06-19-2008, 02:16 PM
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "But Dr. Krantz, Dr. Meldrum and the BFRO have already addressed the very problems associated with what you presented. They have done a convincing job of showing their readers that all points have been met.
[#008000]This is one of the keys right here. Dr. Krantz and Dr. Meldrum have done a convincing job of showing thier readers - those readers are not scientifically oriented and are not educated enough to know good evidence from poor evidence. [/#008000]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#008000][#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] [my clarification in bracets][/#008000]
[#008000]"[#000000]3. Experimentation to demonstrate the truthness or falsness of the hypothesis.
-Examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic footprints.
-Examination of hair, scat, skin samples which match no known mammal or ape species. [[#008000]Does not mean it is a BigFoot[/#008000]]
-Examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic dermal ridges on skin/hand casts.
-Examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic Skookum Cast body impression of unclassifed primate.
-Acoustic and Linguistic examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic sounds matching no known animal.
-Biomechanical examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic locomotion of Pattersin-Gimlin Film creature.
-Examination of reported unclassified ape sightings which match a perfectly natural Gaussian distribution. [[#008000]Does not mean much with out supporting evidence[/#008000]] [/#000000][/#008000]
[#008000][#000000][/#000000][/#008000]
[#008000][#008000][#008000]Quantity does not substitute for quality when it comes to evidence.[/#008000] On a scientific level, that evidence is not convincing in and of itself. Until the evidence suggests that there could not be an alternative explanation, it is not compelling.[/#008000]
[/#008000][#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "Majority of scientists refuse to looka at all above evidence under point three. They say it is competely false and does not meet the scientific requirements for evidence. They then state almost exactly what you stated:"
[#008000]The reason they reject the evidence is solely based on the minimum criteria of what should be considered as acceptable. [b][#008000]There could be other explanations for the phenomena. [/#008000][/#008000][/b]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "So in effect, real Bigfoot evidence becomes part of a viscious cycle that does not permit any evidence which the majority of scientists treat as unacceptable simply because of the outrageous and unprobable existence of a "man-ape" as Bigfoot/Sasquatch is most oftenly called. "
[#008000]There is no conspiracy of scientists and the vicious cycle consists of the nature of science itself. Evidence has to be able to stand up to scutiny. The evidence has to unambiguously support the hypothesis. Opinion about evidence is not fact. Science is not a democracy. Subjective opinion is not acceptable. All evidence is subject to rigorous evaluation. It has to stand on it's own merit. Merely because Dr. Meldrum asserts that a casting must be, in his opinion, from a BigFoot, does not mean that it in fact does. "We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts." [/#008000]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "why did you feel so compelled to include the quotations in your previous quote about those who are against Dr. Meldrum's findings?"
[#008000]I wasn't compelled to do it. It shows that the scientific community is unconvinced by the evidence and with Dr. Meldrum's hypothesis about it.[/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "Why not allow him and the rest of the Bigfoot supporters to go onto point 4 to which I now go." ...
[#008000]Dr. Meldrum is, and has been, at liberty to present his findings to any number of peer review scientific journals. I suspect though, that he really knows that his evidence does not stand up to the criteria required for analysis - he did after all, have to submit to, and endure a defense of his Ph.D. disertation - which all scientist do. His professional submission of a paper would experience the same (if not more so) scrutiny. [#008000]Science is brutal when it comes to self evaluation.[/#008000] [/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "Why is it that human fingerprints and dermal ridges are not treated as "hoaxes" when taken by police from a crime scene but when dermal ridges of identical quality are taken from Bigfoot prints they are automatically replied to as "questionable" and "probable hoaxes."
[#008000]Simply because we have both humans and the finger prints of them to easily compare. All we have from BigFoot are some unidentified castings that could be just about anything - including human invention. [/#008000][#008000]The evidence does not uniquely point to any singular probability. [/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "Why is it so hard for other scientist to take a look at them?"
[#008000]Because resources are scarce, science education is grossly underfunded and the evidence thus far has been unconvincing and considered as substandard as far as the scientific community has seen. Again, science is not a democracy, scientists do not vote on what is acceptable. The evidence is what decides. Our society is quickly becoming scientifically illiterate and there is a profusion of junk science and psuedo academia that permeates our country. The paltry resources that are available are often shunted away from science and allocated to other areas. It is the same reason that law enforcement does get irate when someone makes crank 911 calls. It is the same reason that our education system has problems with underpaid teachers and are under supplied. The resources are just not there for things that are really important in the big picture.[/#008000]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "No hard feelings, no personal attacks, just some thoughts. "
[#008000]Agreed ! No hard feelings.[/#008000]
[signature]
[#008000]This is one of the keys right here. Dr. Krantz and Dr. Meldrum have done a convincing job of showing thier readers - those readers are not scientifically oriented and are not educated enough to know good evidence from poor evidence. [/#008000]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#008000][#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] [my clarification in bracets][/#008000]
[#008000]"[#000000]3. Experimentation to demonstrate the truthness or falsness of the hypothesis.
-Examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic footprints.
-Examination of hair, scat, skin samples which match no known mammal or ape species. [[#008000]Does not mean it is a BigFoot[/#008000]]
-Examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic dermal ridges on skin/hand casts.
-Examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic Skookum Cast body impression of unclassifed primate.
-Acoustic and Linguistic examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic sounds matching no known animal.
-Biomechanical examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic locomotion of Pattersin-Gimlin Film creature.
-Examination of reported unclassified ape sightings which match a perfectly natural Gaussian distribution. [[#008000]Does not mean much with out supporting evidence[/#008000]] [/#000000][/#008000]
[#008000][#000000][/#000000][/#008000]
[#008000][#008000][#008000]Quantity does not substitute for quality when it comes to evidence.[/#008000] On a scientific level, that evidence is not convincing in and of itself. Until the evidence suggests that there could not be an alternative explanation, it is not compelling.[/#008000]
[/#008000][#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "Majority of scientists refuse to looka at all above evidence under point three. They say it is competely false and does not meet the scientific requirements for evidence. They then state almost exactly what you stated:"
[#008000]The reason they reject the evidence is solely based on the minimum criteria of what should be considered as acceptable. [b][#008000]There could be other explanations for the phenomena. [/#008000][/#008000][/b]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "So in effect, real Bigfoot evidence becomes part of a viscious cycle that does not permit any evidence which the majority of scientists treat as unacceptable simply because of the outrageous and unprobable existence of a "man-ape" as Bigfoot/Sasquatch is most oftenly called. "
[#008000]There is no conspiracy of scientists and the vicious cycle consists of the nature of science itself. Evidence has to be able to stand up to scutiny. The evidence has to unambiguously support the hypothesis. Opinion about evidence is not fact. Science is not a democracy. Subjective opinion is not acceptable. All evidence is subject to rigorous evaluation. It has to stand on it's own merit. Merely because Dr. Meldrum asserts that a casting must be, in his opinion, from a BigFoot, does not mean that it in fact does. "We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts." [/#008000]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "why did you feel so compelled to include the quotations in your previous quote about those who are against Dr. Meldrum's findings?"
[#008000]I wasn't compelled to do it. It shows that the scientific community is unconvinced by the evidence and with Dr. Meldrum's hypothesis about it.[/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "Why not allow him and the rest of the Bigfoot supporters to go onto point 4 to which I now go." ...
[#008000]Dr. Meldrum is, and has been, at liberty to present his findings to any number of peer review scientific journals. I suspect though, that he really knows that his evidence does not stand up to the criteria required for analysis - he did after all, have to submit to, and endure a defense of his Ph.D. disertation - which all scientist do. His professional submission of a paper would experience the same (if not more so) scrutiny. [#008000]Science is brutal when it comes to self evaluation.[/#008000] [/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "Why is it that human fingerprints and dermal ridges are not treated as "hoaxes" when taken by police from a crime scene but when dermal ridges of identical quality are taken from Bigfoot prints they are automatically replied to as "questionable" and "probable hoaxes."
[#008000]Simply because we have both humans and the finger prints of them to easily compare. All we have from BigFoot are some unidentified castings that could be just about anything - including human invention. [/#008000][#008000]The evidence does not uniquely point to any singular probability. [/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "Why is it so hard for other scientist to take a look at them?"
[#008000]Because resources are scarce, science education is grossly underfunded and the evidence thus far has been unconvincing and considered as substandard as far as the scientific community has seen. Again, science is not a democracy, scientists do not vote on what is acceptable. The evidence is what decides. Our society is quickly becoming scientifically illiterate and there is a profusion of junk science and psuedo academia that permeates our country. The paltry resources that are available are often shunted away from science and allocated to other areas. It is the same reason that law enforcement does get irate when someone makes crank 911 calls. It is the same reason that our education system has problems with underpaid teachers and are under supplied. The resources are just not there for things that are really important in the big picture.[/#008000]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#000000]You wrote:[/#000000] "No hard feelings, no personal attacks, just some thoughts. "
[#008000]Agreed ! No hard feelings.[/#008000]
[signature]