Last night I was turning the radio dial and happened upon an interview with a scientist about "X." I don't remember the station, or know what program it was. Turned out the scientist was Michael Shermer. I only listened for about two minutes, but it went like the following, and of course, I am paraphrasing:
Shermer: (remember, I'm paraphrasing) For example, Bigfoot. If you hear a claim that Bigfoot exists, okay, you then have X. If there's Bigfoot, there has to be more than just one or two. If there's more than or two, X says there are thousands. If there are thousands, X then says there'd be bodies: road kill, etc.
The problem with this X idea or process is that it is based on a lot of assumptions about a being that is allegedly non-existent. If we don't know Bigfoot exists how can we assume things about it? We don't know what Bigfoot is. So we can't assume Bigfoot is like other animals.
Shermer -- as well as many Bigfoot researchers -- assume that Bigfoot is just a flesh and blood animal. Nothing paranormal or supernatural about it. Simply a really big kind of bear or ape. Probably intelligent, but, not as smart as humans. Just a big old animal lumbering around out there. So of course the X game follows these assumptions as a given. Big animal, have to be a lot of them, needs a lot of food, we'd find their bodies as road kill or maybe bones off in the woods. Surely hunters would have found something by now.
Another problem is that, while assuming all those things about Bigfoot (number, bodies, etc.) Shermer, etc. ignores the data that is there. Witness narratives about their Bigfoot encounters are entirely valid. Anecdotal evidence is not proof, but it is evidence. And if a scientist cannot sift through a very large data pile of reports and cannot discern a pattern to those witness accounts, then that scientist is being dishonest and disingenuous.
When it comes to the paranormal and/or cryptids, going through the X process won't get you very far.
