dmaker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Guessing on the motivation behind reports and assigning percentages probably is not very useful given that anecdotes themselves are not useful as evidence. My opinion is that there is more dishonesty involved in the reports than some others may believe. Does not mean that I am right, does not mean that I am wrong, either. Given the nature of anecdotes, we'll never able to know. So, yes, focusing on the testable evidence is the only way to remove ambiguity and guesswork. DNA does not lie, a corpse does not stretch the truth or succumb to bias. 1
Patterson-Gimlin Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Guessing on the motivation behind reports and assigning percentages probably is not very useful given that anecdotes themselves are not useful as evidence. My opinion is that there is more dishonesty involved in the reports than some others may believe. Does not mean that I am right, does not mean that I am wrong, either. Given the nature of anecdotes, we'll never able to know. So, yes, focusing on the testable evidence is the only way to remove ambiguity and guesswork. DNA does not lie, a corpse does not stretch the truth or succumb to bias. Plussed and well said. I could not agree more.
Rockape Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Guessing on the motivation behind reports and assigning percentages probably is not very useful No doubt. Anyone who uses them for evidence is not very useful either. They are not evidence. The sum of the reports is useful in leading one to wonder why so many do relate these sightings, but it serves little purpose in determining what is behind those sightings.
Popular Post Branco Posted September 2, 2015 Popular Post Posted September 2, 2015 Guessing on the motivation behind reports and assigning percentages probably is not very useful given that anecdotes themselves are not useful as evidence. My opinion is that there is more dishonesty involved in the reports than some others may believe. Does not mean that I am right, does not mean that I am wrong, either. Given the nature of anecdotes, we'll never able to know. So, yes, focusing on the testable evidence is the only way to remove ambiguity and guesswork. DNA does not lie, a corpse does not stretch the truth or succumb to bias. Just as a rough estimate, how much time would you guess you have spent attempting to obtain "the testable evidence" of the existence of Sasquatch/Bigfoot relative to that time you spent on your other hobbies? Is the listing of your hobbies in any particular order, or was it just coincidental that your interest in Sasquatch/Bigfoot was listed as last place after "Crossfit, hiking, biking, kayaking, books, comics and computer games". Surely you don't expect to find any "testable evidence" of the creatures on this forum. So how do you intend to focus on the testable evidence.? 5
ShadowBorn Posted September 2, 2015 Moderator Posted September 2, 2015 Guessing on the motivation behind reports and assigning percentages probably is not very useful given that anecdotes themselves are not useful as evidence. My opinion is that there is more dishonesty involved in the reports than some others may believe. Dmaker But what percentage are the dishonest reports? which would leave the left over honest reports that would have to be explained. Some how the more you look into the reports and investigate them the clearer you will get that there is a large creature living with in the back yards or maybe even borders of farming communities and suburbs But close enough to humans . Yes welcome back Dmaker
dmaker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Shadowborn, just because a report is not dishonest does not mean it is inexplicable. It could also be explained by mistaken identity or hallucination, or whatever. It does not really matter. The point is that anecdotes do not prove anything. Regardless of the earnestness or intentions of the reporter. Any unsupported anecdote merely demonstrates that someone reported seeing something. You cannot even prove that they actually saw anything, but only that they claim they saw something. That is the nature of anecdotes. That is why they are of no use in scientific testing. The truth of them simply can never be determined. In your example, you are accepting that because people are reporting bigfoot in the areas you read that bigfoot must indeed be in those areas. That is a huge logical mistake. If everything that people claim were to be taken as true, then we would have leprechauns, werewolves, fairies, and bigfoot already in our taxonomy. Thankfully, science does not work that way. Reports that do not lead to supporting physical evidence accomplish nothing. You may think you see a pattern that indicates a certain something. But how do you know that is not an illusion? Has any single report in all of bigfootery ever lead to a significant discovery of physical evidence? No. All the physical evidence claimed for bigfoot is putative at best. Given that, the patterns seen in reports could well be a mirage. Imagine for a second that bigfoot is not real. Every pattern you see, then, is in fact an illusion. Imagine that bigfoot is found tomorrow and proven to the world. The pattern in the reports--without supporting physical evidence--is still no closer to being proven true. You simply cannot ascertain the truth of an anecdote. Branco, I actually do spend quite a bit of time in the outdoors. In fact, in three days I leave for a week of hiking in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park in Nova Scotia. I will have boots on the ground hiking up mountains for probably 4 or 5 out of the 8 days. The other days will either by kayaking the ocean and rivers, or cycling. Either way, I expect a decent chance to see bear, moose, deer and a variety of marine mammals. I do not, however, expect to find any bigfoot evidence. Edited September 2, 2015 by dmaker
WSA Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) dmaker, if you are ever down this way, I'd be glad to show you the S. woods. The area where Branco has investigated over the decades is a very unique ecosystem. The river that flows through my county, and its tributaries, for instance, has 135 (so far identified) species of fish, it has 35 species of snails, 10 of which are found no place else in the world. It is recognized by the Nature Conservancy as one of only eight Hotspots for Biodiversity in the world. The large wild places in Alabama will overwhelm your ability to comprehend and catalog what all you are experiencing...there really is no bottom to it all. This river flows hard by the largest metropolitan area in the state. People who might want to discount the existence of large apex predators in proximity to built-out areas like this simply do not know of what they speak, probably. Then there are locations like the Tensaw and large swaths of prairie and glades...the fecundity of these places is not something you can easily imagine if you do not see them in person. Do facts like this influence my probabilities at all? You bet they do. Are there similar places out there? You bet, again. Edited September 2, 2015 by WSA
Guest DWA Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 It is a not-so-subtle consequence of our overly efficient eradication of nature that so many people don't have first inkling how much of it is still left, in many cases how much of it is a way lot closer to their doorsteps than they think.
