ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Arlene Gaal , bigfoot , cryptozoology , flatwoods monster , Ken Chaplin , lake worth monster , loch ness monster , panthers , Trunko

Reply
Old 27th June 2013, 05:46 PM   #361
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,250
^^ That's an interesting post. My lay person take on this is that peer review is the agreed upon arena where scientists can challenge, for lack of a better word, each other's findings. By having put nothing into that arena for serious challenge, Dr.Meldrum is deliberately avoiding a fight he knows that he cannot win.

So to challenge him outside of that arena would be to put opinion against opinion. And I am not sure where that is going to satisfy anyone ultimately.

Last edited by dmaker; 27th June 2013 at 05:48 PM.
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 08:23 PM   #362
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by dmaker
My lay person take on this is that peer review is the agreed upon arena where scientists can challenge, for lack of a better word, each other's findings.
Well, one of them. Academic conferences are another arena, but being accepted into one generally requires an abstract that's reviewed before presentation (anyone who's presented at one can attest, however, that you don't always give the talk the abstract is for).
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 04:11 AM   #363
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,495
If I write a paper (a serious one, not some tongue-in-cheek piece for April 1st) demonstrating that mermaids aren't real, why would a journal waste the space to publish it? Everyone already knows that there are no mermaids. Apart from a handful of cranks, the scientific community is thoroughly convinced that Bigfoot is mere myth, so until someone can make the case that it's something more, there is zero incentive to waste journal space with a leper that says there's no bigfoot. Unlike homeopathy or anti-vax woo, there doesn't appear to be a public health risk to Bigfoot either. It's just some people pretending there's a big monkey in the woods, so it's perceived to be harmless.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 04:13 AM   #364
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,495
"leper", autocorrect? Seriously?
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 05:19 AM   #365
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
"leper", autocorrect? Seriously?
It reads better that way. A nice chuckle to start my morning.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2013, 07:24 AM   #366
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,991
Yep. thought that was on purpose. :-)
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2013, 01:48 PM   #367
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,861
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
^ They would still have Bindernagel.

I'm sure he is a pleasant gentleman,
I'm quite sure he isn't. They're bubbly and charming so long as they are in control of the script. But you start challenging their obvious bias, and just see how quickly they become nasty.

All they've got are underhanded manipulative tactics which require a lack of scruples to deploy. Don't mistake the smiling face of a proponent when peddling fallacies they know are wrong themselves. Con men all learn to put on a mask of charm while working their agenda. This is an important tactic for disarming an opponent. They also excel at needling their opponents as a means of trying to provoke them and then capitalize on a claim they are an unreasonable "angry person".

The legendary Peter Byrne has been the best at amassing money over decades while putting on a completely phony mask of studious professionalism and charm. But he is a fraud without scruples. We can't mistake the act they put on for what kind of people they are.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2013, 05:19 PM   #368
Jerrymander
Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 228
Here's a BFF thread discussing Bigfoot and peer review

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/t...g-new-science/
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2013, 06:00 PM   #369
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 941
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
I'm quite sure he isn't. They're bubbly and charming so long as they are in control of the script. But you start challenging their obvious bias, and just see how quickly they become nasty.

All they've got are underhanded manipulative tactics which require a lack of scruples to deploy. Don't mistake the smiling face of a proponent when peddling fallacies they know are wrong themselves. Con men all learn to put on a mask of charm while working their agenda. This is an important tactic for disarming an opponent. They also excel at needling their opponents as a means of trying to provoke them and then capitalize on a claim they are an unreasonable "angry person".

The legendary Peter Byrne has been the best at amassing money over decades while putting on a completely phony mask of studious professionalism and charm. But he is a fraud without scruples. We can't mistake the act they put on for what kind of people they are.
Byrne was helpful, a "fraud without scruples" or not. He exposed Ivan Marx and has rightfully cast doubt on Bob Titmus. (Titmus was suspected by Sanderson as well.)
jerrywayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2013, 05:46 AM   #370
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
I'm quite sure he isn't. They're bubbly and charming so long as they are in control of the script. But you start challenging their obvious bias, and just see how quickly they become nasty.

All they've got are underhanded manipulative tactics which require a lack of scruples to deploy. Don't mistake the smiling face of a proponent when peddling fallacies they know are wrong themselves. Con men all learn to put on a mask of charm while working their agenda. This is an important tactic for disarming an opponent. They also excel at needling their opponents as a means of trying to provoke them and then capitalize on a claim they are an unreasonable "angry person".

The legendary Peter Byrne has been the best at amassing money over decades while putting on a completely phony mask of studious professionalism and charm. But he is a fraud without scruples. We can't mistake the act they put on for what kind of people they are.
I know this firsthand. Dr. Meldrum can get really nasty, like Tourette's syndrome nasty, if you even pose a rational objection to some of his posts. He will blow up, and then after a cooling off period come back and apologize.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2013, 04:57 PM   #371
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 941
I think that Dr. Meldrum is a bit arrogant. He forever wants to lecture mainstream science on its treatment of Bigfoot. But as to the anger issue, I've seen Ben Radford, who I admire a lot, also melt down during a give and take blogging exercise. It happens. I've been pissed myself over at BFF sometimes.
jerrywayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2013, 07:48 PM   #372
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,359
Who knew talkin Bigfoot could lead to such a deep well of emotion? Meldrum gettin his whiskers in a twist? Not very mormonlike.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:14 PM   #373
NightStar76
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 230
Okay. Seriously. There's no reason to get agitated one way or another over bigfoot. I'm an amateur cryptozoologist (though I entered the field through folklore and wildlife interest, not through the field of zoology, and the actual existence of creatures matters less to me than it may to others).

As a scientific hypothesis, the existence of Bigfoot can be proven or disproven. Right now, the evidence strongly points to there ain't no such animal, though I'm a fan of (relatively) recent extinction for wildmen.

In general, though...

three things. First, accusing people of being liars is a good way to upset them. Even scientists. I've coldcocked someone for calling me a liar. People with more patience can get irritable and sniffy before they reach that point.

Second, belief in bigfoot causes no harm. It can be wrong or right or irrelevant. Bigfoot could be real or fake or aliens or hallucinations or the mystical dreams of fairies given spiritual form, but it doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't even hurt 'science', which seems to be the general consensus. Yes, people spending money looking for bigfoot could be using that money elsewhere, but in all honesty, they probably wouldn't be using it to fund the type of science you approve of anyway. Let people have their fun.

Third, there is no rational reason to completely dismiss the existence of large unknown animals in general. Cuvier did so and lived to be proven wrong twice, and the rolls have been continually added to ever since.

Last edited by NightStar76; 3rd July 2013 at 12:15 PM. Reason: three things ,not two
NightStar76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:30 PM   #374
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,784
Three statements and all are wrong.
Well, the first one isn't wrong but if people don't want to be called liars they shouldn't lie. And heaven forbid they might get upset!!
I suggest you read some of the bigfoot threads on this site.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.

Last edited by GT/CS; 3rd July 2013 at 12:32 PM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:32 PM   #375
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by NightStar76 View Post
Okay. Seriously. There's no reason to get agitated one way or another over bigfoot. I'm an amateur cryptozoologist (though I entered the field through folklore and wildlife interest, not through the field of zoology, and the actual existence of creatures matters less to me than it may to others).

As a scientific hypothesis, the existence of Bigfoot can be proven or disproven. Right now, the evidence strongly points to there ain't no such animal, though I'm a fan of (relatively) recent extinction for wildmen.

In general, though...

three things. First, accusing people of being liars is a good way to upset them. Even scientists. I've coldcocked someone for calling me a liar. People with more patience can get irritable and sniffy before they reach that point.
You've assaulted someone for calling you a name?
Quote:
Second, belief in bigfoot causes no harm. It can be wrong or right or irrelevant. Bigfoot could be real or fake or aliens or hallucinations or the mystical dreams of fairies given spiritual form, but it doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't even hurt 'science', which seems to be the general consensus. Yes, people spending money looking for bigfoot could be using that money elsewhere, but in all honesty, they probably wouldn't be using it to fund the type of science you approve of anyway. Let people have their fun.
Fringe beliefs such as this one cause harm: loss of money, family, jobs, etc.
Quote:
Third, there is no rational reason to completely dismiss the existence of large unknown animals in general. Cuvier did so and lived to be proven wrong twice, and the rolls have been continually added to ever since.
I think this example (bigfoot) is specifically dismissed because of how and where it's alleged to exist without ever leaving any physical trace.

Last edited by Resume; 3rd July 2013 at 12:39 PM. Reason: close )
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:36 PM   #376
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
Originally Posted by NightStar76 View Post

Third, there is no rational reason to completely dismiss the existence of large unknown animals in general. Cuvier did so and lived to be proven wrong twice, and the rolls have been continually added to ever since.
Is there a rational reason to completely dismiss the existence of large unknown animals in the 'Woods behind the trailer park'?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:37 PM   #377
NightStar76
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 230
I could, but since what you just said was nonsense I'm not entirely sure I should bother. Number 2 especially is not a question of right or wrong, it is historical fact. Cuvier died in 1832. His statement on the impossibility of large mammals being discovered was made in 1812. Between those two points, australia was opened up and explorers began to, you know, explore. A few animals were added to the list. Since his death, a few hundred new animals have been added to the knowledge of western science; most famous being the Giant Panda, the Gorilla and the komodo dragon.

Number 1 is... weird. I don't even know how that statement is wrong. Do you not get annoyed when you're accused of being a liar? Because that feels strange.

Number 3 is... wow, really? What harm? Quo malus?
NightStar76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:38 PM   #378
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Fringe beliefs such as this one cause harm: loss of money, family, jobs, etc.
Teenagers getting stuck on a mountain in a Blizzard trying to emulate Bigfoot hunters on TV?

People who think Bigfoot lives on their property shooting at shadowy figures behind the bushes?

How about the couple who got shot at by overly-enthusiastic Bigfooters?

No harm? really?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:40 PM   #379
NightStar76
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
You've assaulted someone for calling you a name?
Yes. Yes I have. That is why I stated it as a fact. A few hundred years ago I would have killed them in a duel. Under the Shahshana in Persia, had I proven it to be libel, they would have been taken off and executed. Call me old fashioned. Also, quick to violent rage. It is a problem.

Quote:
Fringe beliefs such as this one cause harm: loss of money, family, jobs, etc.
Not your problem. It isn't. Who cares? Why do you care? People will do what they want.

Quote:
I think this example (bigfoot is specifically dismissed because of how and where it's alleged to exist without ever leaving any physical trace.
And my statement was about cryptids in general. I had earlier stated that I don't believe there is a bigfoot. It is a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven and so far has been consistently disproven.
NightStar76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:42 PM   #380
NightStar76
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Teenagers getting stuck on a mountain in a Blizzard trying to emulate Bigfoot hunters on TV?
Oh well. They should have been smarter and more careful. Not my problem.

Quote:
People who think Bigfoot lives on their property shooting at shadowy figures behind the bushes?
We have laws to deal with that anyway. Plenty of people get shot anyway without bigfoot being involved. This is silly.

Quote:
How about the couple who got shot at by overly-enthusiastic Bigfooters?
...A sitting vice president shot a man he thought was a quail. Again, nothing to do with bigfoot.

Quote:
No harm? really?
No harm. Really.
NightStar76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:50 PM   #381
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by NightStar76 View Post
Yes. Yes I have. That is why I stated it as a fact. A few hundred years ago I would have killed them in a duel. Under the Shahshana in Persia, had I proven it to be libel, they would have been taken off and executed. Call me old fashioned. Also, quick to violent rage. It is a problem.
You ain't ********.

Quote:
Not your problem. It isn't. Who cares? Why do you care? People will do what they want.
How do you know it's not my problem? What if my problem is attempting to eliminate faulty beliefs so society in general might be improved? Why do you care what I care?
Quote:
And my statement was about cryptids in general. I had earlier stated that I don't believe there is a bigfoot. It is a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven and so far has been consistently disproven.
So you're just frontin' for . . . who exactly?
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:52 PM   #382
NightStar76
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
How do you know it's not my problem? What if my problem is attempting to eliminate faulty beliefs so society in general might be improved? Why do you care what I care?
That is an excellent question, to which there is actually no easy answer. I suppose I would have to say I care because the entire topic interests me and I feel the aggression towards the subject is unwarranted.

Also, yes. That is a serious problem. Well. Both halves of that sentence. You believe that society can be improved? Problem. Right there. I'm pretty sure they have help for it, though.

Last edited by NightStar76; 3rd July 2013 at 12:56 PM.
NightStar76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 01:10 PM   #383
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by NightStar76 View Post
That is an excellent question, to which there is actually no easy answer. I suppose I would have to say I care because the entire topic interests me and I feel the aggression towards the subject is unwarranted.
Aggression? More aggressive than say . . . assault for name calling?

Quote:
Also, yes. That is a serious problem. Well. Both halves of that sentence. You believe that society can be improved? Problem. Right there. I'm pretty sure they have help for it, though.
Help? What kind of help?
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 01:39 PM   #384
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
Originally Posted by NightStar76 View Post
Oh well. They should have been smarter and more careful. Not my problem.
No. You are moving goalposts. You said "Belief in Bigfoot causes no harm."

Quote:
We have laws to deal with that anyway. Plenty of people get shot anyway without bigfoot being involved. This is silly.
Still, you said "Belief in Bigfoot causes no harm." Your initial comment has been shown to be false, so you move the goalposts. Typical Bigfooter behavior.

Quote:
...A sitting vice president shot a man he thought was a quail. Again, nothing to do with bigfoot.

No harm. Really
The comparison of someone accidentally shooting a human during a legal hunt for a legal animal to someone shooting at an imaginary humanoid creature, and shooting a human is not a rational comparison.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 01:42 PM   #385
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,784
Definitely a troll
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 02:07 PM   #386
NightStar76
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 230
...what is it with you people and goalposts? I'm seriously confused by what that means. I stand by my statement that belief in bigfoot causes no harm. If you want to be nitpicky, we can say that belief in bigfoot causes no harm to society. Individual harm is meaningless and can come from all sorts of directions. I'm sorry that you think that that statement is trolling. It is quantitatively true. The best kind of true.

Of course, you could also believe that society can be improved if we can simply move people past all these beliefs, as well as other beliefs that may be anti-scientific, such as God, etc.

As I was going to say to Resume... that's crazy. Far more so than believing in Bigfoot or spending money on Bigfoot or looking for Bigfoot or watching shows about Bigfoot. There is no reason to spend that type of time and effort. Even assuming incremental improvements to society can be made, at this point we are living in a veritable Panglossian utopia. It's all downhill from here. The reasons for this are myriad, but it makes little difference to me. My only hope is civilization as we know it lasts long enough after my death that my body will decay and people won't make firewood out of my bones.

So, you can keep going after people who are believing in things that make them happy and cause other people no harm - unfortunate accidents aside (seriously? There is no difference between someone being mistaken for a quail and being shot and someone being mistaken for bigfoot and shot, except that the first one makes less sense. The person still gets shot. That's a ludicrous argument).

All I've done is raise and answer points to a topic I thought was interesting, and then I was basically piled on by people making ridiculous assertions (seriously. People still get shot by idiots. People get shot by idiots for all sorts of reasons. There is no difference why they get shot by idiots. The problem is in the idiots themselves.) So, you know what? I'm tapping out. Ciao.
NightStar76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 02:12 PM   #387
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by NightStar76 View Post
Of course, you could also believe that society can be improved if we can simply move people past all these beliefs, as well as other beliefs that may be anti-scientific, such as God, etc.

As I was going to say to Resume... that's crazy.
Yes, it's crazy to believe that societies aren't improved through elimination of superstitious false beliefs. Or stupid beliefs

Like dueling over perceived slights as just one example.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 02:14 PM   #388
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
First of all it is a huge difference here.

If you fire at a quail with birdshot and miss and accidentally hit someone down range, that is bad hunting safety.

If you sit in the woods with a military grade rifle, and say "I am going to shoot the next Bigfoot I see", and someone has told you 'dude, there is no bigfoot, it's a kid messing with you', and you see a shadow behind a bush, and take a shot at it, and kill a kid. That is a Grand Canyon of difference between the two.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 02:25 PM   #389
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,495
That was some hilarious trolling. I'm sorry I missed it, but so glad you guys called out this guy for punching someone who called him a liar. My initial thought was "What are you, five?" Meantime, I think he was lying about that story anyway. . .

The irony of someone describing his assault on someone for a schoolyard offense in a thread ostensibly about the need to remove aggression from the bigfoot discourse was just . . . well . . . it was 'footer-y.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 05:04 PM   #390
ScottV
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 21
Hello,

Weíre not being asked to believe in just the existence of an undocumented large mammal species. A new deer/bovid species in Congo or Laos is noteworthy but not jaw dropping. Itís a ~500lb ape/hominid, thatís bipedal, that lives in the North America close to very large urban centers not in the remote Congo, thatís nocturnal (no known nocturnal apes), that has not been shot or a body found in 400 years or so of European settlement, that has not been clearly documented on trail cameras despite their widespread use (hunters, biologists, people who just want to see whatís there), that is not in the fossil record, that (presumably) exists in very low population densities when there should be a lot of them (no more grizzly bears to compete with in the lower 48) and therefore obvious that theyíre around etc. Thereís probably a few more Iím missing that people on the list can add. For me, itís a compounding probability thing. The odds of flipping heads with a coin is 50%. The odds of flipping heads twice in a row is 25% (0.5 x 0.5) and so on. So all of these improbabilities compound making it nigh near impossible for the existence of bigfoot. I do understand that for people that believe in it, the probability of all of the footprints being fakes and mistakes compounded with the probability that all of the sightings are fakes and mistakes makes it nigh near impossible for a bigfoot not to exist, but for me it doesnít (not even close). Like most people on this list, nothing would make me happier than a real live bigfoot population but there just isnít any evidence for it.
ScottV is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 05:14 PM   #391
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,706
Originally Posted by NightStar76 View Post


We have laws to deal with that anyway. Plenty of people get shot anyway without bigfoot being involved. This is silly.



.
Whoa there. Here is a false comparison issue that is too serious and too...well, just plain dumb....to let pass. Sure, plenty of people get shot anyway for all sorts of reasons, most of them bad, and most of them not bigfoot related. However, for your statement to make any sense at all in the question of whether Bigfoot belief can cause harm - the only way for it to make sense - would be if you could say with assurance that those very people would have been shot for some other reason. Your statement argues that if there is any reason for being shot, then there is no assignable reason for being shot.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 05:18 PM   #392
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,604
Originally Posted by ScottV View Post
Hello,

Weíre not being asked to believe in just the existence of an undocumented large mammal species. A new deer/bovid species in Congo or Laos is noteworthy but not jaw dropping. Itís a ~500lb ape/hominid, thatís bipedal, that lives in the North America close to very large urban centers not in the remote Congo, thatís nocturnal (no known nocturnal apes), that has not been shot or a body found in 400 years or so of European settlement, that has not been clearly documented on trail cameras despite their widespread use (hunters, biologists, people who just want to see whatís there), that is not in the fossil record, that (presumably) exists in very low population densities when there should be a lot of them (no more grizzly bears to compete with in the lower 48) and therefore obvious that theyíre around etc. Thereís probably a few more Iím missing that people on the list can add. For me, itís a compounding probability thing. The odds of flipping heads with a coin is 50%. The odds of flipping heads twice in a row is 25% (0.5 x 0.5) and so on. So all of these improbabilities compound making it nigh near impossible for the existence of bigfoot. I do understand that for people that believe in it, the probability of all of the footprints being fakes and mistakes compounded with the probability that all of the sightings are fakes and mistakes makes it nigh near impossible for a bigfoot not to exist, but for me it doesnít (not even close). Like most people on this list, nothing would make me happier than a real live bigfoot population but there just isnít any evidence for it.
Hi. I agree with you assessment save for your "nigh near impossible." I'd just do away with the modifiers.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2013, 12:04 AM   #393
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,124
Originally Posted by NightStar76 View Post

<snip>
...A sitting vice president shot a man he thought was a quail.
<snip>
Originally Posted by NightStar76 View Post
There is no difference between someone being mistaken for a quail and being shot and someone being mistaken for bigfoot and shot...
<snip>
The first quote is a lie. The second quote is furthering the lie.
That makes you a liar. Period.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt

Last edited by rockinkt; 4th July 2013 at 12:05 AM. Reason: typo
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2013, 06:34 AM   #394
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,495
Look out rock, you might get punched in the nose!

@ScottV: Welcome to the JREF. You seem to have a deep understand of bigfootery.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2013, 08:56 AM   #395
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,124
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Look out rock, you might get punched in the nose!
Naw...I bet I can run faster scared than he can run mad.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2013, 08:32 PM   #396
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,414
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
You've assaulted someone for calling you a name?
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Aggression? More aggressive than say . . . assault for name calling?...
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
...so glad you guys called out this guy for punching someone who called him a liar. My initial thought was "What are you, five?"
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Look out rock, you might get punched in the nose!
Meh, if it is forgivable for a NASA astronaut to punch out a woo for calling him names...
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2013, 07:32 AM   #397
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
Cryptid sighting?
Quote:
12:21 p.m.: A caller in west Greeley reported there was a very large, black bird in the backyard with a wing span of 2 feet. The caller said the bird was not being aggressive but was scary because of its size. Officers found the bird was actually a barbecue cover.
http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/6...eeley-officers
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2013, 08:11 AM   #398
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,495
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Meh, if it is forgivable for a NASA astronaut to punch out a woo for calling him names...
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
1) Buzz Aldrin has earned the right to punch idiots in the face.
2) The guy calls him a liar earlier in the clip but Buzz walks away. The right cross comes after the guy calls him a coward and a liar.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2013, 04:18 PM   #399
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,991
According to posters in the Baltimore Marathon Bombing thread, he doesn't. Everybody goes to trial.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2013, 08:24 PM   #400
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,055
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Meh, if it is forgivable for a NASA astronaut to punch out a woo for calling him names...
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Probably would've punched that guy also. Some people definitely deserve to be, and that guy was one of them.
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.