Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Now you have a built in excuse in case her report isn't supported by other scientists. Nice try, jerry, but the fact remains that "peer review" (or peer rejection) is not the almighty and infallible oracle of fact and truth that Science would have us believe. The proof to that has been mentioned and linked to repeatedly. You guys do realize Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia aren't really the ideal place to source facts. Case in point . Interesting to note, guess what the source for this answer is? Which has nothing to do with the reliability of wikki's root sources on other topics. And you will note that they DID root-source the statement beyond the wikki link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Nice try, jerry, but the fact remains that "peer review" (or peer rejection) is not the almighty and infallible oracle of fact and truth that Science would have us believe. The proof to that has been mentioned and linked to repeatedly. Strawman. Its more than just peer review, its also about replication. And you're still rigging the game. If the paper passes, its valid science. If it doesn't than that means that makes it a case of "peer rejection". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 If you can't stay up all night but want to listen for free and have Sirius/xm, it replays as soon as it goes off live feed. It is live 1am-5am east coast time. Replays 5-9 am est on talk radio channel 168. Thats how I catch it nightly. George knapp had an article linked here recently and is apparently in the know under Nda with this project-circus. He will be in the normal weekend spot. Hopefully he doesn't dumb down the questions like noory does on bf shows. This is our best shot at a quality radio or tv interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 It is the totality of the stuff that has been said, off the scientific subject, that hurts the credibilty of this study. No matter what is published, it is deminished by going on shows that discuss every paranormal subject under the sun. It is probably too late, but the question should have been, from day one of this project. Do I want to be famous in the Bigfoot world or go down in the annuals of great discovery? I now lean towards the science is not good. This seems like a desperate attempt to extend someones 15 minutes of fame. I too hope still to be proven wrong. Complete and utter nonsense. If a famous mathemetician said 1+1=2 you would doubt his credentials if you found out he was a religious man? Or some other sort of "intellectual undesirable"? If that is the case, you have just exposed yourself as a Scofftic, not a critical thinker. I want talk to Pat Robertson or Scientology, given the rules of this forum, but they would be better subject matter for Coast to Coast than a serious scientific topic. My point was and is that it does not matter one tiny bit who she interviews with. Her study can and must rise or fall on the data. Bringing up the BBB, or Coast2Coast, or the bleeping Easter Bunny have absolutely NOTHING to do with the data. Strawman. Its more than just peer review, its also about replication. And you're still rigging the game. If the paper passes, its valid science. If it doesn't than that means that makes it a case of "peer rejection". Etc Etc Etc... heard it all before, still doesn't change the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 If the science is sound it MUST be taken seriously if scientists are to retain any shred of credibility whatsoever. No. Not really. Your wishes are not their demands. That is exactly the point of peer review. If it didn't make the cut the science or the hypothesis is probably not sound. And you're still rigging the game. Thank You. I've been looking for a good description of this behavior. On one hand people will say that science is biased and not objective towards Bigfoot but also stating that it will be impossible for them to be biased if the science is sound. Then these same arguments will change depending on what happens to peer review. If it passes then science is being objective (even though they have attacked science throughout this entire thread for lack of objectivity) and if it fails science is biased. People are setting up "i told you so" scenarios to rig the game ahead of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 No. Not really. Your wishes are not their demands. That is exactly the point of peer review. If it didn't make the cut the science or the hypothesis is probably not sound. Circular and/or a priori reasoning, to wit: "The claim fails because the science is bad. If the science had been good, the claim would not have failed." A million "peers" marching lock-step in denial or bias cannot change the validity of facts. On one hand people will say that science is biased and not objective towards Bigfoot but also stating that it will be impossible for them to be biased if the science is sound. Oh I admit that it is entirely possible for flawed men to maintain biases in the face of objective proof they are wrong. That pretty much ends any claim they have to objectivity, or the validity of any process that relies on their reasoning and judgement to affect the outcome though, including "peer review". People are setting up "i told you so" scenarios to rig the game ahead of time. No, that would be the Skeptics and Scofftics yammering on about the BBB rating, Coast2Coast, etc, and making of proclamations by the 100s about the flawed nature of a study they still have not seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) If we take your argument above its easy to show how it applies to both groups and how they both are trying to rig the game. No, that would be the ***** and ****** yammering on about ****** and making of proclamations by the 100s about the nature of a study they still have not seen. Edited December 24, 2012 by rockiessquatching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 John Bindernagel and Jeff Meldrum have been guests on C2C. David Paulides, too, of course. Did Dr. Ketchum say last week that the paper has passed peer review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Don't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 When I first heard about Dr. Ketchums study, I was so excited that at a football party with my friends I gave an AA type of confession." Hi, my name is LTBF and I'm a Bigfoot beleiver." I then went on to explain that a convergence of evidence is coming that will blow the roof off this subject. I still feel this way, however, not one to go on blind faith I began to research at a deeper level. I found this forum and beleive it or not, read this entire thread before posting anything. It matters little to me what title someone gives me in reguard to Bigfoot. I am rooting very hard for the facts to be good, but in my mind it seems a bad idea to go on a program about the paranormal when you are trying to get a scientific paper published. Please tell me the facts, anyone. I have heard a proposition, but no facts. I am trying to be respectful of Dr. Ketchum and again want her to be right. If I was her PR person, I wiould say: "Let the science talk, and stay clear of everything but the DNA evidence" The scientific community can dismiss you all the faster if you are associated with the topics from Coast tom Coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 If we take your argument above its easy to show how it applies to both groups and how they both are trying to rig the game. No, that would be the ***** and ****** yammering on about ****** and making of proclamations by the 100s about the nature of a study they still have not seen. Proponents have always used the explicit or implicit caveat of "if the study holds" in their statements. It is the Skeptics and Scofftics who have made the blanket pronouncement that the study is bad/flawed/poor/pick your perjorative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 If you can't stay up all night but want to listen for free and have Sirius/xm, it replays as soon as it goes off live feed. It is live 1am-5am east coast time. Replays 5-9 am est on talk radio channel 168. Thats how I catch it nightly. George knapp had an article linked here recently and is apparently in the know under Nda with this project-circus. He will be in the normal weekend spot. Hopefully he doesn't dumb down the questions like noory does on bf shows. This is our best shot at a quality radio or tv interview. There are also lots of radio stations that stream live on the net. I listen to WOWO 1190-AM on the net daily. www.wowo.com then click on the "Listen Live" link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) It is the ****** who have made the blanket pronouncement that the study is ******* See. Its easy! Edited December 24, 2012 by rockiessquatching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Agree to disagree and I will move to another topic. I look foward to hearing the interview and will continue to hope the science is sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted December 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 24, 2012 You guys do realize Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia aren't really the ideal place to source facts. Case in point . Interesting to note, guess what the source for this answer is? Finally someone who understands that wikipedia is not a good place to get information from. Always check the source . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts