Bigfoot And The Dragon In My Garage

[Guest]

Reads EXACTLY the same way, prior to one turning up in a fisherman's net.

That's nice. I specifically mentioned Brachiosaurus and Triceratops. Any of those still around? If not, why do you think so? Maybe we haven't been looking in the right places.

There is no principle of science that forbids the existence of relict non-avian dinosaurs, nor that of a relict great ape/hominid.

No, not forbidden by any scientific principle, just not established by any scientific evidence.

It's called logic, Sas.

Presenting a logical argument that something could be true does not make that thing true.

Note the use of the qualifiers and the dismissal of the eyewitness testimony. Typical Skeptic "science". Fence the debate into terms favorable to your preferred conclusion.

You're all wet, as usual. Claims of sauropods in the Congo Basin have been investigated and have turned up not one scrap of physical evidence for such creatures. That doesn't mean they can't be there, but the lack of evidence certainly doesn't help the case.

Read his book. He quotes "scientists" making biased and un-scientific anti-bf statements.

And? All scientists have critics of their work. When I was working on my PhD the most prominent and recent paper I had for my literature cited was a review that slammed the entire line of inquiry in which I was working. Just because some people are critical of your work does not mean there is editorial bias against your work.

Yes, it is...you (and they) should be doing so...he HAS written one. So has Fahrenbach.

So your evidence for editorial bias against publishing bigfoot papers is that both Meldrum and Fahrenbach have published bigfoot papers? More of that "logic" you mentioned Mulder?

That has been threatened on at least one occasion in the past by his "colleagues" at said university based on his research.

Meldrum went up for tenure . . . and got it. Again, being granted tenure and promotion is not really compelling evidence for some kind of problem in a scientist's career.

[Guest]

We're just "clever apes" according to the prevailing view.

Yes that's the point. We're apes that have gotten so clever that we've gone way beyond licking termites off blades of grass to actually figuring out that the elements that comprise our brains ultimately came from the stardust of the Big Bang. We are a part of the universe that has figured out what it is. You don't need to be a Carl Sagan fan to recognize that as a profound observation capable of inspiring scientific exploration and further discovery.

[Guest]

Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it is true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so."

But a skeptic shouldn't be saying that. They should be saying, "Show me this dragon." And/or "Where is the evidence for this dragon?"

It's not up to the skeptic to show that the dragon doesn't exist in anyone's garage, it's up to the claimant to show the evidence in favor of it.

RayG

What is the difference between saying, "There is no dragon" or that "There currently is no evidence of a dragon" ? The claimant showed evidence of footprints and some scorch marks but since no one tripped over the invisible dragon tail, it simply doesn't exist. The evidence could not be reproduced on command, yet it is still evidence, however if it isn't collected according to accepted policy or protocols it can be made worthless. It does not diminish the presence of the evidence, therefore there is a residual effect on the environment. So if you totally dismiss giant footprints or scorch marks in your garage, what do you have? If it isn't a dragon then it's some kind of fire hazard that needs to be evaluated. When you evaluate all other explanations that prove not to be valid you are still left with the footprints and the scorch marks, so what is it? If we can not prove something to be 100% true, it remains a theory or a myth. There are many theories floating around that are regarded as truth. Science does not suggest that it has the final word on any subject, only the most current explanation until further data is collected to reform a hypothesis. Sagan's logic is flawed by the extreme exaggeration of using the dragon as his example in the first place and to suggest that we ignore data that can't be replicated at will. It is irrelvant who has the burden of proof in this scenario.

[Guest]

That's nice. I specifically mentioned Brachiosaurus and Triceratops. Any of those still around? If not, why do you think so? Maybe we haven't been looking in the right places.

On what basis must it be one of those two? A different, smaller species perhaps? or a descendent species adapted for current environmental conditions (as I noted in the "dragon" thread, things like browse coverage and atmospheric pressure were vastly different in those days).

No, not forbidden by any scientific principle, just not established by any scientific evidence.

Again with the qualifier, which YOU insist on defining a particular way to exclude the evidence on proffer.

Presenting a logical argument that something could be true does not make that thing true.

It certainly makes it more likely to be true than the case for something a logical argument can NOT be made for.

You're all wet, as usual. Claims of sauropods in the Congo Basin have been investigated and have turned up not one scrap of physical evidence for such creatures. That doesn't mean they can't be there, but the lack of evidence certainly doesn't help the case.

Again, using YOUR carefully defined standard for evidence.

So your evidence for editorial bias against publishing bigfoot papers is that both Meldrum and Fahrenbach have published bigfoot papers? More of that "logic" you mentioned Mulder?

No, pointing out that if you are indeed sincere about reviewing proponent papers, then you'd better get to work...or is your side going to continue to sit in your labs and just sneer?

Meldrum went up for tenure . . . and got it. Again, being granted tenure and promotion is not really compelling evidence for some kind of problem in a scientist's career.

The fact remains that other "scientists" attempted to deny him tenure and promotion based on his position. That is absolute proof of bias.

[Guest]

Yes that's the point. We're apes that have gotten so clever that we've gone way beyond licking termites off blades of grass to actually figuring out that the elements that comprise our brains ultimately came from the stardust of the Big Bang. We are a part of the universe that has figured out what it is. You don't need to be a Carl Sagan fan to recognize that as a profound observation capable of inspiring scientific exploration and further discovery.

Not really...mere intellect isn't profound, and "the means by which the universe knows itself" is so much overly florid hypocrisy since the prevailing view is that there is nothing profound about ANY animal (inlcuding man), that we are all just advanced beasts with the illusion of higher understanding.

Not to mention that it's a logical WTF, since the secular base assumption of the nature of the universe is that it merely exists and has no capacity to experience ANYTHING, so us "knowing" about the universe imparts nothing TO the universe.

Again, pretty words that mean nothing.

[Guest]

On what basis must it be one of those two?

Because those were the two I explicitly mentioned. If you'd like to address other things then yes, I accept your apology for the strawman argument you made.

I'd also still like to hear your explanation about those two genera of non-avian dinosaurs. Are there any extant brachiosaurs or ceratopsians and how have you determined so if not?

A different, smaller species perhaps? or a descendent species adapted for current environmental conditions (as I noted in the "dragon" thread, things like browse coverage and atmospheric pressure were vastly different in those days).

Lemme get this straight. In a thread inspired by Sagan's "dragon in my garage" essay, you're speculating on qualities of dinosaurs (a.k.a. "dragons") that could have allowed them to survive to the present day?

Again with the qualifier, which YOU insist on defining a particular way to exclude the evidence on proffer.

What makes you think that some degree of verifiable physical evidence is some extreme criterion adhered to only by uber-skeptics like me? I'm only talking about the basic information to declare that an organism exists.

It certainly makes it more likely to be true than the case for something a logical argument can NOT be made for.

The fact that extant non-avian dinosaurs are more likely to exist than the tooth fairy doesn't really get you that far, Mulder.

Again, using YOUR carefully defined standard for evidence.

The phrase I used was "one scrap of physical evidence." Are you suggesting that I should relax my criterion to "zero scraps of physical evidence?"

No, pointing out that if you are indeed sincere about reviewing proponent papers, then you'd better get to work...or is your side going to continue to sit in your labs and just sneer?

"My side" reviews manuscripts that get submitted. If "your side" doesn't submit those manuscripts then what is there for us to review?

The fact remains that other "scientists" attempted to deny him tenure and promotion based on his position. That is absolute proof of bias.

Here's an assignment for you this afternoon: First, determine how many science faculty at 4-year colleges and universities were denied tenure last year. Next, determine how many got tenure without unanimous support of their promotion and tenure committee.

I suspect that if you could get those data, you'd find that hundreds of assistant professors would fall into the latter category (I did) and dozens in the former. Thus Dr. Meldrum would be in good company even if he had been denied tenure, which he wasn't.

I don't mind that you clearly don't understand the process of tenure and promotion; some of us in that process don't understand it very well. The problem is that you issue these sweeping statements from a position of absolute conviction that is not grounded in fact.

