Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense

[WSA]

Yes, but...

 

Science may need something more than sighting reports, but I need that less and less, the more I read.  I wish Science all the best in that regard.

 

Well sure.  Bias happens. I suppose it is just a matter of terminology. One man's "bias" is another's "experience." If what I thought I knew was constantly being contradicted by my experience, that would impugn my credibility with myself substantially. I was having a conversation with somebody the other day, a man of my age. His point was, the older we get the more rigid we become in how we like certain things to go/be. A common observation, I know, but I had to note that as that applied to me...and it certainly does...there is a long history of learning by failing. Or, as sailors say, every Navy Reg is written in blood. Those who don't learn from their mistakes will be culled.  I guess if you want to call the "bias", suit yourself.  When you add up enough years of having these observations pan out, even dunder-heads like myself can twig a clue. This is not to say I didn't think I knew better in years past. I certainly did. Blood (both the real and figurative kinds)ensued.

[ohiobill]

Sure bias happens, it's well documented in the literature if you want to objectively examine how it's affecting your judgement in ways you've probably never considered. 

 

Again, it's not just terminology. Bias and experience are not the same thing. You don't have to take my word for it, you can consult Webster. Experience actually makes it easier to mistakenly apply bias that shouldn't be part of what is being examined. I'm not sure of your age but it really doesn't matter in your example above. We all have certain biases whether it's our choice of surroundings, food, etc. The goal is to exclude them, not embrace them when objectively going over evidence. Your favorite food might be pizza or chicken or steak - it doesn't matter when calculating protein values or calories objectively. Your experience wouldn't (and shouldn't) count for anything in such an calculation, just as your experience doesn't count when it comes to determining the validity of sassy sightings. Each has to be taken on it's own and examined individually for evidence that you can use. Without evidence each sighting fails to deliver and can be culled from the list of sightings that can be used to recognize a previously unrecognized animal. You don't call that bias or experience, it's objectivity. 

 

I know you don't like to approach things scientifically but a simple experiment for you to conduct would be to contact James Randi and claim to be a "human lie detector". It would allow you to test your experience for any possible bias. Apply for the million dollar prize and submit to testing. If your experience allows you to successfully complete the exam you will have an extra million to use as you wish and proof that your experience is not a bias. The worst case is that you fail the exam but better understand your own personal biases. It's really a win-win if you consider objectivity a valid goal. Without some sort of test in this vein I hope you will forgive my being skeptical of your abilities.

 

That's why bias and experience aren't the same. My experience has been that those that claim to be able to divine the truthfulness of sassy reports are often easily mislead by hoaxers. It would be unfair of me to project my previous experience with others onto you or your claimed abilities. It would be equally unfair if I judged your claim based on the possible experience that those who believe in the Dyers, Standings and Mike Pattersons of the world (misguided as they are) feel they possess. That's why each and every claim or sighting can only be judged as it stands, alone, on the strength of testable evidence.

[Guest DWA]

Well, I can agree with ohiobill on one thing:  the reaction of "scientists" to the evidence for hairy hominoids reeks so heavily of unconscionable bias that it must be consigned, whole, to that bin, and ignored henceforth.  Thanks, ob, for that insight.  It's moving the discussion along.

Oh, granted. But this is not the kind of evidence I find most compelling and gets winnowed out pretty easily. The REAL bias I see on any given day around here is the idea that a sighting is anything BUT what the witness claims it to be. That shuts it down pronto and no learning occurs. I've said this often: People lie in predictable ways, and not many are that good at it either.  You can toss tons of stuff if you chose to do that (and I do) and still come up with some very, very compelling stuff that defies any off-hand explanation. The off-hand explanation is a guaranteed thought-stopper.  Those who let themselves hang-out in that zone of uncertainty though are the ones who will crack this.  No short cuts. No casual dismissals allowed in scientific observation and knowledge. just the slow drip-drip of observation piled on observation and conclusive fact resulting.  At some tipping point, the much vaunted requirement of conclusive proof recedes in significance, or it is at least overtaken by the cumulative evidence. I think we are there.

This.  That process of automatically presuming the witness COULD NOT! have had that experience Because I Wasn't There is flat-out...well, it makes sasquatch and mice pretty much equally incredible by comparison.  These people WSA is describing - oh, NONE of them here, nosireeBob! - go head on hard against everything a lifetime of logic has taught them.  Besides which, they trust implicitly people they must not think ever do any work, at all.  That hard work that WSA describes in those last few sentences?  The proponents are doing it.  The deniers?  They are not, and appear not to ever plan to.  You watched P/G a *number of times*?  And *changed your mind?*  Dark Side, buddy.  Your towels are forever soiled with me.  You have to see everything once, and analyze it never, to cut any ice with a hard-core science freek like me.

[WSA]

The hyper-empirical world you seem to yearn for has never existed, and never will Bill. The idea that scientific progress only comes from such a world is equally wrong.  There is no objective person, and there is no absolutely objective scientist. Scientific opportunity has been recognized by those who are biased towards crafting a plausible hypothesis and following the evidence to its logical conclusion. That is where we find ourselves now, on this topic. 

 

 Holding out for such an ideal is to withdraw from just about every field of worthy human endeavor.  I don't know about you, but I'm going to be wanting a cardiologist who is "biased" enough to predict why the T wave on my EKG trace is inverted.  Edison was biased enough to think pictures could move and an incandescent filament would last longer than a couple of seconds before fusing.  Charles Goodyear was though to be quite mad with bias about the idea of making rubber durable and flexible. You've misunderstood me if you think I think I have no bias.  You do understand me if you understand me to say we all do. And that is not at all a bad thing.

[ohiobill]

DWA - It's unfair to apply your personal bias as to what "evidence" is to science at large. When dealing with science you have to accept the definition of evidence that science accepts - it's no different than dealing with any other industry or institution. You may feel your bank should keep an extra $10000 in your account but they probably don't agree and they make the rules. When in Rome...

 

We can know it's possible a witness saw what they claim. We can feel it's probable they are right or wrong. We can't know either way without testable results, hence the reason it's not evidence.

 

I don't know what WSA's life experience has taught him in total but I can assure you it's not what's needed to definitively assert the veracity of anonymous anecdotal claims he hasn't examined. Science can't examine claims without testing therefore they can't come to a conclusion. For example, we could know you or WSA were reliable judges of truth if one of you claimed the prize from Randi as I suggested as a possible experiment above. Without proof all we have is your assertion which doesn't rise to the level of evidence. It's simple really and should not be the cause of so such angst on your part. It's how our world works, accept it and move on.

 

I think you have me mistaken for someone else, I haven't changed my mind about the PGF. It's inconclusive with no consensus in my opinion. Keeps me coming back though, just hoping for something definitive. 

 

WSA - The world doesn't need to be hyper-empirical but testing has to be or it's worthless. Your cardiologist wouldn't have to predict anything about your inverted T wave. He'd listen to your account then look for testable evidence like previous EKG's and Troponin levels before making up his mind concerning your treatment plan. It has to work that way or everyone with abnormal EKG's would receive expensive and unwarranted treatment to the possible detriment of the patient. It has to work that way with sassy too. We examine the account before we test what's possible and come to a conclusion. Conclusions without testing don't work.

[Guest DWA]

DWA - It's unfair to apply your personal bias as to what "evidence" is to science at large. When dealing with science you have to accept the definition of evidence that science accepts - it's no different than dealing with any other industry or institution. You may feel your bank should keep an extra $10000 in your account but they probably don't agree and they make the rules. When in Rome...

 

Nope.  WSA has been laying this out for numerous posts now.  Scientists are saying that, and the ones that are saying that are not understanding how science works.  ((The red words are two very vastly different things.)  Those of us skeptical about how small, biased, money-grubbing status-seeking humans treat science know they have this wrong.  Because...They.Flat.Do.  We know because we have thought about this far more than they have, in far more depth, science our lodestone and only guide...and we can tell that by the very things they say.  They are doofuses when it comes to this.

 

We can know it's possible a witness saw what they claim. We can feel it's probable they are right or wrong. We can't know either way without testable results, hence the reason it's not evidence.

 

Wrong.  As my good friend R. Dawkins says, proof is a concept scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.  One does not do the "proof or trash?" with every single bingle gingle zingle piece of evidence.  One doesn't have enough life to do that.  One aggregates and searches on consistencies.  One assesses the probability that it could be something other than it appears to be.  WSA has been saying this for pages now, too.  If it's not evidence...how have most of the species we know about been found that way?  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

I don't know what WSA's life experience has taught him in total but I can assure you it's not what's needed to definitively assert the veracity of anonymous anecdotal claims he hasn't examined.

 

He has examined them.  I have examined them.  Qualified scientists have examined them.  You have not.  You may not be understanding what the word means.  Make that, you don't.  When I tell a skeptic you have a long row to hoe here, you have to prove every sighting report false, the skeptic invariably goes:  it's ridiculous to ask someone to do that!  So?  DON'T.  That is not how science works.  That is not how science examines evidence.

 

Science can't examine claims without testing therefore they can't come to a conclusion.  Based on claims????  Yesindeedee they can.  TEST THE CLAIM.  Go there; look for what these people saw.  (They should, says one who has examined the claims.)

 

Remember me buddy R. Dawk?  The anecdotes place a very testable claim before a scientist:  go there and you'll find this there.  Test it any time there, scientists.

 

For example, we could know you or WSA were reliable judges of truth if one of you claimed the prize from Randi as I suggested as a possible experiment above. Without proof all we have is your assertion which doesn't rise to the level of evidence. It's simple really and should not be the cause of so such angst on your part. It's how our world works, accept it and move on.

 

When the world works wrong, fix it.  This isn't the first time that scientists have done wrong, exactly this way.  In fact, it's not just the 2,543rd.  Angst?????  WE KNOW BIGFOOT'S REAL.  This has been a source of unbounded joy to us.  What precisely is wallowing in mundane stasis doing for you???

 

I think you have me mistaken for someone else, I haven't changed my mind about the PGF. It's inconclusive with no consensus in my opinion. Keeps me coming back though, just hoping for something definitive. 

 

Every opinion based on an examination of the film says:  genuine.  You will not find an exception.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2015 by DWA

[roguefooter]

Based on claims????  Yesindeedee they can.  TEST THE CLAIM.  Go there; look for what these people saw.  (They should, says one who has examined the claims.)

 

Remember me buddy R. Dawk?  The anecdotes place a very testable claim before a scientist:  go there and you'll find this there.  Test it any time there, scientists.

 

 

This has been done to death- going to sighting locations only to have no encounter. I've even been to a few dozen locations myself and encountered nothing. How many people have been to Bluff Creek? How about the Oregon Caves? How about the redwoods? Green, Byrne, and Dahinden have probably visited thousands of sighting locations in the past 50 years. Every week on Finding Bigfoot where do they go? To the sighting locations. The list goes on and on..

 

The anecdotes fail to reproduce results every time.

Edited June 6, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest Crowlogic]

This has been done to death- going to sighting locations only to have no encounter. I've even been to a few dozen locations myself and encountered nothing. How many people have been to Bluff Creek? How about the Oregon Caves? How about the redwoods? Green, Byrne, and Dahinden have probably visited thousands of sighting locations in the past 50 years. Every week on Finding Bigfoot where do they go? To the sighting locations. The list goes on and on..

 

The anecdotes fail to reproduce results every time.

"fail every time" is the heart of the matter too.  One can't expect Finding Bigfoot to actually find anything since it is essentially a rolling circus for entertainment purposes.  But everybody fails every time no matter how they  approach the search.  

[Guest DWA]

Sorry, guys, not feelin' it.  You're torturing yourselves.  I'm gonna stop assisting with that for a bit.  It's really much easier to get caught up; a lot more fun too, and the way the scientist does things.  I'd try it.  I get a feeling if I opened those I'd see the same old stuff, said a different way but not much.  I'll pass.

[ohiobill]

DWA - Sorry, but conclusions without testing are called GUESSES. Guesses are opinions, not facts. I know you and WSA have put a lot of time into reading and believing encounter reports. I'm sure it's not pleasant coming to the realization that neither WSA's opinion or your own is held in high enough regard to matter when demanding science change it's standards for you. 

 

Please realize that the world is not a NAWAC style clubhouse wrapped in opaque black plastic sheeting where you can abandon reason and pretend that reading anecdotal encounter reports gives you the right to determine the rules and make claims without evidence and be taken seriously. The world isn't going to change for you or WSA no matter how many different colors, styles or sizes of fonts you use in posts on the BFF. There is nothing wrong with the world the way it is, it doesn't need to change. Science shouldn't recognize cryptid creatures featured at a Texas bigfoot conference without evidence. Lake monsters, lizard men and sassy need to be proven and not just believed in by those who read about them on the internet.

 

Science has given us cardiologists to treat inverted T waves. Your path might give us Sasfooty in charge and basing treatment on what the squatch are telling her telepathically. People's lives shouldn't depend on who you are believing this week. There's a reason science abandoned stories. It doesn't make any sense, that's why it's not ever going to happen. 

[Guest DWA]

Right.  Like, kinda, that.

 

See, guys, the problem with science is, too frequently, scientists, and what they *tell* you science is supposed to be like.  The problem with that approach is that it way too frequently retards the progress of science.  Science is about inquiry and curiosity, not the defense to the death of stale canon.  Just sayin' there.

I know that you know - and I know that you know that I know that you know - that the way you are talking about science moving forward is PROOF following PROOF following ROCK SOLID PROOF.  Nope.  It is, and I mean *usually* is, educated GUESSES and TAKING PEOPLE AT THEIR WORD and FINDING OUT WHY THEY ARE SAYING STUFF.

[ohiobill]

Again, science is not the problem. The problem lies in trying to treat encounter reports as evidence. Abandon the guesses and whichever sassy researcher you are feeling good about this week. Follow the science on how researchers are tracking wild gorillas. SPOILER ALERT - It doesn't involve guessing or mind links when you track wild apes. The researchers getting results spend a lot of time picking up poop. 

[Rockape]

I don't know about all the bantering, I just got back from a week in Northern Minnesota and had no BF encounters, noises, or sightings.

 

You obviously aren't trying hard enough. Bang on a tree and howl at the moon next time. I hear that works.

[Guest DWA]

I've lived in coyote country and hiked in it for...oh, let's not date myself.  Heard them?  Seen one?  Rare, to say the least.  There is probably one within walking distance of me right now...and I never, ever hear them here.

Edited June 6, 2015 by DWA

[roguefooter]

^They're easy to see with a night vision scope. Their eyes light up like headlights.

 

Coyotes, skunks, raccoons, deer, jack rabbits, cats, dogs, no problem. No Bigfoots though.