Misidentification

[dmaker]

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.

You are woefully missing the point again Larry. All that I am saying is that anonymous anecdotes of bigfoot sightings are unprovable whether bigfoot exists or not. I am not making any statement about the existence of bigfoot one way or the other right now. I am simply pointing out that any anonymous encounter anecdote can never be proven. That is simply the nature of that type of report.  Swap bigfoot for a rabbit or a deer, makes no difference. You still cannot go back in time and place and prove or disprove what someone claims. There are, of course, other nuances that complicate it even further such as what one person sees is not necessarily what another person sees, but we'll leave those out of it for now since you don't seem to understand  the basic concept of the unprovability of reports such as these. 

[Guest]

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.

That's because "I saw Bigfoot" is a separate claim from "Bigfoot exists".

For example, I claim I see a deer in my back yard. Now, we know that deer exist for real and there's no debate whether they exist, but just because they exist it is not proof that I actually saw a deer in my back yard. In fact, that I live in metro Louisville it's a safe bet that I didn't.

Claiming that you saw Bigfoot is the more extraordinary claim, requiring more extraordinary evidence to support the claim as Carl Sagan would put it.

[Guest LarryP]

You are woefully missing the point again Larry. All that I am saying is that anonymous anecdotes of bigfoot sightings are unprovable whether bigfoot exists or not.  you don't seem to understand  the basic concept of the unprovability of reports such as these. 

 

I'm not missing your point at all.

 

The problem with your point is it is based on the false premise that ALL anecdotes are invalid.

 

If that were true then why do marketing companies spend millions every year taking surveys?

 

Why do employers factor in letters of recommendations when they hire people?

 

Why does the feedback system work so well on Ebay and Amazon? 

 

The answer is because anecdotes are worth something.

 

But just to make it even better, Denialists like yourself and others are perfectly happy to accept anecdotes as gospel if it backs your claim.

 

Which always brings me back to the perfect example of when Doug Bowers and David Chorley claimed in 1991 that they had hoaxed all 2000+ crop cirles in England since 1978 and immediately the "Skeptical Community" took their word for it and declared that all crop circles had been debunked as a hoax.

 

Amazing ain't it !

Claiming that you saw Bigfoot is the more extraordinary claim, requiring more extraordinary evidence to support the claim as Carl Sagan would put it.

 

What is extraordinary to some is ordinary and natural to others depending on their experience and level of consciousness.

 

The problem with Sagan's statement is that science does not require extraordinary evidence for all of its extraordinary claims.

 

See the YouTube video of Professor Linde upthread as a perfect example.

[dmaker]

You are still not getting it Larry. I never said all anecdotes are invalid ( whatever that even means). I said an encounter anecdote is unprovable by nature. Perhaps you are confusing "invalid" with unprovable. 

[norseman]

^^ 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. 

 

Maybe not? But it would sure give a lot of those reports a serious shot of credibility..........and I bet science would pour over them trying to obtain some wisdom on the species.

[dmaker]

^^ Absolutely Norse. I completely agree.

[JDL]

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. 

 

 

Denialist's bias is a coined phrase that I used to simply point out that bias is inherent regardless of viewpoint.

 

The non-Fortean reports, without personal witness data, or corroberative evidence can only be evaluated statistically.  Part of the analysis itself should include a measure of the degree of confidence in the results.

[Guest LarryP]

You are still not getting it Larry. I never said all anecdotes are invalid ( whatever that even means). I said an encounter anecdote is unprovable by nature. Perhaps you are confusing "invalid" with unprovable. 

 

Unprovable = invalid.

 

If anecdotes were unprovable then why would companies spend millions collecting data that is purely anecdotal?

 

"Will the dog eat the dog food" rules when there's money on the line So if the anecdotal proof didn't add up at the cash register,  then you'd be right.

 

But you're wrong.

 

Because most people are honest as long as they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by submitting a report. Which is obviously the case with the vast majority of BF reports.

 

So there ain't a **** up that tree you're barking up, dmaker.

 

You know it and I know it.

 

And once again you're trying to ignore the crop circle example of how you and your fellow "skeptics" are quite willing to not only accept, but also fully support anecdototes as long as they support your debunking claims.

