Guest MikeG Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2011/10/ancient-marine-worm-tracks.html Unless I am missing something the tracks in the above article are not verifiable, yet they are taken quite seriously. Their various tests and examinations can be verified and repeated. Now what if those same tracks were found in the soft mud off the Gulf Coast? This is a fair point, well worth considering for a minute. Those ancient worm tracks will be datable, mainly through the level of the strata in which they were found. If this date puts the tracks before the time of humans then of course hoaxing can (nearly) be ruled out. The only way of hoaxing would be amazingly intricate carving or even engraving, plus dye-ing, after the strata was re-exposed recently. However, this can be ruled out if the dig was filmed, or by close inspection and testing of the casts. They are, after all, in rock, and therefore not deteriorating in the same way as a footprint. This takes care of the verifiable nature of the tracks, and allows them to be considered as possible evidence, subject to all sorts of examination. The putative modern trackway in the mud off the Gulf Coast could be considered as evidence, I'm sure, if there was some corroboration such as observations of a creature actually making them, or a slime-trail which could be analysed, or the like. The problem with using this as an analogy for sasquatch is that there is a well-known history of hoaxing, which has to be taken into account with any evidence presented for examination. If it can be hoaxed, I guess that you have to assume that it has been hoaxed unless there is evidence to the contrary, sad as that is. There isn't really a history of hoaxing work casts in quite the same way, top my knowledge! Mike Edited February 6, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The other possibility and 800 pound gorrila in the room, is that the true reality of what bigfoot is, is just too darn scary for most scientists to get involved with. Oooh - this was less than 24 hrs! "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." What do you think is "scary" about bigfoot to "most scientists"? I really don't understand what you mean. If "bigfoot" is discovered and found to be a big, bipedal ape, then that's not scary, it's awesome. If bigfoot is discovered and found to be a subspecies of Homo sapiens, then that's not scary, it's awesome! This notion that scientists are scared of the implications of science is just plain wrong. It's fantasy. It's incorrect. It's inaccurate. It's not right. Oh, and in my list of publication possibilities to which you had responded, if Ketchum's analysis is "right-on" as I put it, then the tissue from which she obtained the DNA is the specimen. We can't lose sight of this basic fact, because I think it's the only one isolated to-date on which both Mulder and I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Patience = Melba Ketchum = science = validated evidence (if published in peer reviewed journal as expected) = wooless Mike I'm there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 This is a fair point, well worth considering for a minute. Those ancient worm tracks will be datable, mainly through the level of the strata in which they were found. If this date puts the tracks before the time of humans then of course hoaxing can (nearly) be ruled out. The only way of hoaxing would be amazingly intricate carving or even engraving, plus dye-ing, after the strata was re-exposed recently. However, this can be ruled out if the dig was filmed, or by close inspection and testing of the casts. They are, after all, in rock, and therefore not deteriorating in the same way as a footprint. This takes care of the verifiable nature of the tracks, and allows them to be considered as possible evidence, subject to all sorts of examination. The putative modern trackway in the mud off the Gulf Coast could be considered as evidence, I'm sure, if there was some corroboration such as observations of a creature actually making them, or a slime-trail which could be analysed, or the like. The problem with using this as an analogy for sasquatch is that there is a well-known history of hoaxing, which has to be taken into account with any evidence presented for examination. If it can be hoaxed, I guess that you have to assume that it has been hoaxed unless there is evidence to the contrary, sad as that is. There isn't really a history of hoaxing work casts in quite the same way, top my knowledge! Mike Appeal to probability Appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, often used in conjunction with other fallacies. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Go on, I'm listening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 What do you think is "scary" about bigfoot to "most scientists"? You do remember what you said you would do if you were an editor of a journal don't you? Or do I have to go dig the quote up? You remember, the whole conflict you had as an author vs. editor. You said as an editor you wouldn't publish a paper on bigfoot without a body, or did you finally concede that samples = specimens= body(s)? And what is not scary about publishing a paper on bigfoot without a body, particularly if yours and the journals reputations are on the line?In the face of all those who perceive it as woo? Take a look at how bigfoot is represented to the public, it's portrayed as a monster. What does the public expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Appeal to probability Appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, often used in conjunction with other fallacies. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. Indie, MikeG's comment is not a good example of appeal to probability. Appeal to probability becomes a fallacy when the probability of an event is very low, yet is cited as evidence that it will happen. We see this all time in proponents claims, eg that Bigfoot could completely escape photography. The a prior probability is vanishingly low, yet that mere possibility is cited as evidence that it actually happens. However, that is not what MikeG did. It is not a fallacy to use a reasonable probability of an event to establish a framework of investigation or even to assign credibility. Par exemple: If a man beats his wife, then when she shows up with new bruises, it is not a fallacy to adopt the a priori stance that this should be investigated as a spousal abuse, nor would it be a fallacy to decide that his word should not be given credibility per se if he denies it. Faking bigfoot tracks falls in this general category of probability, and faking worm tracks does not. It would be an appeal to probability fallacy to say that since worm tracks could be faked, they are faked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Parnassus,I think you are wrong, The notion that tracks can't be taken seriously because a few instances of fakery have been uncovered is silly and a very solid example of the Appeal to Probability. Along with photos, films, videos and many other types of evidence that have come forward. Your legal reference doesn't hold water either. Why do you think prior offences are seldom allowed to go before a jury. Because it is an appeal to probabiliy. JMO, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Speculating is a little like prospecting. Very few people hit a major lode. Most just scratch away, picking up a nugget here and a nugget there. Usually the only people who make out well are those who sell shovels to those who dig holes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 JDL, You've just written what is easily one of the best posts that I've read here. Kudos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) I'll have a go. If we know for a certainty that several hominid lines have walked this earth over the last 100,000 or so years, what is the likelihood that we are the only ones currently extant? While I am being acerbic here, I do think it's critical to pick the correct category of probability, before claiming some event is vanishingly unlikely. Edited February 6, 2012 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The problem with all probability based conclusions is that if you do not first specify the variables factored into the analysis, the resulting conclusion is just agenda-driven and a waste of time. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 You do remember what you said you would do if you were an editor of a journal don't you? Or do I have to go dig the quote up? You remember, the whole conflict you had as an author vs. editor. You said as an editor you wouldn't publish a paper on bigfoot without a body, or did you finally concede that samples = specimens= body(s)? As an author I'd work to get something published; as an editor, I'd work to prevent something from being published. I think that was the gist of my statement. What's the relevance here? The intense scrutiny that a tough editor might place on a paper doesn't mean that he's "scared" of what's in the paper. And what is not scary about publishing a paper on bigfoot without a body, particularly if yours and the journals reputations are on the line? Nothing is scary about it, if the data are reliable and the analysis robust. That's the point. If it's all good, then that's what's true, and that's what gets published. If the data are unreliable and the analysis weak, then there's nothing scary either - the paper should rightfully be rejected. You seem to be conflating "scared scientists" with "people who like to make danged sure something is correct before they let it take up any space in their journal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) I'm no scientist... But... I see a rather large difference between "work to prevent something from being published" and "the intense scrutiny that a tough editor might place on a paper". Perhaps it's my lack of formal scientific training but I don't see what the editorial process has to be adversarial in order to be effective. I'm sure the more enlightened scientists in the forum could explain the logic behind it. Perhaps take the whole emotional factor out of the process and let the facts speak for themselves? I'm sure I'm missing something. Tim B. Edited February 6, 2012 by TimB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The second a paper gets published, especially one like Ketchum's, it will be scrutinized in the harshest and least fair ways. I hope, indeed, that her paper is adequately vetted before it's published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts