Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 One wonders about the wisdom of clinging like grim death to a thesis for which one has no evidence and which one cannot prove. One thing that is not is skeptical. One thing it is is...well, it's a topic we don't discuss on the BFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Again, on an unrelated but interesting note, the BBC aired a documentary last night on Crick and Watson and the search they and others undertook for the structure of DNA. Unlike their rivals C and W made a conscious decision to DISCUSS their ideas endlessly and explore all avenues in that manner...apparently they would just talk and talk and talk things through until they'd worked stuff out. A refreshing and very open-minded way to be scientific and thank goodness for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I had the opportunity to host James Watson and his wife Elizabeth for dinner at West Point back in the 90's. Very interesting guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) Unlike their rivals C and W made a conscious decision to DISCUSS their ideas endlessly and explore all avenues in that manner...apparently they would just talk and talk and talk things through until they'd worked stuff out. A refreshing and very open-minded way to be scientific and thank goodness for it. If science is sifting possibilities to get down to what the evidence supports, that sounds like it. In fact C and W are as good examples as exist of what I like to say a lot: Almost all science is working with knowns, combining one thing you know with another you know to get a third thing you now know...except for the science that wins the Nobels. Unfair overgeneralization, maybe. But it does say something about the extent to which the true unknown figures in the vast bulk of scientific endeavor. Edited December 31, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I had the opportunity to host James Watson and his wife Elizabeth for dinner at West Point back in the 90's. Very interesting guy. But apparently terribly shy around women at parties, unlike Crick who used to host some pretty 'interesting' get-togethers by all accounts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 On a similar vein to C's tale, I question how this BFRO report could be either a hoax or a misidentification .... Misidentification? The bigfoot was observed running up to the witness and stopped only 40-50 feet away. Hoax? Compare how the witness describes his friend's movements in the deep, ice-covered snow w/what this bigfoot did. That leaves open a lie, but there appears to be little reason for someone to create such an elaborate tale. That is one of many, many consistent reports for which I have three explanations: sasquatch; hospitalizable mental malfunction, or big fat lie. Anyone thinking one of the other two has to prove it; and if they can't...what reason do I have to chuck the story for what they think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Your bird analogy is flawed in that it is the interpretation of the data that is done by skilled individuals; I am not suggesting that knowledge of Bigfoot makes a report more credible. In a bird survey the starting point is that people are not lying about the birds they see; experience tells us (presumably) that they do so in insignificant numbers so the credibility of the witnesses is not the point at issue. The bird analogy isn't flawed at all, particularly on that point in bold. That is the starting point for all assessment of all evidence in all fields in which evidence is assessed. One is showing clear and illogical bias in reserving a separate judgment for a category for which one a priori just kinda sorta maybe feels that starting point inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Stan, I didn't speak with him much. The biologists and sycophants had him cornered at one end of the table. He was enjoying the attention, on a professional basis, from the attractive civilian biology professor on our faculty. I spent my time with Elizabeth in social conversation. She was very attractive, significantly younger than he (though somewhat older than myself at the time) and seemed to virtually worship him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Stan, I didn't speak with him much. The biologists and sycophants had him cornered at one end of the table. He was enjoying the attention, on a professional basis, from the attractive civilian biology professor on our faculty. I spent my time with Elizabeth in social conversation. She was very attractive, significantly younger than he (though somewhat older than myself at the time) and seemed to virtually worship him. Maybe those parties worked their magic! Lovely anecdote by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 With a woman like Elizabeth on his arm, and devoted at that, he had no need to be shy at that point in his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanV Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Is it possible to get this train back on the tracks? Anyone have a report to share? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) [A] large number of the reports in the BFRO database detail a clear and unobstructed view of a bigfoot. It seems to me that there are some who believe that the majority of reports could be misidentifications, but the truth is that in many of these cases a person would be hard-pressed to misidentify a known animal, given the situation and unobstructed view, often accompanied by other corroborating evidence as well...such as footprints. This is just another reason why I believe the sighting record holds so much value. If one believes that a majority of reports are false, one would perforce have to believe that they all are. It simply isn't logical to presume otherwise; if the animals are real there is no logical reason to believe that most reports are faked. People are simply seeing them. It is also simple logic that for any phenomenon like this, unreported encounters probably outnumber reported by a sizable multiple. Again, if one does not believe that, one believes that the data is not only false but actively constructed i.e. faked by the organizations compiling reports. It's just the way the world works. Most people seeing something, and it absolutely does not matter what, don't report it to any authority. Right? Right. This will be far more true when the societal default presumption is that the thing doesn't exist. Simple logic is also why one can safely presume that people misidentifying known animals are an insignificant source of reports. People simply don't do that. They search for knowns when encountering an unknown, not the other way around. There isn't even any point in discussing this. It's intuitive. Problem? Use your own life experience as your guide. If you would consider that in any way "normal," it'll make you see this. Edited December 31, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted December 31, 2013 Moderator Share Posted December 31, 2013 Worse, their position is based on nothing more than their own belief system. They can't prove their own negative hypothesis, so they regress to attacking all evidence that does not support their own belief based, negative hypothesis. A logical fallacy known as Circular Reasoning. Is it possible to get this train back on the tracks? Anyone have a report to share? OK- I have one. I've not got much input from skeptics on this, and I am curious if this is a head scratcher. It certainly is for me. If we can throw out the explanations of drugs (I don't even drink) and fatigue (I was driving for no more than 2 hours): http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/29115-colorado-sighting-of-two-bf-in-the-road/ The original interviews were taken down, but I think you can get a pretty good idea of what went on just reading the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 That is one of many, many consistent reports for which I have three explanations: sasquatch; hospitalizable mental malfunction, or big fat lie. Anyone thinking one of the other two has to prove it; and if they can't...what reason do I have to chuck the story for what they think? DWA, That sums it up about as concisely as it can be summed up. If some day we get a flood of admissions from all of these "witnesses" that they were just funnin' us w/some tall tales, or a source comes forward and reveals that he/she ghost-wrote every single BFRO encounter report, I'll have a beer and hang up my spreadsheet. There are certainly individual reports that I find problematic, and certainly different readers of every report can come to their own, independent conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 " One wonders about the wisdom of clinging like grim death to a thesis for which one has no evidence and which one cannot prove." DWA I love when you are not intentionally trying to be ironic. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts