Look at the photo below. Do you believe what you see?

Source: Roger Patterson’s Sasquatch, History Link

On October 20, 1976, Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin set out on horseback to explore the northern California wilderness and search for Bigfoot. Using a 16mm handheld movie camera, they shot the following footage.

Many scientists throughout the world continue to remain divided on the authenticity of the film.

When we are asked to evaluate scientific explanations, we have to evaluate or judge the reliability of what we hear and see. We have to use critical thinking to evaluate explanations. Critical thinking means combining what you already know with new facts or observations and deciding if you agree or not.

Evaluating scientific explanations involves two steps.

Click on each step to learn more.

Interactive popup. Assistance may be required. Step 1: Evaluate the Data Is the data specific? Data given to back up a claim needs to be exact. Notes and observations made should be detailed and clear. Notes should be made during the investigation, not after the fact. Can the results be replicated? Scientists require repeatable evidence. Other scientists should be able to repeat the investigation and get the same results. When evaluating data, look to see if other scientists have repeated the data. If not, the data might not be reliable.

Interactive popup. Assistance may be required. Step 2: Evaluate the Conclusions Does the conclusion make sense? For the conclusion to be reliable, it must be plausible. Are there any other possible explanations? Conclusions are not reliable unless other possible explanations are proven unlikely.