AaronD Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Key words, Jodie, "as if" we knew what we were talking about" LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) LOLOL....I include myself in that too if it eases the sting for anyone that might have taken an offense. Edited April 19, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Sas how are scientist going to explain a giant hairy ape living under our noses. I don't know.Lets just say for a moment that Kechum has all the proof she needs to prove this beast. Is science going to look totally foolish or what. What. Why would "science" look foolish? Biologists have conducted surveys in all the major parts of the continent in which bigfoots have been reported. Scientists - prior to Ketchum - have analyzed hair samples. Nothing has come of those analyses. Why would "science," or for that matter "government," be beholden to proclaim the reality of "bigfoot" when no proof of such creatures has come to light?Science seems to be completely led by the almighty grant . . . The best way to get an "almighty grant" is to make the case that you've discovered something completely new and unexpected. If I had proof of bigfoot, I'd never again have to worry about grant money to support my program. Agencies would be throwing money at me to study the danged things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 In my understanding, the absence of evidence argument is more nuanced than you portray it. As I would employ it, it is not a question of absolutes, of "complete absence" or "every last bit" of evidence. Instead, it is the weighing of the positive and negative aspects of individual phenomena. The evidence of absence need not be conclusive to be persuasive (as is also true of positive evidence). It would also include a consideration of what ought not be absent but is absent in a particular event. Of coarse, you and I would seriously disagree on the balance or lack of such in considering the positive evidence and the evidence of absence. As is often the case in human communication, we may speak the same language and yet still not understand one another. Another issue I would like to note, and it probably has been mentioned by others, is the idea that Bigfoot is a virtually magical monster, so unlike anything else that it defies normal understanding of fauna. If every other [known] North American mammal has been shot by hunters or has become road kill, Bigfoot is not only special in not succumbing to such mundane fate, some Bigfooters seem to believe Bigfoot is so too different an animal for us to even expect it to have a similar fate as other wildlife. I mention this because your "unknown unstudied critter" is a faint echo of the "Bigfoot is especially special" belief. In the context of your statement, this special status seems plausible on the surface; yet scientists extrapolate all the time from the known to the unknown. I guess you have to decide whether bigfoot has met the fate of other wildlife, then come up with a reason why it wasn't reported if it did, or why the body disappeared. Does that bring you back to negative evidence? Normal fauna vs Special being, maybe a mixture of the two conceptual models would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Rejection wouldn't necessarily equate to inconclusive data. I would have to hear the reasons before being Ok with it. Certainly none of the proffered potential reasons for rejection given so far ("no testable hypothesis", "no 'authenticated' control sample", etc) qualify as vaild reasons to question the data. For heaven's sake Mulder, this little gem from you may be more damning to any visage of your objectivity than anything any of us have ever written about you. The only thing damning is that you cannot refute what I'm saying so you have to resort to this sort of heavy-handed dog-piling to try to drown me out, which says far more about how strong my argument is and how weak your rebuttals have been. It appears to me that your perception is something like this: Scientists who study bigfoot and claim bigfoot is real = brave paradigm-challengers. No, = open-minded and objectively following the evidence to it's logical conclusion Scientists who study bigfoot and find the evidence lacking = liars, frauds, victims of the establishment. Have not presented any sort of affirmative case for their proposition. Rely on logical fallacies, and gaming the system to keep proponents from crossing the validation "goalline". Scientists who review bigfoot papers and find the evidence lacking = liars, frauds, victims of the establishment. Have yet to see one present any sort of counter-case (see above) Scientists who don't study bigfoot or review papers about it = the establishment (actively trying to quash any research about bigfoot). Not actively quash, but not doing their scientific duty and properly and objectively engaging the case to hand. Like Drew said, you nailed it. Plus I'm not smart enough to translate the Latin and it's a distraction. I get sidetracked and start thinking about all of the fake Latin names for Wile E. Coyote whenever he posts them. "Don't come to the war if you don't know how to fight" would be my recommendation. Google is your friend in this case. Though it makes sense that you don't understand the logical fallacies you commit if you don't even know what they are. Mulder, I also noticed that in your long response where you broke down my post line for line and answered each, you left out the main passage. The passage that it was all building up towards. The same question that Ray also asked. Was this on purpose? Which passage do you feel I did this to? Repost it and I'll be happy to reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 How wha wa wha wait.... "No testable hypothesis" is okay? Do you mean, take their word for it? Only if somebody yells out "Opposite Day" right as the results come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Does anyone remember "The Bigfoot News" a little publication back in the 70's that cost $5/year and was sent out monthly??? It was generated from a little trailer somewhere in N. Calif called the Bigfoot Information center. Just wondering if anyone had any recollection of this? And possibly, if they're still alive, where the folks involved are today. I believe that was Peter Byrne's group...I wrote to them when I was a much younger girl than I am now. It was right after I saw the PGF for the first time. Mr. Byrne sent me back a typed personal response. It was really great. I don't know whatever happened to the group. I think he had 1 or 2 others "researchers" working with him at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Psst . . . Mulder: There's nothing to "refute." If Ketchum publishes a paper claiming DNA from a bigfoot, then there will be something to refute. 'Til then, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Does anyone remember "The Bigfoot News" a little publication back in the 70's that cost $5/year and was sent out monthly??? It was generated from a little trailer somewhere in N. Calif called the Bigfoot Information center. Just wondering if anyone had any recollection of this? And possibly, if they're still alive, where the folks involved are today. I do remember, in fact, I think I still have the stuff somewhere. Thanks for the blast from the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Honestly is there really people on here that watch NBC news on thursday to see if the paper is coming out? You would be surprised I'd imagine. I can say with 100% sincerity that I've received multiple PM requests from members that I pull the plug on the forum on Thursdays just in case it is released then. I'm sure whatever the results indicate upon release that the forum can withstand it so there is no way I'm going to allow/advocate that the site be shut down on Thursdays. I think we're getting awfully close to the release. And, I'm looking forward to it. I've been told that the *skeptics will be forced to eat crow* by some. I've been told it will be underwhelming and proponents will be disappointed. But I'm not going to shut the forum down in anticipation of either event. And, I make no bones that I am personally hoping the *skeptics* will be forced to eat crow. I'm also not holding my breath and expecting it. It will be what it will be and I've been disappointed before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 How wha wa wha wait.... "No testable hypothesis" is okay? Do you mean, take their word for it? Only if somebody yells out "Opposite Day" right as the results come out. Does the hypothesis of a new species need to be stated for any other reason than to establish the premise of the study? Does it affect what the data actually supports as a conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I believe that was Peter Byrne's group...I wrote to them when I was a much younger girl than I am now. It was right after I saw the PGF for the first time. Mr. Byrne sent me back a typed personal response. It was really great. I don't know whatever happened to the group. I think he had 1 or 2 others "researchers" working with him at the time. Peter's still alive and living on the Oregon Coast. The trailer I know about was near The Dalles, Oregon. The center was operated under a grant from Academy of Applied Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 LOLOL....I include myself in that too if it eases the sting for anyone that might have taken an offense. The ability to stir a pot does not make one a cook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Another issue I would like to note, and it probably has been mentioned by others, is the idea that Bigfoot is a virtually magical monster, so unlike anything else that it defies normal understanding of fauna. If every other [known] North American mammal has been shot by hunters or has become road kill, Bigfoot is not only special in not succumbing to such mundane fate, some Bigfooters seem to believe Bigfoot is so too different an animal for us to even expect it to have a similar fate as other wildlife. I mention this because your "unknown unstudied critter" is a faint echo of the "Bigfoot is especially special" belief. In the context of your statement, this special status seems plausible on the surface; yet scientists extrapolate all the time from the known to the unknown. There is an issue here Jerry, where you tend to focus on other peoples beliefs or your perception of their beliefs. Beliefs don't matter in science, but do matter in religion. You could argue that belief doesn't exist in science. We have hypotheses we test, observe phenomena, document and predict future findings through experimentation. Attempting persecution of someones belief, isn't a scientific inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Please don't do this! Dr Ketchum is a member here, and we don't tolerate any member being called a liar. Thanks Mike Mike, that is exactly what they are in fact implying with their constant churn. Carefully parsed to stay just inside posting guidelines of course... Yeah, some of Parn's friendly, neighborhood straw men. Some hay farmer is very very happy with the amount of this going on around this forum on the part of the Skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts