The Concept of Evidence

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

One of the most overlooked confusions on online discussion boards such as this has to do with the idea what evidence itself is, and how it's to be treated. It's important to have a sufficient understanding of the concept if you're going to delve into scientific problems of such controversial nature (E.g. cryptids, conspiracies, crime). By gaining an understanding of the concept, you're gaining insight into a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. The simple definition of evidence: information that's interpreted as being supportive of an idea. For proper use of it in scientific study, one has to take this definition and understand it within the context of the philosophy behind the scientific method.

 

In Math, proof is based on the assumption that you have all the information required to be certain.  For instance, it can be determined that 2+2 equals four, and that it's not possible for it to equal anything other than four. In science, one works under the assumption that it's not possible to know with certainty that one has all the information, hence, the need for probability and scientific skepticism. All ideas formed through the scientific method are open to interpretation. Basically, there's no way to guarantee that any idea formed by anyone is correct. By the same token, what's considered evidence today might not be considered evidence tomorrow, and what's evidence to one person may not be evidence to another. 

 

Based on this, it can be said that all ideas in science are subject to probability, regardless of how convincing one may find the evidence for them to be. It can also be inferred that evidence can't ever be truly debunked, as they can only be subject to different interpretations of the level of probability. In academia as a whole, the strength of evidence is a matter of consensus. On the individual level, it's always a matter of personal opinion.

 

Two common illogical statements:

 

1. There is no evidence for X

2. Y isn't evidence of X

 

It can also be said that the term "proof" in scientific discussions is a less correct way of saying "convincing evidence"

 

 

 

[norseman]

I would agree,  except in biology.....proof is proof.

 

A black bear carcass laying in front of you IS NOT "convincing evidence". We are not dealing with quarks or black holes here, that we cannot put on a table and dissect and probably never will.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

As convincing as a type specimen may be for both the majority of acadamia and public, people would still have to deal with the inability to rule out an unknown number of unknown possibilities. In other words, what guarantee is there that the preserved specimen is what eyewitnessess claim to have encountered? 

[norseman]

How many species of 800 lbs bioedal primates do we think are out there?

[MIB]

Likely 2.   There are possibly 3 smaller ones.    Seems like Ivan Sanderson and Robert Alley came to the same conclusion at different times from different angles.   

 

MIB

[norseman]

3 separate species!!???

In the US?

[MIB]

US and Canada in Alley's case, worldwide in Sanderson's case.    Interestingly enough, though, the 5 basic form were the same though the locations were different.

 

You should read the books and familiarize yourself with the evidence they were looking at so you know what you're arguing with before you start to argue. 

 

MIB

 

Edit to add .. we ought to ask PBeaton to verify my recollection of Alley's book since he did the illustration for it.   If I'm mistake, well, I'm mistaken.

Edited June 2, 2017 by MIB

[norseman]

Let's concentrate on proving ONE species real first before we start postulating about three seperate species.

 

Holy Cow.

[MIB]

No, not really.  That's a common knee jerk reaction, but .. think it through.   If you find evidence of **something** but it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas of what bigfoot would or wouldn't do, I think it's better to examine it, test it if possible, anyway than to just ignore it because it doesn't match your stereotypes.   If you're into proving, proving one of those other ones is just as good as proving the one we call bigfoot: it gets the ball rolling.  

 

Yeti is not bigfoot.  Orang pendek is not bigfoot.   Sisismite is probably not bigfoot.   But prove existence of any one of them, show science that something can exist, undocumented by science, show that there's something still out there to find .. could be a game changer.

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

Anyone paying attention to all the publicly available information out there knows that there is not only probably more than one unlisted hominid, but more than one in North America.

 

1) Both footprints and eyewitness reports indicate it;

2) The wide range over which the animals are reported indicates it;

3) Morphological differences reported with consistency indicate it;

4) Everywhere there is one primate, and that is EVERYWHERE...there is another.  At least. And in almost all places, that could be said 'nonhuman primate.'

 

Back on the topic:  footprints are forensic, i.e., physical, evidence.  Eyewitness reports of huge volume and uniform bell-curve consistency are evidence, solid even though not strictly physical.  Too many people in this field, skeptic and proponent, simply are not involved in the discussion in a serious way because they don't get this.

 

23 minutes ago, MIB said:

No, not really.  That's a common knee jerk reaction, but .. think it through.   If you find evidence of **something** but it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas of what bigfoot would or wouldn't do, I think it's better to examine it, test it if possible, anyway than to just ignore it because it doesn't match your stereotypes.   If you're into proving, proving one of those other ones is just as good as proving the one we call bigfoot: it gets the ball rolling.  

 

Yeti is not bigfoot.  Orang pendek is not bigfoot.   Sisismite is probably not bigfoot.   But prove existence of any one of them, show science that something can exist, undocumented by science, show that there's something still out there to find .. could be a game changer.

 

MIB

 

I'd say that if any speculated hominid primate is confirmed, anywhere, the others should be assumed to exist and a full-court press for proof mounted.  Yeti means sasquatch is real; yeren means orang pendek is real; any one of them confirmed means, search for the others.  I consider this to be common sense.

Edited June 3, 2017 by DWA

[MIB]

4 hours ago, DWA said:

Eyewitness reports of huge volume and uniform bell-curve consistency are evidence, solid even though not strictly physical.

 

I'd say almost 'cause I think there's a little more to it than that.   If you took all the reports that fit the bell curve within 1, or even 2, standard deviations, of a "standard bigfoot" and remove them from the set you're examining, I think you'd find a second, much fainter, bell curve representing a second species.    I think if you look at a couple specific locations, the Everglades, the coast of BC, and possibly the Ouichita Mountains, and not the whole continent, it becomes even clearer they have at least one "something else" in those locations ... and it's not the same in each place.

 

I don't think it is strong enough to state, as fact, that there is something there, but it is anomalous enough to someone with a data background to scream at them that there's something going on worthy of closer examination.

 

MIB

[norseman]

7 hours ago, MIB said:

No, not really.  That's a common knee jerk reaction, but .. think it through.   If you find evidence of **something** but it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas of what bigfoot would or wouldn't do, I think it's better to examine it, test it if possible, anyway than to just ignore it because it doesn't match your stereotypes.   If you're into proving, proving one of those other ones is just as good as proving the one we call bigfoot: it gets the ball rolling.  

 

Yeti is not bigfoot.  Orang pendek is not bigfoot.   Sisismite is probably not bigfoot.   But prove existence of any one of them, show science that something can exist, undocumented by science, show that there's something still out there to find .. could be a game changer.

 

MIB

 

How do you know there are not three different species of Yeti!? Or 10? Or 20?  See where I'm going?

 

I think it's highly unlikely there are three completely different species of Bigfoot in NA. But until we have one in the freezer we have no base line to go off of anyhow. And it's pointless to speculate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MIB]

I ==

1 hour ago, norseman said:

How do you know there are not three different species of Yeti!? Or 10? Or 20?  See where I'm going?

 

There may well be.   it depends on whether words like almasty and kaptar and yeti all describe the same thing or not.   Same as whether skunk ape and bigfoot are the same thing or not.  

 

I think I see where you're going but I don't see any connection between where you seem to be going now and the topic of the thread.   Go ahead and explain it to me if you wish.

 

MIB

[dmaker]

9 hours ago, DWA said:

I'd say that if any speculated hominid primate is confirmed, anywhere, the others should be assumed to exist and a full-court press for proof mounted.

Don't you tell us all the time that a scientist never makes assumptions?

[norseman]

28 minutes ago, MIB said:

I ==

 

There may well be.   it depends on whether words like almasty and kaptar and yeti all describe the same thing or not.   Same as whether skunk ape and bigfoot are the same thing or not.  

 

I think I see where you're going but I don't see any connection between where you seem to be going now and the topic of the thread.   Go ahead and explain it to me if you wish.

 

MIB

 

OS said this,

 

As convincing as a type specimen may be for both the majority of acadamia and public, people would still have to deal with the inability to rule out an unknown number of unknown possibilities. In other words, what guarantee is there that the preserved specimen is what eyewitnessess claim to have encountered? 

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

 

I would say it would be a damn good guarantee.