Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)

[norseman]

Go get 'im.  I want PROOF, man.  I'm just not at all sure that somebody who once seemed to have a level head about this and now finds a squatch in his sink every time he shaves could possibly be real.

 

I"m on it!!!!!

 

[MIB]

. However, someone soon discovered the panda laying dead on the railroadtracks right outside the zoo

 

Are you suggesting DWA might find Matt Moneymaker on the railroad tracks somewhere?

[Guest DWA]

If I do, I am not stopping.  CSX:  How Tomorrow Moves.  Baby.

[Guest]

The paper may not show that every single report is mistaken but it does cast doubt on these "sightings" as evidence for a real animal.

 

Thousands of sightings and no animal? Yep, I think all of them being mistaken is a safe bet.

 

And formulating a hypothesis and then testing it is certainly not bogus.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

Then the hypothesis that you are wrong, which is being tested, is OK, right?  Excellent.

 

Formulating a hypothesis based on assumptions that the study never tests? 

 

Bogus.  It's called begging the question.

 

That paper doesn't cast doubt on a single piece of sasquatch evidence I am aware of.  How could it, given that it doesn't even address them at all but to presume they're false?

[Guest DWA]

 

Go get 'im.  I want PROOF, man.  I'm just not at all sure that somebody who once seemed to have a level head about this and now finds a squatch in his sink every time he shaves could possibly be real.

 

I"m on it!!!!!

 

With that approach, you might bag Bobo too!  But spare Cliff Barackman.  He has spirit.  Someday he may run the BFRO.

 

[Guest LarryP]

The paper may not show that every single report is mistaken but it does cast doubt on these "sightings" as evidence for a real animal.

 

Thousands of sightings and no animal? Yep, I think all of them being mistaken is a safe bet.

 

 

There's no such thing as a "safe bet".

[Guest]

 

That paper doesn't cast doubt on a single piece of sasquatch evidence I am aware of.  How could it, given that it doesn't even address them at all but to presume they're false?

 

Evidence published mostly in partisan magazines/books and a website run by this guy?

 

Formulating a hypothesis based on assumptions that the study never tests? 

What assumptions, that the people are wrong? Again, so many reports and still no ape.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[norseman]

What does the amount of BFRO reports have to do with producing an ape??? The BFRO is not going to give you an ape.........

[Guest]

You know what I mean.

[Guest DWA]

 

 

That paper doesn't cast doubt on a single piece of sasquatch evidence I am aware of.  How could it, given that it doesn't even address them at all but to presume they're false?

 

Evidence published mostly in partisan magazines/books and a website run by this guy?

 

A.  Blaming the animal's nonexistence on the people searching for it is a non-starter:  B.  By "partisan," do you mean "disagrees with me" or do you mean "anyone who shows a modicum of curiosity about this topic is Automatically Relegated to the Daaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhkkkkk Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide....?

 

 

 

Jeff Meldrum (Artist's Conception):  

 

 

 

 

 

Formulating a hypothesis based on assumptions that the study never tests? 

What assumptions, that the people are wrong? Again, so many reports and still no ape.

 

"No proof = no evidence" fallacy  aka "Not happening on my schedule so not happening" fallacy

Making assumptions like that automatically refers this paper to the Junk Science File, so ordered.

[norseman]

You know what I mean.

 

But I don't know what you mean. And I'm not trying to be a jerk here.

 

But the people that are the self proclaimed "experts" are anti kill..........they are not going to give you an ape.........no intentions what so ever.

 

Therefore we have to hope that a Mack truck gives us one or berry pickers find one dead in the forest.

[Guest]

 

 

"No proof = no evidence" fallacy  aka "Not happening on my schedule so not happening" fallacy

Making assumptions like that automatically refers this paper to the Junk Science File, so ordered.

 

But it isn't and most of the bigfoot evidence is published in junk files.

[Guest DWA]

'cos jerrymander says so?  Oh.  Ok.

 

 

 

 

And nothing about the day Jeff Meldrum said to you:

 

 

[dmaker]

Then the hypothesis that you are wrong, which is being tested, is OK, right?  Excellent.

 

Formulating a hypothesis based on assumptions that the study never tests? 

 

Bogus.  It's called begging the question.

 

That paper doesn't cast doubt on a single piece of sasquatch evidence I am aware of.  How could it, given that it doesn't even address them at all but to presume they're false?

Actually, the hypothesis of the paper is that every sighting is false and then sets out to provide a scientific basis for that hypothesis. To say why does it not address each and every piece of Sasquatch evidence completely ignores and dismissed the hypothesis. The paper does address, indirectly, each sighting. It just does not approach every individual. Nor does it need to based on the hypothesis.

You dismiss the science in the paper because you rejecteded it , most likely, right at the abstract. The paper offered an explanation why people report paranormal sightings. It then proceeded to give examples of how human perception can be altered and produce false reports. I.e, how humans can report seeing something that is not there. And there is no doubt in that paper that people did in fact report falsely on things. Just because it was applied to Bigfoot does not give Bigfoot special consideration. The paper proves that people can, and will, report seeing things that are not there.