It Will Not Make Any Difference

[dmaker]

We all acknowledge that it will take conclusive evidence to "prove" squatch exist to larger community, but I think it true that scientists regularly accept a lesser amount of evidence in other cases to put time, effort, and money into documenting a species.

 

I often hear the extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims line, and it puts me off because declaring something extraordinary is not an objective scientific process.  It is subjective and based on presumption.  When someone uses the line they are essentially saying that they will not accept the same standard of evidence for a particular claim, because they do not believe that the claim can be true.

 

But it is what it is.

I never used the extraordinary evidence notion, however. I am talking about the lack of compelling evidence for bigfoot. Not the lack of compelling and extraordinary evidence. That is your addition. Anecdotes pile up, but testable evidence does not. The testable evidence we do have has utterly failed to support the claim. Anecdotes are not compelling. Particularly when we have a mountain of them that should be pointing to physical creatures leaving testable, physical evidence. If anything, the increasing number of anecdotes serves ( in my opinion) to highlight how conspicuous the absence of testable, objective evidence really is. And that just gets worse with time. 

Incorrigible and Hiflyer it is not merely semantics but I have to point out that skeptics like Dmaker contend there is "no" evidence.    There is a lot of evidence but it is not good enough to classify as evidence that is proof of existence.     He and others like him ignore the evidence that is not good enough to get main stream science to sit up and pay attention.     Evidence and evidence that is proof of existence are in different classes.      Even a good HD video taken close up would not be such proof.   But with analysis would probably convince a lot of scientists they better investigate and find something that is good enough to define existence.   But over and over skeptics seem to ignore what evidence does exist and you cannot even get them to acknowledge that there is some or even any.     Anyone whose belief system is so strong that they refuse to give any credit for the evidence that does not make the cut as proof, or who completely discounts all the witness reports without some acknowledgement, is hardly open minded.   

 

Skeptics like Incorrigible who states he would like to believe, I respect.   He like mainstream science have yet to see evidence that is conclusive to him personally.    But he leaves his decision open until that evidence comes along.   I don't see that in others.  

 

 

At what point does evidence analysis stop and an objective evaluation occur? Do you suggest that skeptics, or mainstream science, or whatever, should just keep looking at bad photos, or raccoon hair, or dog feces, or what have you and saying " nope, not bigfoot this time", forever? That is ridiculous. At some point it is correct to make the evaluation that enough information is available to make a decision. Otherwise you would have all skeptics on all topics spinning their wheels forever and telling people that there is still some chance that T-Rex is not extinct. 

 

Hogwash.

So, if you wanted to put this circular debate on a firmer foundation....we could start with this: 

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=44837

 

Just to ol' gullible me, this seems a fairly compelling invitation to wonder what exactly is going on here, and let's not even broach the relationship to other similar activities. Consider this a data set of "one." 

 

So, to my fellow BF enthusiasts in residence (Yes, dear opponents, that is YOU, by definition) what would you do to try and answer that question? What else would you want to know, who would you want to talk to and what questions would you ask of any of these people should you be permitted?  If it is all so easily dismissable, as you repeatedly claim, show us where that low fruit hangs in a role play hypothetical case of "explain the BF sighting." Go.... 

Answer what question? It's a 30 year old anecdote. There is no question to answer. Only a comment: cool story, bro.

 

I am so sick of unsupported anecdotes trotted out as mysteries here.  Seriously? Ripped a bulls head off and tossed it across the pasture?  Wrecked a police car? LOL. That beats the pig tossing report anyway. At least we have a new winner in the not very good at creative writing category. Thanks for the lulz. 

 

Honestly, if you believe that report, then I really don't know what to say to you. You want to present monster fan fiction and invite adult, scientific debate?  I really think you need some perspective.  Wow....  Sorry, but I'm not a 12 yrd old sitting in a tent telling spooky stories. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by dmaker

[norseman]

I think there is compelling evidence for Sasquatch in the realm of myths. The PGF is compelling, foot casts are compelling, eye witness reports are compelling especially Ranger and LE accounts and finally Native American stories are compelling.

And better yet? We have definitive proof that creatures like Sasquatch walked this Earth in the not too distant past.

So if you compare the myth of Sasquatch to say the myth of Leprechauns or Dragons? Its not even a contest.

With that said, we still need proof! Compelling evidence is the bread crumb trail that should lead us to proof........

No proof equals perpetual myth.

[SWWASAS]

 History will show who is right.     Funny you mention T-Rex.    When footprints and fossils were found, main stream science declared them fakes, fabrications and misidentified animals at first. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[MIB]

 however. I am talking about the lack of compelling evidence for bigfoot. 

Wrong.  You continue (mistakenly) equating compelling evidence with proof.  You say otherwise but your repeated arguments belie those words.

 

Anecdotes pile up, but testable evidence does not.

Wrong again.  A "pile" of anecdotes is indeed testable, at least for statistical validity.   You apparently don't know this but statistics play a major role in scientific analysis of data.

At what point does evidence analysis stop and an objective evaluation occur?

Analysis doesn't stop until the flow of evidence to analyze does.  "Duh".  However, objective evaluation has gone on for decades, it just appears to be beyond your comprehension because the analysis does not support your foregone conclusions ... your beliefs / dogma /  "religion" regarding the topic of bigfoot. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by MIB

[WSA]

Just wanted to be sure how flat the earth really is. So, got that confirmed. 

[dmaker]

 

 however. I am talking about the lack of compelling evidence for bigfoot. 

Wrong.  You continue (mistakenly) equating compelling evidence with proof.  You say otherwise but your repeated arguments belie those words.

 

Anecdotes pile up, but testable evidence does not.

Wrong again.  A "pile" of anecdotes is indeed testable, at least for statistical validity.   You apparently don't know this but statistics play a major role in scientific analysis of data.

At what point does evidence analysis stop and an objective evaluation occur?

Analysis doesn't stop until the flow of evidence to analyze does.  "Duh".  However, objective evaluation has gone on for decades, it just appears to be beyond your comprehension because the analysis does not support your foregone conclusions ... your beliefs / dogma /  "religion" regarding the topic of bigfoot. 

 

Please explain the point of testing for statistical validity when the authenticity can never be verified?

[Guest DWA]

Just wanted to be sure how flat the earth really is. So, got that confirmed. 

And as we can see people are striving, around the clock, to keep it that way.  I rest easier, I tell you, I rest easier.

 

With this level of denial going on one could almost believe that the government is watching NAWAC in the Ouachitas, waiting to grab up the specimen as soon as it's shot.  I mean, if dmaker finds out it could be matter/antimatter/total annihilation!  I'd want to stop it too, were I the government.  Of course it's probably all moot.  No one will believe it anyway...

 

So, if you wanted to put this circular debate on a firmer foundation....we could start with this: 

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=44837

But see this is what they are trying hard not to do, using the following scientifical research device:  

 

I am imagining responses now.

 

"I would ask everyone what she was smoking.  Even if it was a he.  Then I would ask how many days they'd gone without sleep.  Then I would ask why I don't see any alcohol about.  Could it be...could it be...YOU ALL DRUNK THE STUFF IMAGINING THIS APE!?!?!?!?!"  Then I would ask how many black helicopters they saw.  Then I would ask how they could think primates are real.  And what they are.  And Finding Bigfoot is a crock and Alamagordo!  ALAMAGORDO!  ALAMAGOR[big white longsleeve jacket produced by several big guys]..."

 

I know a way to less stress.  But there's stuff you gotta let go.

Edited August 26, 2014 by DWA

[WSA]

^^^^Really and truly. When you are not even engaged enough to participate in a simple "what if?" thought experiment for fear of appearing to concede some jealously guarded point, it is way beyond sad, and if it were me I'd have to indulge in some fairly serious self analysis.

 

To practice what I preach, I'd be glad to participate in that from the other perspective, any time. Set it up and I'll be glad to play. (Gosh though, I might be INFECTED with, you know, curiosity..) 

 

What have I invested in this, after all? Seems I must be missing something crucial that I should be safeguarding, but for the life of me all I see is an interesting biological curiosity that could do with some rigorous analysis. Guess we are slap out of curious minds in these parts DWA. Sounds like a pretty dang-dreary life to me, you?

[Guest DWA]

SoDrearyItShouldScareANYONE.

 

Particularly when nose-to-grindstone-good-old-rational-science says that the DrearyDans are so wrong they aren't even...well, they ARE funny, very.  But sad too.

Edited August 26, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Stan Norton]

Contrary to some folks' opinion, anecdotal reports can indeed be subject to statistical analyses. The science (art is perhaps more apt...) of statistics is to search for patterns within massed data and hopefully say something meaningful about the likelihood of any patterns having some basis in reality. Statistics themselves prove nothing: they allow us to move towards a clearer picture and reduce the gap between supposition and reality.

We are bombarded daily with statistical analyses based on non random anecdotal waffling...they are called opinion polls and form the basis for much of our democracy. I'm certain we all use and refer to them unthinkingly all the time.

That there has been too little investigation of the overall sasquatch sightings database is evident but to say that it is not possible is simply flat incorrect. John Green did some basic stats on his database and was able to say much that was useful. Good stats are readily accessible and not afraid of stating the bleeding obvious.

[dmaker]

But Stan, you are not answering my question either: what is to be gained by searching for statistical patterns in data that could never be verified to be authentic? It's like parsing Tolkien to come up with a biological profile of orcs.  No behavior or events claimed in anecdotes could ever be authenticated. So what is the point?

 

 

You are moving the goal posts anyway.  An anecdote is not testable in the sense of amenable to scientific verification. The truth of an anecdote can never be ascertained by science. That was my point, and I think I was pretty clear on that one. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest Stan Norton]

I think you would never be satisfied with an answer I'm afraid. Even if sasquatch was found to be real and present in reasonable numbers throughout continental north America I believe your position on anecdotal reports would not move.

To me that seems an illogical stance but, that said, I understand your position.

My point is that it is common practice in studies of all sorts, especially those in the social sciences, to use statistical analyses of anecdotal data. It is the lifeblood of much social science in fact.

The benefits of testing sasquatch reports for patterns are obvious to me: I use data all the time to make assumptions about the natural world. Only difference is I work with verified organisms, but the principle is identical. Patterns tell us interesting things and can be used to make inferences. If sasquatch data patterns point to a realistic organism then we should take a little more notice. It really is that simple for me.

[dmaker]

^ I would have to agree. There are some pretty big "ifs" to over come in that, however. But, nonetheless, that was not my point. My point was anecdotes cannot be tested and verified by science. Not that they do not contain any statistical worth--if the data is true. If it is not true, then the analysis is worthless ( insofar as predicting anything about the subject matter). And when that authenticity is impossible to ascertain, then any statistical value is putative at best and must come (if at all) post verification.  But even then, you cannot be assured that what is in a report is true. Especially given the paucity of evidence that accompanies all the reports. 

 

Even if sasquatch were proven to be real, that does not retroactively verify any single report, much less all of them. It would however significantly increase the value of the reports as a data source for those that are interested perhaps. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by dmaker

[1980squatch]

Stan, plussed, stats are so often butchered here so that was refreshing.

[Guest Stan Norton]

^ I would have to agree. There are some pretty big "ifs" to over come in that, however. But, nonetheless, that was not my point. My point was anecdotes cannot be tested and verified by science. Not that they do not contain any statistical worth--if the data is true. If it is not true, then the analysis is worthless ( insofar as predicting anything about the subject matter). And when that authenticity is impossible to ascertain, then any statistical value is putative at best and must come (if at all) post verification. But even then, you cannot be assured that what is in a report is true. Especially given the paucity of evidence that accompanies all the reports.

Even if sasquatch were proven to be real, that does not retroactively verify any single report, much less all of them. It would however significantly increase the value of the reports as a data source for those that are interested perhaps.

Ok, but I would argue that by analysing those data we may notice patterns that invite further investigation. Now, where those patterns point to something that ties in very well with a real organism then my ears poke up. That would say to me that either there are clever people deliberately including credible primate traits in their fictitious reports or, alternatively, there may be a real animal behind the data. I do not personally put too much credence in most reports but it may just be the number and apparent consistency of them that sways me further.

The best option I feel would be to try and filter the data to include a subset of reports...not sure what the selection criteria would be but that would be a good start. Despite the anecdotal nature of the reports, there must be an attempt to validate them.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Stan Norton