In response...

Ninja 101 · 2009-05-15 09:13:21

Well, if we are in need of a topic of conversation, why not Cryptozoology?
I have always found it interesting, because I'm open-minded. ^^

LorraineBR · 2009-05-15 09:32:27

this probably wasnt wat you had in mind but what is it

bobbym · 2009-05-15 20:33:57

Hi Lorraine;

It is the study of legendary creatures (creatures that modern science won't admit exist). Might even be considered part of the so called lunatic fringe. It's fascinating though.

Ninja 101 · 2009-05-16 00:57:12

Indeed.

LorraineBR · 2009-05-16 01:25:02

cool i think ive found somethin new 2 distract me from my studies. in says on wikipedia dat cryptozoology also covers animals existin outside der natural habitat. would that include de panter thats supposed to be living around my area. or is it mainly interested in creatures such as big foot

bobbym · 2009-05-16 10:06:48

What panther?

LorraineBR · 2009-05-17 01:34:40

i dunnno apparently ders bn sightings of a big black cat near were i live nd ders bn really big claw marks found and loads hav sheep and cows have been killed, i dont no if its true tho.

bobbym · 2009-05-17 03:33:41

Have experts denied its existence? Have they called the eyewitnesses crazy or fame seekers?

Tigeree · 2009-05-20 19:40:59

Cryptozoology? What's that? sounds interesting...

bobbym · 2009-05-20 21:53:10

Hi Tigeree;

See post #3

Tigeree · 2009-05-21 19:12:25

The study of legendary creatures!!!! I love that!!!! That's like my favourite subject in the whole wide world!!!! I knew that, BTW, bobz! Even though I love science but I still love all the old stuff.

bobbym · 2009-05-22 02:27:06

I knew you knew. It also covers some modern creatures like the chupacabra.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-05-22 23:37:32)

Ricky · 2009-05-22 17:25:04

I have always found it interesting, because I'm open-minded.

"Open-minded" is not about accepting or not rejecting things. It is about considering them. When you claim you have evidence for (in the this example) bigfoot, an open minded person will say "Show me" where as a close minded person will say "No you don't" or perhaps even "Awesome, I believe it!" You see, a close minded person is someone who accepts or rejects things without consideration.

In contrast, I reject the notion that crypto-zoology (how it is commonly defined) is a valid field of scientific study. However I have given rather thorough consideration to it, so I claim that I am still open-minded.

It is the study of legendary creatures (creatures that modern science won't admit exist).

bobbym, this wording suggests that you think there is some conspiracy to deny the existence of these creatures. Is that correct? If so, what do scientists have to gain by doing so?

Have experts denied its existence? Have they called the eyewitnesses crazy or fame seekers?

It's important to note here the unreliability of eyewitnesses. If you were to accept eyewitness testimony, then you would have to accept:

Aliens
Bigfoot
Loch Ness
Cold fusion
Fairies
Leprechauns
Perpetual motion devices
Ghosts

And the list goes on. But science has shown time and time again that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. There are many various reasons for this, some as simply as "He's lying" to more advanced psychological explanations such as confirmation bias. There are also various phenomenon related with memory (e.g. False Memory Syndrome) and especially hypnosis. These are all well documented and studied phenomenon.

But experts would not call an eyewitness crazy. Such an idea that they would is rather... crazy.

bobbym · 2009-05-22 18:46:46

"Science used to be the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated"
George Knapp

open-minded
Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.

Hi Rick;

Please do not take offence at any of the following comments. I have great respect for you. Also for anyone else who reads this post who may be a scientist or connected with these fields, or is opposed to them, I mean you no disrespect.

bobbym wrote:

Have experts denied its existence? Have they called the eyewitnesses crazy or fame seekers?

Was just asking a question. Someone posted about a rather large black cat. Just wanted to know what the big guns made of the situation.

Ricky wrote:

In contrast, I reject the notion that crypto-zoology (how it is commonly defined) is a valid field of scientific study. However I have given rather thorough consideration to it, so I claim that I am still open-minded.

Open-mindedness means not making a decision until all the facts are in. Unfortunately neither you or I know anything about this field. We are both amateurs. We are not qualified to judge it one way or the other.

bobbym wrote:

It is the study of legendary creatures (creatures that modern science won't admit exist).

Nothing controversial here. Science is wonderful, scientists are people. Historically there have been many opinions that scientists have ridiculed and were forced to accept later.

Ricky wrote:

It's important to note here the unreliability of eyewitnesses. If you were to accept eyewitness testimony, then you would have to accept:
Aliens
Bigfoot
Loch Ness
Cold fusion
Fairies
Leprechauns
Perpetual motion devices
Ghosts

I think with that list your getting away from what cryptozoology is supposed to be. Some of them we might be able to rule out. One of those topics is still a big area of research. I do have to say that I am not even a talented amateur on any of those subjects. To be open-minded I have to say I don't know. Can you say more? I am willing to listen.

Ricky wrote:

But experts would not call an eyewitness crazy. Such an idea that they would is rather... crazy.

Are you calling my ideas crazy? If so you can hardly expect me to agree with you about that.

Ricky wrote:

There are many various reasons for this, some as simply as "He's lying" to more advanced psychological explanations such as confirmation bias. There are also various phenomenon related with memory (e.g. False Memory Syndrome)

Aren't you calling the eyewitnesses liars or hinting that they have some sort of mental problem? Experts are people, they might do the same thing. It's easy to dismiss other peoples views especially when they are outside of our box like view of the world.

Ricky wrote:

bobbym, this wording suggests that you think there is some conspiracy to deny the existence of these creatures. Is that correct? If so, what do scientists have to gain by doing so?

I have not implied that there is a conspiracy here. Just a lot of excited people. I do think that believing that there are no conspiracies is a bit naive. Scientists again, are people. If some of them were covering up anything it would most likely be for money (I guess).

Last edited by bobbym (2009-05-22 23:28:04)

lightning · 2009-05-22 23:07:29

What about dragons? Do those count?

bobbym · 2009-05-22 23:13:09

Hi lightning;

I guess so.

Ricky · 2009-05-23 04:18:58

Open-mindedness means not making a decision until all the facts are in. Unfortunately neither you or I know anything about this field. We are both amateurs. We are not qualified to judge it one way or the other.

If you are going to wait for all the facts, then you are going to be waiting forever. There will never be a time where all the facts are in. That's the way science works: there are no absolutes. But even you are guilty of not waiting till all the facts are in. We don't understand much about gravity, yet you are not afraid of gravity suddenly reversing itself in the middle of the night. Why do you not duct tape yourself to bed before you go to sleep?

Also, don't presume my knowledge on the subject. One may not be an expert but still know enough to make informed decisions. I have studied it quite a bit, and have come to my conclusions because of it.

Historically there have been many opinions that scientists have ridiculed and were forced to accept later.

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

I think with that list your getting away from what cryptozoology is supposed to be. Some of them we might be able to rule out. One of those topics is still a big area of research. I do have to say that I am not even a talented amateur on any of those subjects. To be open-minded I have to say I don't know. Can you say more? I am willing to listen.

The list was not aimed at cryptozoology, but rather at the reliability of eyewitnesses. If you think we can rule out some of them, then I take it you agree that eyewitness testimony is not a reliable source of information.

Saying you don't know is a great answer. But remember that even when you say you do know, there is always a chance to be wrong. When I say I know something, I am not being dogmatic. It is only to the best of my knowledge. In that sense, I know bigfoot doesn't exist.

Ricky wrote:
But experts would not call an eyewitness crazy. Such an idea that they would is rather... crazy.
Are you calling my ideas crazy? If so you can hardly expect me to agree with you about that.

No... it was a joke.

Aren't you calling the eyewitnesses liars or hinting that they have some sort of mental problem?

How the heck did you get that? Obviously some eyewitnesses are liars, that should come as no surprise to anyone. As for the mental problem, let me try to be a bit more clear. False Memory Syndrome and confirmation bias are things that afflict even the most healthy of brains. FMS tends to afflict only those who have gone through traumatic events. Though some are more susceptible to hypnosis than others, this is no indication of a mental problem.

They are just well documented cases that our brains are not always perfect.

I have not implied that there is a conspiracy here. Just a lot of excited people. I do think that believing that there are no conspiracies is a bit naive. Scientists again, are people. If some of them were covering up anything it would most likely be for money (I guess).

The way scientists make money (i.e. get grants) is to beat other scientists to new discoveries, or show that other scientists are wrong. Science is an extremely competitive discipline, and money is made by exposing new things, not hiding them.

bobbym · 2009-05-23 09:06:04

Hi Rick;

Ricky wrote:

If you are going to wait for all the facts, then you are going to be waiting forever. There will never be a time where all the facts are in. That's the way science works: there are no absolutes. But even you are guilty of not waiting till all the facts are in.

True, there are no absolutes. We don't have certainty in science. I am not guilty because I have not made up my mind about any of this.

Ricky wrote:

We don't understand much about gravity, yet you are not afraid of gravity suddenly reversing itself in the middle of the night. Why do you not duct tape yourself to bed before you go to sleep?

That is precisely the point, we don't understand much about anything. If the law of gravity were suddenly repealed, I don't think duct tape would help.

Ricky wrote:

Also, don't presume my knowledge on the subject. One may not be an expert but still know enough to make informed decisions. I have studied it quite a bit, and have come to my conclusions because of it.

Informed views are not laws. They are opinions, nothing more. What I was getting at is this: Cryptozoology is not your or my profession. Studying up on medicine does not a doctor make. Your opinions may be invalid.

Ricky wrote:

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

I wish I knew what was worse, that statement, or how it gets interpreted. Why do we have to focus on Bozo while missing the tragedy of laughing at the others.
Experts laughed at Columbus,Fulton,the Wright brothers,Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur, Darwin, Freud, Cantor and a host of others. Experts are still laughing at David Deutsch, Doron Zeilberger, Linus Pauling. Nikola Tesla and many more.

Ricky wrote:

The list was not aimed at cryptozoology, but rather at the reliability of eyewitnesses. If you think we can rule out some of them, then I take it you agree that eyewitness testimony is not a reliable source of information.

Some eyewitnesses are in error, but how does that prove they are all in error, Some eyewitnesses might be relating the truth.

Ricky wrote:

Saying you don't know is a great answer. But remember that even when you say you do know, there is always a chance to be wrong. When I say I know something, I am not being dogmatic. It is only to the best of my knowledge. In that sense, I know bigfoot doesn't exist.

How reliable is it when we say we know? Can we assign a probability to the statement? Would it be accurate? How do we determine the error bounds? Your sense of knowing is constantly evolving, refining itself. It is not unusual for people to make abrupt changes or even reversals in their most precious beliefs.

Ricky wrote:

How the heck did you get that? Obviously some eyewitnesses are liars, that should come as no surprise to anyone. As for the mental problem, let me try to be a bit more clear. False Memory Syndrome and confirmation bias are things that afflict even the most healthy of brains. FMS tends to afflict only those who have gone through traumatic events. Though some are more susceptible to hypnosis than others, this is no indication of a mental problem.
They are just well documented cases that our brains are not always perfect.

My sister has one of those problems. It does not make her see bigfoot.

Ricky wrote:

No... it was a joke.

I know. When debating it is often wise to try to rattle your opponent. Makes it easier to achieve victory.

Ricky wrote:

The way scientists make money (i.e. get grants) is to beat other scientists to new discoveries, or show that other scientists are wrong. Science is an extremely competitive discipline, and money is made by exposing new things, not hiding them.

I said "if" they were covering up then I suggested money might be the motive.

I have enjoyed your comments and I could just as easily be on the other side of this question.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-05-25 21:10:36)

LorraineBR · 2009-05-24 07:16:31

in reply 2 bobbum's question bout de supposed panter round were i live...no 1s really said anythin dont think any1 believes its der...oh nd if my friends r 2 be listened 2 apparently im a leprechaun bn 5 foot and irsh may have its down sides but hey apparently i can grant wishes

bobbym · 2009-05-24 07:26:46

Well then we have confirmation. A real live leprechaun. This is a historic day. See, I knew I was right.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-05-24 23:00:35)

Tigeree · 2009-05-24 12:56:00

Thank you, Ricky. I love leprechaun's tricksy little creatures they being! I'm going to go to Ireland one day they have a lot of legendary creatures there. Actually all across Europe, and part of Asia probably in the Himalayas and Mongolia with their Asian Dragons and things I think I'll go to Romania to and hunt some Vampires and Werewolves and things.

bobbym · 2009-05-24 13:08:10

I think you mean me.

Tigeree · 2009-05-25 13:24:39

Yeah, but I was talking to Ricky for his first post #13 and then the rest of 'em. But thank you bobby. Anyway as I was saying you were right about the modern monsters and such like the Chupacabra, that's South American btw. I like some of the modern monsters like The Pulkipp and The Lombus and the cutest little monster I've ever seen The Rhinon! He's so cute! The Russian Werewolf I think is the most evil of Werewolves they even have hair under their tongue! And red claws! Even though I love all legendary creatures My favourite has to be The Phoenix. Although I do really love Griffins and Dragons. When I was at school twice in a year our English class had to do a project on legendary creatures and everyone knew that I knew about legendary creatures more than anyone so everyone wanted to be in my group. I just laughed at them and tried to help in any way I could.

So.. what's everyones favourite creature?

bobbym · 2009-05-25 19:47:19

Hi Tigeree;

Yea, I do have a favorite creature. Its aggressive, expansive, territorial, greedy and really hard on the environment but it is still my favorite.

Last edited by bobbym (2009-05-26 07:30:12)

Ricky · 2009-05-26 12:44:47

That is precisely the point, we don't understand much about anything. If the law of gravity were suddenly repealed, I don't think duct tape would help.

You seem to be missing the point. We make decisions every day based on incomplete knowledge. We go with our best understanding, which is entirely rational (since by definition there isn't anything better). Unfortunately we must do this in science as well. To "wait until all the facts are in" is silly if there is enough evidence to make a decision, even if the knowledge is still incomplete.

What I was getting at is this: Cryptozoology is not your or my profession. Studying up on medicine does not a doctor make. Your opinions may be invalid.

And a doctor's opinions (on medicine) may be invalid! Being an expert does not suddenly make you into an all-knowing creature. I feel sorry for you if you think that just because you are not an chemist you can't conclude that homeopathy is bunk.

Ricky wrote:
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
I wish I knew what was worse, that statement, or how it gets interpreted. Why do we have to focus on Bozo while missing the tragedy of laughing at the others. Experts laughed at Columbus,Fulton,the Wright brothers,Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur, Darwin, Freud, Cantor and a host of others. Experts are still laughing at David Deutsch, Doron Zeilberger, Linus Pauling. Nikola Tesla and many more.

Because that's the point of what he was saying! Yes, it is well known that many scientists were laughed at and turned out to be right. It is so well known it has become cliche. But the point of the quote is that just because someone is laughed at does not make them right.

Some eyewitnesses are in error, but how does that prove they are all in error, Some eyewitnesses might be relating the truth.

It doesn't prove that any are in error! But the main thing is that it doesn't show with any reasonable amount of certainty that any are right either. It can't count as positive evidence, only suggestive. If there are a lot of eyewitnesses, then this could suggest the need for more research. But we can not accept eyewitness testimony as evidence.

This was the point I was trying to make before. If we were to accept eyewitness testimony as evidence, then we would have evidence for fairies, UFOs, Elvis, and so on.

How reliable is it when we say we know? Can we assign a probability to the statement? Would it be accurate? How do we determine the error bounds? Your sense of knowing is constantly evolving, refining itself. It is not unusual for people to make abrupt changes or even reversals in their most precious beliefs.

You're going down the path of the Bayesians, which personally I do not recommend (from a philosophic standpoint). Everyone's judgment of how much is enough is different. When you have the entire field of zoology not recognizing cryptozoology as a valid discipline of science, this to me is enough.

As for abrupt changes in precious beliefs, it happens, but it doesn't happen as much as it should.

My sister has one of those problems. It does not make her see bigfoot.

Either there is a serious misunderstanding here, or you're pulling my leg. I'll assume it is the later for now...

Math Is Fun Forum

#1 2009-05-15 09:13:21

In response...

#2 2009-05-15 09:32:27

Re: In response...

#3 2009-05-15 20:33:57

Re: In response...

#4 2009-05-16 00:57:12

Re: In response...

#5 2009-05-16 01:25:02

Re: In response...

#6 2009-05-16 10:06:48

Re: In response...

#7 2009-05-17 01:34:40

Re: In response...

#8 2009-05-17 03:33:41

Re: In response...

#9 2009-05-20 19:40:59

Re: In response...

#10 2009-05-20 21:53:10

Re: In response...

#11 2009-05-21 19:12:25

Re: In response...

#12 2009-05-22 02:27:06

Re: In response...

#13 2009-05-22 17:25:04

Re: In response...

#14 2009-05-22 18:46:46

Re: In response...

#15 2009-05-22 23:07:29

Re: In response...

#16 2009-05-22 23:13:09

Re: In response...

#17 2009-05-23 04:18:58

Re: In response...

#18 2009-05-23 09:06:04

Re: In response...

#19 2009-05-24 07:16:31

Re: In response...

#20 2009-05-24 07:26:46

Re: In response...

#21 2009-05-24 12:56:00

Re: In response...

#22 2009-05-24 13:08:10

Re: In response...

#23 2009-05-25 13:24:39

Re: In response...

#24 2009-05-25 19:47:19

Re: In response...

#25 2009-05-26 12:44:47

Re: In response...

Board footer