Summary of “Why We Can’t Rule Out Bigfoot”

Scientists do the reverse: They set out to disprove a hypothesis.
How to test Bristol’s claim? The simplest thing that Fisher and Roach could have done was pour a cup of tea out of her sight, hand it to her to sip, and then let her guess how it was prepared.
“We may speak of this hypothesis as the ‘null hypothesis,'” Fisher wrote.
“The null hypothesis is never proved or established, but is possibly disproved, in the course of experimentation. Every experiment may be said to exist only in order to give the facts a chance of disproving the null hypothesis.”
Fisher sketched out a way to reject the null hypothesis-that Bristol’s choices were random.
Thanks in large part to Fisher, the null hypothesis has become an important tool for scientific discovery.
The null hypothesis they developed was this: The hairs purported to come from Bigfoot belonged not to a previously unknown primate, but to known mammals.
Does this mean Sykes and his colleagues have proved that Bigfoot does not exist? No. It simply means that Sykes, unlike Fisher with his tea test, could not reject the null hypothesis.

The orginal article.