Hypocrisy in Science

[mythusmage]

The burden of proof is on the “Bigfoot is out there” crowd.
This constant “if you can’t prove me wrong then if must be true” crap shows ignorance of basic science; and probably a disconnection form reality in general.

Do you think about the things you do think about? (I've never seen the play or the movie, maybe one day.)

Evidence has been gathered, until that evidence has been shown conclusively to be fake or misinterpreted, I will continue to accept it. Ignoring or disregarding evidence that supports a subject you find uncomfortable or distatseful shows ignorance of basic science, and may indicate a disconnect from reality.

 

[mythusmage]

I suppose it would be totally pointless to mention to Mythusmage the tiny little inconvenient fact that the guy who "discovered" Bigfoot made the whole thing up.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134589898_raywallaceobit05m.html

Why are you so stupid?

Proposition: Ray Wallace faked every sasquatch footprint.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Other than a newspaper that is. Can you show that all impressions identified as sasquatch tracks were faked, much less faked by Mr. Wallace?

And what about the hair and the feces, identified as coming from an "unknown primate"? Or the recording of calls from an unknown animal? Or, for that matter, the flora disturbed much as flora is disturbed by gorillas in Africa. (Sorry folks, but my memory is fallible and I am prone to remember things in bits and pieces. BTW, that foliage could've been disturbed by bears, but we won't know until we look.)

Child, your reliance on a news story to support your opinion regarding a subject tells me a lot about your critical reasoning skills, and none of it good. Reality does not exist to make you happy.

 

[FutileJester]

Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy in Science

Ask the folks at the Discovery Channel web site. I must confess to a porous memory, and sasquatch hunter and cryptozoology sites are not the best sources of information.

Now, the studies point to an unkown primate. "Sasquatch" is as good a name as any in my opinion.

I am quite willing to look at the evidence that convinced you, but you have to understand that we're not going to look it up for you. Which studies point to an unknown primate? Given that the evidence I've seen is very unconvincing, I'd be very interested in knowing which evidence convinced you.

BTW, contrary to your claim that we can't prove the sasquatch doesn't exist, doing so would actually be rather easy. How? By investigating to see what else could've provided all that evidence. Maybe it is deer hair or bear ◊◊◊◊.

I'm afraid this doesn't help; Unas is quite right that you can't prove non-existence. Science does not make an observation, make a statement about what it might be, and then try to prove it by showing that it isn't anything else. This simply doesn't work because it's impossible to know all of the possible things it could be (after all, if we already knew everything we wouldn't be here to begin with). Maybe the disconnected bits of evidence lumped under 'sasquatch' actually point to a dozen different unknown, unrelated phenomena. Just because it's unknown doesn't mean it's bigfoot.

How do you find out? You test it. Not just one lab, but a number of labs, and when those labs come up with the same results, even if all the results are "unknown primate", you accept the results.

Still unaware of these results. Links or references?

Properly applied science will give you answers, but they won't always be the answers you want.

Now this I couldn't agree with more.

 

[mythusmage]

Continents and Ray Wallace

Continents:

Let me get this straight, one tectonic plate per continent, right? Now I live in San Diego, CA. A spot west of the San Andreas Fault and thus on the Pacific Plate. Which means that San Diego is not in North America. Pity the poor children who keep misplacing San Diego in those geography tests.

I now introduce something new (to you at least), the continental shelf.

"The continental shelf Uncle Mythusmage?"

The continental shelf. You see, good children, the continents are partially flooded. Off our shores is more continent (with a few exceptions). In most places the edge of a continent is under water, sometimes a lot of water.

One place where you have flooded continent is under the Bering Strait. Some call this "Beringia". It connects Eurasia to North America. South America is connected to North America by dry land, while Africa was connected to Eurasia by dry land until the Suez Canal was dug (and when the Suez Canal fills in some day, will be again).

See how this works? When you talk about continents you include the continental shelf.

Ray Wallace:

Ray Wallace created the Sasquatch hoax What a load of ◊◊◊◊. You call yourselves skeptics? People, I haven't seen a more credulous bunch since I got a look at the studio audience for Crossing Over. If you're shining examples of the skeptical community, then I was Bonaparte in a past life.

Ray Wallace created the sasquatch hoax. Prove it. Where is your evidence? Who made the tracks? All of them. Where is the hair from? The feces? Who or what made the calls? Who or what is in those photos, films, and videos? Do you have evidence to support that claim?

SHOW ME THE PHONY!

None of that, "well it seems to me." None of that, "It looks like." I want evidence. Good solid evidence.

I'm willing to go look. I get a sponsor I will go look. You ready to join me? You ready to test your beliefs? Or would you rather live in your fantasy world where science and the scientific method don't apply to things that make you uncomfortable?

(And for those who'd like more ammo against me (as if the following had any relevance to the subject at hand):

(I'm on disablity thanks to clinical depression, anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. I read fantasy and science fiction. I write material for a fantasy roleplaying game. I am convinced that the scientific method can be applied to any subject.

(Make of it what you will.)

People, you want to convince me that the evidence gathered so far showing the existence of an ape-like creature in North America is fake, you're going to have to do better than a newspaper story about a hoaxter.

 

[mythusmage]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy in Science

Still unaware of these results. Links or references?

You're right, I do need to look that stuff up. Thing is, it really needs to be confirmed, and when you consider how strident some can get when the subject comes up, the reluctance of many scientists to get anywhere near it becomes understandable.

Extremism in support of a cause is just as damaging to that cause as extremism against it.

Off I go to look stuff up. Have you, good reader, any leads (pro or anti sasquatch) send me an email and I'll give them a look. Leads to print material would also be helpful.

BTW, there is evidence of absence.

 

[Liamo]

Why are you so stupid?

Proposition: Ray Wallace faked every sasquatch footprint.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Other than a newspaper that is. Can you show that all impressions identified as sasquatch tracks were faked, much less faked by Mr. Wallace?

Alan,

Goshawk's contention is, I guess, not that Wallace faked every footprint ever found, but that the first footprints were faked by him and possibly copied by others afterwards.

To refute this argument, you could simply provide evidence of such footprints found before Wallace's.

If you do not, then I'd say the argument is sound.

Liam

 

[Br000chie]

It seems as though the hair samples aren't such great proof after all. From here

January 1998
… Although the ultimate results have not generated a diagnostic sequence of a mitochondrial gene, which might have yielded information on the relationship of the sasquatch to other primates, we nonetheless decided to publish the outcome rather than let the study fade away as most preceding such events have.

As of January 1998, the article is virtually finished except for some illustrative material and will be shortly submitted to the Journal of Cryptozoology.

W. Henner Fahrenbach Ph.D.

The article is complete just some sketches to add!

March 1998
After lengthy deliberation, we (W. H. Fahrenbach, J. A. Poe, and P. Fuerst), co-authors of the intended article on the Eastern Washington hair found in August, 1995, have decided to withhold submission of the manuscript of the analysis until more DNA from tissue, preferably with attached hair, is obtained. Our studies have not yielded a sequenced mitochondrial gene fragment to determine the phylogenetic affiliation of the creature. The ambiguous results at the present time can, on the one hand, generate misplaced enthusiasm and be quoted as "proof", or, on the other hand, can be used by the opposite camp to criticize and denigrate the results unfairly. …

What? No article? Is it me or is it a little suspicious that he refuses to publish his findings because it may give ammunition to his opponents?

November 1999
… I am concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise. …

Let's just brush that pesky hair under the carpet, shall we?

 

[Ladewig]

Ask the folks at the Discovery Channel web site. I must confess to a porous memory, and sasquatch hunter and cryptozoology sites are not the best sources of information.

I tried searching for "sasquatch" and "yeti" on the link you provided and I got no results.

 

[garys_2k]

My mistake, he's not a drive by poster, but is instead redirecting us to find his "proof." Yaawwnn.

Yes, it is true, too, that Siberia and Alaska were both above ground at one time and migration did occur. I think the existence of native Americans has that pretty well established.

But if all he wants to do is come here and claim science is hypocritical because it won't conduct an all-out search for sasquach, well, that's just too bad. Go yell at someone else.

 

[rockyroad]

Re: Continents and Ray Wallace

Continents:

Let me get this straight, one tectonic plate per continent, right? Now I live in San Diego, CA. A spot west of the San Andreas Fault and thus on the Pacific Plate. Which means that San Diego is not in North America. Pity the poor children who keep misplacing San Diego in those geography tests.

- rest clipped as irrelevant rambling

You're getting closer - a bit better then your original post with the single supercontinent and two island continent absurdity, which I see you've wisely abandoned.

Yes - San Diego etc. is on the Pacific Plate - that's "Plate" as in tectonic plate - get it ??? Has nothing to do with geographic names at all - you can be on the Pacific Plate and still part of this artifical geographic name we teach kidlets called North America. The North American Plate is a whole different entity versus the geographic North America - you're confusing the scientific plate tectonic name from mere geography.

As to your bizarre Australopithicus Robustus crossing on the Siberia-Alaska land bridge - you really need to look at the timing of these events. The low sea level of the last glacial maximum which caused the land bridge occurred about 14-18,0000 years ago - that's years, not millions of years. However, I believe all known specimans of A. Robustus are in the 2.5 to 4 MILLION year age range - coincidiing with the earliest Homo Sapian. Thus you have a small problem in timing - but what's a few million years here or there???

By the way - let's just ignore the millions of years difference problem. You suggest no Yowie in Australia because no land bridge - also not true. Australia has a land bridge to New Guinea duing the last glacial maximum. From the west tip of New Guinea to Timor and then the rest of the Indonesian island and on to the Malay Peinsula are either walks or very short island-hops at the sea level minimum - the next island is in sight - just takes a log to float on and a dare from your friend Og who says (grunts) "betcha can't make it to that next island " and before you know it - you're drinking decent beer in some Kings Cross pub in Sydney and wondering why that gorgeous women coming on to you has a fairly prominant Adams Apple (ok, this happened to me - but this is another story).

 

[Thumper]

Re: Re: Continents and Ray Wallace

this artifical geographic name we teach kidlets called North America. The North American Plate is a whole different entity versus the geographic North America -

kidlet? What's a kidlet? Any relation to a cutlet?


On a more serious note, just to reiterate most of what's been said here, the burden of proof is on those who say the phenomenon (creature) exists. Hair, stool, DNA samples all help with that, but, as someone who lived in the Great Northwest and who followed Bigfoot religiously, there is NO scientificly-tested evidence indicating bigfoot exists. None whatsoever.

The cryptozoologists tested everything they found. What was tested in reputable labs was found to be bear and other known mammal-based.

As much as I would love to have this unknown great ape roaming the woods of my home state, it simply doesn't exist. Proof?

How about some simple biological logic? No remains of one has ever been found. That indicates a small population. A small population runs into trouble with inbreeding and its associated probelms. These genetic problems lead to species-extinction in short order.

It's been shown that the 50/500 rule is very predictive on species longevity. A population of 500 is needed for long-term species survival. A population of 50 is needed for short-term survival. in both cases, the number is predicated on no human involvement.

Draw your conclusions.

 

[Goshawk]

Why are you so stupid?

Why are you so rude?

Child, your reliance on a news story to support your opinion regarding a subject tells me a lot about your critical reasoning skills, and none of it good. Reality does not exist to make you happy.

Child, your reliance on what you see on the Discovery Channel--which I might point out is an entertainment network, not a science network--to support your opinion regarding a subject tells me a lot about your critical reasoning skills, and none of it good. Reality does not exist to make you happy.

You have shown us NO evidence for Sasquatch. You have shown us NO evidence for the existence of feces, hair, calls, whether or not any of it has ever been tested. All we have is YOUR word for it that "feces, hair, recordings of calls" exist. The fact that you say you saw it on the Discovery Channel does not count as "evidence". Give us links to websites that prove the existence of any hair, feces, recordings of calls. Then we'll talk.

It's not enough for you to tell us, "Go look it up on the Discovery Channel website."

My proof that Ray Wallace made it all up is the statements of his family members. Did you read the link? Are you going to maintain that it's all a sort of reverse hoax, that his family members are making up the story that their Uncle Ray made up Bigfoot? And the picture of his nephew holding the "actual alderwood foot used to make the prints", that's just a prop in their hoax? Why would they do that? What would be their motive? They certainly aren't cashing in on it--they'd stand to make more money and get more publicity by being the relatives of the man who really did discover Bigfoot, than by being the relatives of the man who "invented" Bigfoot.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Or, How Yowies, Yetis, and Psychokenesis are Equivalent Phenomenon.

Yaois?

 

[Hypocolius]

Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy in Science

In case you haven't heard, one species was recently confirmed using only genetic material. We did have specimens to start with, but until some genetic testing was done there was some controversy over whether the forest elephant was a separate species from the savannah elephant or not.

What do you mean "genetic material" The thread was about faeces and hair. Are you saying that Forest Elephant is only known from faeces and hair? There are many thousands of them in Cameroon, Gabon, DRC etc if you want to go and have a look at living specimens (hard to find mind you). Or, as I suspect, are you saying that the Forest Elephant was only identified as a separate species through genetic testing? (This would be true of many thousands of species BTW).

 

[Zep]

Heh heh, Yowies, sure!

For what it's worth, folks, there are no real live Yowies in Australia. That's all a complete and utter aboriginal myth on the same level as, say, the "Boogieman!" No strange creatures roaming the Queensland bush and jungle (well, there are, but we know they are just failed politicians on the run from the law...)

I've posted on other threads here about Bigfoot, that the answer is not just to mount a posse and go scour the Washington/BC woods, but also to use satellite technology to assist. Sure, infrared satellite imaging will pick up every bear, moose and deer in the area, but it should also be able to put a small team in a helicopter within a few hundred yards of any potential bigfoot creature. And all the easier to pick them up if they group together! The USA has the technology, and these days we know it has the will to hunt down a single creature in a hostile environment!

Really, this should be easy, mythusmage, because I have been told that there is "reliable evidence" that there have been 10,000+ confirmed sightings of Bigfoot. And before you get your hopes up, that's one sighting per day, every day, for the last 30 years...sorta silly when you think of it like that, isn't it!

Mythusmage, the reality of the situation is simply that if you make a scientific claim then it is up to you to prove it so, not anybody else to disprove it. "Proof of a negative" is one of those things that logically cannot be done, and so carries no weight as an argument. Think about it for a bit and you will see this is so...

Zep

 

[Ladewig]

Thread title: Hypocrisy in Science.

I would classify the thread title as being inaccurate. No matter how much mainstream science believes something, someone coming along with tangible, testable evidence trumps everyone. Almost all scientists dream of bringing forth some provable, revolutionary theory. Anyone who does so goes straight to the head of the class, and gets naming rights for the theory, object, phenomenon, or living specimin ("Homo Rockyroadus" or even "Homo Itoldyousous"). Fame, fortune, and prizes await those who provide tangible, testable evidence. No matter how closed-minded science might appear, if you have the real goods, you win.

 

[Dragonrock]

Thread title: Hypocrisy in Science.

I would classify the thread title as being inaccurate. No matter how much mainstream science believes something, someone coming along with tangible, testable evidence trumps everyone. Almost all scientists dream of bringing forth some provable, revolutionary theory. Anyone who does so goes straight to the head of the class, and gets naming rights for the theory, object, phenomenon, or living specimin ("Homo Rockyroadus" or even "Homo Itoldyousous"). Fame, fortune, and prizes await those who provide tangible, testable evidence. No matter how closed-minded science might appear, if you have the real goods, you win.

In addition to those trying to revolutionize the thinking of the world with new ideas, there are those who are dying to crush the evidence of some other new or long standing theory. Science is self correcting, ie "cold fussion". Scientists are like wolves, eager to rip each other apart to show who's dominant. With a self-correcting, loose collection like that it's hard for there to be conspiracy or hypocrisy.

 

[rockyroad]

Thread title: Hypocrisy in Science.

I would classify the thread title as being inaccurate. No matter how much mainstream science believes something, someone coming along with tangible, testable evidence trumps everyone. Almost all scientists dream of bringing forth some provable, revolutionary theory. Anyone who does so goes straight to the head of the class, and gets naming rights for the theory, object, phenomenon, or living specimin ("Homo Rockyroadus" or even "Homo Itoldyousous"). Fame, fortune, and prizes await those who provide tangible, testable evidence. No matter how closed-minded science might appear, if you have the real goods, you win.

Hey !! That's " Hetero Rockyroadus " thank your very much!
otherwise - nice post

 

[mythusmage]

International Bigfoot Society

There's a link for you. Now you can take a look at the evidence they (and other sites) provide. We now introduce you to a magic word, it's called research.

You've heard of research, it's how Darwin gathered the information he needed to prove his Theory of Evolution. It's how real scientists get their PHDs. (It's why my mom switched from rhino reproduction to a bacterium for her masters, her original subject was literally getting nowhere.)

The evidence is out there, and there are people you can get in touch with about that evidence. The next task is to learn if that evidence is valid or not. That will take research. You know, gathering up that evidence, putting it under scrutiny, and separating the real (if any) from the fraudulent. It's what a scientist would do.

Yes boys and girls, and college sophmores of all ages, it means making an effort. It means going to web sites other than the newest "web cam dorm" site. It means sending email to folks who believe in strange things and seeing if you can winkle out anything of scientific value from their replies. It means doing some work.

And for those of you from an alternate reality, you can prove a negative. All it takes is some effort. I'll give you a simple proposition to start off with, "Man cannot levitate." Show your work.

BTW, if you're wondering why I'm doing this. Since you've persuaded me that sweet reason won't work (gosh, you've proved a negative already, aint you smart?), I've now made it my goal to get somebody so pissed off he'll go to the state of Washington in search of evidence that I'm wrong. Make sure you get funding, the research could take a few years.

"I just got my Bachelors, I know everything."

"I just got my Masters, I don't know anything."

"I got my PHD. Bad news, neither does anybody else."

(Stay tuned for my big essay: On Science, Skepticism, and the Sasquatch)

 

[Hypocolius]

International Bigfoot Society

There's a link for you. Now you can take a look at the evidence they (and other sites) provide. We now introduce you to a magic word, it's called research.

...snip...

The evidence is out there, and there are people you can get in touch with about that evidence. The next task is to learn if that evidence is valid or not.

From the link A few trolls were shape shifters. Thus they were able to attain both human and animal form

LOL

It means going to web sites other than the newest "web cam dorm" site.

You should take your own advice.

It means sending email to folks who believe in strange things and seeing if you can winkle out anything of scientific value from their replies.

You really don't understand the phrase "burden of proof", do you?