Idaho Museum of Natural History opens Bigfoot exhibit

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://imnh.isu.edu/index.htm
http://imnh.isu.edu/News/Bigfoot_web.pdf

Title says it all.

[gfunkusarelius]

wow, a three day bigfoot rendezvous...how tedious

http://www.bigfootrendezvous.com/

there is a "storytelling competition"....in place of actual evidence i would assume

[demonologist]

I don't see the problem here. Whether bigfeet are real or not, they are part of human history. I don't see anything from these webpages that suggest they are taking a pro-bigfeet stance. They put the word know in quotes, for example.

[Beth]

From the link above
Starting June 16, come and examine Bigfoot through the lenses of science, belief, mythology, folklore and traditions. Visit this exhibit and then decide for yourself if this creature's existence is possible or not...

If there is the problem with this, I don't know what it is.

[drkitten]

If there is the problem with this, I don't know what it is.

"Obviously," the problem is that they don't come straight out and tell you in the advertising blurb that Bigfoot doesn't exist, and thereby cut the number of visitors they get in half.

[I less than three logic]

"Obviously," the problem is that they don't come straight out and tell you in the advertising blurb that Bigfoot doesn't exist, and thereby cut the number of visitors they get in half.
No, I think they’re doing it right. Lure that half in, take their money, and then explain to them there is no evidence for Bigfoot beyond the belief, mythology, and folklore.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

My gripe with it is that there are other exhibits that are educational to the public, that aren't centered around a big question mark. Ex. Body Worlds, King Tut, Native American Art, etc.

Plus, this gives an air of legitimacy to subject matter that probably doesn't deserve it.

[I less than three logic]

My gripe with it is that there are other exhibits that are educational to the public, that aren't centered around a big question mark. Ex. Body Worlds, King Tut, Native American Art, etc.

Plus, this gives an air of legitimacy to subject matter that probably doesn't deserve it.
I can’t argue with that.

Would be nice if every advertising dollar spent on those exhibits would bring in as many people as the ones spent on the Bigfoot nonsense, unfortunately I have a feeling that isn’t the case. :(

[demonologist]

Seems like they are just making an exhibition that people are interested in. If you have a problem with people being interested in culture and folklore, that's your problem and you can't criticize them on account of it.

[chillzero]

My gripe with it is that there are other exhibits that are educational to the public, that aren't centered around a big question mark. Ex. Body Worlds, King Tut, Native American Art, etc.

Plus, this gives an air of legitimacy to subject matter that probably doesn't deserve it.

But, without visiting, you don't know that. It might actually make it very clear that the whole thing is nonsense.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Seems like they are just making an exhibition that people are interested in. If you have a problem with people being interested in culture and folklore, that's your problem and you can't criticize them on account of it.

Sure I can. It's perfectly fine for me to criticize their choice of what exhibits to have.

Additionally, it is unfair of you to extrapolate my criticisms of this particular exhibit to me "...hav[ing] a problem with people being interested in culture and folklore,..." I would have no problem with them presenting an exhibit on Greek mythology. I would, however, have a problem if they presented said exhibit as, "decide for yourself if the Greek gods exist".

Will it bring in money to the museum? Yes. I can appreciate the use of such moneymakers and traffic generators. This doesn't mean I surrender my right to question their choice of subject matter.

[drkitten]

My gripe with it is that there are other exhibits that are educational to the public, that aren't centered around a big question mark. Ex. Body Worlds, King Tut, Native American Art, etc.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. It's not the exhibit that's centered around a great big question mark, but the subject matter itself.

And the question mark is the only reason that anyone is at all interested in it.

If I were to do a museum exhibit about Neil Armstrong, why would anyone come? To see that he got his pilot's licence before his driver's licence? Or to see what it was like to be the first person on the Moon?

If I were to do a museum exhibit about Amelia Earhart, the disappearance -- the big question mark -- is the only reason anyone would come.



Plus, this gives an air of legitimacy to subject matter that probably doesn't deserve it.

So, by that argument, does the JREF challenge. Part of the "educational" process is outreach.

