Guest parnassus Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) Mulder: ID isn't science. It's religion. Court decided that. There was no real CRU 'scandal'. Only a theft of emails, a lot of exclaiming, pearl rubbing, dust and propaganda. Doesn't affect the science one bit. Following the earlier theft of data and emails from CRU in 2009, a number of inquiries and reviews were completed. "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact" (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) "we saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit" (Lord Oxburgh Science Assessment Panel) "their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt" (Sir Muir Russell Independent Climate Change Emails Review) "careful examination of the e-mails and their full context shows that the petitioners' claims are exaggerated and are not a material or reliable basis to question the validity and credibility of the body of [climate] science" (US Environmental Protection Agency) p. Edited April 17, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Thanks Parn. I was just looking that stuff up. Saved me some trouble...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Oooo I can't wait until the paper comes out so I can say "I told you so" to Mulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Mulder, I'm curious. If Ketchum's paper doesn't receive widespread acceptance by mainstream science (Nature, Science, etc.), will your anti-science drumbeats get even louder, or will you entertain the possibility that maybe the results were inconclusive, less than earth-shattering, or flat out wrong? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I just want to point out, that Dr. Bindernagel agree's that mainstream science does not give Bigfoot a fair shake. I think this man is qualified to give this opinion, and he gets into an explanation as to his thinking on it here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB7mpZoLq9U&feature=player_embedded#! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Mulder, I'm curious. If Ketchum's paper doesn't receive widespread acceptance by mainstream science (Nature, Science, etc.), will your anti-science drumbeats get even louder, or will you entertain the possibility that maybe the results were inconclusive, less than earth-shattering, or flat out wrong? RayG Speaking for myself here, but I think the science can be 100% conclusive, and still not rock the entire scientific community, because scientists, being skeptical people, can disbelieve even published science. I think it would certainly draw heavy fire though, and when the evidence sqelches that scrutiny, again and again full acceptance will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Because "negative evidence" is not evidence at all. It is a logical fallacy passed off by Skeptics as some form of evidence. Mulder, I know you appreciate logical rigor, so I thought I would pass this along: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 SY, does that mean you're not willing to entertain the possibility that the submitters of the paper might be incorrect in their conclusions? Further, if mainstream science does reject the data and/or conclusions of the submitted paper, we should continue to accept the contents of 'the paper' because...? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 There are two competing theories here. One theory supports the existence of a primate as yet catalogued in North America. The other says there is no un-catalogued large primate in North America. Both sides examine evidence submitted to support the two theories. I don't see two kinds of evidence just two different theories. "Negative evidence" sounds wrong, but maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps this helps get my point over better, using "evidence of absence" instead of "negative evidence": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 SY, does that mean you're not willing to entertain the possibility that the submitters of the paper might be incorrect in their conclusions? Further, if mainstream science does reject the data and/or conclusions of the submitted paper, we should continue to accept the contents of 'the paper' because...? RayG I would expect to hear more than just that it was rejected, It would have to be some kind of major oversight, in my opinion, to have lead qualified scientists to such a flop. I also think such a problem would have surfaced by now. If the DNA is not bigfoot, then it is absolutely some other known, and that result will be repeatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 jerrywayne, I recall it was Lyle this past Saturday saying he saw or had cast some 5 toed tracks but I will have to check back with him. My only point was there is the normal history of reports in a good area before and after the famous point in history most know of and for the researcher enough activity by our standards to imply it was and still is an active area for our favorite topic. I don't expect it to be adequate for you nor am I worried about it. Just the same ole adedoctal evidence us regular 'footers embrace and entertain ourselves because we like it. GEARMAN, I forgot that Blackburn does include a photo of a track that could be perceived as 5 toed on page 195. True, "the same ole anecdotal evidence" is fun and I have been entertained by the mystery for decades. Blackburn's book is a fun read that understands the entertainment value of good old fashioned monster stories. BTW, you are a brave fellow to go chasing what you think might be a giant Wood Ape or immense Forest Person in a swampy area in the dark. My fedora is off to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 A peer reviewed scientific article is a leap forward for analyzing Bigfoot phenomena. But, we should all understand that it will not initially be the last word on its subject matter. Peer reviewed journal articles can be challenged: http://www.nature.com/news/paper-denying-hiv-aids-link-secures-publication-1.9737; I'm assuming this article was also peer reviewed, http://www.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/National/New-Study-Fails-to-Refute-Fluoride-Osteosarcoma-Li.aspx As to Lindsay's latest, it does seem that someone may be feeding him phony baloney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I would expect to hear more than just that it was rejected, It would have to be some kind of major oversight, in my opinion, to have lead qualified scientists to such a flop. I also think such a problem would have surfaced by now. If the DNA is not bigfoot, then it is absolutely some other known, and that result will be repeatable. Ok, so if it's rejected, and the reviewers give valid reasons for their rejection, you'd be ok with that? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) XXXXXXXXacceptedXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXacceptance Ok, so if it's rejected, and the reviewers give valid reasons for their rejection, you'd be ok with that? RayG Edited April 18, 2012 by indiefoot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Continuing the sidebar for a moment: Mulder: ID isn't science. It's religion. Court decided that. Appeal to authority fallacy. And not even an appropriate one at that. 1) Courts are not infallable. Courts can and have ruled all kinds of things that are incorrect, such as that it was lawful for one man to own another, that "separate but equal" education was not discriminatory, etc. 2) There are an awful lot of scientists engaged in ID research that would be very amused at your "court ruling". There was no real CRU 'scandal'. Only a theft of emails, a lot of exclaiming, pearl rubbing, dust and propaganda. Doesn't affect the science one bit. In your opinion. Following the earlier theft of data and emails from CRU in 2009, a number of inquiries and reviews were completed. "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact" (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) "we saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit" (Lord Oxburgh Science Assessment Panel) "their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt" (Sir Muir Russell Independent Climate Change Emails Review) "careful examination of the e-mails and their full context shows that the petitioners' claims are exaggerated and are not a material or reliable basis to question the validity and credibility of the body of [climate] science" (US Environmental Protection Agency) p. No amount of whitewashing can change the facts disclosed IN the emails: data forgery, source data destruction, conspiracy to demean the reputation of journals publishing papers critical of AGW theory. Res ipsa loquitur. Mulder, I'm curious. If Ketchum's paper doesn't receive widespread acceptance by mainstream science (Nature, Science, etc.), will your anti-science drumbeats get even louder, or will you entertain the possibility that maybe the results were inconclusive, less than earth-shattering, or flat out wrong? RayG Not having access to the study or the data, it would be premature of me to make any sort of statement about potential reactions to such an occurance. In general, I will say this: DNA science is about as hard a science as there is. The DNA is the DNA, and it sequences what it sequences. DNA comes only from the cells of living things, so DNA is 100% proof of the living thing it came from. If, for example (as rumored early on), the DNA sequence came back as matching no animal on record, and genetically possessing characteristics similar to both humans and chimpanzees, then I would say that no reasonable, objective scientist could say anything other than that there is a heretofore undocumented, living creature out there with those characteristics. Again, res ipsa loquitur. Mulder, I know you appreciate logical rigor, so I thought I would pass this along: http://en.wikipedia....i/Modus_tollens Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about...next attempt to derail? SY, does that mean you're not willing to entertain the possibility that the submitters of the paper might be incorrect in their conclusions? Further, if mainstream science does reject the data and/or conclusions of the submitted paper, we should continue to accept the contents of 'the paper' because...? RayG Given Science's track record on the topic to date, I would not automatically suggest that their rejection was due to a poor paper. Yet another logical fallacy on your part, in this case appeal to acceptance. Perhaps this helps get my point over better, using "evidence of absence" instead of "negative evidence": http://en.wikipedia....ence_of_absence Nope. A pig and a "porcine animal" are both swine by different names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts