When to claim extinction...

[Ringer]

YOU say it is a false equivalence, but I am arguing it is 'silly' not to trust eye witness accounts, especially when patterns and trends begin to emerge. Given your propensity for accuracy, I'd argue that you are likely NOT eating the best cereal you possibly could...or maybe you are?

Apparently you missed the point of my cereal analogy. It was meant to show that scientific rigor is unnecessary in normal life situations, and would probably end up with you wasting away without making a decision. That should have made the false equivalence evident.

Again, if eye witness-empirically collected evidence is so poor, then why don't we run into things more? Clearly our vision serves us on a daily basis to successfully navigate yet you dismiss it without regard.

So you could navigate a room, or describe an animal in scientific detail, by seeing it a single time? Probably not, because the brain only likes to remember what is necessary, and what it remembers doesn't even need to be true. How about this, do you think that people would be able to see a gorilla walking through a basketball game? Because with your trust in people's perceptions I would bet you would be wrong.

[King, North TX]

That this thread is 'here', and not where originally posted is a form of "censorship", and I will be inactive until it is replaced.

 

That is all.

[Arete]

It is clear from the OP and thread content your intention was not discussing the extinction of organisms recently declared extinct - but rather the notion that organisms only known from prehistoric evidence are still extant and therefore a valid explanation for phenomena mainstream science considers mythological. It therefore not a discussion of mainstream biology and is more appropriate for speculations. If you disagree feel free to report the thread to the moderation staff for further evaluation.

 

There is a large body of research unequivocally demonstrating the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, e.g.

 

"Eyewitness memory, even under idealized conditions, was highly unreliable..."

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247043

 

"Experimental research has shown that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, including eyewitness testimony for anomalous events."

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2003/00000010/f0020006/art00009

 

"Thus, even for believers in the physical existence of the paranormal, it is clear that the bulk of paranormal observations lie in the realm of the psychological rather than of the physical."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-010-9091-9/fulltext.html

 

"Cognitively biasing influences of preexisting psychological tendencies may predispose individuals to specific perceptual and cognitive errors during confrontation of real-world phenomena."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/JRLP.140.6.579-590

 

etc.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Arete

[imatfaal]

Arete - I didn't go through all your links and agree that eyewitness testimony is dangerously flawed. Additionally, in the context of Bigfoot it is worth bearing in mind that one of the most striking and visually impressive displays of the failure of eye-witness recollection concerns witnessing or not a man in an ape suit.

 

 

and more details