Guest DWA Posted August 10, 2014 Posted August 10, 2014 (edited) ^^^Mulder's right. In every particular. Meldrum and Bindernagel and Mionczynski and Krantz = (most emphatically) proper scientific inquiry. It is in saying this is wrong that one reveals that one does not know what the phrase "proper scientific inquiry" means. Bigfoot skeptics tend to wave science like incense. They do not understand it as a tool. They use it to refer to a mass of people who are ignorant on a topic, rather than to a virtually infallible process that points to the reality behind sasquatch. For the 5,659th time: showing fakery or mistaken witnesses or hallucinations can happen does not mean it has in even a significant fragment of cases, let alone all. Anyone who cannot prove the fakery thesis sits on his hands and awaits proper scientific inquiry to proceed to proof. To say one cannot prove one's thesis is to say: I am incompetent to test your thesis. Proceed. Edited August 11, 2014 by DWA
dmaker Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Scientific inquiry as in investigating evidence using the scientific method. Evidence that is amenable to scientific testing and verification. Pointing to the opinion and assumptions of a minuscule number of scientists does nothing to provide testable evidence for bigfoot.
Guest Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Pointing to the opinion and assumptions of a minuscule number of scientists does nothing to provide testable evidence for bigfoot. All it takes is a single scientist. Science is not a popularity contest.
Guest DWA Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) Scientific inquiry as in investigating evidence using the scientific method. Evidence that is amenable to scientific testing and verification. Pointing to the opinion and assumptions of a minuscule number of scientists does nothing to provide testable evidence for bigfoot. Pointing to the opinion and assumptions of a minuscule number of people who have no demonstrable qualifications to say what they're saying does nothing, period. The testable evidence continues to present itself. No effort on my part required. Go where people are seeing this, and you'll find it. Called "testing the hypothesis." Edited August 11, 2014 by DWA
dmaker Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) All it takes is a single scientist. Science is not a popularity contest. Of course. And how much verifiable bigfoot evidence have any of those scientists brought forward? Oh yeah, none. The "testable" evidence, DWA, continues to fail to support the bigfoot hypothesis while consistently supporting the null hypothesis. Why you would consider this a win is beyond me. Oh yeah, you're the guy that loves anecdotes and considers them scientific evidence. Forgot about that... Edited August 11, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) Nope, what you are calling "the testable evidence" I have a word for, too. The word is "trash." (As in: been tested, and whoops.) But one must spend lots of time thinking about one's experiences with animals people and the outdoors to get good at doing this. The truly testable evidence supports the hypothesis. Proof is simply certification of what the testable evidence was already saying. Edited August 11, 2014 by DWA
dmaker Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) Truly testable evidence would be DNA testing of biological samples. None of those have ever supported the hypothesis, in fact quite the opposite. If you can point to one DNA test result of alleged bigfoot evidence from a reputable source that says something like unknown primate then I will recant. But you cannot, because the testable evidence fails to support the hypothesis every time. Anecdotes are not testable by the scientific method. They are not amenable to testing and verification. You know this, most people who have even a passing interest in science or methodology also know this. You insist on dancing around this fact in a miserably failed attempt to blow smoke to convince the world that reading anecdotes is cutting edge science. Edited August 11, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Well, yeah, if one has a view that scientists are rubber gloves and test tubes, and nothing else.
dmaker Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Colorful commentary aside, the simple fact remains that evidence must be testable, repeatable and falsifiable. You cannot deny this. Anecdotes do not qualify. I am not saying they do not have a place, I am saying they are not testable evidence. They are not repeatable and they are not falsifiable. They can, however, lead to field work that does produce actual testable evidence. That is a valid statement. Now in the case of bigfoot, this has yet to happen. Field work has produced testable evidence, yes, but when tested the evidence does not support the hypothesis. Field work has also produced other evidence that is too ambiguous as to be properly tested. So more truly testable evidence is required. More anecdotes are not required. As you are so fond of pointing out, we already have thousands of those.
norseman Posted August 11, 2014 Admin Posted August 11, 2014 H-O-B-B-I-T Back on task here, we have evidence in this case, good solid evidence. But what is it? Also why hasn't a DNA test solved the debate?
Guest Stan Norton Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 DNA testing has thus far failed so that's not much help. Its a very good example of just how bitter and vindictive the field of human origins is...very little of the noble altruistic scientists on show. Just more of the usual self promotion and righteous indignation. Any folks think all it will take is a sasquatch body? That's only when the catfight commences!
Guest DWA Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 ^^^And that. Astronomers and ornithologists are all: hey amateurs! WE DEPEND ON YOU. But when it comes to hominology: so's your mother!
Guest Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Also why hasn't a DNA test solved the debate? Because no one has yet been able to extract DNA from a hobbit skeleton.
Guest Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Per Wikipedia: In around 2006, two teams attempted to extract DNA from a tooth discovered in 2003, but both teams were unsuccessful. It has been suggested that this happened because the dentine was targeted; new research suggests that the cementum has higher concentrations of DNA. Moreover, the heat generated by the high speed of the drill bit may have denatured the DNA. One has to extract before it can be analyzed. Edited August 12, 2014 by Pteronarcyd
Recommended Posts