Misidentification

[JDL]

I really don't think 'objective' means what you think it means.

 

Back atchya.

Within the practical context of this forum, I would say that those who speak from belief are less objective than those who speak from careful analysis.

 

Some evidence is clearly hoaxed and must be objectively dismissed.

 

Some evidence is inconclusive and cannot be used to prove existence, but neither can it be used to disprove existence.  An objective individual acknowledges that the question of existence is open.  One who states that all inconclusive evidence can be dismissed, and therefore existence is disproven, is not speaking objectively, they are speaking from personal belief.

And finally, some individuals, and even groups, have had clear, unmistakable encounters.  For these people the question of existence is no longer at issue, I among them, having been within touching distance more than once. 

 

Still, though I know conclusively that they do exist, I acknowledge that until someone else stands face to face with one, the question of existence is still valid for them.

 

But to have someone tell me that I am mistaken, for no reason other than that they believe that bigfoot do not exist, is amusing, and at times insulting.

[dmaker]

^^ Thanks for your candor. I find that your viewpoint is quite reasonable.

 

. If it cannot be explained by hoax or human then the question becomes what else could have made the track?

 

 

This is a key example of where I think the logic employed in this phenomenon start to veer off the tracks. The correct answer here is simply " I don't know". If the track is too ambiguous to nail it down to any known animal by qualified experts ( not necessarily Joe six pack having a picnic with his family), then it is either not distinct enough or have enough shape integrity to be properly identified as coming from any animal. Period. Once you open the door to well if it can't be explained then it must be bigfoot, then that is when things fall apart. Wild speculation in place of " I don't know" gets you nowhere useful. It is part of what leads to every tree break, and every noise in the night being attributed to bigfoot. 

[dmaker]

IOW I think you are being somehow overly strict with your definition of 'evidence'. I think you will find that as humans, we all exist as reason and meaning -making machines, such that we often have made-up stories about things in life and life itself. What I am pointing out here is that it appears to me that you have a made-up story about what constitutes 'evidence'; IOW it exists only out of your definition and no other. I am not asking you to change it BTW, just try on the idea that your definition excludes actual real examples of evidence. If you can do this, does your conclusion that BF does not exist still seem safe?

My definition of evidence is not mine alone. I am simply referencing scientific evidence. As has been stated here many, many, many times this is evidence that can be analyzed using the scientific method. As in it is testable and falsifiable. 

 

Almost all of the evidence for bigfoot is not scientific evidence. It is mostly circumstantial or anecdotal. Even when we have examples of what could be scientific evidence ( such as biological samples), upon examination they produce results of known animals or something synthetic like carpet fibers in the case of hair analysis. Or in other cases the samples are too damaged or contaminated for any kind of conclusive result. 

 

Never has any reputable scientific source proclaimed, " Wow, this is really something interesting here!!"  No, we don't get that. We get murmurings of unknown primate DNA that never seem to hold up under scrutiny. 

 

The definition of scientific evidence is not a made up story of my own that exists solely for myself. I have offered basic wiki links in this very thread that explain this pretty clearly.

[dmaker]

But to have someone tell me that I am mistaken, for no reason other than that they believe that bigfoot do not exist, is amusing, and at times insulting.

I understand you. And I understand where you would feel insulted. I probably would too in your shoes. For that, I apologize. Of all the claims made by various different people here ( and the constant lecturing and chiding by one ), it is yours that I find the most difficult to easily dismiss. Not because I believe for a second that bigfoot exists, but because my impression of you as a person ( and your background) is that you are intelligent, logical and rational. But even that is allowing myself to fall into a logical fallacy. Frankly speaking I don't know you any better than anyone here really knows each other.  You seem to be what you say you are: a rational, intelligent person that attended West Point, etc.  But I don't know any of that for a fact ( I'm not saying it is not true, just trying to illustrate an objective point).  But just because it is easier to dismiss a claim made by a foamy mouthed lunatic does not validate the identical claim made by a calm, rational person. I have to bear that in mind. It is fallacy that is easy to fall prey to. 

 

It comes down to the evidence for me. It does not matter who is making the claim when there is no evidence that can be used to support it, I must still dismiss it. I am not going to hazard a guess at an explanation for your sighting. That would most likely insult you and I have no wish to do so. I can only hope that people understand that my interpretation of the evidence is that bigfoot exists solely as a social construct. From that conclusion flows alternate explanations for anyone's bigfoot sighting. It does not matter who they are or what they claim.  In fact, it is that aspect of this phenomenon that I find the most interesting. The propagation of the myth. 

Edited April 30, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

My definition of evidence is not mine alone. I am simply referencing scientific evidence. As has been stated here many, many, many times this is evidence that can be analyzed using the scientific method. As in it is testable and falsifiable. 

 

And again the confusion of "evidence" and "proof" (the latter being defined ^^^here).  Misapplying terms many many however many times doesn't make one right.

 

Almost all of the evidence for bigfoot is not scientific evidence. It is mostly circumstantial or anecdotal.

 

Irrelevant to the discussion.  It is voluminous and consistent, two traits recognized by science as announcing the legitimacy of a topic for in-depth investigation.

 

Even when we have examples of what could be scientific evidence ( such as biological samples), upon examination they produce results of known animals or something synthetic like carpet fibers in the case of hair analysis. Or in other cases the samples are too damaged or contaminated for any kind of conclusive result. 

 

As has been said here many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times:  all that says is that the samples aren't what those specific samples are purported to be.  Nothing else can be said, assumed, postulated or otherwise by a reasonable person.

 

Never has any reputable scientific source proclaimed, " Wow, this is really something interesting here!!"  No, we don't get that. We get murmurings of unknown primate DNA that never seem to hold up under scrutiny. 

 

That is not all that we "get," as has been reiterated, in detail, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times here.

 

Nor is the opinion of any "reputable scientific source" that has demonstrably not reviewed the evidence worth a tinker's dam in a scientific discussion.  There are many on these forums whose opinion is worth far more.

 

Come on.  Get with the discussion.  We passed this chapter long ago.

[dmaker]

^^ So much for the reasonable, non-antagonistic portion of today's discussion.

 

Thanks DWA

[dmaker]

"As has been said here many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times:  all that says is that the samples aren't what those specific samples are purported to be.  Nothing else can be said, assumed, postulated or otherwise by a reasonable person." DWA

 

 

Your above comment was in regards to results of analyzing alleged bigfoot samples. My question is, why does consistency not matter here? You lecture on the consistency of the anecdotal evidence daily. Well every single time an alleged bigfoot sample has been submitted and analyzed it has consistently returned a result that is not bigfooty in any way.  

 

Yet in this case it is unreasonable to postulate anything?   ...interesting...

[JDL]

I understand you. And I understand where you would feel insulted. I probably would too in your shoes. For that, I apologize. Of all the claims made by various different people here ( and the constant lecturing and chiding by one ), it is yours that I find the most difficult to easily dismiss. Not because I believe for a second that bigfoot exists, but because my impression of you as a person ( and your background) is that you are intelligent, logical and rational. But even that is allowing myself to fall into a logical fallacy. Frankly speaking I don't know you any better than anyone here really knows each other.  You seem to be what you say you are: a rational, intelligent person that attended West Point, etc.  But I don't know any of that for a fact ( I'm not saying it is not true, just trying to illustrate an objective point).  But just because it is easier to dismiss a claim made by a foamy mouthed lunatic does not validate the identical claim made by a calm, rational person. I have to bear that in mind. It is fallacy that is easy to fall prey to. 

 

It comes down to the evidence for me. It does not matter who is making the claim when there is no evidence that can be used to support it, I must still dismiss it. I am not going to hazard a guess at an explanation for your sighting. That would most likely insult you and I have no wish to do so. I can only hope that people understand that my interpretation of the evidence is that bigfoot exists solely as a social construct. From that conclusion flows alternate explanations for anyone's bigfoot sighting. It does not matter who they are or what they claim.  In fact, it is that aspect of this phenomenon that I find the most interesting. The propagation of the myth. 

 

Fair enough, but an interesting day is coming eventually.

[dmaker]

My definition of evidence is not mine alone. I am simply referencing scientific evidence. As has been stated here many, many, many times this is evidence that can be analyzed using the scientific method. As in it is testable and falsifiable. 

 

"And again the confusion of "evidence" and "proof" (the latter being defined ^^^here).  Misapplying terms many many however many times doesn't make one right." DWA

 

 

Sorry DWA, but you must still be confused for some reason. I am simply saying that bigfoot needs more evidence of the kind that can be analyzed using the scientific method. That does not mean it is proof. Though it is the type of evidence that can prove the case, no doubt. For example, blood samples can be analyzed using the scientific method.  They can be tested to see what animal they came from. They can be proof of many things, including bigfoot.  Submit a blood sample of a cow and it is proof that the sample came from a cow, but it is still the type of evidence that can be properly tested. It is not proof of bigfoot, it is proof of a cow,  but it is still scientific evidence.  Surely, you must be able to understand this. I am not saying bigfoot needs more proof, I am saying it needs more evidence of the type that can be properly tested. i.e. not anecdotes.

 

If you insist on not grasping this point and insisting that I am demanding proof, then I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. Saying bigfoot needs more scientific evidence to test ( whether that evidence proves bigfoot or not), is not the same as what you seem to be accusing me of.  Please take a moment to try and comprehend the difference. 

Edited April 30, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest Darrell]

^^ So much for the reasonable, non-antagonistic portion of today's discussion.

 

Thanks DWA

Since when does reason and not being antagonistic ever stop a proponent?

[Guest LarryP]

Meaning you're arguments are the epitome of carefully measured reason, Darrell?

[dmaker]

" Fair enough, but an interesting day is coming eventually." JDL

 

Obviously I disagree and have seen this sentiment more times than I care to count from proponents in this phenomenon. But if it were to come, I'd happily eat my due share of crow and marvel in amazement at the discovery just like everyone else.

 

I won't be holding my breath however  

[Incorrigible1]

My greatest disdain isn't for skeptics, but rather those that claim special knowledge but are conveniently bound not to reveal said secret knowledge.

 

Stick a fork in 'em, they're overdone.

[Guest]

The topic of misidentification is not really that, nor from the discussions on any number of threads that involve, or devolve into the misidentifcation subject. It is a topic that is really which category of liar, idiot, fool, or mentally ill category , the believer, proponent, or people that lean toward believing their own senses should be lumped into. From what I have read, that is the only real question that is considered by those who aren't liar,k idiots, fools, or mentally ill and have never been forcefully sometimes and unwillingly initaited into the subculture of whatever the quoted meaning thereof was. The subject always boils down to the same thing. How do you wished to be insulted?  There aren't that many things that are in play. Either someone saw something or they didn't. If they saw something, they are either mistaken, or delusional, or they are really stupid. Stupid in, as not being able to tell the difference between a bear at close range and a something else. Insulting as condescendingly saying a person with a lifetime of outdoors experience and highly intelligent doesn't know the difference, again at close range between a man in a monkey suit or a something else. I haven't seen any unknown creature yet. I have heard an unknown sound, which I cannot explain in any logical manner, which has changed my own opinion on whether that unknown sound could have come from an unknown creature. I would rather be called a liar, or a nut, or mentally ill than be called imcompetent to tell the difference between a giant unknown creature and any known creature. I choose the liar, first moniker, then nut, then mentally ill, in that order. But It isn't my call to make. The label will be applied by the judger.

[Guest]

dmaker

You are asking for "scientific" evidence. So I was wonder how you feel about footprint casts that show dermal ridges. This is something that can be examined scientifically by experts. Would those fit your criteria?