Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 11-08-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Johno,

I think this is highly relevant. It shows that until fairly recently the idea of a family of Monsters in Loch Ness was taken fairly seriously by some scientist, at least seriously enough to calculate the population size.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by johno

In the spirit of interdisciplinary co-operation I commend the following references:
The population density of monsters in Loch Ness
www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_17/issue_5/0796.pdf
An alternate method of calculating the population density of monsters in Loch Ness
www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_18/issue_2/0343a.pdf

both published in the highly rated biological journal Limnology and oceanography in the early '70s.

I wonder if this is a pertinant addition to the discussion, probably not, but the papers amused biologists at the time.

This reminds me of the worthless extrapolations by purveyors of the Historical Jesus where all sorts of things are expounded upon without a shred of evidence.

One of my favorites is the conclusion that Jesus must have worked in Sepphoris, and even had a hand building the theater of Sepphoris. The only problem is, the city of Sepphoris does not exist in the world of the New Testament.

Rather than speculating that Jesus worked in Sepphoris, the lack of mention of such an important cosmopolitan city (on the doorstep of the oft mentioned but very doubtful town of Nazareth) destroys the geographical pretense of the gospels.

PhilosopherJay · 11-08-2011, 07:50 AM

Hi Pete,

According toTony Harmsworth in "Loch Ness, Nessie, and Me"

Quote:

A huge fish was reported in the loch in 1868 and in 1910 a gamekeeper called Cameron claimed to have seen a similar huge fish. A number of reports followed through until the early nineteen-thirties. The River Ness, seen overleaf, is only seven miles (11km) long and has channels several metres deep. Any big fish could navigate it to Loch Ness without any real problem so a big fish was certainly a feasible possibility.

Harmsworth, Tony (2011-06-24). Loch Ness Monster, Nessie And Me (Kindle Locations 1374-1378). Harmsworth.net. Kindle Edition.

It was only in 1933 with this single sighting that the legend of the Monster really started. From wikipedi, Loch Ness Monster:

Quote:

Modern interest in the monster was sparked by the July 22, 1933 sighting, when George Spicer and his wife saw 'a most extraordinary form of animal' cross the road in front of their car.[8] They described the creature as having a large body (about 4 feet (1 m) high and 25 feet (8 m) long), and long, narrow neck, slightly thicker than an elephant's trunk and as long as the 10–12-foot (3–4 m) width of the road; the neck had a number of undulations in it. They saw no limbs, possibly because of a dip in the road obscuring the animal's lower portion.[19] It lurched across the road towards the loch 20 yards (20 m) away, leaving only a trail of broken undergrowth in its wake.

This and the consequent faked "Surgeon's Photo" in 1934 really created and spread the fame of the monster story.

Thus we have reports of Big Fish, then a report of a monster, a duped photo and the Legend of Nessie is born. Afterwards, we have the historical explanations or postulates developed.

If we are looking for analogies, I think we can compare the first gospel, whatever form it took, to the Surgeon's Photo Hoax as the triggering mechanism for the legend and subsequent historical explanations of Jesus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I am busy looking for postulates for the field of BC&H in regard to the various historical theories on the question of christian origins. It appears to me that there must have been various postulates in regard to the historicity of the Loch Ness monster before the theory of the Loch Ness Monster left the shores of Scotland.

You have listed what common sense would tell us might be common simple postulates in regard to the Loch Ness Monster.

* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of sea otters,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of sturgeons,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of logs,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of boats,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically too much whiskey,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically overactive imagination,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically created by deliberate hoaxers
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically made from nothing existing.

A combination of these might be selected.

Do these things appear to you to be postulates used in the theory of the historicity of the Loch Ness Monster?

Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi jakejonesiv,

Yes, you have the exact point.

The sightings of Nessie may be due to a number of causes: sea otters, sturgeons, logs, boats, too much whiskey, overactive imagination, and deliberate hoaxers. This still makes Nessie herself a myth.

The writings on Jesus may be due to a number of causes as well - interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures, mystery cult practices, Roman novels, Judas the Galilean, reports of Jewish revolutionaries, prophets, cynical philosophers, magical healing, zombies and maybe even a crucifixion or two. Add all the pieces together and we still get only a mythological Jesus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

ahdenai · 11-09-2011, 06:25 PM

Why the dichotomy? Why does it have to be Nessie OR Jesus? Why not have BOTH?

How do we know that Jesus really went up into the sky? Maybe he actually went to Loch Ness, and has been underwater ever since.

Maybe Jesus actually IS the Loch Ness Monster.

Like Clark Kent and Superman -- nobody has ever seen the two of them together.

mountainman · 11-09-2011, 09:43 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

If we are looking for analogies, and can compare the first gospel, whatever form it took, to the Surgeon's Photo Hoax as the triggering mechanism for the legend and subsequent historical explanations of Jesus, then we perhaps should also look analogously for the presence of evidence of disbelieving heretics who refused to confess that the Surgeon's Photo Hoax was legitimate forerunner to the Loch Ness Monster.

I also think ahdenai made a relevant point above which might send the analogy back to the drawing board.

Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

According toTony Harmsworth in "Loch Ness, Nessie, and Me"

Quote:

A huge fish was reported in the loch in 1868 and in 1910 a gamekeeper called Cameron claimed to have seen a similar huge fish. A number of reports followed through until the early nineteen-thirties. The River Ness, seen overleaf, is only seven miles (11km) long and has channels several metres deep. Any big fish could navigate it to Loch Ness without any real problem so a big fish was certainly a feasible possibility.

Harmsworth, Tony (2011-06-24). Loch Ness Monster, Nessie And Me (Kindle Locations 1374-1378). Harmsworth.net. Kindle Edition.

It was only in 1933 with this single sighting that the legend of the Monster really started. From wikipedi, Loch Ness Monster:

Quote:

Modern interest in the monster was sparked by the July 22, 1933 sighting, when George Spicer and his wife saw 'a most extraordinary form of animal' cross the road in front of their car.[8] They described the creature as having a large body (about 4 feet (1 m) high and 25 feet (8 m) long), and long, narrow neck, slightly thicker than an elephant's trunk and as long as the 10–12-foot (3–4 m) width of the road; the neck had a number of undulations in it. They saw no limbs, possibly because of a dip in the road obscuring the animal's lower portion.[19] It lurched across the road towards the loch 20 yards (20 m) away, leaving only a trail of broken undergrowth in its wake.

This and the consequent faked "Surgeon's Photo" in 1934 really created and spread the fame of the monster story.

Thus we have reports of Big Fish, then a report of a monster, a duped photo and the Legend of Nessie is born. Afterwards, we have the historical explanations or postulates developed.

If we are looking for analogies, I think we can compare the first gospel, whatever form it took, to the Surgeon's Photo Hoax as the triggering mechanism for the legend and subsequent historical explanations of Jesus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I am busy looking for postulates for the field of BC&H in regard to the various historical theories on the question of christian origins. It appears to me that there must have been various postulates in regard to the historicity of the Loch Ness monster before the theory of the Loch Ness Monster left the shores of Scotland.

You have listed what common sense would tell us might be common simple postulates in regard to the Loch Ness Monster.

* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of sea otters,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of sturgeons,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of logs,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of boats,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically too much whiskey,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically overactive imagination,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically created by deliberate hoaxers
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically made from nothing existing.

A combination of these might be selected.

Do these things appear to you to be postulates used in the theory of the historicity of the Loch Ness Monster?

Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi jakejonesiv,

Yes, you have the exact point.

The sightings of Nessie may be due to a number of causes: sea otters, sturgeons, logs, boats, too much whiskey, overactive imagination, and deliberate hoaxers. This still makes Nessie herself a myth.

The writings on Jesus may be due to a number of causes as well - interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures, mystery cult practices, Roman novels, Judas the Galilean, reports of Jewish revolutionaries, prophets, cynical philosophers, magical healing, zombies and maybe even a crucifixion or two. Add all the pieces together and we still get only a mythological Jesus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay · 11-13-2011, 07:19 PM

Hi Pete, et al.

I found this rather interesting article from 1987 by Henry H. Bauer on Nessie

He points out that Nessie has become both the prototype and stereotype for aquatic sea monsters. I think that Jesus of Nazareth has in a similar way become the prototype and stereotype of Holy Men/Prophets.

The article points out that nearly all books published between 1933 and 1988 on the subject accepted the existence of the monster. Newspapers and magazines, even scientific magazines, were much more divided on their opinion.

I did an article on my blog about this, more or less summarizing points from this thread.

Here's a recent article, this week, on the Canadian Nessie

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

If we are looking for analogies, and can compare the first gospel, whatever form it took, to the Surgeon's Photo Hoax as the triggering mechanism for the legend and subsequent historical explanations of Jesus, then we perhaps should also look analogously for the presence of evidence of disbelieving heretics who refused to confess that the Surgeon's Photo Hoax was legitimate forerunner to the Loch Ness Monster.

I also think ahdenai made a relevant point above which might send the analogy back to the drawing board.

Best wishes

Pete

Zaphod · 11-13-2011, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Evidence for Nessie may yet be produced.

And we should be honest and admit that evidence for Jesus may someday be produced.

Continuing in that vein of honesty, we should say that until that day arrives, HJ is just as far fetched as Nessie, and for some of the same reasons.

We would expect a breeding population of animals the size of Nessie to leave contemporary evidence of their existence, relics like carcasses, bones, scat, teeth, remains of their prey. We don't find these expected things. Just like HJ.

We don't see a Nessie-shaped hole in the ecology of the lake. Fish populations don't rise as Nessie-sightings go down. In other words, there is no need for the hypothesis in the first place. Just like HJ.

Loch Ness doesn't have enough of a prey population to sustain a population of large predators like Nessie, so the very concept of such an animal living there doesn't make a lot of sense considering its proposed environment. Much the same way that that there are problems for any of the proposed HJ scenarios - they don't make a lot of sense considering the area at the time.

Nessie is just one of a string of fabulous mythic creatures whose legend was started locally and then spread far and wide, like the yeti, or bigfoot. Keeping the legend alive is a lucrative past time, despite the fact that these creatures should properly be viewed as non existent. Just like the 10,000 gods which preceded Jesus Christ, there are a lot of people in this world whose self-identity if not their income depend on the historicity of the HJ.

Finally, another aspect that Nessie and the HJ have in common is that the harder one looks for them, the less of them one is able to find.

Ask a zoologist if Nessie should be considered as an existent creature, and you will get a one-word reply: "No". Curiously, you won't get the same reply form a historian re HJ.

mountainman · 11-16-2011, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Evidence for Nessie may yet be produced.

And we should be honest and admit that evidence for Jesus may someday be produced.

Continuing in that vein of honesty, we should say that until that day arrives, HJ is just as far fetched as Nessie, and for some of the same reasons.

We would expect a breeding population of animals the size of Nessie to leave contemporary evidence of their existence, relics like carcasses, bones, scat, teeth, remains of their prey. We don't find these expected things. Just like HJ.

We don't see a Nessie-shaped hole in the ecology of the lake. Fish populations don't rise as Nessie-sightings go down. In other words, there is no need for the hypothesis in the first place. Just like HJ.

Loch Ness doesn't have enough of a prey population to sustain a population of large predators like Nessie, so the very concept of such an animal living there doesn't make a lot of sense considering its proposed environment. Much the same way that that there are problems for any of the proposed HJ scenarios - they don't make a lot of sense considering the area at the time.

Nessie is just one of a string of fabulous mythic creatures whose legend was started locally and then spread far and wide, like the yeti, or bigfoot. Keeping the legend alive is a lucrative past time, despite the fact that these creatures should properly be viewed as non existent. Just like the 10,000 gods which preceded Jesus Christ, there are a lot of people in this world whose self-identity if not their income depend on the historicity of the HJ.

Finally, another aspect that Nessie and the HJ have in common is that the harder one looks for them, the less of them one is able to find.

Ask a zoologist if Nessie should be considered as an existent creature, and you will get a one-word reply: "No". Curiously, you won't get the same reply form a historian re HJ.

The paradox might have something to do with conceptual frameworks. Zoologists sometimes stumble over unclassifiable creatures for example. As to what unclassifiable creatures historians of antiquity may have stumbled over is anyone's guess.

A thorough investigation of the evidence is probably long overdue.
The parallels between Big N and Big J are monstrous!

youngalexander · 11-16-2011, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

There are still tens of thousands of Pilgrims who travel to Loch Ness every year with the hope of seeing the creature.

