Guest parnassus Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 1) Every one of those thousands of hopeful authors considers their work novel and groundbreaking. 2) Just because a paper addresses a topic that we might agree is novel and groundbreaking doesn't mean that the paper itself is either of those things. It could be mind-numbing and unintelligible. 3) You've taken the largest "if" I could find in the fonts - which begins with if such a paper was written at all - and you're speculating about who specifically made the editorial decision on it at Nature? There are many editors at Nature and they tend to specialize on reviewing papers on a rather narrow set of themes. That said, if Dr. Ketchum analyzed some alleged bigfoot tissue and if her analysis suggested that the tissue contained a genetic signature indicating a new extant hominin in North America and if she prepared a manuscript of that analysis and if she submitted that manuscript to the journal Nature . . . then I can't see any way Henry Gee would not personally have read that manuscript. It'd be right up his alley. I don't know how to state this more clearly though: Until such time that Ketchum herself chooses to make public her original manuscript and a written decision letter from Nature addressing that specific manuscript, then there is no assurance of the accuracy of what people think might be happening with this saga. 4) What sort of "special attention" would you recommend the flagship journal Nature apply to this alleged manuscript that would be in keeping with the journal's demanding standards for publication? What I'm seeing in this thread is classic wishful thinking. People want so badly for Ketchum to publish a paper on bigfoot DNA that they've given themselves over to all manner of invented scenarios to explain the "delay" in its publication. Without seeing the paper itself, I have no reason to believe one exists at all. Most likely one does, and it's probably even been submitted to Nature, but none of us KNOW this to be the case. More to the point though, it seems that because this paper would ostensibly be about bigfoot then a lot of folks assume that it must be an awesome paper. That's a non-sequitur: the topic does not dictate the quality of the work. It could be a truly crappy and unpublishable paper. It could also be a very well written and prepared paper based on a fatally flawed analysis. Why is the first assumption that there's some kind of bias in on the part of the journal, rather than that there was some kind of flaw with the paper? I really don't get the reactions I've read over these past few pages. to be fair, it seems that the sentiments you are addressing are mostly the product of one member, who blames the absence of bigfoot evidence on scientists, yet assumes that Ketchum is an infallible scientist. He seems not to be concerned with the irrationality of his position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 1) Every one of those thousands of hopeful authors considers their work novel and groundbreaking. 2) Just because a paper addresses a topic that we might agree is novel and groundbreaking doesn't mean that the paper itself is either of those things. It could be mind-numbing and unintelligible. 3) You've taken the largest "if" I could find in the fonts - which begins with if such a paper was written at all - and you're speculating about who specifically made the editorial decision on it at Nature? There are many editors at Nature and they tend to specialize on reviewing papers on a rather narrow set of themes. That said, if Dr. Ketchum analyzed some alleged bigfoot tissue and if her analysis suggested that the tissue contained a genetic signature indicating a new extant hominin in North America and if she prepared a manuscript of that analysis and if she submitted that manuscript to the journal Nature . . . then I can't see any way Henry Gee would not personally have read that manuscript. It'd be right up his alley. I don't know how to state this more clearly though: Until such time that Ketchum herself chooses to make public her original manuscript and a written decision letter from Nature addressing that specific manuscript, then there is no assurance of the accuracy of what people think might be happening with this saga. 4) What sort of "special attention" would you recommend the flagship journal Nature apply to this alleged manuscript that would be in keeping with the journal's demanding standards for publication? What I'm seeing in this thread is classic wishful thinking. People want so badly for Ketchum to publish a paper on bigfoot DNA that they've given themselves over to all manner of invented scenarios to explain the "delay" in its publication. Without seeing the paper itself, I have no reason to believe one exists at all. Most likely one does, and it's probably even been submitted to Nature, but none of us KNOW this to be the case. More to the point though, it seems that because this paper would ostensibly be about bigfoot then a lot of folks assume that it must be an awesome paper. That's a non-sequitur: the topic does not dictate the quality of the work. It could be a truly crappy and unpublishable paper. It could also be a very well written and prepared paper based on a fatally flawed analysis. Why is the first assumption that there's some kind of bias in on the part of the journal, rather than that there was some kind of flaw with the paper? I really don't get the reactions I've read over these past few pages. Well, you just used my post to argue your point you were trying to make with Mulder. The special attention I was speaking of was that Henry G. " WOULD" be the one who should consider the paper. Yet, you've also made the point that the paper "WOULDN'T" receive any more consideration than the rest, and thus any of the editors could wind up reviewing the paper on it's merits. So how would we be sure that Henry G. would see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 If you were to have an experience with such an animal, an observation of length, say a couple of minutes at a relativity close distance and perhaps some interaction , but you were unable to obtain plausible proof of the incident, and all you had was your experience , would that make you a believer or would you entertain the Idea that you were hallucinating during the experience ? I don't follow. What's the correlation between a sighting by a believer, and getting a paper published? "Science requires solid evidence for the existence of a new species -- footprints and sightings by local people are never enough. A "type specimen" must be obtained, which is then described in a scientific journal and continues to be available for other experts to examine." -- Dr. Grover Krantz, Big Footprints, page 3 That 'type specimen' might very well be DNA evidence, but proponents seem to be arguing that science is rejecting that evidence before we've even determined whether or not they've examined it. And keep in mind Dr. Krantz was a scientist with a firm belief in bigfoot. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I don't follow. What's the correlation between a sighting by a believer, and getting a paper published? "Science requires solid evidence for the existence of a new species -- footprints and sightings by local people are never enough. A "type specimen" must be obtained, which is then described in a scientific journal and continues to be available for other experts to examine." -- Dr. Grover Krantz, Big Footprints, page 3 That 'type specimen' might very well be DNA evidence, but proponents seem to be arguing that science is rejecting that evidence before we've even determined whether or not they've examined it. And keep in mind Dr. Krantz was a scientist with a firm belief in bigfoot. RayG Actually, Zigo was proposing a sighting by a Skeptic , but since seeing is believing, maybe we shouldn't make that distinction since it also applies to the examination of evidence. Paulides likely believes anything in the genus Homo is human. That may be true for Ketchum as well. We'll see. I suspect that they both are of opinion that "human" means modern homo sapiens in a crime scene investigation but is a much broader term in paleoanthropology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 If you were to have an experience with such an animal, an observation of length, say a couple of minutes at a relativity close distance and perhaps some interaction , but you were unable to obtain plausible proof of the incident, and all you had was your experience , would that make you a believer or would you entertain the Idea that you were hallucinating during the experience ? I don't see the relevance to the portion you quoted regarding publication of Ketchum's analysis, but I'll play along. If I had the experience you described I would very much be open to the possibility that I had hallucinated it. Hallucinations happen every day to many many people, and the whole reason people believe they are real is because they can be incredibly vivid, involve multiple senses, etc. As much as I might subjectively want my experience to have been authentic, the only way to objectively approach it would be to consider that we have abundant evidence confirming the existence of hallucinations, but no such evidence confirming the existence of bigfoot. The principle of parsimony, therefore, would dictate that it's far more likely that I had hallucinated the event than that I had actually encountered a real bigfoot. That said, it would be very difficult for me to ignore my personal experience, and it's hard to imagine remaining skeptical in the wake of an experience like you described. Spock might be able to do it, i.e., stick dispassionately to logic, but I doubt I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I suspect that they both are of opinion that "human" means modern homo sapiens in a crime scene investigation but is a much broader term in paleoanthropology. You're probably right. I wish Paulides would use the term "modern human" if that's really what he means (I hope not). It would eliminate a lot of confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 The special attention I was speaking of was that Henry G. " WOULD" be the one who should consider the paper. Yet, you've also made the point that the paper "WOULDN'T" receive any more consideration than the rest, and thus any of the editors could wind up reviewing the paper on it's merits. So how would we be sure that Henry G. would see it? Henry Gee is one of 16 Senior Editors at Nature who handle submissions in the Biological Sciences under the Chief Biological Sciences Editor. Of those 16 Senior Editors, Gee's stated "Areas of Responsibility" would be far and away the most relevant for a manuscript submission addressing identification of an extant new hominin from DNA in a tissue sample: "integrative and comparative biology (including palaeontology, evolutionary developmental biology, taxonomy and systematics), archaeology and biomechanics." Thus, while I cannot know who might have seen this alleged manuscript allegedly submitted to Nature, I have no reason to suspect anyone other than Henry Gee would have received it. It wouldn't be "special attention" for Gee to see it -- that's his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 If you were to have an experience with such an animal, an observation of length, say a couple of minutes at a relativity close distance and perhaps some interaction , but you were unable to obtain plausible proof of the incident, and all you had was your experience , would that make you a believer or would you entertain the Idea that you were hallucinating during the experience ? This post seems almost like it's directed at me I'd have to at least give a nod to the hallucination hypothesis. However I have noticed over the years that a certain lack of consistency occurs with my delusions. If after a minute or two of viewing I night be satisfied that I actually saw one and that would probably make me a believer right there. Unless I had a fever then I'd be disappointed again. Just like waking up from the dream of finding a chest of gold. I do not require anyone else to become convinced for myself. If I saw one with no evidence to show for it I wouldn't be too chuffed about it. I'd just be happy I had my experience. I would still be on the look-out for hallucination and think others should as well. I'd rather know the truth for sure than be subjected to continual self-doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Henry Gee is one of 16 Senior Editors at Nature who handle submissions in the Biological Sciences under the Chief Biological Sciences Editor. Of those 16 Senior Editors, Gee's stated "Areas of Responsibility" would be far and away the most relevant for a manuscript submission addressing identification of an extant new hominin from DNA in a tissue sample: "integrative and comparative biology (including palaeontology, evolutionary developmental biology, taxonomy and systematics), archaeology and biomechanics." Thus, while I cannot know who might have seen this alleged manuscript allegedly submitted to Nature, I have no reason to suspect anyone other than Henry Gee would have received it. It wouldn't be "special attention" for Gee to see it -- that's his job. I think that even those 16 editors would need some help in properly reviewing the submissions. They each would have to handle 2 to 3 submissions a day just to keep up. This means the merits are established within a couple hours tops. That is at 870 subs a month, 22 working days a month and 8 hours a day. I don't see any gaurantee he would see that paper unless he has put the word out withthe other editors that he wants the one on BF. He couldn't possibly handle all the submissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 When is their *next* release? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 When will their next publication be published and on the market for us to purchase? Is it next year, or tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Actually, Zigo was proposing a sighting by a Skeptic , but since seeing is believing, maybe we shouldn't make that distinction since it also applies to the examination of evidence. Ok, I still don't follow. What's the correlation between a sighting by a skeptic who becomes a believer, and getting a paper published? Our senses are not above being fooled, so no, seeing does not always equate to believing. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I remember that Melba had to suddenly cancel a presentation at a BF conference this past summer to run to England, or someplace in Europe because of an issue with the project. Since that time all she has said is that everything will be revealed soon. Dr. K's understanding of the word "soon" is a little different than mind. There reports in July that the project was completed and would be published soon. However, the months keep passing buy with no word or an explanation. I do believe that an explanation is in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Well I'm not holding my breath on that one, but if it is ever released, I'ld love to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 The problem with the hallucination hypothesis as an explanation for sasquatch sightings is that it is difficult to explain simultaneous hallucinations of the same nature in multiple people. There are plenty of alleged sightings where multiple people report essentially the same thing. Try again Sasceptic, maybe you can think of a better one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts