Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Oh no you don't, Sas...that is not the case I laid out, and you very well know it. Rhetorical word-twisting is your schtick Mulder; I don't play such games. I merely responded to your post. The BF case is more than just people "saying they saw it". There are also the hairs, tracks, pictures, audio, etc. There IS hard, physical, testable, examinable evidence that has in fact been tested, examined, subjected to statistical analysis, etc. . . . And, has not been confirmed to be from an otherwise undescribed species. Take hairs, for example. If these could be used to serve as the type specimen for a new species, then the onus is on the person who's conducted the analysis and is convinced of their novelty to publish a paper describing the new species. Why don't they (e.g., Fahrenbach, Meldrum) try that route? I certainly would, if I was convinced by that evidence. Recall that Meldrum published a paper describing the ichnotaxon of bigfoot. Why did he do that instead of describing the species of bigfoot? The answer is that he understands that there is insufficient physical evidence to warrant the description of a new species. Meldrum gets this, why don't you? Have you read the saola paper I attached? Have you considered the physical evidence the authors used for the description of that species? Do you somehow think that we evidence for bigfoot at least as good as the physical evidence used to describe saola?
Guest Coonbo Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 It is not belief I need, It is PROOF. Saskeptic is a very knowledgable man and I prefer to learn from him rather then to argue with him. Why do we NEED proof? Is it to silence the world - a big, global "I told you so"? Or just to have the satisfaction of proving folks like Saskeptic, Drew, and others wrong? What's it going to do for the boogers themselves for us humans to prove that they exist? Will proving they exist make it any less desirable for us to learn more about them? Will it stop those of us that actually get out into the field to learn about them? I think not. P.S.: Not throwing rocks at you JohnC.
Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Thus, few folks would be skeptical of a report of a new invertebrate species. No, but someone would still need to produce a specimen for that new species to be described. Third, the discovery of a new invertebrate species would not likely cause much of a paradigm shift. The discovery of a new species of great ape would result in a huge paradigm shift. A shift from what to what? I don't understand what folks are referring to as a paradigm shift. Yes, a bigfoot discovery would require an overhaul of what we know about hominin evolution, because one more species would have survived to the present time and dispersed to the western hemisphere. Is that it? When people write about paradigm shifts with respect to bigfoot, what I think about is a desire to describe a new species without a legitimate physical specimen. Now that would signal a paradigm shift in biosystematics.
Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 That depends on which science you are talking about. There are proven things in science and they are truth. It's not just an opinion that my cell phone works. There are other things in science that requires repeatability to be predictive and leads to a level of certainty. I don't know why it is still incinuated that one scientist is doing all the experiments and giving their own interpretation on DNA unless people are cherry picking information (doing the religious thing). Your cell phone works because someone analyzed the statistical probability of which materials would work the best at the cheapest cost If it isn't published by science authorities, who or what are you going to accept to give you the truth? Don't confuse politics with science. Science is about probabilities, not absolute truth and is constantly changing and evolving. Think of it this way, the more you learn, the less you know...that's science, it should create questions and doubt. Science does not establish truth? Then what is its purpose? Why would scientists be free of the biases, paradigm constipation, and social/technical determinants that the rest of us are subject to? Scientists are not free of bias, that is why results have to be reproduced and statistically evaluated. That is the point of the scientific process, to overcome human falibility and to give the most objective result. Why do we NEED proof? Is it to silence the world - a big, global "I told you so"? Or just to have the satisfaction of proving folks like Saskeptic, Drew, and others wrong? What's it going to do for the boogers themselves for us humans to prove that they exist? Will proving they exist make it any less desirable for us to learn more about them? Will it stop those of us that actually get out into the field to learn about them? I think not. P.S.: Not throwing rocks at you JohnC. I'm assuming we need proof of their existence in order to establish whether they are truly at risk for extinction. Based on your observations of sasquatch that I've been reading about they seem to be pretty well established, unless all of your sightings and experiences happened to be a statistical fluke.
Guest MikeG Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 You ask why do we need proof, Coonbo. Well, in some ways, respectfully, that is just a little bit selfish coming from someone who already has his own proof. We need proof, fundamentally, to satisfy the endless human curiosity of the world about us. But more than that, we need proof for the millions of people who haven't been privileged to have their own sighting. We need proof so that I can see what you claim to have seen 20 or 30 times. We need proof so that the BBC Natural History unit can organise a multi-million pound budget to go film them in their natural habitat. We need proof so that we can avoid the worst of human excesses inflicting unnecessary damage on the creature and its habitat. We need proof so that no more Justin Smeja type incidents occur. We also need proof because human observations are extremely fallible, so even you should be seeking proof. One really can't believe everything one sees. Now, please don't read into that any sort of acceptance of their existence. Treat that as a curious fence-sitter's reply. But a fence-sitter who is never likely to have the opportunity to go have a look for himself. Mike
southernyahoo Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 A shift from what to what? I don't understand what folks are referring to as a paradigm shift. Yes, a bigfoot discovery would require an overhaul of what we know about hominin evolution, because one more species would have survived to the present time and dispersed to the western hemisphere. Is that it? Yep. When people write about paradigm shifts with respect to bigfoot, what I think about is a desire to describe a new species without a legitimate physical specimen. Now that would signal a paradigm shift in biosystematics. I think you had it right below. If bigfoot does exist, then we likely ecountered it's evidence many times in the past, to include the many explorers, biologists, naturalists archaeologists etc. So they would have some explaining to do as to why they didn't describe BF from it. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7225-the-ketchum-report/page__st__6540 It would be a hominin that did two unexpected things - dispersed to the Nearctic and survived to the present time. The far more baffling thing would be how it did that without leaving a trace of its existence. That's the part that we'd really have difficulty explaining and would require a paradigm shift. I think the answer is in how we look at, treat and react to that evidence.
Guest Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 I would like to suggest, to those that feel this "burden of proof" rests on them.. to do yourselves a favor, and lift that weight off your shoulders. It's getting heavy, isn't it ? You saw and experienced what you saw, and that's all there is to it. Nothing is owed to skeptics or to science, by me, or you.. and if one chooses not to believe my story and experiences.. that's just fine and dandy. I'm good and true to myself, and that's what really matters. If I've got things all wrong, that I've experienced (I doubt it), than that's ok, as well. I call it like I see, hear, and experience it. I'm not against skeptics or science, but they haven't seen what witnesses have seen ..either (have they ?)... so how can they be blamed for doubting (?) Many research groups have a goal (including the one i belong to) of proving the creature exists, to science.. but after my few years in the field, and numerous exchanges with others that do the same.. I don't think that is a very realistic goal, anymore. It's ok to shoot for the moon, but it doesn't mean you are going to hit it. I think I'd be just as lucky, having my goal... as winning the GD lottery. Probably the same odds, as bringing in anything that will prove anything, to mainstream science or a skeptical community, that thinks we are out chasing fantasy, or attention. We are mainly amateurs with jobs , families, and lives.. expecting to get professional results (not affording the best equipment, funding, and resources to do the job ?) going out as weekend warriors, and trying our best..not very likely. If i can go out there and experience something else, get a better look, and maybe learn something.about what I'm supposed to want to prove...that will be plenty enough, for me, personally.. as i do enjoy the experience of just being out there with the people I'm out there with. I feel i need to be out there a WHOLE lot more (and stay out there), to achieve anymore than i have (still, not resulting in... that Almighty proof).. and that is just not possible, as an amateur. If the proof ever does happen, it will probably come by accident...and by someone nobody really knows. It won't be some guy telling stories about hunting bears and carving BF steaks and holding a dying baby in his arms.. or by the long, boring, awaited DNA study. That's not going to be your proof. Enjoy it (or else hate it), for what it really is.
southernyahoo Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Your cell phone works because someone analyzed the statistical probability of which materials would work the best at the cheapest cost No it's because the engineered design was proven to work reliably. Alot of R&D science made that possible. It either makes successful calls or it doesn't. It might quit one day, but whether it works or not is not a probability. Don't confuse politics with science. Science is about probabilities, not absolute truth and is constantly changing and evolving. Think of it this way, the more you learn, the less you know...that's science, it should create questions and doubt. A specimen or specimens is required to prove bigfoot. Once you have that, statistics may prove what it is, but it's existence won't be just a probability at that point. There may be those that still doubt, but truth is still settled in published scientific literature, not by simply doubting. Science produces usefull knowledge, so I disagree with your "more you learn, the less you know". That sounds like anti-science to me. Do you think we will ever learn that bears don't exist if we learn more about them? Scientists are not free of bias, that is why results have to be reproduced and statistically evaluated. That is the point of the scientific process, to overcome human falibility and to give the most objective result. I follow that.
Guest Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 No it's because the engineered design was proven to work reliably. Alot of R&D science made that possible. It either makes successful calls or it doesn't. It might quit one day, but whether it works or not is not a probability. A specimen or specimens is required to prove bigfoot. Once you have that, statistics may prove what it is, but it's existence won't be just a probability at that point. There may be those that still doubt, but truth is still settled in published scientific literature, not by simply doubting. Science produces usefull knowledge, so I disagree with your "more you learn, the less you know". That sounds like anti-science to me. Do you think we will ever learn that bears don't exist if we learn more about them? I follow that. Reliability was not a given with first generation cellphones. Succesive improvements were based on statistical analysis of data pulled from the PIMS database. Before discovery, the probability of the existence of sasquatch is low, after discovery that particular statistic changes yet generates multiple other questions for research, also involving statistics. Science does produce useful knowledge but it also generates other avenues for research ( questions) in the process. Medical research, physics, genetics are all good examples of new knowledge that continually inspires more research. Applications for all fields involve statistics in some form or another, there really isn't anything that doesn't.
Guest Peter O. Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I doubt Karl Popper could have said it better. Exactly! That economist nincompoop would have us bidding for Truth in a marketplace of ideas!
Guest Peter O. Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Scientists are not free of bias, that is why results have to be reproduced and statistically evaluated. That is the point of the scientific process, to overcome human falibility and to give the most objective result. Since there are at least two arguments in this thread, I should have been more clear about what I was arguing in the first place. I do NOT think that science has set the bar higher for BF than any other species, nor do I think that the bar for species description should somehow be lowered. That wouldn't make any sense at all to me. In another context, I would defend science to the death. For example in the case of paranormal BF claims. I agree that statistics can (I can't make a stronger statement because I don't know anything meta (or non-meta) about statistics) weed out confounding factors when it comes to reproducibility and the results of experiments themselves. However, it doesn't say anything about the design or scope of scientific experiments and inquiries. In this context, my beef is that the light of science barely shines on BF at all--the problem is the scope of science. The inevitable result is that no proof has been found, because no proof has been sought. And no proof is sought, because no proof has arrived.
southernyahoo Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 The inevitable result is that no proof has been found, because no proof has been sought. And no proof is sought, because no proof has arrived. Thus the Paradigm can be self-fulfilling.
Guest Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I am mostly a "reader" on this site but this thread has my simple mind working. I believe that Coonbo's post regarding the cougars in his area and what sort of evidence was required before the "fact" was proven, is basically what the scientific world would need as proof that bigfoot does exist. However, one thing that the cougar incident didn't have to disprove the fact that there were cougars where no one thought there should be, were hoaxers. No one was running through the woods with little cougar feet or dressing up as a cougar then elusively skirting the community hoping to be filmed or photographed. It simply was thought that a cougar could not be in that location. We as believers or non-believers of bigfoot, due to previoius hoaxing and the lack of good photos/film, look at any new evidence with the initial intent of proving it's faked or not real. Poor Patty had Roger Patterson and his reputation to thank for not being taken seriously by some. He was from my home town, so not dissing him at all. He just gave us the "doubt". Which was all that was needed to cry " Hoax"! The late discoveries of Silverbacks in Africa or unknown tribes in South America did not have someone hoaxing their existence before they were discovered. No gorilla suits, faked prints or costumed fake tribal people in the mist. They simply hadn't been seen before and were discovered. When we saw footprints, they were footprints. Not prints someone had falsely made. Hoax is the stigma that will always follow Bigfoot until we as humans have something to stick in a cage and study or stuff and put on display in the Smithsonian. JMHO, thanks.
Guest Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Mulder said: "We will simply have to agree to disagree on this, John. Short of a body, I don't see how professionaly examined hairs, cast tracks with distinct bio-metrics, and the expert opinions of primatologists "fail to make the grade". You have it correct right there Mulder. It will take a body (dead or alive). And I sure as heck do not consider Fahrenbach a professional on hair morphology. It is the hobby of a retired primatologist. It was and is not his profession. I personally know of cases where he has misidentified bear hairs as "Bigfoot". The only prints that may be considered possibly legit are the ones from the PGF as the possible Bigfoot that made them was FILMED. Why do we NEED proof? "We" may not need proof. "I" personally want it. When or if proof is gathered, that is enough for me. I may never go out in the woods again.The rest of your statement has no bearing on why I go out in the woods. Of course I take no offense at discussing Bigfoot. I enjoy it.
southernyahoo Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I personally know of cases where he has misidentified bear hairs as "Bigfoot". My experience is the exact reverse with him. Weird huh? I wouldn't blame Fahrenbach for that though. It's possible that FBI labs have made similar mistakes. Bear hairs are the most similar to human among NA fauna.
Recommended Posts