SWWASAS Posted June 9, 2016 BFF Patron Posted June 9, 2016 Lets throw out conventional wisdom and timelines and hypothesize. Humans have evolved from preexisting species in pretty much the last 5 million years. The Carboniferous era was 300 million years ago. We have had major extinction events about every 65 million years going back a long time. Given that, and a measly 5 million years to evolve humans, other than the lack of fossil evidence, who is to say that humans could not have evolved and been destroyed several times in hundreds of millions of years? Throw in alien colonization and you get even more possible explanations for human like beings at unthought of times in the past. Then there is the possibility that sometime in the future humans invent time travel. Humans that should not be in an era could just be humans that traveled back in time and something went wrong. What scientist if they had the ability, would not want to travel back in time and watch dinosaurs back in their age. Everything should be on the table and examined. I can say with fair certainly that what science thinks it knows is probably wrong. The question is just how much wrong science really is.
Guest DWA Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 ^^^All of that being as it might, absent evidence, science properly applied never goes there first. It goes to what is most likely: human remains in Carb deposits were put there by humans; somebody made a mistake reporting something; or a strange geologic event - evidence for which would likely be right there - occurred. (Spoiler Alert: in all probability, a mistake.) In response to "that's why science doesn't acknowledge sasquatch, because they think that way!" Um...no. Scientists don't acknowledge sasquatch because they have wrong notions about things like evidence, and likelihood; science tells us, upon examination of the evidence, that a solid case for the creature's existence can be made.
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 There are scientists that believe in Sasquatch, the problem is the same as with enthusiasts belief rather than knowledge.
MIB Posted June 9, 2016 Moderator Posted June 9, 2016 No, just wrong. Belief is faith-based. Some enthusiasts, including "scientists", do not believe, they **know**. Same way they "know" anything else ... direct personal observation. The only way you can escape that is to play semantic games regarding who is and is not a "scientist" by your definition. MIB 1
SWWASAS Posted June 9, 2016 BFF Patron Posted June 9, 2016 Much agreed. An encounter has to be experienced to really know. While some dude in a suit might fool me in with its appearance from a distance, just the sound of those footsteps coming towards me could not be faked. The T Rex stomping around in trees in the original Jurassic Park movie is the closest thing I can come up with to describe it what it sounded like for me to hear the BF approaching. The thud thud thud of each footstep and breaking of dead wood with each step. What made the footfalls had to have weighed more than any human that can still move under their own power. I felt the thud in my feet when it went into a crouch. I wonder what would have happened had the wind not been at my back blowing towards the BF?. There is a real possibility that it might have burst out of underbrush and been so close carrying the juvenile, that it felt the need to kill me to protect it. There was some dense brush near the trail I was on that I had to move around to see where the thud was and eventually photograph the juvenile. Had I known that the juvenile was there at all, I would have moved away out of self preservation. Some down logs prevented me from getting any closer than I did without being able to make a hasty retreat. For all I know, backing away after I took the picture might have saved my life. I just don't know.
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 No, just wrong. Belief is faith-based. Some enthusiasts, including "scientists", do not believe, they **know**. Same way they "know" anything else ... direct personal observation. The only way you can escape that is to play semantic games regarding who is and is not a "scientist" by your definition. MIB I anticipate such a standard response, however absent proof was my point. For the purpose of science is irrelevant. So the same problem. Carefull who you think is playing a semantics game. It may be the man in the mirror if he goes too far. Personal experience is another form of religion. I was illustrating the evidentiary as the commonality. Personal experience is not accepted by scientists as you can't reproduce the evidence. That you experience something is good for you but is good for anecdotal story sharing. The fantasists exist on the same level as the experiences and scientists. Without a baseline who do you believe? Your own personal belief? All groups have that personal belief, even if deluded. When people that have experienced "God" and those who "believe" in God get together you get a religion. Belief is faith based. Science is fact based. Personal experience based is personal experience based but is mostly relevant to the experiencer as he cannot realistically expect to be (by a second party) a). believed. . proved. c.) correlated A does not equal B does not equal C so inductive and deductive reasoning does not close the loop (hence again, self experience referencing belief)
MIB Posted June 10, 2016 Moderator Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) Nothing personal, but could you translate that to English please? It seems to be a, um, mental, um ... "soloing technique" :) with no purpose other than trying to satisfy your, um, mental "prowess". MIB Edited June 10, 2016 by MIB
Guest DWA Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) There are scientists that believe in Sasquatch, the problem is the same as with enthusiasts belief rather than knowledge. Not so much. There is no scientist - none that I have seen - that "believes in" ANYTHING. Not when he's got his scientist hat on. This is the fundamental stumbling block of this field, I am afraid. This misunderstanding of the difference between belief and conclusions based on evidence is crippling. People who aren't acquainted with scientific method don't understand how the proponent scientists got where they are on this. It's really quite simple: they examined the evidence. Then they asked themselves: what is the probability, given what we know about the world, that anything but the purported agent caused this? Science may be "fact based." Know what the fundamental fact is? SOMETHING YOU SAW. WITH YOUR OWN.TWO.EYES! When you see it, it is a *fact* to you; and you now try to confirm that this thing you saw is, indeed, what you believe it was given your current understanding. That's the "replication" that bigfoot deniers are constantly misunderstanding. "Replication" in this field is the metronomic tendency of reports, over huge spans of space, time and observer background, to describe the same thing and footprints - forensic evidence, mind you - to look the same way, in both cases a consistency that simply doesn't make sense to a scientist unless the purported agent is generating the observation. This really is the key to understanding this field, really, any scientific field, and you'll never get what's up until you get this. Edited June 10, 2016 by DWA
Bodhi Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Nothing personal, but could you translate that to English please? It seems to be a, um, mental, um ... "soloing technique" :) with no purpose other than trying to satisfy your, um, mental "prowess". MIB You couldn't follow C.M.'s post? Seriously? It was too difficult for you?
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 There are scientists that believe in Sasquatch, the problem is the same as with enthusiasts belief rather than knowledge. Not so much. There is no scientist - none that I have seen - that "believes in" ANYTHING. Not when he's got his scientist hat on. This is the fundamental stumbling block of this field, I am afraid. This misunderstanding of the difference between belief and conclusions based on evidence is crippling. People who aren't acquainted with scientific method don't understand how the proponent scientists got where they are on this. It's really quite simple: they examined the evidence. Then they asked themselves: what is the probability, given what we know about the world, that anything but the purported agent caused this? Science may be "fact based." Know what the fundamental fact is? SOMETHING YOU SAW. WITH YOUR OWN.TWO.EYES! When you see it, it is a *fact* to you; and you now try to confirm that this thing you saw is, indeed, what you believe it was given your current understanding. That's the "replication" that bigfoot deniers are constantly misunderstanding. "Replication" in this field is the metronomic tendency of reports, over huge spans of space, time and observer background, to describe the same thing and footprints - forensic evidence, mind you - to look the same way, in both cases a consistency that simply doesn't make sense to a scientist unless the purported agent is generating the observation. This really is the key to understanding this field, really, any scientific field, and you'll never get what's up until you get this. A personal fact versus a collective fact.. One is useful to you. One has a general usefulness. Until you get that there will be no progress as well. Because my experience is that the earth is flat.
WSA Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 (Fetch me that 2x4 one time. Time to edjicate) ^^^^ So, gravity? Useful fact only to you I suppose? Here's a generally useful fact: The thousands of witnesses who've been in the knowing presence of a Sasquatch? They universally find the confirmation of their experiences by other witnesses to be generally useful. Like others experiencing gravity, they find 100% confirmation from those who've experienced it too. I guess what I'm left with is just an abiding sense some just resent being left out. I would probably feel that way too if I ruled out the probability of everything on earth I had not experienced personally. Must suck. 1
Incorrigible1 Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 I guess what I'm left with is just an abiding sense some just resent being left out. And could compel some to fabricate personal stories just to feel a sense of inclusion.
MIB Posted June 10, 2016 Moderator Posted June 10, 2016 And could compel some to fabricate personal stories just to feel a sense of inclusion. Could indeed and likely does. That, however, does not invalidate the stories those doing the fabricating are trying to fit in with. 100% accuracy separating the two is not needed. 75% would be far more than good enough since it only takes one authentic report to make bigfoot real. ... you knew that already though, right? MIB
ShadowBorn Posted June 10, 2016 Moderator Posted June 10, 2016 Personal experience is not accepted by scientists as you can't reproduce the evidence CM Sure you can, who says you cannot? Scientist who are not willing to give it a try. Yet, people are experiencing these encounters with them who knows how many times a year.
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) (Fetch me that 2x4 one time. Time to edjicate) ^^^^ So, gravity? Useful fact only to you I suppose? Here's a generally useful fact: The thousands of witnesses who've been in the knowing presence of a Sasquatch? They universally find the confirmation of their experiences by other witnesses to be generally useful. Like others experiencing gravity, they find 100% confirmation from those who've experienced it too. I guess what I'm left with is just an abiding sense some just resent being left out. I would probably feel that way too if I ruled out the probability of everything on earth I had not experienced personally. Must suck. Many wan't to redefine the Bigfoot field by their own personal experience. I'm happy for all those who fell so special. Serves no useful purpose for intellectual intelligent scientific dialogue, why would it. Gravity is experienced by all, Bigfoot by the self elected few (and posers who like to pretend or the deluded or insane). You can't extrapolate scientific truths. However I know form watching threads like this where it goes... Kind or like supporters and debunkers of the Patterson film. An extended detour into irrelevancy because you are not creating anything new or participating in advancing anything meaningful. I came to learn in the forum and largely I find that it does not live up to expectations. The problem is I shouldn't have expected anything. So go on and think because of your sighting you have some special key to renter a conversation about scientific progress. A discussion that re enforces your specialness as you repeatedly feel you are having the last word. You have the ultimate ace in the hole (or so you think). Nice in a card game, not so nice in an open ended discussion that has nothing to do with your sighting (because nobody really cares, as people are won't to do about other people personal experiences (of course they will make the occasional pleasant noise which makes you feel you are the center of attention, again, again)). All I'm saying is get over it already. I have had a lot of unique sighting but the only real interest anyone ever has had is in exploiting it for their own personal benefit or for idle amusement that lasts about long enough to tell the story and write a response. (kind of like what I'm doing here *hint* *hint*) If you had something to contribute sciencewise the benefit would persist and provide a universal benefit of advancing knowledge. Personally, though... Was the gravitational pull of that edjication sufficient or is not a word to the wise sufficient thereof? Edited June 10, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna
Recommended Posts