Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 2:08 AM
42 online now:
Dredge, dwise1 (2 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,539 Year: 3,576/19,786 Month: 571/1,087 Week: 161/212 Day: 3/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   YETI nother explanation?
Modulous
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 16 of 32 (716019)
01-11-2014 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
11-10-2013 2:22 PM


Obviously, imho, the first approach would not have either found the fur sample nor tested it.

This is neither obvious nor true. I am perfectly capable of testing the things I believe are false - and disbelieving skeptics often test the subjects of their disbelief. Bias may well rear its ugly head, but I reject your absolutist position that it is in principle impossible for a disbelieving skeptic to find and test evidence regarding the thing they disbelieve.

Attempting verify or falsify something you believe is false is not psychologically impossible. One might argue bias, but then there is bias on the believers side too.

Did the indiginous population of America ride horses and grow wheat and grapes? I don't think so. The Mormons do. Both of us are equally capable of searching for evidence for or against this proposition. The disbelievers may well ignore or diminish evidence that supports it, just as the believer may fake or exaggerate evidence. It tends to be believers that spend more time and money on these searches, its true.

On the other hand, there is publication bias. The papers are much more likely to print 'I saw a Yeti' than 'I didn't see any Yeti' for instance.

The would likely have claimed that the hairs came from some other animal, such as the Himalayan Goral.

It turns out the hairs did come from some other animal. An animal that may well have been extinct for 10s of thousands of years.

Why would a disbeliever think the new evidence would be any different?

In this case, they are right. A disbeliever may well be less interested in testing new evidence, but I don't see why because they disbelieve they necessarily won't.


And 'closed-minded skeptic' is a perjoritive turn of phrase (intolerance, stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas). One that shows your bias clearly. Disbelieving skeptic seems like a more neutral term.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2013 2:22 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2014 6:23 PM Modulous has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 17 of 32 (716020)
01-11-2014 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Modulous
01-11-2014 6:14 PM


So you are about to embark on a trip to find more hairs. Bravo.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2014 6:14 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2014 6:29 PM RAZD has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 18 of 32 (716021)
01-11-2014 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
01-11-2014 6:23 PM


So you are about to embark on a trip to find more hairs. Bravo.

If I had the funds and the time, I would bite your hand off for such an opportunity. But like you, I have neither.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2014 6:23 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2014 7:04 PM Modulous has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 19 of 32 (716029)
01-11-2014 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Modulous
01-11-2014 6:29 PM


If I had the funds and the time, I would bite your hand off for such an opportunity. But like you, I have neither.

But would you go there just to go there or are you dying to go and find evidence.

Yes I would love to go, but my position on the Yeti is that there is anecdotal and questionable (not validated/duplicate) evidence that is attributed to |yeti| and that whatever is found that explains the evidence is de facto |Yeti| in my book, so it could be anything, including a bear descendant from a 10,000 year old polar bear ancestor.

It seems to me that a |firm believer| would dismiss the bear as |not Yeti| because it does not meet their expectations ... and that a |firm denier| would dismiss the bear as |not Yeti| because it does not meet their expectations (what they deny exists).

So a degree of open-mindedness and a degree of skepticism are needed to look rationally at the possibility that |?bear?| ≡ |yeti|.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2014 6:29 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2014 8:01 PM RAZD has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 20 of 32 (716048)
01-11-2014 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
01-11-2014 7:04 PM


The abdominal snowman
But would you go there just to go there or are you dying to go and find evidence.

Is 'dying to go and find evidence' important somehow?

I would love to go on a hunt for evidence of a previously known species of bears. I'm completely unqualified, but in principle...

Yes I would love to go, but my position on the Yeti is that there is anecdotal and questionable (not validated/duplicate) evidence that is attributed to |yeti| and that whatever is found that explains the evidence is de facto |Yeti| in my book, so it could be anything, including a bear descendant from a 10,000 year old polar bear ancestor.

It might be true that the sightings of yeti are actually rare bear sightings, but just because we find evidence of a bear, that doesn't mean these explain the sightings of Yeti. This bear is said in the news articles to have 100% match to a prehistoric bear, which seems odd for an extant species unless he was using a very small genetic sample for comparison (I found an answer on wiki some time after writing this sentence: It was a test on 12S RNA, a single gene comparison - though I believe one that is often used for such things)
I don't see any information about where he has published this, the media just mentions his forthcoming book and documentary.

If it turns out to be 40,000 years old then I'd say we hadn't solved the cause of Yeti sightings.

It seems to me that a |firm believer| would dismiss the bear as |not Yeti| because it does not meet their expectations ... and that a |firm denier| would dismiss the bear as |not Yeti| because it does not meet their expectations (what they deny exists).

Why? These are big generalizations you are making.

So a degree of open-mindedness and a degree of skepticism are needed to look rationally at the possibility that |?bear?| ≡ |yeti|.

Well, yes. But again being a Yeti-denier is not closed minded, that was my contention regarding this matter. One can both be of the opinion there is no Yeti while also open to the possibility of being proved wrong.

You say a '|firm denier| would dismiss the bear as |not Yeti| because it does not meet their expectations (what they deny exists).'

But I see no reason why this is the case. Why does a firm denier have to be so closed minded they won't change their view when evidence is presented?

A firm denier in Yeti may still be able to say 'Some sightings of Yeti may be attributed to a isolated species of bears'. Just like a Alien-UFO denier may say 'Some sightings of UFOs are just helicopters'.

Nevertheless the idea that Yeti sightings might just be a bear has been around for decades. Indeed, I believe part of the word 'yeti' come from the Tibetan for bear - the 'teh' at the end.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2014 7:04 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2014 11:07 PM Modulous has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 32 (716054)
01-11-2014 9:00 PM


Indeed, I believe part of the word 'yeti' come from the Tibetan for bear - the 'teh' at the end.

Whereas Sasquatch comes from a Northwest Coast Indian word.

Sasahevas is the Salish Indian word meaning, "Wild Man of the Woods."

Here are some additional such words:

http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/sassynames.html

While not really great evidence, the North American Indians generally knew a bear when they saw one, and that so many different tribes had a name for what could be a North American "yeti" suggests that someone was seeing something out of the ordinary!

What we really need are some good bones! Drag back a hand, foot, or skull. That would really help settle the issue.

DNA might help as well, but if the DNA comes back as "unknown" it doesn't do much good.

Here is another link to stir the pot:

http://woodape.org/...gfoot/articles/84-sasquatch-handprints


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 22 of 32 (716068)
01-11-2014 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Modulous
01-11-2014 8:01 PM


Re: The abdominal snowman (if you can stomach it?)
Why? These are big generalizations you are making.

Because a firm opinion would have no doubt even with contrary evidence.

The person who adamantly declares "there is NO such thing as a Yeti" would say "See I told you there was NO such thing as a Yeti ... it was a bear"


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2014 8:01 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 01-12-2014 6:13 AM RAZD has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 32 (716080)
01-12-2014 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
01-11-2014 11:07 PM


six pack sasquatch
Because a firm opinion would have no doubt even with contrary evidence.

Yes, I get that. I'm asking you why this is true. I'm asking for proof that a firm opinion won't ever change.
.

The person who adamantly declares "there is NO such thing as a Yeti" would say "See I told you there was NO such thing as a Yeti ... it was a bear"

How sure are you of this theory and what evidence do you have of it?
abe:
We also have a Wittgenstein-esque language problem here. What does it mean to say 'there is no such thing as a Yeti'? You seem to believe this includes the belief 'there is no animal that that has been given the name Yeti by somebody'. I don't think anybody holds that view, though.
Calling it The Yeti or a 'snowman' implies it is something other than a bear. Otherwise it would be called a, I don't know, Himalayan Brown Bear or somesuch. Most people are familiar enough with bears these days to be able to say 'I encountered a bear' when they do. Or are explorers and climbers incompetent at folk-zoology?
And furthermore - the tracks that have been said to be Yeti tracks are clearly not bear prints: They are predominantly bipedal, long and thin with toes. Bear tracks are shorter and fatter, quadrupedal, with distinctive claw marks.

So if we find a bear that has been mistaken for a Yeti - that isn't necessarily the same thing as finding a Yeti. Because some Yeti's carry stone weapons, walk mostly upright, aren't bears, have different shaped feet and so on depending on the person describing it.

I am a Yeti denier. It is my view that the Yeti legend is woven from real encounters with bears and possibly (maybe) apes, oxygen deprived hallucinations (the content of which is 'suggested' by the location), hoaxes, deception and lies, failures of track identification, folklore and so on.
Is that closed minded?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2014 11:07 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2014 4:28 PM Modulous has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 24 of 32 (716241)
01-13-2014 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Modulous
01-12-2014 6:13 AM


Re: six pack sasquatch
So if we find a bear that has been mistaken for a Yeti - that isn't necessarily the same thing as finding a Yeti. Because some Yeti's carry stone weapons, walk mostly upright, aren't bears, have different shaped feet and so on depending on the person describing it.

Like I said a firm denier position would take.

I am a Yeti denier. It is my view that the Yeti legend is woven from real encounters with bears and possibly (maybe) apes, oxygen deprived hallucinations (the content of which is 'suggested' by the location), hoaxes, deception and lies, failures of track identification, folklore and so on.
Is that closed minded?

A willingness to entertain alternate descriptions would not be a closed mind, so all we are arguing about then is perhaps the degree of open-mindedness.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 01-12-2014 6:13 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 01-13-2014 6:38 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 25 of 32 (716245)
01-13-2014 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
01-13-2014 4:28 PM


's no man
So if we find a bear that has been mistaken for a Yeti - that isn't necessarily the same thing as finding a Yeti. Because some Yeti's carry stone weapons, walk mostly upright, aren't bears, have different shaped feet and so on depending on the person describing it.
Like I said a firm denier position would take.

Looks like you missed the point.

What does it mean to say 'there is no such thing as a Yeti'? What would make something a 'Yeti'?

I just wrote some thoughts around that concept from which you handily plucked this out of its essential context and declared vindication. If by 'Yeti', you mean, 'a subspecies of a known species of animal that has been mistaken for something else entirely' then I don't deny such a being exists. Maybe it does or maybe it doesn't.

Do you mean by Yeti, 'a giant tool using humanoid' - in which case this bear is not a Yeti.

If it turns out to be something a secretive tradition to dress up as a Yeti to scare people, would the costumes be Yeti? Or would the pranksters be Yeti?

Will it be considered a Yeti if its feet differ from the tracks that people claim are Yeti tracks? Or would we declare those tracks as 'not Yeti'? What would we call the thing that made those tracks, should such a creature be found?

A willingness to entertain alternate descriptions would not be a closed mind, so all we are arguing about then is perhaps the degree of open-mindedness.

I can't speak for what you are arguing about, but my argument is that you've characterised people who deny the existence of the Yeti as necessarily closed minded:

'close-minded skepticism' which ' would not have either found the fur sample nor tested it.'
and
'Because a firm opinion would have no doubt even with contrary evidence.'

You haven't supported these propositions. If you are simply saying that 'people have biases that can interfere with assessing evidence', then you'd have received no argument from me. But you seem to be saying something more than that, that people that deny things based on an absence of evidence will be intrinsically closed minded (and thus that all such people are closed-minded)

Indeed how would you characterise someone of the position 'There is no Yeti, but I am happy to be proven wrong on that'? (reference: Message 3), I argue you missed this logical possibility in your list. You didn't list 'I am convinced there is a Yeti and nothing will convince me otherwise'. This is closed minded but surely, in your view, it too would be a worldview that would motivate one to find/test the hair?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2014 4:28 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 26 of 32 (716246)
01-13-2014 7:35 PM


This started out an interesting thread dealing with hair samples, but now we're just splitting hairs.

:-(


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 07-02-2014 4:38 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 925 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 27 of 32 (716250)
01-14-2014 12:53 AM




    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 28 of 32 (716321)
01-14-2014 5:36 PM


bear truths
I watched the Channel 4 documentary featuring Mark Evans and Bryan Sykes on 4od, for those that are in the UK or know how to fool servers into believing you are:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/bigfoot-files/4od#3609197

Episode 1 is the topic of this thread: Yeti (2 deals with Sasquatch and 3 deals with the Russian Almasty).

Its decently enough made, but Mark Evans kind of rubbed me the wrong way somehow. It was comments like 'As a veterinarian surgery I knew we could pass out at any time', when describing how they were suffering from altitude sickness (actually I still don't know why they went to base camp they just sort of pointed into the distance and said 'about 2 miles that way Shipton and co found prints that Sherpers identified as 'Yeti'').

The Sherpers seemed to have a quasi-religious attitude towards the Yeti.

They postulated the idea that the long/narrow footprints might be the front paw and rear paw prints of a bear next to one another. That is, the rear paw comes forward and lands just behind where the front paw was, overlapping with it. They got a grizzly to reproduce this phenomenon...sort of.

The Ladakh sample was given by a French mountianeer who was shown to the mumified corpse of something that was described as 'definitely not a bear' by the people who showed it to him (though he thought it was) - he took a hair sample from it.

I don't know where the Bhutan one came from exactly, there was a dramatic reconstruction of it being collected but I don't know how accurate it was.

They tested another weird looking stuffed Yeti, supposedly killed by a Nazi explorer, but no DNA was found in the hair - possibly destroyed by sunlight.

From a cursory look around the internet, a fair few Yeti enthusiasts deny that the Yeti is a bear and are sticking to the primate/hominid theory.

Reinhold Messner did an interview where he said he believed it was a bear.

Can't say I've really read much about the Yeti before now, it's been quite an interesting evening.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 29 of 32 (731961)
07-02-2014 8:06 AM


Liars and horses and bears (oh my!)
http://news.sciencemag.org/...7/bigfoot-samples-analyzed-lab

quote:
In 2012, researchers at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and the Museum of Zoology in Lausanne, Switzerland, put out a call for hair samples thought to be from anomalous primates....Seven of the samples didn’t yield enough DNA for identification. Of the 30 that were sequenced, all matched the exact 12S RNA sequences for known species, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Ten hairs belonged to various bear species; four were from horses; four were from wolves or dogs; one was a perfect match to a human hair; and the others came from cows, raccoons, deer, and even a porcupine. Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2014 5:05 PM Modulous has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16227
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 30 of 32 (732002)
07-02-2014 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coyote
01-13-2014 7:35 PM


Coyote writes:

This started out an interesting thread dealing with hair samples, but now we're just splitting hairs.


Step 1. Find hairs.
Step 2. Split hairs.

(The order is optional.)


"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2014 7:35 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019