Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[dmaker]

Reading anonymous anecdotes while refusing to understand the weaknesses inherent in that form of evidence, particularly in a field that has a long history of hoaxing and lies,  is not " basic science". It is confirmation bias hunting. 

Why study anything Dmaker?

You consider reading anonymous bigfoot reports to be "studying" something?

[Guest DWA]

Why study anything Dmaker?

Really.  Knowing and speculating based on knowledge, and reading up on something to see why so many people have a view different from yours on something to which you are, um, er, devoting A LOT OF EFFORT! if I only say so myself, is sooo booooooooooooooooooo-ring.  Never thought of that did you.  I mean, we have examples right here of how booooooooo-ring it must be.

Edited June 3, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

^^ I would like oil and vinegar please with my word salad.

[WSA]

If you are interested in this subject (and if you are not, boy are you wasting lots of your own time, IMHO) you are forced out of necessity to study the evidence you have at your disposal.  Some is better than other, some worse. Rather than sit down in the dirt and bang my fist about the evidence I wished I had, I consider what I can do with what I DO have. When I do that, I'm interested to see what I can tease of it. I know, how scientific of me, huh?

Edited June 3, 2014 by WSA

[dmaker]

^^ But you cannot be certain or even moderately positive with anything that you "suss" out of it since you have absolutely no reliable method to ascertain whether ANYTHING in any given report is even truthful. Especially when the subject at hand has a long history of deceit.  The "truth" that you perceive is simply what you want to see. There is nothing that can be reliably called truthful in an anonymous anecdote. Nothing can be tested or demonstrated. There is no objective truth whatsoever 

 

 

 

You might as well be leafing through the Sunday funny papers.

[Guest DWA]

^^^And then there are, um, these guys.

 

Intent and application have merit.  Just sayin'.

[WSA]

I say again, "If you can't trust yourself to know good information from bad, I can't help you much, but don't think your limitations are shared by all. They aren't."

 

You're just going to have to leave it to those who have that ability, and that is really all I can say about it. Since you don't think this ability exists, it shouldn't bother you nearly half as much as it does to know that I do. It doesn't bother me much at all to know you don't. Really, I'm good with that.

[dmaker]

They are not " my limitations". They are simply objective fact. It is not my limitation that an anonymous anecdote may contain fact, it may contain fiction,  but that there is no way to be certain of one or the other. The truth of them is impossible to determine. IMPOSSIBLE. Not possible if you apply enough bigfoot wisdom or whatever. No, impossible means it cannot be done. 

 

I am quite sure that you do not have magical powers. You cannot say for certain what is true in a report and what is not. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

I say again, "If you can't trust yourself to know good information from bad, I can't help you much, but don't think your limitations are shared by all. They aren't."

 

You're just going to have to leave it to those who have that ability, and that is really all I can say about it. Since you don't think this ability exists, it shouldn't bother you nearly half as much as it does to know that I do. It doesn't bother me much at all to know you don't. Really, I'm good with that.

Yeah.  Um, it's actually kind of scary not to have this ability at some level, and many either don't or don't think they do.

 

Scientists are no better than the rest of us, particularly when they are asked to Pronounce As Expert.  They may have more technical training than we do in a tiny corner of the scientific enterprise.  But one thing a lot of people don't seem to understand - and evidence is copious - is how little a lot of scientists actually understand about Science, the overarching discipline, and about how it works when the scientist is confronted with any problem other than:

 

This thing you know + this thing you know = this thing you now know

 

...which is more than 99% of the science actually done in the world.

 

I could name you some names.  (Sharon Hill, come on down!) But when it comes to this topic, some scientists - and all bigfoot skeptics - actually appeal to "science" as a bunch of people who all profess a willfully untested belief in the same thing, rather than as a discipline devoted to expanding our scope and depth of knowledge.  

 

NAWAC is doing bleeding-edge science.

 

And if one doesn't know that, I don't care how many degrees one has.  One doesn't understand - outside of one's narrow discipline - how science is conducted.

 

And done.

 

It's the appeal to a mainstream that even a lot of us laymen can see simply are not applying themselves that is the anti-scientific attitude on this topic.

Edited June 3, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

"This thing you know + this thing you know = this thing you now know"

 

Right. And how do you "know" , i.e. determine the truth of a matter? You test it. You attempt to falsify it. None of this can apply to an anecdote. You cannot "know" the truth of an anecdote since it cannot be tested to determine the truth. It is not scientific evidence. Therefore you are not "knowing" anything by sifting through hundreds or thousands of them other than people report seeing, hearing and smelling what they describe as bigfoot. But you cannot ascertain the objective truth of even a single report therefore you are only "knowing" that the report was filed and what was claimed. Beyond that, all you have is cool story bro. Any claims otherwise simply demonstrate that you do not understand the true nature of anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. Which I find odd for a self proclaimed scientist.  

Edited June 3, 2014 by dmaker

[WSA]

Well, dmaker, until you've seen Doc Watson play, "The Columbus Stockade Blues", you might consider that quite impossible as well. Me, I've seen it done, more than once too. Keep on paying attention, and you might just get there. Cheers!

[ohiobill]

Bill...you are right, sorry. I got my threads mixed up there, while jumping back and forth yesterday.

 

But....I find that (like with anything) anyone's experience with the situations described will inform their interpretation of the content. You choose to see this as "reading something into it", while I prefer to view it as "using and expanding on  what I already know."   The process is cumulative, or should be. There are people who just have more knowledge than others about certain things. You have that in some areas, I'm sure, as do I. If our subjective experiences in life don't match up, there is nothing either of us can do about that, but it is far, far from a reading comprehension issue. 

 

For instance: I don't know what you do for a living, but I defend personal injury lawsuits. I could hand you a deposition of neurosurgeon and ask you to read it. If I asked you what it meant, depending on your own experience in such matters, you'd be able to give me a wide range of interpretations, and some of those would likely be wrong. Am I  "reading something into it" if I point out all the points in the testimony you missed? I don't think so.  Pick any field of human endeavor, and you could make the same points. Your occupation? Probably could point out a ton of stuff I don't see. Way it goes. Some folks know more than others, and it pays sometimes to listen to what they say. Here we are in the midst of the great information revolution where everyone gets to substitute their opinion for anyone else's. It is an asinine way to approach serious subjects, if you ask me.

 

These folks making these reports? They know things. Count on that.

 

That is why I don't put much stock in anyone who wants to give an opinion who has not immersed themselves in both the evidence and the context of where it was gathered. This includes lots of time on the ground. If you tell me you have that, fine.  We are just different cats is all.

No problem, I'm sure it's easy to make mistakes about which thread you're posting in when you jump around so much and so many posts are similar. I think it only proves that it's possible many sassy reports could be the result of simple mistakes like you made by other distracted folks. In the absence of actual evidence all we can debate are possible mistakes. We can't point to verified hair or scat or bone or DNA because there is none to date. All the encounter reports have yielded no results - even those that have witnesses saying they are positive about what they saw, shot, or collected. 

 

As your posting mistake yesterday illustrates, it's easy and common for even lawyers to make mistakes about all kinds of things. It stands to reason that a cumulative process of reading into reports where mistakes can be made can only lead to cumulative mistakes and should be guarded against if possible in my opinion. It's known as cognitive bias and is well documented in the literature if you'd like to research it. It's why even someone with your experience and knowledge can misconstrue a simple statement like "I don't want to read a sassy encounter" into "can't" or "haven't" rather than correctly reading it as written. You can guard against cognitive bias if you try but it's influence on our perceptions has undoubtedly lead to many mistakes in this field and even in court rooms. 

 

If even trained lawyers are so easily susceptible to human mistakes like posting in the wrong thread or applying cognitive bias to internet discussion or sassy reports I'm not sure that occupation is all that important when it comes to dealing with anonymous sassy reports. While we all have a lifetime of knowledge and experience some may be more prone to mistakes or more susceptible to jumping to the wrong conclusion. I think that's why we each have to examine the reports for ourselves and why it's so important to look for corroboration when possible. As a lawyer, I'm sure that you would expect a police report when dealing with property damage or an accident report when dealing with a traffic accident. Do you think it's unreasonable to expect the same of sassy reports? Would you expect someone to call 911 and speak to the police about a large threatening presence in the local park that had them scared terribly? Would you expect claims of property damage caused by a sassy to be investigated by the police? 

 

I think you are spot on in your assessment of internet opinions being untrustworthy. It's why I'm so keen on corroboration and why I find it astounding that so many aren't. I've never been a fan of folks who claim to be able to divine the truthfulness of a report just by reading it. Some reports leave me saying it's possible and some make me ask for what should be easily available documentation if the claims are true. I guess where we differ is that I ask questions or for documentation while you don't. As for boots on the ground I'm not sure how to answer? Never stood idly by while sassy climbed all over my roof or tore up my fence if that helps? 

[Guest DWA]

"This thing you know + this thing you know = this thing you now know"

 

Right. And how do you "know" , i.e. determine the truth of a matter? You test it. You attempt to falsify it. None of this can apply to an anecdote.

 

Sure it can!  And does!  NAWAC followed anecdotes right into a mess a bigfeets!  And they've all seen one!  (You're jealous aren't you.)  Anecdotes are testable:  this thing can be found here.  If you, um, you know, like, LOOK.  "He did it, Your Honor!" is a testable premise at the very heart of our legal system.  It's tested by what we soffistikates call a "jury trial."  Anecdotes in zoology, gorilla, dingiso, saola, thank you, are tested by what we call "field work."

 

You cannot "know" the truth of an anecdote since it cannot be tested to determine the truth. It is not scientific evidence.

 

Been over this.  That is PROOF.  That's what "scientific evidence" is.  That's what you call PROOF.

 

Therefore you are not "knowing" anything by sifting through hundreds or thousands of them other than people report seeing, hearing and smelling what they describe as bigfoot.

 

But some of us do other things with them, mystical, magical, hard to understand brain stuff.  Thinking.   Sorting.  Collating.  Checking against our experience.  Noting that nothing like this has ever happened that hasn't been proven eventually, so when a critical mass gets interested, this will be too.  Brain stuff.

 

But you cannot ascertain the objective truth of even a single report therefore you are only "knowing" that the report was filed and what was claimed. Beyond that, all you have is cool story bro. Any claims otherwise simply demonstrate that you do not understand the true nature of anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. Which I find odd for a self proclaimed scientist.  

 

Which I'm just showing my chops on once again.  While you are illustrating WSA's well-painted picture of your, um, problem with all this.  Chicken on the menu today.  Doc in the background.  Yum yum.

[WSA]

Bill...I must of missed the part where I said I'm infallible. Wish it were so. You?  As for the signifigance of my clerical error, I think you make much of little.

 

But, if your fears of your own infallibility keeps you from posing a question on anything that you'd like to know more about, well then... what help have I for you?  You are then shown to be of the ranks of the terminally incurious, and that is just not easily overcome via an internet board. No hard feelings, if so, but that is the point where we should disengage on this topic.

[Guest DWA]

But Bill's infallible, WSA.