Guest Jodie Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I can agree on the precautions Jodie, but there should be alot better DNA sequences to work with in Ketchums study by comparison to Denisova, and with so many samples to draw from, the results should be far more conclusive. I certainly hope you are right about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 3, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 3, 2011 Yes, I would not want to have to eat those words you posted up, for sure, Jodie...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 But Marx said he investigated bigfoot for ten years and filmed 4 of them, one of them limping as if it were the creature that made the Bosburg tracks. How could he not be an expert on Bigfoot? He may possess some expertise as a BF researcher, but that was not the point I was making, and you know it. Moore, Chillcutt, Meldrum, et al have legitimate, professional credentials in scientific and investigative fields relevant to the examination of biological trace evidence of the type on proffer for BF. Marx does not. Combine that with his questionable reputation, and insisting on lumping him in with Moore, Meldrum, et al is nothing but a cynical attempt to besmirch their professional authority to examine and speak on the proffered evidence. Got a link or some examples of this fallacy? Certainly. Your very own post, for one. If you want more, I'll give you Prag's tired slogging on about "elk experts" and the Skookum Impression. Dr Schaller, who has expertise in ungulate research on two continents is dismissed by Skeptics because he is not an "elk expert". It is an entirely specious dismissal, as elk are ungulates and an ungulate expert is entirely appropriate to examine trace evidence from that perspective. Moving outside the BF field, there is the case of geologist Robert Schoch, who discovered that the pattern of weathering on parts of the Sphinx was consistent not with sand erosion, but rather with significant WATER erosion. This pushed the construction date for the Sphinx back at least 5 millenia further than egyptologists cared to admit to. They attempted to dismiss his statement about the age of the Sphinx on the basis of his lack of Egyptological credentials. Schoch quite reasonably replied that he needed no such credentials to comment as he was commenting on geological data, which was well within his area of expertise. (Before you ask, yes he DID publish a "peer reviewed" paper in the journal Geoarchaeology in 1992, following a reviewed and approved presentation of his preliminary findings the year before at the October 1991 meeting of the Geological Society of America,) Correct, but one does not need to accept their unsubstantiated pronouncements either. Still waiting for scientific rebuttal of those conclusions, Ray...blanket dismissals don't cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Certainly. Your very own post, for one. My post contained a link to the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. I asked you for a link to the 'Specificity' fallacy you made reference to in your reply. You've not provided one. Still waiting for scientific rebuttal of those conclusions, Ray...blanket dismissals don't cut it. Please provide links to any widespread scientific acceptance, or inclusion in mainstream scientific journals, of the conclusions they have presented. No dismissal required when there's no acceptance to begin with. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) Yes, I would not want to have to eat those words you posted up, for sure, Jodie...... Whether the study pans out or not, my personal opinions about the folks involved probably won't change unless I see dramatic evidence of better attitudes. Our maid, Miss Lula, used to say you could always tell the character of a person by the way they treated the help, waitresses, etc......she wasn't wrong. Like I said, we will have to wait and see if any heads burst if the news is positive. Edited December 3, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 My post contained a link to the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. I asked you for a link to the 'Specificity' fallacy you made reference to in your reply. You've not provided one. Oh no you don't, Ray...no way in Hades you're getting away with that little truth mangler. This is EXACTLY what you said: Got a link or some examples of this fallacy? Note the emphasized part. I don't know the formal name of the fallacy, so I used examples, which satisfies your question. Please provide links to any widespread scientific acceptance, or inclusion in mainstream scientific journals, of the conclusions they have presented.No dismissal required when there's no acceptance to begin with. Basic argument from authority with from majority and from acceptance thrown in. And you're still avoiding the question: do you or do you not have any actual scientific study study or paper refuting the findings of the persons I cited? "I don't accept the finding" is NOT science. It's dismissalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Note the emphasized part. I don't know the formal name of the fallacy, so I used examples, which satisfies your question. No link, and you don't know the name of the fallacy, so you just make stuff up? That's supposed to satisfy my request for evidence? No wonder you and I seldom agree on the quality of bigfoot evidence. And you're still avoiding the question: do you or do you not have any actual scientific study study or paper refuting the findings of the persons I cited? Rather difficult to scientifically refute what hasn't been scientifically published. Do you have links to any widespread scientific acceptance, or inclusion in mainstream scientific journals, of the conclusions they have presented, or not? "I don't accept the finding" is NOT science. It's dismissalism. Dismissalism? What dictionary is that from? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I would have went with dismissal-tastic. And you're still avoiding the question: do you or do you not have any actual scientific study study or paper refuting the findings of the persons I cited? "I don't accept the finding" is NOT science. It's dismissalism. I think you guys are on two different wavelengths from an arguing standpoint. Which is okay. One is arguing using science and one is arguing using the philosophy of science. Since you are arguing from a philosophy of science point of view and if you're still looking for an ism, the key word would be falsificationism. My spell check doesn't recognize it, but it is a word. I think your two sentences above contradict each other and not accepting the findings is science. Your statement preceding it, might or might not be science. It's the basis for the philosophy of science. Meaning, it doesn't matter as much that the evidence can prove a theory, but can it withstand tests that will falsify it? And if you are arguing from a philosophy of science standpoint, the claim must be shown to be refuted. If you are arguing using the scientific method, although some philosophers of science are convinced they can circumvent this process, the proof still must still be shown. Then it must be retested by others. Still no proof (published) either way you want to argue this theory of bigfoot. Lack of specific proof is tough to refute specifically. You can add all of the et al's in the world, I still haven't read anything published that includes proof. Yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patty3 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Still no proof (published) either way you want to argue this theory of bigfoot. Lack of specific proof is tough to refute specifically. Welcome to the world of bigfoot, now just sit back and wait for the next big news flash and watch it play out all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Whether the study pans out or not, my personal opinions about the folks involved probably won't change unless I see dramatic evidence of better attitudes. Which folks in particular ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Dismissalism? What dictionary is that from? RayG The Parnagraphic International House of Words defines dismissalism as n. colloq.; political system in which power is wielded by "this missile." He may possess some expertise as a BF researcher, but that was not the point I was making, and you know it. Moore, Chillcutt, Meldrum, et al have legitimate, professional credentials in scientific and investigative fields relevant to the examination of biological trace evidence of the type on proffer for BF. Marx does not. Combine that with his questionable reputation, and insisting on lumping him in with Moore, Meldrum, et al is nothing but a cynical attempt to besmirch their professional authority to examine and speak on the proffered evidence. Questionable reputation? what evidence do you have for that statement???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) Which folks in particular ? You, I was specifically referring to you with that statement. Edited December 3, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 You, I was specifically referring to you with that statement. I'm not associated with the DNA study sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 4, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 4, 2011 New Facebook post by Dr. Ketchum seeks to clarify the matter of project alliances: For all of the people speculating on the Erickson project, Adrian and I have agreed to set aside the NDA to tell you that his group is a successful participant in this project. His research project to obtain the DNA samples is separate from us. His samples will be in the paper along with all of the successful submitters. And, yes, his great footage will come out so lets let all of the rumors go, OK? And once again, please know that we are at the mercy of the journal as to when we can announce. Thanks! Just sharing the FYI (posted up about fifteen minutes ago). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Good news, I was hoping they would work something out for the better of both projects. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts