How Many Normal (Relatively) Intelligent, Adult, Witnesses Without A Prior Agenda Does It Take To Have Any Provative Weight Towards The Unknown?

[Guest]

Well, they would...but...

http://texascryptidhunter.blogspot.com/2013/05/alleged-black-panther-hair-analysis.html

So why not send them to Texas Parks & Wildlife instead of Biology departments?

Re: #285: I think we have some better evidence now on madness in bigfootery. Thanks for pointing out that you're the skeptic who makes no assumptions. Makes perfect sense to me.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Saskeptic

[Guest DWA]

I bet he's already tried that...and knowing what I know about that agency, I wouldn't either.  "Waste of time" is spelled numerous different ways.  Texas Parks and Wildlife knows what is in Texas, and knows that this will never change.

[Guest DWA]

 

OK, now we're getting back into the kind of stuff that WSA and I have been trying ...and as he says, trying like mad...to get away from.

So why do you keep making the same mistakes?

 

What?  Like pretending I'm arguing with you?  Because you guys are just so fun.  Sounds like it's wearing on WSA.  But I don't smoke or drink to excess or sleep around.  (Not saying he does, now.)  I need a vice.

 

"Craziness exists and lying exists, so all these people are lying or crazy" is a flat non-starter.  Sanity and clear-headed objectiveness exist too.

It's also a strawman, because that's not what I said.  Although it might as well be for all practical purposes.  I'll see if I can make it even simpler for you:

 

Lying exists.  Misidentifications - no craziness required, that's you saying that - exist.  Sanity (again, why?) exists.  Clear-headed objectiveness exists.

 

All of these things exist.  This is why anecdotal accounts have limited utility in the assessment of unknown phenomena. All you can do is use those accounts to develop a hypothetical picture of the thing you're trying to evaluate so you can design field methods with the potential to reveal it.

 

Wow.  That sounds like something I have said about a thousand times here.  Weren't we "getting somewhere" a few posts back?

 

And as to all of this "search protocols are a boring old hash hash hash," well here's an assumption for you, and as good as any of yours:

Search protocol discussions are not boring.  What's boring is your arrogance to suggest that now that you and WSA are here somehow we can have these important discussions, because none of us rubes have thought to discuss such things in the past.

 

So where are we after all this "discussion?"  NAWAC is there; and I didn't even see them thinking about it before I suggested it to them.  Now who would be so arrogant as to presume I was the first that ever suggested it to them?  Well, not me for one.

 

Sasquatch would be confirmed by now if the people who should be doing it, were doing it.

Huntster, is that you?  Remember when I explained that you with your bear rifle would be much better equipped to do this than would me and a graduate student?  Yeah, you kept back-pedaling with the excuse that you didn't have a "bigfoot license" and were worried that you'd run afoul of Alaska Fish & Game.  Ahh . . . good times, ol' buddy.

 

Naaaaah.  That's the "varsity?"  O. 

 

M.

 

G.

 

The people who are supposed to be doing this are the ones who say "no way" from armchairs.  If they don't see it as their job, no skin off mine.

 

(edited because Lord knows we don't want any arrogance here;   arrogantly presuming people you don't know are wrong about something they are adamant that they saw seems quite enough)

 

 

Edited June 17, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

Saskeptic, I think your approach to the evidence confounds me for a basic reason. You are hardly alone in your approach to it though. The experience I've had in 25 some years of cross-examining expert witnesses  is that somewhere in the education and training (or maybe these fields pre-select certain personalities) some individuals...all, like you, articulate, bright, well-read and eminent in their fields... adopt a strict binary analysis of whatever proposition or evidence they are asked to consider. DWA has a good shorthand expression for this in action here: "No toe tag attached? TOSS!" Call it the horse-then-cart approach, all things in their proper order, right?

 

So, most of what we have to deal with every day as humans in a society of people follows this logic, pretty much. Every once in a while though, our experiences don't fit a strict yes/no analysis. When this happens, just how strongly a person can hold on to the comfort of this approach can't be overestimated. You're doing it here, I would strongly suggest, and your  training is not doing you one bit of good in overcoming it. IF you are interested in a more productive approach to the evidence at hand, that is.

 

Now, before you go all high-dudgeon on me about what I presume to know about you, etc., let me just interrupt you and tell you something I can predict with a high degree of accuracy: You don't like to pretend. Hypotheticals are not a comfort to you. Well, at least this one is not, and of that I'm very certain. Because if you could keep the hypothetical of the existence of Sasquatch truly alive in your mind you would not dismiss so out of hand the evidence you do.  No, you wouldn't, or couldn't do that.

 

All here who do not claim to have experienced an encounter with a Sasquatch, which includes me and you, can either entertain the hypothetical of their existence, or we can shut out all evidence that intrudes on the position they do not. A crucial difference for those who REALLY keep this question open (And you sir, sorry, do not. You made up your mind long ago, it is clear) is we get the best of both positions. We get to weigh each new bit of evidence against what we've already seen. We are able to admit to inconsistencies, but also delight in new information that jibes with other, otherwise disconnected, events. We put ourselves (or try to anyway) in the place of those having the experiences, and compare those to our own. In other words, we get to learn. And what, exactly, are you learning  here, might I ask? Are you merely learning that people are foolish? That they offer a great deal of amusement to the truly learned?  If you are holding out for the body, a piece of one or a fossil, you can count on seeing it when that happens, wherever you are, I assure you.  We get that there is none at present, I can assure you of that as well.

 

In the meanwhile,  some here get to see how profoundly the worlds of honest people have been changed by irrevocalbe knowledge. By any objective standard, it is a large and rich experience, and doesn't hurt a bit. OTOH, those who have decided this is a yes vs.no, type specimen vs. none determination miss out on this completely. The whole “If BF existed we’d have a piece of one by now† idea is as big a pair of blinders as any man of learning can wear. When you give that up, you open yourself up to a much larger world. It is not antithetical to scientific analysis either. Indeed, as our friend DWA is always quick to point out, it is closer to the ideal of what real scientific inquiry is as anything else you could propose.

 

 

[dmaker]

So the lack of a single piece of biological evidence ( despite the thousands of reports from all parts of North America) is not a telling indication to the existence of the species, but is instead a "blinder" that one must get over before one can truly open up to the possibility?

Sorry, that does not compute for me.

[Guest DWA]

When anyone tells me that a silent "consensus" of people united in their resolve to sit on their hands and do nothing trumps honest, earnest people united in nothing but their conviction that their eyes weren't playing tricks on them....

 

...well, Mr. RedQuote down there pats himself on the Nobel and whispers:  I got a little bet here.  Listen, and remember that history tells you I'm right.

So the lack of a single piece of biological evidence ( despite the thousands of reports from all parts of North America) is not a telling indication to the existence of the species, but is instead a "blinder" that one must get over before one can truly open up to the possibility? Sorry, that does not compute for me.

We know.  You and saskeptic.  And WSA pretty much outlined precisely why.

[Guest DWA]

 

Now we're getting somewhere, and maybe we can get into the meat of the matter focusing on where our perspectives differ.  The cornerstone of the skeptic/proponent divide is that skeptics think there's been ample opportunity for better evidence and actual proof of bigfoot to have come to light by 2013 (or in my case, by about 1813).  Proponents disagree, and lament that the amount of effort expended to actually find bigfoot has (obviously) been insufficient to do so.

 

All right then.  Now we can start a series of discussions on field expeditions, trail cams, paleontological surveys, biological inventories, etc.  Each one can be a separate thread if you like. To me, what matters in these discussions is to examine how other species have been discovered, and I mean that in the scientific sense, i.e., how the physical specimen was obtained that served as the holotype for the species.

 

OK, now back to this.

 

How do we want to start this?

[dmaker]

 

When anyone tells me that a silent "consensus" of people united in their resolve to sit on their hands and do nothing trumps honest, earnest people united in nothing but their conviction that their eyes weren't playing tricks on them....

 

...well, Mr. RedQuote down there pats himself on the Nobel and whispers:  I got a little bet here.  Listen, and remember that history tells you I'm right.

So the lack of a single piece of biological evidence ( despite the thousands of reports from all parts of North America) is not a telling indication to the existence of the species, but is instead a "blinder" that one must get over before one can truly open up to the possibility? Sorry, that does not compute for me.

We know.  You and saskeptic.  And WSA pretty much outlined precisely why.

 

I'm sorry, but how do you know they are honest and what they may, or may not, be united in? As already pointed out to you, those are assumptions as well.

[Guest DWA]

So, the assumptions simply remain untested?  I believe in testing untested assumptions rather than assuming and walking away.

[dmaker]

^^ It depends. If it is a report I am reading online about a sighting that happened 1,000 miles away, then personally I am going to do nothing about it. If it's my neighbor talking about the woods that I normally walk in, then I'll keep an eye out the next time I am out there. If it's a government agency then I would not expect much more response. I don't know exactly what you think anyone serious SHOULD be doing with each report? They are what they are, that is it. In the lack of any real physical evidence for Bigfoot, we don't get to elevate the anecdotal evidence beyond where it should be: fraught with potential human errors, lies, and mistakes. Therefore of zero use to prove a species and to be used cautiously ( in my opinion) for other things like profile building,etc. And even then if you took all the reports and tried to build a biological profile of this creature, well what you end up with is pretty ridiculous. But we all know that we're allowed to use our BS detector with BF just as long as it's only tuned to the paranormal aspects. When we turn it up too high, it beeps loudly on everything.

[Guest DWA]

Actually, nope.  Leave anything out of it that science can't do anything with at the moment, and what is left is about as biologically plausible as anything needs to be to be worth researching.

 

I doubt all of this was ginned up by a pack of wildlife biologists, primatologists and anthropologists with nothing better to do.

 

But the smart money is either that, or an unlisted animal.  Ramdom people aren't hallucinating, misidentifying or lying random stuff that is all coming together like this, and strewing tracks all over North America - all of this in places one would expect an animal like this to be seen - just for...well, what precisely would be the motivation?  People love to lie about what they saw when the lie will bring ridicule?  Oh, OK.

 

I'm a skeptic.  I just have a kneejerk tendency to doubt explanatiions like those.

[dmaker]

Well that is where we differ. The biological reality of the creature may be possible, but not plausible. What is more plausible (to me) is that people are lying, mistaken or being hoaxed.

[Guest]

Ah yes, the inevitable "let's psychoanalyze Saskeptic post."  Thanks, but you guys are late to the party on that one too.

 

 "No toe tag attached? TOSS!"

 

Please define for me what you mean by "TOSS!"  I have many times described that I take interest in anecdotal accounts, and that they are the most compelling type of bigfoot evidence for me.  They are the reason I still come here, every day.  The mere fact that people say they have seen bigfoot, however, is insufficient to convince me that it does.  As I'm sure you understand, the plural of anecdote is not proof.

 

 

When this happens, just how strongly a person can hold on to the comfort of this approach can't be overestimated. You're doing it here, I would strongly suggest, and your  training is not doing you one bit of good in overcoming it. IF you are interested in a more productive approach to the evidence at hand, that is.

 

So my "security blanket" is to deny the existence of bigfoot?  And I need that because . . . why?  My personal worldview can't handle being tossed upside down or something?  I can't "handle" bigfoot being real or something?  This isn't even decent Saskeptic fan-fiction, because it's completely at odds with my motivations as a biologist.

 

My career has been largely built around finding things that other people didn't realize were there.  I consider bigfoot the #1 such thing in the world, so I can assure you that I consider the possibility of its existence very carefully.  But here's something that non-scientists can't seem to get about scientists:  We maintain all the wonder and awe and curiosity that as kids drew us to science in the first place.  But we also don't just blow around from idea to idea without a firm grounding in what we know.  If new data come along that really does upend the apple cart, then we acknowledge it, celebrate it, and move along. If bigfoot is discovered tomorrow, I'll be thrilled to shout from the rooftops that I was wrong all these years. 

