Jump to content

Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Moderator

Suppose someone presented a theory that made the pieces I had fit fairly neatly together.   It passed scientific muster by having predictive capability, both a sort of interpolation where things that had already happened that I was unaware of fell in line as predicted and extrapolation where things which had not happened yet also fell in line.

 

Now ... we wait.

 

MIB

 

Is there a question there, or just presenting a supposition?

 

Neither and both.  I accidentally changed thoughts mid-stream.   The situation described is real.   Does a hypothesis that meets the criteria of having predictive accuracy constitute evidence?  Or even reach the level of proof?  Would it if the subject were anything but bigfoot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Suppose someone presented a theory that made the pieces I had fit fairly neatly together.   It passed scientific muster by having predictive capability, both a sort of interpolation where things that had already happened that I was unaware of fell in line as predicted and extrapolation where things which had not happened yet also fell in line.

 

Now ... we wait.

 

MIB

 

Is there a question there, or just presenting a supposition?

 

Neither and both.  I accidentally changed thoughts mid-stream.   The situation described is real.   Does a hypothesis that meets the criteria of having predictive accuracy constitute evidence?  Or even reach the level of proof?  Would it if the subject were anything but bigfoot?

 

 

 

With a hypothesis being a supposition based on limited evidence used as a starting point for investigation, and predictive accuracy being merely a forecast, in this case based on limited facts as a basis, I don't see where it could qualify as evidence, and far from proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cervelo

Ummmm Wag did you just quote yourself to reinforce the fact that your post is incomprehensible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

 

 

With a hypothesis being a supposition based on limited evidence used as a starting point for investigation, and predictive accuracy being merely a forecast, in this case based on limited facts as a basis, I don't see where it could qualify as evidence, and far from proof.

 

 

Interesting perspective.   Thanks for sharing it.

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An I must mention the thousands of sightings again, that are NOT reported to the government agency, but told to one of a dozen BF researchers (in secret).. Its looking like 1/100 sightings are reported.

 

 

Comprendo? -Sounds like A SERIOUS mental disorder when you are not even seeking PUBLIC ATTENTION and wispering in secret that you done seen a BF.

 

So, what is this disorder that thousands of people have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"You talk as if the global distribution of the BF myth somehow lends it credibility. Actually, one of the famous BF proponent Phds, Grover Krantz himself,  seems to disagree with you on this matter:

 

"Some people have gathered stories about bipedal, hairy monsters from almost all parts of the world, evidently under the mistaken impression that this strengthens the argument for their existence. Actually it does just the opposite--the more widespread a land animal is claimed to be, the less likely it is to be real. A truly worldwide distribution occurs only for man, his parasites, and his domesticates. This does not prove a worldwide Sasquatch does not exist, but it makes one wonder. Some reputable scientists would study a possible primate in North America and parts of Eurasia, but when you throw in South America, Africa, and Australia just for good measure they will back off. The possibility of multiple species of such animals might avoid this problem, but it only serves to raise another. For science to have missed one large species of unknown primate is difficult enough to swallow. To claim there are still more of them only strains to the breaking point whatever credibility there may have been."

 

Which does, though, lend credibility to the notion that a large, humanoid man-beast type creature is common to the human experience. That is to say there is something in the human psyche that makes us create monsters. We enjoy them. They titillate us. They make for great campfire stories and cautionary tales to keep children in line. The fact that almost every human culture on the globe has a similar one is, in fact, a very strong detractor from the possibility of there being a real creature at the center of it. "

 

 

 

Well, unless of course BF is indeed a huMAN-type being....then he explains it very nicely why indeed they are everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wag, you said you posted 'proof' of anatomy.  I'm participating in that thread as well (as are a few others in this thread).  Can you tell me which post in that thread contains this proof?.

 

 

EDIT to add:  Vehemently defending something without supplying any evidence or proof is detrimental to your cause Wag.  Do you not understand that?  I am a skeptic, just because I have not had my own experience.  I do believe there is a possibility, but I do not go around saying every blobsquatch "confirms on all points".  That is exactly what give BFers a bad rep.  Once you start looking at things with a critical eye, you will realize that there are better explanations than everything being a BF. 

Edited by Nod4Eight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAG, I posted a link to a scientific paper that attempts to answer your question. You might want to read it.

Cotter, I have to agree with you, if BF was a type of human. That not only contradicts the majority of the eye witness reports, but also seems sort of fanciful to me. The idea of a reclusive group of hairy mostly-humans running around North America undiscovered seems pretty sketchy to me. After all, this is not Papua New Guinea or the Brazilian interior.

DISCLAIMER: Sketchy and fanciful are not scientific terms. YMMV.

Edited by dmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^well dmaker - nothing about this phenom is all that UN-fanciful.  But as you are aware, there are 2 pretty hard-nosed camps on that subject (ape v. human).

I will agree that many eye-witness reports describe something more 'ape' like than human....but I could show you some pictures of pretty 'ape' like humans too! 

 

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wudewasa

Once again, we descend into bitter arguments and gotcha games.  I'm not going to convince believers of my perspectives and they will fail to convert mine until a body is produced. 

 

I enjoy and appreciate people sharing their experiences here, and I will draw my own conclusions about them whether others agree with them or not.

 

When conversations degrade into back and forth sniping, I lose interest quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JiggyPotamus

I think it is absolutely preposterous to think that so many thousands of reports could all stem from hoaxers and those with psychological disorders. I am setting aside the fact that I know these animals exist from personal experience by the way, attempting to place myself on the same level as a skeptic. I also believe that it is quite logical to conclude that video of sasquatch is going to often be blurry or from a great distance. There really are quite a few videos depicting what are probably real sasquatch. But what good are those videos? They cannot prove the existence of the animals, because there will ALWAYS be doubt. We must have a type specimen, as it is the only way.

 

Anyway, I said that blurry videos are logical because sasquatch, by their very nature, are reclusive when it comes to humans. Why this is the case I do not know, but it is. Because of this, they are not going to allow someone to get close to them, period, if they know a person is coming. They will flee. So a sighting is much more likely to occur at a distance. Consumer cameras are mostly made for short length filming, and therefore without a telephoto capable camera, which is specialized when compared to most cameras that the average person has, the videos are not going to contain that much data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think I know which documentary that's from. It's actually been proven that these so called dermal ridges that run vertically on casts are casting artifacts and not actual dermal ridges http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence

 

They do look very realistic though. Realistic enough to fool the "bigfoot experts"  :)

 

Ah, I think I'll go with the Professor of Anthropology on the dermal ridges.

 

 

Being a Professor of Anthropology does not mean are in expert on casting artifacts or plaster. You may be able to recognize details of a primate print but if there's process that can replicate them and you haven't taken it into account, then your opinion on genuine bigfoot tracks doesn't hold water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will flee? Like Patty did? Patty, the supposed best footage of an actual Sasquatch that has ever been captured? If by flee you mean casually stroll away with only a backward glance, then sure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryP

 

 

I think I know which documentary that's from. It's actually been proven that these so called dermal ridges that run vertically on casts are casting artifacts and not actual dermal ridges http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence

 

They do look very realistic though. Realistic enough to fool the "bigfoot experts"  :)

 

Ah, I think I'll go with the Professor of Anthropology on the dermal ridges.

 

 

Being a Professor of Anthropology does not mean are in expert on casting artifacts or plaster. You may be able to recognize details of a primate print but if there's process that can replicate them and you haven't taken it into account, then your opinion on genuine bigfoot tracks doesn't hold water.

 

 

And what are your qualifications?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He really really really (a) doesn't want this to be real; or ( b ) does.  Powerful qualification, if you ask me.

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...