Guest DWA Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 The "you," Gumshoeye, was the skeptic I am addressing, who can't tell me I'm the one who needs to prove something when he's got nothing but assumptions. I gotta remember to start using "one" instead of "you" in those situations. Contrary to what bigfoot skeptics think, science weighs the evidence for competing assumptions. Science never says "that's BS until you prove it." Ignorant scientists do that. Science looks at the evidence for and against a proposition, and leans in the direction of the evidence. As John Bindernagel deftly shows: science says sasquatch is real, and it's about time for ignorant scientists to start assessing the evidence so that they can find that out for themselves.
Guest Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Well that’s clearing it that up DWA, as only a gentleman and scholar would do. I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts with blunt common sense and humor. I held my hands out in a gesture of helplessness of not knowing if there was some misunderstanding … I just finished your message and another good one and agree. Cheers! Edited February 11, 2015 by Gumshoeye
Rockape Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Accepting a hoax as a fact is one thing, if the hoax *is* a fact. To go from this fact to a blanket condemnation with no supporting evidence is a flight of fancy...which I find amusing from anyone who demands proof from me. You first. One of the real problems, for myself anyway, is that there are not actually that many that I can say ARE for certain outright hoaxes, or cases of mistaken identities, or insanity. I'm not sure what to make of them and for me they make up the bulk of BF evidence.
Guest DWA Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 ...and thank you, sir, and I should step in again and correct my post. Contrary to what bigfoot skeptics think, science weighs the evidence for competing assumptions hypotheses. There, fixed. "Assumptions" is a four-letter word in science.
Rockape Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Too many completely dismiss the possibility that BF exists because crappy evidence is so prevalent. It gives them an easy way to toss aside the whole idea. I understand however that much of it can make someone completely dismiss the idea. That's too bad, because I think if they dug deep enough they would find the people they believe and can't dismiss what they say they have experienced firsthand.They would also find it just as frustrating as I and many others do that we cannot produce physical evidence that can't be dismissed.
Guest Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 http://tetzoo.com/?offset=1395142753296 episode 3 at the bottom of the page features a scientists open to the possibility of BF. He discusses various example of evidence, but concludes the creature doesn't exist.
Guest Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Good post Rock, I enjoyed reading your explanation.
Guest DWA Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 One of the real problems, for myself anyway, is that there are not actually that many that I can say ARE for certain outright hoaxes, or cases of mistaken identities, or insanity. I'm not sure what to make of them and for me they make up the bulk of BF evidence. What I go by is: if it appears to be human or of human manufacture, I presume it is. That tosses out pretty much everything on, say, YouTube. It of course tosses out any tracks that show indications of stamping, incision, or anything else that would be consistent with *manufacture.* (Also rules out the doof holding a cast of his foot up next to his foot.) Patty ain't no YouTube video. There are almost no others I can be sure of...but no one's telling me Patty's a fake until they can *prove* it. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that would lend credence to a fake. One's the only one you need to be at least persuaded of the possibility. For film/video, Patty's the one for me. As to footprints? If experts in fields directly relevant vouch for it, and there are quite a few of those, it stands, until someone *proves* to me they're wrong. I've said much here about the sightings. It simply is not a proposition on which I would bet anything I cared about that all the reports I have read are false positives; it stretches credulity to the breaking point for me to presume that even a significant fraction of them are. They read like truth reads. Any alternative hypothesis, applied to what I have read, is just head-shakingly no-way. To me, now, personally. Too many completely dismiss the possibility that BF exists because crappy evidence is so prevalent. It gives them an easy way to toss aside the whole idea. I understand however that much of it can make someone completely dismiss the idea. That's too bad, because I think if they dug deep enough they would find the people they believe and can't dismiss what they say they have experienced firsthand.They would also find it just as frustrating as I and many others do that we cannot produce physical evidence that can't be dismissed. Many of those who toss based on crap are scientists who don't show me any indications they've engaged with anything *but* crap. A superficial scan of the stuff that comes up in the media, combined with a priori incredulty, could get a laugh from a scientist who is straight down the line science on almost anything else. I don't think they dig deep enough because they're not *paid* to do that. There's no money in it for them. There is however great stakes in "looking expert" to people who ask them, with eyes already a-roll, about "this bigfoot stuff."
Guest Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 can we have any examples of specific scientists?
Guest DWA Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) You mean Meldrum or Krantz or Bindernagel, who have written books on this? (Which you have, no doubt, read, and can comment upon?) Or skeptical, as in *most*, scientists? What are you angling at? You do need to know that one bigfoot-skeptic meme I am done with is "show me examples." There is no way that one will convince anyone determined to think what he thinks until a body is plunked down in front of him with "examples." (There is also no way to understand evidence other than reviewing it. Science doesn't allow shortcuts. Sorry.) Edited February 11, 2015 by DWA
Guest Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 You went on a rant about scientists not engaging with Bigfoot evidence and being ignorant. I simply asked for an example. Can you show us one or is it more of your usual? I give you credit for at least admitting you're incapable of giving any decent examples of BF evidence.
Guest Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Thanks for the explanation DWA, much appreciated…
Guest DWA Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) You went on a rant about scientists not engaging with Bigfoot evidence and being ignorant. I simply asked for an example. Can you show us one or is it more of your usual? I give you credit for at least admitting you're incapable of giving any decent examples of BF evidence. Oh, see, there is a mountain of it. But that's the part that no one refusing to engage is capable of getting. (Didn't I tell you there are no shortcuts here? And that "no examples, eh?" is a classic marker that someone hasn't done his homework? I did, didn't I.) You have forgotten who is supposed to provide the examples of scientists not engaging with bigfoot evidence. See? YOU ARE. They're the ones who *agree with you,* that you are always citing as your examples of why all this is crap. And yet? *You can't even tell me what they think.* Sloppy, my man, flat sloppy. Oh, I could call up several for you. I got names. Cartmill? Begun? Ciochon? Sagan? Leeson? Shermer? Prothero? Hackworth? Daegling? You couldn't name one. YOU give me *one* scientist who agrees with YOU, and show me why I should take what he says seriously. (You can't.) (Oh. Those guys I named? Dead to rights before I'd read a paragraph of each, each one a victim of Dr. DWA's First Rule of Bigfoot Skepticism: a bigfoot skeptic will make four fatal errors in the first 30 seconds of his mansplanation.) The biggest mistake bigfoot skeptics make with me is thinking I owe them time of day. I don't. I know what's going on here. They don't. Other than punching bags I use to show budding scientists How It's Done, they're a waste of my time. And here I am showing proponents one good way not to waste theirs: Don't fall for the "examples" dodge. It's the last resort of lazy people who can't defend their position; don't know they have one to defend; and don't do their due diligence. Edited February 12, 2015 by DWA
Guest Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) I did what you asked in this very thread. Did you bother to check?There's nothing wrong with asking for an example or evidence when some makes a ridiculous claim. Pretty sure you also have me mixed up with someone else. I rarely cite arguments from either side. Edited February 12, 2015 by chelefoot
Guest DWA Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) And I am sure you have polled them all. You are one of the last people here I would trust to make such an assessment. Giving up already, I see. This is what happens when people lose arguments. Don't be so blatant about it.\ (Proponents take notes. This is A Clinic. Who was it here who said 'the first one to call names loses the argument'? He was right.) Answer my cogent smackdown points. Any year you're ready. My over/under? Five. Edited February 12, 2015 by DWA Removed reference to deleted content
Recommended Posts