Guest DWA 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. OK, show me an example of one paper, one, where the reviewers said "we disagree with the conclusions but will add this to scientific knowledge." It does not happen. Doesn't, ever. Meldrum's paper got passed because NO ONE DISAGREED. That's because he was careful not to say "this proves bigfoot's real." He said "there are a lot of tracks out there that are consistent; no one has proposed a thesis other than mine to account for them; so I am naming the tracks, not the maker." (Which, count on it, got a couple of subversive I-think-bigfoot's-real-but-can't-risk-it-professionally to go YES! and pass a paper that doesn't say it's real.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 So not only do you get to dismiss scientists on a whim, you can also read their minds? Truly impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) OK, show me an example of one paper, one, where the reviewers said "we disagree with the conclusions but will add this to scientific knowledge." Now you're being silly. Meldrum's paper got passed because NO ONE DISAGREED. That's because he was careful not to say "this proves bigfoot's real." He said "there are a lot of tracks out there that are consistent; no one has proposed a thesis other than mine to account for them; so I am naming the tracks, not the maker." So you're a mind reade?. Why couldn't Meldrum do the same for dermal ridges ect? Nope. Peer review never goes against consensus. Wrong. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22777017 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 So not only do you get to dismiss scientists on a whim, you can also read their minds? Truly impressive. Well you can predict the future. And don't tell me that knowing what every single eyewitness experienced isn't mind-reading. What, don't I get any superpowers? (I have an excuse; it's raining here. What's yours?) OK, show me an example of one paper, one, where the reviewers said "we disagree with the conclusions but will add this to scientific knowledge." Now you're being silly. Meldrum's paper got passed because NO ONE DISAGREED. That's because he was careful not to say "this proves bigfoot's real." He said "there are a lot of tracks out there that are consistent; no one has proposed a thesis other than mine to account for them; so I am naming the tracks, not the maker." So you're a mind reade?. Why couldn't Meldrum do the same for dermal ridges ect? Nope. Peer review never goes against consensus. Wrong. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22777017 Not being silly; just displaying knowledge. And you guys have superpowers that make you better than scientists. So do I. Nope. Read it. Go back to what I said. That just takes what everyone agrees with and adds a new twist or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) Nope. Read it. Go back to what I said. That just takes what everyone agrees with and adds a new twist or two. It does more than that. Again more moving the goalposts. Here's another http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484485 Challenging sexual selection is challenging consensus, no matter how many straws you grasp. Edited May 19, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Science papers will often challenge what is currently accepted. If the science is good, it won't matter whether it goes against the general consensus or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 http://gridironrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/beat_dead_horse2.jpg[img/] How long and in how many threads are we going to debate this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 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 well golly-gee looks like someone has found wikipedia's "list of fallacies" page and then felt fancy enough to make up a few of his own!. *Edit* i think attempts to prove bigfoot real should continue. i also thing that there is exactly ZERO proof of bigfoot's existence. ZERO, nothing, nada, zilch. what you call a skeptic or doubter or hater is under no obligation to disprove any evidence of bigfoot. none. that's not how this works. if you want something to be true, PROVE IT. otherwise, there is nothing to see. the discussions that occur on forums such as these are for entertainment purposes only. the hundreds of pages here on the ketchum report are laughable in their complete lack of actual science content (kind of like the report itself). we can have fun peering at blobsquatches, chuckling at plaster casts of prints of wooden feet (or more likely silicone or some other easy-to-manipulate substance), or listening to owls, coyotes, wolves, and other mundane forest creatures sounding 'squatchy', but when it comes to actual "proof", all of this is nonsense. go find the big man, but leave the moose legs and mangy bears in the forest. Edited May 20, 2013 by BigGinger To Edit Offensive Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Dude, if there were proof would we be here? Talk about straws and grasping. Try to stay on topic. Proof=evidence fallacy. (You just help, guy.) Nope. Read it. Go back to what I said. That just takes what everyone agrees with and adds a new twist or two.. It does more than that. Again more moving the goalposts.Here's another http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484485 Challenging sexual selection is challenging consensus, no matter how many straws you grasp. was sexual selection overturned? No. Little factoid added. Big whoop. what, a paper can't even make a ripple? Come on. Be careful. You're gonna paint yourself in a corner here. Because Bigfoot skeptics always say everybody's looking everywhere all the time. Really? Why no peer review papers... hmmmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) was sexual selection overturned? No. Little factoid added. Big whoop. Oh so now it has to overturn a theory? I gave you an example of a paper disagreeing with the consensus passing peer review and you move the goalposts. what, a paper can't even make a ripple? Come on. That requires multiple papers. You need other studies to confirm your results. Contrary to the romantics view of science, theories can't always be re-written overnight. 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 See this isn't something you ask us. It's something WE ask YOU. Where is the peer review, open-minded ones? http://gridironrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/beat_dead_horse2.jpg[img/] Until you shoot one. ;-) How long and in how many threads are we going to debate this? Hint. Read INside the box, Norseman. **** Droid. Where is a keyboard when you need one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 was sexual selection overturned? No. Little factoid added. Big whoop.Oh so now it has to overturn a theory? I gave you an example of a paper disagreeing with the consensus passing peer review and you move the goalposts.what, a paper can't even make a ripple? Come on.That requires multiple papers. You need other studies to confirm your results. Contrary to the romantics view of science, theories can't always be re-written overnight. Great. So you agree with me that Meldrum's ichnotaxonomy paper is only the beginning. baby steps. goalposts? we aren't talking football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) "I take their opinion...until someone shows me their opinion is wrong." Do Matt Crowley's dermal ridge experiments count? No, because all he's shown is that in certain cases some casts may have "artefacts" that at least superficially resemble some kinds of dermatoglyphics. "Some" =/= "all" "May" =/= "do" "superficially resemble" =/= "duplicate". I've posted pics from tracks pre-casting that show dermatoglyphics (specifically dermal ridges and skin folding). I've posted pics of those same sorts of detailed impressions in casts, very distinct from the vague, wavy edge lines Crowley pointed to as "artefacts". Furthermore, I am aware of no instance where Mr Crowley has ever submitted any of his so-called "artefact" casts for Chilcutt's examination wherein they were pronounced to be "genuine" dermatoglyphics. At best Crowly's work is incomplete, and certainly fails any test of dispositively proving that all dermatoglyphics are invalid. ^^ Yes, but there are numerous examples of faked Bigfoot evidence Some = all[/i[ fallacy and zero examples of genuine Bigfoot evidence. In your opinion. Ergo, if Bigfoot does not exist, then all BF evidence is the result of human beings. Imaginations, lies or hoaxes. a priori/circular reasoning So all of these purported footprints are proof that sasquatches exist?! Yet no one has a sasquatch foot in possession to test this claim. If you were a rancher and found strange tracks in the dirt around your livestock and called in a professional tracker to look at them and the fellow said "get your gun, it's a cougar", would you demand he produce the cougar's paw before you listened to him? No. You would say "You're the one who knows what he's doing" and go get your gun. Primate anthropologists and locomotion experts who have extensive education and experience with primate tracks are entitled to the same presumption of competence when they say something is a primate track, barring solid evidence they are wrong. Who said anything about proof? Mulder did: " Individually maybe not. Taken together it proves that there is a real critter out there needing classification. A mountain can be "proven" by one boulder or a huge pile of pebbles." Maybe you should have your evidence vs proof lecture with him as it seems it's not only skeptics, in your mind, that confuse the two. Do not even start...you ignore the quote marks around the word proven which indicate I was using it in the colloquial, not the technical, and you well know it. No mention of Bill Munns extensive work regarding the PGF. Why is that? Because they can't counter it. So they ignore it. Skeptic 101 dirty debating trick. Edited May 19, 2013 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 "Do not even start...you ignore the quote marks around the word proven which indicate I was using it in the colloquial, not the technical, and you well know it." No Mulder, that was not what I was referring to. I was specifically referring to where you said it proves that there is a critter out there. Without the quotes, thank-you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 (edited) And no Mulder don't need a paw we know they exist....one of your weakest yet... See this is what evidence looks like Edited May 20, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts