotomies when people are trying to disprove scientific theories. All often, the approach seems to be “if I can rubbish X, my explanation is the only other one on the table”.

To merely brush the religious side of this? And I mean the lightest of touch? Perhaps we do end up left with the conclusion an outside intelligence kicked off life on our planet. That doesn’t mean therefore one of the world’s many religions is right. Like. At all. Nor does it mean said intelligence is still around, or did anymore than start things off. Possibly even Just For A Laugh And A Chortle.

But this is why cryptozoology is an interest of mine. It’s an interesting exercise for the scientific method. When hairs are tested and prints examined, us layman are exposed more and more to the world of science. And for me? My appreciation for just how much humanity knows increases.

Answer my question, and I will answer yours. It's a simple question, what scientific theories do you have problems with? Gravity? Evolution? Relativity? Electromagnetism? Quantum Mechanics?

 XvArcanevX wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


What theories do you have problems with, exactly?

You know, when I go fishing, certain large specimens I am seeking require I really have to think about how I approach my quarry. They seem to become more keenly attuned to food that is poorly presented; such as a luminous orange piece of corn dangling midwater or a lure moving in some such unnatural manner.

I learned this fairly quickly, and I avoid those mistakes where I can now. If I insist on dismissing these types of considerations as I attempt to secure my quarry I’ll just keep being pestered by the youngsters; who really aren’t much sport at all.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the legend of the Sasquatch?

This is a bad faith post that paints you as an unserious person to be ignored. Is that what you’re aiming for?

How about you answer some questions directly, without condescension, in three medium-sized sentences or less. If you can’t express your ideas in a straightforward manner, that is as issue you can’t expect us to solve for you.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


What theories do you have problems with, exactly?

You know, when I go fishing, certain large specimens I am seeking require I really have to think about how I approach my quarry. They seem to become more keenly attuned to food that is poorly presented; such as a luminous orange piece of corn dangling midwater or a lure moving in some such unnatural manner.

I learned this fairly quickly, and I avoid those mistakes where I can now. If I insist on dismissing these types of considerations as I attempt to secure my quarry I’ll just keep being pestered by the youngsters; who really aren’t much sport at all.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the legend of the Sasquatch?

At this point you're coming across as a troll. Myself and other posters have all noted your unwillingness to provide any sort of positive theory about what you think. You've been content to criticise other people's view of how the world works but you've constantly tried to shield yourself from similar criticism.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 XvArcanevX wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


What theories do you have problems with, exactly?

You know, when I go fishing, certain large specimens I am seeking require I really have to think about how I approach my quarry. They seem to become more keenly attuned to food that is poorly presented; such as a luminous orange piece of corn dangling midwater or a lure moving in some such unnatural manner.

I learned this fairly quickly, and I avoid those mistakes where I can now. If I insist on dismissing these types of considerations as I attempt to secure my quarry I’ll just keep being pestered by the youngsters; who really aren’t much sport at all.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the legend of the Sasquatch?

This is a bad faith post that paints you as an unserious person to be ignored. Is that what you’re aiming for?

How about you answer some questions directly, without condescension, in three medium-sized sentences or less. If you can’t express your ideas in a straightforward manner, that is as issue you can’t expect us to solve for you.

It isn’t at all that. I’m simply reiterating in a creative way I am not interested in having this thread degenerate into an epistemological debate.

I have repeated that politely over and over again. I’m being sincere about that.

If certain people find that frustrating I am sorry they feel that way but the way I see it they could very easily start their own thread on any such topic of their choosing and people could engage with it at their leisure.

I’ve stated and alluded to the fact, time and again, that science is limited in its explanatory power due to fundamental epistemological issues. Science can only study phenomenon existing in the natural world through empirical means. There is nothing remotely controversial about that. I really don’t see what is so hard to understand about it. It is a truism the basis for the explanatory power is employed through the application of metaphysical concepts which are presupposed in order for the whole enterprise to unfold exactly as it has.

Now I hope that is enough to leave that matter as it is and, in good faith, return to a fun and speculative discussion.

As for me being a troll, I take great offense to that. I have been an active and happy participant in this forum and partake in the monthly competition without fail. I am being genuine, open and sincere. It is absolutely not at all fair to assume me to be trolling whatsoever.

I have expressed an interest in a number of views here. I have been clear. I make no claims to KNOW what the phenomenon represents at all.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

I’ve stated and alluded to the fact, time and again, that science is limited in its explanatory power due to fundamental epistemological issues. Science can only study phenomenon existing in the natural world through empirical means. There is nothing remotely controversial about that. I really don’t see what is so hard to understand about it. It is a truism the basis for the explanatory power is employed through the application of metaphysical concepts which are presupposed in order for the whole enterprise to unfold exactly as it has.

Anybody with any understanding of science would obviously agree with that limitation. The problem is you haven't done anything to show why this limitation matters in relation to bigfoot. Again, that's because you steadfastly refuse to actually put forward your own point of view. Everyone else seems to have come down on the side of bigfoot not existing and have offered a series of possible explanations. You've mused endlessly on the nature of scientific study while making veiled criticisms of people who put too much "faith" in science while insulating yourself from any counter-criticism by failing to make any definitive statements of your own.

I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.

One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?

They take care of their dead.