What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?

[JDL]

We need some bigfoot smileys.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Sightings by a scientist are called "observations". Sightings by lay people are called "anecdotes".

[Guest]

I can certainly prove that at least ONE report of a tree falling and making noise is true, however. I can't do that with Bigfoot sightings.

When you can prove ONE TIME that a bigfoot sighting is true, then I will have to revise the probability. It is this little ZERO in proven column, that drives the probability to an infinite parabolic.

Again, (and I note you have not responded to posts clearly showing you the logic statement you make to be a false logic statement), the argument you utilise is that which blocks any new input regarding evidence or possibility. The argument that (as you stated earlier) all sightings of BF are false because there is no proof BF exists - is a circular, paradoxical argument leaping over its own vulnerabilities and loopholes. Again, this is akin to someone saying say five years before Gorilla's were proven to exist :

There has never been proof Gorillas exist (what we now call Gorillas)

Something which has not been proven cannot be sighted

Therefore all sightings of Gorillas are false.

Where does this lead you, well to not be able to ever acknowledge evidence presented to you because, well, you have decided something just doesnt exist so any evidence about it is just plane false.

Really your argument fully translates to this:

People from group X believe that no proof of BF exists (out of thousands of sightings and thousands of years of descriptions of hairy wild hominid)

We (people from group X who believe we are the authority on what is real and what is not) will not accept anything as evidence in any way from the thousands of sightings, prints, stories of hairy wild hominds throughout history throughout the world

We do not except any of this evidence because we believe BF does not exist

We believe BF does not exist because we have no proof of BF's existance

We have no proof because there is no evidence.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Encounter

[Cotter]

Encounter....

Can I then say I have a zero probability chance of being bitten by a shark, b/c I haven't been bitten by one yet?

Dog bites?

Hit by a meteorite?

Cancer by cellphone use?

:-)

[Guest]

Cotter, Im responding to Drews argument that says something doesnt exist so there can be no evidence of it. I on the other hand have had encounters with yowies and in any case would never have such a circular and insular argument as Drews. You misread me as pronouncing Drews argument as mine, I was arguing it. I just thought the false premises, false conclusion and illogic of Drews argument were clear so I stated it concisely for all to see.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Encounter

[Cotter]

@Encounter -

I did understand, my humor just fell short (it's tough to deliver through typing).

But I do get it, just was an attempt to be funny.

;-)

[Guest]

Ah, got it now...

Edited February 29, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest parnassus]

The statistical data:

and

number of reports proven false: acknowledged to be a large number by researcher/believers/collectors like Peter Byrne, but exact number not released.

You can believe whatever you wish about the existence of bigfoot or about the accuracy of your own or someone elses experience, in your own mind, but one cannot make a probability argument that large numbers of negative reports, without a positive report, somehow make it likely that there is a positive report in there somewhere. Bottom line, it appears that Giganto agrees with that.

Edited February 29, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest]

Nice graph, meaningless but not exceptionally boring.

If you were apparently the greatest authority on what is real and what is not, greatest athority on proof of existance and showed me that graph, I would only think of all the things that seem to be missing on your graph, all the possibility and the immense unlikely hood of nothing. I experience a rich and magnificent universe, and from that I gain immense understandings whether they can be proved to someone calling themselves Parnassus or not. As a compassionate person, it makes me wonder what type of world the empty graph believer lives in.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

parnassus I chuckled at your graphs, its funny because its true

[Guest]

Seems like a lot of effort to be amusing, IMO. What would your graph of "confirmed" bogus reports versus "unresolved" reports look like?

[Incorrigible1]

Yeah, much humor seemingly at the expense of those that give the bigfoot creature a chance, upon a forum dedicated to the possibility.

For myself, this would indicate.....

But we obligingly accept much questionable behavior.

[Guest]

Sorry for the repeat of videos for those who have seen this on the logic thread at Campside chat, but I do feel that this is in order on this thread and for non members who cant go to campside chat, There are skeptics here who utilise logic well and to me they are extremely valuable to the discussion - any discussion really. Then there are those whose only logic is, they dont believe in it so it just isnt true and thats that. They cover this with graphs, and apparent logic but their logic is based on either false premises, false conclusions or incorrect deductions. For them I dedicate this video:

Edited March 1, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

I'd like to think the truth is important, and that is what is shown, when proof of the creature exists then documented sightings with collaborative evidence can be placed on the graph

[Incorrigible1]

Meanwhile, let's all snicker at the purported chart, eh?