Misidentification

[Guest DWA]

NARCAP

 

http://www.narcap.org/Technical_Reports.html

Bada-bing.

 

If many people are reporting something; nothing appears wrong with them; there is nothing telling us that they are lying or misrepresenting what they saw; and what they are reporting is consistent...then the strong basis exists for the application of the scientific method to the phenomenon to figure out what is causing the evidence!!!!! to happen.

 

Done.  Stop arguing with this.  The earth isn't flat either, just in case you were saving that one up.

[dmaker]

And for decades most of the scientific community dismissed the stories from the native peoples about small people the size of Hobbits as nothing more than folklore and myth.

 

 

But now we have Homo floresiensis.

You are woefully missing the point Larry. Stories of homo floresiensis are not proof of its existence, or even evidence of its existence. The physical evidence that exists now is evidence of its existence. It doesn't matter how many stories predated the actual discovery. They are still just stories and are not, and never will be, proof of existence. For that you need, well, actual proof. 

[ohiobill]

I see we are going to have to do this the hard way. Let's go for a ride....no... sit in the front seat. I'll sit back here. :-)

 

But, I would just suggest to you that you aren't listening to me in your haste to repeat back to me what I've already said, and which I've already told you I agree with. 

 

You don't want to see the word, "scientific" come within a country mile of the word "evidence" as used to describe many categories of information cited here. Got it, check....but then, get this too: It still is evidence. It is just not the kind you put any weight on, or even care to dignify with any glimmer or recogntion as such.  Go on, you can say it!  When you do, you only recognize the process that any reasonable person employs as he/she tries to bring order to the world around them.   

 

Really and truly, if we don't have a common agreement on even what words we are using to classify information we want to discuss, there is no hope of progress on any front.

I will meet you in the middle - I believe you think eyewitness accounts of sassy, dogmen, fairies and chupacabras are evidence of existence of these creatures because your background has conditioned you to do so. 

 

I don't, I believe that eyewitness accounts of sassy and the like are just that - interesting observations which we can use for data. If the accounts are good we can design an experiment to test the data but it's just unverified data at this point - not evidence. We obtain evidence during testing that either proves or refutes our theory or just shows we had bad data to begin with.

[Guest DWA]

But the source must be considered.

[dmaker]

It is evidence of existence.  This is getting tiresome, gang!

 

What it is not is proof, and continued inability to distinguish between the two isn't helping the discussion any.

With what - definitely not the evidence - does anything in this post have to do?

But is not. It is, strictly speaking, nothing more than evidence of the fact that people report seeing bigfoot. That is it. What that implies or suggests, etc is open to interpretation, but anecdotal reports prove nothing other than someone reported seeing a bigfoot. 

 

Why is that so hard to understand?

So, moving on, once we agree that all such reports are, by definition, evidence (Yes, yes, NOT scientific evidence....) you get to your criteria for considering the weight you give it, if any.  Any care to give this question by John Green a whack?

I'm not following the question. Time estimates for what exactly?

[WSA]

Bill...strictly speaking...and I do think a certain rigor in word usage would make us all happier...accounts of the things you describe ARE evidence of existence. Or of hallucinations. Or of misidentifications. Or of prevarications.  You get my point, I'm sure.   

[Guest DWA]

[because sometimes ...you know...]

Edited April 29, 2014 by DWA

[WSA]

dmaker...times (that is, duration) of the sightings in his database. As his analysis showed him, the duration of the sightings by male witnesses exceeded those of females, which was contrary to his original hypothesis.

 

I just throw that out as only one of many interesting tidbits you can tease of out of this information that illustrates some degree of consistency you might not expect to find if these were random, fabricated or delusional artifacts of the witnesses. 

 

Dare I say it as well: What he was doing was trying to apply scientific methods to this information, one of the ways anecdotal evidence can be tested, in a limited fashion. Wouldn't you think such a thing would have value, if not to just prove your own points on its value?

Edited April 29, 2014 by WSA

[Guest LarryP]

You are woefully missing the point Larry. Stories of homo floresiensis are not proof of its existence, or even evidence of its existence. The physical evidence that exists now is evidence of its existence. It doesn't matter how many stories predated the actual discovery. They are still just stories and are not, and never will be, proof of existence. For that you need, well, actual proof. 

 

The point I was making was that the stories were dismissed as myth and therefore the scientific establishment didn't even bother to investigate.

 

But as it turned out the stories which were summarily dismissed were true.

 

So the discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until very recent times in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as BF are founded on truth.

 

Which is why it is very important from a purely scientific perspective not to dismiss all of the thousands of reports on BF. 

[ohiobill]

So, moving on, once we agree that all such reports are, by definition, evidence (Yes, yes, NOT scientific evidence....) you get to your criteria for considering the weight you give it, if any.  Any care to give this question by John Green a whack?

Again, I don't agree at all with you or John Green about this. Eyewitness reports can only be considered unverified data until testing is done. The testing results MAY be evidence either for or against any theory proposed or may prove nothing at all due to bad data. 

 

I REFUSE to agree to believe in the existence of fairies, alien UFOs, loch ness monster, dogmen, sassy or the like solely on the basis of anonymous and anecdotal eyewitness accounts but I can't nor will I try to stop you from doing so.

 

I truly believe it is possible for sassy to exist - we know of over 300,000,000 bipedal hominids existing here in the US already and I actually love the PGF but we have no proof and eyewitness accounts aren't evidence. 

Bill...strictly speaking...and I do think a certain rigor in word usage would make us all happier...accounts of the things you describe ARE evidence of existence. Or of hallucinations. Or of misidentifications. Or of prevarications.  You get my point, I'm sure.   

I don't believe they are evidence of existence! I can only say it so many times and ways - YOU may believe in alien UFOs, dogmen, fairies, chupacabras, the loch ness monster or sassy solely on the basis of eyewitness accounts but I do not! 

[salubrious]

Just a FWIW: I agree with Ohiobill and dmaker through much of this. I am the first to acknowledge that I have zero proof of my experience. It was something I was keenly aware of when I left the scene (didn't want to be on the same side of the glass as the creature was to take the photo, FWIW...).

 

At the same time I also agree with a lot of WSA's and LarryPs positions, and to a certain degree DWA, evidence continues to be evidence even though it is not compelling to some.

 

IOW both sides are right. **Any** person who has had a bona fide experience will acknowledge that instantly. I find it odd that they are the single group that seems to be able to see both sides so easily. Odd, but easy to understand. Look at how Bipto describes his sighting in his podcasts. 

 

As a result this is what I tell anyone who is truly skeptical (and not a skoftic): "That is a good position to take. However you will find that if you ever **do** have a real encounter, that whatever world view you have in this regard will go out the window in a heartbeat. If and until then, don't worry about it and enjoy the woods :)"

[dmaker]

"So the discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until very recent times in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as BF are founded on truth."

 

 

Why?

[Guest LarryP]

Because the data produced by cataloging all of the reports is valuable.

 However you will find that if you ever **do** have a real encounter, that whatever world view you have in this regard will go out the window in a heartbeat.

 

Ain't that the truth!

[Guest DWA]

The point I was making was that the stories were dismissed as myth and therefore the scientific establishment didn't even bother to investigate.

 

But as it turned out the stories which were summarily dismissed were true.

 

So the discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until very recent times in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as BF are founded on truth.

 

Which is why it is very important from a purely scientific perspective not to dismiss all of the thousands of reports on BF. 

I could mention that you virtually quoted a scientist in your second-to-last sentence.  But that would be lost on some here.

[WSA]

I'd just suggest Bill that the reliability of eyewitness accounts are subject to analysis just the same as any other classification of evidence, although, admittedly, whatever the results are they will not be nearly as compelling as some other kinds of evidence. Still, there is not such a thing as evidence that doesn't have some value, at some level, for some purpose. For instance, it could be used equally by opponents, as it is proponents.

 

If I were so invested in the point of discounting all this information as useless, I for one would be very keen to show there are no such patterns or consistent meaning in any of it. Seems like a rather simple and quick way to slam-dunk the hypothesis of BF, doesn't it? Why no appetite for that? That seems like an obvious point that invites a rebuttal, wouldn't you agree?