southernyahoo Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I hestitate to speculate, being a lowly, unscientific skeptic, but..... You know what they say about statistics.... Statistics is a big part of DNA analysis. Scientists like numbers because they don't lie when eminating from biological material. We have a precedent for splitting species on this same type of statistics, plus we have our perceptions about bigfoot. We know there would have to be great divergence somewhere, so I don't expect the statistics to be an elaborate game of picking nits to find something conclusive. Thats what my optimism is reflecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 That would be preferable to trying to shut down discussion here. Or if one really wants to shut down a speculative thread (I don't), I would humbly suggest one could go over to the one called something like "how are you going to party when the Ketchum Report comes out?" that's my opinion. p. I would never dream of shutting down discussion. I enjoy enlightened debate. I don't have the ability to ignore it when opinion is portrayed as fact, nor do I have time for people using the rumors of an unpublished paper to justify their opinion that something isn't possible. I think the arguments posted as "proof" of the fallacies of this unpublished papers are laughable and worth pointing out. Luckily I get to voice my opinion on these frequent non-factual opinion postings whenever I choose, as long as I follow the discussion board policies. Have a good day, everyone! Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Funny, I read that post from you and was struck by how blind it was to the many people posting in this thread (including yourself, apparently) who've made up their minds that there is some kind of proof of bigfoot to be revealed in Ketchum's paper. The fact that it was heavily "plussed" merely adds to the irony. Respectfully, you are seeing a bias in my comment that wasn't there, or at least, wasn't intended to be there. I wouldn't want any of the prematurely-made-up-minds from either side of the debate serving on a jury at any (imaginary) trial of mine. That bias may have been implied because it appeared straight after a post from a sceptic, but it wasn't directed solely at that comment. This caveat that you added to your last post is no different that skeptics writing "If what we're being led to believe about Ketchum's work is accurate, then . . . " Yet you call out skeptics as having made up their minds before seeing the paper. .......... Not so........see above. I am calling out both sides with the fixed mind-set, and I knew that without that caveat my rumour-mongering may have been misconstrued as some lightweight defense of one side's position. You could just about make it a rule around here to disregard any posting on either side of the discussion that doesn't have such a caveat attached.I'll say again, as I have said a number of times: I believe that you, Saskeptic, hold an absolutely un-impeachable position in this whole discussion. I cannot fault anything about your general position, and respect how you have held it calmly and through all sorts of hostility. I like to think that there is barely, as the expression goes, a cigarette-paper between us, with the sole difference being that on the balance of probability (a phrase I choose carefully) I expect that one day the presence of a large hairy biped in North America will be proven. Until that day comes, call me out, please, if you see me make assumptions of its existence without supporting evidence. Not all sceptics take such an honourable position as you, it should be noted, and with one or two one struggles to see how they could ever reconcile their oft-stated positions should conclusive proof ever be produced. Mike Edited March 21, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Giving Ketchum the benefit of the doubt is different from assuming she has the proof she claims. Aside from those involved in the study, I don't see too many proponents that have made up their minds with the same level of certainty as those critical of the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 @MikeG - I'm sorry if I missed the intent of your post. While I always appreciate kind words, please don't single me out among our skeptics as having an opinion on this any different from that of parnassus or RayG or any who've expressed reservations about Ketchum's analysis. That's what gets my goat - this lumping of skeptics into "good" and "bad" categories when I know that we are unified in our basic suspicions that nothing substantive will come from the analysis but we'd all be thrilled to be wrong about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Again, I chose my words carefully........I personally don't lump all sceptics into either good or bad categories, although I don't doubt that happens. I see the range of views on here as a spectrum, and I only singled you out because I was responding to your post. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I think there is a certain amount of assumption that Dr Ketchum is going to come up with something, that is a least substantial based on her own optimism and her profession. Some people may find her approach questionable,and her personality not to their taste, but then scientist are individuals as well. Her credentials are legitimate, she has co authored several successful papers over the years, and she must be aware of how much damage a hoax, or even a dramatic fumble would be, considering the project she has taken on. Certainly the damage to her career, reputation, etc, would out weigh any profit from a hoax. This is not a couple of rubes with a fake Bigfoot on ice, or some college kids with a costume, this is a successful professional, with other academic professionals working with her, and guy with the ability to fund it all properly. So I think its ok to be excited,and optimistic about it,because if it all goes for a total flop, at least it was flopped by qualified flopsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) JohnC, that sums up my feelings on it pretty well. Saskeptic, as with the 'believers' here, there is a broad continuum of where people fall, and how well they are able to communicate that on a day to day basis. Many of us are guilty of lumping the other 'camp' into a single unified contrary opinion, leaving out nuance and exception, either in an act of expediency, oversight, or fallacy. But, on the same token, while you don't want to be painted with a singular brush, my brief experience here has shown that you are much more careful in how you frame your observations and arguments on the skeptical side of the equation than some others, who make blanket pronouncements as unfounded and vehement as the looniest of believers, albeit on the other side of that continuum. Neither side is free from that bias, it seems. Skeptics tend to (here I go with a gross generalization) see themselves as more immune to that sometimes, maybe because they root their position in rationality and logic. Often this DOES put them on more solid footing. Maybe this sometimes creates a blind spot. I don't know. There are lots of shades here, and I think the best advice for any of us is to be vigilant with ourselves, and try to be open to the criticism from those in either camp when it comes to logical errors, or errors of argument. I often left passion get the best of me, and in those moments, my arguments aren't going to come out as polished as they should. In regards to Ketchum, there are some of us who, yes, are very hopeful, due to the very reasons laid out by JohnC above. And it becomes frustrating when she is attacked in ways that seem out of character for a 'camp' which seemingly resides on logic and rationality. In any event, enough of that. On with the show....tomorrow? Edited March 21, 2012 by Particle Noun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Had to plus that one Particle noun. ....who've made up their minds that there is some kind of proof of bigfoot to be revealed in Ketchum's paper. I kind of felt like I got blanketed with this statement above from Saskeptic, While I don't think I've stated vehemently there will be proof, I think it's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Perhaps instead of using this thread to continue the debate over evidence we don't have access to, we should simply start a Publication Date Pool. Put a dollar on a date... and for the true skeptics they can double down Never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 everyone got their tickets ready for tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Dibs on May 18th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 no it will be out by the end of February Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I predict it will be out the day after I stop hearing "I Got You Babe" on my clock radio at 6:00 AM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) they have analysed around 200 samples according to the leaks, coming from at least 28 different individual sasquatch. I do not believe this, no way, if this is a serious claim I think this report is never going to materialize! Nobody can prove this creature exists, yet there is somehow biological evidence representing 28. Sorry, not even remotely convinced this represents reality. Edited March 21, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts