What Bigfoot hunters get right (and very wrong)
In the intriguing world of cryptozoology, Bigfoot stands out as one of the most elusive creatures, drawing both fervent believers and skeptical scientists into its enigmatic orbit. Recent research by social scientists Jamie Lewis from Cardiff University and Andrew Bartlett from Sheffield University sheds light on the serious methodologies employed by those who pursue the legendary Sasquatch. Contrary to the stereotype of wild-eyed enthusiasts, many Bigfoot hunters, or “Bigfooters,” utilize reliable scientific tools and techniques in their quest, spending significant time in the field to gather and analyze evidence of this purported creature. Lewis emphasizes that these hunters engage in “skillful behavior,” meticulously detecting and collecting traces that might indicate the presence of an undiscovered great ape in remote areas like the Pacific Northwest.
Lewis and Bartlett’s three-year study involved interviews with over 150 individuals, including Bigfooters, skeptics, and even renowned primatologist Jane Goodall. Their findings reveal that while a fringe group may entertain fantastical theories involving extraterrestrial or supernatural elements, the majority of Bigfooters operate under the premise that a yet-to-be-discovered species could exist. This perspective challenges the notion that these individuals are anti-science; instead, they are actively engaging in scientific inquiry as they interpret evidence in a manner consistent with their beliefs. The researchers advocate for a concept they call “methodological credulity,” which encourages understanding the rationality behind Bigfooters’ pursuits rather than dismissing them outright. This approach is particularly relevant in today’s climate of pervasive misinformation, where the validity of various knowledge claims is often contested.
Interestingly, modern Bigfooters are not merely relying on anecdotal evidence such as large footprints; they are increasingly adopting advanced technologies like thermal imaging, drones, and audio collection devices to substantiate their claims. Lewis asserts that while the existence of Bigfoot as a biological entity remains unproven, the phenomenon itself undeniably exists as a cultural and social construct around which many individuals organize their lives. This perspective invites a broader discussion about the nature of scientific inquiry, knowledge creation, and the importance of community in understanding and validating claims, no matter how unconventional they may seem. Ultimately, the pursuit of Bigfoot serves as a fascinating case study in how fringe beliefs can intersect with scientific practices, challenging our definitions of what constitutes legitimate inquiry in the search for knowledge.
Bigfoot remains firmly in the
realm of cryptozoology
, along with the likes of the
Loch Ness monster
. However, its pursuers often are not the stereotypical crackpots depicted across pop culture. According to two social scientists, they frequently rely on widely accepted, reliable methods and tools to search for the elusive Sasquatch.
“They spend weekends, weeks, and even months in the field. This work is skillful behavior, as they need to detect, collect and analyze the merest traces, remnants and residues of the presence of an unknown-to-science animal,” Cardiff University researcher Jamie Lewis
said in a recent profile
.
Along with Sheffield University social scientist Andrew Bartlett, Lewis has spent more than three years conducting interviews with over 150 individuals for their recent book,
Bigfooters and Scientific Inquiry: on the borderlands of legitimate science
. Subjects included the aforementioned hunters (often referred to as Bigfooters), television personalities, skeptics, and even the late primatologist,
Jane Goodall
. Lewis and Bartlett now contend that while a small subsect of cryptozoologists subscribe to far-fetched extraterrestrial, interdimensional or supernatural Bigfoot theories, the vast majority simply theorize a still-undiscovered great ape may still roam regions such as the Pacific Northwest.
“Skeptics might believe that Bigfooters are rejecting science by chasing an animal whose existence has never been proved. But what my interviews showed were the ways in which Bigfooters draw on their idea of scientific practices to piece together fragments of what they believe is tangible evidence,” said Lewis.
Bartlett jokingly explained that the duo adopted an approach they call “methodological credulity.” Essentially, they believe that simply dismissing outside researchers does not do the academic scientific community any favors.Heaping scorn or derision on these well-intentioned individuals actually becomes actively harmful.
“In taking the time and care to understand their knowledge world and their rationality, we can see just how much their activities are not ‘anti-science’ but an attempt to be scientific as they see it,” said Bartlett, who added that today’s
pervasive misinformation
and
science skepticism
speaks to the issue.
“Some of the problems that we face in this moment– in which all kinds of knowledge claims are contested in public, by the public–is that the asocial, individualized stories that we tell about science downplay the role of communities of expertise, of the value of consensus and continuity,” he said.
Most of today’s Bigfooters aren’t pointing to every large, misshapen footprint in the woods as proof of the cryptid’s existence. Instead, they frequently employ objectively commonly used technologies, including thermal imaging, drones, and even parabolic dishes to collect audio data. Lewis and Bartlett explained that it’s not about believing these Bigfooters’ claims. Instead, it’s about recognizing when real scientific standards are still being applied outside traditional, knowledge-generating institutions. Viewed through this social scientific lens, Bigfoot’s existence is undisputable-–in a manner of speaking.
“Bigfoot exists,” said Lewis. “Not necessarily as a biological creature, but certainly as an object around which thousands of Americans organize their lives, collecting and analyzing evidence, and making knowledge.”
The post
What Bigfoot hunters get right (and very wrong)
appeared first on
Popular Science
.
