Guest Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Area X: where're the results? Much effort, no results. Next week's episode of Ghost Hunters will offer more evidence of their hypothesis gathered over far less time with far fewer people. Edited February 20, 2014 by Pteronarcyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 They have spooky sounds and footprints. Also hickory nuts. What did you expect pictures? Get real dude these are wood apes they know when the cameras are around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Area X: where're the results? Much effort, no results. Define "results." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 You know, just sui generis, I'd have to say nobody with the NAWAC owes me jack. They don't owe anyone else for that matter, if I may be so bold as to declare. That idea is rather a presumptive one to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 They have spooky sounds and footprints. Also hickory nuts. What did you expect pictures? Get real dude these are wood apes they know when the cameras are around. Well, yes, the uninformed do have heavy sledding in this heady world of open science. A working acquaintance with the evidence clears that right up. At least if I went on an astronomy website and said, please. A buncha calculations tell you that's a black hole? What have you been drinking? I'd sound smarter. You know, just sui generis, I'd have to say nobody with the NAWAC owes me jack. They don't owe anyone else for that matter, if I may be so bold as to declare. That idea is rather a presumptive one to me. Nothing I see here is more smh than that. It's like my black-hole comment deserving (AND IT DOES!) the concerted attention of the astronomical community, followed by a webinar set up for my convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Open science You mean where scientists publish in journals. With methods alongside their results and conclusions and anyone so inclined could replicate the work the scientist did? Where is all this NAWAC evidence that can clear everything up? I will give them credit that their "charitable" group is actually doing some charity work with their adopted road. Still waiting on that conservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Open science You mean where scientists publish in journals. With methods alongside their results and conclusions and anyone so inclined could replicate the work the scientist did? Where is all this NAWAC evidence that can clear everything up? I will give them credit that their "charitable" group is actually doing some charity work with their adopted road. Still waiting on that conservation. No. Now wait. You don't even know what "open science" is...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science It is not the sharing of results and conclusions. It is the sharing of research and information. A yawning gulf of distinction there. I'm also wondering what the use is of attempting to preach to deaf ears by trying to knock down the doors of a mainstream publication. Open science isn't for the illiterate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Define "results." Maybe a thermal image of that monkey on your back would suffice. Seriously though, if it were possible to see what you've been shooting at, even if you didn't collect it, that might be considered some results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 "open science began in the 1600s with the advent of the scientific journal" from the Wikipedia article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 ^^^...and as a scientist once said to me: Scientific fact is a set of provisional truths, backed by evidence. I was looking for it and haven't found it yet. But on John Hawks' weblog is an excellent example. Hey, he says; we've found this. We're not too sure what all exactly we've found, and pretty sure we don't have, on our little team, the total range of expertise we need to tackle this. So we're putting out the word. What is your expertise, and how can you contribute? Let us know , and welcome. It would be wonderful if anthropologists and primatologists with open minds would pitch in and help NAWAC, which right now has its vacation time and personal funds to work with. So far, though, not happening. Whoops, just happened to run into this: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/08/21/out_in_the_open_some_scientists_sharing_results/ An excerpt: CAMBRIDGE - Barry Canton, a 28-year-old biological engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has posted raw scientific data, his thesis proposal, and original research ideas on an online website for all to see. Clearly there are risks to doing that (as Derekfoot and bipto could tell you). But they're getting a lot of help too. And they might even be able to use some of it. That's open science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Well, the Hawks thing I cite above has seen a lot of work and restructuring since I left it last but here it is: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/blog/rising-star-expedition/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 ^ Spot on DWA. It is one of the great frustrations of this particular field that those participating ( as you say, on a purely voluntary basis, sacrificing precious time with family and friends or other commitments) are expected by those professing so-called scepticism to uphold the very highest, most rigorous, purely objective scientific standards at all times (like science has no subjective opinion!) and to never ever once have held a position or opinion contrary or slightly different to those that they now hold, whilst those slinging mud and flip-flopping from the sidelines are free to make unsubstantiated statements on topics about which they have no idea nor have spent any effort investigating. The discipline of science is not simply about publication....it's a tad more nuanced than that. Do they think that NAWAC owes them a personal explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotta Know Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 ^I suspect the mudslingers expect a lot of things they have no right to expect or even hope for. In this age of entitlement, it's really no surprise. What is a bit of a surprise is the lengths they will go to prevent all positive discourse on the BF phenomenon. Skepticism is healthy, welcomed and applauded. Constant attempts at train derailment, not so much. It's a peculiar hobby they've taken up, to be sure. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Almost all science is open science in the sense all most scientists publish journals that can be accessed by anyone. Not counting scientists who work for coperations, military, etc. I too feel bad to the poor nawac members who must use their vacation time to vacation in cabins and hunt for monsters. They should really get more than tax deductions and donations to help cover the expenses. It must be like working in a salt mine not like going out hunting for a week with friends during hunting season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airdale Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Plus on your last, GM. Excerpt from President Theodore Roosevelt's speech "Citizenship In A Republic" delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910 It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride or slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts