Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Mulder, can you just throw the word "modern" out there, and this will all stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 She (Sally) is referring to the peer review process, not the science of the peer review. At least that's my read on it. She doesn't need to be able to DO dna analaysis in order to in general terms describe the process OF dna analysis. But why should I trust her more than you or me? A non-cynical way of saying that would be when things need to be expressed clearly in terms understandable by and relatable to a mass audience, they call in a public relations person. Regardless of whether the PR person expresses things to a mass audience in clearly understandable terms, they are usually called in to create a positive attitude towards an individual, company, or product, to promote an 'image', or attract our attention to the shiny bits whilst ignoring or minimizing distracting facts. I didn't invent the term 'spin doctor', that's been around for awhile. Do a little digging and you'll find ample evidence that public relations people put some sort of spin on virtually everything they produce. It's their job. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 18, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 18, 2012 Case in point.......bipto for the TBRC.......and his damage control in the Project Endurance/Echo thread (or whatever the name of it was). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 We are our biology, and what we are raised to be. Keep in mind that "human" is a biological definition, and "person" is a philosophical one. There have been truly wild humans, who somehow lived through their formative years without the benefit of a social elder to teach them language or social behavior. These truly wild humans were never considered "people", and were often treated as possessions. Sometimes, they were found young enough that they could still be taught some things, and then they earned their person-hood. With bigfoots, should they be H. sapiens neanderthalensis or phylogenetically between sapiens and neanderthal, I doubt that the "animal" term may be appropriate. It seems they are raised with the benefit of parents. Some evidence suggests that those parents live within and teach them about a social structure. There may also be rudimentary language and even some type of religious belief. It is this later attribute that would make them "people"; the ability to hold moral beliefs and conceive of a soul, regardless of whether they choose to acknowledge the existence of them. If the story of Zana is true, as it may now be plausible (the genetic evidence will need to be reviewed in light of new knowledge), then there is some question. Zana was an adult, so her ability to absorb social behavior may have been impaired. Bigfoots may also lack the capacity to speak a complex language, but can understand language. There is also the possibility that Zana may have been able to speak, but never wanted to speak, and so just muttered. If she ever believed in anything, she never communicated it, or such communication was never published. She could have fled, but always returned, and was trusted with chores. She probably could have attacked and killed someone, but never did, although she could be violent when angry. So if raised from birth by people, would a bigfoot be a large, hairy, easily angered person, or only able to act as a well trained animal? We will not know until someone tries raising a bigfoot from infancy. And does anyone have the summary of what McFarland presented in 1995? I think she was the first who had (genetic) evidence that bigfoots were Homo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 18, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 18, 2012 I would think if McFarland had such a presentation there would have been a huge number of threads on it at BFF1.0 and I don't recall one..... (and even here on the reincarnation) but it could have been before Al Gore invented the internet though.....lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Can't say I can recall any scientific papers that needed a PR person. Maybe it's for the Bigfoot game, dolls and research starter kit! Starting to look more like this to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Mulder, can you just throw the word "modern" out there, and this will all stop. All this can stop when the Skeptics drop their claim that Ketchum is claiming that the results show that BF is human (HSS). That is not and never has been what the linked material (assuming the link is accurate) purported to show. The claim was that BF had some genetic characteristics in common with HSS, but was NOT HSS but rather a distinct hominid in it's own right (the old "70% similar to human, 30% similar to chimpanzee" rumor). But why should I trust her more than you or me? It has nothing to do with "trust" as she is not addressing herself to the science of the study, but rather the nuts and bolts process of the review/publication OF the study. Regardless of whether the PR person expresses things to a mass audience in clearly understandable terms, they are usually called in to create a positive attitude towards an individual, company, or product, to promote an 'image', or attract our attention to the shiny bits whilst ignoring or minimizing distracting facts.I didn't invent the term 'spin doctor', that's been around for awhile. Do a little digging and you'll find ample evidence that public relations people put some sort of spin on virtually everything they produce. It's their job. RayG If you insist on viewing the situation through such a cynical worldview, I can't stop you nor help you. That's one of the things that I most dislike about Skeptics: their insistance on viewing anything relating to BF itself or the effort to document BF through the worst possible set of assumptions for no good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 "I didn't invent the term 'spin doctor', that's been around for awhile. Do a little digging and you'll find ample evidence that public relations people put some sort of spin on virtually everything they produce. It's their job." Sometimes the PR person's job is to balance out the wobbling caused by overly doubtful and suspicious people who are putting their own negative spin on a positive event. Every profession has some practitioners who do their work in an honest, respectful and valued way, and has some practitioners who may do their work in a self-serving and useless way.Do you have any reason to suspect the person being discussed is the latter, and cannot be the former? Bill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Bill, wish I could give more than one + to that post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Mulder, you still haven't indicated why I should trust her, regardless of whether she's talking about the specifics of something or not. Has she done something specific that should earn my trust? And if it has nothing to do with trust, why are we being asked to trust her? People I work with have come to realize that I describe the day as fabulous or gorgeous no matter what the actual weather outside. Sunny, snowing, pouring rain, freezing rain, thunder, lightning, it doesn't matter, the words I use to describe the day don't change, because I view EVERY day as a fabulous or gorgeous day. If people only hear those words however, they may not share my descriptive terms once they step out the door. In other words, they shouldn't trust me when I come into the room and tell them it's a fabulous/gorgeous day out there. It doesn't mean I'm lying or being dishonest, I truly marvel at the elements and appreciate the awesome show nature gives us each day. Cynical? Not sure if you're trying to inject a little levity or not. Here's how Ambrose Bierce described a cynic: CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision. If you choose to believe that you're getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, with no spin applied, so be it. I'm not so trusting. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Spin Doctoring ( v. ) Definition.... See Ray's definition of cynic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Bill, putting spin on something or being in public relations doesn't mean a person is dishonest. The spin is applied to ensure a certain perception. Highlight the positive and minimize the negative. I don't see where we're at odds here. But I still don't see why I should trust her either. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Have you any idea how many hundreds of calls, emails, interview requests, letters etc Ketchum is going to be handling per day once her report is published? I haven't the slightest problem with her employing someone to write a few press releases and handle calls for interviews etc. It makes complete sense. This little release yesterday is in my view likely to have been a gentle trial run to get the hired help started. For the life of me I can't see where trust comes into it. Anyone who employs someone takes responsibility for that person's output. Ketchum will be the same, and will make sure, I haven't the slightest doubt, that everything that goes out of her office under her name will have been read and checked. This person is just a mouthpiece, who will allow Ketchum to spend some time doing the big interviews, writing the key pieces, and you never know, maybe even doing some science. Trust is a complete and utter irrelevence, in my opinion. I mean, when you elect a President, you don't set about questioning whether you trust the person he might employ as his spokesperson, do you? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Ray: On page 81, post #2427, we first read about her association with the project and read her description of a process by which scientific papers are released, embargos, etc. She described a procedural process, as it generally occurs. She may as well have been describing how to re-build a carburator. There's no spin. It's just informing the general public of how a procedure occurs. The information offered was IN NO WAY prejudicial toward an agenda or point of view about Bigfoot. What is there to distrust? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 When this report comes out, I hope that when it is published and the BFF has verified it, can you all somehow figure a way to notify interested members. I bet there is some way to do this kind of thing already. For this one item, is there a "notifiy me right now no matter what" sign up sheet, so we don't have to keep checking around and finding out we still are just waiting? Just a wish out to my fairy godmother, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts