Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[William Parcher]

As I see it the history of discovery of species is not what's important. The fact that we are still discovering new species today is.

The history of the discovery of species includes modern discoveries. History includes anything before this moment.

The history of new marmoset species discovery is not at all full of sighting reports and plaster casts.

I also had blind cave fish in my goldfish bowl in the 70's.

There has got to be a good joke to be made from this.

 

[Resume]

I'm not interested in such activities as it serves no useful purpose.
Chris B.

You are interested in at least one activity that appears to serve no useful purpose.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The history of the discovery of species includes modern discoveries. History includes anything before this moment.

The history of new marmoset species discovery is not at all full of sighting reports and plaster casts.


There has got to be a good joke to be made from this.

The history of discovery is not important to me. I'm interested only what is left and yet to be discovered.

To argue the existence or absence of an unknown creature using the history of discovery of species is a dead end.

I thought you'd like that about my fish. You're free to imply about it as well, but it's also a fact. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You are interested in at least one activity that appears to serve no useful purpose.

lol I have several activities that serve no useful purpose, as others and likely you as well. Chris B.

 

[Dinwar]

The Lewis and Clark expedition didn't bring in a Bigfoot body so I'm not that interested in their exploits as it relates to Bigfoot.

Ah. So only hits count--any data that tends to disprove your hypothesis gets dismissed.

When a scientific expedition sets out and fails to find what you say should exist, we must begin to question if it exists. If such expeditions fail for more than two years we can dismiss the idea that the creature exists.

Nope, it's pointing out something odd that you may have missed.

You make an astounding number of assumptions about our reading capacity.

I don't think I've implied the discovery of new species happens regularly, I think what I said was it still happens, even primates.

Never mind the fact that the new species tend to be orders of magnitude smaller than bigfoot should be, or the fact that they're almost universally found in areas that are not heavily developed (the ones found in heavily developed areas are many orders of magnitude smaller than bigfoot), or the fact that those finding new species operate via a set of protocols that bigfoot believers, including you, have abandoned wholesale, or.....

Some here seek a debate in which someone must present evidence and all they are required to do is deny and ridicule.

That IS all we are required to do. If someone comes in and says "X exists", it is sufficient for us to show that their proof does not support their assertion. We need not offer an alternative explanation; in science "Your data do not support your conclusion" is a perfectly valid conclusion to an argument.

Terming standard scientific debate "deny and ridicule" is nothing more than a smear against those who disagree with you, and a transparent attempt to paint them as vicious, irrational, and overly hostilie. If you think any of those three terms apply to this conversation, never get into a real debate with us science types! I've been asked by bar tenders to calm the discussions down any number of times, and those were the friendly ones.

As I see it the history of discovery of species is not what's important.

Translation: "Let's not look at the facts, or see if what I'm doing in any way relates to what others have done. They found new species, I want to find a new species; obviously the situations are identical!"

 

[Resume]

lol I have several activities that serve no useful purpose, as others and likely you as well. Chris B.

I'm here every day, so . . . yes.

 

[Dinwar]

The history of discovery is not important to me. I'm interested only what is left and yet to be discovered.

Are you familiar with rarefraction curves?

 

[Correa Neto]

Of course they couldn't bring back a body since their main job was to check on an army breeding project to develop a soldier with bearlike fur to withstand the cold and a pigs stomach so he could thrive on army swill, the result, the ManBearPig was what is called Bigfoot.

Nope. ManBearPig is a fake created by the gubnmint to HIDE teh FACT that Stalin's man-ape hybrid soldiers were succesfully inflirtated in USA in the 50's with internal help from hidden commies.

If you think this story is cartoon like I might remind you of the "Buffalo Soldier", an attempt to combine the infantry and the cavalry.

Nope again. That would be infantry and cowlery hybrid. Infantry and cavalry hybrids are quite older and known as centaurs.

 

[Drewbot]

The Lewis and Clark expedition didn't bring in a Bigfoot body so I'm not that interested in their exploits as it relates to Bigfoot.

This is the type of evidence you should be interested in. Let's look at the Bigfoot Data from several (all) expeditions in North America to catalog animals.

EXPEDITIONS TO CATALOG ANIMALS IN NORTH AMERICAN HISTORY = All

NUMBER OF BIGFOOT FOUND = Zero

That is evidence. But because it doesn't support your belief, you apply a Gap argument to the evidence showing lack of existence.

 

[The Shrike]

What is this thing that convinces people they've seen something so incredibly rare that its existence cannot even be demonstrated and also think they've seen something so incredibly rare that the scientific consensus has been for decades that it is extinct?

Chris, let's imagine for the moment that bigfoots are real and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers survived at least through the 1970s. Care to comment on the unimaginable odds that you would see both species in your lifetime? Care to comment further on the overwhelming odds that you're just another human, just as fallible as anyone else, and have misidentified both the "bigfoot" and the Ivorybill you claim to have seen?

 

[bruto]

The history of discovery is not important to me. I'm interested only what is left and yet to be discovered.

To argue the existence or absence of an unknown creature using the history of discovery of species is a dead end. I thought you'd like that about my fish. You're free to imply about it as well, but it's also a fact. Chris B.

And yet you do just that, when you use the example of other species' discovery as a ray of hope for bigfoot.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Ah. So only hits count--any data that tends to disprove your hypothesis gets dismissed.

When a scientific expedition sets out and fails to find what you say should exist, we must begin to question if it exists. If such expeditions fail for more than two years we can dismiss the idea that the creature exists.

Not at all. Historical data is of no importance to me at this point. Now if I was trying to find the best locations to search for unknown primates, I might reflect on historical data as well as modern sightings to determine a good place to start looking. I already have a site.

So, according to your argument, if Lewis and Clark didn't find one, then they don't exist? That's kind of an odd way to look at it.

My wife couldn't find my car keys in my jeans the other day, but the keys existed, she just neglected to search my watch pocket, I found them for her.

You make an astounding number of assumptions about our reading capacity.

With some it's either a reading comprehension error or they're ignoring statements.

Never mind the fact that the new species tend to be orders of magnitude smaller than bigfoot should be, or the fact that they're almost universally found in areas that are not heavily developed (the ones found in heavily developed areas are many orders of magnitude smaller than bigfoot), or the fact that those finding new species operate via a set of protocols that bigfoot believers, including you, have abandoned wholesale, or.....

That IS all we are required to do. If someone comes in and says "X exists", it is sufficient for us to show that their proof does not support their assertion. We need not offer an alternative explanation; in science "Your data do not support your conclusion" is a perfectly valid conclusion to an argument.

Terming standard scientific debate "deny and ridicule" is nothing more than a smear against those who disagree with you, and a transparent attempt to paint them as vicious, irrational, and overly hostilie. If you think any of those three terms apply to this conversation, never get into a real debate with us science types! I've been asked by bar tenders to calm the discussions down any number of times, and those were the friendly ones.

Translation: "Let's not look at the facts, or see if what I'm doing in any way relates to what others have done. They found new species, I want to find a new species; obviously the situations are identical!"

I completely understand that you do not accept the possibility that a creature the size of Bigfoot actually exists. I also realize you would like to see real evidence and challenge that evidence. As before, I will be happy to participate as soon as my findings are complete. That will require a body or part.

Are you familiar with rarefraction curves?

I agree completely, whatever scientific method or formula you wish to apply to try and determine the existence of Bigfoot will lean toward nonexistence.

This is the type of evidence you should be interested in. Let's look at the Bigfoot Data from several (all) expeditions in North America to catalog animals.

EXPEDITIONS TO CATALOG ANIMALS IN NORTH AMERICAN HISTORY = All

NUMBER OF BIGFOOT FOUND = Zero

That is evidence. But because it doesn't support your belief, you apply a Gap argument to the evidence showing lack of existence.

See the car keys statement above.

What is this thing that convinces people they've seen something so incredibly rare that its existence cannot even be demonstrated and also think they've seen something so incredibly rare that the scientific consensus has been for decades that it is extinct?

Chris, let's imagine for the moment that bigfoots are real and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers survived at least through the 1970s. Care to comment on the unimaginable odds that you would see both species in your lifetime? Care to comment further on the overwhelming odds that you're just another human, just as fallible as anyone else, and have misidentified both the "bigfoot" and the Ivorybill you claim to have seen?

Animals were one of the driving factors in my life choices. Particularly the study of Primate Biology. I fully realize your position.

The odds are high, but I pulled the handle on a slot machine and won just over $4K once too. One of my research partners hit for over $20K the month before. So while odds are high, somebody's gonna win from time to time.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

And yet you do just that, when you use the example of other species' discovery as a ray of hope for bigfoot.

Well to be fair, I simply believe that since we are still discovering new species it's not impossible to find another.

For those that argue that it is impossible for a large North American primate to exist, I point out that argument is flawed no matter what you base the reasoning on.

To say it is impossible, cannot apply until all remaining unknown species have been discovered. We're not there yet. Chris B.

 

[Correa Neto]

Suuuuure...

Bigfoot will remain possible 'ntill we have described every single protozoa species.

Possible and plausible are not the same thing.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Improbable and impossible are likewise different. Chris B.

 

[Dinwar]

I agree completely, whatever scientific method or formula you wish to apply to try and determine the existence of Bigfoot will lean toward nonexistence.

This is a "No", then.

Rarefraction curves are used to determine completeness of sampling. Essentially, an area is sampled repeatedly for wildlife (either systematically, or using historical data). The number of new species identified in the area ("new" as in "not seen before in this area during previous surveys", including truly new species and known species not previously seen in them) is then plotted. Using various statistical techniques, we can use those plots to determine the probability of discovering new species in that area.

There are a number of assumptions, of course, but the methods work very well for large (>10 kg) mammals.

So, according to your argument, if Lewis and Clark didn't find one, then they don't exist? That's kind of an odd way to look at it.

My argument is that repeated expeditions sent out with the intent to look for novel mammal megafauna failed to find bigfoot. Lewis and Clark was merely a demonstration that even your absurd demands that only government- or university-sponsered expeditions count has been met.

The italicized part was supposed to say "more than two hundred years". Mia copa. Should have been obvious that it was a typo, though, as I've made that point repeatedly in this thread.

With some it's either a reading comprehension error or they're ignoring statements.

Couldn't possibly be that they interpret them differently, or that they've evaluated them fully and found them to be untrue. They disagree with you, so obviously the only explanations are that they can't comprehend what they read or that they are ignoring the evidence!

I completely understand that you do not accept the possibility that a creature the size of Bigfoot actually exists. I also realize you would like to see real evidence and challenge that evidence. As before, I will be happy to participate as soon as my findings are complete. That will require a body or part.

In other words--you've got nothing. Just mere opinion. And I'm supposed to abandon more than ten years of study because you say to.

And you have the audacity to tell ME how science works?!

My wife couldn't find my car keys in my jeans the other day, but the keys existed, she just neglected to search my watch pocket, I found them for her.

That's nothing like bigfoot.

Imagine you lost your car. Now imagine you lost it in an empty lot. Now imagine that you had five hundred people looking in that empty lot for two centuries. And they didn't just fail to find your car--they failed to find any evidence that there had ever been cars in that lot in the first place, and in fact they found evidence that the lot was a forest that had burned. Now imagine you still insisted "I left my car right here! I know it!" THAT is equivalent of what you are doing with bigfoot.

 

[Dinwar]

Improbable and impossible are likewise different. Chris B.

At the point where your only argument is "It's not impossible!" it's close enough for me to say it is.

 

[Resume]

The no bigfoot anywhere thing kinda screws up the bigfoot hypothesis. Especially since the sighting map says they're pretty much everywhere. Now I'm sure there are proponents out there who would love to shove the bigfoot proof up my denialist giggy, but they can't.

 

[Dinwar]

The no bigfoot anywhere thing kinda screws up the bigfoot hypothesis.

That's really the heart of the issue right there. We do not need to prove bigfoot cannot exist. Full stop. It is the obligation of those who think it does to provide the evidence. Until such evidence is provided, the default conclusion is "bigfoot doesn't exist". It's not impossible, in so far as it doesn't violate any laws of physics, but there's absolutely no justification for belief in bigfoot.

Intellectual honesty doesn't mean not saying false things. It means only saying things one can substantiate with evidence.

 

[Drewbot]

Imagine you lost your car. Now imagine you lost it in an empty lot. Now imagine that you had five hundred people looking in that empty lot for two centuries. And they didn't just fail to find your car--they failed to find any evidence that there had ever been cars in that lot in the first place, and in fact they found evidence that the lot was a forest that had burned. Now imagine you still insisted "I left my car right here! I know it!" THAT is equivalent of what you are doing with bigfoot.

Very good.