I am pretty sure we would all love for there to be a bigfoot/yeti/sasquatch found. It would be the single biggest scientific discovery of the day. But the evidence brought forth so far has been very flimsy, shown to be a fake, most likely is a fake, is the hair from a known animal, etc. In fact, any evidence shown so far has been more in line with there NOT being a Yeti. You cannot prove a negative, so I can say a unicorn lives in my basement and you would be well in your right to demand extraordinary evidence to back up that extraordinary claim.
Aurora-service.org/aurora-forecast Get up to fairbanks this week and see whether the lights or bigfoot show up first
You still don’t get it. “Knowing” is a concept of proof, not objectivity. I can put in a process that proves each of your statements: Send me the check, after it clears the bank, I’ll send you your half. If it fails to clear, I cannot know you are not a Nigearian prince, but I can know that check failed to clear. If you have special elixir, I can take them. If they don’t work, I can know they did not work on me, because I can test the effects on me. But I cannot prove they do not work, at all. I can increase my subject pool, and establish a probability of effectiveness, which is done, already, for all elixirs, even the ones produced by Pfizer, that don’t work for everybody.
No, it would demand ordinary evidence. The burden of proof does not increase simply because you find it improbable. That is bias.
I'm thinking of taking up celebrity stalking so I can sell photos. We all know Kate Upton exists, someone provide me the predictive model in which I can encounter Kate Upton in the wild, so as to take her picture. It should be a simple thing. I think she is in the California area, but crowd reports of her location might vary.
You're telling me I want proof, when I am asking for physical evidence that supports the claim. As long as that continues, this isn't much of a conversation. The point of this second thread was you claimed DNA analysis requires a bigfoot to compare to, and that's a silly, narrow way of making every problem unsolvable.
From the evidence, we can establish proof. You provide me evidence, I go investigate. If I'm able to prove it, I prove it. If I am unable to prove it, I keep it an open question. There isn't any serious investigation into this, because it's treated with extreme skepticism, and it isn't really predictive, so how is it studied? The fact that evidence is either faked, or explained away as belonging to another animal doesn't disprove it; but this isn't something that can simply be predicted.
No, I'm saying you cannot say it ISN'T a bigfoot without a bigfoot to compare it to. The comparison is still made, it's nearest known match is XYZ. The problem is solved. The issue is how you are reporting your work. You don't say "this 100% is not bigfoot because it's 99% bear." You say " this is most likely bear, the findings are such that not being bear would only be true in 1 in 10 trillion matches." One way is facts, one way is biased. You always show bias, because you are biased.
Won't be long till this is about the most exciting thing on the board. After we hire our no name coach and go back to pissing matches and politics.
Let's have a BLM discussion, and a 2A discussion, and then shut the forum down after the new hire. We'll at least go out complete.
Yes. Of course. A scientist always shows his findings in this manner "In side our margin of error" or "as we can best tell right now". I don't know why we are arguing about this.
Whoa whoa, how do you know the elixir didn't work for you? What if it cured something you didn't know you had, or prevented something? Be objective.