[Guest]

. . . we are all just advanced beasts with the illusion of higher understanding.

So there really aren't such things as gravity, light, carbon, oxygen, energy, etc.?

[Guest]

Because those were the two I explicitly mentioned. If you'd like to address other things then yes, I accept your apology for the strawman argument you made.

No strawman involved, except yours.

I'd also still like to hear your explanation about those two genera of non-avian dinosaurs. Are there any extant brachiosaurs or ceratopsians and how have you determined so if not?

And your strawman takes another bow.

Lemme get this straight. In a thread inspired by Sagan's "dragon in my garage" essay, you're speculating on qualities of dinosaurs (a.k.a. "dragons") that could have allowed them to survive to the present day?

Given what we know about the nature of the browse and atmosphere then and now, it isn't "speculation" that they would have to adapt (becoming smaller being the most obvious adaptation).

The phrase I used was "one scrap of physical evidence." Are you suggesting that I should relax my criterion to "zero scraps of physical evidence?"

The question isn't physical evidence. The question is EVIDENCE itself. Once again, you are attempting to narrowly define "evidence" in such a way as to only favor your position.

Eyewitness testimonies ARE evidence. You don't like that.

Too dang bad for you.

"My side" reviews manuscripts that get submitted. If "your side" doesn't submit those manuscripts then what is there for us to review?

The two I mentioned have been published...get to it if you're serious.

It's "fish or cut bait" time on this issue.

Here's an assignment for you this afternoon: First, determine how many science faculty at 4-year colleges and universities were denied tenure last year. Next, determine how many got tenure without unanimous support of their promotion and tenure committee.

I suspect that if you could get those data, you'd find that hundreds of assistant professors would fall into the latter category (I did) and dozens in the former. Thus Dr. Meldrum would be in good company even if he had been denied tenure, which he wasn't.

I don't mind that you clearly don't understand the process of tenure and promotion; some of us in that process don't understand it very well. The problem is that you issue these sweeping statements from a position of absolute conviction that is not grounded in fact.

I understand it perfectly well. Dr Meldrums "peers" at the university tried not only to deny him tenure, but to have him removed based NOT on the quality of his work, but on his position on the subject of BF.

100 percent iron-clad evidence of bias, no matter how bad it makes "science" look.

[Guest]

The question isn't physical evidence.

Um, yes it is. Would you care to provide a list of all the species that have been described and recognized by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature based on eyewitness testimony?

The two I mentioned have been published...get to it if you're serious.

You might read this slowly so it sinks in: If the papers are published, then they have already made it through the process of peer review.

I understand it perfectly well.

You should, as I've explained it to you several times now.

Dr Meldrums "peers" at the university tried not only to deny him tenure, but to have him removed based NOT on the quality of his work, but on his position on the subject of BF.

The claim that multiple faculty colleagues petitioned the ISU Administration to have Meldrum fired because he does bigfoot research is unsubstantiated. (I guess that's why you believe it.) Even IF it were true, however, it's irrelevant. The majority of his colleagues there - and his Administration - supported his work and promoted him to Associate Professor, with tenure. This may come as a shock, but when your colleagues vote to give you a big raise and basically assure you that your job is secure until you choose to retire, that's not really good evidence for bias against what you do.

[Guest Blackdog]

If this wasn't so sad it might be funny.

Mulder, if someone is holding the only gun in a gun fight it isn't wise to keep going after them after you've been shot...multiple times.

What is that saying about repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Back to the evidence = proof fallacy we go it seems.

What is this even supposed to mean? You made an argument about what constitutes an evidence, and I addressed that. I'll repeat the basic argument again (and a little simpler, in case you didn't get it): You basically said that evidence for bigfoot doesn't need to be testable, because it can't be performed in a laboratory experiment. I replied with an example of how "testable" doesn't need to mean experimentation; it just means that evidence is needed that a hypothesis can be tested against. That evidence can be found, as in archeology, which is a whole science based around things that have been found. For example:

Say an archeologist makes a hypotheses that Neanderthals were making Mousterian tools 30,000 years ago. That obviously can't be experimented on or directly observed, but the archeologist would still have evidence in the Neandethal tools that have been found. If some have been found that do date to 30,000 year ago, his hypothesis would be correct. By contrast, nothing conclusive has been found that's been presented as evidence of bigfoot. There isn't a single thing that everyone can look at and agree on as definitive proof of bigfoot existing; it's all up to speculation, even among believers in bigfoot. A tool that was obviously made by a Neandethal that can date to 30,000 years ago is evidence of something; a blurry picture that no one can agree on isn't, scientifically speaking.

Science as a proposition, I trust. The modern institution of "Science" and modern scientists not so much.

"The modern instituion of 'science'" is an application of the proposition that you say you trust. Scientists follow the scientific method and make claims based on evidence. Claims that don't need belief (like bigfoot does) to put trust in. If you chose to distrust that system because it doesn't agree with your beliefs, that's your business, and there's nothing I can say to change that, so it would be pointless to try.

Good thing that's not my claim. Now how about answering my points?

You haven't made any points. All you've done is try to discredit science and prove that dinosaurs existed recently. Both of those points have been addressed; do you have anything specific that you want me to try answering?

Edited May 12, 2011 by BlurryMonster

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Lemme get this straight. In a thread inspired by Sagan's "dragon in my garage" essay, you're speculating on qualities of dinosaurs (a.k.a. "dragons") that could have allowed them to survive to the present day?

I'm surprised that it's come to that, as well, but I'd just like to point out that this thread wasn't entirely inspired by that essay; it was inspired by the lack of scientific reasoning present in the field of bigfoot research. The essay was just a good way to illustrate a point.

Also, in case it hasn't been made clear enough yet: Carl Sagan was not attacking people who believe in cryptids. He wasn't even addressing cryptids; he was using an example to demonstrate why a scientific question needs to be falsifiable.

[Guest]

Also, in case it hasn't been made clear enough yet: Carl Sagan was not attacking people who believe in cryptids. He wasn't even addressing cryptids; he was using an example to demonstrate why a scientific question needs to be falsifiable.

Just out of curiosity, do you think falsifiability is a way to determine whether a theory is scientific or whether a theory is true?

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Just out of curiosity, do you think falsifiability is a way to determine whether a theory is scientific or whether a theory is true?

Why is this out of curiosity? It seems like a perfectly valid question to me.

The answer is that falsifiability is required for a question to be scientific. If something isn't falsifiable, it can't be tested, and nothing can be learned about it. The way to determine if a hypothesis* is true is by seeing if the evidence supports it; if the evidence doesn't, then it probably isn't true (that's what falsifiability is - the ability to be proven wrong), and we have learned something.

*I tried to make the distinction between hypothesis and theory in my original post. If you need more clarification, I'd be glad to provide some.

Edited May 13, 2011 by BlurryMonster

[Guest]

Why is this out of curiosity? It seems like a perfectly valid question to me.

In comparison with the rest of the conversations going on in the thread it didn't seem to be particularly relevant. I'm simply trying to get a fix on what philosophy of science you lean towards so I can have a better understanding of what you are saying.

The answer is that falsifiability is required for a question to be scientific. If something is falsifiable, it can't be tested, and nothing can be learned about it. The way to determine if a hypothesis* is true is by seeing if the evidence supports it; if the evidence doesn't, then it probably isn't true (that's what falsifiability is - the ability to be proven wrong), and we have learned something.

I disagree with you here, falsifiable doesn't necessarily mean something is false, or proven wrong, it just means that the lack of evidence indicates that something is false from what I understand.

*I tried to make the distinction between hypothesis and theory in my original post. If you need more clarification, I'd be glad to provide some.

I think I understand the distinction, but like everyone else, I tend to use the terms interchangeably in general conversation. Correct me if I'm wrong, a theory maybe based on a hypothesis or several different hypotheses that are interrelated and have held up under scrutiny to be true whereas a hypothesis is a question to be tested.