Corwin

In response to? (paraphrased) 'RAR RAR PROOF RAR RAR YADDA YADDA!!!!!'

When confronted with the weaknesses of the 'professional skeptics' community, natrually some people come out swinging. I can understand, and even empathize. Hell I've seen it myself. It's a response to the fact that if you give some people (cough cough CREATIONISTS cough cough) an inch, they'll take a mile. A while back someone figured out that the speed of light in a vaccum might NOT be a constant and might in fact be changing over time.... what was everybody's first response? 'Aw shit.... wait until the young earthers get their hands on THIS....' And it was a justified concern, in my opinion. What YOU need to understand that while in some cases you have to come out swinging, in others it is NOT the appropriate response.

I've read the account you posted. I'm still looking for the other. (It's been a while since I looked it up.)

Which proves exactly the point. Feynman was able to figure out both tricks. Instead of trying to figure out HOW Feynman did it, Randi became petulant.

Again, for Randi it's frequently more important for him to be RIGHT than it is for him to find the facts.

Numbers don't lie... and the studies that have been posted here have the numbers. They routinely get ignored.

Person A, (a medical patient) claims to be able to control their pain through meditation. Person B, (a skeptic) says 'prove it.' Person A proceeds to do it. Person B brushes this off with 'oh that's not possible, you're imagining it. The brain just can't do that.'

Happens pretty regularly.

Hardcore Skeptic's Checklist:

1) You must be able to believe (with a straight face) that the mind is somehow capable of creating all kinds of physiological effects when confronted with a sugar pill, but isn't capable of doing it on demand.

2) You must be able to believe that any effect you can't explain with regards to the human body can be explained away with 'oh it's a placebo.' Double points if you can use this reasoning in situations where a placebo could not possibly work. (For example, accupuncture on pets.)

3) You must be able to (again with a straight face) rant on and on about how primitive and superstitous herbalism is, while downing two aspirin for the headache you get from dealing with these superstitious peons.

4) When confronted with actual studies and numbers, have reams of counterarguments based on misconceptions or concepts that are no longer endorsed by the group you're debunking. (Debunking chiropacty with failed claims of curing cancer is a great one.... nobody really cares that respectable chiropracters haven't made any such claims in eighty years....)

5) Be prepared to attack theories you've never even heard of.... after all, you're above question.

6) Ignore the concept of 'tentative theories' or 'hypotheses.' Only 'real scientists' get to make such statements.... anybody else (IE anyone you're debunking) must be portrayed as making firm statements of known fact whether they are or not.

Since the idea is clearly completely new to you... (imagine that!) Allow me....

We have remains of a nonhuman ancestor hominid called Gigantopithicus. The brief summary.... Big. Very big. Complete herbivore. Ranged all over the Pacific Rim, and so far as we know died out about 35k years ago. So far as we know for sure, giganto is extinct. However, 35,000 years isn't all that long in evolutionary terms, and we've been wrong about extinct animals before. (Bear the Coelacanth in mind please.)

The areas where the Yeti/Sasquatch/various other similar stories exist are generally within the known range of Gigantopithicus. They are also some of the more isolated areas left on the planet. (Not kidding. There are areas of the Rockies and the Cascades where one or two white people and maybe a half dozen native americans have set foot not in the past century, but EVER.) It has been tentatively suggested that Giganto might not actually be extinct, but rather has become quite rare and lives in the more isolated areas of the Rockies, Cascades, Sierra Nevadas and Tibet. Have any specimens been captured? No. Is even getting UP there to try to get a specimen trivial? Hell no.

This is a tentative theory, commonly rejected by 'skeptics' everywhere. It's well laid out, it's logical, it makes sense. And it's rejected out of hand because it would lend validity to 'those old stories.'

It's called a 'comparison.' It's meant to demonstrate that like the Libertarians, your raging ideological bias drives off people who would otherwise be your allies if you'd just back the hell up for a second and calm the hell down.

Mageth

Twiddle dee, twiddle dum.

Originally posted by Corwin
In response to? (paraphrased) 'RAR RAR PROOF RAR RAR YADDA YADDA!!!!!'

Sheesh, now I'm really glad I decided not to teach middle school. Such childishness.

Honestly, I went back and read my first post to you on this thread, and I don't see it as being "invective" at all. That seemed to start in your response to my first post....You seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder, there, Corwin.

When confronted with the weaknesses of the 'professional skeptics' community, natrually some people come out swinging.

And who would that be? Well, I might "swing" a little in this post, but at least I get my facts straight when I do. And I'm not upset; hell, I'm sure not a member of any "professional skeptics' communitiy", if there is any such thing. As you'll see below, I flunk the entrance exam.

I can understand, and even empathize. Hell I've seen it myself. It's a response to the fact that if you give some people (cough cough CREATIONISTS cough cough) an inch, they'll take a mile. A while back someone figured out that the speed of light in a vaccum might NOT be a constant and might in fact be changing over time.... what was everybody's first response? 'Aw shit.... wait until the young earthers get their hands on THIS....' And it was a justified concern, in my opinion. What YOU need to understand that while in some cases you have to come out swinging, in others it is NOT the appropriate response.

Obviously. And what YOU need to do is go back and reread my first post on this thread and try to grasp the concept that I did not come out "swinging". Oh, and here's a clue: when someone disagrees with an opinion you post, or questions a "speculative theory" you posit, it's not "coming out swinging."

I've read the account you posted. I'm still looking for the other. (It's been a while since I looked it up.)

Do you remember if it was given by someone who was actually there, like the account I posted?

Which proves exactly the point. Feynman was able to figure out both tricks. Instead of trying to figure out HOW Feynman did it, Randi became petulant.

Again, for Randi it's frequently more important for him to be RIGHT than it is for him to find the facts.

That's your take on it. I don't agree with it, and I don't think any point has been proven. People can disagree with you, Corwin; learn to live with it.

Numbers don't lie... and the studies that have been posted here have the numbers. They routinely get ignored.

Numbers don't lie? But people that use numbers can be mistaken, may have used faulty techniques to gather the numbers, may misinterpret the significance of the numbers, may jump to faulty conclusions from the numbers, or may even just out-and-out lie. There's a demonstration of the improper use of numbers a bit later in this post, BTW.

Keep in mind there's more than just numbers to any research, report or study.

Person A, (a medical patient) claims to be able to control their pain through meditation. Person B, (a skeptic) says 'prove it.' Person A proceeds to do it. Person B brushes this off with 'oh that's not possible, you're imagining it. The brain just can't do that.'

Happens pretty regularly.

Well, for me, in any case, that's a total strawman. I know people can control pain through meditation and other non-standard medical techniques. Hell, I can do it myself. I once relaxed myself enough, without medication, to fall asleep while the dentist was working in my mouth.

Hardcore Skeptic's Checklist:

1) You must be able to believe (with a straight face) that the mind is somehow capable of creating all kinds of physiological effects when confronted with a sugar pill, but isn't capable of doing it on demand.

Sorry, doesn't apply to me. Maybe I'm not a "hardcore skeptic."

2) You must be able to believe that any effect you can't explain with regards to the human body can be explained away with 'oh it's a placebo.'

Sorry again, doesn't apply to me; some effects can be explained by the placebo effect (such as accupuncture; the study I cited earlier convinced me of that), some can't (such as the self-control of pain). Am I failing this test? Will I lose my "hardcore skeptic" license?

Double points if you can use this reasoning in situations where a placebo could not possibly work. (For example, accupuncture on pets.)

I'm not familiar with any studies on accupuncture on pets. But discussion of the veracity of accupuncture would be better in another thread.

3) You must be able to (again with a straight face) rant on and on about how primitive and superstitous herbalism is, while downing two aspirin for the headache you get from dealing with these superstitious peons.

Once again, doesn't apply to me. I take each herbal medicine claim as it comes. Some may be valid, some may not, and some may be valid but may pose risks that outweigh the benefits. Damn, I'll never be a hardcore skeptic.

4) When confronted with actual studies and numbers, have reams of counterarguments based on misconceptions or concepts that are no longer endorsed by the group you're debunking. (Debunking chiropacty with failed claims of curing cancer is a great one.... nobody really cares that respectable chiropracters haven't made any such claims in eighty years....)

I can't recall being guilty of that particular one, either. But I've had experience with chiropractors, having suffered recurrent lumbar strain for 20 years now. At first, I sought the help of a chiropractor (and yes, a "respectable" one). After a few years of frequent severe episodes treated by chiropracty, I finally went to an orthopedic surgeon and he recommended exercise, rest, ice and sometimes heat, and over-the-counter pain killers. Since that time, no longer going to the chiropractor, I've found my episodes much less frequent and much less severe. Previously, when treated by a chiropractor, I was out of it for at least two weeks with a typical episode, at least three or four times a year. Now, I'm typically good as new in three or four days, and only have one or maybe two episodes a year.

Anecdotal, I know, but that's my personal experience with chiropracty.

5) Be prepared to attack theories you've never even heard of.... after all, you're above question.

Well, that doesn't apply to me either. If I encounter a theory I've never heard of, I do a little research before I respond. And I never consider myself "above question". If you give me the evidence to show where I'm wrong, I'll admit it. (BTW, these underhanded, unsupported strawman insults are getting very tiring).

6) Ignore the concept of 'tentative theories' or 'hypotheses.' Only 'real scientists' get to make such statements.... anybody else (IE anyone you're debunking) must be portrayed as making firm statements of known fact whether they are or not.

I often consider seriously tentative theories or hypotheses. I find many of them fascinating. But I avoid putting much stock in them until more research and evidence is provided to solidify the tentative theory or hypothesis. That's good, healthy skepticism, BTW, not the clown strawman caricature you've been painting.

Well, as I said in an earlier post on this thread, I don't call myself a "skeptic" anyway; I claim to use the skeptical method to evaluate claims, though. As you should learn to do. If you haven't read Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, I would highly recommend it. BTW, it includes something I would consider as a real "skeptical checklist", not some strawman caricature.

Since the idea is clearly completely new to you... (imagine that!) Allow me....

Your rather patronizing tone is, well, rather tiring, young man. I have heard of this idea before, so it's not "completely new" to me; in fact, it's not new at all. Rather old hat, in fact. Soup from a Stone. Imagine That!

We have remains of a nonhuman ancestor hominid called Gigantopithicus.

No shit, sherlock. Except it's spelled Gigantopithecus. Gigantopithecus blacki, to be exact. But it's not considered an "ancestor" of H. sapiens, if that's what you mean here, or of any other identified living species for that matter.

The brief summary.... Big. Very big. Complete herbivore. Ranged all over the Pacific Rim, and so far as we know died out about 35k years ago. So far as we know for sure, giganto is extinct. However, 35,000 years isn't all that long in evolutionary terms, and we've been wrong about extinct animals before. (Bear the Coelacanth in mind please.)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've heard all this before. Just like "Harry and the Hendersons", right?

The only thing is, your facts are seriously screwed up. So a not-so-brief correction of your summary follows.

(BTW, what's with the "we" bit? Your inability to correctly spell the name, plus your mangling of what's known or hypothesised about Gigantopithecus, kinda indicate you're not exactly in the forefront of Gigantopithecus research).

As far as the "remains" go, significant Gigantopithecus fossils have not been found, as far as I know; a few jawbones and numerous teeth is all I've heard of, and is what theories/hypotheses about this species are based on. The fossils that have been found were found in a few places in China and in Viet Nam, defining Southeast Asia as its currrently known range, not "all over the Pacific Rim." No fossils of Gigantopithecus have been found in North or South America, Siberia, Alaska, or even Tibet, as far as I know. Analysis of the teeth indicates probably bamboo or possibly other grasses as its likely diet; to say the least, bamboo is not a common plant in much of the Pacific Rim or in the mountains of the Northwest.

And, BTW, Gigantopithecus blacki is generally considered to have gone extinct some 500,000-400,000 years ago, not 35,000 years ago. Sometimes numbers do lie, it seems.

If you're going to post information that's "completely new to me", at least try to get your facts straight.

The areas where the Yeti/Sasquatch/various other similar stories exist are generally within the known range of Gigantopithicus.

Umm, no. The Pacific Northwest is not in Southeast Asia (the known range of Gigantopithecus). Neither is Tibet. Neither are northeast Texas, northwest Louisiana, and Arkansas, another source of the legend. You need a new map, or a geography refresher course.

They are also some of the more isolated areas left on the planet. (Not kidding. There are areas of the Rockies and the Cascades where one or two white people and maybe a half dozen native americans have set foot not in the past century, but EVER.) It has been tentatively suggested that Giganto might not actually be extinct, but rather has become quite rare and lives in the more isolated areas of the Rockies, Cascades, Sierra Nevadas and Tibet. Have any specimens been captured? No. Is even getting UP there to try to get a specimen trivial? Hell no.

This is a tentative theory, commonly rejected by 'skeptics' everywhere. It's well laid out, it's logical, it makes sense. And it's rejected out of hand because it would lend validity to 'those old stories.'

No, it's not well laid out (based on false information such as the range-matching error and the 35,000-year-ago extinction date "error"), it's not logical (breeding populations of 600-1200 pound creatures within 100 miles of major cities in the Northwest would not go undetected for very long, no matter how isolated the region; and it's not logical at all for such huge herbivores to live in the frozen wastelands of the Tibetan mountains; most of the fertile places to live are already occupied by another, more plentiful, primate), and, no, it doesn't make a lot of sense (why have no fossils newer than 400,000 years been found, and why only in Southeast Asia? And how could such a creature have survived the Ice Ages in the Pacific Northwest?).

The "tentative theory" can be heavily discounted if not outright dismissed after consideration and examination of the real evidence and facts, such as I've posted here. Like I said earlier, it's possible that Gigantopithecus somehow survived in isolated pockets until today, but that possibility is extremely small. So small that one can safely dismiss the "tentative theory" until some hard evidence is produced to support it.

Some other important things to note. Gigantopithecus was probably quadrupedal, like the gorilla. So it doesn't match too well with the bipedal yeti/sasquatch/bigfoot legends.

Further, if a creature as large as Gigantopithecus blacki existed in numbers sufficient to qualify as a breeding population to persist for the last 400,000 years, even in such isolated places, it would not only leave physical remains, but would also have an observable effect on the environment. Do you have any idea how much vegetation such a large herbivore would eat in a day, and how large its range would have to be?

In any case, seeing as Gigantopithecus blacki is speculated to have been such a large beast, to have been quadripedal, to have eaten bamboo, and to have been extinct for almost half a million years, a more likely theory might be that, if the legends are "true", they might be based on reports of a species possibly descended from or related to Gigantopithecus blacki. Still highly speculative, though. Just thought I'd throw that in there to help you out a bit.

It's called a 'comparison.' It's meant to demonstrate that like the Libertarians, your raging ideological bias drives off people who would otherwise be your allies if you'd just back the hell up for a second and calm the hell down.

What "raging ideological bias"? The "bias" that I carefully analyze a "tentative theory" and check the facts when considering it? And where do you get off telling me to "back the hell up for a second and calm the hell down" just after you accuse me of having a "raging ideological bias", among all the other direct or offhand accusations you've been tossing around? Anyone else reading our exchange on this thread should get a good chuckle out of that one.

Seriously, Corwin, you need to back up and take a deep breath, quit hurling insults and learn to discuss an issue like an adult. Then you need to get your facts straight before posting any more "tentative theories" if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Godless Dave

If that information is correct, it is enough to speculate that Gigantopithecus might not really have gone extinct. However, without remains, tracks, spoor, or credible reports of sightings we have no reason to think that is the case.

We can just as easily speculate that sabertooth tigers are not extinct either and there are very small populations still extant in remote areas of Siberia, Alaska, or Canada. After all, they were around much more recently than Gigantopithecus. But without any physical evidence whatsoever, why should we entertain the possibility?

It's not a theory. It's an idea. It's logical and makes sense as far as it goes, in that it could be true, but without any physical evidence whatsoever, we have no reason to think it is true.

braces_for_impact

I think a true skeptic is one who is even skeptical about being skeptical. It takes a lot of self analyzation and recognition of personal bias. It is a person that uses critical thinking skills well, and attempts to apply them to any situation. At least that's my take on it.

Someone earlier said that skeptics were often confused with cynics, and I think this is often the case. I am aften looked at by people as always thinking I'm right, a common complaint I've seen about anyone who is skeptical, and a point I see was made about James Randi. I know personally, I do not think I am always right. In fact, I doubt myself, my senses, and my own cognitive abilties, at least to a certain degree. So I require evidence. In todays society it's considered "wise" to be open minded, and to consider "alternative" possibilities. I think we've taken this a bit too far, and our minds are so "open" that our brains are about to hit the floor.

I think being open to new ideas is fine, but if someone is claiming something as truth, then evidence should be provided. If this does not take place then that person should be held accountable. I'm sorry, but how many people are duped out of their money by everything from phony diet adds to alternative medicine, to faith healers. Just because it's a "belief" or "faith" does not mean we should handle these issues with kids gloves. I say throw all these snake oil men in jail and let them preach about superior morality from behind bars.

Just my opinion, but if everyone had a healthy skepticism, the world would be a better place.

Sometimes it's not easy to be a skeptic, sometimes people you like or even love spin you a story you do not believe, and you tell them so. I know people that honestly think they've heard and seen ghosts. It's hard to explain to people that you do not believe in such things. They think you're calling them crazy or stupid; or you think they are lying. This is not the case, but it is often misinterpreted as such. But hey, what are ya gonna do?

Corwin

Call it a snide attidude then, I don't care.

And any 'chip' you may see is well earned. Go back over this forum and look at anyone who suggests 'alternatives,' particularly medical ones. Excellent examples of exactly what I'm referring to are all over in here.

There are christians who don't believe Genesis is meant to be taken literally as well.... does this validate Hovind's position? Or Hamm's?

Yes. If remember right it was an expanded version of the same post.

When people disagree with be based on facts I'm fine with it.... when people go out of their way to paint a particular situation in a favorable light that it doesn't deserve.... we have a problem.

'Oh he's just annoyed that his trick didn't work.' Yes.... meaning he didn't get to 'prove who's best.' My point stands.

All of this is true, and has been noted before. The fact remains that when numbers are posted supporting something the mainstream doesn't support, the debunker/skeptic community ignores them.

'Well Genesis is an allegory you know....'

'Oh that's the ICR.... and they're a little odd.... good people tho!'

Ask Randi. He's the one that's so raging against anything that doesn't come out of a lab. (By the way.... when a 'placebo' proves potent enough to replace vicodin? It's medicine.)

Yes it would. Suffice to say that it works well for pain relief, and there are a number of clinics that offer it.

You say this like it's a bad thing.....

Rational skeptics are good. 'Hardcore' skeptics are fundies. You appear to have missed this concept.

Congratulations.... you realize Randi considers people like you to be delusional?

So essentially what's happening here is that in your desire to be a 'pure' skeptic, you're attacking the community that should be your ally, and standing with someone who considers you delusional because you go with results instead of ideology.

And where does that evidence come from? Oh yeah... looking.

Of course, try suggesting a research project on 'alternative' subjects at most research universities..... hope you're not fond of your academic career......

Hence, the term 'nonhuman ancestor.' As in 'not a human ancestor.' As far as the spelling is concerned, I was in a hurry and used the spelling typical of other primates in this class. Sue me.

Finds extend up into northern India, which would put them well within the range of the traditional 'yeti.' 'Remains' have yet to be found in North America, but fossil tracks and spoor have been. Best guess is that they migrated across the Bering.



From 35k to 75k. I have no idea where you're getting your half million years figure.... the most generous I've seen refers to them having existed from 125k to 700k years ago. (Not having died out that long ago.)

You really have never been up here have you? Let me explain....

There are huge sections of the Rockies and Cascades especially that until we started getting satellite imagery of them, might just as well have been mapped with the words 'There Be Dragons' for all we knew about what was up there.

When the only way you can get into an area is with a helicopter or a very long hike (as in several weeks,) you don't know much about said area. Even if it is only a hundred miles from a city.

Hand and foot tracks prove you wrong. While it's remotely possible that Giganto was a fist-walker, it's amazingly unlikely that they were knucklewalkers. The pads on their fingers were wrong. They wouldn't have been able to support their weight properly. They are in fact generally accepted to have been hominids, or possibly a pre-hominid that was capable of occasional fist-walking.

I believe we've already discussed these mountains? Yeah... the big ones that run down the western part of the continent... the ones that even today have huge areas (as in hundreds of thousands of square acres) that are virtually unexplored.

Bamboo or other heavy vegetation. The teeth we've found would be suitable for grinding any woody plants really.... bamboo being one of them, but not the only one.

**looks back for the 'Mageth has a raging idealogical bias' statement.... nope... not there.... not there either....**

If you choose to accept that label, fine. That's your concern. I've been pretty specific this whole time about addressing 'hardcore skepticism.'

Of course based on what you've said, if you choose to defend such 'hardcore' skepticism, you're standing with people who tolerate you at best.... and snicker behind your back at you pretty regularly.

Totalitarianist

A Skeptic is one who questions everything, and most likely has no belief in God, Santa, morals, etc. Skeptics cannot believe in such nonsense. Skepticism is merely fully developed Rationalism. Thus, one will never find a true Skeptic who believes in God and Satan, in demons and angels, in morals and ethics, in right and wrong, in good and evil, etc. The mind of a skeptic does not think in such binary, irrational terms. He is simplistic to the extent that he has no complicated belief system and tends to almost childishly question everything; he is comparable to a child in this sense, although he is not as open to suggestion as a child. A Skeptic is more inclined to train his mind by means of such disciplines as logic and maths, rather than fill his mind with dubious data. For the Skeptic questions even the most trivial datum. In this sense the Skeptic is no historian: he is more likely to be a logician, a philosopher, a mathematician.

---
Yours truly,
Supernius

http://pub199.ezboard.com/bsuperniusthebrilliant97794

Gurdur

You are completely wrong.

Regards,
Gurdur The Skeptic

Hawkingfan

Only when it comes to supernatural claims. On the contrary, he is very supportive of smart people.
This just sounds like having fun to me. I'm an amateur magician and these kinds of things always happen with me and my friends. Feynman was quite a skeptic himself. He gave a speech at Caltech about quackery in science. He also personally tested Uri Geller's psychic abilities and wrote an article about it.
What do you mean by "possibility"? Do you mean the metaphysical/supernatural possibilities? Do you mean that there is a possibility that there is a large part of our brain that we can tap into and do extraordinary things?
You should read Randi discuss science in his Enclopedia of the Paranormal. You'll find out he agrees with you.

Selsaral

Just my personal position on this topic:

I am skeptical, cynical, and pessimistic.

I am skeptical because I have personally been wrong too many times, particularly about things I felt confident about. I am skeptical of myself as well as other people's claims. And I've had a LOT of people make wild claims to me (scientologists, christians, bigfootists, conspiracy theorists etc) so that my default position is disbelief. As others have stressed in this thread though, I am skeptical when there is no evidence. I am more than ready to see some evidence for every wacky claim made, and ready to adjust my belief when the evidence is presented.

I would call myself cynical because of this history of personal error, and because of the history of error throughout human history. We are just extremely good at thinking up and becoming convinced of all sorts of ridiculous things. The trend of wrongness and being completely convinced of wrong things is just too overwhelming to ignore.

I am pessimistic because I think it's a good method of dealing with life. If things go well then there's nothing to worry about. But if things go badly (and they certainly do), it's necessary to be prepared. So I dwell on the things that can go wrong, in order to prepare for them so that I may avoid or fix them. In fact, I assume things will go wrong.

If I am using these terms incorrectly, well - there I go being wrong again.

Friar Bellows

Indeed.