Guest Yeti1974 Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 (edited) I've never been one to jump and run at any pronouncement made on this forum. In fact, in my short time here I've found that I am more often than not skeptical of claims made on the forum and elsewhere online. There is, I would admit, more "junk" in the Internet Bigfoot community than I thought there might be. So, some common ground there. Edited April 24, 2011 by Yeti1974 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Wishful thinking and really hoping your hypothesis is true are all a part of scientific process, otherwise no one would bother. The Wright brothers wishfully thought they could make a machine fly, and made it happen. And though scientists may hope their hypothesis is true, it is scientific to test it anyway and that is where scientific method comes in. Whether or not wishful thinking and hope are present is irrelevant to the discussion. If you can see that an honest attempt at testing the hypothesis is being made, then science is happening no matter how wildly improbable the hypothesis may seem to be. After all, flying machines, continental drift, the germ theory, the constant nature of the speed of light and the fact that bats can magically avoid bullets (radar) were all once considered wild hypotheses. Discarding a hypothesis because it seems improbable isn't science. Testing it is. And that is the difference between scoftics and sceptics, too...it has to do with thinking about the processes taken, not about simply mocking at and tossing out the hypothesis. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 If they have truly made some scientific leap forward, I'm sure I'll hear about it eventually. This is much my stance as well. I'm too busy (and too apathetic, I suppose) to jump up and down every time someone claims to have something good "in the works" or "promising", etc. If this, or the Erickson Project, or even the ridiculous BFRO tv show, ever amounts to anything - real, honest to God something (conclusive DNA evidence, a body, etc.) - I'll be the first person to start running around beating it over my friends' heads (I wouldn't even describe myself as a hardcore believer either. I receive a mild amount of ridicule just for being interested in the first place). Until then, I take Ray's stance. If it's for real, I'll hear about it. You all might be interested to know that the author of the article is also a partner with the CFZ and in fact, the expeditions he's leading are CFZ expeditions. There's more information on the CFZ blogs/website and so forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 (edited) There were some good things in that study. They sent hair samples to multiple labs, for example. Mysteriously Dr. Todd Disotell's portion of the sample was "not enough sample present to obtain testable DNA" whereas other samples, notably the one sent to Denmark, "had plenty of DNA to test" and tested out as something similar or equal to human. I've said all along that if a good DNA sample was obtained I would expect it to be human or very close to it since I think these creatures, if they exist, are from the Homo line. Few labs have the precision to distinguish between paleo human lines, such as the recent Denisova woman discovery in which both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA were isolated from a single 30K year old finger bone and tested, then compared with known Neanderthal and human DNA samples. It is a pity that this sort of analysis is not happening with some of these finds, that is really where light would be shed on the matter. The fact is that the labs that have the skill to do these tests won't even take seriously the possibility that these creatures exist. Edited April 24, 2011 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 I won't argue with you on the fact that an analysis on potential "new primate" hair would include all known primates for the area and a good collection of human hair types, because it would. This was an article in a magazine, not a peer reviewed paper proposing a new species. Even in a peer reviewed paper your not going to see photos of all the other animals which were easily eliminated as possiblities. You'll see the most probable candidates based on morphology compared in the paper, and then each one of those eliminated by DNA. Similar articles were published on the X-woman find, are they misleading you? You'll have to show much what articles you are referring to, but I certainly agree that this is more like a magazine article. My point was that hair morphology in humans is much more varied among races and even from a single individual than we are sometimes led to believe. Do you think an African American, an Asian, an Anglo and a Native American would all accept that single illustration as represeting "human" hair? I think not. In terms of bigfoot in North America, to use hair morphology to trumpet a new primate species is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 You'll have to show much what articles you are referring to, but I certainly agree that this is more like a magazine article. My point was that hair morphology in humans is much more varied among races and even from a single individual than we are sometimes led to believe. Do you think an African American, an Asian, an Anglo and a Native American would all accept that single illustration as represeting "human" hair? I think not. In terms of bigfoot in North America, to use hair morphology to trumpet a new primate species is absurd. Well the FBI reference you were talking about describes a criteria for indentification of human hairs, would you say it is fallable? To the point that a criminal investigation couldn't use it to identify potential suspect donors? Or rule a hair out as being from a human? Suppose a sample is human by just some of the criteria but not all of it, then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 You'll have to show much what articles you are referring to Will this one do? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18699-meet-xwoman-a-possible-new-species-of-human.html "This is the tip of the iceberg," says Chris Stringer, a palaeoanthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London who was not involved in the find. More hominids that are neither Neanderthal nor human are likely to be discovered in coming years, particularly in central and eastern Asia, he says. Are you able to review the work they did by reading this article? Are they misleading you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I could have predicted you were going to predict that. And you would probably find it exhausting and boring to see a picture of hair from every known fauna just for the sake of exclusion too wouldn't you. Can you find a published paper on hair analysis that does? This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Sandwiching an article about an undiscovered primate between articles about psychic dreams, and a Brazilian magician, doesn't really fill me with a whole lot of confidence in their credibility. The article appeared no more scientific than John Green's Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, published over 30 years ago. I give stuff like this a because it does nothing but raise false hopes. Again. RayG A dismissive and demeaning post that offers no substantive rebuttal of the information in the OP does not fill me with confidence in it's credibility. The post appeared no more scientific than any one of hundreds of similar post's I've read. I give stuff like this a because it does nothing but cast unsubstantiated doubt as opposed to engage the information. Again. Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 And how do you define what is scientific? Anything that doesn't try to legitimize the existence of anomalous phenomena? You spin me right round, baby. Pretty much dead on there Yeti...I'll go back and plus it when I have more plusses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I define it just like a dictionary: of, pertaining to, occupied, or concerned with science. Really deep-rooted hopes that something is true, and wishful-thinking don't make the cut. RayG Dang it, Ray...I'm running out of irony meters here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I find myself at the opposite end of the spectrum -- I don't accept any proposition for a phenomenon unless a rational scientific case CAN be made for it. I will look at it, but I'll not accept it unless convincing evidence can be presented. So you won't "accept" the proposition that it is real, but embrace the proposition that it is NOT real. That's the "Truth is only true once proven" fallacy. Correct, and if someone claims they have invented a new perpetual motion machine, I'm content to ignore their claim. There simply isn't enough time to continually explain why some repackaged pseudo-scientific claim is doomed to fail. If they have truly made some scientific leap forward, I'm sure I'll hear about it eventually. If you're not willing to put in the time to do the studying, you (IMO) don't have the right to cast doubt on the topic. Likewise, when one claims that something is scientific, they must show how it's scientific, not by holding up a spoon and calling it a fork, but through evidence, protocols, replication, and properly conducted experimental results. And those things you can't test for in a lab, or reduce to math forumulae or a chemical structure are all what? Illusions? Myths? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Mysteriously Dr. Todd Disotell's portion of the sample was "not enough sample present to obtain testable DNA" I've had several people say similar things about this individual. I've seen at least one person post that they would NEVER send a sample they wanted seriously tested to Disotell, as his results are usually poor in terms of either outcome or documentation. The fact is that the labs that have the skill to do these tests won't even take seriously the possibility that these creatures exist. Yep. Well, and that no one is willing to pony up the big bucks they charge for that level of sophisticated testing to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Will this one do? No, it won't. Microscopic analysis on some hair is not comparable to the extraction of DNA from a finger bone. A dismissive and demeaning post that offers no substantive rebuttal of the information in the OP does not fill me with confidence in it's credibility. The post appeared no more scientific than any one of hundreds of similar post's I've read. I give stuff like this a because it does nothing but cast unsubstantiated doubt as opposed to engage the information. Again. Mulder Ah, I see your false hopes have been raised. Again. So you won't "accept" the proposition that it is real, but embrace the proposition that it is NOT real. What part didn't you understand? I will accept something if convincing evidence is presented. Got some? That's the "Truth is only true once proven" fallacy. No, that's called skepticism. If convincing evidence is presented, I will accept it. If you're not willing to put in the time to do the studying, you (IMO) don't have the right to cast doubt on the topic. How do YOU know how much time I've devoted to studying the topics? How many years of investigation is enough to satisfy you? Two, five, a dozen? I developed an avid interest in fringe topics over 25 years ago, after reading Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, by Martin Gardner. (I also recommend Gardner's Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus, published in 1981). I began collecting and reading similar books, looked at the topics from both sides of the fence, engaged in correspondence with people such as Dr. Bruce Maccabee, Stanton Friedman, and 'Dr.' Jeffrey Mishlove. Mishlove was even kind enough to send me his new book The PK Man: A True Story of Mind-Over-Matter, which had just been freshly published. I also had his Roots of Consciousness tucked into my personal library. So who are YOU to imply that I haven't been willing to study the topics? And those things you can't test for in a lab, or reduce to math forumulae or a chemical structure are all what? Illusions? Myths? Go to a magic show. Do you really think he's sawing a person in half? He really made someone disappear? Really produced coins from people's ears? Yes, some things are illusions, that's how magicians stay employed. Myths? There are a great many legends and myths on this old planet. Which ones are true and which ones are false, and how can we tell the difference? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 No, it won't. Microscopic analysis on some hair is not comparable to the extraction of DNA from a finger bone. Funny...it's good enough to be accepted in a court of law... Ah, I see your false hopes have been raised. Again. The only false hopes that have been raised (if any) are that you would actually engage the evidence rather than the usual Skeptic song and dance routine. What part didn't you understand? I will accept something if convincing evidence is presented. Got some? Plenty, and it's been presented by me and many others...where's yours? No, that's called skepticism. If convincing evidence is presented, I will accept it. It's called Denialism, not skepticism. The opposite of absolute proof is NOT absolute non-existance. How do YOU know how much time I've devoted to studying the topics? How many years of investigation is enough to satisfy you? Two, five, a dozen? I developed an avid interest in fringe topics over 25 years ago, after reading Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, by Martin Gardner. (I also recommend Gardner's Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus, published in 1981). I began collecting and reading similar books, looked at the topics from both sides of the fence, engaged in correspondence with people such as Dr. Bruce Maccabee, Stanton Friedman, and 'Dr.' Jeffrey Mishlove. Mishlove was even kind enough to send me his new book The PK Man: A True Story of Mind-Over-Matter, which had just been freshly published. I also had his Roots of Consciousness tucked into my personal library. So who are YOU to imply that I haven't been willing to study the topics? That was then, this is now. You yourself said you wouldn't bother to read new papers on certain topics because they would only be repeats of the same thing you have rejected. You can't know that if you aren't reading them. Go to a magic show. Do you really think he's sawing a person in half? He really made someone disappear? Really produced coins from people's ears? Yes, some things are illusions, that's how magicians stay employed. Which does not mean that all non-lab quantifiable phenomona are illusions. Myths? There are a great many legends and myths on this old planet. Many of which fly under the banner of "mainstream science". Which ones are true and which ones are false, and how can we tell the difference? By careful study of ALL the evidence on proffer, not just that that meets your personal checklist of conditions for "proper" evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts