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

[dmaker]

WSA, I think your position on this ( solely my observations based on your posting history) is not as simple as " I don't know". And leave it at that. I used to sort of get that vibe from you, but lately I think you are leaning far more into the convinced they are real category.  It seems to me that someone who is merely "I dont know and leave it at that" would not start a thread about whether or not Bigfoot fight each other. I mean, that is up there with how many angels can fit on the head of a pin type discussions. 

 

I'm not knocking you at all, so please forgive me if you think that I am. I just call foul a bit on the "I don't know" position you are putting forward here. Some of your posts lead me, at least, to think you are more vested that that. And if I am wrong and you are just having a little intellectual musing about a putative Bigfoot's pugilistic tendencies, then great. But would that not be more for the campfire thread portion of the board?  

LOL. DWA, so even when science engages the evidence they are still wrong due to bureaucratic error and indifference? So really the only sources that can be trusted are Meldrum, Bindernagel and Krantz? And well any other scientists as long as what they say supports the current evidence?  Everyone else--liars or incompetent!

 

Nice.

Edited June 20, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

@DWA:  So, are you alleging fraud in Coltman and Davis' analysis?

 

@WSA:  I really don't know how many times I can explain to you that "I don't know" is probably my most frequent assessment of any anecdotal account.

[Guest DWA]

dmaker:  [sigh] believe what you need to.  Oh, the Unicorn Board just rang.  They're looking for a Resident Skeptic.

 

saskeptic:  you're using the "f" word, not me.  So.  What about the tracks?  What about the possibility that the hair isn't associated with what the NINE people saw?  What about your vouching for the NINE people's ability to ID bison hair?

 

Nothing counts for you, at all, but who the heck are Coltman and Davis that I would care, given those obvious holes in the story?  Oh.  OK.

 

And why does "I don't know" sound like "it's not real" when you say it?  ("Totally convinced."  Your words.)

 

We really don't know, WSA and I.  But when we see how stuff like this gets handled...oh, we can guess.

Edited June 20, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

DWA, the nuance between I dont know and totally convinced is not that difficult.

 

"Hey, cool story, what do you think they saw if not a Bigfoot?"

"I don't know, I wasn't there."

 

"Do you believe the current evidence for Bigfoot points to an undocumented ape in North America?"

"No, I am totally convinced such a creature does not exist based on the current evidence."

 

See the difference?

[Guest DWA]

Just wondering if you did.  Evidence suggests no.  Just sayin' here.

But at least you agree with me that you and saskeptic contradict yourselves.  Baby steps.

[dmaker]

I'm sorry, where is the contradiction in what I am saying please?

[Guest DWA]

Saying you're 'totally convinced' they're not real, but 'don't know.'

 

'Don't know' is the only solid opinion to have on this, as I think WSA and I make pretty clear.

 

(One major blinder of bigfoot skeptics is seeing true skepticism as true-believerism.)

 

I am still waiting for somebody who is totally convinced these animals aren't real - based on the evidence - to give me a reason why that makes an honest effort to assess the evidence.

 

But in this case we have been discussing, there is plenty of reason - plenty - to be skeptical about the finding.

 

Unless, of course, you are 'totally convinced.'  Which I never found a fun, flexible or intellectually open way to be.

[WSA]

I know you do Saskeptic. But I sense though that you've got two mental file folders, and the "I don't knows" in one, don't seem to intermingle with the contents of the other folded labeled: Scientific Evidence That Matters.  Is that just the way it has to be with you? If so, I've got to accept that.  Or am I misunderstanding? I've always believed the hallmark of an agile mind is the ability to contain contradictory thoughts simultaneously, but do they really have to be contradictory? I'm of the opinion they do not have to be, and you might agree.

 

Dmaker, basic rule of gathering information and testing of a hypothesis is all.  I'm not likely to engage anyone with a thread titled, "I Don't Really Believe You, But Give Me the Evidence Anyway." What is somewhat toxic about this board is the constant heretic hunting that goes on here, on both sides of the discussion. We all need to just cut that out, I think.   

[Guest]

saskeptic:  you're using the "f" word, not me. 

 

Your statement, from post 364:  "You are assuming that it [the suspected bigfoot hair submitted to Coltman and Davis] was tested.  Where in the account is it verified that the test they say was done, was done, particularly since I've heard things like "we threw it out" or "we lost it" more than once."

 

How can this be interpreted other than as a suspicion of fraud?

 

So.  What about the tracks? 

 

The paper mentions a footprint, not a "track" (although additional prints have been reported in the area that were not associated with this specific incident).   What about them?  There are a lot of outdoorsy people living in Teslin, Yukon.  So far, none of them have followed any track to a bigfoot.

 

What about the possibility that the hair isn't associated with what the NINE people saw? 

 

That is a possibility, and I addressed it.  All we can say is that the people were convinced that it was from the creature they claimed to have seen.  (I guess they were "fools".)

 

Nothing counts for you, at all, but who the heck are Coltman and Davis that I would care, given those obvious holes in the story?  Oh.  OK.

They are the molecular biologists from the University of Alberta who analyzed the hairs and published the results.

 

And why does "I don't know" sound like "it's not real" when you say it? 

Because no demonstration of fact registers with you unless it is a "fact" that you have decided is true according to your worldview.  That fact has been made evident since your very early posting history here at the BFF.

 

[Guest]

 Or am I misunderstanding?

 

Yes, and I don't know why. 

 

We have anecdotal data, and we have by some accounts thousands of examples.  Neither you nor I nor anyone in the world can provide an ironclad explanation for an anecdotal account.  It's tautological - if we could do that, then the data would not be anecdotal.  So if you tell me some great story of your bigfoot encounter and ask me what I think, I can only respond with "I don't know what you experienced."  I don't know.  I can't know.  I can only offer competing explanations and speculate that some might be more likely than others. 

 

To describe a new species, we need absolutes.  Again tautology - we need a physical specimen because this is what biologists decided long ago was needed to describe each new species. We have right now ZERO physical remains that can be tied to "bigfoot". 

 

So we have lots of potential evidence that might indicate that bigfoots are real, but we don't need a single real bigfoot to account for that evidence given the competing explanations.  We have no actual physical evidence that can demonstrate - no margin of error - that bigfoots are real, and we absolutely need a real piece of a real bigfoot to do that.

 

 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

 

saskeptic:  you're using the "f" word, not me. 

 

Your statement, from post 364:  "You are assuming that it [the suspected bigfoot hair submitted to Coltman and Davis] was tested.  Where in the account is it verified that the test they say was done, was done, particularly since I've heard things like "we threw it out" or "we lost it" more than once."

 

How can this be interpreted other than as a suspicion of fraud?

 

I don't see the word "fraud," anywhere in there.  (I wanna see if I can get away with it, too.)  And I certainly wouldn't rule it out.  See, I know that people with big Lance Armstrong, I mean, names, how DID that happen? have done, well, heh heh, let's just say "sfuff."  Why rule out two people who are, WHOOOA, MOLECULAR BIOLOGISTS, as if that itself puts them with the angels, particularly when the observations of NINE people seem to be getting swept under the rug?  Then of course there's just garden-variety botching or intentional or other sample-switching, which, MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! being Olympus, never happen.  OK, nice if true.

 

So.  What about the tracks? 

 

The paper mentions a footprint, not a "track" (although additional prints have been reported in the area that were not associated with this specific incident).   What about them?  There are a lot of outdoorsy people living in Teslin, Yukon.  So far, none of them have followed any track to a bigfoot.

 

So.  Did anyone say they had to?  Maybe they think it's enough that the animal's real and they know it?  That never enters the realm of possibility (hint:  count on it)?  The world is not on a 24-7-365 mission to satisfy bigfoot skeptics.  Or mainstream science, for that matter.

 

What about the possibility that the hair isn't associated with what the NINE people saw? 

 

That is a possibility, and I addressed it.  All we can say is that the people were convinced that it was from the creature they claimed to have seen.  (I guess they were "fools".)

 

You do insist on that, don't you, that implicit "those fools were extremely competent fools!"  If they were convinced, NINE of them, and YOU were convinced that they should know what they were gathering, then this, what, becomes an utter impossibility because of a couple of WHOA, MOLECULAR BIOLOGISTS who might be introducing - if someone in their office isn't - a little personal agenda into this?  Never happens, I know.

 

Nothing counts for you, at all, but who the heck are Coltman and Davis that I would care, given those obvious holes in the story?  Oh.  OK.

They are the molecular biologists from the University of Alberta who analyzed the hairs and published the results.

 

I have never heard of a fraudulent scientific paper!  And just plain mistaken?  Mon Dieu!  Shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED!

 

And why does "I don't know" sound like "it's not real" when you say it? 

Because no demonstration of fact registers with you unless it is a "fact" that you have decided is true according to your worldview.  That fact has been made evident since your very early posting history here at the BFF.

 

Pot, I got somebody to introduce you to.  Yeah, this is the guy who insists that the entire world takes bigfoot seriously...no, I MEANT...HEY, STOP LAUGHING...

 

[dmaker]

DWA, do you realize that you are doing the same thing that skeptics do and that you chide us for all the time? I say BF eye witnesses are either lying or mistaken.  Well, some scientists examined some BF evidence and reported back that is, in fact, a sample from a bison, not a Bigfoot.

 

Your response?   lying or mistaken.

Edited June 20, 2013 by dmaker

[Drew]

At least some Bigfooters can see that other Bigfooters are perfectly rational in their arguments.

[WSA]

Saskeptic...No, I think you misunderstand my misunderstanding. :-)  Your reply confirmed  for me that you view one body of evidence (anecdotal) as not of too much use to inform the other (absolute proof). I would put that in the "obvious" column in my understanding of you, but wanted to just remind ourselves of it. Your views of what is significant/useful/worth pursuing just don't comport with mine, nor do they have to, but it is helpful to appreciate we are not exactly pursuing the same things in our efforts. I'm seeing that more and more clearly, which is helpful too.

 

If I had to say why, I'd imagine it is because you are trained to pursue one aspect, and I the other. I am in the anecdotal business, after all. One is not better or worse than the other, really, just a different perspective and emphasis, and the two can lead you to different outcomes.  Your sine qua non is confirmation of the species to science, as I would naturally expect. I attach less significance to that than you, as do many here, I presuppose. That difference in perspective may have been a casualty here in all the rock throwing from both "sides."

."

If you do have a foot planted in both areas of evidence, and the anecdotal has compelled you to look harder for confirmation (and I believe it has, as you've said before), good on you.

[Guest DWA]

DWA, do you realize that you are doing the same thing that skeptics do and that you chide us for all the time? I say BF eye witnesses are either lying or mistaken.  Well, some scientists examined some BF evidence and reported back that is, in fact, a sample from a bison, not a Bigfoot.

 

Your response?   lying or mistaken.

Where'd I say that?  Can I see your translator again?  Sanskrit has some phrases that are different from English.

My mind is open to a possibility that seems significant given the evidence, among which I count very prominently the attitudes of people who just know they're right and that this isn't real because ...well, they can't articulate why but by gum they are right!

 

Oh.  OK.