OK, I think I am now finally starting to see the issue here. i see 2 points of contention here:
1. am i begging the question?
2. Am I a true skeptic?
So #1 first, you call it begging the question to assume BF exists. I on the other hand see that as a sound application of the scientific method. (which it appears as if you are not in total understanding of).
To a scientist, you start with a null hypothesis. and then set out to disprove that null hypothesis.
so whenever i look at a sample, or look at someone elses data, my Null hypothesis is that "this is BF DNA". Once that hypothesis is established, then the proper tests are run, data collected, analyzed, and reported.
I am not trying to prove the non existance of BF. I am simply trying to prove that the material I have in hand is NOT BF DNA. I can and do do that test on a regular basis, thats all I am doing, scientifically examining the evidence available to me!.
So you call it begging the question - I call it the stating of my Null hypothesis. the symantics don't matter much, except for the emotional load those words carry!
#2. and the bigger issue, we apear to have conflicting ideas about what a skeptic is. So heres my view on it.
A skeptic is someone who is willing to examine claims made by someone. That examination of those claims needs to be in a controlled scientific manner. data or information from that process then support and drive the conclusion.
Notice that does not require that i believe in BF, nor that I think it's all BS, what it does require is an open mind willing to examine whatever data in an honest and valid method. In my case i do not believe in BF, and never have since i was 12 years old. But that does not preclude me from willingly examining the evidence currently presented.
I also think that many participants here in this forum have anoited themselves with the mantle of "skeptic" but who are in fact completely dogmatic in their belief of no BF, and not only that, they are completely unwilling to consider any evidence that may challenge their personal belief.
So there are true believers of BF - most here think they are crazy. There are many other believers here - who believe that BF does not exist, and are more than willing to pile skorn onto the true believers, without even recognizing that their nonbeliever behavior is exactly analogous to the believers. 2 sides of the same coin.
Both have closed minds, unbending rigidity, in their though process, unwillingness to look objectively at any data that has the potential to challenge their personal beliefs. that is their right, but i don't see how that is considered to be a skeptic. seems to me , thats a true non believer!
PS i know DNA will never change a true believers mind - and I doubt if it would actually ever change a true nonbelievers mind. But for those with reasonable open minds willing to objectively examine this cunumdrum, it has the potential to be very instructive, regardless of what it actually says!
I don't think so. Our exchange has nothing to do with the scientific value of DNA analysis as applied to real beings.
It has no decisive value in the bigfoot arena for one reason you admit to: that you cannot prove a negative.
But the one you don't see is that 'footery will live on after the DNA fad is over in 'footery. DNA is not a fad to
science. It is the current fad in
footery. This is where your understanding falls short, not because you lack intelligence but quite the opposite, you are too accustomed to working with intelligent, honest people:
Two things - I don't need DNA to call B.S. on their background stories and neither does anyone else with a lick of sense. Of course these samples will come back yak or bear or human or inconclusive. And what you fail to extract from the history of 'footery is that it will make no difference to them.
Edited by jhunter1163:
Edited for moderated thread.
Maybe I can direct your attention to the matter since you don't seem to "get it". Are you familiar with the work "When Prophecy Fails"? What was the point of this work? How is it relevant here?
If I understand your assumption this is precisely the logical fallacy of begging the question. This is a skeptic board, and you have to meet the standards here for presenting arguments. Logical fallacies don't make the grade.
If you mean a hoax, where the DNA has been tampered with somehow or a unique culture of people has been sampled or something then legitimate scientists are going to do the logical thing first, which is to ask for access to the samples and not undertake some costly wild goose chase. I have refereed funding requests and something that idiotic would not pass the first round of review with any respectable scientific funding agency.
Not at all. It is the most exciting thing to have happened in real science EVER, in my humble opinion. But it has no decisive probative value for the tooth fairy or leprochauns or any other mythical thing.
