dmaker Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Thankfully "gravitas" has no place in scientific evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 ^^^^^ Dmaker, But it does, not in a type specimen of course, but in who and what gets funded to go look for a type specimen. And thank goodness. Crowlogic, Yuchi asked me why I felt that Sasquatch may be unfriendly to humans. I pointed to the 411 books. He then asks for evidence of such Sasquatch behavior........which I find ironic. To which I say, which one of us is out actually looking for the beast to kill and haul in? Anti kill proponents hide behind "evidence" when it is convenient for them to do so..........but none of us should be fooled. Because the end game is that they offer no evidence purposefully. I may go to my grave without giving society evidence, but I promise that if I did have evidence I would do what I could to share it with all of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Gravitas has nothing to do with it Norse. Compelling evidence will fund and launch scientific investigation. Gravitas is a fancy word that has nothing at all to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 ^^^^^ Sure it does. That's how Science works. I doubt anybody would fund me to go find new species of ants in the Amazon. Just because I think they are there. A well accredited Entomologist on the other hand? Much easier..... And that is because he has more gravitas or weight in a particular field of study. Of course? He still has to find the new species of ant. And there are other factors as well. But it's not simply based on evidence to launch a scientific inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I disagree. I believe that the same accredited entomologist would still need to bring compelling evidence to the table to get funding. Evidence that goes beyond anecdotes. That's how science works. Evidence speaks for itself and requires no gravitas or reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Don't forget Crow; the powers that be quite likely know so much more about them than the general public could imagine. The powers that be would gain nothing by educating the public about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Nope, but I do go Grendel hunting, and get stung and bitten, and fall down and get bucked off..........and you make jokes about it. Eye witness testimony is weak in science............but not the law. People are convicted of crimes all the time based on eye witness testimony. And, dozens have been set free by DNA evidence after they were wrongfully convicted by eyewitness testimony. While still admissable, its relevance has become greatly diminished as other forms of much more credible (read: forensics) evidence has supplanted it. Talk to LEO and/or defense attorneys and see what they say... Yes, I did make a joke about you busting your arse trying to sit a horse, It was funny. BTW, as it took you ~10 years to kill an elk, based upon my estimation of the elusive capabilities of UHS, I would speculate you will be successful in killing one, sometime around 3014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I disagree. I believe that the same accredited entomologist would still need to bring compelling evidence to the table to get funding. Evidence that goes beyond anecdotes. That's how science works. Evidence speaks for itself and requires no gravitas or reputation. That's just not true. Scientists work on a hunch all the time, of course the locale is important. Science predicts that there are many new species to be discovered in the world. And they will launch expeditions to go out and look. And, dozens have been set free by DNA evidence after they were wrongfully convicted by eyewitness testimony. While still admissable, its relevance has become greatly diminished as other forms of much more credible (read: forensics) evidence has supplanted it. Talk to LEO and/or defense attorneys and see what they say... Yes, I did make a joke about you busting your arse trying to sit a horse, It was funny. BTW, as it took you ~10 years to kill an elk, based upon my estimation of the elusive capabilities of UHS, I would speculate you will be successful in killing one, sometime around 3014. Of course it's still admissible, why do you think they still run line ups? And as my little scenario points out? Of course physical evidence trumps testimony. As for my Teddy quote? It describes people like you spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Norseman, I'll make you an offer...this coming February/March, head to Oklahoma and we'll first head out to the gunclub and you can shoot some of my "toys" and then, we'll head to the lease down in the Kiamichi mountains, borrow a couple of "HillBilly's" mules and ride up into Rough Canyon to within a few hundred yards of NAWAC's so-called Area "X", and you can see for yourself. Next, we'll go up to the property in Rogers county where I'm a trustee for the estate and we'll have a "cookout" and while I cannot guarantee anything, there's a better than even chance we may have something of interest happen. The only stipulation is you can't shoot anything there as I don't wish to "wake up dead" from the consequences. You can bunk at our place and although my German bride would scorch water trying to boil it when we first hooked up, she has become a pretty good plug of a cook, at least no one has died from eating out of her kitchen, so far. IMO, you may well come away with quite a different perspective and as I believe you are (deep down) good people, I'm willing to extend the offer. Edited July 31, 2014 by Yuchi1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I appreciate the offer. But if I'm gonna drive 2000 miles down there, it would be for the sole purpose of collecting a type specimen. I could not promise you anything, and thus out of respect for you and your family, I must decline. We simply are at loggerheads philosophically speaking..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Anecdotes are testable by the scientific method; they have passed that test many times, and I've pointed that out here many many many times. That dead-wrong canard needs to die. Scientists don't just work with rubber gloves and test tubes, even though that's what some people seem dedicated to believing. The guy that brings one before science will be where he was because someone told him, I saw one there. Test. Passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I appreciate the offer. But if I'm gonna drive 2000 miles down there, it would be for the sole purpose of collecting a type specimen. I could not promise you anything, and thus out of respect for you and your family, I must decline. We simply are at loggerheads philosophically speaking..... I respect you as a person and as long as our only differences are philosophical, I can handle that. Take care and be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 And that's why this conversation is a waste of time. As long as your stated goal is to kill one, you're correct, it is a waste of time. Of course the entire exercise your engaged in is a complete waste of time anyway. So...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Compelling evidence will fund and launch scientific investigation. . If that were true then scientific investigations would have already been funded and launched instead of being scoffed at and/or ignored altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 ^^^Right. Many scientists who should be on the bandwagon for launching that investigation for this animal haven't even addressed the testimony of scientists using their science who pronounce the evidence compelling and even tantamount to proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts