Re: Could Bigfoot exist?


"mike3" <mike4ty4@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1191826084.866859.279700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 4, 7:53 pm, "George" <geo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1191538850.558886.155150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Sep 30, 2:44 pm, "George" <geo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<snip>
Because it has a lot of interesting math behind it. What math is
there
behind bigfoot?

Well then Bigfoot has a lot of interesting reports. Neither
that nor a bunch of math are proof of anything, no. But why
is all this math, none of which has even been proven to actually
describe the universe -- better than a bunch of remarkably
similar reports from many different people, which equally
has not been proven to actually correspond to anything? And
not to mention all the footprints and stuff (have they all been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt as hoaxes or common
footprints, BTW?) Why is it not interesting? I'm not arguing
that Bigfoot exists, I am arguing for an open-minded investigation,
which means the investigator(s) are willing to admit the possibility
that Bigfoot does really exist, and also equally willing to admit
that it does not exist, depending on where the evidence gathered
takes them.

There have been all sorts of similar reports from many different people
that describe the existence of God. Does that mean that God exists?
No.
Are these stories interesting? Yes, but they are interesting more for
what
they tell us about ourselves than for what they may or may not tell us
about reality. Anecdotes - stories recounted in support of a claim - do
not make a science. Without corroborative evidence from other sources,
or
physical proof of some sort, ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a
hundred anecdotes are no better than ten. <snip stuff about
unreliability
of anecdotes>


I never said that anecdotes were scientific proof of anything, as
well,
they aren't. Nor did I suggest they should be used as such. Rather,
I was talking about their use to suggest that real investigation
should
be performed to *find* physical, scientific evidence that explains
the phenomenon reported. (Note how I said "explains the phenomenon
reported", not "proves that Bigfoot exists".) You seem to suggest that
without physical evidence _at the start_, one should not investigate.
But if one does not investigate, how is one going to find some sort of
evidence? What the reports suggest is that _something is happening_,
that's it, period. What that something is cannot be proven or
disproven
from those reports, as they are just anecdotes, like you said, and
have
absolutely no empirical weight whatsoever. What the anecdotes do
is tell that something is happening. But they tell us absolutely
nothing
about what that something is. For all we know it could be something
as simple as a fun hoax, or a misidentification of some oddly-shaped
(by coincidence) shadows. It could be a bear. Or it could be, like
many
claim, a previously-unknown species of animal. But there's absolutely
no
proof of any of these ideas -- they are 100% speculation, and which of
this
speculation, if indeed any of it, is right will only be known with an
honest, NEUTRAL investigation into the matter.

What the anecdotes say is nothing more and nothing less then that
a phenomenon is occuring. What is wrong with investigating to find
out more about this phenomenon?

No, what the anecdotes tell us is that untrained observers are not
reliable.
Mike, people have been "investigating" this non-issue for decades. Result?
Zero evidence. Next.

Finally, does math perfectly describe the circumference of a circle?
No.
But the formula used to describe it comes as close as anything we've
ever
discovered. Math doesn't perfectly describe the universe, that is true.
It does, however, give us quite good approximations - good enough that
we
know within a few cms the orbit of the moon, and the planets. Good
enough
that we can send astronauts to the moon, or space probes to Pluto, or
develop medicines to cure disease. It cannot, however, give us a good
description of something for which there is no unambiguous evidence of
its
existence.


But then why bother with string theory/"M theory"? You said, "[math]
cannot, however, give us a good description of something *for which
there
is no unambiguous evidence of its existence*". String/superstring/M-
theory
would seem to fit, since there's a big fat zero's worth of unambiguous
evidence that super strings, super membranes, hidden dimensions, etc.
exist!

George

String theory is based on a whole lot of very sound math and physics. The
problem with string theory is that no one has tested it yet (or figured out
how to test it). And that leads to the current conclusion that we don't
know whether or not string theory is a good description, regardless of the
soundness of the math.

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Could Bigfoot exist?
    ... that Bigfoot exists, I am arguing for an open-minded investigation, ... depending on where the evidence gathered ... There have been all sorts of similar reports from many different people ... Anecdotes - stories recounted in support of a claim - do ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Re: Could Bigfoot exist?
    ... Well then Bigfoot has a lot of interesting reports. ... that nor a bunch of math are proof of anything, ... Anecdotes - stories recounted in support of a claim - do ... The cancer might have gone into ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... Today, because of the evidence, no one could ... shown to be simple 3-D math. ... accordance with the equations of relativity. ... But we know that space exists and even in classical physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... RLG wrote: ... Today, because of the evidence, no one could ... shown to be simple 3-D math. ... These are the facts. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Too neat to waste...
    ... you are doing so by trying to discredit tests that draw conclusions you ... I think you are simply picking and chosing your anecdotes based ... That would show evidence that I am wrong and you are ... to decide what, if anything, your assertions might mean. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)