Pseudoscience: Siberian Yeti

Bigfoot Hunters Detect Signs of the Hairy Beast in Siberia

The Siberian Yeti

1) The Siberian yeti is an example of pseudoscience because of the fact that despite several people claiming to have seen him, no legitimate scientific evidence of his existence actually exists (i.e. DNA, physical measurements after being captured by legitimate scientists, etc.). People have offered some evidence such as footprints and photographs of the creature, but most of the evidence is circumstantial at best or doctored. The idea of a "yeti" falls under the concept of cryptozoology, an area of pseudoscience that encompasses creatures that are considered not to exist by most biologists. Since most biologists refuse to accept the idea of the yeti's existence, it is generally considered only a myth.
2) The only possible legitimate scientific claims are the small pieces of evidence that others have found (i.e. footprints, cave abodes with beds made of brush, broken branches indicating a yeti trail, hairs, and grainy photographs of the yeti) and the fact that no one can refute his existence (but that is a logical fallacy, so that does not really count). However, most of these are either doctored, not upheld by scientific review, or tracks made by other animals so their legitimacy is more-or-less baseless.
3) The fact that the yeti has never been seen by anyone other than the so-called witnesses makes their overall claim suspicious and difficult to support. Unless a group of biologists actually captures the creature, analyzes it, and determines that it is not just a bear that has learned to walk on its hind legs, then the yeti cannot be considered real. Actual DNA evidence would also make the claims easier to believe. The only physical evidence of the yeti that has ever been found was hair (and a scalp), but scientists have not verified these findings as unique to a creature like the yeti.
4) The reason why people may fall for this claim is the same reason why people fall for any pseudoscientific claim. The idea of a mysterious, Neanderthal-like creature walking around the wilderness available for capture by any individual with the means, patience, and manpower to accomplish such a task is the same kind of idea that compels others to search for El Dorado or the Bermuda Triangle. Only a small percentage of people actually believe the evidence presented by cryptozoologists, but there are others who generally believe these kind of phenomenon due to their mystique and appeal to people's beliefs in the supernatural or strange things.

Personal Paradigm Shift

I am not sure whether the paradigm shift is supposed to be only personal or in regards to a paradigm shift experienced by the entire world (scientifically or otherwise), so I included both.


Personal
When I first became interested in weapons, I always had a pre-determined notion about how they functioned. I had imagined that each mechanism was straightforward: guns would just shoot out a bullet which would penetrate the target, while explosives would just blow up and kill the target in a fiery ball of destruction. However, after watching a television program about military weaponry, I was forced to change my view of how these weapons worked.
The best example of my paradigm shift in weapons was with the RPG-7. Originally I believed that once the warhead hit its target, it would explode and create a giant aperture in the structure; the explosion would obliterate everything, including any people inside. This was how I perceived it to function every time I saw it used in video games and such. However, the actual mechanism is slightly different. Instead, the warhead is lined with a conical sheet of copper with an explosive charge placed behind it. When the RPG is fired the warhead first hits the wall with the primary charge, creating a small hole for the secondary mechanism. Another detonator then activates, melting the conical liner into a heated jet of molten copper which enters the aperture and kills anyone inside the objective.
Although the paradigm shift does not affect me in any significant way, I was slightly disappointed that explosives do not work the way I thought they would (i.e. shock waves are the primary reason for explosives' effectiveness, not flames and whatnot). However, these new mechanisms piqued my interest in how these weapons worked and led me to read up on them a bit more.

Diagram of an RPG-7: Cone of molten copper fires out of the tip of the warhead, flowing through the hole made by the initial explosive charge and killing everyone inside the vehicle, structure, etc.

Knowledge Issue: Color Blindness

1. Over the summer, while at the beach with my friends, one of my friends and I brought two very similar towels. While both of our towels had no designs and only one color on each, his was purple and mine was blue. Due to my color blindness, I had a difficult time distinguishing the towels from one another. I can tell the difference between blue and purple, but when the shades look very similar from my point of view I cannot distinguish between the two. When we were leaving at the end of the day, I grabbed the wrong towel on accident, sparking an argument between my friend and I as to which towel was mine and which one was his. After asking the other people that were there, they agreed that I have taken the purple towel and not my blue one. Instead of continuing the argument, I decided to just agree with them and accept their judgment.
2. The aforementioned situation involves sense perception and secondhand knowledge (to an extent).
3. Differences in perception play the primary role in this situation. My friends, to my knowledge, do not have any problems with their vision in terms of perceiving color. On the other hand, I have difficulty distinguishing between close shades of blue and purple, especially dark shades of both when placed together. The only reason for me to believe that the towel is blue is based on secondhand knowledge, so I do not know for myself whether this is true unless someone else tells me. However, I am still fairly capable of deciphering between most shades of blue and purple, so I might have been right. I cannot see through other people's eyes, so I cannot verify whether what they see is different from what I see. The only way I can verify which is blue and which is purple is through a majority consensus.
4. Knowing I cannot tell the difference between these two colors/shades, I cannot trust my own eyes when determining which color is what. However, if I cannot trust my own eyes, how can I trust anyone else's eyesight? Considering that a majority of men are afflicted with some type of color blindness, my friend could as well be color blind but unaware of it. Furthermore, I cannot see through my friend's eyes, so I cannot tell whether his perception is truly different than mine.
5. If our own senses are inaccurate, how can we trust anyone else's sense perception to be more accurate, especially if we cannot perceive anything through their point of view?