Here is a link to the article "Bigfoot Festival Serious?" Article by The Blogger "Doubtful"
I personally agree with many of the comments made by the author. While there is some evidence that suggests a large bi-pedal creature inhabits North America, researchers far too often rely on anecdotal evidence as gospel and fail to test theories or even form a plausible hypothesis based in logic. Like the author states, people tend to not think critically about the subject, this includes many researchers. Do we need to try unconventional methods and strategies that may look foolish or unproductive? I think the answer is yes, but we also have to be willing to document those attempts and produce data that can show when progress is being made, and when it's not.
All in all I think the author's viewpoint expressed in the article more than likely represents the overall perception the general public has with regards to Bigfoot and Bigfoot Research. We as researchers should be addressing this perception in our own works and studies. It can be done by thinking critically and injecting logic and common sense into the research.
TC @ Squatch Inc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Can we swap links? My blog is Bigfoot Ballyhoo the address is http://www.bigfootballyhoo.blogspot.com and my children's bigfoot blog is http://www.bigfootfancy.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteI've put your link on my site. If you hate it, I'll take it off. Best regards, Linda Newton-Perry
To: I Doubt It
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that there are personal attacks when attempting to discuss certain issues revolving around Bigfoot. I thought you brought up some good points in your commentary, being that many people involved in the search for Bigfoot simply refuse to address simple standards when it comes to documenting evidence.
I don't know Mr. Coleman other than I know he runs a website dealing with cryptids. He is obviously an advocate for BF research and that's great, but beyond that I don't think he or anyone else in the Bigfoot "community" should be taking any skeptic to task until we start putting solid data on the table or at the very least start weeding out individuals who make the research look like a complete joke.
Like I said in my first post, there is some evidence to suggest the creature exists and Dr. Meldrum's work on track casts and the thousands of witness reports make a strong case, but it's not enough. Suggesting something is real doesn't make it real, and it's why I remain somewhat skeptical to this point. However, I do think the things I just mentioned are enough reason to cast some doubt on the theory that they absolutely do not exist and it's why I spend a good deal of freetime looking for more answers.
I digress, I think your viewpoint I Doubt It, seems to be fair and you do a very good job of explaining your reasons for how you examine this topic. The reason I linked to your article is because of the fact that you didn't go off on a complete, "BF Researchers are NUTS" rant and you stated some of the logical reasons why we as researchers need to step up the game in terms of evidence documentation. I would hope others like Mr. Coleman would agree with that and not take responsible criticism so personally.
TC @ Squatch Inc.
Good news for those reporting a bigfoot to the police in Oregon and several other states, licenses will not be suspended. Check it out on http://www.bigfootballyhoo.blogspot.com and look at Bigfoot and the Ring of Truth blog, the extension of Bigfoot Ballyhoo. Thanks, just sharing the good news!
ReplyDelete