WSA Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) Randy....yeah, I'm old enough (55) to remember the whole dénouement, from "4 out of 5 doctors recommend Lucky Strike…It's TOASTED!" (and so your lungs will be too), to "there is no proven link" to "Warning: Cigarettes cause cancer!" I don't mean to denigrate all of the medical profession as being complicit in that, because there are always good people and bad people in any profession, but the fact is the great majority of the scientific/medical community took a pass on looking too hard at this public health crisis, for way too long, despite lots of ordinary people knowing it was an issue that needed addressing. Once the effort could not be ignored any longer, momentum built quickly. The year I was born, 44% of Americans believed smoking caused cancer. How many years, and how many deaths resulted before the Surgeon's General joined those numbers? As Casey Stengel famously said, you can look it up. Again, I see lots of parallels between this history and what we are witnessing now. Oh, and here's just the latest example of inductive reasoning being ignored by those who should know better....the Chevy Cobalt ignition failures. I have to give a tip of the hat to my colleagues in the plaintiffs' bar for listening to their clients. Waiting on those to act who have a vested interest in staying ignorant is always a bad strategy in my book. The beat goes on... Edited June 6, 2014 by WSA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 ^^^If a man's livelihood depends on his not seeing something...it might be a disaster to wait for him to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) Right. When it comes down to it, science is about as unemotional as a Baptist on Sunday. The very roots of science are emotional: man's strongest desire isn't that one, at least not the only one that separates us from all other life on earth. it's the desire to know. Period. That and nothing else drives science. Well. At least it drives all the good science. Leakey - one of history's most prominent scientists - knew just how to make the single greatest advance ever made in the study of primates. He sent a secretary with no scientific training to Africa to do what he could see she was best at doing. That's science at it's best; and it's the reason we know about 90% of what we do about chimpanzees...and more than a little of what we do about ourselves. Science is at its best when it's playing; the best science, related to us by the best scientists, sounds and looks undeniably like fun. Anyone who misses that misunderstands the basic nature of the desire to know things. Which is something that scientists all too frequently forget, particularly when it comes to topics like this one. You remind me of something I saw posted elsewhere. Your constant chiding of actual scientists is like children playing cow boys and Indians and calling decorated war vets cowards. I think you could benefit from some humility. Edited June 6, 2014 by dmaker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 ^^^^^ ding, ding, ding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Way to go, Dmaker. You've shown what a true lack of humility looks like. An act completely lacking in humility is lecturing someone about their lack of humility. Bravo. Nice work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted June 7, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted June 7, 2014 We've got 16 reports in the SSR from Police/Sheriff's, from all across North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 It's clear that folks CAN call 911 and report a sassy sighting. Calls are taken seriously, trained personnel are dispatched, and serious investigations are conducted almost immediately after the sighting and sometimes while the creature is still in the area. No one who has put any serious time into reading reports doubts this and excuses like the call won't be taken seriously or that people aren't calling due to concerns about insurance coverage can't stand. What hasn't been demonstrated is that an immediate response from police or park rangers will necessarily corroborate a call. If trained personnel familiar with the area aren't able to find evidence of sassy, such as in the 911 call Norse posted or if they actually conclude that a known animal was responsible for the sighting after seeing the creature (as in the Arundel Mills report you posted - http://userpages.umbc.edu/~frizzell/Reports/PoliceRPT_2adj.jpg) how much stock can we put into a standard BFRO report conducted weeks or even years later? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keninsc Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 ^^^If a man's livelihood depends on his not seeing something...it might be a disaster to wait for him to see it. By the same token, if a man's livelihood depends on seeing something then he'll see in everything he sees. What's worse is when good people see it as well not because they've seen it but because they want to be in his clique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Way to go, Dmaker. You've shown what a true lack of humility looks like. An act completely lacking in humility is lecturing someone about their lack of humility. Bravo. Nice work. What about lecturing someone about lecturing someone about their lack of humility? Perhaps you need to follow your own advice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Nope, I'm afraid she's nailed it, sorry. We're just paying attention. When one isn't, and is certain that he's the only one that is...well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) ^^ Really? Strange that LeafTaker has never felt the need to swoop in and point out how rude it is to constantly challenge other peoples lack of attention skills. It's almost as if her criticisms are reserved for skeptics only.... Edited June 7, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) Do you even know what the scientists you're worshipping here base their opinions on? Do you know why scientists back this, and why no scientist that doesn't has ever addressed their opinions? This should be good. When one worships scientists because they're scientists, and one's uninformed opinion happens to dovetail with their clearly uninformed opinion, one's critical thinking has a tendency to go down the porcelain whirlpool. Just sayin'. Edited June 7, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) ^^ Thanks for illustrating my earlier point. Just a hint: actual scientists do not consider anecdotes to be the " most powerful evidence there is", and they recognize the difference between a court of law and the scientific method. Edited June 7, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) ^^^Just the answer one expects. Just a hint: scientists have been following anecdotes to proof since before they were called scientists. But one understands why some don't seem able to get that. Actually one doesn't, but hey. And when it's presented without humility: well, one could give numerous hints about that...but not here. Edited June 7, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts