Makes No Sense...

[dmaker]

And what mindset would that be WSA? Extraordinary claims require proof, not just more extraordinary claims? Perish the thought..

[Guest DWA]

Maybe the legal profession could be interested in following this stuff up.

 

Logically Deducing Bigfoot (Animal Channel).  Survivorman and the junior class of Harvard Law School go on sasquatch stakeout.  (1 hr.)

And what mindset would that be WSA? Extraordinary claims require proof, not just more extraordinary claims? Perish the thought..

 

As we point out over and over, the most ludicrously extraordinary claim in 'footery is that all this is made up.  But if one never tries to imagine a world in which that is true, one would not know that.

[dmaker]

"As we point out over and over, the most ludicrously extraordinary claim in 'footery is that all this is made up.  But if one never tries to imagine a world in which that is true, one would not know that."

 

 

Speaking for each other now are you?

 

 

 

"But if one never tries to imagine a world in which that is true, one would not know that."

 

So you never even stop for a second to imagine that you could be wrong?  No surprise there...

Edited June 3, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

Well dmaker, here's a short list of things you probably don't even doubt, but which were only established through the "extraordinary" claims of lawyers on behalf of their clients (all of which, I might add, flew in the face of what established science said was so at the time):

 

-That seatbetls and airbags are good things to have in your car 

-That asbestos is a bad thing to inhale (Remember: It was the "Miracle Mineral")

-Wage and hour regulations for minors are good

-Secondhand smoke will kill you just as dead as firsthand does

 

Each one of these now-foregone conclusions started as an anecdote.  

 

Actually, science could use a little more legal procedure. Each lawsuit/claim whether a civil or criminal one, begins with an hypothesis. That hypothesis is tested and the result is what we call "proof." 

 

At the begining of ever civil suit based in English Common Law,  the sufficiency of the allegations may be tested on a Motion to Dismiss, and later with a Motion for Summary Judgment (or their equivalents). The MTD essentially says: Under no set of facts may the plaintiff prevail. These are routinely overruled, the law being inclined to let every plaintiff take a stab and it is pretty difficult to come up with that kind of deficient pleading.

 

What then ensues is called "discovery", where the parties are entitled to investigate information held by the other and third parties. The standard for allowing discovery under our federal Rules, and in almost all (if not all) states is any information "calculated to lead to admissible evidence." As you can see, this is a very, very liberal standard. As it should be. Not: Is it likely something is here to learn? Not: Is the theory possible or even plausible? Not: You've had too long to prove it, so stop bothering me. Not anything except "could" it lead you to something important. 

 

What is the favored and best form of discovery? Without a doubt, it is the examination under oath, otherwise known as a deposition. You want anecdotal? Here it is, in spades. Shocking to relate to those who have an allergy to believing witness statements (even when taken under oath) but lawsuits, fortunes and reputations rise and fall on what is taken down in these proceedings.  Not the greatest system of getting to the truth, I grant you, but frankly we've never been able to come up with a better one. 

 

If, after all the discovery is completed, a party feels the other has not met their minimum burden of proof to have the case submitted to the trier of fact (either a judge or a jury) judgment can be had in favor of one against the other. Those are extremely rare, the law does not favor them, and rightly so.

 

So, if I had to draw an analogy between the state of BF studies and my exemplar lawsuit here, I'd say we are still in the discovery phase. While that is happening, the court should not entertain any motions to summarily determine the outcome.  The proponents will be allowed to pursue whatever, wherever, if such is calculated to lead to admissible evidence.  

 

You know though too, science IS supposed to work the same way, even more so. Just how the law (at least on this topic) got ahead of science, when law is presumed to be the more rigid practice, is confounding to say the least.  One key difference between the two worth mentioning is the law has a statute of limitations, science doesn't, as far as I know. Score one for science.

[Guest DWA]

"As we point out over and over, the most ludicrously extraordinary claim in 'footery is that all this is made up.  But if one never tries to imagine a world in which that is true, one would not know that."

 

 

Speaking for each other now are you?

 

 

 

"But if one never tries to imagine a world in which that is true, one would not know that."

 

So you never even stop for a second to imagine that you could be wrong?  No surprise there...

Great minds do run in the same channel.

 

I turn your question around and admit to even less surprise than you.

 

Come on.  This gets old.  You have nothing to discuss.  We are humoring you, you know that.

The only thing worth discussing is evidence and what it represents.

 

You are simply presenting the proof that you are right which amounts to:  your say so.

 

Sorry.  Not working.  And really no fun when it gets past a point.  If one prosecuted one's whole life the way you are this question, well, it would be surpassingly difficult to even get out of bed in the morning.

[dmaker]

Well dmaker, here's a short list of things you probably don't even doubt, but which were only established through the "extraordinary" claims of lawyers on behalf of their clients (all of which, I might add, flew in the face of what established science said was so at the time):

 

-That seatbetls and airbags are good things to have in your car 

-That asbestos is a bad thing to inhale (Remember: It was the "Miracle Mineral")

-Wage and hour regulations for minors are good

-Secondhand smoke will kill you just as dead as firsthand does

 

Each one of these now-foregone conclusions started as an anecdote.  

 

Actually, science could use a little more legal procedure. Each lawsuit/claim whether a civil or criminal one, begins with an hypothesis. That hypothesis is tested and the result is what we call "proof." 

 

At the begining of ever civil suit based in English Common Law,  the sufficiency of the allegations may be tested on a Motion to Dismiss, and later with a Motion for Summary Judgment (or their equivalents). The MTD essentially says: Under no set of facts may the plaintiff prevail. These are routinely overruled, the law being inclined to let every plaintiff take a stab and it is pretty difficult to come up with that kind of deficient pleading.

 

What then ensues is called "discovery", where the parties are entitled to investigate information held by the other and third parties. The standard for allowing discovery under our federal Rules, and in almost all (if not all) states is any information "calculated to lead to admissible evidence." As you can see, this is a very, very liberal standard. As it should be. Not: Is it likely something is here to learn? Not: Is the theory possible or even plausible? Not: You've had too long to prove it, so stop bothering me. Not anything except "could" it lead you to something important. 

 

What is the favored and best form of discovery? Without a doubt, it is the examination under oath, otherwise known as a deposition. You want anecdotal? Here it is, in spades. Shocking to relate to those who have an allergy to believing witness statements (even when taken under oath) but lawsuits, fortunes and reputations rise and fall on what is taken down in these proceedings.  Not the greatest system of getting to the truth, I grant you, but frankly we've never been able to come up with a better one. 

 

If, after all the discovery is completed, a party feels the other has not met their minimum burden of proof to have the case submitted to the trier of fact (either a judge or a jury) judgment can be had in favor of one against the other. Those are extremely rare, the law does not favor them, and rightly so.

 

So, if I had to draw an analogy between the state of BF studies and my exemplar lawsuit here, I'd say we are still in the discovery phase. While that is happening, the court should not entertain any motions to summarily determine the outcome.  The proponents will be allowed to pursue whatever, wherever, if such is calculated to lead to admissible evidence.  

 

You know though too, science IS supposed to work the same way, even more so. Just how the law (at least on this topic) got ahead of science, when law is presumed to be the more rigid practice, is confounding to say the least.  One key difference between the two worth mentioning is the law has a statute of limitations, science doesn't, as far as I know. Score one for science.

 

While I did enjoy reading your tutorial on law, I find your analogies do not really work for me.  You list several ideas that were controversial for their time. Ok fine. But I don't really see how that relates to Bigfoot, but maybe that is just me. I don't really find the idea of Bigfoot to be controversial. There are no dogmatic apple carts that are upset for me.

 

Now obviously with the ideas that you put forward the controversy surrounding them was over come or they would not be commonly accepted facts today. So clearly someone was able to provide enough evidence to "prove" the theory behind each and every one of those. And I would have to say in not too long of a time period. Certainly less than BF has been on the map. I am not that old and I can remember some of those going from nascent controversies to status quo. So if they can do that in my lifetime then there must have been some decent evidence behind the ideas, no? 

 

The problem with BF is not that I think it is controversial, but that, as Saskeptic put it, the total amount of evidence tied to BF to date is nil. Bigfoot has had more time in the "discovery period" than every single one of those ideas you mentioned. They all panned out and were proven. Bigfoot, not even close. 

 

But by all means, keep looking. Just don't expect the rest of us to agree that you are actually on to something.

Edited June 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Who's "the rest of us?  Talk about ignoring evidence.

 

I care not for anyone who shows me he doesn't know what he's talking about.  And that's "the rest of" scientists on this question.

 

And some here.  I mean, only some.  This is, after all, the Bigfoot Forums, and it's only natural to have something like this.  I mean, nothing in human history has this much going for it that we don't acknowledge as real.  Simple as that.

[WSA]

The larger point I'm trying to make is many things are considered outlandish or even impossible for long, long periods of time until the time comes when that thinking is overturned, and quite suddenly.  We see it happen over and over in all fields of human knowledge, but yet we think every new question is unique and history has nothing to tell us to help our predictive abilities. In that regard, we are all really quite stupid as a race of beings. I find myself having to push really hard against that tendency in my own behavior. I see some who don't push back at that at all. I don't think you can ever push too hard against that predisposition, especially when all you risk is looking foolish if you are not proven right, ultimately. Science should push against that harder than any other discipline we could name, in my opinion. The litany of "nevers" that came to pass is a long and shameful one.

 

I read a quote yesterday I agree with, and I can't remember where or by whom, but the jist of it was don't rule anything out as improbable unless it violates the laws of physics. Well, our favorite topic of discussion doesn't do that, as far as I can tell.  Would you agree? (And let's leave aside the whole notion of parallel universes, string theory and the possible ebb and flow of the time/space continuum, shall we?)

[Guest DWA]

The scientific attitude I have the least patience with, because it isn't a scientific attitude even though most scientists demonstrably hold it:

 

I will laugh at this until the day it's proven.

 

Any idea how that makes you look the day after...?

 

Yep, stupid is the word I'd use too.

[Cotter]

I would be willing to bet that if the amount of personnel and money that was dedicated to second hand smoke research, was dedicated to BF, we may just have our answer.

 

But, since we haven't, well.......(see above)

[Guest DWA]

Or the amount of research devoted to

 

• Coffee:  good for you!  Bad! Good!  Bad!  Drink More!  Drink Less!
• Balanced Diet!  No!  Skew this way!  no!  Skew that!  No!  More of this!  No!  More of that!

OK, I could go on all day there.  Better stop.

 

Every scientific study, it seems, tells us what was wrong with previous studies.

 

Why i'm going with the people who say it's real over the scientists who say it's not.  Wrong seems to be the steady state of science; few scientists seem able to point that out though.

[Sasfooty]

Yeah they fight among themselves almost as bad as the BF "community".

 

So little credibility in the science community!

Edited June 4, 2013 by Sasfooty

[WSA]

Cotter, I think the average human attention span was not selected to entertain such long-range mysteries, don't you agree? Most of the impetuous whinging we see out there on the subject of BF proof really amounts to just a complaint that confirmation hasn't happened quick enough, or that  preferred deadlines are not being met. Quite a normal human failing to want proof NOW! I wish the world would operate on my timetable, and I'd be much more content with the state of things, wouldn't you? I've said before, many talk as if they have money riding on the outcome, and can't stand to wait a minute more to know if their wager was good or not. It is no doubt difficult to have so much of a personal investment in this outcome so as to feel slighted by the lack of resolution. I would not want it.

[Guest DWA]

Well, this is what really "makes no sense" to me.

 

Habituators not wanting or caring to provide proof?  How hard is that to get?  Why would the very people doing the psycho-screaming about proofNOW think that any habituator would want to give them the time of day? 

 

(See how I get us back on topic?)

 

If I'm a habituator, I'm sitting there, showing Snowy my laptop (she likes to press keys, but a few gifted turkey drumsticks and some positve conditioning took care of that) and chuckling.  Look at this guy, Snowy!  What a jabronie we got here!  "Imaginary animal."  Show me imaginary, Snowy!    OK, here, hit that key [point] ...and that's how this post got up.

 

Given the prevailing attitude, I would have half an inclination at least to TORTURE those scoftic damfools.  Camera?  I have HUNDREDS of pictures.  Think you're seeing one, 'imaginary' man?  Hey Snowy [points at screen].  What kind of guy is THIS?  ['POOF'] [play face]

 

Now I am not buying anything a habituator sells me.  I'm not down for i-have-proof-and-I-sell-you-smoke.  I better see the proof before the money goes down.  But other than that...oh, I get it.

 

But the ones who seem to be trying to wish sasquatch into existence through negative thinking....didn't work with the pony when you were little.  Won't work now.

[dmaker]

The larger point I'm trying to make is many things are considered outlandish or even impossible for long, long periods of time until the time comes when that thinking is overturned, and quite suddenly.  We see it happen over and over in all fields of human knowledge, but yet we think every new question is unique and history has nothing to tell us to help our predictive abilities. In that regard, we are all really quite stupid as a race of beings. I find myself having to push really hard against that tendency in my own behavior. I see some who don't push back at that at all. I don't think you can ever push too hard against that predisposition, especially when all you risk is looking foolish if you are not proven right, ultimately. Science should push against that harder than any other discipline we could name, in my opinion. The litany of "nevers" that came to pass is a long and shameful one.

 

I read a quote yesterday I agree with, and I can't remember where or by whom, but the jist of it was don't rule anything out as improbable unless it violates the laws of physics. Well, our favorite topic of discussion doesn't do that, as far as I can tell.  Would you agree? (And let's leave aside the whole notion of parallel universes, string theory and the possible ebb and flow of the time/space continuum, shall we?)

I agree with you, to a point. And that point is when all the pushing back gets you precisely no closer to your goal after a time, then perhaps you're backing the wrong horse. And yes, I can practically hear DWA screaming proof does not arrive on your schedule, got a train to catch?, etc, etc. But the absence of any single piece of confirmable BF evidence to date tells me something important. That there is most likely not a Bigfoot out there. 

 

And while our favorite Monkey does not ( once you get to brush aside the fringe claims because they just muck up the water) outwardly violate the laws of physics, it is pretty close. It moves and leaves no trace. It is there one second, gone the next. It is everywhere, but no where. It's poop vanishes into thin air. Upon death, it's corpse somehow disappears without leaving any trace behind. It has an almost infinite color and feature variation. It can sense man made devices and avoid them. Except for when it doesn't, but even then it can make itself blurry so that pictures are guaranteed to be unclear. It is bipedal and 12 foot tall. It is shy and aggressive. The list of extraordinary abilities and contradictory behavior and attributes is pretty long for this simple forest creature that really breaks no laws of biology or physics. Sure maybe not, but it stretches quite a few of them imo.

Edited June 4, 2013 by dmaker