So why debate it in the first place? Are you now saying it is 'irrelevant' because you have realised it isn't really going to go the way you'd like it to?
No. I'm saying it's irrelevant to debate it, as the reason I brought it up was to demonstrate the difference in strengths of evidence. Even with your arguments of why it is weak, it still has more merit than anything else proposed. The fact you still don't see that is disturbing, although I'm not surprised you choose to ignore the main thrust of the argument.
Than ANY other? I'm shocked. Is it stronger than the theory that people are simply mistaken or lying? Is the theory of an Indian elephant swimming around in the almost freezing waters of Loch Ness the strongest theory?
I stand corrected. Poor choice of words on my behalf.
But is it the same reason though? Do fairies exist? Is it likely or even possible they exist? Do eels exist? Yes. Do freak giant eels exist? Possibly. Certain species of fish can grow to freakish lengths. We know that for a fact. Apart from a freak eel, could it be a giant fish? I do not see what is so 'unproductive' about speculating. Speculating can lead to ideas and ideas can lead further. Get my drift?
Speculation is free until decisions are made on the assumption that they carry more weight.
I've got no problem with people sitting around wondering whether the evidence for the Loch Ness monster is supported by alternative phenomena, including giant eels or friggin' Scotts in monster costumes or elephants or whatever. But to make decisions based on that requires reason to do so. There's little additional reason to assume that giant eels live in the Loch (have giant eels ever been caught in any loch before?). So far, Loch Ness monster can be accounted for by hoaxes, mistaken sightings and exaggerated eyewitness accounts. Until there is additional reason to believe it is caused by something else, all speculation is equal.
Indeed, it could be seals coming into the Loch. Or it could be a species of snake. Or it could be a type of thermocline that creates odd wave forms. Or it could be... Hell, I could keep going, each just as valid as the next without additional reason to support it. The point is, right now, mistakes and lies are the best theories, and without additional evidence, there's no reason to assume it's anything more.
Huh? It's 'damaging to science' to speculate if reports of Nessie are influenced by a freak giant eel or giant fish? Man, you are a real party pooper aren't you?
And who is making 'decisions'? I haven't 'decided' Nessie
is a giant freak eel. Im just saying 'maybe'. I find it somewhat of an interesting concept.
I'm not insinuating that you did. I'm suggesting that making a decision on poor evidence and misinformed confidence is damaging. If you were to actively support an eel-finding mission in the Loch, I'd then say the same thing; until you have good reason to suspect that eels live in the Loch, why waste money going to look?
Talk about twist it around. No, I didn't say that at all and you know I didn't.
It was a question. If you don't believe that, then fine.
Yes I do see. You have it bass ackwards (as Sweaty Yeti in the Bigfoot threads would put it). You want
proof of something before you deem fit to consider the
evidence or
possibility for that something. Don't worry, now that I have spent a month or so on these boards I am beginning to see a pattern here. Its
proof first,
possibility/evidence later.
. Well if we have the
proof then it is pointless to have the
evidence isn't it, becuase we already have the
proof!??
Who said anything about proof? Proof is a mathematical thing...don't get it confused with science. They are separate entities.
As Soapy said before, the Loch is hardly in an isolated place. I've been there - it's about as populated as it gets in non-urban Scotland. In all that time, nobody has caught, witnessed, seen the impact of or seen a dead giant eel in the Loch. So why are you inspired to continue speculating that it's a giant eel; purely because the possibility of it is enticing? There are better theories.
No it is not 'nothing'. It is speculation. Speculation is not 'nothing'. Speculation is 'something', as I have already pointed out.
Speculation is inspired day dreaming. Necessary in science, indeed, but worthless without an accumulation of evidence. Speculation is free, but starts to cost you when you advance without something more solid.
That's a get out clause if ever there was one. Scientists can be wrong. Scientists are part of science. If you are theorising that science cannot be wrong then it follows that science cannot be right. Both statements would be complete hogwash. Science thought the coelacanth was extinct. Science was wrong.
Nicely ignored. I'll say it again; science is a process. You're right -- it is neither right nor wrong. The knowledge resulting from science is incorporated into models that can be useful. You might think that a useful model is 'right', however that's not technically correct. It's just useful.
Let's say that giant eels are found in the Loch, and your eel model gains credibility. Does that mean that it was these eels the claimants observed? No. It's just that your model is a little more useful in predicting that somebody who sees an eel might mistaken it for something else.
Based on evidence, the coelacanth was extinct. As I said earlier, for all intents and purposes, this model was accurate, if in the long run incorrect. New evidence forced people to change their minds on that. That's how science works.
Don't worry, I'm not really all that interested. I can see how you shift the goalposts to support your arguments accordingly.
Really? Well, I'm hardly surprised that any description of how science works wouldn't interest you. It might disrupt your fantasy view of the universe.
And that means what exactly???? Because you think your justice system needs an overhaul then it follows that eye witness accounts are not deemed as 'evidence'???
They are.
How about multi eyewitness accounts of the same event? How about when multi eyewitness accounts are consistent and sober? Eyewitness accounts are enough to lock people up.
I already told you; if you want to seriously discuss the flaws in such a concept, start a new thread. Don't derail this one.
Says you? But you are using YOUR standards. Plenty of people (yes including scientists and biologists) have enough confidence in the evidence. Others have enough open mindedness to the situation based on the evidence. Do the names Schaller and Goodall ring any bells?
'Scientist' is not a card carrying organisation. Any individual with a text book and a pen could call themselves a scientist. It means nothing to appeal to the fact that a scientist might take interest. Does Targ and Puthoff ring any bells?
Sure I have, but who are you? Who decides that you make the boundaries?
Boundaries? What boundaries? I'm explaining the nature of how science works in terms of defining what constitutes evidence. If you don't agree, demonstrate where. If it doesn't suit your theorising, then I can't change that, but don't pretend that you're approaching this scientifically then.
Take a look at some of the bigfoot threads.
You make the claim. You support it. Bad form telling me to look it up for you.
Ohhhhh let's see. If I take the PNW of the U.S and British Columbia of Canada, for example, there is a high level of consistency in the appearance and behaviour of what people are claiming they have seen, going back a considerable time. These reports are also remarkable in the fact that apart from the appearances of the sasquatches they claim to have sighted, the creatures themselves have behaved most unremarkably, almost mundane with very few dramatic accounts. The witnesses decribe a remarkable looking animal doing unremarkable things. In the main. Though of course, there are exceptions. I would therefore deem most of these reports very consistent.
Reports of alien abductions are consistent. Sightings of the Flying Dutchman were consistent. The descriptions of various fairies were consistent. It could mean two things; one, that they were all seeing something that was real and consistent, or two, the phenomena causing them to describe such a thing (including expectation as described in the culture of the community they belonged to) was consistent. The latter is more likely.
Consistency is not strong evidence in absence of anything else.
The Thylacine question isn't too much of a quandary in my view since it has only been 70 years since the last one 'supposedly' died. If anybody would seriously argue until they are blue in the face that there are catagorically no more Thylacines left and that everybody who claims to have seen one is a fool, a liar or mistaken (and I am sure there are some people like this) then I would shake my head at them.
I wouldn't. But then, I remain open to the possibility, just as I remain open to any possibility -- should evidence be presented. Until then, I declare the thylacine extinct. It's really not difficult.
I don't know. I'm not a local wildlife authoritarian. I have never pondered the question since in my country most species went extinct a long time ago.LOL.
Evasion noted. It was a serious question; you're not an authority on wildlife, yet you happily (and rightfully) have an opinion on giant eels existing in the Loch. Surely you have an opinion on when an an organism can be declared extinct.
But I do scrutinize the validity of evidence. I don't accept all of it. I disregard a lot of it.
This is why I think you've intentionally ignored (or, perhaps not understood) what I wrote. I agree that you scrutinize evidence. But your analytical skills and your readiness to overinflate the weight of evidence to gain confidence in a speculation is what is at fault here.
A scientist? Probably not a scientist. However if a number of scientists, biologists and professionals in other areas were taking a serious look at the subject then yes it would probably make a difference to me. However, on top of this I would also have to study the subject and then see if what they have looked at is also persuasive to me.
Very well. Thank you for answering that. The fact that this again is considered strong evidence by your further supports my belief that you have poor evidence analysis skills. Many 'scientists' (and again, being called a scientist grants you no special powers) have supported all manner of odd and wacky things. Their interest only means they also find the notion interesting -- it does not automatically mean the notion is valid nor has merit.
Athon
