So, Bigfoot.
The topic this week is the future vocabulary word skepticism. Skepticism means refusing to accept things without proof, and that’s really the core of science. That I’ll get into later.
I have Sasquatch on the mind because, according to the news services of the Infallible Internet (a topic for another time), two hunters claim that they will unveil physical proof of Bigfoot on Friday. Apparently, they claim to have the billion-dollar-body everyone thinks would prove the fact that there’s a seven-foot humanoid wandering just out past the last roadside McDonald’s.
Now, I would personally love there to be found anything that funky out there in the field of biology. I mean, scientists partied when we found this beauty…
…imagine the “We Found Bigfoot” party.
The problem is that science is the process of supporting claims with evidence. The reason for skepticism is that it’s too easy to be fooled, especially in these days of the internet. If National Geographic can be tricked into publishing an article on a dinosaur that’s actually a bird skeleton glued to a lizard skeleton, anyone can be hoodwinked.
A really smart astronomer once said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If anybody is to trust scientists (meaning anyone who asks questions about the world), we have to be trustworthy. So we have to constantly ask for the proof.
So, like a good science teacher, I will hold out for evidence. I will wait for proof so that people know that can trust me if I say something is true. I realize that the odds of this being anything important are billions and billions to one, and I’ll act properly.
Bigfoot would be really cool, I’ll admit.
I haven’t decided if I’m going to allow comments yet. It’s too tempting for someone to spam stuff like “San Dimas Football Rules.” But, give me an e-mail if you have thoughts, and I’ll post and respond to the good ones.