Edited May 3, 2014 by LarryP

[Incorrigible1]

Larry, you might wish to quit while you're behind. Just saying....

[Guest]

@LarryP You left out the part about them showing the world how they made the crop circles. The fact they humans can make them may not disprove all circles as hoaxes but it is enough to cast reasonable doubt. Horses not zebras.

[dmaker]

Unprovable = invalid.

 

If anecdotes were unprovable then why would companies spend millions collecting data that is purely anecdotal?

 

"Will the dog eat the dog food" rules when there's money on the line So if the anecdotal proof didn't add up at the cash register,  then you'd be right.

 

But you're wrong.

 

Because most people are honest as long as they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by submitting a report. Which is obviously the case with the vast majority of BF reports.

 

So there ain't a **** up that tree you're barking up, dmaker.

 

You know it and I know it.

 

And once again you're trying to ignore the crop circle example of how you and your fellow "skeptics" are quite willing to not only accept, but also fully support anecdototes as long as they support your debunking claims.

No, unprobable means impossible to establish the truth of it. It does not mean invalid. I do not believe this nuance to be above your comprehension skills so I must assume that you are being deliberate in your refusal to acknowledge this simple fact.  Explain, please, how you do not understand why it is impossible to establish the truth of the following claim:

 

There was a raccoon in my backyard last night.

 

No one can prove the truth of that claim. It is simply impossible. It does not require deep critical thinking skills to understand that which is axiomatic.  

 

So a direct question Larry: do you understand the point actually being made?  Not the one you want to think I am making, but the rather simple point that I am actually making. 

[Incorrigible1]

Larry, did you see the raccoon in dmaker's back yard, last night?

[JDL]

Tell us more about the raccoon.  Was it male, thus having a baculum?

 

We didn't have them where I grew up.  Too arid I guess. 

 

As a Plebe at the end of Beast Barracks we spent a final week of training at Lake Frederick.  Camp Buckner, where the Yearlings were, was just a couple of miles away and we were told to expect them to raid us at some point during the week.  One of the nights I was on guard duty with my OD green flashlight (with requisite red lens) and M14 (without requisite firing pin) and heard rustling as I passed by a dumpster.

 

I barked: "Halt!  Who goes there?" and gave the challenge phrase.  Dead silence.  I repeated myself.  More silence.  So I turned on my flashlight and presented it as if it could turn Dracula himself.  And staring back at me were a dozen pairs of glowing red eyes reflecting the light back at me.  I nearly soiled myself, then was slowly able to make out what they were.  After considering whether or not I should report it I realized that no one would actually care, people would have a good laugh at my expense, and that there was an even chance that I, and probably my squad, would be detailed to guard the dumpsters for the rest of the week.  The raccoons, absolutely undeterred, watched me until I turned away and then went back to feeding.

Edited May 4, 2014 by JDL

[Incorrigible1]

Well, we don't have bigfoot around where I've spent my life. No kidding, and no imagination leads one to conclude such.

 

Raccoons are well accounted for, here in corn country. Deer, too. They're shot down with depredation permits. If bigfoot raided corn crops, they'd be accounted for.

 

Any belief to the otherwise is fantasy.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Incorrigible1

[Guest]

Unprovable = invalid.

 

If anecdotes were unprovable then why would companies spend millions collecting data that is purely anecdotal?

 

"Will the dog eat the dog food" rules when there's money on the line So if the anecdotal proof didn't add up at the cash register,  then you'd be right.

 

But you're wrong.

 

Because most people are honest as long as they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by submitting a report. Which is obviously the case with the vast majority of BF reports.

 

So there ain't a **** up that tree you're barking up, dmaker.

 

You know it and I know it.

 

And once again you're trying to ignore the crop circle example of how you and your fellow "skeptics" are quite willing to not only accept, but also fully support anecdototes as long as they support your debunking claims.

Many people operate under the false belief that personal anecdotes are legitimate evidence of a product's value. Ad agencies exploit that false belief. If twenty letters complain about a product and five praise it, then which reports are correct? Which ones will the agency use as evidence for (or against) their product.