kitakaze Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Bonehead, when some skeptic says: "no evidence exists" they have already rejected evidence. It that intellectually honest or do different rules apply to skeptics? I am a scientist and know what is required to publish. So until I have enough good evidence (that is very hard to get) to support a paper or a book, I am withholding some of what I do have. I think there are others like me. As other researchers have found, there is little benefit disclosing much on this forum when there are a number of lay individuals who seem driven to ignore evidence and destroy the forum. When I am ready for a peer review I will publish and get that from someone qualified to do it. How is that for intellectual honesty? Just curious as to what your field of research is and your academic work? Not asking for any personal details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) ^^^Pretty much that. The rabid banzai commitment to Exceedingly Dull Universe exhibited by so many when it comes to topics like this, evidence be danged...well, it should worry us, all of us. Edited October 9, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 ^^^And this is the merry-go-round Then get off or defend your argument. Explain which crypto creature databases are to be trusted and why. Ohio Bill, well yeah, sure, that too. All who are serious about this should understand belief, or disbelief, shouldn't be part of the conversation. There is plenty of that going around on both sides though. You can be typed as believing in, or believing against. I don't give a rat's furry either way. All I'm ever interested to know from anyone here is your point by point, head-on, argue yes/no, odds calculated, down in the mud, biologically based, field-tested hypothesis and let me draw my own conclusions. A "that could be anything so I don't have to address it" approach is not only an exceedingly dull approach to life in general, it gets none of us anywhere who are interested in answers. Your way won't work - end of story. If you want to argue for the existence of Sassy based only on sighting reports feel free but it will never be relevant to science. It's not personal, it's just how it works. Repeatedly saying "it's possible" doesn't advance anything when it's equally relevant to giant bunnies, Sassy, Lizardmen, 15 foot penguins or the like. When you truly understand that possible doesn't equal probable and has no bearing whatsoever on proof we can have a serious discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Dmaker, I don't have any interest in fairy encounters so I don't have any basis for judgment, or any burning desire to get to the bottom of the issue (or UFO's, or ghosts, or unicorns...or any number of other irrelevant topics). You seem to though, given this is a frequent point you want to make. If I were you, I'd seek out a fairy forum and get busy. Ohio Bill...I've said many times: The inability to discern an open question from a "belief" probably causes more misunderstanding around here than just about anything else you could name, unless it is the whole evidence-not-proof merry go-round. I wasn't asking you if you had any interest in fairies, but was wondering if your logic, in your opinion, is transferable to other reported phenomena. I believe you understood that point, but decided to not address it. But I'm willing to withdraw the question as it is a bit of a straw man and really does not advance the discussion in any way. Edited October 9, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 When you truly understand that possible doesn't equal probable and has no bearing whatsoever on proof we can have a serious discussion. But possible could equal probable.....no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 ^^^^Possible does equal probable. But some will have to do some reading to get where some of us are on this. Thinking too will be required; and that's not probable but definite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Chris, the reason I mentioned your foray into the JREF recently was because you said in your post about discussing and evaluating evidence at JREF. Yet you came there with a pretty wild claim and offered no supporting evidence. That may go over quite well here with some people, but at a place like JREF ( well, now the International Skeptics Forum) that is just not going to fly unchallenged. The agitation shown by some by simply having their unsupported claims challenged tells me a lot about their confidence in their claim. Just my opinion, of course. I don't think I mentioned the JREF specifically in my first post. You say I came there with a pretty wild claim and offered no supporting evidence? Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply answer questions if I'm asked. If you don't want to know the answer, then don't ask. Easy peasy. Unlike some, I feel the free and open discussion of ideas and opinions is a good thing. I believe it's how we're going to finally solve this mystery for the masses. As to your or anyone else's opinion of my "claim" , I couldn't care less. I've seen these creatures in the flesh and I know they exist. I have closure on the subject of Bigfoot. What do you have? I'm certain in my knowledge that they exist, I'll bet my life on it. Can you say the same about your opinion of Bigfoot? Chris B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 ^^^^Possible does equal probable. But some will have to do some reading to get where some of us are on this. Thinking too will be required; and that's not probable but definite. Apparently guessing means probable as well, so I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 ^^^But always remember....True Belief means DEFINITE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 But possible could equal probable.....no? Truly, all things are possible. But not probable or even remotely likely when it comes to bib-wearing Sassy smoking on the caboose platform. Pick yer fights ^^^^Possible does equal probable. But some will have to do some reading to get where some of us are on this. Thinking too will be required; and that's not probable but definite. Nope, doesn't parse. Never will until you can explain and defend an argument over why a Sassy database is more reliable than one for alien abductions or fairies. Again, it's not personal - it's just how logical reason works. If you can't defend your position...? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 In fact, the only harassment I see around here is from certain posters who belittle anyone who does not agree with their position on bigfoot. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I do expect an environment where I can express my doubts and challenge claims without belittlement or being accused of harassment. No, we simply know that your position has nothing backing it up and point that out. Chris, the reason I mentioned your foray into the JREF recently was because you said in your post about discussing and evaluating evidence at JREF. Yet you came there with a pretty wild claim and offered no supporting evidence. That may go over quite well here with some people, but at a place like JREF ( well, now the International Skeptics Forum) that is just not going to fly unchallenged. Well, IT IS A FLAT EARTH, DANGIT. And if you don't believe that, JREF is gonna challenge you, brother. 'Coz they are challenged. The agitation shown by some by simply having their unsupported claims challenged tells me a lot about their confidence in their claim. Just my opinion, of course. Oh and don't we know that. [^^^Pot Moment] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 You know Bill...you don't really tell me anything I don't know already, or accept, with the possible exception of referring it to "my" way. It isn't at all. Well, mine and about a couple of million other people whose minds I admire and some day hope to come close to matching. I find many of them here, regularly. None of these folks hyperventilate over "beliefs" and "impossibilities", draw lines in the dirt about the evidence being "ambiguous" or confuse this entire issue with anything other than what it has long been: An unanswered question that needs serious thought and probably lots and lots of time for the work to be done. We've got a boatload of tourists here too...those who don't see it even as a question, let alone a serous one. They merely take up bandwidth, and should probably take up knitting if you ask me, but what are you gonna do? There will always be those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Hmm, I'd like a scarf and see if DWA can whip me up a sweater - something dignified like a Cosby cardigan. I will leave it to you two to coordinate colors. Has to be more productive than wishing science would just recognize Sassy already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) WSA, serious question for you: What would it take for you to consider this question answered? More precisely, is there a scenario where bigfoot is not confirmed, but you consider the question addressed and answered? Edited October 9, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA, ....Possible does equal probable.But some will have to do some reading to get where some of us are on this. Thinking too will be required; and that's not probable but definite. Possible does NOT mean probable. How'd you come up with that?!?! I think this is where the true problem inherent in all your posts has been stemming from- Your apparent inability to distinguish between the two. As far as reading goes? I'm way past you as are a lot of others since I KNOW the difference between possible and probable. Let me know when the light bulb goes on for ya there sport. And are we ever blessed to have YOU around since you're the only one who reads. Do me a favor tell me something logical for a change will ya? CAN ya? Edited October 9, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts