Guest DWA Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Why does nobody ever point out that all Bigfoot eye-witness evidence comes from a self selecting sample, and that this must obviously be factored in when attaching any weight to the number of sightings? How are thousands of people who knew there was no such thing - and now know differently - a self-selecting sample? People show their indifference to the evidence in interesting ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 2, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted June 2, 2013 I still believe it is much more likely the majority of BF sightings occur randomly and are not self-selected. Now among those that frequent BF forums that have already had sightings, and among those a sample of those with habituations...... were to be the reference instead and you were looking at those that believe in infrasound or in BF self-generating eye glow or something..... well then maybe you would have something. Despite the crowd that believes certain "chosen" ones are examined closely before BF "shows" his big feet...... I believe the majority of sightings in databases are randomly generated to an extent. Now if you want to argue only those without a job to lose and mouth to feeds are excluded more often in sampling such as LEO's or Military officers or something well then you might have something of a self-selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 self selecting sample is a false assumption. No it isn't. How so? You've made a positive claim. Please provide proof of this claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 LarryP: this is not how it works, man. They get to make up for the lack of a position, or anything that could support one, by tossing any crap at the wall they want. Look at the rule book again, dude! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 LarryP: this is not how it works, man. They get to make up for the lack of a position, or anything that could support one, by tossing any crap at the wall they want. Look at the rule book again, dude! You know me by now DWA, I was just trying to follow their positive claim versus negative claim "rule"s That's from their "book". It's this type of open discussion that eventually leads to new Scientific discoveries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 For sure science never advanced on scoffing. Skepticism, yes. That would be the kind that says: I'm very skeptical of your claim that we know everything there is to know, particularly about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 How so? You've made a positive claim. Please provide proof of this claim. It plainly is. Anyone who wants to submit a Bigfoot sighting report, can. It's not like anyone has asked 10,000 people and found that 100 have seen Bigfoot. The reports come from people who have chosen to make them. How is that not a self-selecting sample? Even if you believe Bigfoot exists, you have to admit that everyone who wants to lie about seeing Bigfoot can and will easily do so and add to your wealth of eye-witness evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 So. Since craziness exists in the world, I can accept that ^^^^you are? Not how it works. That's a claim. You have to prove everything is a fake. Shoot, I'd be happy with enough of those that I'd have to doubt the remainder. Don't worry. Nobody's holding their breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 No, DWA. We went through this last week. No one has to prove eye witness reports are wrong because that is not the type of evidence that is falsifiable in practice. And it is not the type of evidence that can prove anything anyway, so it really doesn't matter. I believe you even said, Oh I don't ask people to do that. Ahem, really? Then what is the above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Wrong. We did go over this. Eyewitness testimony is falsifiable. Laziness is inadmissible as an excuse. it is as simple as: "I saw XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!" "Oh, you mean this? [shows picture] "that's a yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy." "Oh." Eyewitness testimony is falsified in court all the time. You can too disprove it. If you can't...then step aside and join the chorus telling scientists to do their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) Yes, but we are not talking about a courtroom, are we? And no, anecdotal reports are NOT an example of testable, falsifiable evidence. You can claim they are all you want, but you will still be mistaken each and every time you do so. But it's ok, I got your back. I will have no problem reminding you when you get it wrong. Edited June 3, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 No, we're not talking a courtroom. One can kill people with eyewitness testimony or imprison them for life. But prove a simple ape? [slams fist on table] THIS! IS! SCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNCE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh. OK. Nah, I'm right, but it's nice to have the proof (i.e., total absence of an argument that would make anyone change his mind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 So if no one has an argument that makes sense to you, then you consider your point proven..by you and all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Pretty much. I mean, until and unless you are willing to actually talk about evidence, and not just spin skeptical yarn. I mean, we have talked that stuff out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Actually, I'm more than grateful that people of dmaker's mindset predominate. If you attach validity to words, are able to astutely gauge credibility, appreciate congruency of narratives across age, gender, occupation and geography, can rationally extrapolate related events to probable outcomes, and follow anecdotal evidence to proof, you would be a good candidate to enter the practice of law...competition I don't want or need, thank you very much! (DWA...watch it man. You are getting waaaay to close to me. Back off!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts