06-19-2008, 03:40 AM
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "[size 2][#000000]Some collegues (same university ISU) of Jeff Meldrum and others have criticized him and his work. However, none of them, not a single one, has disproven anything he has shown or researched. I challenge anone to find any quotes, info, or source disproving Jeff Meldrum's work."
[/#000000][/size]
[#008000]I can see by your statement here that there is a premise of logic and reason that you are unfamilar with. That being this:
1. All positive statements require positive evidence to support them.
2. All extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence to support them.
3. It is encumbent upon those who make claims to support those claims. It is not required of anyone to "disprove" extraordinary claims - the default is; that unless the claim can be supported the claim is unsubstantiatable.
What that means is that if the Bigfoot believers and supporters make the extraordinary claim that Bigfoot exists, it is they, that have to support it by suppling the extraordinary evidence that it is so. Noone has to "prove" it is not. By default, it is "unproven". Also, BTW - a claim like the existence of a BigFoot, is considered an extraordinary claim.
Jeff Meldrum's work does not need to be "disproven" by anyone - it requires that he substantiate his claim to be valid and true by suppling the evidence that demonstrates it; Unambiguously !
Here is the basic scientific method (generally, all science uses this process):
1. The observation of phenomena.
2. The formulation of an hypothesis concerning the phenomena.
(Here, Step 2, is where the current BigFoot Research is now)
3. Experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis.
4. A conclusion that validates the hypothesis.
[/#008000]
[#008000]
Now, I will apply it to the BigFoot Research (BFR) thus far. Expanding on those above 4 steps for clarification.
1. Define a question or observation.
BFR - Mysterious phenomena occurs.
2. Make observations/gather primary information.
BFR - Unexplained images in blurry Photos, blurry film, Unexplained tracks.
3. Make an hypothesis about the observation/information.
BFR - The unexplained images and tracks belong to an unknown primate.
4. Perform experiment / gather data.
BFR - Gather unexplained hair sample/DNA, more blurry photos, more unexplained tracks.
5. Analyze data.
BFR - Hair/DNA not conclusive and not positively identified. Conclusions based on unsubstantiated evidence.
6. Make prediction.
BFR - Bigfoot could be such dimensions and act thusly - based on blurry photographs and unexplained tracks.
7. Test prediction.
BFR - Computer model based on hypothetically derived evidence.
(Here, Step 7, is where the current BigFoot Research is now)
8. Publish results to scientific community for examination by PEERS.
BFR - NOT DONE as of yet.
WHY ? No pier reviewed scientific journal would consider it as it lacks merit.
9. PEER REVIEW of published work by scientists in the same field.
BFR - NOT DONE because it is not published in a pier reviewed format. WHY ? No valid evidence exists yet that meets the minimun criteria of the scientific community for testable results.
10. All tests and results have to be varifiable or repeatable by other scientists and they have to be able to achieve the same results.
BFR - NOT DONE as of yet.
Note that the last 3 steps of the expanded version are the most critical parts of the process. With out those, the BFR is still in the hypothesis creation stage and not really worth considering as anything except BFR's extraordinary assertion about some phenomena that has not been explained. [/#008000]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#008000]Thus far, the scientific community as a whole, has not accepted any evidence of bigfoot as compelling, or even close to being supportive of a valid rational hypothesis. And, to be brutally honest about it, from a scientific perspective, the evidence that BFR has, makes it look less like an hypothesis and more like a S.W.A.G. (Silly.Wild.A$$.Guess).
[/#008000]
[signature]
[/#000000][/size]
[#008000]I can see by your statement here that there is a premise of logic and reason that you are unfamilar with. That being this:
1. All positive statements require positive evidence to support them.
2. All extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence to support them.
3. It is encumbent upon those who make claims to support those claims. It is not required of anyone to "disprove" extraordinary claims - the default is; that unless the claim can be supported the claim is unsubstantiatable.
What that means is that if the Bigfoot believers and supporters make the extraordinary claim that Bigfoot exists, it is they, that have to support it by suppling the extraordinary evidence that it is so. Noone has to "prove" it is not. By default, it is "unproven". Also, BTW - a claim like the existence of a BigFoot, is considered an extraordinary claim.
Jeff Meldrum's work does not need to be "disproven" by anyone - it requires that he substantiate his claim to be valid and true by suppling the evidence that demonstrates it; Unambiguously !
Here is the basic scientific method (generally, all science uses this process):
1. The observation of phenomena.
2. The formulation of an hypothesis concerning the phenomena.
(Here, Step 2, is where the current BigFoot Research is now)
3. Experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis.
4. A conclusion that validates the hypothesis.
[/#008000]
[#008000]
Now, I will apply it to the BigFoot Research (BFR) thus far. Expanding on those above 4 steps for clarification.
1. Define a question or observation.
BFR - Mysterious phenomena occurs.
2. Make observations/gather primary information.
BFR - Unexplained images in blurry Photos, blurry film, Unexplained tracks.
3. Make an hypothesis about the observation/information.
BFR - The unexplained images and tracks belong to an unknown primate.
4. Perform experiment / gather data.
BFR - Gather unexplained hair sample/DNA, more blurry photos, more unexplained tracks.
5. Analyze data.
BFR - Hair/DNA not conclusive and not positively identified. Conclusions based on unsubstantiated evidence.
6. Make prediction.
BFR - Bigfoot could be such dimensions and act thusly - based on blurry photographs and unexplained tracks.
7. Test prediction.
BFR - Computer model based on hypothetically derived evidence.
(Here, Step 7, is where the current BigFoot Research is now)
8. Publish results to scientific community for examination by PEERS.
BFR - NOT DONE as of yet.
WHY ? No pier reviewed scientific journal would consider it as it lacks merit.
9. PEER REVIEW of published work by scientists in the same field.
BFR - NOT DONE because it is not published in a pier reviewed format. WHY ? No valid evidence exists yet that meets the minimun criteria of the scientific community for testable results.
10. All tests and results have to be varifiable or repeatable by other scientists and they have to be able to achieve the same results.
BFR - NOT DONE as of yet.
Note that the last 3 steps of the expanded version are the most critical parts of the process. With out those, the BFR is still in the hypothesis creation stage and not really worth considering as anything except BFR's extraordinary assertion about some phenomena that has not been explained. [/#008000]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#008000]Thus far, the scientific community as a whole, has not accepted any evidence of bigfoot as compelling, or even close to being supportive of a valid rational hypothesis. And, to be brutally honest about it, from a scientific perspective, the evidence that BFR has, makes it look less like an hypothesis and more like a S.W.A.G. (Silly.Wild.A$$.Guess).
[/#008000]
[signature]