Bigfoot: SweatyYeti's confusion of reliable evidence vs proof.

SweatyYeti said:

You are absolutely wrong, daSkeptic.

A 'discovery' of a body, of any animal, is completely different from a 'scientific theory'.

Once an animal is discovered....like the Coelacanth, for example....and that discovery is fully accepted as legitimate...( Unlike the "discovery" of a Bigfoot body in Georgia )....it's is a 100% probability that it exists, period.

That 100% probability....that absolute certainty...that PROOF.......is irrevocable.

This is unlike a 'scientific theory', which is open to revision.

Click to expand...

I don't really see the attraction of the bigfoot discussions... but to inject a point, daSkeptic is more correct in his understanding of science.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the Coelacanth. It was believed ("a scientific fact") to be extinct, and then a live one was found swimming in an ocean somewhere. If anything, this example would support the view that even 'established facts' can and should be challenged when it is justified.

The paragraphs on Karl Popper below more or less explain a common scientific pov. Bold mine.

...all scientific criticism must be piecemeal, i.e., he [Popper] holds that it is not possible to question every aspect of a theory at once. More precisely, while attempting to resolve a particular problem a scientist of necessity accepts all kinds of things as unproblematic. These things constitute what Popper terms the ‘background knowledge’. However, he stresses that the background knowledge is not knowledge in the sense of being conclusively established; it may be challenged at any time, especially if it is suspected that its uncritical acceptance may be responsible for difficulties which are subsequently encountered. Nevertheless, it is clearly not possible to question both the theory and the background knowledge at the same time (e.g., in conducting an experiment the scientist of necessity assumes that the apparatus used is in working order).

How then can one be certain that one is questioning the right thing? The Popperian answer is that we cannot have absolute certainty here, but repeated tests usually show where the trouble lies. Even observation statements, Popper maintains, are fallible, and science in his view is not a quest for certain knowledge, but an evolutionary process in which hypotheses or conjectures are imaginatively proposed and tested in order to explain facts or to solve problems. Popper emphasises both the importance of questioning the background knowledge when the need arises, and the significance of the fact that observation-statements are theory-laden, and hence fallible. For while falsifiability is simple as a logical principle, in practice it is exceedingly complicated — no single observation can ever be taken to falsify a theory, for there is always the possibility (a) that the observation itself is mistaken, or (b) that the assumed background knowledge is faulty or defective.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#Trut

Click to expand...

Talk about an unlikely find.

itv.com/News/Articles/New-search-starts-for-Fossett-356523224.html

Let's see, despite tremendous odds, a hiker can just stumble across one guy's pilot license in the middle of nowhere, but no hiker(or anyone else for that matter) anywhere in the whole world can stumble across a bigfoot bone. Maybe that's because one is real and one isn't. Just a thought.

SweatyYeti said:

I'm not surprised that you chose not to answer the question, Drew.

As I've recently pointed-out here.....it's always the skeptics who are afraid to answer questions.


I have no problem saying that my opinion is worth no more than anyone else's here.....a grand total of 2 cents.
An opinion, presented by itself and unsupported, is....effectively....worthless.
Unsupported opinions simply do not (or, should not) carry any real weight....especially on an internet discussion board, which is open to EVERYBODY on the planet. Out of millions of potential opinions expressed about Bigfoot...are we going to argue over who's got the "best" one??

So, the bottom line is....you are, by all means, welcome to your opinion....and free to express it...

....but as far as I'm concerned...my response to it is this...

"Good for you.....and whoop-dee-do!!"

I see it differently.

Click to expand...

The question you asked was, 'how much is your opinion truly worth, Drew?'
Why would you be surprised that I didn't answer that?

That is not a question with a definitive answer, so would you rather I make up some arbitrary quantity and tell you that I think my opinion is worth that?

Not only can't I tell you what my opinion is worth, but I certainly can't quantify the value of my opinion in relation to varying levels of people's valuation of my opinion.

How much is Jeff Meldrum's opinion truly worth?

SweatyYeti said:

Out of millions of potential opinions expressed about Bigfoot...are we going to argue over who's got the "best" one??

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point you raise about the worth of opinions and whose are better. I wonder, would it be fair to say that an informed opinion is better and worth more than an uninformed or poorly informed opinion? I think it may well indeed be fair to say that. I don't think we're at a loss of you demonstrating a poorly informed opinion. Is it fair to say that, Sweaty? I'm asking you a question. Will you answer it? I think I have a fine example in this thread of you tossing out a poorly informed opinion. Let's see...

