Stone tools may not be what they seem..

[Guest DWA]

[holds head]

 

THE WHOLE POINT! IS THAT scientists saw flakes...AND MADE ASSUMPTIONS! Which they do too damned often, given that WHAT THEY WOULD TELL YOU is "don't assume; find evidence."

 

I never bash science.  I bash people whose conclusions do not reflect its use.

[norseman]

Sorry, your a train wreck when it comes to your understanding science.

 

Scientists form hypothesis based on the available data presented to them by the find. When newer data presents itself? The hypothesis may change in order to be inclusive with the new data. These are not "assumptions".

 

The discovery that monkeys can hit rocks together and make flakes that resemble early human tool making is now something that needs to be taken into account. But that's not to say that at some future time scientists might be able to develop tests to deferentiate between the two.

 

This is how science works. Facts support hypothesis. And hypothesis change to reflect new facts discovered along the way.

 

They never simply make assumptions.....

 

 

[Guest DWA]

Um, no, but your first sentence does describe most of this board.

 

Science is not "what a bunch of people think, and think is taboo."  IT IS A PROCESS.  Need to get how it works.  That most in this field do not...is why we are where we are.  Sorry.  Fact.

[norseman]

Which you don't get how it works....you think science stands on baseless assumptions!!!! Hello!!??

 

Thats wrong headed especially in our modern world.  The process you bash is the very reason we can even hold this conversation!! 

[WSA]

Right. I think there is always a potential to have assumptions masquerading as hypotheses. What might drive this, usually, is the publish-or-perish climate of science as it has come to be practiced. After all, if you called up the Editor in Chief at Nature and told him/her you had just found this amazing artifact, but had no real working explanation of what it was, or what it meant, they could be forgiven for demurring on the entire exercise. You got to come up with something...you call it a "working" hypothesis, and hope it holds up. Funny too how many of the authors get personally invested in "their" hypothesis and fight contrary conclusions to the death. Those battles are legion, and epic.  It might be because they are founded on assumptions, held dear and inviolate, when the prudent course might have been to just say: "You tell me what you think this is/means?" Not a ticket to tenure though, is it?

 

The rush to publish, with the fear if you don't get the scoop somebody will beat you to it is a real issue.  Solution? Might be how the H. naledi  fossils were classified...by a committee. Less likely any single scientist could hijack the hypothesis. More inter-disciplinary review that removes blinders. Findings are published sooner, but, of course...your glory (and, conversely, accountability) is diluted. I say it is a fair trade-off that is likely to bring more durable conclusions.    

[norseman]

Ok....well let's just throw out science and go back to reading chicken bones or the stars or palms!!!

 

So much better than a self correcting system based on the evidence at hand. 

 

Yeehaw!

[WSA]

Not at all Norse. As in a lot of disciplines, the tertiary choice is the best one, and it is here. I'd settle for practicing Science without the assumptions. And in this field, there is a YUGE assumption at work.

 

For any scientist, the first and most important question when making a preliminary conclusion or framing any hypothesis should be: Do I know what the evidence/lack of evidence is saying to me to be impossible? The answer almost ALWAYS should be: No.   Big risk there in taking that stance, admittedly.  But good science requires you to approach it that way. Reputation, schmeputation.

 

Those who resist the idea of BF as a premise (and don't let them convince you otherwise...they surely do) is because they are way over-invested in this whole primacy of man thing. In other words: You find stone tools and any alternative explanation is impossible to consider.

 

And they can't blame themselves, and they have plenty of company.

 

Some have asked me how I reconcile my interest in the Hominid fossil record with a conclusion that BF is likely  to exist in our time. I'm always mystified by that question. I mean, would anyone who has studied both come to any other conclusion? So...like what? The laws of nature were suspended or operated differently to allow other bi-pedal hominids to exist at the same time as our ancestors, and somehow that can't happen today? We had terrifically small, and tremendously big hominids. These are not different cases, these are the SAME one thing: Life finding bewildering ways to manifest itself.

 

So I agree with your conclusion that only a body will settle this, but I'm also stuck on asking the question: Why? Because we have to get over the self-handicapping idea of BF being an extraordinary possibility, bordering on impossible for vast numbers of people. Well, maybe on some other planet, but here on terra firma, it doesn't even make the top 10 list of implausible events.

Or maybe they do only have themselves to blame. I guess it could be poor potty training, or lack of access to children's literature, but atrophied imaginations account for most of it.  "Imagination" has taken on a negative and condescending context too, don't you think? As in, [chuckles and rubs his head] "Little Johnny sure has an over-active imagination, don't he...?!"  The unspoken fear is Little Johnny will grow up be that dippy John Lennon fella, singing blather about imagining crap?! Just try getting that published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal one time.

 

Me, and some others around here were raised in a rare period in our history when people had the audacity to question just about every premise they were handed. Yeah, it went too far at times, but look at the positive results. For whatever the reasons, we've become much more timid in our view of the world. If this persists, this planet is likely to truly have only one bipedal hominid in residence, and it won't be us.

Edited May 30, 2017 by WSA

[norseman]

I agree there are huge non scientific assumptions in this field.

 

Bigfoot shape shifts, moves through portals, uses infrasound, has night vision, wood knocks, on and on.

 

Based on what evidence exactly? Never mind fact that the damn animal is currently a myth!!!!??? If we were trying to prove Chimpanzees we're using infrasound to stun colobus monkeys while hunting at least we would have a leg to stand on.

 

The premise isn't that Bigfoot could not exist..... it's that we have zero physical proof that it does. Most often in biology the search begins when some piece of physical proof shows up in apothecary shops or bush meat camps or archeological digs.

 

If that were not the case? Science would be looking for pixies, gnomes and leprechauns!

[WSA]

1 minute ago, norseman said:

I agree there are huge non scientific assumptions in this field.

 

Bigfoot shape shifts, moves through portals, uses infrasound, has night vision, wood knocks, on and on.

 

Based on what evidence exactly? Never mind fact that the **** animal is currently a myth!!!!??? If we were trying to prove Chimpanzees we're using infrasound to stun colobus monkeys while hunting at least we would have a leg to stand on.

 

The premise isn't that Bigfoot could not exist..... it's that we have zero physical proof that it does. Most often in biology the search begins when some piece of physical proof shows up in apothecary shops or bush meat camps or archeological digs.

 

If that were not the case? Science would be looking for pixies, gnomes and leprechauns!

Two different questions, you realize, right? BF doesn't need to shape-shift or use portals to exist as a biologic entity. If there are those who want to consider those things to be possible, and pursue the evidence where it goes, fine by me.  Science has the foundation to consider if they have happened, or not. Science, never, ever, never rules anything out for which plausible evidence exists.  You betray the discipline when you do.

 

BTW: I'd suggest your definition of "physical proof" is way to narrow. We've got plenty of that, but I think I know what you are referring to, yes.

[Guest DWA]

WSA, I have nowhere near your patience with people.  Particularly with their screaming inability to challenge themselves with, wonder why he would say  that.  Wonder why they'd all insist they're seeing the same **** thing.  Wonder why.

 

But yes.

Edited May 30, 2017 by DWA

[norseman]

It's not narrow at all. It's the same thing over and over and over again that the scientific establishment has asked for. 

 

Their definition is the only definition that matters IF we are trying to prove this creature to science. 

 

Bones, flesh, hair, scat. That's what a real biological creature leaves behind over the course of its life, yes?

[Incorrigible1]

On 5/30/2017 at 10:51 AM, DWA said:

[holds head]

 

THE WHOLE POINT! IS THAT scientists saw flakes...AND MADE ASSUMPTIONS! Which they do too damned often, given that WHAT THEY WOULD TELL YOU is "don't assume; find evidence."

 

I never bash science.  I bash people whose conclusions do not reflect its use.

 

Yet you think "scientists" should read bf reports and be swayed to lend credence to the creature's existence? Ay, yi yi yi.