The Bigfoot Research Project

Paul Schlosser SCHLOSSER at ciit.org
Tue Aug 9 07:18:09 EST 1994


While "serious" scientists are careful to state hypothesis, and that
the experiments are designed to test them, I think that there is often
an expected outcome.  Not always, but often.  Now a good scientist will
be ready to reject his/her "suspicions" if the data indicate otherwise,
and how we state the goal in writing may be an indicator of how willing
we are to reject our intuition.  But, how many of us can say that we never 
designed an experiment to test something that, "in our gut", we already
strongly believed to be true?  How many of us our truly unbiased at the
start of every experiment?

Yeah, I wouldn't bet 1 cent on a discovery of Bigfoot, especially since
one of the hypotheses is that it is actively hiding itself, footprints,
etc. from humans (hard to prove wrong).  But I think that the phrase
"scientific investigation designed to prove" represents a lack of
familiarity with the conventions (etiquette ?) of scientific writing 
as much as it displays a bias which is supposedly non-existent among 
"real" researchers.  Others just wouldn't put that down in writing.

Paul
schlosser at ciit.org



More information about the Bioforum mailing list