100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Does anyone have a scientific basis to believe in Bigfoot? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Yeh, I get really annoyed with that "authority" method of trying to prove something. great bean. science is constantly trying to improve it's methodology. how would you suggest they alter their methods so you would no longer be annoyed? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 10/11/09 11:23 AM
|
|
Yeh, I get really annoyed with that "authority" method of trying to prove something. great bean. science is constantly trying to improve it's methodology. how would you suggest they alter their methods so you would no longer be annoyed? I have no problem with real scientists. It is the "powers that be" who want to control all the information getting involved that really annoys me. If a scientist had information and proof about something that certain people did not want made public (and this includes information about history too) there are things done to prevent that information from being known...and/or believed. Sometimes these things are done to the actual scientist. I know of one personally who had ground breaking information about the ozone and other things ... mysteriously that scientist suddenly "went insane." Very suspicious. This kind of thing happens too often. There are mind control operations going on that government uses on people. They discredit people, threaten them, blackmail them etc. Its all about control of information. There are some scientists I do respect and accept as authorities. But who puts the 'official' stamp on what is to be accepted by the standard government and military authorities? It is very political. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys!! this is driving me nuts. It's getting to the point of no return of "crazy". The demand for definitions. 1. Define "bigfoot". 2. Define "science". 3. Define "anecdotal evidence". 4. Define "define". 5. Define "gfy". 6. Define "god". 7. Define "mental illness". 8. Define "semantics". 9. Define "equivalence". This has got to stop, I'm telling you. Or not. Please yourselves. Carry on. As you were. Go get a dictionary or do a search on google. It is not up to us to define everything for you. 
Ahem. I see from your reply you missed my message by a mile. I was not asking for definitions; it just seemed like it. I presented the definitions as outtakes from the texts of this thread and of other threads (you could recognise the more obvious ones, I had hoped.) So what I am saying is that instead of accusing each other of using terms to mean what they mean, and forcing the accused to define their terms, we could and in my opinion should leave the obvious or the undefinabe go their own way. If it's a subject of a thread, like "Who am I?", "If I'm a spirit, what's a soul?", "what am I, chopped liver?", "who is god" or "what is mental illness" then I can say this would be valid. But for one person to say "I went to the school of philosophy at 9th and 42nd", then it's silly to ask this person to define "philosophy" and "the". I see the demands for definition as a slow-up effect in the unfolding of the train of thought between two debaters. If they are forced to deal with the nitty-gritty, they can't concentrate on the big picture. In the seventies there used to be a company-wide slogan, sort of a mission-statement, where I went to school of philosophy: "It's hard to soar with eagles when you work with turkeys." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sun 10/11/09 02:47 PM
|
|
Yeh, I get really annoyed with that "authority" method of trying to prove something. I wonder how many people who are familiar with the general teachings of the relativity theory are accepting it because they understand every step of the mathematical proof of it and they understand the details and the magnitude of the empirical evidence that supports it, and how many talk about it because they accept the authority who communcates that the relativity theory is true and valid. I certainly should shut up, because I don't even try to understand the concept or the math, because I know that if lived to be a thousand years old I would not be able to. So what am I, a person not allowed to use the relativity theory, when I need to use it to prove something else to someone else? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I consider myself to be an open-minded person. Just give me some tangible proof and a plausible explanation. I have watched numerous productions on "the search for Bigfoot". I have several observations which I will elaborate on. But, the most prominent aspect of these forays is that the expedition members rarely, if ever, TAKE A FIREARM with them. Now, if Bigfoot really exists, and they feel confident of encountering it; would they have anything to stop an agitated 800 pound Hominoid? If Bigfoot exists, and in the dimensions proffered, [7-9 feet tall, 500-800 pounds], it would have supernatural strength. An average lowland Gorilla, [5' 9" tall, 400 pounds], can bench press 4000 pound without practice! We could safely assume that a Bigfoot specimen would be able to match that, at the very least. From all accounts, the alleged Bigfoot specimens can run over 30 miles an hour! So, we have an alleged creature that could physically overpower any 5 men, and could outrun any sprinter. Hmmm...it would seem unwise to encounter this creature without an adequate means of defense. Even if they would not encounter Bigfoot, there are still dangerous creatures in the woods, [bears, wolves, mountain lions, moose, and even badgers]. I also find it quite curious that no skeletal remains have ever been found of an alleged Bigfoot specimen. I find it rather difficult