Consistency of Evidence, Eyewitness Testimony and Cryptid Primates

[norseman]

 

 

And you will never get DNA evidence from a cast of a track made by dental resin......hence why it's not physical evidence.

 

Also physical evidence does not mean proof. Dr. Fahrenbach's hair collection is a glaring reminder of that

[wiiawiwb]

Kudos to those who endeavor to prove the existence of Sasquatch through conventional scientific means.  I have no interest in that nor proving it to scientists nor to my neighbor or anyone else.  The scientific community will never accept anything less than a body and that's a day I hope never comes.  Those who wish for that day...that's fine. It's just not my cup of tea.

 

I hold in great disdain the scientific community as a whole as it relates to BF.  That arrogantly sit back and laugh about the subject and tell those in the field to go do the heavy lifting and let me know when you're got it. In general, the scientific community does lift a finger to do anything. Thus my total lack of respect for it. Some individual scientists do sacrifice their time, energy and money and those I applaud.

 

I know what I've experienced and no coke-bottle bespectacled nerd from the scientific community, sitting on his ever-enlarging fanny, will ever convince me otherwise.

Edited August 31, 2016 by wiiawiwb

[MikeZimmer]

13 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Great thread. I am glad you did not have to talk to yourself. I actually agree with most of this list. Of course you knew I would 

 

Yeah, but you may not agree with my take on some of them.

[Guest WesT]

Gigator, when I get settled into my new place I'll be in touch to volunteer my time.

 

Speaking of tracks, I attended a BF conference this past weekend and met a guy who brought a footprint cast to the town hall type meeting that was held the night before the main event. I was talking to another researcher afterwards and when he walked up ( me and the other guy were talking near where he had parked) I asked "is that a footprint cast you have there?" He said "yes it is" I asked "can I see it?"

 

He laid it on the ground.... it was dark so I got out my phone and turned on the droiIdlight app so I could see it. It was a big foot indeed, a right one at that. As I looked it over, I noticed the toes were splayed and curved to the left (or to the right because it's an inverted image of the impression), as if it was supporting a lot of weight, while never wearing shoes. When I realized what I was looking at, it made the hairs on my arm stand up. I was reminded of how Norseman said he felt when he saw the trackway he and his Father found... you just have to see it for yourself in real life. I'm still in awe over it.

 

Keeper going MikeZ, you're on a roll!!

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by WesT
Fix footprint impession error.

[southernyahoo]

11 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Well, some of us don't think that "proof" is relevant in scientific research. This is not a fringe position by the way, and less than an hour of Internet exploration should demonstrate that point. Proof is fine for mathematics, and is used formally in jurisprudence. It is also used daily in argument, but the essence should not be "proof" but "persuasion." Proof is psychological, it is another way of saying that someone was convinced and accepted an argument. Your proof may be someone else's delusional rantings, and vice versa of course.

 

There is probability though - competing probabilities and competing hypothesis and lines of evidence. There are no facts, only interpretations - an idea attributed to F. Nietzsche

=======================================

 

Nonsense. This may apply to quantum physics or many other sciences based on competing hypothesis that may change over time. But it certainly does not apply to biology's acceptance of new species.

 

By definition, proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact.  A body might be needed for world wide acceptance, and it would be physical evidence, but this does not preclude that other evidence couldn't do the same, since you are simply convincing people with evidence.

 

This board could serve as an example that acceptance of their existence can happen without actually examining a body in person, which is something most of us will never get to do.

 

Denialists would argue there is no evidence, then there is no scientifically verified evidence, or proven evidence, which are misconceptions. Proof starts with unverified evidence/ data etc. There is accepted truths and those that are denied. It happens on an individual level. Most people will be relying on what they are told to be true, and some will still deny and claim to be hoaxed.

[MikeZimmer]

On 8/30/2016 at 9:15 AM, MikeZimmer said:

Cleaning the Rust from Old Saws and Sharpening the Toolkit

• Eye witness testimony is unreliable

 

The claim comes up again and again that eye witness testimony is not reliable. Really? It seem to me that we could not exist as a species if eye witness testimony were not more or less reliable, in a wide variety of circumstance. Think about it. We see something, we tell folks about it. The folks act on that information. It proves useful to them.

 

Sometimes we make errors. Usually these are at the level of detail. Sometimes our memories are faulty. Sometimes our perceptions are faulty. Our interpretation of events can be off. All of this has been researched. Hearsay, information transmitted through a chain of people is typically worse.

 

Despite that we do, we must, rely on eye-witness testimony for understanding the world. It guides our actions. You use it, you act on it, you produce it. It is how we learn about the world and pass it on to others.

 

It is more often right than wrong, on the whole. The details are usually far more suspect.

 

Example:

 

"Don't let the dog out, there is a black bear in the yard. "

 

Well, it could be that it is not a black bear. You may have imagined a black bear. It may have been a big bear-like dog. Chances are pretty good that if you live in a smaller community near where I live, it was correctly reported as being a bear. Folks know bears, they see them, even in town. My wife ran into one in my sister's back yard last fall.

 

Maybe you said it was 150 pounds. That is probably more suspect, unless you have a specialty of estimating bear weights. Maybe you said it was cinnamon. Good chance you were right on that, unless the viewing conditions were bad, or very brief, or cinnamon bears don't live where you are. You might have said it was eating apples from the ground. That is going to be a pretty believable claim, if it is the season when apples are ripe and on the ground. Maybe you thought it was a Grizzly. Your wife thought it was a black. Maybe the sighting was too surprising and fast to really absorb what your were seeing. What was not in doubt was that you both saw a bear.

 

So, in the final analysis, we do go on eye witness testimony. We also know that some witnesses are more likely to be reliable that others, for various reasons. We know that some people routinely get all kinds of thing wrong, and some are more accurate observers. We learn that some folks just like to make things up, and take delight in duping people. We know that some circumstances lead to more accurate perceptions than others. Despite that we do and must use eye witness testimony to navigate through our world.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by MikeZimmer

[MIB]

I would be cautious about taking a single piece of eyewitness testimony all by itself, but in the bigfoot context with the vast body of other evidence including a vast number of track casts, audio recordings, and upwards of 100,000 other consistent eyewitness reports ... people who harp on the notion that eyewitness testimony is unreliable are taking things out of context to deliberately set up a strawman argument.   It's dishonest and erroneous.   Their lack of integrity should be pointed out at every opportunity until they find some new lie to tell.

 

MIB

[norseman]

20 minutes ago, southernyahoo said:

 

By definition, proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact.  A body might be needed for world wide acceptance, and it would be physical evidence, but this does not preclude that other evidence couldn't do the same, since you are simply convincing people with evidence.

 

This board could serve as an example that acceptance of their existence can happen without actually examining a body in person, which is something most of us will never get to do.

 

Denialists would argue there is no evidence, then there is no scientifically verified evidence, or proven evidence, which are misconceptions. Proof starts with unverified evidence/ data etc. There is accepted truths and those that are denied. It happens on an individual level. Most people will be relying on what they are told to be true, and some will still deny and claim to be hoaxed.

 

Short of a body? The only evidence as you well know that will advance our cause is DNA.

 

But if the Smithsonian declares Bigfoot real based on peer reviewed DNA evidence? IT'S REAL. Anyone claiming it's a hoax after that? Becomes the flat Earth conspiracy nut job. 

[norseman]

12 minutes ago, MIB said:

I would be cautious about taking a single piece of eyewitness testimony all by itself, but in the bigfoot context with the vast body of other evidence including a vast number of track casts, audio recordings, and upwards of 100,000 other consistent eyewitness reports ... people who harp on the notion that eyewitness testimony is unreliable are taking things out of context to deliberately set up a strawman argument.   It's dishonest and erroneous.   Their lack of integrity should be pointed out at every opportunity until they find some new lie to tell.

 

MIB

 

Where there is smoke there is fire. We just need to find the fire. And thus far we have done a pretty poor job of it.

 

I think Gigantor is right. We need to volunteer some time to the SSR and see where that data leads us. And if you can, get out in the woods and look for physical evidence.

[Yuchi1]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I originally stated trackways were trace evidence and not physical evidence. So I agree that trackways ARE a form of evidence.

 

 

..."Track ways are not physical evidence.......unless there is a foot left in the track. Or blood or hair. Anything that can have DNA lifted from the physical creature. Dental resin will not do that for us no matter how compelling the track"...

 

I could not locate the word "trace" anywhere in your post.

 

IMO, all we've accomplished so far, is there is compelling evidence that the definition of evidence is evidently evading the grasp of some posters.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Yuchi1
sentence structure

[norseman]

My 1st post in this thread.

[MikeZimmer]

On 8/30/2016 at 9:15 AM, MikeZimmer said:

Cleaning the Rust from Old Saws and Sharpening the Toolkit

 

I missed one, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." The statement is attributed to Carl Sagan. Those interested can verify this claim on their own. This phrase is used as a bludgeon all the time by self-identified skeptics. In the distant past, I may have used it myself. I now think it is not a particularly sage piece of advice.

 

What are we to make of this term "extraordinary?" Googling quickly reveals things such as "beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established" and " very unusual or remarkable." However, this property of being extraordinary is subjective and bound to cultural assumptions. For example, if my community has never heard of marsupials, and I report marsupial mammals can rear their young in pouches while giving milk, that might be considered an extraordinary claim. It would not be considered extraordinary for those living where there are kangaroos or opossums. If someone reports to me that moose live in the mountains of Mexico, and I have no familiarity with Mexico, but know of moose, I might not consider the claim unusual. It would be wrong, So societal belief and its attendant personal belief will set the bounds of what is considered extraordinary. I sure that any of you can come up with better examples than me without breaking a sweat.

 

The end result is that this phrase probably does not really advance our ability to understand the world in any great degree, and it is more of a personal statement saying something like "Your claim does not fit within my current understanding of the world, so please show me things that might convince me that you are correct." Taken that way, it is useful, as long as one understands that they are certainly wrong in many aspects of their current understanding of the world, as are their fellows, their culture, and even their scientific establishment. Why even the organized skeptics might be wrong in some regards!

 

[MikeZimmer]

On 8/30/2016 at 9:15 AM, MikeZimmer said:

Cleaning the Rust from Old Saws and Sharpening the Toolkit

• Anecdotal evidence is not part of science

 

Like eye witness testimony, I think that we can establish that anecdotal evidence is part and parcel of science, and every other aspect of life. It is not necessarily going to give us correct conclusions, but neither is any other method of investigation. It can however, give us a good indication of where to look, to show that some apparent avenue of investigation might be worthwhile following.

 

Medical case studies are often a starting point for for more systematic investigation. The curious person may be interested in seeing how anecdotal evidence is used in that regard. For instance, see here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4001358/

According to Sherrilyn Roush,  associate professor of philosophy at Berkeley, laypersons knew about meteorites long before their reality was admitted by the scientific community. Cited here: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2008/02/27_bigfoot.shtml, The lay evidence of course was anecdotal, uncontrolled. It is hard to see how any experiment could have be conducted which was controlled in this area, but that might only show my lack of imagination.

 

"Up to the early 19th century, the study of meteorites was considered marginal science," she said, explaining that trained scientists were loath to make the connection between meteors, which many had seen with their own eyes, and the rocks that civilians reported falling into their backyards from the heavens and insisted were meteorites.

 

"There was a long period in which scientists recognized the existence of one of these and not the other," she said. "And it may surprise you that the one they recognized was not the one we had physical evidence for."

 

I think where the problem lies is that we cannot be particularly certain that the observed relationship holds between one or more factors, variables if you prefer, without controlling things, looking at alternative explanations, trying to ensure that the relationship, the perceived pattern, is not illusory or coincidental. So, in some areas, we can set up controls, do proper experiments, conduct statistical analysis, and try to reason our way to a correct conclusion. We want to avoid kidding ourselves. A problem arises in that in some areas, experiments don't seem to make sense overall. In historical sciences (a good part of geology), or natural science (field biology), or social sciences (some may not wish to call them sciences, and I have some sympathy for that view) the potential for doing controlled experiments is limited. We can test some hypothesis experimentally, but a lot of what we are dealing with is not controllable, or repeatable - at least not at will, under lab conditions.

 

There is certainly grounds to believe that anecdotal evidence can be problematic. In some cases, it is the only type of evidence that is going to available, either in principle, or because of real world limitations. The problem arises when people use the term anecdotal evidence to bludgeon those with opinions they do not subscribe to. Then it becomes nothing more than a suspect debating tactic.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by MikeZimmer

[Yuchi1]

4 hours ago, norseman said:

My 1st post in this thread.

 

You are correct sir as I was referring to your second and third posts.

[norseman]

You win.