Cotter Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Guessing on the motivation behind reports and assigning percentages probably is not very useful Woah! Wait a second! Is guessing on the motivation behind reports only reserved for those that claim they are attention seekers, liars, or hoaxers? So, yes, focusing on the testable evidence is the only way to remove ambiguity and guesswork. I agree, so maybe we can all look at the testable evidence before claiming people are seeking attention, lying, or hoaxing, eh? Branco, I actually do spend quite a bit of time in the outdoors. In fact, in three days I leave for a week of hiking in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park in Nova Scotia. I will have boots on the ground hiking up mountains for probably 4 or 5 out of the 8 days. The other days will either by kayaking the ocean and rivers, or cycling. Either way, I expect a decent chance to see bear, moose, deer and a variety of marine mammals. I do not, however, expect to find any bigfoot evidence. I wouldn't expect to find any BF evidence either. You aren't looking. Being 'outside' does not count. edit - it seems like I'm picking on you dmaker, it's not that, it's just that I missed you! LOL! Edited September 2, 2015 by Cotter
dmaker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) dmaker, if you are ever down this way, I'd be glad to show you the S. woods. The area where Branco has investigated over the decades is a very unique ecosystem. The river that flows through my county, and its tributaries, for instance, has 135 (so far identified) species of fish, it has 35 species of snails, 10 of which are found no place else in the world. It is recognized by the Nature Conservancy as one of only eight Hotspots for Biodiversity in the world. The large wild places in Alabama will overwhelm your ability to comprehend and catalog what all you are experiencing...there really is no bottom to it all. This river flows hard by the largest metropolitan area in the state. People who might want to discount the existence of large apex predators in proximity to built-out areas like this simply do not know of what they speak, probably. Then there are locations like the Tensaw and large swaths of prairie and glades...the fecundity of these places is not something you can easily imagine if you do not see them in person. Do facts like this influence my probabilities at all? You bet they do. Are there similar places out there? You bet, again. Thanks for the invitation, but I must decline. I have difficulty believing the sincerity of your invite. I may have been absent for a while, but I have been lurking. You said some very unkind words about me a couple of months back in a thread. I believe it was something along the lines of where is that d-whats-his-name anyway? He was another no brain looking for a life. So, let's not get all chummy, k? As to your points? I have no problem imaging known apex predators showing up closet to, or smack dab in the middle of, urban centers. Here in South Western Ontario we still get the odd bear wander into a city or town where there are normally no bears to found for a couple hundred km. It's not often, but it happens. New species of snail and fish are found, yes. A snail is not a 9ft predatory ape. Edited September 2, 2015 by dmaker
Cotter Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Well, just a handful of years ago, scientists discovered 125,000 previously unknown western lowland gorillas, doubling the estimated global population of the time. how does that compare to a 9 foot primate?
Guest DWA Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 ...that *doesn't* hang out in big groups (which are astonishingly difficult to find, actually).
dmaker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Cotter, missed you too bud Woah! Wait a second! Is guessing on the motivation behind reports only reserved for those that claim they are attention seekers, liars, or hoaxers? Not at all. Guess away. I am just saying that I don't really see much point to it if your goal is to use reports to find a real animal. If you are approaching them from a psychological point of view, perhaps in an attempt to explain proponent behavior, then motivation becomes an important factor. I agree, so maybe we can all look at the testable evidence before claiming people are seeking attention, lying, or hoaxing, eh? Yes, let's do that. So far, the testable evidence, when tested, has failed to support the claim. When discussing anecdotes, particularly those with no supporting testable evidence, what is one to examine in your opinion? There is nothing to test. There is just a story. Hence, why assigning a motivation to something that can never be ascertained, will not aid you in your pursuit of bigfoot. Well, just a handful of years ago, scientists discovered 125,000 previously unknown western lowland gorillas, doubling the estimated global population of the time. how does that compare to a 9 foot primate? A lowland gorilla compares quite well to a 9 foot primate. The scenarios, however, do not. In the case of the gorilla, there was copious physical evidence already known. Natives had been hunting and eating them for years and had bones and body parts to demonstrate this fact. Added to which, comparing 19th century wild Africa to modern day Ohio is ridiculous, and you should know it. Even so, it did not take that long for Beringe to bag one, did it? EDIT: Sorry, Cotter, I misunderstood your point. I originally thought you meant the initial discovery of the gorilla. I now understand you are talking of a more modern discovery. A larger population of a previously known and classified animal was found? Fascinating. Let's find an actual bigfoot before we talk about the accuracy of population estimates. And again, Africa is not Ohio. Edited September 2, 2015 by dmaker
Recommended Posts