Guest guillaume Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 The BFRO claims to have scientists on board. Other that Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum are there any others that you are aware of? The actions of individual scientists don't automatically amount to Acts of Science. The "mad scientist" is even a cliché. The entire process of vetting through peer review (and I mean real peer review, not creating one's own journal like Ketchum and Meldrum have done) is essential to the practice of science, and you can't do this outside the community. So appeals to authority such as "we have scientists on board" are utterly meaningless when evaluating the objective value of any particular effort, as well as being a logical fallacy. Not to mention that these claims are often misleading in the first place. But this thread is really about burnout on those who present false info or play cat-n-mouse. Not about existence or non existence. That debate seems to find it's way into many threads and is as much a reason for the burn as any other. The dilution of thread topics by infusing whether or the Creature exists for some is irresitable apparently and I think some members get frustrated at the weaving in of the real vs. not real head butting. I know I get tired of it and just wish such dialogue could somehow find it's own thread like say the "Urban Bigfoot"............and stay there I'm actually not interested in the existence debate--my interest is in the "false info" you mention with respect to science. I think that the misinfo campaign against science is a key part of bigfoot evangelism, which IMO is one source of the burnout being discussed here. It may look like I'm bashing belief, but in fact I don't care about that at all. I'm just presenting a voice in defence of science, because after considering the self-styled science "experts" that post here, I think this place could use one. It's a fact that bigfoot is considered more or less impossible by the scientific community, but that's not my fault. I'm just the messenger. I have no personal stake in this. I do try not to stink up many threads here with my skepticism, but I was replying to a specific complaint about science misinformation. Anyway, the thread is about the "Same Old Stuff"... so am I really off-topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dxm2 Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 I think burn out is also accelerated due in large part to the very smart members on this forum who research photos and claims. Look at what happened with the Todd Standing Photo Manipulated Bigfoot and/or Puppet Face Bigfoot. That took less than a few days to go from "hero to zero". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 That's a very good point, dxm2, particularly when you consider the fact that much of the debunking is done by proponents... believers, if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 I think burn out is also accelerated due in large part to the very smart members on this forum who research photos and claims. Look at what happened with the Todd Standing Photo Manipulated Bigfoot and/or Puppet Face Bigfoot. That took less than a few days to go from "hero to zero". Todd Standing photos = low hanging fruit from an obvious hoax perspective that required very little research. So I think you might want to redefine your definition of "very smart" in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Hello guilaume, The BFRO claims to have scientists on board. Other that Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum are there any others that you are aware of? The actions of individual scientists don't automatically amount to Acts of Science. The "mad scientist" is even a cliché. The entire process of vetting through peer review (and I mean real peer review, not creating one's own journal like Ketchum and Meldrum have done) is essential to the practice of science, and you can't do this outside the community. So appeals to authority such as "we have scientists on board" are utterly meaningless when evaluating the objective value of any particular effort, as well as being a logical fallacy. Not to mention that these claims are often misleading in the first place. This can create burn out too ya know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Todd Standing photos = low hanging fruit from an obvious hoax perspective that required very little research. So I think you might want to redefine your definition of "very smart" in that regard. Noted: Larry wishes to be included in the "very smart" basket. You may wish to disassociate yourself from the pseudo-science end of things, Larry. The two don't mix, very well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) I keep running across cryptic claims that the London Trackway was hoaxed and some Jrefer's can prove it (as one had claimed on their site) How about we focus on that? I get the impression they're waiting for enough 'big names' to agree it's real before they all get knocked down like bowling pins. Really. Know what the cure is, gang? It would be bigfoot skeptics getting out there and debunking. Which just does not seem to be happening, does it. All the debunking in this field has been done by proponents. I get tired of the same old hum from people who just can't seem to get intellectually involved in this topic; don't understand science or how it works; think a Confederacy of Dunces is proof that they are right; and will never understand how to evaluate evidence or to understand when evidence may not be proof but shows where and how and when you can get the proof. If you, you know, want to, rather than persist in the delusion that the proponents are somehow deluded. There. That help? You forgot: Daisy in a Box Bigfoot Chewtilda Bigfoot Moaning in the Swamp, poor little lost baby Bigfoot Provost Canyon Turkey Bigfoot Megan Fox is a believer in Bigfoot ( there's an endorsement that I can get behind) The gubmint stole my Bigfoot The gubmint is hiding Bigfoot My neighbor had a baby with Bigfoot ... And you forgot: straw man fallacy While we're on same old hum. But this does explain the problem: missing the approaching ship because of an intense focus on all this fog. Edited August 12, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dxm2 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Sigh.....same old hum. Edited August 12, 2014 by dxm2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 ^^^I'd agree. And I am wondering when the skeptics are going to do something about it. It's their issue. I think burn out is also accelerated due in large part to the very smart members on this forum who research photos and claims. Look at what happened with the Todd Standing Photo Manipulated Bigfoot and/or Puppet Face Bigfoot. That took less than a few days to go from "hero to zero". Yes, but it didn't take an intelligent person, particularly, to do that. Anyone well acquainted with this field had Standing pegged at zero from day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) " Anyone well acquainted with this field had Standing pegged at zero from day one." DWA Really? Then what is Meldrums excuse? What about Bindernagel? Is he not "well acquainted" with this field? Or are you implying that his judgement is off? Or did he team up with someone that he had "pegged from day one" as a hoaxer? Why would he do that? Edited August 12, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 What people do is up to them. If you were phooled by Standing's photos, that's your issue. What requires critical thinking is not tossing babies out with bathwater. I think it's obvious that given the problems with the field, the serious are going to make strange bedfellows just to give their ideas a forum. Doesn't make them less legitimate, or Standing more. The proponents don't make the uniform constant and egregious logical errors the 'skeptics' do. But do they make mistakes? Yes they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 My impression of the Bigfoot North shows was that Meldrum used them as a vehicle to chat on air to interesting bods whilst Standing was an increasing irrelevance and irritation to Meldrum and guests alike. His prattle added zero to the conversation so I was able to zone him out and listen to interesting chats. An odd couple but Jeffrey is a grown up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 What people do is up to them. If you were phooled by Standing's photos, that's your issue. What requires critical thinking is not tossing babies out with bathwater. I think it's obvious that given the problems with the field, the serious are going to make strange bedfellows just to give their ideas a forum. Doesn't make them less legitimate, or Standing more. The proponents don't make the uniform constant and egregious logical errors the 'skeptics' do. But do they make mistakes? Yes they do. I see. So you are saying that they ( Meldrum and Bindernagel ) likely know that Standing is a phony ( you do, I do, anyone well acquainted with this topic does and I cannot think of two more acquainted than Meldrum and Bindernagel), but they chose to team up with for the chance at a microphone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 "Vehicle" is what the scientists actually working in this field need. They are not being funded; the issue is not being tackled by their colleagues, unless I missed the scientific debunking of their work, which I didn't. It's just like luring bigfoot with pancakes. Everybody gravitates to the trash; so attach oneself to the trash and give them something serious to think about. Otherwise you can keep being serious...while they stay riveted on the trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 The actions of individual scientists don't automatically amount to Acts of Science. The "mad scientist" is even a cliché. The entire process of vetting through peer review (and I mean real peer review, not creating one's own journal like Ketchum and Meldrum have done) is essential to the practice of science, and you can't do this outside the community. So. Where's the peer review of Meldrum? There isn't any. There could be, but there is not. Calling something peer review that isn't, or insisting that it be done when it is totally on the mainstream that it isn't, are simply rhetorical red herrings. The mainstream are not engaging the evidence ...and thus not conducting science. So appeals to authority such as "we have scientists on board" are utterly meaningless when evaluating the objective value of any particular effort, as well as being a logical fallacy. Not to mention that these claims are often misleading in the first place. Saying that this isn't real because the mainstream says it isn't is no less an appeal to authority, and no more valid. It may look like I'm bashing belief, but in fact I don't care about that at all. I'm just presenting a voice in defence of science, because after considering the self-styled science "experts" that post here, I think this place could use one. It's a fact that bigfoot is considered more or less impossible by the scientific community, but that's not my fault. I'm just the messenger. I have no personal stake in this. The people here who actually understand science are the most vociferous in their condemnations of the mainstream for a very good reason: the mainstream have abdicated the field. They "consider something impossible" when the evidence says they are wrong; they give no signs that they even have looked at the evidence; and they use the same vacant dismissals the garbageman would use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts