Eugine_Nier comments on Rationality Quotes July 2013 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Vaniver 02 July 2013 04:21PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (425)

CC Licenced

Tags: quotes

Comments (425)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 13 July 2013 05:58:02AM -1 points [-]

Except some of this footage does in fact record what's claimed to be flying saucers, lake monsters, ghosts, and Bigfoot. Don't confuse "there is no evidence despite people looking", with "there is no evidence but no one has looked", or worse "I'm so sure there is no evidence I'm not even going to bother checking whether anyone else has found any".

Comment author: TimS 13 July 2013 06:18:51AM * 0 points [-]

You think Randall Monroe is making this mistake?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 14 July 2013 08:38:23PM -2 points [-]

Yes, a combination of this and him suffering from the bias that makes it hard to notice flaws in arguments whose conclusions one agrees with.

Comment author: TimS 14 July 2013 09:08:32PM 4 points [-]

My impression is that people have expended roughly constant effort searching for Bigfoot from 1960 to now. Based on advances in modern camera technology (especially ubiquitous smartphones), evidence collection is cheaper and easier now than in 1960 (or even 1980).

I understood Monroe to be asserting that easier evidence collection and constant levels of effort imply that we should expect higher quality evidence now than in the past (if Bigfoot exists). In fact, the quality of evidence for Bigfoot is substantially similar now and in 1960. That's pretty strong evidence that Bigfoot does not exist.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier comment score below threshold [+] (10 children)

Comment author: TimS 15 July 2013 02:47:45AM 9 points [-]

Have you actually checked this?

Very very cursory investigation - I went to Wikipedia, and noticed the lack of "Yo stupid, Bigfoot is real" section.

Also this argument applies less to ghosts and UFOs.

The argument applies to any phenomena that can be unambiguously recorded. Given the ease of recording relatively high quality video / audio / IR, assertions of a recordable phenomena without unambiguous recordings implies the assertions are false.

If proponents do not assert recordable phenomena, the rise-of-smartphones argument is not as powerful, but such assertions are much more vulnerable to invisible-undetectable-dragon issues.

Comment author: Jiro 15 July 2013 04:11:06AM 2 points [-]

I once heard an argument on a skeptical podcast: Why do we never see any Bigfoot roadkill?

Comment author: wedrifid 15 July 2013 04:43:47AM * 7 points [-]

I once heard an argument on a skeptical podcast: Why do we never see any Bigfoot roadkill?

That's easy. Bigfoot must be stronger and more durable than cars. The real question is why we don't find Bigfoot faeces with traces of partially digested steel, oil and rubber from Bigfoot's vehicular combat success.

Comment author: bogdanb 16 July 2013 02:30:53AM * 1 point [-]

That’s just goverment misinformation. They steal all evidence and mind-wipe the witnesses. Then they use the DNA for top-secret research trying to make a super-soldier. Makes a lot more sense than the ridiculous rubber digestion. Everyone knows its chupacabra that eats rubber.

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 July 2013 11:49:12AM 1 point [-]

The argument applies to any phenomena that can be unambiguously recorded. Given the ease of recording relatively high quality video / audio / IR, assertions of a recordable phenomena without unambiguous recordings implies the assertions are false.

There are plenty of recorded sightings of UFOs on youtube. Probably more videos than existed 50 years ago.

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 July 2013 11:37:14AM 0 points [-]

Very very cursory investigation - I went to Wikipedia, and noticed the lack of "Yo stupid, Bigfoot is real" section.

That doesn't imply in any way that the evidence that now exist is the same strength as was 50 years ago. It just doesn't.

Comment author: TimS 23 July 2013 03:16:44PM 4 points [-]

Let me expand: I assume Wikipedia would link or discuss the best evidence for Bigfoot. It does link evidence, and the quality of that evidence is poor. As of this writing, the most recent evidence listed in wikipedia is a 2007 photo that forest rangers assert is a bear with mange and a 2008 youtube video link to what pro-Bigfoot groups apparently admit is a hoax.

None of this is higher quality evidence than the famous 1967 film.

Imagine a ten minute encounter with a para-normal / unexplained phenomena. In 1967 or 1980, it is essentially luck whether the observer has decent quality recording equipment and time to get into position to make a good recording. In 2013, the smartphone-per-person density is such that we should expect the vast majority of sighting of Bigfoot, or UFOs, or whatever, to be recorded by smartphone video cameras.

90% or more of those recordings will be crap, but the sheer volume of possible recordings implies that we should expect to see some very high quality evidence by now. And we haven't (more precisely, wikipedia has no such link, which I think is equivalent in these circumstances).

Further, this analysis ignores the fairly large number of people actively searching for para-normal / unexplained phenomena.

Comment author: Kindly 23 July 2013 03:21:24PM 7 points [-]

Do we observe this explosion-of-recorded-evidence phenomenon with real but weird things (e.g. some rare, bizarre-looking bug)?

Comment author: TimS 23 July 2013 03:31:03PM 5 points [-]

Excellent question - I don't know the answer. This link is suggestive, and the last picture includes a species discovered via upload to flicker.

In general, Googling "newly discovered species" suggests that many new species are found in relatively exotic locations. Bigfoot is supposed to live in the forests of the NW United States. I don't consider that location exotic because those forests are heavily populated and very accessible to people (compared to the bottom of the ocean or deep jungle of Brazil or Africa).

Comment author: bogdanb 16 July 2013 02:27:35AM 1 point [-]

Take a look.

Eugine_Nier comments on Rationality Quotes July 2013 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (425)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (425)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login