to believe that all of the amateur enthusiasts and doctorate crypto-zoologists have not found a single bone! A skeletal specimen would satisfy me that the creature does exist. Now, there are those who claim that the myriad "footprints" provide tangible proof of the creature's existence. Well, many of them have been proven to be fakes. And as for the other ones, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of podiatry and biology could manufacture capable forgeries. Finally, we have purported footage from amateur enthusiasts or hunters with grainy images. In some cases, the parties did have a firearm, which was not used. One would think sooner or later, there would be a yahoo who would chance upon the creature with a 300 Weatherby Magnum, kill the specimen, and ransom it to science for a fortune. For that to happen, Bigfoot would have to actually exist. They don't want to kill it. Could that be a reason not to bring a firearm? Might be a bit precarious though. There is no reward for seeing one. And there are alot of sightings. I am on the fence about it. I always figured I would wait it out. Eventually something will come up that is scientifically tangible if they are here. Of course we may kill them off just like alot of other animals with our need for land so it may be too late when and if we find them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeh, I get really annoyed with that "authority" method of trying to prove something. I wonder how many people who are familiar with the general teachings of the relativity theory are accepting it because they understand every step of the mathematical proof of it and they understand the details and the magnitude of the empirical evidence that supports it, and how many talk about it because they accept the authority who communcates that the relativity theory is true and valid.
I certainly should shut up, because I don't even try to understand the concept or the math, because I know that if lived to be a thousand years old I would not be able to. So what am I, a person not allowed to use the relativity theory, when I need to use it to prove something else to someone else? The “authority” cannot be refuted. Not because it has irrefutable logic or undeniable scientific proof. But because it isn’t there to refute. One who uses the “authority” argument is not debating. They are refusing to debate. They are saying “to prove me wrong you must first prove this authority wrong.” If someone actually quotes the authority, then there may be something to debate. But that’s not what the authoritarian argument is. In the authoritarian argument there is never anything offered to prove wrong. It’s just a statement of someone else’s conclusion, with no debatable premises or logic. Which is a totally different thing from simply accepting someone else’s conclusion outside the context of a debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately it is necessary in life to make all kinds of decisions based on authority. Its not possible to know all one needs to know to make the right decisions all the time. I trust the authority of my doctors, my mechanic, my cat's vet, etc. Of course, I do my research as best as I can to be a part of the process. But in the end I have to put some trust in someone.
I guess this has nothing to do with the topic. It just came to mind reading about authority. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was working in the lab late one night
When my eyes beheld an eerie sight For my monster from his slab began to rise And suddenly to my surprise He did the mash He did the monster mash The monster mash It was a graveyard smash He did the mash It caught on in a flash He did the mash He did the monster mash From my laboratory in the castle east To the master bedroom where the vampires feast The ghouls all came from their humble abodes To get a jolt from my electrodes They did the mash They did the monster mash The monster mash It was a graveyard smash They did the mash It caught on in a flash They did the mash They did the monster mash The zombies were having fun The party had just begun The guests included Wolf Man Dracula and his son The scene was rockin', all were digging the sounds Igor on chains, backed by his baying hounds The coffin-bangers were about to arrive With their vocal group, "The Crypt-Kicker Five" They played the mash They played the monster mash The monster mash It was a graveyard smash They played the mash It caught on in a flash They played the mash They played the monster mash Out from his coffin, Drac's voice did ring Seems he was troubled by just one thing He opened the lid and shook his fist And said, "Whatever happened to my Transylvania twist?" It's now the mash It's now the monster mash The monster mash And it's a graveyard smash It's now the mash It's caught on in a flash It's now the mash It's now the monster mash Now everything's cool, Drac's a part of the band And my monster mash is the hit of the land For you, the living, this mash was meant too When you get to my door, tell them Boris sent you Then you can mash Then you can monster mash The monster mash And do my graveyard smash Then you can mash You'll catch on in a flash Then you can mash Then you can monster mash 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately it is necessary in life to make all kinds of decisions based on authority. Its not possible to know all one needs to know to make the right decisions all the time. I trust the authority of my doctors, my mechanic, my cat's vet, etc. Of course, I do my research as best as I can to be a part of the process. But in the end I have to put some trust in someone. I would have said “often desirable” instead of “necessary”. But other than that, you’re absolutely right.
I guess this has nothing to do with the topic. It just came to mind reading about authority. I think it does have some relevance – as an example of the difference between the “debate” scenario and the “decision” scanario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would have said “often desirable” instead of “necessary”. But other than that, you’re absolutely right. Good point. There is definitely a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Sun 10/11/09 09:06 PM
|
|
I wonder how many people who are familiar with the general teachings of the relativity theory are accepting it because they understand every step of the mathematical proof of it and they understand the details and the magnitude of the empirical evidence that supports it, and how many talk about it because they accept the authority who communcates that the relativity theory is true and valid. i can accept the plausibility of a theory without understanding the math. i accept the plausibility of evolution and i've hardly studied the theory. to say that a concept makes sense to me is easy if it does make sense. doesn't make me an expert but i don't claim to be one. i'm permitted to read the theory of relativity with absolutely no scientific credintials at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeh, I get really annoyed with that "authority" method of trying to prove something. I think you may have missed the point. The “authority” cannot be refuted. Not because it has irrefutable logic or undeniable scientific proof. But because it isn’t there to refute. One who uses the “authority” argument is not debating. They are refusing to debate. They are saying “to prove me wrong you must first prove this authority wrong.” If someone actually quotes the authority, then there may be something to debate. But that’s not what the authoritarian argument is. In the authoritarian argument there is never anything offered to prove wrong. It’s just a statement of someone else’s conclusion, with no debatable premises or logic. Which is a totally different thing from simply accepting someone else’s conclusion outside the context of a debate. Your description I absolutely agree with, Skye. I just failed to see the equality between the concepts as described by the two quotes in this post. If someone says something, and they mean something that they don't say, or the other way around, how much explanation are we supposed to supply on our own? I mean, I understand you're not "scolding" me, Skye, but simply educating me, and that's the spirit I say this in too. How much and in what direction should I or must I change someone else's text with the words my own mind supplies, before I've done too much of it? Would it be not simpler if everyone wrote precisely and not just put words down because they could? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeh, I get really annoyed with that "authority" method of trying to prove something. I think you may have missed the point. The “authority” cannot be refuted. Not because it has irrefutable logic or undeniable scientific proof. But because it isn’t there to refute. One who uses the “authority” argument is not debating. They are refusing to debate. They are saying “to prove me wrong you must first prove this authority wrong.” If someone actually quotes the authority, then there may be something to debate. But that’s not what the authoritarian argument is. In the authoritarian argument there is never anything offered to prove wrong. It’s just a statement of someone else’s conclusion, with no debatable premises or logic. Which is a totally different thing from simply accepting someone else’s conclusion outside the context of a debate. If someone says something, and they mean something that they don't say, or the other way around, how much explanation are we supposed to supply on our own? I mean, I understand you're not "scolding" me, Skye, but simply educating me, and that's the spirit I say this in too. How much and in what direction should I or must I change someone else's text with the words my own mind supplies, before I've done too much of it? Would it be not simpler if everyone wrote precisely and not just put words down because they could? 
I’m not even sure how to answer. Yes, I guess it would be simpler if everyone wrote precisely instead of just putting down words because they could. And I guess the degree and direction you should supply your own words can only be related to your purpose in interpreting and responding. That’s the best I can do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be not simpler if everyone wrote precisely and not just put words down because they could?
I try to write precisely and I find that people do not read my words as precisely as I write them. Then again, sometimes the American English can be very ambiguous, sarcastic, slang, etc. One word can mean different things etc. Different dialects in different parts of the country can also cause misunderstanding. Communication is not easy, but it is an interesting process. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be not simpler if everyone wrote precisely and not just put words down because they could?
I try to write precisely and I find that people do not read my words as precisely as I write them. Then again, sometimes the American English can be very ambiguous, sarcastic, slang, etc. One word can mean different things etc. Different dialects in different parts of the country can also cause misunderstanding. Communication is not easy, but it is an interesting process. Sorry, Jennie bean. My doctor lowered the dose of my psych med a week or two ago in a futile attempt to lessen the rate of my weight gain. I was a total azzole the whole week, getting that way more and more, culminating in its worse last night (just ask JR), and so I went back to the old, higher dosage. The shrink don't know it yet, but I feel much more human now. If the medication or my reaction to it don't change much, you can again expect me to be kinder, gentler person. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Jennie bean. My doctor lowered the dose of my psych med a week or two ago in a futile attempt to lessen the rate of my weight gain. I was a total azzole the whole week, getting that way more and more, culminating in its worse last night (just ask JR), and so I went back to the old, higher dosage. The shrink don't know it yet, but I feel much more human now. If the medication or my reaction to it don't change much, you can again expect me to be kinder, gentler person. Maybe so, but the real question here is, did you like my song I posted? 
I know how it feels to have that kind of thing going on. When I first went on steroid therapy for my Lupus I had problems with my emotions and major mood swings. It feels so horrible not to be yourself. Good luck to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be not simpler if everyone wrote precisely and not just put words down because they could?
I try to write precisely and I find that people do not read my words as precisely as I write them. Then again, sometimes the American English can be very ambiguous, sarcastic, slang, etc. One word can mean different things etc. Different dialects in different parts of the country can also cause misunderstanding. Communication is not easy, but it is an interesting process. Sorry, Jennie bean. My doctor lowered the dose of my psych med a week or two ago in a futile attempt to lessen the rate of my weight gain. I was a total azzole the whole week, getting that way more and more, culminating in its worse last night (just ask JR), and so I went back to the old, higher dosage. The shrink don't know it yet, but I feel much more human now. If the medication or my reaction to it don't change much, you can again expect me to be kinder, gentler person. Just be who you are. If you are too kind and too gentle I suspect drugs. LOL 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just be who you are. If you are too kind and too gentle I suspect drugs. LOL
You made me bazooka-spit my coffee through my nose with laughter. Your joke caught me by surprise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe so, but the real question here is, did you like my song I posted?
I know how it feels to have that kind of thing going on. When I first went on steroid therapy for my Lupus I had problems with my emotions and major mood swings. It feels so horrible not to be yourself. Good luck to you.
Thanks for asking, this gives me a chance to tell the real reply, which I could not to JB due to the laughter she generated. Which is, I don't know who I am, what I am doing here, whence I came, and whereforst arse thou, o Prousst. In other words, my mental disorders, diseases, and illnesses define me so well and thoroughly that there is no room for any original personality left in here any more. The song I recognized (I hope I'm not revealing a secret) from that vampire ac/dc movie, can't remember the title, but it had to do with crossdressing quite a bit. The lead chick was awsome -- was it Susan Sharandon? I last saw the movie in 1974. Sorry about your Lupus. (Sigh.) Yeah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..when i was little my father use to say..son if you don't quit acting up i'm gonna kick you in the asss with my BIGFOOT..so yea i believe in BIGFOOT... 
|
|
|
|
|
