Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) 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. Nope, peer reviewed papers that go against the consensus get published all the time. Editors of a paper can't reject a paper simply because they disargee with the conclusions. Peer review is irrelevant to the discussion. When the Three Monkeys are your peer reviewers, I yawn and go, um, so what? Yes it is. Peer review is how science is done. The fact that few of this supposed great evidence for bigfoot gets passed is telling. Edited May 19, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) 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. Nope, peer reviewed papers that go against the consensus get published all the time. Editors of a paper can't reject a paper simply because they disargee with the conclusions. Nope. Peer review never goes against consensus. A frequent "skeptical" mistake. No paper makes it that goes against consensus. The ones that make it use what everyone accepts, and tack on a bit here and there for "new" knowledge. Few papers ever even get reviewed whose assumptions go against consensus...and the ones that make it to review don't get published. Simple as that. The error you are making is presuming that little tack-ons to scientific canon amount to earth-shattering changes. They don't. Edited May 19, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) Peer review is irrelevant to the discussion. When the Three Monkeys are your peer reviewers, I yawn and go, um, so what? If it makes you feel better. I personally would take the editors of a legitmate journal over a website run by this guy Edited May 19, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Authoritarian assault with a fallacy? That is funny on a Sunday morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) 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. Nope, peer reviewed papers that go against the consensus get published all the time. Editors of a paper can't reject a paper simply because they disargee with the conclusions. Nope. Peer review never goes against consensus. A frequent "skeptical" mistake. No paper makes it that goes against consensus. The ones that make it use what everyone accepts, and tack on a bit here and there for "new" knowledge. Few papers ever even get reviewed whose assumptions go against consensus...and the ones that make it to review don't get published. Simple as that. The error you are making is presuming that little tack-ons to scientific canon amount to earth-shattering changes. They don't. What does this have to do with bigfoot? There is no "consensus" on bigfoot. Bigfoot is not the theory of evolution or climate change or plate tectonics. In the grand scheme of things bigfoot is a "tack here and there" And "little tack-ons" can eventually lead to to earth-shattering changes. You're commiting the fallacy of a romantic that everything must be changed overnight. Edited May 19, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker 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. 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'? So now you get to dismiss the entire peer review process when it suits you? i'm going to have to echo Cerv's request: do you have a copy of the Argument Rules According to DWA handy? It gets dizzying sometimes trying to keep track of the goal posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Translation: I win. Just makes sense. I just told you a paper to start with. Reading sets you free. 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. Nope, peer reviewed papers that go against the consensus get published all the time. Editors of a paper can't reject a paper simply because they disargee with the conclusions. Nope. Peer review never goes against consensus. A frequent "skeptical" mistake. No paper makes it that goes against consensus. The ones that make it use what everyone accepts, and tack on a bit here and there for "new" knowledge. Few papers ever even get reviewed whose assumptions go against consensus...and the ones that make it to review don't get published. Simple as that. The error you are making is presuming that little tack-ons to scientific canon amount to earth-shattering changes. They don't. The "pull-things-out-of-a-hat" fallacy And "little tack-ons" can eventually lead to to earth-shattering changes. You're commiting the fallacy of a romantic that everything must be changed overnight. No, actually, YOU are. You're saying that bigfoot can't be real because we haven't proven it yet. What, do you need to catch a train or something? I'm telling you that the process of proof is well under way...and that it's happening the way things generally do in science. Sea changes are glacial. Little tweaks happen all the time. 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.pdfIts 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'? So now you get to dismiss the entire peer review process when it suits you?i'm going to have to echo Cerv's request: do you have a copy of the Argument Rules According to DWA handy? It gets dizzying sometimes trying to keep track of the goal posts. Well, now, if you paid attention, you'd know that you get to dismiss the peer review process when it's not going to work here. And when the peer reviewers have as their first assumption (read your little paper there) "no way can this be real," well, what good is it doing? Peer review only works - as Max Planck might say - when all the people that would have opposed the paper are dead. I can wait. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 So now you get to dismiss the entire peer review process when it suits you? i'm going to have to echo Cerv's request: do you have a copy of the Argument Rules According to DWA handy? It gets dizzying sometimes trying to keep track of the goal posts. Already posted it, and it handles all situations. Search search search until the information agrees with you fallacy (common "skeptical" stub-toe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 And when the peer reviewers have as their first assumption (read your little paper there) "no way can this be real," well, what good is it doing? Again, making more stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) those of you involved in the tediousness of arguing with DWA have to just give in to the fact that bigfoot is real and nothing will convice DWA otherwise. this is true and will always be true because, since you can't prove a negative, there is no way to contradict DWA's opinion. a video or picture is a bear or a moose? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... oh, another hoax? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... a DNA study is total scientific nonsense? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... a supposedly ridiculous number of people have seen bigfoot, but exactly none of them have come up with a picture or video? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... people are faking tracks all over the place, tricking even "experts"? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... do you see how this goes? you also can't prove that ghosts aren't real, that there is no tooth fairy, that santa doesn't bring kids toys every december 25th, and that the easter bunny doesn't love delivering chocolate eggs. there is no refuting his argument. you can, however, prove the existence of something by any number of means (like, for example, SCIENCE), and until that happens rational people will be classified as "skeptics" by true believers and there will be no convincing them otherwise. Edited May 20, 2013 by BigGinger To Edit Offensive Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 ^^ Plussed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) those of you involved in the tediousness of arguing with DWA have to just give in to the fact that bigfoot is real and nothing will convice DWA otherwise. this is true and will always be true because, since you can't prove a negative, there is no way to contradict DWA's opinion. a video or picture is a bear or a moose? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... oh, another hoax? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... a DNA study is total scientific *nonsense*? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... a supposedly ridiculous number of people have seen bigfoot, but exactly none of them have come up with a picture or video? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... people are faking tracks all over the place, tricking even "experts"? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... do you see how this goes? you also can't prove that ghosts aren't real, that there is no tooth fairy, that santa doesn't bring kids toys every december 25th, and that the easter bunny doesn't love delivering chocolate eggs. there is no refuting his argument. you can, however, prove the existence of something by any number of means (like, for example, SCIENCE), and until that happens rational people will be classified as "skeptics" by true believers and there will be no convincing them otherwise. No, actually, slappy, the problem with some folks is that they can't deal with a nuanced opinion. I am arguing with people who know sasquatch isn't real, just know it, and fall back on an uninformed scientific mainstream and "you can't prove a negative." I'm more skeptical than most here. Skeptics - true ones - mistrust ALL assumptions, including the uninformed one that there's no way this can be real. If you insist on wallowing in it, fine, but this just seems the oddest of places to come to do that, you know...? And when the peer reviewers have as their first assumption (read your little paper there) "no way can this be real," well, what good is it doing? Again, making more stuff up. Nope, just reading the papers, one of which you can go back to the start of this thread and read. But you insist on the Don't-read-what-disagrees fallacy Edited May 20, 2013 by DWA To Edit Offensive Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 It doesn't matter if the editors don't believe in bigfoot. Papers don't get fail just because the editors disargee with their conclusions. Meldrum will tell you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 It's a beautiful sunny Sunday holiday weekend and I just don't care enough to do this today trueism. Enjoy folks, see you tomorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) Oh, and I forgot. those of you involved in the tediousness of arguing with DWA have to just give in to the fact that bigfoot is real and nothing will convice DWA otherwise. this is true and will always be true because, since you can't prove a negative, there is no way to contradict DWA's opinion. There's a wonderful way. Show me that the evidence is what you say it is. What? You DON'T have to prove that? How nice for you. a video or picture is a bear or a moose? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... One = All fallacy oh, another hoax? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... Ditto a DNA study is total scientific *nonsense*? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... Ditto a supposedly ridiculous number of people have seen bigfoot, but exactly none of them have come up with a picture or video? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... Evidence = Proof fallacy people are faking tracks all over the place, tricking even "experts"? doesn't mean bigfoot isn't real... Cherrypicking fallacy do you see how this goes? Yes. One wrongheaded assumption after another. You sound like you need bigfoot confirmed by Christmas. Sorry. That's the Not-happening-on-my-schedule-so-not-happening fallacy you also can't prove that ghosts aren't real, that there is no tooth fairy, that santa doesn't bring kids toys every december 25th, and that the easter bunny doesn't love delivering chocolate eggs. there is no refuting his argument. Can't-suss-topical-area fallacy you can, however, prove the existence of something by any number of means (like, for example, SCIENCE), and until that happens rational people will be classified as "skeptics" by true believers and there will be no convincing them otherwise. Misunderstanding-how-science-works fallacy Edited May 20, 2013 by DWA To Edit Offensive Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts