Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Did Dr. Ketchum "out" the pending report? Not to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was other people that outed it. Actually she did. She went on the radio in late August of 2010 and then again in late October in order to request people send in samples for the study she was undertaking. So under those circumstances I think the need to disclose what she was doing to be acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Not my problem. As I said earlier, Ketchum is free to choose whatever venue she wants, but with that choice comes the responibilty for dealing with the consequences of that choice. If she would have never uttered a word about her paper, I'd be blissfully ignorant without having any criticism of her behavior. If she actually delivers the proof she portends, none of these criticisms will be worth the fractional penny's worth of drive space they're stored on. Another mint-julip please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Actually, you miss the point. Perhaps my fault. We know blue whales exist because they have been verified to exist. Same is true for kangaroos. And, I dare say, I am verifiable as well. Negative evidence relating to Bigfoot not only relates to not seeing it, it also relates to not finding it. So, in my Farmersville example, we have on one side most of the locals having no knowledge or evidence of Bigfoot, no tangible evidence of Bigfoot, and no Bigfoot itself verified to exist, and on the other side we have a fellow who says he saw a large man-like ape cross the road. Therefore, in this account, there is no evidence of Bigfoot outside the sighting claim. You may want to give more credence to the sighting than to that which lays outside the sighting. That's your preference. My point is that we are not reasonably obliged to give more weight to the sighting than to the other relevant facts at issue. I think is issue can be stated this way, using the example above. Advocates would treat the facts of no general local evidence of Bigfoot existing in and near Farmersville as if such facts were neutral and rendered irrelevant by the Bigfoot sighting. To the contrary, methinks the lack of local evidence has value in itself and directly relates to the issue of the validity of the sighting. Considering your last statement: Do you really think when someone says there is no evidence for Bigfoot they are saying there are no sightings, tracks, etc? Or are they saying the tracks and sightings, etc. are not real? If they take this position, somewhat harder than mine, I would think they are basically suggesting the evidence is disputable and therefore proves nothing. (Perhaps mere semantics.) Jerrywayne, maybe you should start a thread on negative evidence, and lay out your thoughts how they matter in the mind of one who has determined all evidence is negative. You must have some idea of what constitutes positive evidence, but it apparently is not the presence of other sightings next to one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted April 10, 2012 Admin Share Posted April 10, 2012 This conversation reminded me of this funny diagram... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 G, Awesome!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Yeah! Those mean 'ol silly scientists!!! What we need is a return to nature and common sense I say. A return to the dark ages. Now there was a long period where no scientists were there. Must have been bliss I tell ya. Bliss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 The Dark Ages: "Oh, there's some lovely filth over here!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Hear ye hear ye! Let no man question. Now line up for some bloodletting so we can balance your four humors. Come on now, come on. Make haste lest the werewolves find tonights moon full. Scientific method! Phffftttt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 @Sas and Parn: You've probably addressed this in other thread, so I apologize for the repost. How many papers have you published? How many have you attempted to publish? In what fields? I'm trying to gauge your experience level with the process. I guess the question goes out to all members who have been through the publishing/peer review process. Thanks all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Ive always heard "the proof is in the pudding". Maybe we need bill cosby to help with the analysis......he did discover the "puddin' pop" ,right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) @Mulder: You seem really hung up on the training of the people involved in the evidence. No, that would be you Skeptics. Always yammering on about "qualifications" and such. If a forensic hair examiner looks at a suspect hair and says "bear", you accept his professional judgement. But when the same examiner examines it and says "unknown primate", you get all bent out of shape and say he's "not qualified". Why? The people aren't the problem, the evidence is. The evidence would be accepted if it were anything BUT BF involved, and you know it. Edited April 10, 2012 by MikeG Please attack the argument, not the arguer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) @Cotter: One never asks a lady her age or her weight, and "how much have you published" is one of those prickly questions for academics! That said . . . I've published 23 papers in peer-reviewed journals, contributed to over $5 million in external grants, and serve as an associate editor for an international journal based in the U.S. I've been a peer reviewer on about 70 different manuscripts submitted to 31 different journals and similar outlets. I'm currently working on 5 different manuscripts in various states of preparation, submission, and response to reviewer's comments, and my field is wildlife ecology. Note that I will be providing verification of none of this information, so you may take it with a grain of salt and consider me a blowhard poser if you so choose. No, that would be you Skeptics. Um . . . nuh-uh. Will you even notice the irony of what I just posted in response to Cotter's question? I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find in any of the criticisms I've ever leveled against those claiming bigfoot evidence that the qualifications of the claimant was the issue. I'm the one who's been saying for years that it matters not who is driving the logging truck or who pulls the trigger or whose camera trap gets the winning photo - incontrovertible evidence speaks for itself. Edited April 10, 2012 by MikeG Personal comment removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 We know blue whales exist because they have been verified to exist. Same is true for kangaroos. And before they were "verified" they existed quite happily for ages. Same with the gorilla, the sad saga of "scientific" scorn about which is well-documented. Empiricism trumps experientialsim in everything but the scientific world it seems. Negative evidence relating to Bigfoot not only relates to not seeing it, it also relates to not finding it. So, in my Farmersville example, we have on one side most of the locals having no knowledge or evidence of Bigfoot, no tangible evidence of Bigfoot, and no Bigfoot itself verified to exist, and on the other side we have a fellow who says he saw a large man-like ape cross the road. Therefore, in this account, there is no evidence of Bigfoot outside the sighting claim. You may want to give more credence to the sighting than to that which lays outside the sighting. That's your preference. My point is that we are not reasonably obliged to give more weight to the sighting than to the other relevant facts at issue. As I pointed out elsewhere, what someone ELSE may or may not have seen is irrelevant, unless they claim to have been with the witness in that place at that time. Advocates would treat the facts of no general local evidence of Bigfoot existing in and near Farmersville as if such facts were neutral and rendered irrelevant by the Bigfoot sighting. To the contrary, methinks the lack of local evidence has value in itself and directly relates to the issue of the validity of the sighting. That's because you're not being objective, and employing a logical fallacy. Your demand for prior evidence can never be satisfied because you use the lack of prior evidence to invalidate every piece of evidence proffered. Yeah! Those mean 'ol silly scientists!!! What we need is a return to nature and common sense I say. A return to the dark ages. Now there was a long period where no scientists were there. Must have been bliss I tell ya. Bliss! In this case it's theso-called scientists who are the ones not following their own method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) pt wrote If academics wish to use peer review, go for it. Just don't perpetuate the myths that there is no other legitimate way to publish, and that surviving peer review is a hallmark of quality. Peer review is an indicator of quality. You may not agree, but yours would be a veritable bark in the desert. The caravan moves on. It is true that for one reason or another, many good ideas are never published, (like my way of eliminating hiccups) or are published in non peer reviewed material. But we are all looking to do the right thing, buy the right thing, go to a good movie; much of social media is based on that idea. Wisdom of the crowd. We want help. We want unbiased and/or expert and/or majority opinions. You might be interested in the book Blood Feud by Kathleen Sharp (2011), to get some perspective of the role of what you call "elite journals" (and the dangers of bad journals) in biological science. Have you expressed your ideas to Dr. Ketchum? Dr. Meldrum? would you suggest publishing the study at Melissa Hovey's website? Cryptomundo? Bigfoot Evidence? Robert Lindsay? BFRO? (they say they are the scientific bigfoot organization), Bigfoot Encounters? Time Magazine? Dallas Morning News? The Enquirer? New York Post? News of the World? oh, wait.... . p. Edited April 10, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 @Sas - Impressive! And no worries, I won't ask for you to provide proof of your accomplishments - I do NOT consider you a blowhard poser at all, actually quite the opposite. You seem knowledgable in the process, so I wanted to find out where you were drawing your repsonses from regarding the publishing process... Thx for the response, it does add weight to your posts when speaking of the process (at least to me it does). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts