• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Problems with Anecdotal Data for Elusive Species

William Parcher

Show me the monkey!
William Parcher
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
27,482
I found this informative scientific paper. It's about known rare or elusive species but has implications for cryptozoology.


Using Anecdotal Occurrence Data for Rare or Elusive Species: The Illusion of Reality and a Call for Evidentiary Standards


Anecdotal occurrence data (unverifiable observations of organisms or their sign) and inconclusive physical data are often used to assess the current and historical ranges of rare or elusive species. However, the use of such data for species conservation can lead to large errors of omission and commission, which can influence the allocation of limited funds and the efficacy of subsequent conservation efforts. We present three examples of biological misunderstandings, all of them with significant conservation implications, that resulted from the acceptance of anecdotal observations as empirical evidence. To avoid such errors, we recommend that a priori standards constrain the acceptance of occurrence data, with more stringent standards applied to the data for rare species. Because data standards are likely to be taxon specific, professional societies should develop specific evidentiary standards to use when assessing occurrence data for their taxa of interest.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal data are considered notoriously unreliable by most scientists, and many disciplines have endeavored to limit or eliminate their influence. However, anecdotal information continues to influence our political and legal systems as well as the public’s understanding of the natural world.
Click to expand...

it is important to carefully consider why, for example, we are willing to convict an alleged perpetrator on the basis of a single eyewitness’s testimony, but are unwilling to believe hundreds of often compelling sighting reports of the Loch Ness monster or other creatures unknown to science. It seems clear that our weighting of anecdotal data is not related to its intrinsic reliability, but rather to our preconceptions about the described phenomena. We overestimate the reliability of eyewitness accounts in courts of law as much as fivefold (Brigham and Bothwell 1983), but no amount of anecdotal data will convince most people that the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot exists.
Click to expand...


A pdf file.
 
Having evidenciary standards for ( you guessed it) BIGFOOT science would be like dragging vampires into the direct sunlight and then attempting to extinguish the fire with Holy Water.
 
Great link,Longtabber. That could be applied to just about any pseudo-science or paranormal claim,too. Very useful.
 
Does anyone remember the special (PBS I think) where they dispoved the existence of Zepplins? Not only does that which is false get touted as real but even that which is real can be made to seem false.
 
Crowlogic said:
Does anyone remember the special (PBS I think) where they dispoved the existence of Zepplins? Not only does that which is false get touted as real but even that which is real can be made to seem false.
Click to expand...

Sure, its called "games people play" and "How the media spins"

Just to give you an example if I were as sloppy and questionable in agenda and methods as ( you guessed it) BIGFOOT scientists.

I could take the current knowns about BF ( I mean anecdotal knowns) such as the footprints, great weight, lack of biological evidence, shrill cries and stuff and do the following

I could CAD a skeleton to match the prints ( like Meldrum) and equip it with servos and produce a foot that works. ( with known and proven technology available then and now)

I could design and build an endoskeleton ( great weight and size and all that)

I could say then that BF was a US govt robotics experiment ( they used the BF suit as a cover up to keep the Ruskies off balance during the cold war) either as a true robot or an enhanced "combat suit" as is currently being attempted to be developed with a human at the controls with sensor pads and such)

Heres the funny part- I COULD build a legitimate scientific case for my claims with PROVEN technology, I could build a model, I could sell the conspiracy theory to the woos ( especially in the 9-11 and ufo fields) and get buy in from the techno geeks.

I could make my case, provide both models and full scale robotics, be able to falsify it and duplicate EVERY claim currently known as BF.

( and it would eventually actually WORK) and i could simply say the Govt was sitting on this technology in the 60's and I built it off of that. ( you cant hide technology- it can be discovered by anyone independantly- its just a matter of time)

Sadly, it would garner the support of the hard sciences ( nobody would say it cant be done or the technology doesnt or didnt exist) and it would be stronger that ALL the current BF lore. I'll build you a 7-7 robot that weights 2 tons and screams in the night and leaves no physical traces except what various furs I made the hide off of ( so those DNA tests keep coming back all over the place) I can even get strong EMF/EMP generators to obscure some digital devices to keep it fuzzy.

I can equip it with an infrasound generator to give you the heebie jeebies too.

And still be a false story.
 
Also ( just thought about it) I could win over some of the BF crowd because then i could claim MK was right and they DID shoot it but that wasnt blood but real hydraulic fluid and the back hoe tracks were where the CIA came Corps of Engineers came in and cleaned the scene.

The govt helped RP plant the scene with false tracks and developed the film in a secret lab to edit out the parts we didnt want the Russians to know about it. ( explains the developing mystery)

They were allowed to make money to keep quiet and BG is under an NSA statement and BH really was a covert operator in the robot suit and the bullet hit him and he has partial amnesia and PTSD from it.


Thats the TRUE story behind the PGF
 
I downloaded a translation of Julius Casear's "The Gallic Wars" a while ago to see what he'd written about the Keltic and Germanic cultures. It also contains these interesting descriptions of animals. (He had obviously actually met many of the barbarian humans he wrote about, but I take these animal descriptions as mostly second-hand stuff he heard other people say about them, after no more than cursory glances from a distance himself.)

There is an ox of the shape of a stag <by which I believe he's talking about what we call "elks" in North America, or now simply called "giant deer" and "red deer" and such in Europe>, between whose ears a horn rises from the middle of the forehead, higher and straighter than those horns which are known to us. From the top of this, branches, like palms; stretch out a considerable distance. The shape of the female and of the male is the same; the appearance and the size of the horns is the same.

There are also [animals] which are called elks. <In Europe, that word now refers to what we call "moose" in North America.> The shape of these, and the varied color of their skins, is much like roes, but in size they surpass them a little and are destitute of horns, and have legs without joints and ligatures; nor do they lie down for the purpose of rest, nor, if they have been thrown down by any accident, can they raise or lift themselves up. Trees serve as beds to them; they lean themselves against them, and thus reclining only slightly, they take their rest; when the huntsmen have discovered from the footsteps of these animals whither they are accustomed to rest, they either undermine all the trees at the roots, or cut into them so far that the upper part of the trees may appear to be left standing. When the animals have leaned upon them, according to their habit, they knock down by their weight the unsupported trees, and fall down themselves along with them.

There is a third kind, consisting of those animals which are called uri. These are a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, color, and shape of a bull. <Wild Eurasian bison/buffalo?> Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied. These the Germanic men take with much pains in pits and kill them. The young men harden themselves with this exercise, and practice themselves in this kind of hunting, and those who have slain the greatest number of them, having produced the horns in public to serve as evidence, receive great praise. But not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Anecdotal evidence be it of observations (especially when we don't have an species to observe) stories, hearsay and some emotionally charged arguments may be suggestive of a elusive or rare species.
Anecdotal evidence may lead one to something more verifiable as in a specimen to study or in the case of lacking an actual specimen having a heavy load of logical evidence to support
the hypotheses beyond just wishful thinking, folklore and just having the desire to believe without supporting evidence.
(Foot castings and blurry pictures and videos are noted and should be debated).
But I feel in many cases the intend may be deceptive, may even be a deliberate deception. (thinking more of the cases were one plays with people's belief systems and intentionally sway them away from any other conclusions other than their own).
More to the point intentional deceit to fulfill their own purposes.
And to add to this some cases may have good intentions but can be a little misguided or just outright blatant fraud.
This can be delicate issue as we can have a serious effect on the very species we are trying to discover.
We should have sound science and observations so we can apply measures to conserve and protect them.
A reckless attitude towards a possible species that may be on the brink extinction, or rare and living in some isolated pockets ( This applies to any species not just a Bigfoot) can be a dangerous practice on it's own and dangerous to the survival of the subject we are investigating.
Even I have had the tendency to be persuaded by some emotional and vivid eyewitness testimony.
I cannot make a conclusion with this alone. Is it me being stubborn wanting to find more coherent explanations for what may have made one's hair stand on end other than just believing it must have been a BF to cause this effect.
I guess if I had to sit in a camp and have to digest anecdotal notions.
(word of mouth accounts and shown blurry photos of elusive creatures)
they better have good food and strong drinks (Though I quit drinking).
But I would reconsider taking it back up.
I guess I could have just said, good and sound anecdotal evidence may be a good lead in to a real discovery But also needs supporting evidence that can hold it's own and withstand scientific scrutiny.
Just makes me wonder why someone could set a different measure of reliability in a courtroom, or they're just inclined to accepting testimony alone in the first place.
I don't know if I made a point here, does Bigfoot make a point ?
 
Last edited:
JcR said:
Just makes me wonder why someone could set a different measure of reliability in a courtroom, or they're just inclined to accepting testimony alone in the first place.
Click to expand...
Rockint and LT, you seem to be more used to law and court than I am. Could you please point the holes in the following reasoning of mine?

IMHO the fallacious nature of the "in court we accept eyewitness reports as reliable enough to condemn people, so why shouldn't we accept them as good enough to validade bigfoot?" line becomes clear from the following considerations.

The main problems is related to standards and methodology. The testimony of an eyewitness in court is (or is supposed to be) subject to much more rigorous investigations than bigfoot eyewitness reports are subject to by bigfoot study groups and enthusiasts.

Many of those alleged sightings are composed by nothing but newspaper articles; others are second- or third-hand accounts. And those where the witness was actually interviewed, well, sorry, but I don't think the interviewers could have been as rigorous as cross examination in court can be.
 
JCR
>>>Anecdotal evidence be it of observations (especially when we don't have an species to observe) stories, hearsay and some emotionally charged arguments may be suggestive of a elusive or rare species.
Anecdotal evidence may lead one to something more verifiable as in a specimen to study or in the case of lacking an actual specimen having a heavy load of logical evidence to support
the hypotheses beyond just wishful thinking, folklore and just having the desire to believe without supporting evidence.


I'll be the first to say anecdotal evidence has SOME value ( and it does) but its the weakest of the bunch and at BEST can only be used to gather hard evidence but it can only accomplish that if it is collected and analyzed properly.

Like wood knocking or call blasting- no one has actually seen a BF do either- they are simply "attributed" to BF

Footprints- IF they were PROPERLY examined forensically- that MIGHT build a case ( I'll give that one a legitimate possibility)

( not addressing hairs,scat and such because if they ever came back legitimately as something conclusively unknown- that would be "compelling" evidence and have some serious horsepower)

>>>Just makes me wonder why someone could set a different measure of reliability in a courtroom, or they're just inclined to accepting testimony alone in the first place.
I don't know if I made a point here, does Bigfoot make a point ?

You make a VERY good and valid point ( as some are opining on the BFF in a thread I was in)

A courtroom is NOT about "proof"- it never was or will be. A court is about "selling" a concept to a jury. ( ask every lawyer- they dont have to "prove" anything- they just have to convince the jury) The jury concept is not a scientific body as they are free to disregard all evidence presented ( or accept) as their individual minds decide and they almost always vote from their emotions,feelings,political views ir whatever.
 
Correa Neto said:
Rockint and LT, you seem to be more used to law and court than I am. Could you please point the holes in the following reasoning of mine?

IMHO the fallacious nature of the "in court we accept eyewitness reports as reliable enough to condemn people, so why shouldn't we accept them as good enough to validade bigfoot?" line becomes clear from the following considerations.

The main problems is related to standards and methodology. The testimony of an eyewitness in court is (or is supposed to be) subject to much more rigorous investigations than bigfoot eyewitness reports are subject to by bigfoot study groups and enthusiasts.

Many of those alleged sightings are composed by nothing but newspaper articles; others are second- or third-hand accounts. And those where the witness was actually interviewed, well, sorry, but I don't think the interviewers could have been as rigorous as cross examination in court can be.
Click to expand...

Thats because in my career, I've been the testifying officer, the expert witness, the plaintiff and defendant LOL

Let me try to assist you here

>>>the fallacious nature of the "in court we accept eyewitness reports as reliable enough to condemn people, so why shouldn't we accept them as good enough to validade bigfoot?" line becomes clear from the following considerations.

Heres where the fork in the road starts- its in the final objective.

The question of "does BF exist" is a "hard answer" ( defined as an absolute- he either does or does not/did or did not- there aint no grey there) and as such is CAPABLE of being proven.

A crime is also a hard answer but is a singular event in time. ( a moment if you will) as opposed to BF "existing" ( which would be 24/7/365 for centuries)

Granted, its always desirable to find the "smoking gun" but proving an event ( rather than a 3 dimensional object) is much more difficult because the "event" ceased to exist. You cannot examine an "event" ( as in put it under a microscope) and analyze it- you can only establish it within a degree of probability. ( reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence)

There will always be an error factor. Also, the law is about JUSTICE with respect to RIGHTS ( neither exist in science) so the standards of law are colored to they effect.

For example- you have a robber ( one who did) and it was shown he lost his job, his life was about to crash and he was otherwise a good person- those are extenuating circumstances that will color the administration of justice ( another concept science doesnt acknowledge)

Then you have the jury process- they have the RIGHT and FREEDOM as "peers" to vote what they THINK. ( and they are not a panel of experts)

An example- Scott Peterson, he was found guilty by a jury but the state did NOT provide 1 iota of anything resembling EVIDENCE he killed anyone.

Science cannot operate like that.

>>>The main problems is related to standards and methodology. The testimony of an eyewitness in court is (or is supposed to be) subject to much more rigorous investigations than bigfoot eyewitness reports are subject to by bigfoot study groups and enthusiasts.

SHOULD be, yes but often cannot be. A court HAS to make a decision ( unlike science who can wait indefinitely) so there are vehicles and tests to gauge witness testimony against. There is also a process to disregard said testimony or even undo a conviction based on same.

It isnt perfect, fails frequently but its the best that can be done in a legal environment.

>>>Many of those alleged sightings are composed by nothing but newspaper articles; others are second- or third-hand accounts. And those where the witness was actually interviewed, well, sorry, but I don't think the interviewers could have been as rigorous as cross examination in court can be

Actually, anything but a FIRST HAND witness account or an ORIGINAL of the evidence would never be allowed into a court under the rules of evidence. it would be considered hearsay.

Stuff like Meldrum's ( and all others) "scientific evaluations" would be thrown out as well as hearsay. Without a type specimen, it would be speculating on a theory and disallowed. ( the objection would be "Your honor, the witness is speculating and calling for a conclusion and the court isnt the proper venue for a scientific conclusion")

So, a case for BF would be hard to even bring in a court but if the witnesses were convincing they might could win in a civil environment ( simple preponderance of the evidence) but not to a criminal standard ( preponderance of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt)
 
The vast majority of claimants to sasquatch sightings cannot even survive written questions on the BFF - especially when the temperature is turned up a tiny bit.
As a matter of fact - that board has revised its "unwritten rules" in order to assure liars that their reports are not ripped to shreds in the first few posts.

Look at the obfuscating and dissemination that is posted on this board by the "believers" when direct questions are asked.

It is ludicrous to think such people's fabrications could survive a full on attack by a lawyer in a court room setting (not to mention that their getting past a real investigatory interview would be nearly impossible).
 
Oh man, dont get me started LOL

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=24052&st=132

read the comments

>>>I really do not understand the connection between law enforcement investigation and bigfoot research. Are they compatible?

NO LOL, a LE investigation is conducted by trained professionals with proven standards,methods and techniques. Certainly feelings are considered but not at the expense of the investigation.

The only "woo-istic' defense is the argument from emotion that you cant question them hard because you may upset them, make their feeling hurt, drive them underground ( insert lame assed appeal to whatever emotional response will work for the individual)

What that means in non woo English is just "believe" because it fits our world view and its a "true" story because to question it isnt "nice" and you might do something "mean" by showing holes in their account.

In woo-ism, a "fact" is a generally accepted BELIEF that fits the groupthink and is "nice". It requires no verification,validation. critical thinking or attempt to examine by legitimate accepted sciences ( in fact, it CRINGES at the thought).

Yet, the woo is the FIRST person to whine and opine "oh wooo [ woe] is me. The established sciences wont lift a finger to help me, give me money to investigate, invest their money to investigate or[ insert lame begging here]. Those big meanies in their ivory towers wont accept my word and now my feewings are hurt. They give money for the IBW and SETI but wont even look at my BF. WAAAA WOOOOO"

Yet every time REAL science or REAL investigations ( which could accomplish their desires for legitimacy, committment of resources and vindication) try- they get demonized for being "meanie heads" and not being "nice" because they dont just "believe and accept".

The mind of a woo is an interesting contradiction in terms. A mind thinks- a woo believes.
 
makaya325 said:
Long, can you please explain how the last one is bogus?
Click to expand...

That disclaimer at the bottom saying these STORIES are for informational purposes only and that this is an "instructional" paper ( a sample paper on how to write a paper) is a good start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom