Incorrigible1 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 When does Rod Serling step in, smoking cigarette in hand, and make some pertinent comments about the bizarre turn this thread has taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 LOL! mbh, beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I see your point Dmaker, and always have. See mine: Science doesn't run on only hard data. Soft data has its usefulness, and always has. It is a building block to harder data, and you overlook what almost everyone here agrees on: It is merely evidence in need of f/u. How useful the data is can ultimately be decided only on the degree of investigation that results, and what it discovers. How much time, effort, money and other resources you devote to that pursuit is directly proportional to how significant you feel the data is. That is precisely why it matters to not view this information in such a light. That something is capable of being falsified is no distinction that matters. Hard data can be falsified as well, and the annals of science are full of examples of that. (And yes, just because I report that I've duplicated your hard data, that is no guarantee either) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 ^^^Yup. The baseless belief in the unrelenting technical precision and thirst for expansion of knowledge of the scientific community is one of mankind's most ignorant and thus persistent misperceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 4, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) Dmaker at least you denied working for the government and continued posting. The other two I mentioned didn't, they just stopped posting for a while. So you could be clean in this case. I do not know if a cover up goes beyond the Smithsonian. There is considerable evidence that the Smithsonian has been involved with one in the past, with regards to bigfoot. There are so many newspaper articles about giant skeletons being carted off there to cover that up. But hypothetically if there is one that involves several government agencies, it is not unreasonable that someone monitors BFF. Just to see what goes on here and what evidence might be out there that needs to be suppressed. Frequent vocal skepticism and misinformation would be part of that program if it should exist. Someone here reported finding a BF footprint and mentioning it to a ranger in the area. They went to get casting materials and when they got back the footprints had been eradicated. I think it was a member of BFF and they reported it first person but might be mistaken. That does not necessarily mean that the Forest Service has an official policy. I know BF believers that eradicate foot prints because they do not want others to find them or document them. Many do not think acceptance of BF by science is particularly a good thing for the BF population, and they are better off left alone. For all I know the government has made the same determination. Although it is unlike the government not to want to govern and control things. So far they have ignored my application to be Undersecretary of Primitive Peoples for the Department of the Interior. Edited June 4, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) I see your point Dmaker, and always have. See mine: Science doesn't run on only hard data. Soft data has its usefulness, and always has. It is a building block to harder data, and you overlook what almost everyone here agrees on: It is merely evidence in need of f/u. How useful the data is can ultimately be decided only on the degree of investigation that results, and what it discovers. How much time, effort, money and other resources you devote to that pursuit is directly proportional to how significant you feel the data is. That is precisely why it matters to not view this information in such a light. That something is capable of being falsified is no distinction that matters. Hard data can be falsified as well, and the annals of science are full of examples of that. (And yes, just because I report that I've duplicated your hard data, that is no guarantee either) You misunderstand falsification. It is not meant as in fraudulent. It means to nullify. Something must inherently be falsifiable to qualify as scientific evidence. If a claim has no way that it could possibly be proven wrong, i.e. an anecdote, then it cannot be falsified. And therefore cannot be considered as scientific evidence. For example, I saw bigfoot cross the road last night. There is no earthly way to prove that claim is false. Therefore it has no falsifiability and therefore could never be considered as scientific evidence if it could never be nullified. Of course hard data can be falsified. That is why it can be considered scientific evidence. That is why it can be tested and falsified or proven true. I would expect the annals of science to be full of examples of falsification as that is how the scientific method works. It is a great distinction that matters, the falsification of evidence. That is why anecdotes do not qualify as scientific evidence. This is not that hard to understand. I hope you understand now what is meant by falsifiability although it was clearly outlined the in my rather longer post with references. Perhaps you did not read that as closely as you thought you did? Edited June 4, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Dmaker at least you denied working for the government and continued posting. The other two I mentioned didn't, they just stopped posting for a while. So you could be clean in this case. I do not know if a cover up goes beyond the Smithsonian. There is considerable evidence that the Smithsonian has been involved with one in the past, with regards to bigfoot. There are so many newspaper articles about giant skeletons being carted off there to cover that up. But hypothetically if there is one that involves several government agencies, it is not unreasonable that someone monitors BFF. Just to see what goes on here and what evidence might be out there that needs to be suppressed. Frequent vocal skepticism and misinformation would be part of that program if it should exist. I doubt that very much as I see little evidence that skepticism has any real impact on how people view this topic here. The forum staff are very fair and balanced, but the members in general seem unswayed by skeptical opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 also that program doesn't exist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 4, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) Dmaker: Perhaps skepticism is not very effective on real witnesses? My skeptic neighbor did not have a lot of success talking me out of what I experienced July 11, 2012. The only thing he accomplished was destroying our friendship. He didn't want to see my physical evidence either. Edited June 4, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 ^^ He was probably a government plant all along. Operation Friendly Neighbor had little success I heard.....oh, wait..no I never heard that..it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 4, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) You sure slipped up with that disclosure. LOL Some of us have been planted here to check on the other plant's abilities to keep secrets and effectiveness at disinformation. Edited June 4, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 ^^ Dang, I had no future as a spy anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I doubt that very much as I see little evidence that skepticism has any real impact on how people view this topic here. The forum staff are very fair and balanced, but the members in general seem unswayed by skeptical opinion. ^I wouldn't necessarily say that. For some this is true, not all. You (and others) have given me some very good things to think about, and have opened my eyes to many interesting aspects. Enough for me to back off on the throttle a bit. However, perhaps you are right in that there isn't anything you or anyone else on the BFF can say to me to get me to think they do not exist. My real life experiences (with those that have encountered them) keep me on the side where I strongly feel their existence is very much probable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 ^^ Thanks. " He didn't want to see my physical evidence either. " What is your physical evidence, Randy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 O.K. dmaker, you and an inductivist like me will never agree, plainly. Falsifiability (was it that Popper guy?) as a positive attribute for evidence is not something I'm ever going to subscribe to. In my world, and in my profession, very few things are capable of being found to be categorically falsifiable. As a matter of fact, almost all of it is presumed to not ever be (even expert "scientific" evidence) and that doesn't keep the trier of fact from reaching perfectly suitable and final conclusions. My opinion is that it is a trope that excuses intellectual incuriosity and substitutes hyper-logic for the truth of observable nature. As much as some will lust for the neat nesting boxes of empirical truth, I'd just offer the unsolicited advice that too much of that and you can get bent out of shape pretty quickly, I believe. The opposite of that is probably also true though. In the middle is probably where both of us should land on this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts