Hypocrisy in Science

[Guest]

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


Do you understand that skeptics made up that phrase themselves?

No wonder why they always refer to it like it is a commandment or something.

Get real.

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Continents and Ray Wallace

And for those who'd like more ammo against me.....

So you're a masochist?
But what if we're not sadists.

I'm on disablity thanks to clinical depression, anxiety disorder, and panic disorder.

So? You're a sexual deviant and a psychological cripple. So what? As long as you don't harm anyone, myth.

BTW, just as a matter of interest, do you see social welfare as a RIGHT or are you grateful to all us taxpayers for helping to keep you alive. I mean I don't want you to fall all over yourself with gratitude but......

I write material for a fantasy roleplaying game.

Oops, sorry, I thought you implied you were on welfare. Take that all back myth.

BTW, interesting name.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Zep]

*sigh* not again...

Oh dear. Another one who doesn't understand how real science works...

OK, mythusmage, here's point by point.

1. There's a link for you. Now you can take a look at the evidence they (and other sites) provide.
   Oh yeah! Websites on bigfoot are THE LAST WORD on hominid research! *cough* And perhaps you should read through this site a bit more carefully. NO actual evidence worth talking about AT ALL. Lotsa hearsay and anecdotes and meetings of like-minded nutcases is all. People just WISHING that they have seen one.
2. 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 what bigfoot "societies" and websites DON'T do when investigating their own claims. Have a look at that crap, will you?! I mean, honestly! It's SO FAR from real research that it doesn't even make the local newspapers.
3. 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.
   No, it doesn't. It means getting organised with cameras and tape-recorders and shovels and going out into the woods and getting something solid to show the world. THAT'S what scientists do! Or didn't you know that?
4. "Man cannot levitate." Show your work.
   levitate: To rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity. Did you see the people on board Mir or the International Space stations at any time? Right there on TV for the world to see. Sure looked like people levitating to me... Sorry, you lose. Negative case NOT proven. Please play again.
5. 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.
   I thought that was MY job! But since you are probably a lot closer than me to that part of the world, why can't that somebody be you?
   [/list=1]
   And just so you don't get the wrong idea: I'm a scientist be trade, and I will welcome ANY and ALL properly researched evidence you produce that bigfoot exists. You will be famous, and I will be able to say that I wrote to you on a website once upon a time.
   
   BTW, if you want to base research conclusions purely around the volumes of anecdotal evidence, there is WAY more extant today indicating that bigfoot is fake than there is the opposite. But if you want to ignore that "evidence" then feel free!
   
   Zep

 

[Interesting Ian]

To be really cruel about it, it’s the same sort of reasoning you get from creationists and Holocaust deniers. “◊◊◊◊ the facts, it contradicts my beliefs.”

So you get anti-scientists proclaiming the reality of psychokinesis despite all the evidence against it, and scientists denying the existance of the sasquatch despite all the evidence for it.

My point? The scientific method applies to all subjects. When somebody says that psychokinesis doesn’t exist he’s most likely right because the matter has been scientifically investigated. But when somebody says that the sasquatch doesn’t exist, he’s most likely wrong because the sasquatch has not been scientifically investigated.

What evidence is there against psychokinesis? Do you have appropriate references?? Indeed a couple of days ago it was claimed it is impossible for there to be any evidence against psychokinesis if it is of a certain limited nature (due to the possible relatively small statistically deviation from chance in micropyshokinesis)

 

[Hypocolius]

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


Do you understand that skeptics made up that phrase themselves?

From the OED online, the first known use of the phrase was;
1593 HOOKER Eccl. Pol. IV. iv. §2 Wks. 1841 I. 360 The burden of proving doth rest on them. .
Hooker, as a proponent of natural law was hardly what I would call a sceptic. His essay Of the laws of Ecclesiastical polity was "an attempt to persuade the Puritans to conform to the laws of the English Church". Not exactly a classic sceptical position.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Continents and 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.

Yes "skeptics" will sieze any apparent evidence supporting thier beliefs, no matter how dodgy that "evidence" might be, and proclaim that it proves their interpretation of the particular phenomenon concerned was correct all along. One could give countless examples eg the claom made by Doug and Dave in the 80's in the UK that they had actually created all or most crop circles LMAO. I think most believers and most "skeptics" represent 2 sides of the same coin. They are both incredibly naive and gullible and seemingly incapable of exercising a modicum of rational thought.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Heh heh, Yowies, sure!

Zep [/B]

"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...

"Skeptics" always say this and I simply can't understand why they're allowed to get away with it. And indeed why they're allowed to get away with so many other things as well!

Look it's quite simple. If as you say "proof of a negative" logically cannot be obtained, then you should be logically be able to demonstrate this.

So do so.

 

[Beausoleil]

I think the African does, and the Eurasian and the Australian/Indian one does, towards the bottom of Australia.

The key is to remember that oceanic crust is created at constructive plate boundaries and subducted at destructive boundaries, while continental crust is not subducted but rams into other bits when the oceanic crust between them is destroyed.

Take the Atlantic plate edges from that figure. Millions of years ago the continental crust of north and south america was butted up against that of europe and africa. They began to be pushed apart as new oceanic crust was formed at the ridge in the middle of the Atlanitic. This ridge is the edge of the plates shown in the figure, while the crust between them and the edge of the 'continent' has been made at the ridge over geologic time, 'pushing' (not really) the continental crust apart. So it's no surprise that a constructive plate boundary mimics the shape of the continental crust on either side.

Does that make sense?

 

[Interesting Ian]

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


Do you understand that skeptics made up that phrase themselves?

No wonder why they always refer to it like it is a commandment or something.

Get real.

Yea, and it's always the case that anyone taking issue with their beliefs has the burden of proof. Never any of the "skeptics" beliefs. What a remarkable coincidence!

 

[Unas]

Yea, and it's always the case that anyone taking issue with their beliefs has the burden of proof.

False.

It is, however, always the case that those who make extraordinary claims regarding the existence of paranormal phenomena are required to shoulder the burden of proof for those claims.

 

[BillyJoe]

Ian,

Clearly, the saying "you can't prove a negative" doesn't always apply.
For example, many mathematical statements can be proven to be false.
However, in the context of this thread it is true.
In other words, you cannot prove that Big Foot doesn't exist.

Agreed?

 

[Hypocolius]

Re: Re: Heh heh, Yowies, sure!

Look it's quite simple. If as you say "proof of a negative" logically cannot be obtained, then you should be logically be able to demonstrate this.

It's not that it is impossible to prove a negative, its just very very difficult. As we are talking about animals (Sasquatch) let me use another animal, the Pink-headed Duck to illustrate my point. The Pink-headed Duck is/ was a resident of the deep forests of northern Burma, Bangladesh, India etc. There have been no credible sighting of this bird since about 1903 (I can't be bothered to look it up at the moment, but if you want the references let me know and I'll dig them out). The chances are that it is extinct. Now, in order to prove the statement that "The Pink-headed Duck no longer exists" (ie a negative statement), I would have to scour every square foot of northern Burma etc in order to see if it was there or not. From experience of birding in heavy forest I can also tell you that even if it was there it would be extremely hard to find, so not seeing one would still not really be proof of non-existence. The opposite statement, of course, would be childishly simple to prove. "The Pink-headed Duck exists, and here it is".

 

[mythusmage]

Re: *sigh* not again...

Oh dear. Another one who doesn't understand how real science works...

OK, mythusmage, here's point by point.

1. There's a link for you. Now you can take a look at the evidence they (and other sites) provide.
   Oh yeah! Websites on bigfoot are THE LAST WORD on hominid research! *cough* And perhaps you should read through this site a bit more carefully. NO actual evidence worth talking about AT ALL. Lotsa hearsay and anecdotes and meetings of like-minded nutcases is all. People just WISHING that they have seen one.

1. 
   
   After some research I learned pretty much the same thing you did, the site I mentioned previously is not all that reliable.
   
   Bigfoot Field Research Organization
   
   That's a better site. A much better site. The people behind it are applying scientific methodology to the seach. They also have a data base of reports.
   
   By and large I have to agree re the majority of cryptozoologists. To get anywhere as a field of scientific inquiry cryptozoology needs its own Copernican Revolution. For that to happen scientist, especially zoologists, need to get involved in one way or another.
   
   I haven't read all the reports, but I did read a recent one from Colorado. #1160 (I think) in the series.
   
   Holmes: Dr. Watson, what was the fantastical thing in the reporter's story of his sasquatch encounter.?
   
   Watson: There was nothing fantastical in his report of the two sasquatches.
   
   Holmes: That, Dr. Watson, is the fantastical thing.
   
   

   [*]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 what bigfoot "societies" and websites DON'T do when investigating their own claims. Have a look at that crap, will you?! I mean, honestly! It's SO FAR from real research that it doesn't even make the local newspapers.

   
   Not all researchers. Read the story of the skooke print at BFRO There are people out there doing real research, you just have to dig through a ton of dreck to find them.
   
   

   [*]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.
   No, it doesn't. It means getting organised with cameras and tape-recorders and shovels and going out into the woods and getting something solid to show the world. THAT'S what scientists do! Or didn't you know that?

   
   They also get speeding tickets while trying to a Masters on geriatric sexual behavior in southern white rhinos. (Long story, write me privately)
   
   Guess what? The folks at BFRO are. (I'm sure you can find their link somewhere in this message.)
   
   

   [*]"Man cannot levitate." Show your work.
   levitate: To rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity. Did you see the people on board Mir or the International Space stations at any time? Right there on TV for the world to see. Sure looked like people levitating to me... Sorry, you lose. Negative case NOT proven. Please play again.

   
   That's not levitation, that's taking advantage of local conditions. Try the same tricks at sea level.
   
   

   [*]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.
   I thought that was MY job! But since you are probably a lot closer than me to that part of the world, why can't that somebody be you?
   [/list=1]

   
   I wish, but I don't have the resources. Funding would be nice. A steady supply of my medication is a must. As is a good 35mm still camera because I want to take lots of pictures. Tons of pictures. Pictures in all sorts of conditions, at all times of day and night, and over a long period of time. Why? Because the longer you try to maintain a hoax as complicated as a man in a gorilla suit, the harder it becomes to sustain.
   
   

   And just so you don't get the wrong idea: I'm a scientist be trade, and I will welcome ANY and ALL properly researched evidence you produce that bigfoot exists. You will be famous, and I will be able to say that I wrote to you on a website once upon a time.

   
   Oh, the evidence is available, it's a specimen we need.
   
   

   BTW, if you want to base research conclusions purely around the volumes of anecdotal evidence, there is WAY more extant today indicating that bigfoot is fake than there is the opposite. But if you want to ignore that "evidence" then feel free!

   
   Zep
   
   But why would anecdotes saying that sasquatches don't exist be more credible than those saying they do? In either case corroboration would be nice, along with forensic evidence. Without either you need to look into motivation. Why did the subject make the statements? Were they made to support strongly held beliefs? Or are they a recounting of events that either happened, or the subject strongly believes happened? A simple, "How do you know this?" can provide loads of information.
   
   Besides, there's far more forensics supporting the pro sasquatch tales than the no sasquatch ones. Matter of fact, I have yet to see any forensic evidence supporting the no sasquatch position. Where fake evidence is concerned, other than a few "feet" produced by Ray Wallace the only tests I've seen performed has found the evidence to be valid. BFRO has a link to a documentary on the subject, which includes sasquatch footage from three sources, including the Patterson Film. That's the Discovery Channel documentary I was thinking about.
   
   BTW, when reading a first hand account of a sasquatch encounter consider how mundane it is. Other than meeting a very large mammal in the woods that is. No lost time. No levitation, teleportation, telepathy, or visions of {eldritch music}THE FUTURE{/eldritch music}. Just a close encounter of the problematic primate kind.
   
   Something to consider: The next time you see the Patterson film (there are new copies available, made from the original footage). Ask yourself this; if it is a man in a costume, where did the hoaxsters find a man that large? For that matter, why haven't the hoaxsters spoken up by now? I've got more to say on the subject, but it needs more work before it'll be ready for publication.

 

[Zep]

*SIGH*

mythusmage, sorry for the delay in responding (personal hospital issue) but I can see that you are starting to see the light. OK, let's walk you carefully.

1. The BigFoot Field Research Organisation, as with all other similar groups, has yet to provide any evidence that is not explained by more likely means (wild cats of many species, bears, other predators, even birds). The OVERWHELMING amount of evidence for bigfoot has been discovered to be clearly and unequivocally hoax - the hoaxers even confess to the same. Put simply, the method being used by these groups is that if a footprint or sound is NOT the wildcat/bear/puma/bird/beaver/whatever they saw last Thursday, and the hoaxers say they haven't been in the area (cross their hearts and hope to die), then it MUST be bigfoot! Would YOU believe that to be valid research???

2. The fibres from the Skookum Cast were found to be elk, as were the rest of the "prints" in the cast. See http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/bfoot29.htm for another report, also illuminating the overwhelmingly UNscientific methodology used by the "bigfoot hunters".

3. Speeding tickets? Southern white rhinos? Wha...? Oh, I see. Some other types of "scientists" also indulge in white lies and short-cuts, etc, in pursuit of degrees. Stale news, but sure, I agree! Kick their butts too! Doesn't make bigfoot real though...

4. "Taking advantage of local conditions" to show levitation? Sorry, but that wasn't a limitation stipulated in your original request. Your question was the problem, not my answer. So the situation is still that I have demonstrated levitation for you, ergo you have not proven this negative.

5. I would hope sincerely that a proper bigfoot research effort would very quickly dispel the guy-in-a-gorilla-suit situation. Sure, "the truth is out there", but the situation right now is that the guy-in-a-gorilla-suit is pretty much the best evidence produced so far...

6. Sorry, but the evidence on the table from the BFRO is NOT conclusive of anything at all to do with a bigfoot. Sure, there are a lot of things breaking branches and screeching in the night, and thousands of variants on footprints. But so far there is little CONCLUSIVE and SUSTAINABLE evidence it is bigfoot doing it.

7. Re anecdotes for both sides: I was merely making the point that if we are basing the veracity of the claims purely on the preponderance of anecdotes for either case, the vast majority of them would fall in the "no bigfoot" side. So if you believe that more anecdotes equals more likely to be true then we are being drawn inexorably towards the conclusion that bigfoot does NOT exist. The issue now is either to agree with this line of reasoning, in which case poof! goes bigfoot, or to continue to believe in bigfoot, in which case the above reasoning is no longer sustainable. Myself, I find the reasoning illogical (OK, I'm a Vulcan! )

8. The Patterson Film. Ah yes. So you choose to ignore all the contra evidence from anthropologists, etc, etc, who say that it is clearly a human of average height walking with a normal human gait? All the problematic issues with the "fur" and how it didn't seem real, like it was a suit and not attached to muscles? That Patterson stated in advance that he was going out to film a sasquatch on the day? That he did not film any subsequent footprints of this creature? (it walked through the mud at the edge of a river, on the film) That when it noticed the cameraman (which it did) that it didn't RUN away but continued to walk sedately? (allowing itself to be filmed so easily???) And finally that friends of Patterson have allegedly revealed that it was all a hoax from the beginning? Etc, etc, etc. To my mind there are WAY too many unanswered questions...!!!

Sorry, but the situation is that there is NOT any conclusive evidence of bigfoot...yet. Just a bunch of wacky footprints (one fake set was modelled on an emperor pengiun, no less!) and a bunch of screaming and breaking noises in the forest at night. Sorry, but Boy Scouts staging a prank would be a more rational solution at this stage!

Not that I am prepared to dismiss bigfoot out-of-hand - I don't. The story of the coelocanth is a classic case about how scientists rapidly accept highly startling but utterly convincing evidence. In other words, the bigfoot hunters merely have to habeus corpus...

Zep

 

[Liamo]

Re: *SIGH*

4. "Taking advantage of local conditions" to show levitation? Sorry, but that wasn't a limitation stipulated in your original request. Your question was the problem, not my answer. So the situation is still that I have demonstrated levitation for you, ergo you have not proven this negative.

Zep,

Unless you definition of levitation reproduced below is wrong, Mythusmage has got a point.

levitate: To rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity.

Since the astronauts are in a virtually zero-gravity zone, they are not defying gravity, and therefore not levitating. Agreed?

Liam

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Hypocrisy in Science

What evidence is there against psychokinesis? Do you have appropriate references?? Indeed a couple of days ago it was claimed it is impossible for there to be any evidence against psychokinesis if it is of a certain limited nature (due to the possible relatively small statistically deviation from chance in micropyshokinesis)

Oh, here we go again. You want to play the "reverse the requirements" nonsense.

You want to claim that psychokinesis exists?

THEN YOU PRODUCE SOMEONE WHO CAN DO IT WELL ENOUGH TO WIN Mr. RANDI's PRIZE.

The fact of the matter is that you are supporting the extraordinary claim, so YOU have to provide the evidence. I

Let's hear about it, unInteresting Ian.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Continents and Ray Wallace

Yes "skeptics" will sieze any apparent evidence supporting thier beliefs, no matter how dodgy that "evidence" might be, and proclaim that it proves their interpretation of the particular phenomenon concerned was correct all along.

Are you in the habit of making unfounded professional accusations against people you don't know?

That's very rude, to say the least. You wonder why I dislike you, and now you know one such reason.

It is still a fact that those making extraordinary claims must absolutely provide extraordinary proof.

 

[Acrimonious]

Since the astronauts are in a virtually zero-gravity zone, they are not defying gravity, and therefore not levitating. Agreed?

This is a misunderstanding of the way gravity works. There is no such thing as "zero-gravity."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv.html

The astronauts move at a speed equal to the force of Earth's pull, perpendicular to the Earth's pull.

Basically, the object is in a perpetual free-fall that never hits the ground. Gravity is always affecting them; without it, they would slingshot straight off into space.

In the case of a Geosynchronous orbit, the object stays directly above the exact same spot on the Earth's surface as it orbits. This is as close as you're going to get to "levitation."

 

[BillyJoe]

Still, "to levitate" is generally taken to mean "to produce by pure willpower/mindpower a force opposing that of gravity".

I don't think orbiting a massive object or floating around in space qualifies.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is a misunderstanding of the way gravity works. There is no such thing as "zero-gravity."

Well, it's certainly possible -- at least in theory -- to put some object somewhere into space where the gravity from all other objects sum to zero, and I'd happily say that object is in "zero gravity".

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv.html

The astronauts move at a speed equal to the force of Earth's pull, perpendicular to the Earth's pull.

Basically, the object is in a perpetual free-fall that never hits the ground. Gravity is always affecting them; without it, they would slingshot straight off into space.

It seems that the term "zero gravity" gets thrown around when the correct term to use would be "weightless". An astronaut inside a spaceship orbiting the earth could correctly be described as weightless with respect to the spaceship. The spaceship, however, would not be weightless in this scenario.