• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
. . . Or do you assume the statistical significance cited is correct and go with it?

There is no statistical significance without data, and "data" is the plural of the singular, "datum". As EHocking offered, "repeatability" is the difference between your anecdotal observation and the multiple observations made by a scientist that comprise analyzable data.

Let's say I go do some bird surveys and find a Red-eyed Vireo singing from the top of a tall tree. Did I really see it and hear it as I remembered? I wrote it in my notes so at least there's a record that at that moment that's what I thought I experienced. The field notes are important because they remove the bias of my faulty memory trying to reconstruct the event hours, days, months, or even years later. But what if I was mistaken in that moment? What if I hallucinated the whole thing?

Well, I do multiple bird surveys. I go to many places that have tall trees. At each one, I am making an observation that can be a datum: 1 = Red-eyed Vireo detected, 0 = no Red-eyed Vireo detected. All those 1s and 0s from my multiple surveys are now plural - data. I have repeated that trial of "do Red-eyed Vireos sing from tall trees" many times over, and I can analyze those data.

If my sample size is too small, e.g., I only found 1 vireo total, then I really don't have that much to go on. Maybe I did hallucinate that one observation or maybe that 1 vireo was just way out of range and not behaving typically. It's only with a good sample of 1s and 0s (let's say something like at least 30 of each) that I'm confident that I have enough information to evaluate the habitat preferences of singing Red-eyed Vireos.

Let's say my analysis indicates that Red-eyed Vireos are far more likely to sing from tall trees than from any of the other habitat features I sampled. It's unlikely that if I hallucinate them that I'd do so in one habitat type more than another. I might, however, mistake the identification - maybe there's another species that sings from tall trees and sounds like a Red-eyed Vireo? (According to one of my field technicians, that other species is Summer Tanager!)

Well, the best thing for me to do is compare my analysis to those of the other people who've done bird surveys in similar places. If my findings, i.e., that Red-eyed Vireos like to sing from tall trees, fit in with the context of what we know collectively from many thousands of observations then we have greater confidence that my initial field observations were accurate.

In your case Jodie, you don't have data. In fact, without repeated observations, you cannot even consider each individual event to be a datum. You just have a handful of observations that you find to have been unusual. They are unrelated anecdotes, and subject to misinterpretation, hallucination, faulty memory, etc. in a way that properly collected scientific data are not.
 
I've got pretty thick skin. I was a male cheerleader in high school and college back in the 80's, so you can imagine how much guff I took doing that. I'm back in the game.

Going out on Friday to spend a couple of nights in the forest of northern Minnesota with a witness who had an encounter last year. Will let you know if we find anything.

I'm guessing you didn't find a 9-ft, 600-lb monkey. I'm guessing.

Anything smaller?
 
"A witness who had an encounter" sounds much better than a liar, a fabulist, a child who hasn't grown out of playing make-believe, or a con artist.
 
There is no statistical significance without data, and "data" is the plural of the singular, "datum". As EHocking offered, "repeatability" is the difference between your anecdotal observation and the multiple observations made by a scientist that comprise analyzable data.

Let's say I go do some bird surveys and find a Red-eyed Vireo singing from the top of a tall tree. Did I really see it and hear it as I remembered? I wrote it in my notes so at least there's a record that at that moment that's what I thought I experienced. The field notes are important because they remove the bias of my faulty memory trying to reconstruct the event hours, days, months, or even years later. But what if I was mistaken in that moment? What if I hallucinated the whole thing?

Well, I do multiple bird surveys. I go to many places that have tall trees. At each one, I am making an observation that can be a datum: 1 = Red-eyed Vireo detected, 0 = no Red-eyed Vireo detected. All those 1s and 0s from my multiple surveys are now plural - data. I have repeated that trial of "do Red-eyed Vireos sing from tall trees" many times over, and I can analyze those data.

If my sample size is too small, e.g., I only found 1 vireo total, then I really don't have that much to go on. Maybe I did hallucinate that one observation or maybe that 1 vireo was just way out of range and not behaving typically. It's only with a good sample of 1s and 0s (let's say something like at least 30 of each) that I'm confident that I have enough information to evaluate the habitat preferences of singing Red-eyed Vireos.

Let's say my analysis indicates that Red-eyed Vireos are far more likely to sing from tall trees than from any of the other habitat features I sampled. It's unlikely that if I hallucinate them that I'd do so in one habitat type more than another. I might, however, mistake the identification - maybe there's another species that sings from tall trees and sounds like a Red-eyed Vireo? (According to one of my field technicians, that other species is Summer Tanager!)

Well, the best thing for me to do is compare my analysis to those of the other people who've done bird surveys in similar places. If my findings, i.e., that Red-eyed Vireos like to sing from tall trees, fit in with the context of what we know collectively from many thousands of observations then we have greater confidence that my initial field observations were accurate.

In your case Jodie, you don't have data. In fact, without repeated observations, you cannot even consider each individual event to be a datum. You just have a handful of observations that you find to have been unusual. They are unrelated anecdotes, and subject to misinterpretation, hallucination, faulty memory, etc. in a way that properly collected scientific data are not.

Which is exactly my point regarding using a true skeptical approach, without data what kind of conclusion can you draw either way?
 
Right, the lack of data is the data.

The lack of a Bigfoot is data that points to non-existence. Skeptics understand that but the believers don't.
 
Right, the lack of data is the data.

The lack of a Bigfoot is data that points to non-existence. Skeptics understand that but the believers don't.

I think it's other motives that keep the faithful in bigfoot's existence hanging on despite the lack of evidence or data.
 
Did Kitakaze coin the term Wood Ape?

I found this old post from 2009

Sadly, a 2009 posting is at least 6 years too late.

The term "wood ape" was used to describe Bigfoot in a July 2003 episode of Futurama ("Spanish Fry"). Unless the writers of Futurama coined the term themselves, its origins must therefore date to 2002 or earlier.
 
Which is exactly my point regarding using a true skeptical approach, without data what kind of conclusion can you draw either way?

That's what you took from my example?

Okay then, the guy in the office next to mine studies sportfish management. For every bird survey I've ever done, he's electroshocked fish and drawn them to the surface in a seine net. Never, in the thousands of surveys he's done like this, nor in all of those done by thousands of other fisheries biologists, has someone pulled a stunned Red-eyed Vireo from the water column. From this, we can confidently conclude that Red-eyed Vireos do not occur in the water column of freshwater streams, lakes, or ponds.

See how we can use negative data to reveal natural phenomena?
 
It isn't belief in bigfoot that matters. Most of them don't believe anyway. What matters is having scruples.

On woo fora you will find a happy home for lying, defining words to suit your whims, diversion, evasion, selective memory, denial - every little tactic of dishonest interaction with others.

The game is about power and control. Button pushing, for example. The "no true skeptic" fallacy is used universally by 'footers and also by faux-skeptics just trolling on this forum. No true skeptic would doubt the possible existence of bigfoot. The true skeptic is 100% certain that there is a possibility. lol.

Don't make the mistake of sincerity in the position tendered. Instead, think duper's delight: The more frustrated someone can make you in dealing with the tactics, the more delight they enjoy.

Someone above pointed out the fundamental unfairness at work in the argument that's got the buzz going. Well sure, that's the whole point - playing honestly and above-board is too much work. Playing dirty is easy. My manipulative old college room-mate used to say "if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying."

You store in your mind which dirty tricks seem to work best with people. That's how you classify them: Use shaming on bill. Use false flattery with Sally. Use guilt-tripping on Sam. Play the "no true skeptic" fallacy with skeptics. Get them angry with defining your own words, but do it in a way that makes it plausible you actually believe the words coming out of your mouth.

It isn't baffling to me at all. Bigfoot is a platform to operate from, not a belief. It's a con game. People with scruples are eventually going to leave 'footery if they fall into it by accident because the conscience cannot permit being dishonest about what you say you believe.

But a person who is a con man at heart can "give up" a belief they never had in the first place to take on some new role. Nothing has changed in terms of what is important interacting with others.
 
Last edited:
How do you know this?
Some of the excellent clues are that they don't call police or game wardens when they know that they have seen a Bigfoot and that they leave the area right after they know that they have seen a Bigfoot. Also there is continual intellectual dishonesty, evasiveness and contradictory evaluation of evidence, etc.

There are signs that pretending is going on.
 
Habituators with Bigfoot spending afternoons full of quality social time in their backyards are folks who seem to be pretending.
 
Anyone who claims to see them regularly is pretending. Or perhaps in need of medical help. But mostly, pretending.
 
Bigfoot confirmation would be worth many millions of dollars and yet the approach and behavior is casual to the point of nonchalance. It's like they are pretending and not really serious.
 
Yesterday, beneath a fir,
I saw an ape that wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish, I wish that he would stay.

When I left some chocolate by the tree,
the 'Squatch was waiting there for me.

Last night I saw beneath a fir,
a nimble ape who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
oh, how I wish that he would stay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom