What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?

[JDL]

For now the probability of all sightings being false is 100%. If the species is ever scientifically confirmed then we can reevaluate.

"For now, the probability of all claims that the Earth is round being false is 100%. If a round Earth is ever scientifically confirmed then we can reevaluate."

White Flag, 1491.

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

You made me chuckle

[Guest]

^Me too, Bipedal Ape. Such comparisons imply that the process of science, let alone the knowledge we've gained from its application, is no different now than it was centuries ago.

Then of course there's this from Wiki:

"The misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as "The Myth of the Flat Earth".^[6] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.^[7]"

Apparently Aristotle (among others) had figured out we were on some kind of sphere more than 2000 years ago.

[Guest exnihilo]

A round earth predates Aristotle, even. But it's still a red herring.

[Guest MikeG]

Eratosthenes is your man. He pretty accurately calculated the diameter of the earth and the distance from the sun, 200 or 300 BC. From looking at shadows, I seem to remember. That's what I call critical thinking.

Mike

[Guest]

Sas, I don't think that was JDL's intent. This is about attributing a zero probability to something which turned out to be true. Sort of like your buzzard story (which are neat animals that nest on my property, and can make a deer carcass disappear in a few days). Sure, even experts get it wrong, but statistically speaking, it is wrong to assign a probably of zero to something based on a lack of information. There is no such thing as a "default" position in science where a zero probability is assigned to something, until the something turns up to prove otherwise. At least that was my interpretation of his post. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm mistaken.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Gigantofootecus

[Guest parnassus]

Giganto,

the 'balls in the box' is a "thought experiment" and was meant only to introduce the idea of evidential probability, and falsify the idea that "probability theory tells us" that with a lot of reports, some must be true, or that the chances of a true or verified report must increase with each report. If you would like to think of the white balls as unverified reports, and the red balls as verified reports, that might be helpful, but I don't represent that as a rigorous model. One could also view the total number of balls as the number of days that man has lived on this continent, with the white balls being days for which we have no proof of an encounter with a bigfoot (as popularly described.) and the red balls being the number of days for which there exists proof of a bigfoot encounter.

Or the number of vehicle-days driven with/without a roadkill being found ; or the number of episodes of fossil formation with/without a findable bigfoot fossil being formed, or the number of person-days in suitable habitat with/without finding a bigfoot body, etc, etc.

As I tried to imply, a discussion of the theory (s) of evidential (or subjective or Bayesian) probability (and its applications) to the question of bigfoot is not appropriate for this forum. Probability theory is widely misused and misunderstood, and abused. Much in the same way that the word "theory" alone is. In part this is due to the difference in common vs. scientific, mathematical or technical usage of words like "odds", "statistically", etc.

So I have no problem with people saying they are personally 100% certain that they encountered a bigfoot. But that's layman's language...let's not try to imagine that has meaning in the realm of probability theory.

G, If you would like to try to find some rigorous (yet generally understood here) way to apply probablity theory to the issues at hand, by all means, give it a whack. I'll be at the gym.

As a general comment on the numbers of reports:

To me, the number of reports indicate only that there is/are significant reasons why people report bigfoot encounters.

.Some say that one of the reasons why people report bigfoot encounters is that bigfoot exists. At present there is no proof of that. No one that I know of says that there are no other reasons why people report bigfoot encounters. The psychology literature gives many other possible reasons.

The fact that individuals and organizations who collect these reports, cull out large numbers of them as "unreliable", to me further indicates that at least some people (probably most people, and possibly all people) report bigfoot encounters for reasons other than having had an encounter with a flesh and blood bigfoot.

p.

Edited February 14, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest exnihilo]

Ah, the continuum again.

[JDL]

^Me too, Bipedal Ape. Such comparisons imply that the process of science, let alone the knowledge we've gained from its application, is no different now than it was centuries ago.

Then of course there's this from Wiki:

"The misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as "The Myth of the Flat Earth".^[6] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.^[7]"

Apparently Aristotle (among others) had figured out we were on some kind of sphere more than 2000 years ago.

Ah, but the point isn't that a lot of people had previously figured out that the Earth was round. The point is that even though a lot of people had previously figured out that the Earth was round, there were still "Authorities" that steadfastly maintained it was flat.

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

Theres also a lot of wild claims which are demonstrably false. The problem with bigfoot is you can not prove they dont exist. Much like you can not prove the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

[Guest]

The belief in the earth as flat is brough up as an example to show that people see their world in terms of their beliefs about it and most especially beliefs that the whole of society takes for granted as true. Yes pythagorous, aristotle - the ancients in general are not claimed to have believed the earth flat, this was later from medieval times up to the first reneisance as far as I know. Our history is not filled with black and white periods of belief. Still there was a period when people believed if they went too far across the sea their boats would plunge off the edge of the world. In the first reneissance classical knowledge (generally at that time classical was what might also be called the ancients, ancient greece, Rome etc) was being revived and in this the information long known about how to navigate and the spherical nature of bodies in the cosmos was being re understood (without so much fear of being burnt at the stake for such knowledge).

When the example of people believing in a flat earth is brought up it is done so often to prove that a persons world view is neither fact nor non fact but based on a group of assumptions. Modern western scientific view changes but often prior to doing so it is very staunch on what it believes fact often saying how advanced it is compared to those western ways of thinking before the idea that there is some objective way of knowing fact. The flat earth concept is brought up in retort as people who lived and were brought up in the days the earth was believed to be flat also then worked on such logic about the nature of many other things in their life and these were just absolute fact. If a ship went missing it possibily fell of the earth in such a view. Today we would laugh at that, possibly the ancient phoenicians (travelled amazing distances) would have laughed at that in the same way.

Modern science has actually started with ideas that were relatively backward compared to ancient knowledge in western society, and had to rediscover things (such as the atom known in ancient India, the multiverse known to perhaps all indigenous societies, quantum physics known to the ancients, the effect of sound waves known to the ancients and indigenous peoples, the sound that is in space known to certain african tribes who heard the planets singing each night etc...). Even though modern science might recognise that its current world view keeps getting in the way of true discovery - too many are too arogant and think such a view is the only view which can establish facts.

So the flat earth world view is used to show that root assumptions are the basis of a world view. Science in the 19th century carried a root assumption that black people were less intelligent than whites and followed this with apparent proof by studies of the scull (phrenology ), the nazis continued with this while other countries now changing their world view saw evidence to the contrary. List goes on. There are examples of the ancients and indigenous people and medieval people believing in the hairy man but western science currently doesnt have this fit their world view and discounts it. Likely in future scientists will follow in what they are only begining to understand about the harmony of atoms, quantum physics and the multiverse and declare the great likelihood of BF.

[Guest exnihilo]

Theres also a lot of wild claims which are demonstrably false. The problem with bigfoot is you can not prove they dont exist. Much like you can not prove the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

I thought you were 100% certain?

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

Yes the point is, if they do not exist then you can not prove that fact

[Cotter]

Hi parnassis:

In the world of bigfootery, is there any statistical model that can be applied? (not sure if I've missed that)

If so, what inputs will make said model show a zero percent chance?

I am certainly not qualified to get into a deep statistical discussion with you, but do have a general understanding (through obtaining an engineering degree) of statistics.

Thank you.

[Guest exnihilo]

Yes the point is, if they do not exist then you can not prove that fact

No, the point is you are running around making unsupportable statements such as the one below. A lack of proof is not proof of anything.

For now the probability of all sightings being false is 100%. If the species is ever scientifically confirmed then we can reevaluate.