Guest DWA Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 We really need to stop tossing around terms like "childish," particularly when we put forth claims that ignore evidence, fail to use deductive reasoning, make, yes, predictions unwarranted by logic (see: argument-from-incredulity fallacy, thank you, Mulder), and confuse evidence and proof. These are things children do. And they are critical to the "skeptical" take on sasquatch. Coincidence? One hopes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Your position is every bit as much a prediction as is mine. So how is that search for a peer reviewed paper in a Biology journal that supports the cyrptid evidence coming? Do none exist? Is that why you are failing to offer one? You don't think psychology journals have the academic chops to be taken seriously, so surely you would jump at the chance to show me a peer reviewed paper from something that you do respect that supports your position? Or do you just prefer to snipe at those that don't while offering no examples of those that do? And I don't mean your interpretation of the evidence, I mean something from an academic journal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Your position is every bit as much a prediction as is mine. Incorrect, because my position is based on personal experience. Your position is solely based on perdictive conjecture, based on an extremely faulty premise, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Point taken Larry. I meant that comment more for DWA, not you. Sorry, did not mean to directly undermine your personal experience position, I should have been more clear as to whom I was addressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SoFla Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Point taken Larry. I meant that comment more for DWA, not you. Sorry, did not mean to directly undermine your personal experience position, I should have been more clear as to whom I was addressing. there's no doubt that you're an intelligent person dmaker, but all this proves is that somebody can be really smart and still be really wrong....you just are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Thank-you SoFla, now how would you go about proving that I am just wrong? Perhaps by providing a Bigfoot for science to examine? How is that going so far? Not very well it seems to date... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Your position is every bit as much a prediction as is mine. So how is that search for a peer reviewed paper in a Biology journal that supports the cyrptid evidence coming? Do none exist? Is that why you are failing to offer one? You don't think psychology journals have the academic chops to be taken seriously, so surely you would jump at the chance to show me a peer reviewed paper from something that you do respect that supports your position? Or do you just prefer to snipe at those that don't while offering no examples of those that do? And I don't mean your interpretation of the evidence, I mean something from an academic journal? As far as I know this is the only pro-bigfoot paper published in a quailty journal. http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/meldrum2007_ichnotaxonomy_of_giant_hominoid_tracks_in_north_america.pdf Its a shame bigfooters don't write more of these. Its easy to write about bigfoot "evidence" in blogs and books but peer-review is where the big boys/girls play in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) Your position is every bit as much a prediction as is mine. So how is that search for a peer reviewed paper in a Biology journal that supports the cyrptid evidence coming? Do none exist? Is that why you are failing to offer one? You don't think psychology journals have the academic chops to be taken seriously, so surely you would jump at the chance to show me a peer reviewed paper from something that you do respect that supports your position? Or do you just prefer to snipe at those that don't while offering no examples of those that do? And I don't mean your interpretation of the evidence, I mean something from an academic journal? "It's not happening on my schedule, so it's not happening" fallacy Fallback-on-uninformed-"consensus" fallacy As far as I know this is the only pro-bigfoot paper published in a quailty journal. http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/meldrum2007_ichnotaxonomy_of_giant_hominoid_tracks_in_north_america.pdf Its a shame bigfooters don't write more of these. Its easy to write about bigfoot "evidence" in blogs and books but peer-review is where the big boys/girls play in science. Fallback-on-uninformed-"consensus" fallacy Thank-you SoFla, now how would you go about proving that I am just wrong? Perhaps by providing a Bigfoot for science to examine? How is that going so far? Not very well it seems to date... "It's not happening on my schedule, so it's not happening" fallacy Edited May 19, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 It hasn't happened yet because we're just not looking fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 No, actually, if one knows how to think about these things: bingo. But see, your arguments aren't showing me that. You just take this stuff you seem to need to think, repeat it over and over and over as if that will make it true. Problem is, that stuff shows a focus on the trash in this field, trash that is inevitable when mainstream science totally fails to engage on a topic. I pay attention only to the scientists who have shown me they know how to think about this. I bring a not-inconsiderable knowledge of animals and the outdoors to this discussion, and find it alarming that there are so many people out there who should have the relevant knowledge, but don't seem to have the ability or the inclination (or both) to apply it (Ranae on "Finding Bigfoot." And a couple of wildlife biologists right here on BFF, in fact). If they showed me, as Meldrum and Bindernagel do, that they were really applying their science, I'd listen. But they employ, pretty much exclusively, the arguments from incredulity and authority, and show that they either don't read up or don't think about what they read. Sad, that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 You realize eveything that your saying is exactly what you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) No, actually, if one knows how to think about these things: bingo. But see, your arguments aren't showing me that. You just take this stuff you seem to need to think, repeat it over and over and over as if that will make it true. Problem is, that stuff shows a focus on the trash in this field, trash that is inevitable when mainstream science totally fails to engage on a topic. I pay attention only to the scientists who have shown me they know how to think about this. I bring a not-inconsiderable knowledge of animals and the outdoors to this discussion, and find it alarming that there are so many people out there who should have the relevant knowledge, but don't seem to have the ability or the inclination (or both) to apply it (Ranae on "Finding Bigfoot." And a couple of wildlife biologists right here on BFF, in fact). If they showed me, as Meldrum and Bindernagel do, that they were really applying their science, I'd listen. But they employ, pretty much exclusively, the arguments from incredulity and authority, and show that they either don't read up or don't think about what they read. Sad, that. I am the only acceptable authority on this subject fallacy. No, actually, if one knows how to think about these things: bingo. But see, your arguments aren't showing me that. You just take this stuff you seem to need to think, repeat it over and over and over as if that will make it true. Problem is, that stuff shows a focus on the trash in this field, trash that is inevitable when mainstream science totally fails to engage on a topic. I pay attention only to the scientists who have shown me they know how to think about this. I bring a not-inconsiderable knowledge of animals and the outdoors to this discussion, and find it alarming that there are so many people out there who should have the relevant knowledge, but don't seem to have the ability or the inclination (or both) to apply it (Ranae on "Finding Bigfoot." And a couple of wildlife biologists right here on BFF, in fact). If they showed me, as Meldrum and Bindernagel do, that they were really applying their science, I'd listen. But they employ, pretty much exclusively, the arguments from incredulity and authority, and show that they either don't read up or don't think about what they read. Sad, that. So they either don't read or don't read properly. That pretty much sounds like any academic that does not support Bigfoot has already lost before the paper is even written in your world. Or is one of your rules of argument, thou shalt believe in Bigfoot?Sad that. Edited May 19, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 As far as I know this is the only pro-bigfoot paper published in a quailty journal. http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/meldrum2007_ichnotaxonomy_of_giant_hominoid_tracks_in_north_america.pdf Its a shame bigfooters don't write more of these. Its easy to write about bigfoot "evidence" in blogs and books but peer-review is where the big boys/girls play in science. Fallback-on-uninformed-"consensus" fallacy This has nothing to do with consensus. This has to do with the fact that bigfoot evidence rarely goes published in peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Authoritarian assault with a fallacy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXvqYYJSv3I&sns=em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) As far as I know this is the only pro-bigfoot paper published in a quailty journal. http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/meldrum2007_ichnotaxonomy_of_giant_hominoid_tracks_in_north_america.pdf Its a shame bigfooters don't write more of these. Its easy to write about bigfoot "evidence" in blogs and books but peer-review is where the big boys/girls play in science. Fallback-on-uninformed-"consensus" fallacy This has nothing to do with consensus. This has to do with the fact that bigfoot evidence rarely goes published in peer review. Which has everything - everything in the world - to do with consensus. That's what peer review reflects - the applied weight of the scientific consensus. Go read the paper dmaker cites at the start of this thread. The very assumptions that both mainstream scientists and ignorant laymen use in their denial of sasquatch are totally and uncritically accepted. That's consensus at work. Not an informed one, mind you. Peer review is irrelevant to the discussion. When the Three Monkeys are your peer reviewers, I yawn and go, um, so what? Authoritarian assault with a fallacy? And that's me, behbeh....how them shins feelin'? Edited May 19, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts