Operation Persistence

[dmaker]

The fact that Meldrum wrote a field guide proves absolutely nothing and does not strengthen the case one iota in my opinion. If anything, it proves he likes to make money from books. This field guide hinders his credibility in my mind.

[Guest DWA]

Well that's why you are hard to help, and harder to reason with.

Sorry. There's a way a scientist, Homo sapiens, Earth planet, thinks about this. And you aren't even in the same solar system. At least the mainstream scientists who don't get it don't go to, you know...ALL THIS EFFORT.

It's a Magnificent Obsession. MAGNIFICENT. I'd rather have fun.

[ohiobill]

DWA - While it's refreshing to see you respond to questions, I'm not sure you're qualified to answer for Bipto regarding the information I'm seeking. I certainly appreciate your effort and I am interested in your answers to the many unanswered questions I specifically addressed to you. I am also interested in your unique viewpoint where "ANECDOTES ARE NOT CONFIRMATION" (sic) "but when thousands of people are providing a description that would nail a perp were this a crime, and could pretty much write Jeff Meldrum's field guide for him, which they essentially did" you are not using anecdotes as confirmation.

I'm not sure if you are asking me if I feel capable of writing a Meldrum style field guide based on anecdotal evidence or whether I have problems with reliance upon a field guide based on anecdotal evidence? Regardless, my answer is yes to either meaning you were trying to convey.

Regarding your post #1860 I am not sure what you are asking me or if it's even intended for me? If it was meant for me - what problems with NAWAC's approach do I have that you'd like me to address?

[Guest DWA]

Why don't you just confront, you know, your demon, and watch that video? (it's really more a "listen.") It would be more productive. Honest.

"I am also interested in your unique viewpoint where "ANECDOTES ARE NOT CONFIRMATION" (sic) "but when thousands of people are providing a description that would nail a perp were this a crime, and could pretty much write Jeff Meldrum's field guide for him, which they essentially did" you are not using anecdotes as confirmation." This is a classic example of hyper-empiricism ("if it's not proof, it's crap") and not really addressable other than to say, how nice for you!

[dmaker]

Well that's why you are hard to help, and harder to reason with.

Sorry. There's a way a scientist, Homo sapiens, Earth planet, thinks about this. And you aren't even in the same solar system. At least the mainstream scientists who don't get it don't go to, you know...ALL THIS EFFORT.

It's a Magnificent Obsession. MAGNIFICENT. I'd rather have fun.

Are scientists in the habit of writing field guides to animals prior to that animal actually being proven to exist? Could you please point them out, they might be amusing reading.

[Guest DWA]

MAGNIFICENT. Example of hyper-empirIcism, that is. No, nothing happens in the world until science proves it. Evidence CANNOT! BE! TouCHED! uuNTiLl PrOoOfF is OBtainED. (yes YODA, bo-RING too IT gets.) I don't think the world got created until a scientist proved it.

^{Read WSA's and bipto's comments to you over and over (and over and over). I'm losing patience. Isn't that clear? We're really confused how people get through Standard Days In The World when nothing they encounter can be acted upon prior to scientific proof.}

[dmaker]

I never said evidence cannot be touched, but it seems a little premature to publish a field guide to something that hasn't been proven to exist. It seems a little shady to me to capitalize on the evidence before the claim is proven to be true.

I don't think that is a very outlandish position.

[Guest DWA]

Nope, there's no breaks for me. I continue on, the imperative of education my muse. I feel like Annie Sullivan. Don't know how she did it, I don't. Bindernagel. Page 3 yet?

It is not an outlandish position, at all, to move scientific investigation into the hands of laymen, to the extent one can, when the lamestream is failing in its most basic job. Not at all.

[Hairy Man]

The fact that Meldrum wrote a field guide proves absolutely nothing and does not strengthen the case one iota in my opinion. If anything, it proves he likes to make money from books. This field guide hinders his credibility in my mind.

Have you looked at the field guide?? How does explaining science to someone hinder his credibility? Telling folks to use a scale (and providing that scale), how to scientifically collect evidence, not to overreact to common sounds, etc. is a plus. You seem to be grasping at straws at this point to keep your "skeptical" viewpoint going without actually knowing what something consists of.

[dmaker]

^^ If it was titled a Field Guide to Studying Wildlife the that would be appropriate. To put Bigfoot or Sasquatch in the title implies how to specifically track, find, gather samples of, etc for a BF. Not just wildlife in general. And that point is what I find distasteful. People are going to buy it because of that. A field guide to an undiscovered animal seems rather dubious to me ethically. A field guide to how to conduct proper wildlife research is great. Publish a thousand of them, just take BF out of the title.

[Guest]

(Keep in mind that "you don't have proof yet" or any variant is not, from any standpoint within science or reason, an acceptable response.)

The foundation of science — indeed, all knowledge — is observation. We have observed something and have done our best to come up with likely scenarios that explain our observations. Unfortunately, most of the people critical of our interpretation don't know the facts of our observations well enough to provide useful or likely alternate explanations (and don't seem willing to invest the time to do so).

Note that I don't say that with a defensive whine in my voice. We will continue our work unabated until our goals are accomplished (also, the path science has laid out for us). It's just unfortunate that so much noise is thrown up by "reasonable skeptics" which really doesn't advance a real debate of what our experiences in X may mean.

[ohiobill]

Why don't you just confront, you know, your demon, and watch that video? (it's really more a "listen.") It would be more productive. Honest.

"I am also interested in your unique viewpoint where "ANECDOTES ARE NOT CONFIRMATION" (sic) "but when thousands of people are providing a description that would nail a perp were this a crime, and could pretty much write Jeff Meldrum's field guide for him, which they essentially did" you are not using anecdotes as confirmation." This is a classic example of hyper-empiricism ("if it's not proof, it's crap") and not really addressable other than to say, how nice for you!

To the best of my knowledge I have no demons but perhaps I've missed some sighting database where an anonymous witness is stating I do? Demon or not I will happily discuss my problem(s) with NAWAC's approach when I understand what you feel they are or you can direct me to them?

Do you believe that "thousands of people are providing a description that would nail a perp were this a crime, and could pretty much write Jeff Meldrum's field guide for him, which they essentially did" is proof that "ANECDOTES ARE NOT CONFIRMATION"? Rather than hyper-empiricism, is it possible that you have a confirmation bias which is coloring your judgement about the subject?

[Guest DWA]

No.

[ohiobill]

Good, then we can both claim to be demon free for the moment!

[Guest DWA]

And how bad is it when you can say that?