Guest Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 This is the type of civil discourse you want extended to Meldrum? People who are civil and engage in real discourse I will engage in civil discourse with. Those who don't I call on it. I would not speak that way to Dr Meldrum as he has done nothing to earn my scorn. Can I make it any plainer?
Guest John Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) Bigfoot has eyewitnesses I don't know anyone that has ever seen a dragon. I don't believe Sagan's scenario is meant to be taken quite that literally. I don't disagree with nor could take I issue with either of your statements. Edited May 17, 2011 by John
Guest Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 If bigfoot was a flesh and blood animal, its existence could be tested and verified, which (at least so far), it can't. Untrue. We have physical evidence that can be scientifically examined (and has been). We have eyewitness testimonies that can be cross referenced and checked for trends and confirming information. A claim of "we can't find evidence because BF is extremely elusive" Good thing that 1) no one is making that claim because 2) we HAVE evidence. Skeptics can turn their heads so as not to see it, stick their fingers in your ears so as not to hear it, and go "lalalalalalalalala" all they want, but it exists, and it's been collected, analyzed and presented in a variety of forums and venues.
Guest Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 In the case of bigfoot evidence, a quick look through recent threads, and off the top of my head I can recall the following as having excuses made about the lack of bigfoot evidence: Can't be unambiguously photographed. "Unambiguously" defined of course by the Skeptics so as to exclude all known photographs on proffer. Don't get hit and killed by vehicles - despite crossing roads. Reports of cars hitting BF are on record Don't die and leave bodies. No one on here has made that claim, and multiple reports on record of dead bf and/or body parts thereof. Don't leave a trace in the fossil record. The unique circumstances of the fossil record have been explained to Skeptics ad nauseum. Don't get taken seriously by mainstream science. Which means exactly NOTHING as to their existence, just as with many other animals "science" derided that have turned out to exist. Do get shot but leave no verifiable traces. Again with the conditional modifier to leave room to reject any counter evidence. Physical offered 'remains' prove inconclusive at best (scat, hair, blood etc). In the Skeptics' opinion. So what is the difference between an unphotographable, non-roadkillable, non-corpse-leaving, no fossil trace remaining, transparent to mainstream science, shot but never recovered leaver of uselessly ambiguous traces and no bigfoot at all? I don't know...show me said "unphotographable, non-roadkillable, etc" critter and I'll grant your point. Meanwhile, back on the topic of Bigfoot...
Guest Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 Yes, Dr Meldrum got tenure, Was that so hard, Mulder? but only AFTER he was opposed by his so-called "objective" and "scientific" "peers" who tried to deny him that based on his work with BF evidence, proving they were neither objective NOR scientific. 1) So was I opposed by a minority faction of my colleagues. This happens every day in academia; Meldrum's case was more public than most because of his celebrity but otherwise nothing unusual on a college campus. 2) "who tried to deny him that based on his work with BF evidence" This is another example of a claim presented as fact for which the fact has not been established. Thank you for illustrating my point.
Guest John Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) "Unambiguously" defined of course by the Skeptics so as to exclude all known photographs on proffer. etcThe lack of verifiable evidence of the points I came up with and the reasons made to excuse that are why I believe I understand how the Dragon scenario fits the bigfoot phenomenon. I'm not interested in a 'them & us' argument but I understand and except it seems to be a major source of concern and for you. Edited May 17, 2011 by John
Guest parnassus Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) Meldrums scholarly output as measured primarily by publications in peer reviewed journals has been pretty scanty. In my experience he would have been a marginal candidate for tenure. It wouldn't have mattered what he was wasting his time on: unproductive Bigfoot research or attending his kids soccer games, it's pretty much the same. Publish or perish. Many people with his record would have been passed over the first time. He wants you to believe he's being persecuted. Lots of marginally productive people have the same excuse. "my boss doesn't like me" or some such. The reality is he hasn't come up with a testable bigfoot hypothesis and generated and executed a research protocol and published the results in a quality journal. Instead he appears on tabloid television shows and book selling junkets to Bigfoot conventions, trading on his faculty position, and pockets the money. Those are the choices he's made. You may like what he does but you aren't paying his salary. He's paid to be productive just like you and me. Edited May 17, 2011 by parnassus
Guest Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) So how does Meldrum's work relate to the Dragon in a Garage? I know you are discussing whether his work is acceptable evidence or not, but I don't see Meldrum making up excuses like the person in the analogy did... Edited May 18, 2011 by Jodie
Guest Blackdog Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 People who are civil and engage in real discourse I will engage in civil discourse with. Those who don't I call on it. I would not speak that way to Dr Meldrum as he has done nothing to earn my scorn. Can I make it any plainer? Nope I get it, you think you get to decide what is civil discourse and what isn't. So if I decide Meldrum has earned my scorn I get to call him on it in the way you address those that have earned your scorn? Un*fricken*real......
Guest LAL Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 I'm not sure you want to go there Mulder, but just to illustrate a point: Does Jeff Meldrum have tenure or not? (Feel free to twist the question around, go off on some tangent, etc. I've got a few dozen of these.) If I may, yes, he does, but there were those who wanted it revoked and he was passed over for full professorship twice. How often do things like that make it to national news? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110400272.html
Guest Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 . . . he was passed over for full professorship twice. Where has this been established? It's not in the article you linked. You will find in that article, however, unequivocal support for Meldrum from his dean. Even if true, being multiply passed over for full professor is still quite common. This is something that happens to many associate professors who haven't been suitably productive in garnering research dollars or publishing in quality journals. We've got 2 or 3 faculty in my department of 29 who will most likely retire as associate professors. How often do things like that make it to national news? It's not newsworthy because it's an unusual event, it's newsworthy because Jeff Meldrum is a celebrity. Plus, anything related to bigfoot is newsworthy, as evidenced by the plethora of bigfoot-themed television shows that have aired of late.
Guest parnassus Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) So how does Meldrum's work relate to the Dragon in a Garage? I know you are discussing whether his work is acceptable evidence or not, but I don't see Meldrum making up excuses like the person in the analogy did... I do. Seriously. Excuses ( in the form of ad hoc hypotheses and fingerpointing at "skeptics" ) are prominent parts of his bigfoot-related discourse. I find it embarrassing. Edited May 18, 2011 by parnassus
southernyahoo Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 I find it embarrassing How about the slandering of just about every scientist who publicly looks into this mystery, feel anything there? 1
Guest Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 I do. Seriously. Excuses ( in the form of ad hoc hypotheses and fingerpointing at "skeptics" ) are prominent parts of his bigfoot-related discourse. I find it embarrassing. Seriously Parn, I don't think you can compare the person in the analogy with Meldrum. It seems he makes his points, whether anyone agrees with him or not, in a professional way. You might not agree with what he finds but can you explain to me how his processes are wrong?
Guest LAL Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 Where has this been established? It's not in the article you linked. It is in two others based on the AP article. http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13070076 http://www.standeyo.com/NEWS/06_Weird/061211.bigfoot.html
Recommended Posts