Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Chupacabra caught?

  1. Aug 2, 2007 #1

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Or just a mangy fox?
    http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070731_jj_chupacabrafind.cbe0f7fc.html

     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 2, 2007 #2

    G01

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    EL CHUPACABRA!!!!!!! (Runs for the hills)
     
  4. Sep 2, 2007 #3
    Wow "El Chupacabra" that's damn old story. I remember that story, all started in Puerto Rico. is like bigfoot stories.
     
  5. Sep 2, 2007 #4
    There's a show about El Chupacabra they air now and then on the History Channel. In some Latin American country a Chupacabra carcass was brought to a university to be analyzed and it turned out to be a dog. (The owner of the carcass accused the university of engaging in a cover up, of having switched the real carcass for a dog.)

    I think most of the animals responsible for Chupacabra sightings are feral dogs of mixed breed, possibly even mutated ones.
     
  6. Sep 3, 2007 #5
    The stories that get me are people that say they found something and leave the evidence over yonder. " I got me a Bigfoot last week but the freezer wasn't big enough so I let the dogs have it." Hello?

    That's not saying unusual things don't happen. They just don't seem to show up on Jim Fowlers doorstep. If I find a cross between a bat and a hyena you bet your boots CNN will be there.
     
  7. Sep 3, 2007 #6
    That chupacabra story is just B.S. The funniest thing is that a major in Puerto Rico organized a hunting for el chupacabras, obviously was organized to make himself reelected and he was. The other part of the story is that people believed that this chupacabra was an ET.
     
  8. Sep 3, 2007 #7
    From the pictures I've seen of the recently caught ones, as well as some testimony of a few scientists (don't remember which field) but they saw the Chupacabra when brought in and basically immediately said "Oh thats BLANK breed dog with a really bad skin mutation, causing it to be hairless." Then some other woman hit one with her car or something, and took it in and once again it showed to be a breed of dog.
    But yes, its so much more believable that theres a cover up. Occam's razor guys, the easiest explanation (that they didn't know what it was and so switched the carcass for a dog, most likely so the government; hell lets say the US government; can experiment on it. Its probably not from earth anyway) is always the right one.
     
  9. Sep 3, 2007 #8
    Occam's Razor doesn't assert that "the easiest explanation is always the right one":

    http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Occam's+razor

    It doesn't give you the "right" answer, just guides you away from unnecessarily extravagant explanations. If, for example, your car seems to be missing, and two possible explanations occur to you: 1.)that you forgot where you parked it, or 2.)that it is being shielded from your sight by a freak wrinkle in the time-space continuum, Occam's Razor directs you to prefer the former explanation over the latter.
     
  10. Sep 21, 2007 #9
    Occam's Razor, as Zoobyshoe put it, doesn't say that the simplest explanation is always right. It says that the simplest answer is often the best one. It in no way declares that the more complicated possibility is always wrong.

    Interestingly, Occam developed the razor to help him to convince that there were no gods but The One True God ("entities should not be multiplied needlessly") by saying that any phenomenon that is unexplained need not have a brand new god named for it. Instead, The One True God can be said to be responsible for all unexplained phenomena. It was likely to be very upsetting to him when it was taken to the next logical step; if the phenomena becomes explained, it can no longer be attributed to a god. As more people sought explanations, fewer people looked to any deity at all for an explanation, and many people decided it was more supportive of disbelief in any deity at all; an explanation that is not known does not mean it cannot be known, simply that it is not yet known, and the simplest answer was that it needed to be researched and understood, but not that some self-creating Entity was responsible.

    Today, it is, again as Zoobyshoe stated, a guideline for critical thinking. In the case of the chupacabra, the simplest answer is not that the creature was a spooky, alien, or supernatural entity. The one that was caught in Texas was determined by state mammalogist James Young to be a gray fox with a severe case of mange.

    Links:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra#Reported_sightings
    http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/073107kvuechupacabrafind-cb.cc11e691.html
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=chupacabra+gray+fox+mange
     
  11. Sep 22, 2007 #10
    Very interesting history. Any idea why it's called a "razor" instead of "guide" or "rule"?
     
  12. Sep 22, 2007 #11
    The following is from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor There's more, but this answers your question, with a citation; something which I prefer to include when I can.

    William Ockham (c. 1285–1349) … is remembered as an influential nominalist, but his popular fame as a great logician rests chiefly on the maxim known as Occam's razor Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation. No doubt this represents correctly the general tendency of his philosophy, but it has not so far been found in any of his writings. His nearest pronouncement seems to be Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate, which occurs in his theological work on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (ed. Lugd., 1495), i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K). In his Summa Totius Logicae, i. 12, Ockham cites the principle of economy, Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.

    – Thorburn, 1918, pp. 352-3; Kneale and Kneale, 1962, p. 243.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2007
  13. Sep 22, 2007 #12

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well, to cut away needless assumptions will be quite painful to the person cherishing precisely those assumptions..
     
  14. Sep 22, 2007 #13
    The next section from the Wikipedia is also very interesting:

    "Occam's Razor "seems to be a term coined by this man:

    http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Hamilton.html

    It would be nice to find the exact place in his writings where he did this.
     
  15. Oct 26, 2007 #14

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  16. Nov 2, 2007 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Chupacabra caught?
  1. Caught Staring! (Replies: 281)

Loading...