Makes No Sense...

[norseman]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Ummmmm......science?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

 

 

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. Since classical antiquity, science as a type of knowledge has been closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably.[4] By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy.[5] However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such aslibrary science or political science.

[dmaker]

...and Norse? point?

 

 

Since we're tossing quotes at each other:

 

"The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses theproblem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."  

 

 

" United States law also enshrined falsifiability as part of the Daubert Standard set by the United States Supreme Court for whether scientific evidence is admissible in a jury trial."

 

Both from :   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Edited May 31, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

...and Norse? point?

 

 

Since we're tossing quotes at each other:

 

"The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses theproblem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."  

 

 

" United States law also enshrined falsifiability as part of the Daubert Standard set by the United States Supreme Court for whether scientific evidence is admissible in a jury trial."

 

Both from :   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

You've said nothing that disagrees with me.

 

Unless one of those links says that eyewitness testimony doesn't qualify.  That link is wrong.

 

Not my fault that nobody disproved these accounts back when; not my fault that nobody is making the effort now.  Science makes the call, not me.

 

Science does not allow one to shirk the tasks science sets upon one, among which is substantiating or disproving claims made by the various contestants in a scientific debate.

 

It wasn't disproven - or proven - what these people saw?

 

Then that testimony is thus UNADDRESSED, and live in the discussion.

 

Nothing hard about this.  At all.

And putting this topic back ON topic (although I know the titanic dmaker/DWA struggles are the highlights of your day):

 

This is my issue with habituators who don't provide evidence.

 

Your stories are live in the discussion.  We neither confirm nor deny their truth.  But not only do they not jibe with the vast bulk of the evidence, but without proof, they are stories, and nothing more.

 

Which is (as I've said here) my issue with habituators selling books unless proof is in them:  false advertising; plus, I can read stories for free here.

 

 

[norseman]

...and Norse? point?

 

 

Since we're tossing quotes at each other:

 

"The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses theproblem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."  

 

 

" United States law also enshrined falsifiability as part of the Daubert Standard set by the United States Supreme Court for whether scientific evidence is admissible in a jury trial."

 

Both from :   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

When I put up arrows on my post? That means I'm addressing the post directly above me. In other words Bigfootdom should be held to the scientific standard if they are making claims about a unknown species.........

 

Not sure what point your trying to make with your Falsifiability link.

[Guest]

GuyInIndiana - he is not deciding how anyone can participate, he's asking a question.  No one is obligated to share anything including an answer to his question (which no one has answered other than the same old "we don't have to if we don't want to") but he is still entitled to ask it. 

[dmaker]

 

...and Norse? point?

 

 

Since we're tossing quotes at each other:

 

"The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses theproblem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."  

 

 

" United States law also enshrined falsifiability as part of the Daubert Standard set by the United States Supreme Court for whether scientific evidence is admissible in a jury trial."

 

Both from :   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

You've said nothing that disagrees with me.

 

Unless one of those links says that eyewitness testimony doesn't qualify.  That link is wrong.

 

Not my fault that nobody disproved these accounts back when; not my fault that nobody is making the effort now.  Science makes the call, not me.

 

Science does not allow one to shirk the tasks science sets upon one, among which is substantiating or disproving claims made by the various contestants in a scientific debate.

 

It wasn't disproven - or proven - what these people saw?

 

Then that testimony is thus UNADDRESSED, and live in the discussion.

 

Nothing hard about this.  At all.

And putting this topic back ON topic (although I know the titanic dmaker/DWA struggles are the highlights of your day):

 

This is my issue with habituators who don't provide evidence.

 

Your stories are live in the discussion.  We neither confirm nor deny their truth.  But not only do they not jibe with the vast bulk of the evidence, but without proof, they are stories, and nothing more.

 

Which is (as I've said here) my issue with habituators selling books unless proof is in them:  false advertising; plus, I can read stories for free here.

 

The link absolutely says that eye witness testimony does not qualify-- as scientific evidence. Scientific evidence must be testable, not just in principle, but in practice. Eye witness testimony does not meet that qualification. Ergo, it is not scientific evidence. Surely you must grasp that?

 

The point is not that no one disproved an account way back when, it's that no one is obligated to disprove an account. It is not testable evidence. In practice it cannot be falsified, so you cannot charge someone with proving or disproving it. It is what it is, an anecdotal account. Nothing more, scientifically.

Edited May 31, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

As I understand it, "scientific evidence" is tantamount to "proof."

 

Which is not what we are talking about here.

 

If the kind of testimony that could get somebody jailed for life is considered worthless to science...that's flawed, and the flaw needs fixin' fast.

 

I'm not asking this out of frustration, but a sincere desire to understand why you seem frustrated with people who won't behave in a manner that makes you comfortable.

 

Why do you (or anyone else for that purpose) get to decide how everyone else, witness, researcher, investigator, habituator, is allowed to participate in the highly undefined world of "bigfooting"? Why are they obligated to "do it this way or not at all"?

 

Well, you're right.

 

I don't consider a habituator's account any more proof than I do any single sighting report I read here.  But it eludes me how skeptical people can come onto a site like this, where every angle of this is getting explored, and basically appropriate it for their own purposes, to scratch their own itches or deal with their own pet peeves (in a rather peremptory manner I might add).

 

To me, the same objections tossed at habituators could equally apply to people who are told over and over again what the evidence says - because their posts clearly show they don't know - and keep coming back with the same old tired pseudo-objections long ago shot down.

 

I am sure as hell going to say what I think here.  But folks are free to disagree and go their own way.  It shouldn't be any different for people who, frankly, might be so fed up with all the cynical scoffing that they have stopped giving a crap who else knows if they do.  I'm pretty sure my first reaction to a sighting would be, skeptics, screw you!  I can laugh at everything I read from you from now on, because I know you're wrong.

 

(I mean, I know they're wrong now.  But you know.  ;-)  )

Edited May 31, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

 

 

 

Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence can create attention to a topic, but scientific evidence is what would provide a rational explanation.

Edited May 31, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest njjohn]

Eye-witness testimony can never be used alone. Not in science, not in court. Testimony is always anecdotal evidence as it requires physical proof to substantiate it. In science, everything is needs to be able to be replicable. 

 

That doesn't mean testimonials don't count at all, but they can't be held to a high regard on their own either. They have a place, but they need something else to support them. They are a good start or a good finish, but the meat of the evidence is going to come from the physical side of things. 

[Guest DWA]

No one's saying it should stand by itself.

 

It's unaddressed; and doesn't seem to be coming from people whose word it would be safe to dismiss if one is interested in this.

[dmaker]

Yes, but you were claiming that it is falsifiable and it is not. No way. 

[dmaker]

Look at it this way:

 

Testable report: There is a bear standing in the town square.    One can easily go and confirm if that is indeed true. 

 

Anecdotal report: I saw a bear in my backyard yesterday.      That cannot be falsified. It's simply a story told by someone. Now if I was interested in hunting bears and I had multiple of these, then yes that is a great place to start.   But there is no way to verify that that report is, in fact, true. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred of them saying the same thing.  They cannot be proven or disproven. You cannot charge someone with disproving something that is untestable and unfalsifiable.

Edited May 31, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

If it can't be proven and can't be unproven...it can't be dismissed.

 

"I saw a dragon yesterday."  Can't be dismissed.  How would you?

 

Now.  Show me the Dragon Database - with thousands of sober individuals from all walks of life saying they're real - and I might get more interested in it than that.

 

But there isn't one.

 

Kind of a Seriousness Indicator.

Yes, but you were claiming that it is falsifiable and it is not. No way. 

 

Well, just because people disagree with me doesn't mean they're right.  I mean, look right here.  ;-)

 

Falsifiable means that it can be falsified.  "I saw a bear yesterday." 

 

You mean, this?  (Shows photo)

 

"YES, THAT'S IT!"

 

Um, that's a Weimaraner.

 

That simple.

 

Just because people don't understand what a term means doesn't mean I have to agree. 

[dmaker]

^^ I agree. But you constantly charge people with disproving eye witness reports. That is a false charge. It cannot be done. They are untestable.  By your own words, " If it can't be proven and can't be unproven..."  Well eye witness reports cannot be proven or unproven. So stop telling people that they have to disprove every single eye witness report from now on please. That would be great. 

[WSA]

Eye-witness testimony can never be used alone. Not in science, not in court. Testimony is always anecdotal evidence as it requires physical proof to substantiate it. In science, everything is needs to be able to be replicable. 

 

That doesn't mean testimonials don't count at all, but they can't be held to a high regard on their own either. They have a place, but they need something else to support them. They are a good start or a good finish, but the meat of the evidence is going to come from the physical side of things. 

Not to get drawn into this particular imbroglio again....but your statement about eyewitness testimony is flatly untrue. It does not require backing by physical proof in a courtroom. All that is required is a person to raise their right hand and swear or affirm to tell the truth...and start talking. Is testimony backed by physical evidence more compelling? Absolutely. Required? No.

 

This is why I've always said there are folks on death row (and many of them rightfully convicted) put there by less evidence than there is for the existence of this animal. Juries have very little problem with looking an individual in the eye, hearing their story, and evaluating their credibility. This is a very useful and ordinary skill, which seems to be beyond the reach of the scientific community.