Guest DWA Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 ^^^No! Because you are forcing him to contest his untested assumptions! Hate being the spoiler. But hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) "Not all will accept the extent proofs, and come up with far from believable alternative explanations for the evidence. As I like to day, "evidence free" assertions - some quite fanciful. Not all will even review the existing evidence carefully enough, with an open enough mind, to understand it." And this is where one of the more "open"-minded skeptical assertions - "there's just so much fakery out there it's impossible to be sure" - hits the rocks. Anyone conversant with the evidence will know that the useless stuff is blatantly, hopelessly useless. There is no such thing, and never has been, as a "convincing" or "persuasive" sasfake. They're all laugh-out-loud obvious...and easily distinguishable from the live evidence. Nothing could be easier than for a well-informed layman, never mind a person with the relevant scientific training, to separate that chaff from the wheat that remains unaddressed, which makes this assertion a red flag that the person making it is unfamiliar with the evidence. Edited December 31, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Crowlogic, I'll just add briefly that, in essence, I agree with your point about not enough analysis being done, or at least being publicly available. The closest thought I had to Bigfoot for nigh on 30 years was a sporadically recurring nightmare in which the Scooby-Doo abominable snowman keeps nearly catching me on a ski chairlift. Literally, that was it. No more than five years ago, I re-discovered Bigfoot. I bought one or two general books because I figured that 30 years of progress gave us walkmans, AOL, and cordless phones, so surely, there would be some conclusive evidence somewhere on the internet, one way or t'other about the existence of Bigfoot. Surely all I had to do was find one or two websites for a definitive answer. The problem that I have is that your question is attributing the failures of others - either to rigorously analyze the available information they have or to make that analysis public - to everyone w/o due consideration of other factors. It would be one thing to expect a finely-tuned, well-run organization that had a very strong motive to do the work for not doing so; I believe its unfair to fault sincere volunteers - w/o sufficient time, funds, training, or scientific background - for not producing such a product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeZimmer Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 {to } Crowlogic, ... I'll just add briefly that, in essence, I agree with your point about not enough analysis being done, or at least being publicly available. The closest thought I had to Bigfoot ... The problem that I have is that your question is attributing the failures of others - either to rigorously analyze the available information they have or to make that analysis public - to everyone w/o due consideration of other factors. It would be one thing to expect a finely-tuned, well-run organization that had a very strong motive to do the work for not doing so; I believe its unfair to fault sincere volunteers - w/o sufficient time, funds, training, or scientific background - for not producing such a product. I wonder just how easy people think it is to populate a database with good quality data, from disparate sources, and then run meaningful analysis on it? The ideas, the information model, the meta-data are going to be very different for each data collection, each group doing the collecting, even if they do a good job of taking and vetting reports. Data entry is tedious and error prone. I know, I worked for several decades doing statistical analysis, data quality analysis and improvement, database conversions, database design, and data administration, and wrote a couple of articles on database conversion published in a respected journal. I even programmed the odd database here and there, before the technology changed so fast I lost interest in keeping up. This stuff is labour intensive, at all stages of the work. My hats off to the team working on the database. More power to them, they should be supported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted December 31, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted December 31, 2014 Mike you're more than welcome to get involved. I've read and liked a lot of what you've said recently, you'd be and extremely valuable addition to the team if you wanted to get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) Crowlogic, The problem that I have is that your question is attributing the failures of others - either to rigorously analyze the available information they have or to make that analysis public - to everyone w/o due consideration of other factors. It would be one thing to expect a finely-tuned, well-run organization that had a very strong motive to do the work for not doing so; I believe its unfair to fault sincere volunteers - w/o sufficient time, funds, training, or scientific background - for not producing such a product. Yep. This is called "blaming the animal's nonexistence on the people looking for it." I don't listen to people who sit in the bleachers and carp; I listen to the people who are out on the field, playing. If all they can afford is leather helmets and a beat-up ball, then the people in the bleachers need to pony up for better gear, or shut up and watch the freakin' game. Blaming the amateurs: verboten. Here are the big failures here: 1. The scientific mainstream: FAIL. The evidence, presented in a palatable easy to understand form, is right in front of them. And they continue to say things - practically every sentence out of their collective mouth, in fact - that shows, conclusively, that they are utterly unfamiliar with it. They say things science forbids scientists from saying. 2. The bigfoot skeptics: FAIL. The proponents have piled up a mountain of evidence, tantamount to proof that something totally new to science needs to be confirmed, were the mainstream paying proper attention that is. On the other hand, the bigfoot skeptics - constantly constantly CONSTANTLY repeat themselves; - continuously bring up points long since resolved in favor of the proponents; - have brought up NOT A SINGLE MOLECULE! of evidence supporting their position, repeating over and over (see above) the tired canard about not being able to prove a negative. Anyone with a scientific mind understands that one is trying to prove a comprehensive false positive. One can do that. The skeptics? Haven't done a thing. - continuously defend scientists who aren't practicing science at all - in fact, who are violating the most basic scientific precepts - and, unsurprisingly, never come up with any better defense than, hey, they are SCIENTISTS, and we don't understand what they are supposed to do, at all, but bow down before them. Nice defense there. There is no blacker pot calling a kettle black than a bigfoot skeptic. That the amateurs are the only people in the field is their signal failure, and theirs alone. They are responsible for derailing the march of science. All because they want to win an argument they don't know they already have lost. Edited December 31, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts