I completely agree that we can’t “believe in” Bigfoot until we see some hardcore evidence. A footprint is insufficient.

The problem is that those who are certain Bigfoot cannot possibly exist will do nothing to invesigate further, while those who believe in the possibility of Bigfoot will continue to search for evidence.

The only truthful answer to the question of whether Bigfoot exists is to say that we do not know. Scientists and skeptics hate saying they don’t know something. But in fact, there is a tremendous amount that we JUST DO NOT KNOW YET about the nature of everything, from our own psyches and bodies to the natural world around us to the origins of life to the extent of the universe and on and on.

A recent interesting example of professional skepticism attempting to squelch controversial ideas appears in a fine book, ISLANDS OF GENIUS, by Darold Treffert, MD, one of the world’s leading authorities on autistic savant syndrome. Dr. Treffert provides a detailed report of the many extraordinary manifestations of savant syndrome that he has studied over a period of almost 50 years. In passing, he notes that family members of savants have on occasion reported psychic abilities in the savants they know personally. Treffert comments that he can neither confirm nor deny such reports and has always focused his research on other areas of savant syndrome that are more common and easy to study, but he includes these reports because they were reported to him and he wants his survey to be complete. He then notes that his colleagues had chastised him for EVEN MENTIONING this subgroup of psychic patients. In other words, he was told “don’t utter a word about this, even in passing, because it falls outside our world view. That way we don’t have to address its iimplications or study the issue further.”

This attempt at censorship is symptomatic of the problem of professional skepticism. Scientists who are unwilling to consider uncomfortable topics are not the objectivists they claim to be.