[drkitten]

My gripe with it is that there are other exhibits that are educational to the public, that aren't centered around a big question mark. Ex. Body Worlds, King Tut, Native American Art, etc.

Actually, I think I've been to the IMNH, many many years ago. All it had was Native American Art. And it was as boring as anywhere I've ever been; I think I would rather go to the Louvre and look just at the backs of all the paintings on exhibit.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. It's not the exhibit that's centered around a great big question mark, but the subject matter itself.

And the question mark is the only reason that anyone is at all interested in it.

If I were to do a museum exhibit about Neil Armstrong, why would anyone come? To see that he got his pilot's licence before his driver's licence? Or to see what it was like to be the first person on the Moon?


I confess, I'm feeling cynical and snarky this morning. It just that their flyer strikes me as more History Channel: Bigfoot and Monsters than National Geographic Channel: Is it real? (Bigfoot).


If I were to do a museum exhibit about Amelia Earhart, the disappearance -- the big question mark -- is the only reason anyone would come.

I think, maybe, deep down, that's what bugs me. People would rather hear about mysteries/controversies/conspiracies/etc than start with a solid grounding in the non-mysterious/no-longer-controversial/etc. That things like this exhibit will probably draw large numbers, whereas an exhibit on mountain gorillas, their discovery, and observation; probably wouldn't. That the "New Age" section at my local B&N takes up five racks of shelves, which is as much as all of the science sections put together.

Were I closer, I would probably go, if nothing else but to either give them kudos for a critical appraisal of the subject matter, or a severe tongue-lashing for failing to do so.


So, by that argument, does the JREF challenge. Part of the "educational" process is outreach.
The JREF challengs provides them with the opportunity to earn legitimacy.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Actually, I think I've been to the IMNH, many many years ago. All it had was Native American Art. And it was as boring as anywhere I've ever been; I think I would rather go to the Louvre and look just at the backs of all the paintings on exhibit.

Eh, was just listing recent exhibits at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago and the Lake County Cultural Museum as convenient examples.

[demonologist]

Sure I can. It's perfectly fine for me to criticize their choice of what exhibits to have.

Additionally, it is unfair of you to extrapolate my criticisms of this particular exhibit to me "...hav[ing] a problem with people being interested in culture and folklore,..." I would have no problem with them presenting an exhibit on Greek mythology. I would, however, have a problem if they presented said exhibit as, "decide for yourself if the Greek gods exist".

Why? Do you have a problem with people deciding things for themselves?

Bigfoot is part of american folklore. I think it's silly to pretend like it's not. Or to only talk about it in the real/fraud dichotomy. It seems like this exhibition is tapping into the cultural side of bigfeet. And I think they should.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why? Do you have a problem with people deciding things for themselves?

Bigfoot is part of american folklore. I think it's silly to pretend like it's not. Or to only talk about it in the real/fraud dichotomy. It seems like this exhibition is tapping into the cultural side of bigfeet. And I think they should.


This
exhibit will look at the Bigfoot phenomenon and the different ways we “know” about the
creature. The exhibit will examine Bigfoot through the lenses of scientific method, belief,
mythology, folklore and traditions. Featuring work by Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Chris Murphy
and other Bigfoot researchers, as well as scholars from Idaho State University and the
Pocatello area, the exhibit is sure to expand your thoughts on how we understand the
mystery of Bigfoot.


It is not just exploring the cultural/folklore/mythology of bigfoot.

I don't have a problem with people deciding things on their own. I do have a problem with misrepresenting the status of issues within the scientific community and with giving equal airtime to unequal viewpoints.

[demonologist]

What evidence is there that they are doing so? It says they are "examin Bigfoot through the lenses of scientific method" but we don't know what their conclusions of that are. It might be "science doesn't have anything to say about bigfoot.... here is what the folklores say.." There's not a whole lot of difference between folklore, mythology, belief, and traditions in this respect, so it sounds like it [I]will focus heavily on that side. We just don't know if they are going to give footprint-claimers and such any airtime at all. Let alone equal airtime.