And 'see' them they undoubtedly will - I kid you not!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJ

Apparently all the evidence that convinced millions of people that Nessie was alive came from from people's imagination and some clever and not so clever hoaxers.

Warnly

Jay Raskin

Well, no, not really. I myself have seen 'Nessie' on several occasions. Yet I have never been to Loch Ness??!

Let me explain: In late April of 2002 we stayed at a resort overlooking Loch Ard. The atmospherics were splendid. Occasionally the opposite bank could be seen, and the island in the middle of the loch. Mostly however, there was a grey mist which uncannily matched the grey water thus rendering a seemless vista from the near bank to eternity. Out of the grey uniformity one could periodically detect darker 'images' - typically of the semi-circular series of hoops beloved of 'Nessie' spotters. They appeared from the gloom, progressed some way across the loch and disappeared again.

On the first day I was greatly intrigued and observed them closely. After repeated performances on that and subsequent days it became a mere amusement. I used to lol about, after a hard days touristing, single malt in hand, admiring these standing waves on the surface of the loch. Their darkened hoops resulting from the shadow of the upper crest against the solid grey background. Their ephemeral nature due to the vagaries of the mist as it wafted gently from the surface.

To a physicist all this was obvious. However, I was certainly impressed by how 'realistic' it might appear to more gullible souls!

As to JC, I await the results of a knowledgeable Bayesian analysis.:constern01:

PhilosopherJay · 11-17-2011, 08:28 AM

Hi Youngalexander,

Thanks for this eyewitness account.
There are many gestalt psychological experiments showing how our desire for simplicity and clarity often leads us into perceptual mistakes, for example seeing a face in shadows from a picture of Mars.

In the case of Loch Ness, it all is amusing and quite a lot of fun.

It would be nice if the case of Jesus the Christ was the same. Unfortunately in the case of Jesus, [as Zaphod alluded to] major institutions providing millions of people with jobs around the world are involved. This adds a great deal of gravity to the case, which it otherwise would not possess.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

There are still tens of thousands of Pilgrims who travel to Loch Ness every year with the hope of seeing the creature.

And 'see' them they undoubtedly will - I kid you not!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJ

Apparently all the evidence that convinced millions of people that Nessie was alive came from from people's imagination and some clever and not so clever hoaxers.

Warnly

Jay Raskin

Well, no, not really. I myself have seen 'Nessie' on several occasions. Yet I have never been to Loch Ness??!

Let me explain: In late April of 2002 we stayed at a resort overlooking Loch Ard. The atmospherics were splendid. Occasionally the opposite bank could be seen, and the island in the middle of the loch. Mostly however, there was a grey mist which uncannily matched the grey water thus rendering a seemless vista from the near bank to eternity. Out of the grey uniformity one could periodically detect darker 'images' - typically of the semi-circular series of hoops beloved of 'Nessie' spotters. They appeared from the gloom, progressed some way across the loch and disappeared again.

On the first day I was greatly intrigued and observed them closely. After repeated performances on that and subsequent days it became a mere amusement. I used to lol about, after a hard days touristing, single malt in hand, admiring these standing waves on the surface of the loch. Their darkened hoops resulting from the shadow of the upper crest against the solid grey background. Their ephemeral nature due to the vagaries of the mist as it wafted gently from the surface.

To a physicist all this was obvious. However, I was certainly impressed by how 'realistic' it might appear to more gullible souls!

As to JC, I await the results of a knowledgeable Bayesian analysis.:constern01:

tanya · 11-17-2011, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

As to JC, I await the results of a knowledgeable Bayesian analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfram

Bayesian analysis is a statistical procedure which endeavors to estimate parameters of an underlying distribution based on the observed distribution.

I would argue that you have a long wait, ahead.

The key words here are: "observed distribution".

Bayes' theorem can't manufacture data. It rather, depends upon the data out there. No amount of Bayes' manipulations, can change the content of Codex Sinaiticus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-09-2011, 06:25 PM	#23
ahdenai Veteran Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: migrant worker, US Posts: 2,845	Why the dichotomy? Why does it have to be Nessie OR Jesus? Why not have BOTH? How do we know that Jesus really went up into the sky? Maybe he actually went to Loch Ness, and has been underwater ever since. Maybe Jesus actually IS the Loch Ness Monster. Like Clark Kent and Superman -- nobody has ever seen the two of them together.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.