 

You don't like to pretend.

Bwaahaaahaaa!  That would be the response of my kids, students, wife, family, & friends to your characterization.  0-1.

 

Hypotheticals are not a comfort to you. Well, at least this one is not, and of that I'm very certain.

How could you be certain of that yet apparently ignorant of the many pages of hypotheticals I've written about bigfoot?  0–2.

 

Because if you could keep the hypothetical of the existence of Sasquatch truly alive in your mind you would not dismiss so out of hand the evidence you do. 

If I dismissed evidence out of hand I might agree, but I don't so I don't. 0–3.

 

And you sir, sorry, do not. You made up your mind long ago, it is clear . . .

Ooh - 1–4!

 

I make no apology for that either.  The threshold of evidence I would consider to convince me of the reality of bigfoot is the same threshold needed to demonstrate that it exists to the satisfaction of my colleagues in the ICZN. The only question is whether or not there has been ample opportunity for that threshold to have been met.  In my experience, there has, and many, many times over.

 

And yet, people keep claiming to see the danged things.  There are multiple explanations for those claims that do not require the actual existence of real bigfoots, but they do keep life interesting.  Thus, while I am fully convinced that there is not now, and never has been such thing as a "bigfoot", I guess I'm secretly hoping that I'm wrong, and that one day I'll get to enjoy living in a world in which we know there are bigfoots.

 

And what, exactly, are you learning  here, might I ask?

Back in the glory days of the BFF, I considered my time here of great educational benefit to me.  It gave the excuse to study human evolution, bipedalism, paleontology, physical anthropology, and a host of other cool -ologies.  It gave me practice in exchanging ideas with people with markedly different experiences and expectations from my own.  If you think I come here to laugh at the sillies who think they've seen bigfoots, then you've misread me yet again.  1–5.

 

The whole “If BF existed we’d have a piece of one by now† idea is as big a pair of blinders as any man of learning can wear.

Nice!  So is Triceratops extinct or extant, and how do you know? 

 

The fact that you remain ignorant of how biologists make decisions every day about what is with us, what is not, and how we know that is why you see that statement as untenable.  Unlike some people, I won't accuse you of madness if you don't agree with that assessment, but I can assure you as a biologist that it is very well supported.

[Guest DWA]

 

Well that is where we differ. The biological reality of the creature may be possible, but not plausible. What is more plausible (to me) is that people are lying, mistaken or being hoaxed.

 

How is it implausible? What is implausible about it? Might as well call the polar bear implausible because of the sun bear; the caribou implausible because of the red brocket; the snow monkey implausible because of the talapoin. What is so implausible about a temperate-zone ape?

That it's running around all this territory with no one seeing it? LOTS of people are seeing it. No one charged with the proof believes anyone who says that they have. What's so implausible about something remaining unconfirmed if that is the scenario? How are a scant handful of scientists who believe these people and have full-time jobs doing something else going to prove this, all by themselves, unless they get luckier than I am aware anyone ever has, including lottery winners?

I'm really not seeing what's so implausible about this. We are right where I would predict we would be if this scenario were laid out in front of me as a hypothetical, and I were asked: so, think this is confirmed yet?

 

(edited to show - despite the software's worst efforts - whom I was responding to)

Edited June 17, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I'm not sure why you think it has to be a scientist that drags in a carcass, other than that notion gives fuel to your treadmill. There are numerous ways this could be proven that do not require a single scientist to be in the field actively searching. And many of these ( in my opinion) have statistical probabilities that have long since been stretched beyond what is believable. That no one, anywhere, has ever found a single, verifiable piece of a large, highly noticeable creature that eats, breeds, migrates, fights, dies AND apparently interacts with us quite often in all parts of the continent, is well extremely fanciful. That is highly implausible.