Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[dmaker]

^^ That's an interesting post. My lay person take on this is that peer review is the agreed upon arena where scientists can challenge, for lack of a better word, each other's findings. By having put nothing into that arena for serious challenge, Dr.Meldrum is deliberately avoiding a fight he knows that he cannot win.

So to challenge him outside of that arena would be to put opinion against opinion. And I am not sure where that is going to satisfy anyone ultimately.

 

[Dinwar]

My lay person take on this is that peer review is the agreed upon arena where scientists can challenge, for lack of a better word, each other's findings.

Well, one of them. Academic conferences are another arena, but being accepted into one generally requires an abstract that's reviewed before presentation (anyone who's presented at one can attest, however, that you don't always give the talk the abstract is for).

 

[The Shrike]

If I write a paper (a serious one, not some tongue-in-cheek piece for April 1st) demonstrating that mermaids aren't real, why would a journal waste the space to publish it? Everyone already knows that there are no mermaids. Apart from a handful of cranks, the scientific community is thoroughly convinced that Bigfoot is mere myth, so until someone can make the case that it's something more, there is zero incentive to waste journal space with a leper that says there's no bigfoot. Unlike homeopathy or anti-vax woo, there doesn't appear to be a public health risk to Bigfoot either. It's just some people pretending there's a big monkey in the woods, so it's perceived to be harmless.

 

[The Shrike]

"leper", autocorrect? Seriously?

 

[Resume]

"leper", autocorrect? Seriously?

It reads better that way. A nice chuckle to start my morning.

 

[Jodie]

Yep. thought that was on purpose.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

^ They would still have Bindernagel.

I'm sure he is a pleasant gentleman,

I'm quite sure he isn't. They're bubbly and charming so long as they are in control of the script. But you start challenging their obvious bias, and just see how quickly they become nasty.

All they've got are underhanded manipulative tactics which require a lack of scruples to deploy. Don't mistake the smiling face of a proponent when peddling fallacies they know are wrong themselves. Con men all learn to put on a mask of charm while working their agenda. This is an important tactic for disarming an opponent. They also excel at needling their opponents as a means of trying to provoke them and then capitalize on a claim they are an unreasonable "angry person".

The legendary Peter Byrne has been the best at amassing money over decades while putting on a completely phony mask of studious professionalism and charm. But he is a fraud without scruples. We can't mistake the act they put on for what kind of people they are.

 

[Jerrymander]

Here's a BFF thread discussing Bigfoot and peer review

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/39894-the-problems-with-peer-review-in-establishing-new-science/

 

[jerrywayne]

I'm quite sure he isn't. They're bubbly and charming so long as they are in control of the script. But you start challenging their obvious bias, and just see how quickly they become nasty.

All they've got are underhanded manipulative tactics which require a lack of scruples to deploy. Don't mistake the smiling face of a proponent when peddling fallacies they know are wrong themselves. Con men all learn to put on a mask of charm while working their agenda. This is an important tactic for disarming an opponent. They also excel at needling their opponents as a means of trying to provoke them and then capitalize on a claim they are an unreasonable "angry person".

The legendary Peter Byrne has been the best at amassing money over decades while putting on a completely phony mask of studious professionalism and charm. But he is a fraud without scruples. We can't mistake the act they put on for what kind of people they are.

Byrne was helpful, a "fraud without scruples" or not. He exposed Ivan Marx and has rightfully cast doubt on Bob Titmus. (Titmus was suspected by Sanderson as well.)

 

[Drewbot]

I'm quite sure he isn't. They're bubbly and charming so long as they are in control of the script. But you start challenging their obvious bias, and just see how quickly they become nasty.

All they've got are underhanded manipulative tactics which require a lack of scruples to deploy. Don't mistake the smiling face of a proponent when peddling fallacies they know are wrong themselves. Con men all learn to put on a mask of charm while working their agenda. This is an important tactic for disarming an opponent. They also excel at needling their opponents as a means of trying to provoke them and then capitalize on a claim they are an unreasonable "angry person".

The legendary Peter Byrne has been the best at amassing money over decades while putting on a completely phony mask of studious professionalism and charm. But he is a fraud without scruples. We can't mistake the act they put on for what kind of people they are.

I know this firsthand. Dr. Meldrum can get really nasty, like Tourette's syndrome nasty, if you even pose a rational objection to some of his posts. He will blow up, and then after a cooling off period come back and apologize.

 

[jerrywayne]

I think that Dr. Meldrum is a bit arrogant. He forever wants to lecture mainstream science on its treatment of Bigfoot. But as to the anger issue, I've seen Ben Radford, who I admire a lot, also melt down during a give and take blogging exercise. It happens. I've been pissed myself over at BFF sometimes.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Who knew talkin Bigfoot could lead to such a deep well of emotion? Meldrum gettin his whiskers in a twist? Not very mormonlike.

 

[NightStar76]

Okay. Seriously. There's no reason to get agitated one way or another over bigfoot. I'm an amateur cryptozoologist (though I entered the field through folklore and wildlife interest, not through the field of zoology, and the actual existence of creatures matters less to me than it may to others).

As a scientific hypothesis, the existence of Bigfoot can be proven or disproven. Right now, the evidence strongly points to there ain't no such animal, though I'm a fan of (relatively) recent extinction for wildmen.

In general, though...

three things. First, accusing people of being liars is a good way to upset them. Even scientists. I've coldcocked someone for calling me a liar. People with more patience can get irritable and sniffy before they reach that point.

Second, belief in bigfoot causes no harm. It can be wrong or right or irrelevant. Bigfoot could be real or fake or aliens or hallucinations or the mystical dreams of fairies given spiritual form, but it doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't even hurt 'science', which seems to be the general consensus. Yes, people spending money looking for bigfoot could be using that money elsewhere, but in all honesty, they probably wouldn't be using it to fund the type of science you approve of anyway. Let people have their fun.

Third, there is no rational reason to completely dismiss the existence of large unknown animals in general. Cuvier did so and lived to be proven wrong twice, and the rolls have been continually added to ever since.

 

[GT/CS]

Three statements and all are wrong.
Well, the first one isn't wrong but if people don't want to be called liars they shouldn't lie. And heaven forbid they might get upset!!
I suggest you read some of the bigfoot threads on this site.

 

[Resume]

Okay. Seriously. There's no reason to get agitated one way or another over bigfoot. I'm an amateur cryptozoologist (though I entered the field through folklore and wildlife interest, not through the field of zoology, and the actual existence of creatures matters less to me than it may to others).

As a scientific hypothesis, the existence of Bigfoot can be proven or disproven. Right now, the evidence strongly points to there ain't no such animal, though I'm a fan of (relatively) recent extinction for wildmen.

In general, though...

three things. First, accusing people of being liars is a good way to upset them. Even scientists. I've coldcocked someone for calling me a liar. People with more patience can get irritable and sniffy before they reach that point.

You've assaulted someone for calling you a name?

Second, belief in bigfoot causes no harm. It can be wrong or right or irrelevant. Bigfoot could be real or fake or aliens or hallucinations or the mystical dreams of fairies given spiritual form, but it doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't even hurt 'science', which seems to be the general consensus. Yes, people spending money looking for bigfoot could be using that money elsewhere, but in all honesty, they probably wouldn't be using it to fund the type of science you approve of anyway. Let people have their fun.

Fringe beliefs such as this one cause harm: loss of money, family, jobs, etc.

Third, there is no rational reason to completely dismiss the existence of large unknown animals in general. Cuvier did so and lived to be proven wrong twice, and the rolls have been continually added to ever since.

I think this example (bigfoot) is specifically dismissed because of how and where it's alleged to exist without ever leaving any physical trace.

 

[Drewbot]

Third, there is no rational reason to completely dismiss the existence of large unknown animals in general. Cuvier did so and lived to be proven wrong twice, and the rolls have been continually added to ever since.

Is there a rational reason to completely dismiss the existence of large unknown animals in the 'Woods behind the trailer park'?

 

[NightStar76]

I could, but since what you just said was nonsense I'm not entirely sure I should bother. Number 2 especially is not a question of right or wrong, it is historical fact. Cuvier died in 1832. His statement on the impossibility of large mammals being discovered was made in 1812. Between those two points, australia was opened up and explorers began to, you know, explore. A few animals were added to the list. Since his death, a few hundred new animals have been added to the knowledge of western science; most famous being the Giant Panda, the Gorilla and the komodo dragon.

Number 1 is... weird. I don't even know how that statement is wrong. Do you not get annoyed when you're accused of being a liar? Because that feels strange.

Number 3 is... wow, really? What harm? Quo malus?

 

[Drewbot]

Fringe beliefs such as this one cause harm: loss of money, family, jobs, etc.

Teenagers getting stuck on a mountain in a Blizzard trying to emulate Bigfoot hunters on TV?

People who think Bigfoot lives on their property shooting at shadowy figures behind the bushes?

How about the couple who got shot at by overly-enthusiastic Bigfooters?

No harm? really?

 

[NightStar76]

You've assaulted someone for calling you a name?

Yes. Yes I have. That is why I stated it as a fact. A few hundred years ago I would have killed them in a duel. Under the Shahshana in Persia, had I proven it to be libel, they would have been taken off and executed. Call me old fashioned. Also, quick to violent rage. It is a problem.

Fringe beliefs such as this one cause harm: loss of money, family, jobs, etc.

Not your problem. It isn't. Who cares? Why do you care? People will do what they want.

I think this example (bigfoot is specifically dismissed because of how and where it's alleged to exist without ever leaving any physical trace.

And my statement was about cryptids in general. I had earlier stated that I don't believe there is a bigfoot. It is a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven and so far has been consistently disproven.

 

[NightStar76]

Teenagers getting stuck on a mountain in a Blizzard trying to emulate Bigfoot hunters on TV?

Oh well. They should have been smarter and more careful. Not my problem.

People who think Bigfoot lives on their property shooting at shadowy figures behind the bushes?

We have laws to deal with that anyway. Plenty of people get shot anyway without bigfoot being involved. This is silly.

How about the couple who got shot at by overly-enthusiastic Bigfooters?

...A sitting vice president shot a man he thought was a quail. Again, nothing to do with bigfoot.

No harm? really?

No harm. Really.