Correa Neto said:

Proof:
1. A specimen. Dead, alive, complete or partial. Frozen costumes do not qualify.

Reliable evidence:
1. DNA (from poop, hair folicles, skin, blood, tissue pieces, nails) - a result like "unknown genus from the Ponginae subfamily". Sample provenance is a must.
2. Imagery - sharp images or footage, from an undisputed source (someone whose career would be ruined if found involved somehow in a hoax), showing the critter doing things which would be hard to replicate in a suit. Can be elevated to the level of "proof" if additional imagery can be obtained by independent teams.
3. Fossil remains of a bigfoot-like creature in North America (in Asia, near the land bridge and at an environment similar to where bigfeet are supposed to live would be very close in terms of quality)
4. Casts of consecutive footprints showing the same "dermals" (note - casting artifacts and hoaxery must be ruled out).

Got any of the above?
Excuses for the absence of evidence can not justify the absence of evidence.

Click to expand...

Correa asks if Sweaty has any reliable evidence and he replies that he in fact does:

SweatyYeti said:

Sure do, Correa.

Link to article:

http://paranormala.com/tale-chinese-wildman/

Click to expand...

RayG asks about the QA/QC of Sweaty's evidence. A key and defining factor in qualifying reliable evidence:

RayG said:

Sweaty, have you actually communicated with Professor Poirier about this? Was DNA testing conducted? What methods did they use to make their determination?

RayG

Click to expand...

Now Sweaty flatly demonstrates that he is poorly informed:

SweatyYeti said:

No, I haven't.

I don't have the time to check into, and verify, the details of the article.

I only had enough time to find the article....but, anyone who does have the time, can try looking into it further.

Click to expand...

Now RayG demonstrates to us an example of being very informed. Far more informed on what Sweaty himself is claiming is reliable evidence:

RayG said:

.
I didn't think so. When I spoke to Professor Poirier back in 2007 about the hair-testing he was involved with at Fudan University, he admitted that no DNA tests were conducted, and it was his understanding that the tests conducted could not determine the origin of the hair. (you know, the species the hair actually came from)

.
Yes, yes, yes, we realize you don't want to waste time with pesky details. Things like facts and whatnot.

In this instance the article you found originally came from the pseudo-scientific book Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael A. Cremo.

That book isn't exactly a cornerstone of factual information, and the authors aren't exactly unbiased reporters of the truth.

In fact, the authors of said book have been criticized for their lack of factual documentation and scientific investigation.

Sweaty, using weak science to prop up weak arguments isn't going to provide 'reliable evidence' for bigfoot, nor increase the 'probabilities' of his existence.

RayG

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/3185_iforbidden_archaeologys_imp_12_30_1899.asp

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/3185_iforbidden_archaeologys_imp_12_30_1899.asp

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html

Click to expand...

So whose opinion is better? Whose opinion is worth more? It would seem, Sweaty, that you have once again demonstrated that your opinion isn't worth very much at all if we are talking about reliable evidence for Bigfoot. It seems fair to say that if one was searching for an opinion on quality evidence regarding Bigfoot that it would be a very good idea to talk with someone like RayG or Correa Neto. Conversely, it would be rather ill-advised to seek the opinion of someone like you who can not bother themselves with the irksome task of fact-checking before you make bold claims of evidence. I'm quite sure in whatever response you have, if any, that you will want to　avoid addressing this demonstration of the poor quality of your opinion regarding Bigfoot evidence.

I'm also sure the urge will be overpowering for you to say that my opinion isn't worth very much because I originally answered your question of whether or not reliable evidence for Bigfoot could exist without Bigfoot itself existing by saying no. I think most people would agree that it would be better to accept the opinion of a person who takes the initiative themselves to address an error in their statements and revise them to reflect the facts than a person who has a well established habit of evading people who show your statements to be in error. Not to mention a person who has a tendency to distort and misrepresent the statements of others.

Have an opinion about that?

Drewbot said:

The question you asked was, 'how much is your opinion truly worth, Drew?'
Why would you be surprised that I didn't answer that?

That is not a question with a definitive answer, so would you rather I make up some arbitrary quantity and tell you that I think my opinion is worth that?

Not only can't I tell you what my opinion is worth, but I certainly can't quantify the value of my opinion in relation to varying levels of people's valuation of my opinion.

How much is Jeff Meldrum's opinion truly worth?

Click to expand...

Sweaty would love to try and get you to do that. Sweaty doesn't want to directly deal with a clear demonstration of what reliable evidence is and how it differs from proof so he needs to ask you irrelevant and meaningless rhetorical questions and dance around saying skeptics refuse to answer him.

BTW, when it comes to Bigfoot humour, Drew, whatever the cost of your t-shirts are - that is how much your opinion is worth. As it applies to Bigfoot evidence, I would say that you recognizing the fact that Bigfoot existing across the globe without a type specimen or reliable evidence is absurd beyond reason makes it more worthy than the one who sees no problem with that. You know, acknowledging reality and all.

slightly OT digression...

You know, I've been thinking a lot about what I wrote regarding consecutive footprints with the same dermals...

Well, I think its safe to say that by now "we" know the differences between the morphologies from casting artifacts and from dermatoglyphic impressions. But one can, using a mold from say, a human foot, make a rubber or resin fakefoot with dermatoglyphs. I'm not sure on how practical it would be to make a bigfoot-sized version.

So, its not hoax-proof. But can it eventually be reliable evidence? Maybe.

If we have a long track and the track shows evidences of a real, living foot, such as toes with different positions, morphology changes due to stride and pace changes and the caster was carefull enough when collecting the data as well as some stuff I can't think about right now, maybe it can be reliable evidence. It can be still be interpreted in three ways - a real bigfoot did it, a human did it (I'm asuming the foot is what we see from currently available material- very human-like) or an elaborated hoax. It will not be proof; it may be good enough to raise eyebrows and open the door to a more detailed and expensive follow-up.

Note that such follow-up may result in an answer other than "bigfoot".

kitakaze wrote:

Correa Neto wrote:
Reliable evidence:
1. DNA (from poop, hair folicles, skin, blood, tissue pieces, nails) - a result like "unknown genus from the Ponginae subfamily". Sample provenance is a must.
2. Imagery - sharp images or footage, from an undisputed source (someone whose career would be ruined if found involved somehow in a hoax), showing the critter doing things which would be hard to replicate in a suit. Can be elevated to the level of "proof" if additional imagery can be obtained by independent teams.
3. Fossil remains of a bigfoot-like creature in North America (in Asia, near the land bridge and at an environment similar to where bigfeet are supposed to live would be very close in terms of quality)
4. Casts of consecutive footprints showing the same "dermals" (note - casting artifacts and hoaxery must be ruled out).

Got any of the above?

Click to expand...

Correa asks if Sweaty has any reliable evidence and he replies that he in fact does:

Click to expand...

That is absolutely wrong, kitty.

Read what Correa asked me again....

Quote:

"Got any of the above?"

Click to expand...

The phrase "ANY of the above" refers to the specific items he listed....1 through 4.

My answer....."Sure do" ....refered to one of those specific items, #1...."Hair DNA".


Correa's characterization of those items (as "reliable") is something different than the items themselves.

That's all I have time to respond to in your post, right now.

And you accuse others of wiggling out of things? Wow.

SweatyYeti said:

That is absolutely wrong, kitty.

Read what Correa asked me again....

Quote:


The phrase "ANY of the above" refers to the specific items he listed....1 through 4.

My answer....."Sure do" ....refered to one of those specific items, #1...."Hair DNA".


Correa's characterization of those items (as "reliable") is something different than the items themselves.

That's all I have time to respond to in your post, right now.

Click to expand...

Absolutely wrong? How so? I had no problem understanding everything I have quoted. Correa asked about reliable evidence including hair DNA and you replied in the affirmative yet that is not what you provided. Now you're vaguely saying that Correa's list of reliable evidence is in error yet with no explanation as to how.

Also, I noted that you didn't answer the question I asked you. Can I say that I am not surpised and you are afraid to answer questions from skeptics? Can I dance around and take an emoticon dump?

You, sir, have been given a clear definition of reliable evidence and how it differs from proof with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how you were in error when saying that they are the same with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how your understanding of reliable evidence equated proof with no meaningful rebuttal. You have been given a clear demonstration of how you make poorly informed opinions without fact-checking and make bold claims of evidence based on that with no meaningful rebuttal.

Your continued predictable evasion is noted.

Yes, for someone who wants to tell the truth about bigfoot. this is not a very reliable behavior...
customer: got a good, safe and nice-looking car to sell me?
used cars dealer: Yes. I do! *shows customer a pinto*

kitakaze wrote;

Absolutely wrong? How so?

Click to expand...

Read my post again, in which I explained exactly why you were wrong.

I had no problem understanding everything I have quoted.

Click to expand...

But you had a major problem understanding what I wrote.


Again...Correa wrote this:

[QUOTE]Got any of the above?[/QUOTE]

You would agree, I assume, that that line referred to this specification of one type of evidence...

1. DNA (from poop, hair folicles, skin, blood, tissue pieces, nails) - a result like "unknown genus from the Ponginae subfamily". Sample provenance is a must.

Click to expand...

In that line, quoted above....nothing is said about "reliable DNA".....only "DNA".

You would agree with that, I ASSume.

So................putting it all together........Correa asked me if there was any "DNA evidence".

I provided a link to an article about hair sample DNA evidence, potentially coming from a Bigfeetsus.


I realize it's extremely hard for you to understand this, kitty....but Correa asked if there were specific types of evidence (Got any of the above?")....and I responded with a link to an article about some evidence.

Now you're vaguely saying that Correa's list of reliable evidence is in error yet with no explanation as to how.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying anything about Correa's list being in error.


On a related note:
Here again is Correa's explanation of "Reliable evidence"...

The word “reliable” means it can pass through QA/QC. In bigfoot’s case, it means the data has a good “pedigree” and is a good indication that it is worth investigating the issue deeper.
Of course, it may be subject to more than one interpretation – and “bigfoot” may not be the best one.

Click to expand...

The evidence must pass through "QA/QC"???

Where is the "QC" headquarters located, exactly, and who is the man in charge??


"In Bigfoot's case, it means the data has a "good pedigree".

How is a 'good pedigree' determined, with relation to Hair DNA evidence, and why is it important??
DNA is DNA....either it matches a known animal, or it doesn't.



"...and is a good indication that it is worth investigating the issue deeper."


We already have evidence which indicates the possiblity of Bigfoot's existence "is worth investigating further".
Plenty of people are spending their time investigating it.

That is a rather subjective evaluation, isn't it?


So, if "reliable evidence" only indicates a certain "degree of probability" that Bigfoot exists....as Correa says, in his definition....then what differentiates "reliable evidence" from just plain, ordinary, everyday "evidence" (which also only indicates a "degree of probability") of Bigfoot's existence?

SweatyYeti said:

But you had a major problem understanding what I wrote.

Click to expand...

Oh really?:

Again...Correa wrote this:

[QUOTE]Got any of the above?[/QUOTE]

You would agree, I assume, that that line referred to this specification of one type of evidence...

In that line, quoted above....nothing is said about "reliable DNA".....only "DNA".

You would agree with that, I ASSume.

So................putting it all together........Correa asked me if there was any "DNA evidence".

I provided a link to an article about hair sample DNA evidence, potentially coming from a Bigfeetsus.

Click to expand...

Oops. Bail. Faceplant. Ouch. The pants are down. I repeat, the pants are down. Reading comprehension, fact-checking... so very very hard. Good morning, Sweaty. Is this thing on? Click, click, read, read.

You did not provide a link about hair sample DNA evidence. Furthermore you were explicitly told by RayG who was in direct contact with the source that no DNA testing was done. Do you not find it embarrassing to time and again get completely owned for not doing the simplest of tasks regarding your own claims?

I realize it's extremely hard for you to understand this, kitty....but Correa asked if there were specific types of evidence (Got any of the above?")....and I responded with a link to an article about some evidence.

Click to expand...

Imagine a person with their pants down around their ankles and heart covered boxers hanging in the wind making an attempt to be sarcastic. That is the impression the above comment makes.

The evidence must pass through "QA/QC"???

Where is the "QC" headquarters located, exactly, and who is the man in charge??

Click to expand...

Yes, Sweaty. If people within the appropriate fields in the scientific community are going to investigate the question of Bigfoot's existence they must have available evidence that passes a basic quality control and assurance. Nothing thus far presented meets that requirement. No matter how you try to obfuscate you can not change the fact.

"In Bigfoot's case, it means the data has a "good pedigree".

How is a 'good pedigree' determined, with relation to Hair DNA evidence, and why is it important??
DNA is DNA....either it matches a known animal, or it doesn't.

Click to expand...

Inconclusive does not necessarily mean unknown primate.

"...and is a good indication that it is worth investigating the issue deeper."


We already have evidence which indicates the possiblity of Bigfoot's existence "is worth investigating further".
Plenty of people are spending their time investigating it.

That is a rather subjective evaluation, isn't it?

Click to expand...

That evidence is the same quality as that for visitation by extra-terrestrials. I know since you believe this to be the case the point is rather lost on woo ears. Lots of woos, amateurs, and people practicing poor science can study what ever they like. It is not necessarily an attestment to the reliability of the evidence.

So, if "reliable evidence" only indicates a certain "degree of probability" that Bigfoot exists....as Correa says, in his definition....then what differentiates "reliable evidence" from just plain, ordinary, everyday "evidence" (which also only indicates a "degree of probability") of Bigfoot's existence?

Click to expand...

Think about it this way, Sweaty. You give me some goofy footprints with four, five toes, whatever, an entertaining story, and a very questionable image. If you want to argue that its evidence, I'll spot you. Just don't try and tell me it's any good.

Now give me a clear video of a Bigfoot sitting on a deer eating some liver or making poopy that comes under circumstances that makes hoaxing very unlikely. You have just given me reliable evidence for Bigfoot but not proof.

I noticed that you still have not answered my question.

SweatyYeti said:

In that line, quoted above....nothing is said about "reliable DNA".....only "DNA".

You would agree with that, I ASSume.

So................putting it all together........Correa asked me if there was any "DNA evidence".

I provided a link to an article about hair sample DNA evidence, potentially coming from a Bigfeetsus.

Click to expand...

Holy squatch sh** Sweaty, didja not read/comprehend the two important words that preceded Correa's list? Try and keep up with the rest of us wouldja.

Here, we'll replay it again just for you Sweaty...

Reliable evidence:
1. DNA (from poop, hair folicles, skin, blood, tissue pieces, nails) - a result like "unknown genus from the Ponginae subfamily". Sample provenance is a must.

Click to expand...

.
I've highlighted the applicable part in case you miss it yet again.

In other words, the DNA so specified would be reliable evidence, and Correa could have said, "reliable DNA with a result like 'unknown genus from the Ponginiae subfamily'".

But then I ASSume most everyone else here made the connection instantly.

RayG

Standard footer methodology. Cherry-picking of quotes, twisting sentences, evasions and obfuscation attempts... Asking the location of the QC headquarters was a major display of utter ignorance of data handling and scientific methodology.

Correa Neto said:

Standard footer methodology. Cherry-picking of quotes, twisting sentences, evasions and obfuscation attempts...[snip].

Click to expand...

Wow, it's amazing how closely that corresponds to standard troll methodology!

RayG said:

SweatyYeti said:

Here's a little more Hairy info for you, Correa...

Frank E. Poirier, an anthropologist at Ohio State University, reported (Poirier etal. 1983,p. 33): "The hair was studied by the Hubei Provincial Medical College and the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing.
The general consensus is that the hair belongs to a higher primate (monkey, ape, or human)."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sweaty, have you actually communicated with Professor Poirier about this? Was DNA testing conducted? What methods did they use to make their determination?

RayG

Click to expand...

Has anything been done since 1983? We've come a long way since then.

Reliable evidence is anything that meets scientific standards and has been proven to be relevant to the matter at hand under close scrutiny (so far these hair samples do not meet this qualification). A change in scientific standards could be used to justify the removal of this exalted qualification.

Proof is anything that is relevant that meets all scientific standards that could be devised within reasonable imagination.

MattC said:

Reliable evidence is anything that meets scientific standards and has been proven to be relevant to the matter at hand under close scrutiny (so far these hair samples do not meet this qualification). A change in scientific standards could be used to justify the removal of this exalted qualification.

Proof is anything that is relevant that meets all scientific standards that could be devised within reasonable imagination.

Click to expand...

Whaaa?

Starthinker said:

Has anything been done since 1983? We've come a long way since then.

Click to expand...

On March 5, 2007, Professor Poirier replied to my email inquiry:

"I sent out the hairs for DNA analysis 5 years ago. It seems it was never done and I haven't heard in years from the scientist doing the testing... No further tests were ever done."

Click to expand...

In a subsequent email reply on March 7th, he stated:

"I sent the hairs out for DNA analysis many years ago. It was not done. I have reminded that person just last week to see if I can move the process along. I am not optimistic."

Click to expand...

I have no first-hand knowledge of any other possible DNA developments.

RayG

GT/CS said:

Wow, it's amazing how closely that corresponds to standard troll methodology!

Click to expand...

Trolls attempt to stirr trouble within a given cybercommunity or with a certain individual. If sweaty -or any other footerposter- thinks he/she is causing us troubles, well, sorry to disappoint, but I seriously doubt any of us skeptics was affected - I find it quite funny and entertaining, actually. I feel sorry for some of them, due to the level of ignorance they display and how they keep embarassing themselves.

In sweaty's case, he should consider seriously the advice that was given to him by a person much more inclined to consider bigfeet as real than most or us here. He should move to a field more compatible with his skills, such as chupacabra research...

Some seem to have arrived here with the actual intent to debate, but in most cases the woo style of debating and presenting points/evidence crippled their efforts.