Guest Jodie Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Oh excuse me, I thought you were criticing the sightings as lacking the application of empirical data. since it would be based on the person's experience then that wouldn't be an accurate description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I don't understand skeptics and their behaviour. If you don't beleieve in something then why spend so much time on a forums (and probably other web sites too) dedicated to discussing the thing you're skeptical about? Surely they could spend the time and energy on something they're positively passionate about? Why would someone want to waste all that time and energy? The Ketchum study (thus far) is just another example of how keen skeptics are to rubbish what other people have seen or believe in. Being skeptical of one aspect of the BF phenom doesn't mean I have to be skeptical of the entire BF mystery. Besides, what fun would a forum be without all sides represented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I agree Summitwalker. 'Twould be boring. I just argue for better evidence and hopefully proof some day. I argue for objectivity (this doesn't include people who have had sightings where they are sure they saw a BF). I argue for critical thinking too. I don't think BF's exist. But I also don't think they can't exist. Just imagine...how friggin earth-shatteringly cool would it be if they're real. I do envy those who have had long term, clear daylight encounters. I would like to think that if I had such a sighting, I would argue to the skeptics...something like this. 'You guys are right to be skepticle as things stand now, for numerous reasons. Hell, I wouldn't believe it either, had I not had my ecounter. What I saw cannot remain undiscovered forever, so stick around. The whole world's in for a huge surprise!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 The whole "I don't accept any one of your mountain of reported sightings, therefore bigfoot do not exist" stance is akin to sticking one's fingers in their ears and shouting "Nyaa, Nyaa, Nyaa, Nyaa Nyaa, Nyaa!" Parn doesn't have to accept what he refuses to hear, even if it requires extreme and convoluted argument to deflect fact. Well said! Don't you think the distinction is that you can go "pick" these flowers... look at them... smell them... photograph them, and even take them home with you. There's no disputing that they are real. It's just not the same THING as Bigfoot. Special pleadning. The "flower" in this case (assuming the study holds up) HAS been "picked". DNA has been obtained. DNA comes from living substances (blood, cells, etc). You cannot have DNA w/o having a sample from which it is sequenced. DNA = critter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 ^^^^^...I don't think BF's exist. But I also don't think they can't exist....What??? Is that like eating jumbo shrimp, or talking to the little big guy?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I'm confused as to what you're confused about. I suggest maybe read it slower and think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yes, but even though you could smell them and pick them, it took DNA testing to determine the actual species of plant. Anyone know how long it took between doing the DNA testing, and publishing the results? I got the impression it was only last month that the testing was conducted. RayG As you yourself (among others) keep saying: there is no real doubt that plants exist. So the acceptance factor for the paper is (unfortunately) lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Mulder......COBRA!!!!!! Sorry I had to throw that battle cry out there. You guys can now carry on with your argu.....errr I mean discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 ^^^^^...I don't think BF's exist. But I also don't think they can't exist....What??? Is that like eating jumbo shrimp, or talking to the little big guy?? Actually.....I think that might be the quote of the year! A true open minded skeptic! (And...just because text doesn't convey intent very well...I actually mean that as a compliment!) Nicely said WTB1! encore encore! I argue for critical thinking too. I don't think BF's exist. But I also don't think they can't exist. If I have room...it may just win a spot on my sig line! Slab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 The skeptics are here to keep us on the straight and narrow, as you know there are quite a few hoaxers and BS'ers trying for there bit of fame. .Generally the skeptics weed these guys out, but not always The real problem is, as Juvenal put it, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" or "Who watches the watch-men?" Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. http://www.criticalt...al-thinking/766 That said, critical thinking need not be based on empirical data alone since that is limited to what the senses tell you. Does it mean everything else is hog wash if it can't be explained empirically? Critical thinking includes deductive reasoning and deductive reasoning says "no". One can't cherry pick to suit a particular world view as much as some would smugly like to do that around here. That, people, is critical thinking. Sorry I"m out of plusses for the day...this can't be said enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JUDAS BEAST Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Hey guys...Can someone do me a big favor please? Will someone be kind enough to give me theses 160 pages in 100 words or less? I have been very busy with work and didn’t have the time to keep up with this specific topic. Its just to **** big to tackle. This is what I know. A child Bf was shot and killed. A year later the shooter went back and took a piece "the steak" off of the decomposing creature. A sample was sent to the DNA lab. The Doctor put together a paper and sent it in for peer review. Then what? Please bring me up to date. Much thanks. Also, where does the Erickson project sit and how does it tie in with the above? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 What if I'm positively passionate about promoting critical thinking and empiricism? Debunking and disproving may seem like negative things to some, but to me they are positive things if they encourage more people to base their beliefs on things that can be empirically demonstrated. In the philosophical mode, (with apologies to the original): "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, than are dreamt of in your empiricism..." In the real world mode: empirically there is abundant evidence and scientific analysis to make the case for bf. So why do Skeptics continue to play the "no evidence" card? That is, if empiricism is indeed the standard of rational thought. Exactly Jodie, which is why someone's sighting is empirically invalid on its own. Unless, of course it's a "scientist" doing the seeing, when it magically becomes "observational data"... Mulder......COBRA!!!!!! Sorry I had to throw that battle cry out there. You guys can now carry on with your argu.....errr I mean discussion. LOL! I am SOOO looking forward to the new movie! The trailers are amazing! (Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Hey guys...Can someone do me a big favor please? Will someone be kind enough to give me theses 160 pages in 100 words or less? I have been very busy with work and didn’t have the time to keep up with this specific topic. Its just to **** big to tackle. sure...here ya go....a summary... kidding..... well kinda... Judas... your better off going back and reading it yourself... that way you can make up your own mind about the matter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Careful Slabdog. Someone else has me quoted in their sig line making wild anti-bigfoot claims. I forget who. But I was writing them as fact, sarcastically. True to your remark that intent doesn't carry well in text, at the time I was trying to parody RL's style at the time to show how silly it is to spew whatever you want, call it a fact, and expect it to be believed. I told whoever it was that has it that I meant it sarcastically, but it's still in his sig line. But no biggie.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Judas: I'll take a stab. It is my understanding that the Ketchum DNA project started years ago, collecting various samples from across NA to be tested for BF DNA. Then along came Justin, who alledgedly shot and killed 2 BF (hugely debated, no solid proof or evidence provided to the public). Introduce Adrian Erickson who claims (per their website) to have video and samples of BF, the samples of which are in the Ketchum Study (hugely debated, no solid proof or evidence (except a pic of what is claimed to be a sleeping BF that is hard to identify)). Erickson site has been unchanged and quiet for months. That slack has been taken up by the Ketchum DNA camp who, on facebook, have been making some pretty bold statements and cryptic claims, setting up a protection agency for BF, and when inquiries are made, reply with the study will be released 'soon'. Add in about 159 pages of speculation, debate rule discussion, thinly veiled insinuations and insults, and now you are up to page 160. No new evidence or proof. Just a small hope that the Ketchum camp is legit and going to change the world 'soon'. Folks, did I miss anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts