06-19-2008, 08:16 PM
[#000000]Fishhound wrote:[/#000000]
[#008000][#000000]"[/#000000] those readers are not scientifically oriented and are not educated enough to know good evidence from poor evidence. [/#008000][#000000]"[/#000000]
That is a contradiciton. How can you say that the evidence is poor when you have not reviewed any of Krantz or Meldrum's work. Also, how can you say this when you have not read any of their work. That in itself is scientifically unethical. What is probably better to say is that it is what the general mood of scientists is. You cannot personally make such a statement unless you have reviewed it or at least read their work.
" [#008000]Quantity does not substitute for quality when it comes to evidence. 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][#000000]"[/#000000]
Same thing. You cannot say this, or use it as an argument against Krantz or Meldrum, or Bigfoot, unless you have examined the evidence. No scientists who has examined the evidence has ever said such a statement, not one.
"[#008000]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]
This statement abot Dr. Meldrum also applies to your above quoted statements. Your statements cannot be fact unless you examine and read his evidence and make a conclusiong then.
You wrote:
[#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. The evidence does not uniquely point to any singular probability. [/#008000]
Really? Are you prepared to dispute or question the findings of Dr. Jimmiy Chilcutt at Texas A&M (He is also an officer at the Conroe, Texas PD). He appears before many court cases each year about murders, and everything else. He is probably the TOP expert on human and primate dermal ridges. He is a man with an impecable character and reputation. Are you prepared to call him a pseudoscientist?
Are you prepared to dispute the work of molecular biologist Craig Newton who has examined hair samples? His work is also some of the most respected and admired. He has top of the art equipment and laboratory. Are you prepared to call him a pseudoscientist?
More:
-Examination of reported unclassified ape sightings which match a perfectly natural Gaussian distribution. [[#008000]Does not mean much with out supporting evidence[/#008000]]
Are you prepared to say this again and question Dr. Henner Fahrenbach? He has done this with countless other animals and none has ever said his work is pseudoscience. He in an absolute respected expert in his field.
-Examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic Skookum Cast body impression of unclassifed primate.
Do you want to say, without your own examination, that the work of Dr. Daris Swindler is psedoscience? Again, he is in the top of his field. None has in the past called his work questionable or pseudoscience. How can you do this without yourself examining what you are saying is pseudoscience?
Lastly, are you prepared to dispute the following:
(-Examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic footprints.)
Dr. Meldrum has authored numerous works before getting into Bigfoot research. He has done a great deal to show the evolutionary path and relationship of apes and human upright walking as well as works on anatomy of primates. I would gladly list his works if you so wish. Noone ever called them pseudoscience. They have been referenced by other scientists in other works.
Knowing that, isn't it interesting that when he does the SAME QUALITY WORK FOR BIGFOOT RESEARCH it is called pseudoscience by those who do not wish to examine it.
Somone who has not personally examined evidence they say is:
[#008000]Quantity does not substitute for quality when it comes to evidence. 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]
cannot make such a statement. If I am to take your statement and consider it has merit behind it you must provide your review of Krantz and Meldrum's work. Otherwise it is just like I said in my last post. It is just the general mood of scientists who do not want to take a look at the evidence. That is what you said: [#008000]Science is brutal when it comes to self evaluation. [/#008000]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#008000]Until the evidence suggests that there could not be an alternative explanation, it is not compelling.
[/#008000][#000000]You have obviously not glanced at or reviewed Krantz's or Melrum's or any Bigfoot researcher's work. If you had, you would know that there is no other explanation for the evidence.[/#000000]
Further:
[#008000]and the evidence thus far has been unconvincing and considered as substandard as far as the scientific community has seen.[/#008000]
[#008000][#000000]Before you can make this statement yourself you must examine the work of Bigfoot Researchers for yourself. Otherwise the statement is meaningless. This is the reason the scientific community deems the evidence "substandard." This is real pseudoscience, making statements about the authenticity and quality of evidence without one examining it for oneself.[/#000000][/#008000][#008000]
[/#008000]
Again, I challenge you or anyone to produce or refer a single work(s) which definitevely disproves the above Bigfoot evidence or the work of Dr. Krantz or Dr. Meldrum, or any of the scientists researching the Bigfoot evidence. If one cannot be produced or does not exist, how can anone say that the evidence is substandard and unconvincing? Where is the peer review here? Sounds like the majority of scientists are passing off the evidence because they cannot dispute it effectively. Again, pure pseudoscience. Complety unethical.
Again, and again:
[#008000]and the evidence thus far has been unconvincing and considered as substandard as far as the scientific community has seen.[/#008000]
If this line of logic is continued not even a body or carcass will convince the "skeptical" scientific community, as the late Dr. Grover S. Krantz has said before.
[signature]
[#008000][#000000]"[/#000000] those readers are not scientifically oriented and are not educated enough to know good evidence from poor evidence. [/#008000][#000000]"[/#000000]
That is a contradiciton. How can you say that the evidence is poor when you have not reviewed any of Krantz or Meldrum's work. Also, how can you say this when you have not read any of their work. That in itself is scientifically unethical. What is probably better to say is that it is what the general mood of scientists is. You cannot personally make such a statement unless you have reviewed it or at least read their work.
" [#008000]Quantity does not substitute for quality when it comes to evidence. 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][#000000]"[/#000000]
Same thing. You cannot say this, or use it as an argument against Krantz or Meldrum, or Bigfoot, unless you have examined the evidence. No scientists who has examined the evidence has ever said such a statement, not one.
"[#008000]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]
This statement abot Dr. Meldrum also applies to your above quoted statements. Your statements cannot be fact unless you examine and read his evidence and make a conclusiong then.
You wrote:
[#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. The evidence does not uniquely point to any singular probability. [/#008000]
Really? Are you prepared to dispute or question the findings of Dr. Jimmiy Chilcutt at Texas A&M (He is also an officer at the Conroe, Texas PD). He appears before many court cases each year about murders, and everything else. He is probably the TOP expert on human and primate dermal ridges. He is a man with an impecable character and reputation. Are you prepared to call him a pseudoscientist?
Are you prepared to dispute the work of molecular biologist Craig Newton who has examined hair samples? His work is also some of the most respected and admired. He has top of the art equipment and laboratory. Are you prepared to call him a pseudoscientist?
More:
-Examination of reported unclassified ape sightings which match a perfectly natural Gaussian distribution. [[#008000]Does not mean much with out supporting evidence[/#008000]]
Are you prepared to say this again and question Dr. Henner Fahrenbach? He has done this with countless other animals and none has ever said his work is pseudoscience. He in an absolute respected expert in his field.
-Examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic Skookum Cast body impression of unclassifed primate.
Do you want to say, without your own examination, that the work of Dr. Daris Swindler is psedoscience? Again, he is in the top of his field. None has in the past called his work questionable or pseudoscience. How can you do this without yourself examining what you are saying is pseudoscience?
Lastly, are you prepared to dispute the following:
(-Examination and [[#008000]Not[/#008000]-proving] of authentic footprints.)
Dr. Meldrum has authored numerous works before getting into Bigfoot research. He has done a great deal to show the evolutionary path and relationship of apes and human upright walking as well as works on anatomy of primates. I would gladly list his works if you so wish. Noone ever called them pseudoscience. They have been referenced by other scientists in other works.
Knowing that, isn't it interesting that when he does the SAME QUALITY WORK FOR BIGFOOT RESEARCH it is called pseudoscience by those who do not wish to examine it.
Somone who has not personally examined evidence they say is:
[#008000]Quantity does not substitute for quality when it comes to evidence. 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]
cannot make such a statement. If I am to take your statement and consider it has merit behind it you must provide your review of Krantz and Meldrum's work. Otherwise it is just like I said in my last post. It is just the general mood of scientists who do not want to take a look at the evidence. That is what you said: [#008000]Science is brutal when it comes to self evaluation. [/#008000]
[#008000][/#008000]
[#008000]Until the evidence suggests that there could not be an alternative explanation, it is not compelling.
[/#008000][#000000]You have obviously not glanced at or reviewed Krantz's or Melrum's or any Bigfoot researcher's work. If you had, you would know that there is no other explanation for the evidence.[/#000000]
Further:
[#008000]and the evidence thus far has been unconvincing and considered as substandard as far as the scientific community has seen.[/#008000]
[#008000][#000000]Before you can make this statement yourself you must examine the work of Bigfoot Researchers for yourself. Otherwise the statement is meaningless. This is the reason the scientific community deems the evidence "substandard." This is real pseudoscience, making statements about the authenticity and quality of evidence without one examining it for oneself.[/#000000][/#008000][#008000]
[/#008000]
Again, I challenge you or anyone to produce or refer a single work(s) which definitevely disproves the above Bigfoot evidence or the work of Dr. Krantz or Dr. Meldrum, or any of the scientists researching the Bigfoot evidence. If one cannot be produced or does not exist, how can anone say that the evidence is substandard and unconvincing? Where is the peer review here? Sounds like the majority of scientists are passing off the evidence because they cannot dispute it effectively. Again, pure pseudoscience. Complety unethical.
Again, and again:
[#008000]and the evidence thus far has been unconvincing and considered as substandard as far as the scientific community has seen.[/#008000]
If this line of logic is continued not even a body or carcass will convince the "skeptical" scientific community, as the late Dr. Grover S. Krantz has said before.
[signature]