Will Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Science has a way of forcing that. Edited February 5, 2012 by will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 "Fringe" of course being identified as any journal or forum that is anything other than defaulting to the "no bigfoot" position, just as any scientist who comes at the topic from any other angle than "no bigfoot" becomes a "believer" and thus loses scientific credibility... Lovely how Skeptics get to define their own terms to their benefit, isn't it? Mulder, You sourced a web site earlier that seemed to suggest human evolution was influenced by extraterrestrials mating with early Homos. You placed along with sources of current scientific understanding of human evolution. Do you think this particular website is "fringe" and do you think it falls beneath the standards of a scientific approach? Science has a way of forcing that. Yep! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Mainstream science journal with an impeccable reputation for publishing confirmed scientific data: I note weasel words yet again ("impeccable", "confirmed scientific")/ Fringe Journal that publishes stories on UFO's ,Ghosts and Ancient Aliens: So the mere fact that these topics are addressed by this journal, regardless of the quality of that address automatically makes the journal "fringe". As I said, topic, not science is the self-defining characteristic of journals when used by Skeptics to their own ends. The difference between the two isn't that one supports a no-bigfoot or a pro-bigfoot. If Ketchum's paper is published in the former and points to a brand new unknown primate in North America, it will be very exciting!! If it's published in the latter and claims "proof of Bigfoot" well, it'll be worthless... Regardless of the quality of the science IN said paper? You again are confirming that it's not the science, it's the topic that determines whether or not a Skeptic will regard a journal as "mainstream" or "fringe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knuck Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 People, please note that ALL known science is/was "fringe" until it is/was fully understood.-Knuck 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Regardless of the quality of the science IN said paper? You again are confirming that it's not the science, it's the topic that determines whether or not a Skeptic will regard a journal as "mainstream" or "fringe". No. not in the slightest. You could get the skeptics, or the scientists, to write a list now of all the science journals and place them in order from "most regarded" to "least regarded". That order won't change with the publication of the Ketchum report. I doubt whether any scientists are contributing to, or peer-reviewing for, journals which publish stuff on ghosts or UFO's or whatever. Their lack of credibility therefore isn't because of the subject matter, it is because there is no science involved. There is a stubborness about your approach to this subject which verges on closed-minded, the very trait which you would abhor in a scientist. I say again, science is doing exactly what you ask of it, right this very minute, and all you need is a little more patience. There is none so blind as those who will not see. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Regardless of the quality of the science IN said paper? No, because of the quality of the science involved. It will have a direct impact on where the results are published. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) No. not in the slightest. You could get the skeptics, or the scientists, to write a list now of all the science journals and place them in order from "most regarded" to "least regarded". That order won't change with the publication of the Ketchum report. I doubt whether any scientists are contributing to, or peer-reviewing for, journals which publish stuff on ghosts or UFO's or whatever. Their lack of credibility therefore isn't because of the subject matter, it is because there is no science involved. There is a stubborness about your approach to this subject which verges on closed-minded, the very trait which you would abhor in a scientist. I say again, science is doing exactly what you ask of it, right this very minute, and all you need is a little more patience. There is none so blind as those who will not see. Mike It's one thing to spend your time on a form talking with others that believe in the core subject and being skeptical about certain topics with in the context of a subject, But to spend your time on forums that you are skeptical about the whole subject matter or any other subject matter that science did not prove at this time, and trying to tell people there wrong, without being able to prove them wrong, is not just a little, but the whole way to being .....well, you can fill in the rest yourself. Centuries ago, there were people and scientist of that time that believed the world was flat, and then there were smaller groups that believed the world was round, I guess it's safe to say your a" the world is flat" kind of guy. Edited February 5, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I guess it's safe to say your a" the world is flat" kind of guy. I'm hoping you're referring to Mulder, and that you don't mean me! I'm definitely on the scientists' side. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Sas, Also notice that some folks who think skeptics are jumping the gun and negatively analysing with a closed mind the DNA report before it is even published and seen, are the ones who are telling us what skeptics and scientists are going to say about the paper once it is published and seen, even before such comments are made. If you think the skeptical arguments have merit before the paper is published, then it is also an acceptable citation from others to predict what skeptics will say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Boy I'll be glad when the papers out! This thread is entertaining/informative kinda like this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o9oz9X5i9w&feature=youtube_gdata_player Edited February 5, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) No. not in the slightest. You could get the skeptics, or the scientists, to write a list now of all the science journals and place them in order from "most regarded" to "least regarded". That order won't change with the publication of the Ketchum report. I doubt whether any scientists are contributing to, or peer-reviewing for, journals which publish stuff on ghosts or UFO's or whatever. Their lack of credibility therefore isn't because of the subject matter, it is because there is no science involved. There is a stubborness about your approach to this subject which verges on closed-minded, the very trait which you would abhor in a scientist. I say again, science is doing exactly what you ask of it, right this very minute, and all you need is a little more patience. There is none so blind as those who will not see. Mike I don't get it Mike, Mulder it seems is saying the same thing you are. Edited February 5, 2012 by will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Mulder's saying the same as me only if he is saying that what Mulder is saying is prejudging and scaremongering, that the scientists are doing their work right now, and that we should calmly wait for their results. If he is saying that then he is saying the same as me, but personally I think he is saying the very opposite whilst also calling into question the reputation of any erstwhile reputable journal that publishes a sasquatch DNA report whether or not it publishes stuff about ghosts and/ or aliens, or is currently staffed by scientists who may or may not have a neutral or skeptical attitude to the possible or otherwise existence of a hairy biped in North America. Breath. Mulder wants science to take sasquatch seriously because he has seen one but he also says that any scientist who takes it seriously is going to be disrespected unless they work for a disrespected journal in which case their work will be accepted without question and be cannon fodder for the skeptics who are not going to take anything seriously anyway because they never do and will always find something wrong with whatever is published that doesn't fit into their preconceived ideas on the subject. Breath again. But because I'm not saying that and indeed because I entirely back science to get this right and know that the reputation of the journal in question will only be enhanced by being involved in something as spectacular and groundbreaking as the publication of the irrefutable evidence proving the existence of sasquatch I don't believe the premise that Mulder and I are saying the same thing has any validity, unless of course Mulder is saying that also, in which case I would agree with him. There, I hope that clears that all up for everyone. Mike Edited February 5, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Centuries ago, there were people and scientist of that time that believed the world was flat, and then there were smaller groups that believed the world was round. It was the view of a dogmatic belief system; lack of knowledge; more so - a complete ignorance of contrary observations that conflicted with irrational beliefs. Plus, it wasn't centuries ago ...and it wasn't science trying to keep people stupid. Edit to add: Now for something rational. :] Edited February 5, 2012 by HucksterFoot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Centuries ago, there were people and scientist of that time that believed the world was flat, and then there were smaller groups that believed the world was round, I guess it's safe to say your a" the world is flat" kind of guy. But see, that's the problem with internet forums in general: perspective. Come to Central Indiana where I grew up and the 'world' (all you know of it from there) IS certainly flat. In fact, having driven across Iowa, Nebraska and into Colorado, I'm convinced it's flat there too... until Denver. It's not until you remove yourself from the planet and gain a wider perspective that you finally grasp a 'world view'. A LOT of what's discussed in bigfooting is correct as viewed, with the narrow, personal view of those who've experienced things only they can say they have. Then you have those who stand way back and make bold, sweeping observations and conclusions that are for their perspective, correct... seemingly in contradition to what someone else believes to be true. It IS possible, minus the possession of absolute truth or knowledge, to have differing views of something, and have 2 people be *right* at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 possibilities: There is no bigfoot and Ketchum's analysis is flawed. There is bigfoot but Ketchum's analysis is flawed. There is bigfoot and Ketchum's analysis is right-on. In only one of those possibilities does a paper based on that analysis get published in a scientific journal. It always amuses me when I post things about my own profession that people are so quick to dismiss/forget. Case in point, science advances more when an apple cart is upset than when more and more apples are added to it. We scientists live for the day that we can make some grand discovery, turning on its ear some idea or principle currently held to be true. I just had a co-author on a paper I'm about to submit tell me the other day that he feared the paper would not be published because it was "too confirmatory." In other words, it agrees too much with the mainstream thinking on this particular topic. This is the reality of science publication in 2012, and this reality is 180 degrees from comments I can find here pretty much daily. The "ivory tower," "gentlemen's club," and similar characterizations of scientists are outdated stereotypes, naive and driven more by Hollywood characters than anything I've experienced in my career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts