Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 I agree that it's also good for the gander, but now you're introducing 'weak sauce'. I like how you stick to your guns. You never waver. I enjoy your points Mulder. I'm always willing to explore your thoughts on the matter. I usually reply with something stupid, but what is not seen is the fact that I give your points deep thought. I will agree that sometimes a groupthink mentality will prevent a proper discover. If this is one of those times, I always want to take a look. The problem I have is (without getting into another burden of evidence thing), while looking, I can't measure any of these things you are talking about. Ray has asked this question several times now. Each time it's answered with a question. Can you please just say that these things are not published in a scientific article,...... please? We all know the answer (including you), but it would be nice to hear it, just so I know you are not ignoring the truth. I feel it would add a lot more to your opinions, from my point of view. I think acknowledging certain basic truths is the only way to get to this paradigm shift that you want to happen. Blaming science and the peer review process without a reason, only serves to distance anyone from this goal. Is it possible that your examples are not published in a scientific article because they are weak? I'm not saying they are, I just want to know if you think it is one possibility.
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 Saskeptic, on 25 April 2012 - 08:06 AM, said: . . . and no reason to think that those small prints are hoaxes, Mr. Scarecrow. Barefoot humans Do not leave footprints with the biometric indices of bf tracks, as Fahrenbach discusses. So, stick with me now Mulder: I asked you how Fahrenbach determined that those wide footprints were made by bigfoots. You said because the distribution of footprint lengths had to come from a living population (e.g., of bigfoots). I suggested there are human prints in the data, but you said "no" because human prints aren't as wide as bigfoot prints. Think back to geometry. Does your logic here remind you of something?
Guest RayG Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 In which peer-reviewed scientific journals have their detractors published their conclusions? Ummm... wouldn't the detractors have to be responding to something Fahrenbach, Meldrum, Pinker, Kerley, Rosen, Moore, Sarich, Swindler, Schaller, et al, published? I fail to see the logic of your reply. Not surprisingly, I fail to see the logic of this too: RayG
Guest Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 I agree that it's also good for the gander, but now you're introducing 'weak sauce'. I like how you stick to your guns. You never waver. I enjoy your points Mulder. I'm always willing to explore your thoughts on the matter. I usually reply with something stupid, but what is not seen is the fact that I give your points deep thought. I will agree that sometimes a groupthink mentality will prevent a proper discover. If this is one of those times, I always want to take a look. The problem I have is (without getting into another burden of evidence thing), while looking, I can't measure any of these things you are talking about. Ray has asked this question several times now. Each time it's answered with a question. Can you please just say that these things are not published in a scientific article,...... please? Fahrenbach has published a paper (which I linked to) as has Meldrum. Anticipating your "no peer review" objection, the fact that the papers have been ignored in no way detracts from the science OF the papers. If Skeptics want to refute the papers, they need to get down to work and put in the time and effort to do the science at least as well as Fahrenbach and Meldrum have done. Insofar as I know not ONE of the people dismissing the track paper (to use my favorite of them) has submitted anything either formally or informally. There's been a goodly amount of hand-waving and speculating and theorizing about ways to dismiss/ignore the paper, but nothing to refute the data IN the paper. We all know the answer (including you), Yes, we all do know. The papers have been published. And the Skeptics have stood around hand-waving and pontificating about this and that, but have not been able to refute the observations and findings in said papers.but it would be nice to hear it, just so I know you are not ignoring the truth. I feel it would add a lot more to your opinions, from my point of view. I think acknowledging certain basic truths is the only way to get to this paradigm shift that you want to happen. Blaming science and the peer review process without a reason, I have a very good reason to "blame" the process: it is not fair and objective. Those rejecting the papers have not done their "homework" and shown with equal or superior facts and procedure how or why the papers are invalid. Is it possible that your examples are not published in a scientific article because they are weak? I'm not saying they are, I just want to know if you think it is one possibility. Last I checked, both gentlemen were and are scientists. They did scientific analyses using scientific procedures and published their results. Where are the papers by the Skeptics and their supporters refuting the papers? That's what it comes down to. You want me to throw out those papers, then demonstrate with equal or superior science that they are wrong.
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 Where are the papers by the Skeptics and their supporters refuting the papers? That's what it comes down to. You want me to throw out those papers, then demonstrate with equal or superior science that they are wrong. Until someone has successfully removed the subtitle of "Legendary" after the entry here, those papers remain unauthenticated.
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 New research indicates the theory that a meteor impact caused megafauna extinction from 10,000 to 40,000 years ago may not be valid: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/black-mat-sediment-space-geology_n_1449083.html?ref=science
Guest Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 Until someone has successfully removed the subtitle of "Legendary" after the entry here, those papers remain unauthenticated. The papers exist. I linked to both of them. Now link me to the papers refuting them. Ummm... wouldn't the detractors have to be responding to something Fahrenbach, Meldrum, Pinker, Kerley, Rosen, Moore, Sarich, Swindler, Schaller, et al, published? I fail to see the logic of your reply. Not surprisingly, I fail to see the logic of this too: RayG Meaning you can't, because the detractors haven't done their homework.
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) Lol I don't doubt the existence of their papers. I don't know if their conclusions are right or wrong. I do know that they are not verified. I do feel silly linking an encyclopedia because I thought it was obvious to all. http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=Sasquatch http://www.britannic...24755/Sasquatch "<snip>..... none of the purported evidence has been verified." I like what these folks are doing and I applaud the fact that they keep trying. Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome. Some give their work an automatic checkmark because they are trying. Some are waiting for verification. They still make those? They announced last month that they have stopped printing and are going solely digital. 1768-2012. Edited to separate text so each paragraph can be easily multi-quoted and torn to shreds. Edited April 26, 2012 by FuriousGeorge
Guest Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 Lol I don't doubt the existence of their papers. I don't know if their conclusions are right or wrong. I do know that they are not verified. I do feel silly linking an encyclopedia because I thought it was obvious to all. http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=Sasquatch http://www.britannic...24755/Sasquatch "<snip>..... none of the purported evidence has been verified." I like what these folks are doing and I applaud the fact that they keep trying. Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome. Some give their work an automatic checkmark because they are trying. I don't give them an "automatic checkmark because they are trying". I accept their science barring equal or superior science to refute their data and conclusions. If refuting the papers is so easy, why hasn't some Skeptic come along and made a name for themselves doing just that? Some are waiting for verification. Which will never come so long as the Skeptics refuse to engage the papers directly. I might ask what they are fearful of? That they'll take a look and find out that the papers are sound and they will have to reexamine their position?
Guest Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 Well I've examined the "papers" you're referring to Mulder, and I've mentioned in this thread my most obvious criticisms/reservations regarding those analyses. There'd be no point in me publishing a paper to air my objections to that work, however, because there are no legitimate journals recognizing it in the first place. Does that make sense to you? The editors at Science or Nature or the Journal of Mammalogy are not going to publish a rebuttal to something that hasn't been "butted". No one is going to publish my paper with my arguments laid out for why the moon is not made out of cheese unless there's been some kind of legitimate claim that it is. I know this will do nothing to sway you from your charges of elitism and cronyism in science, but I want to make sure other readers understand this point.
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 That is a very salient point, Saskeptic. In order to publish a rebuttal in a recognized journal it would need to be in response to a journal level publication. I'm not sure whether the original data set would be available from Fahrenbach, etc. to anyone, but I suppose if someone wanted to ask them for their data in order to conduct an independent review and rebuttal that would be up to them. Your point regarding the potential for some of the footprints being of questionable provenance is certainly valid, and would need to be reviewed to lend strength to the data set. Mulder, I can commiserate with your overall position that the peer review process in of itself smacks of elitism. However, I always go by the adage "there is wisdom in council". I have more confidence in a paper if it has been reviewed simply because it reduces the possibility that a lone scientist may have overlooked a weakness in the data itself or in the presentation of the results. Certainly there have been numerous examples of errors found after a peer reviewed article is published, that is part of the process. Once a paper is published it doesn't end there. Other scientists will then take up the issue and try to replicate an experiment, for example. If other scientists can replicate an experiment it lends weight to the original article. If other scientists are unable to replicate an experiment, then it calls into question the methods, data, or conclusions of the original paper and rebuttals are in order.
Cotter Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 I would just like to chime in and say that just b/c something isn't peer reviewed doesn't make it false or untrue. It simply didn't pass through a verification process. Doesn't make it any less true, just less accepted. I'd like to make an analogy here, fracking for oil. Oil companies say it isn't harmful, doesn't affect ground water, etc. However, people in the areas they are doing this are experiencing just that. Now, there are folks looking into it from both sides, and nothing has come yet, most likely it will be years before it's acknowledged. So in the meantime, it doesn't mean that fracking ISN'T doing something. Doesn't mean that it IS either. I've been getting the feeling that some folks are dismissing any claim b/c it isn't peer reviewed. It shouldn't be dismissed, shouldn't be outright accepted either. There needs to be considerations made on both potential outcomes....until whatever process the mainstream determines acceptable for 'approval' of the claim.
Guest Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) Well I've examined the "papers" you're referring to Mulder, and I've mentioned in this thread my most obvious criticisms/reservations regarding those analyses. There'd be no point in me publishing a paper to air my objections to that work, however, because there are no legitimate journals recognizing it in the first place. Does that make sense to you? The editors at Science or Nature or the Journal of Mammalogy are not going to publish a rebuttal to something that hasn't been "butted". No one is going to publish my paper with my arguments laid out for why the moon is not made out of cheese unless there's been some kind of legitimate claim that it is. I know this will do nothing to sway you from your charges of elitism and cronyism in science, but I want to make sure other readers understand this point. The only point that anyone should understand from your post is that you, like Science as an institution, will not engage properly with the evidence. If the papers are so self-obviously flawed, then it should be a simple matter for you to establish this. Contact Dr Meldrum and Fahrenbach and set it up to look at their raw data and have them walk you through the analyses. You offered two generalized objections to Fahrenbach of moderate specificity, both of which I answered with information from the paper: 1) How do we rule out human feet as a source for the smaller tracks included in the study? A: Because of the biometric ratio of width to length which Fahrenbach has identified as being characteristic of a sasquatch track. 2) How do we rule out the presence of hoaxed tracks in the sample dataset. A: Because hoaxed tracks would throw the distribution numbers off statistically, creating a jagged "mountain range" (my term, Fahrenbach referred to it as a "series of sharp peaks" if I recall correctly) distribution instead of a single, smooth bell-curve distribution. Here is an explanation of the importance of the bell curve statistically (from Stanford University) http://www-stat.stan...malDensity.html Here is a more detailed explanation of the distribution function from Wikki: http://en.wikipedia....al_distribution Perhaps Fahrenbach should have appended a detailed discussion of statistical analysis to the paper, but he didn't. In short, "bell curve" normality is as basic a scientific principle in statistics as acceleration at 1g being 32' per second per second is to physics. ^^^^^^ Exactly there's nothing to refute! Yes there is: the papers by Fahrenbach and Meldrum, which no Skeptic have to date refuted. Edited April 26, 2012 by Mulder
Recommended Posts