The Problems of Evidence

Abstract

Contrary to the popular misunderstanding of the idea, a scientific theory is not a blind guess. It is a notion about how the universe operates, which is based upon a considerable body of factual and circumstantial evidence and ties those facts together. Without an explanatory theory a mountain of facts means little. In its simplest form, science works by gathering evidence and formulating theories. The problem Grover Krantz and other academic monster enthusiasts had stemmed from having theories, but not enough facts to support them, or at least facts the mainstream accepted. Superficially, the Gigantopithecus theory made sense, seemed logical, and could explain how such a creature came to be and how it came to inhabit the areas witnesses said it did. Monster hunters had three types of evidence in the form of eyewitness accounts, footprint casts, and photographs and films. Despite the physicality of the last two, all of these generated suspicion from a scientific point of view. In the absence of a Sasquatch body, Krantz tried to establish his theoretical work as best he could. He found fellow travelers in an unlikely place. The monster hunters of North America and England found allies in Russia, where similar creatures, commonly called Almasti, had been reported for years, drawing the attention of a group composed of both academic and amateur investigators. The Russians, however, employed a very different explanatory theory.

I don’t expect much from such an orthodox anthropologist.

Boris Porshnev on John Napier¹