Guest DWA Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Again, I'm seeing over and over again the inability to get arms around what science does with evidence. Of course anonymous claims are provable! Do I even have to explain this? To someone who knows anything about science, well, no, I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) ^^ Please follow through on your boast. How would you prove the following claim? I saw a bigfoot in my backyard last night. Better yet, " I saw a deer in my backyard last night" Proceed please... Edited May 2, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 ^^^Yes, maybe, if you could only back that up with something I could swallow. But as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) I think a scientist would and should view the question quite differently dmaker. Not, "Did you see...", but "Could you have seen.." The first question is, of course, quite unprovable, even if a BF is bagged and tagged in that same yard, the next day. The second question is provable by the subsequent event. It is the second question I have interest in, not the first. The second one is posing the proof of the animal, not the proof of the sighting. Proof of a sighting is of no consequence to me and, I agree, is quite impossible. In point of fact, this may just be the yawning gap between what you ask of a sighting report, and what I ask. Edited May 2, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) ^^^Yes, maybe, if you could only back that up with something I could swallow. But as usual. Do you ever follow through on any of your bold claims here? So this is just another case where you throw something out there and then back off when asked to demonstrate. I agree with you mostly WSA. However DWA insists that anonymous reports are provable. He will, of course, not demonstrate this as it is impossible. There is a big difference between investigating and proving. Edited May 2, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Wrong, dmaker! No soup for you! Come back...ONE YEAR! I agree with WSA. That's exactly what I meant. But of course we're on the bigfoot-skeptic thang again: this thing which is irrelevant is true...so bigfoot isn't real. Splitting the split of a hair to win a nonexistent argument is not what I'm about. Getting to the bottom of this, which thinking like you're displaying never will? THAT's what I'm about. Anonymous anecdotal evidence is provable by the confirmation of the thing that's being reported. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 ^^ Incorrect. Proving that a deer exists is not the same thing as proving that I saw one last night in my backyard. Great white sharks also exist. Is that good enough evidence for me to claim I saw one in my backyard? Of course not. You cannot prove an anecdote of that type. Just admit it and stop trying wriggle around your own statement to the contrary now. Even if footie were to be discovered tomorrow, it will not prove a single report in the database. It would just prove that bigfoots exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 You guys. IF BF is ever confirmed, I expect you two will just move on to disputing what it is, and what we should call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Loathe as I am to get involved (man, I really don't want to...) but this whole endless and pointless debate should really be seen within its proper context. The arguments put forward by our erstwhile scoffs are merely an extension, no, simply a base model of, the bog standard philosophy of the empirical movement: nothing is true but that which is personally experienced and thus all is false until one has experienced it oneself. This is somewhat ironic given the topic! To argue that (as the scenario was put) a purported sighting made by A just before a confirmed encounter by B should be disregarded is just cod-empirical tosh and just plain obfuscation: experiences such as this are ignored only by the foolishly stubborn...this kind of reasoning is a pseudo problem: creating a problem when one really doesn't (need to) exist and just for the satisfaction of trying to prove one's superior grasp of reality. Anyway, what I'm trying get at is that far from being guardians of the one true and righteous reality, the scoffs are merely regurgitating a centuries old mode of philosophy, subject to as much spin, bias and faults as any other thought of by man. They may be right after all, (who knows?) but context is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Define, if you will please, " confirmed encounter"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 You impute thought processes to me in which I do not engage. I consider other reports data and evaluate them accordingly. My only bias is the reverse of the denialist's bias. Since I know them to exist, I'm past the question about whether or not the subject of the report can exist to begin with. Shed of that "burden" I then evaluate the report for consistency, degree of confidence, and value. None of the reports I read have any value to me with regard to proving bigfoot's existence. That's no longer a question for me. As a matter of fact, I generally don't go out of my way to read reports at all any more, because the vast majority only say I saw or heard a bigfoot here at this particular time and place. That is meaningful geographic data, and if the bigfoot happens to have some sort of distinctive coloring, that can add value with regard to possibly tracking that individual, but the statement "I saw a bigfoot" is a big "So what" to me because it provides little or nothing in the way of new information for me, little or no value, no matter how reliable it is. I will tune into a report if it engenders discussion due to ancillary data that may provide additional insight into their behavior, intelligence, how they interact, etc. This is more meaningful to me and has greater value. And if a report includes Fortean aspects, I assign a low rating to it with regard to consistency, degree of confidence, and value. When a bigfoot is caught, you will marvel. If that bigfoot, after being caught, demonstrates the ability to mindspeak, I will marvel. I apologize to you (and anyone else who has had an encounter) if you thought I felt you are purposefully applying a subjective bias - I truly believe you are not. Your comments and background lead me to believe you are approaching the subject with objectivity. I should have stated that I feel you (or anyone with an encounter) can't help but have a subconscious subjective bias towards reports (especially those that are similar to yours) due to confirmation bias just like most normal people. I have never heard of denialist's bias and could find no info on it with a quick search. Is it a cognitive bias like confirmation bias? I also don't understand how you (or I) could objectively evaluate the non Fortean reports for consistency, degree of confidence or value? If you mean you compare it to yours somehow wouldn't that be just the same as deliberately applying confirmation bias? I understand tracking the date of the report, geographic data and even color but I believe weather (availability of water) and available food sources at the time should be included if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I think a scientist would and should view the question quite differently dmaker. Not, "Did you see...", but "Could you have seen.." The first question is, of course, quite unprovable, even if a BF is bagged and tagged in that same yard, the next day. The second question is provable by the subsequent event. It is the second question I have interest in, not the first. The second one is posing the proof of the animal, not the proof of the sighting. Proof of a sighting is of no consequence to me and, I agree, is quite impossible. In point of fact, this may just be the yawning gap between what you ask of a sighting report, and what I ask. Scientists view both as pointless since they want something concrete to examine - not ponder existential possibilities like philosophers. It's why sighting reports aren't evidence and why despite continual braying by some on this forum they never will be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 (edited) If one took the time to study both the history and the application of the scientific method you would see that philosophical thought has and still does play a huge role in science as a human activity. The view of scientists as rigid automatons tied to a strict set of 'right' methods is patently false. Edited May 3, 2014 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Even if footie were to be discovered tomorrow, it will not prove a single report in the database. It would just prove that bigfoots exist. And there you have it, folks. Even if BF was discovered and proven to be a real creature that looks and acts just like all of the thousands of BF reports in the database claim BF to look and act, it still won't confirm anything in the database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Scientists view both as pointless since they want something concrete to examine - not ponder existential possibilities like philosophers. Wow! You need to let Professor Linde know that ASAP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts