Scientists v Godzilla

democrates

Experiment based on a hypothetical event:

An explorer returns from an extended expedition with astonishing news. A newly discovered tribe of hot amazonian she-warriors told him that a giant lizard lives near them named Godzilla.

You are a scientist and are asked by a press reporter to state whether the existence of Godzilla is scientifically true or false.

What would you say (after finding out the location of the she-warriors)?

Rustar

I'd say those hot amazons have been heading into town too often to catch movies at the Bijou. While there are plenty of lizards great and small in the Amazon, the possibility of one being named Godzilla (an American bastardization of Gojira) is pretty small.
Also, I haven't seen it specified anywhere that Godzilla is a lizard. I've seen him described as a 'giant dinosaur-like reptile', which is not the same thing.
Of course, the first thing I'd say is, "Show me where these hot amazon women dwell....".

bozzie

find the "lizard" shoot the lizard carry out tests on the lizards dna prove true/false the existance of the lizard:)

democrates

Zackly, insufficient data, gotta do the science.

My underlying point is that hypotheses can fall into three categories:
True
False
Unproven

It's amusing to see 'scientists' attacking things that are unproven instead of just doing the science. The habit has even infected political discourse, "there's no evidence for that" is constantly used to infer something is false when it is in fact unproven and often reveals ignorance where there should be more certainty.

FYI the amazonians are doing a guest appearance at erotiCon2005 which is being held at a secret location in Colorado known as, The Meadows.
[dramatisation, may not be happening]