There is a significant amount of evidence for Bigfoot - there are tracks, there are fuzzy photographs, there are hair samples, there are sighting reports - the problem is that it's not good evidence," said Benjamin Radford, managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
"I liken it to a cup of coffee - if you have many cups of weak coffee, they can't be combined into strong coffee.
"It's the same with scientific evidence. If you have lots of weak evidence, the cumulative effect of the evidence doesn't make it strong evidence - and what science needs to validate a Bigfoot is strong evidence."
- Is there any way of getting evidence? That is, is there something you can touch, see, hear, smell, or taste that you can find out more about?
- Could you do an experiment? That is, could you form a hypothesis (have an idea), work out what would happen if your hypothesis (idea) were true, and then test whether that is in fact what happens?
- Is there more than one source of evidence?
- What is the simplest explanation of the evidence? Is there an explanation which does not require us to believe in things which we have no evidence?
- Can the facts or evidence presented here be confirmed by a reliable source independent of those making the claim?
- Is there consensus in the scientific community about these claims?
- Does the evidence for this claim depend entirely on personal anecdotes (stories)?
- Is the conclusion made here the only possible explanation for the events?
- Are the people making these claims attached to their point of view, or are they trying to get at the objective truth? (Be especially skeptical of anyone whose livelihood depends on belief in these claims.)
- Have carefully designed, controlled experiments (double-blinded) been used to validate these claims or ideas? Have the experiments been repeated by other scientists, or are these claims based on one study only?
- Are the claims being made here matters that people in general long to believe are true?
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DEMAND EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!