Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 As I think I explained in another thread, proof doesn't exist in science. It's all logic and probability, otherwise it's all just dogma. Psychoanalysis is a valid method of determining truthfullness. That along with the consistency and variation of described charactericts and behaviour of Sasquatch in reports is part of what makes it so clear to some us that they're real.
ohiobill Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 Why is this so hard to understand? dmaker has patiently explained, repeatedly, how science views anecdotal evidence. It simply provides a starting place to look for testable evidence, no more and no less. It's simple logic that's applied the same whether we're discussing bigfoot, fairies or a child's imaginary friend. . 2
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) Hypotheses that are formed to explain anecdotes qualify as being testable and falsifiable depending on what the hypothesis is. It can be said that the claim that anecdotes aren't falsifiable isn't a logical one, as it's really the hypothesis that needs to be testable, not the data itself. I don't think anyone here is making the mistake of simply claiming that Sasquatch are real as a result of so and so claiming they saw one. We all know people can lie, and that's why psychoanalysis is so useful. As for why the current scientific community won't use anecdotes, the reason has to due with the current trend of wanting to replicate observations to validate them instead of analyzing the alleged observations themselves. It's a way to keep science more reliable, but at the same time, it's partly why there's so much controversy within cryptozoology. The scientific method: 1. Make an observation 2. Form a theory to fit the observation 3. Make a predictive statement (hypothesis) 4. Test the prediction 5. Rewrite theory in light of new information 6. Repeat 3-5 Edited June 9, 2017 by OntarioSquatch
dmaker Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: Hypotheses that are formed to explain anecdotes You fail right out of the gate. No hypothesis can ever prove an anecdote. Why is this so hard to understand? An anecdote without evidence has nothing to test. 23 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: It can be said that the claim that anecdotes aren't falsifiable isn't a logical one No, it cannot. It is entirely logical. 23 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: I don't think anyone here is making the mistake of simply claiming that Sasquatch are real as a result of so and so claiming they saw one Really? Have you missed 5,000 posts by DWA somehow? 23 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: As for why the current scientific community won't use anecdotes, the reason has to due with the current trend of wanting to replicate observations to validate them instead of analyze the alleged observations themselves No, the reason science cannot use anecdotes as evidence is because they are not testable. Why can you not understand this? Do you not understand the necessity of repeatable evidence in science? You should pay more attention to what ohiobill quite well summarized. Let's use an example from basic chemistry. And this speaks to both falsifiability and repeatable evidence. Suppose someone says tap water boils at X degrees. Ok, that sounds interesting, let's test this. Notice now, that the original claim is both falsifiable AND repeatable. An experiment can be easily constructed to either falsify the claim, or support it. How? You simply boil tap water and observe at what temp it boils. Some other scientist needs to be able to repeat this experiment and achieve the same results. They do, and they get the same results. It is then generally agreed that tap water boils at X degrees. That was a simple example. So, let's say another scientist fails to achieve the same results? Ok, why not? Perhaps there were pollutants in the water, perhaps altitude played a role. So, there is more and more testing. The end result might sharpen the original claim into something like tap water boils at X temp at X altitude. But the testing goes on, and the conclusions and results are entered into what is known about the temp at which tap water boils. And the results are easily repeated. And every step of the claim remains falsifiable. At no point can a scientific peer say anything like tap water boils at a different temp in my garage, but you have no access to my garage to test that claim. If it is not testable, it does not count. Such is the scientific process in action. How do you apply that to something that starts with a bigfoot anecdote? Please, by all means, walk us through that process. Edited June 9, 2017 by dmaker
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) As I said, it's the hypothesis that needs to be testable an example: Observation: Someone claiming to have seen Sasquatch Theory: The reason they're claiming it is because they had an actual experience, and are telling the truth Hypothesis: If the witness is telling the truth, then the report may contain language that based on certain psychology theories, indicate that the person is being truthful Edited June 9, 2017 by OntarioSquatch
dmaker Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Wow, you still just don't get it. The claim: Bob saw a bigfoot. The test:???? Please proceed with how the scientific method would test that claim.
dmaker Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: The reason they're claiming it is because they had an actual experience, and are telling the truth In your own very flawed example. What about competing hypotheses? Such as: The reason they are claiming it is because they are lying. The reason they are claiming it is because they suffer from delusional thoughts. The reason they are claiming it is because they mistakenly identified another animal as a sasquatch. How do you test any of those using the scientific method? Please tell... 3 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: I just did You did nothing of the sort. Please outline the experiment, the controls, and how it is repeatable. I outlined an example, feel free to use that as a template. Edited June 9, 2017 by dmaker
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 That should definitely be used as well. For instance Hypothesis: If the witness is being dishonest, then the report may contain language that based on certain psychology theories, indicate that the person isn't telling the truth
dmaker Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) All you are doing is repeating yourself. Your experiment? Basically boils down (no pun intended) to, do I believe this person? If so, the claim is true. That can, and should, be summarily dismissed. In your own example, if a claimant suffered from a condition that produced hallucinations or delusional thoughts, they would truly believe their claim. Thus, they would pass your horribly unscientific test. How do you account for that? Edited June 9, 2017 by dmaker
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 It's basically the same method that you and other ISF members use to analyze proponents. What's unusual is that you won't acknowledge that by the same token, it can also be used to determine they're telling the truth. This one-sided nature reveals the presence of prejudice and denial.
dmaker Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 I'm sorry, but that word salad will not suffice. Please explain how your "truth determination" rules out those that truly believe, but are still incorrect in their claim. I have been very patient, and have done you the courtesy of explaining how an experiment should work. You cannot simply mumble something about ISF and think you are answering the question. If you don't care to explain further, that is fine too. It will be obvious, though, that you have no controls in place to factor in those that truly believe their claim, albeit false.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, dmaker said: Please explain how your "truth determination" rules out those that truly believe, but are still incorrect in their claim. When one finds that there are hundreds of people being honest about what they claim, it becomes pretty clear (based on the details of the reports) that there's a biological entity behind it, and not some freak occurrence (e.g. mass hallucination). Edited June 9, 2017 by OntarioSquatch
ohiobill Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 A hypothetical questions for OS... DWA hires his esteemed friend WSA to file a lawsuit on the behalf of his imaginary friends, bigfoot, fairy folk, spotted owls and the ivory billed woodpecker (run through the problem with each group to see if it changes the outcome or is somehow unfair to bigfoot) who he claims are using your house/land as their only habitat and need legal protection and relief from your occupation of the property. WSA eagerly accepts the challenge and files motions ranging from invoking the endangered species act to adverse possession claims.and submits DWA's sworn testimony that the creatures have been using the property for years, building nests and raising offspring. He also submits thousands of sighting reports describing similar behavior as further validation of the claim. OS - Do you fight this lawsuit or would you release the property solely based on DWA's claims?
dmaker Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: When one finds that there are hundreds of people being honest about what they claim, And how, exactly, did you determine they are being truthful? You insist on starting from a subjective point that you simply cannot know for certain. Nor can you, more importantly, demonstrate that they are being truthful. You have failed to provide a method to weed out those that are incorrect in their claim, but truly believe it be true. So, your initial premise fails, horribly. Edited June 9, 2017 by dmaker
Recommended Posts