Guest Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 All right folks, I need to throw my two cents worth on the above discussion about the credentials, reliability, and credibility of experts that is being discussed above. I tend to look at things from the eyes of an attorney rather than the view point of a scientist. I examine three things which are expertise (knowledge of subject matter), bias (unconscious), and credibility (conscious or high level of bias). I will start with credibility. In my work, one of the sure signs that a witness may lack credibility is the use of absolute statements, hyperbole, excessive emotion, and righteous indignation. In his book, Legend Meets Science, Meldrum's conclusion is not "bigfoot exists and mainstream science is ignoring" or "evidence is conclusive or overwelming". Instead he concludes "there is enough anecdotal evidence suggesting the existence of a undocumented primate that it merits continued investigation, and scientists should pause before dismissing bf out of hand". (my words not Meldrums). Meldrum's lack of hyperbole in my eyes makes Meldrum's opinions on matters relating to bigfoot to be credible. In other words, he believes what he is saying. I always keep in mind, however, that there is always the possibility of (unconscious) bias in Meldrum's conclusions or findings. He has made money off of the sale of his book as well as appearances on tv shows. I am sure Medrum tries to set aside any possible bias he has. However, I think we tend to underestimate bias. That is why the double blind placebo study is the gold standard in Science. . Ketchum makes statements which raise red flags in my head with respect to credibility (high level of bias). Statements like "they have to accept the findings the evidence is overwelming." "The paper will be published in a major journal." I think Ketchum may have a high level of bias. This makes me question her statements more than I would Meldrum's. Maybe that's my bias? Please understand I don't think Ketchum is a Biscardi (con artist). In sum, I think we would all be better off around here if we would remember that we all carry our own biases and that we should always pause before we make statements that contain a lot of emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I can't believe I just gave a +1 to an attorney... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 If either Sykes or Ketchum shows that there is a relict hominid alive today, will JREF honor the 1 million dollar challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Good question Cotter. Excellent post bigfootnis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Is using "JREF" and "honor" in the same sentence logical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Probably not. But I guess one can hope James Randi can back up the offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 James Randi will never back up the offer,he is a charlatan and a trickster, that has never changed, only his audience has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 You mean he's the same as Sylvia Browne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) However,back on topic, its really starting to feel like a horse race,this DNA stuff, I am really hoping someone can make it across the finish line in tact. Edited June 20, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 MODERATOR STATEMENT We should be careful about going into discussion that might be comparing anything to religious issues, per BFF rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Your right BFSleuth, I did not think, take that post off of there if you wish, was a knee jerk reaction, my apologies. Was soon enough I fixed it. Edited June 20, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 theferalhumanproject.info & bigfootgenomeproject.org were registered by Dr. Ketchum some time ago. I found that interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 If either Sykes or Ketchum shows that there is a relict hominid alive today, will JREF honor the 1 million dollar challenge? Good question Cotter. Excellent post bigfootnis. My understanding is that Randi may be ending the challenge in the relatively near future. He was talking about it back in 2010 at least. Not that he ever made it possible to answer the challenge successfully in the first place. http://newsvoice.se/2010/05/02/james-randi-and-his-one-million-dollar-challenge-fraud/ http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge Is using "JREF" and "honor" in the same sentence logical? See the links above Most of Mulder's recent posts are peppered with as many terms for logical fallacies as possible: question begging, ad hom and so on. When Skeptics stop deploying them, I'll stop pointing them out. [Dr. Meldrum is an expert in the study of an animal yet to be confirmed to exist No, he is an expert in anthropology and primatology, with an emphasis in primate locomotion. Who better to analze tracks of an uncatalogued bipedal primate? yet to have a single type specimen Which does not invalidate the evidence he does have. He has casts of footprints to go on, primarily, and footprint study does not necessarily lead to a positive identification of an animal not yet classified. He has more than that, and you know it. And once more you beg the question of how one is to prove an animal when all evidence for that animal is summarily dismissed because the Skeptic doesn't like it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dxm2 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Wow. Now we're going after James Randi. Bigfoot, and the BFF, is aparently part of the demon haunted world. Perhaps we can ask Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller to tell us where a Sasquatch is so we can take a good picture of it. Without science, reason, and logic, there will never be an answer to this mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Bigfootnis, very nice post about credentials, reliability and credibility of experts, as well as unconscious bias. This is something that I have been involved in in another discussion, and I appreciate your viewpoints on it. Maybe I should discuss this stuff with you at length privately and increase my own understanding of such things! I also like what you say about Dr. Meldrum, as well as what AaronD said about him. I also had quite a good conversation with Dr. Meldrum and found him to be an extremely nice guy personally, and very respectable. At the Bigfoot Roundup, late at night as the event transformed from a day time social to a night time howl party, numerous people were negatively criticizing him for his religious beliefs, saying that was what drove him to the "ape" camp as opposed to the "human-like" camp. That was disappointing, possibly true, but still disappointing. Not that he would lean towards ape versus humanoid because of his personal beliefs, but because of the proponents (people who believe strongly in bigfoot) dissing on another proponent (someone who believes strongly in bigfoot). Heck, I wasn't dissing on anyone, I was having a ball! But my biggest criticism of Dr. Meldrum is that he seems to believe strongly enough in what he is doing, and in the quality of his research, that I think that he might reach somewhat beyond what the evidence indicates, reaching conclusions that he thinks are logical extensions of what he has. If 1 + 1 = 2, then 1 + 1 + X = 3, or something like that. An example is in the compliant gait and the alleged knee swing, where he has come to believe in that strongly enough that it has become a true characteristic, a defining characteristic, while the film (PGF) does not really define that characteristic as actually occurring. Two parts evidence, and one part extrapolation or interpolation. But other than that, a great guy. I'm glad he's involved with a DNA study, he brings a good face to the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts