"we went on our own hunt to track down Bigfooters and make sense of how they themselves make sense of the world.""we went on our own hunt to track down Bigfooters and make sense of how they themselves make sense of the world."
Yes, of course.
...where nothing is real and the points don't count...
we were cautioned that Bigfooters were anti-science. The truth is much more complex. Yes, Bigfooters work in opposition to mainstream institutional science, making claims about the world that do not accord with the scientific consensus. However, our research revealed that Bigfooters are not dismissive of scientific principles. In fact, many are dedicated empiricists who employ methodologies modelled on those found in professional scientific research.
Because there is ‘plenty of evidence’; Bigfooters have collected thousands of witness testimonies, cast hundreds of footprints, recorded scores of howls, and have even captured the occasional photograph or video. Of course, none of these are convincing if starting from the position that Bigfoot does not exist as a biological creature.
Evidence isn't the same as proof. Circumstantial shite and (imaginary?) anecdotes are something; just not particularly strong.
Bigfooters in the field routinely collect hair, which can now be brought back and examined, both under a microscope and by more sophisticated techniques. Bigfooters claim that Bigfoot hair has distinctive features compared with the hair of other animals, and only a skilled and knowledgeable observer can distinguish between them.
And it sure is weird that nobody has ever found any sort of physical remains (bones, caves, half-rotten fur)
Bigfooting is clearly empirical; it centres on the collection and interpretation of evidence, and we hope readers of this essay, and of our book, appreciate how seriously Bigfooters take this dimension of their work, even in the face of derision. Yet empiricism alone does not constitute ‘science’. From a sociological perspective, science is a social practice – one that is embedded in institutions, structured by norms, and sustained through processes of consensus-building and the demarcation of intellectual territories.
That was a whole lot of bullshit at the end.
Sure, scientific principles are about hypothesis testing and data gathering, but real science is about trusting scientists and cannot be done by amateurs.
very.
I felt somewhat betrayed, and was waiting for the big reveal... akschtually, the amateurs found some cool shit the "real" scientists had overlooked.
Nope, nada. BORING. gimme my 20 minutes back
start from an insane premise and scientific tools can get you to BIP110
but on the flip side: bigfoot is cool.