What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?

[Guest RayG]

The list wasn't intended as any sort of measure for the validity of sightings, but merely to show how certain aspects of bigfootdom and UFOlogy are very similar.

And Mulder, how is that list an extended argument from ridicule? Be specific so we can all recognize the ridicule part that you obviously see.

Speaking of appeals to ridicule, mocking my list does not show that it is false. If you can point out how any of those similarities fail, then by all means step up to the plate and nail one out of the park.

RayG

[Guest Kerchak]

Bigfoot can't be everywhere and nowhere. It seems highly unlikely that the most cryptic of North American mammals, and probably the largest, can be represented in every state except Hawaii and yet remain unknown to science.

Totally agree with you 100%.

On the other hand just because bigfoot can't be everywhere doesn't mean bigfoot cannot be anywhere.

[Guest Strick]

Kerchak,

Yeah you're right. We always talk about the existence of Bigfoot in absolute terms and the debate between sceptics and believers is completely polarized.

There is no reason why Bigfoot cannot be both a cultural phenomenon and a real animal that exists in Norcal, the PNW and a handful of other areas of ideal habitat. Both scenarios are capable of producing sightings and lots of reports.

[Guest Kerchak]

Yes that's the way I see it Strick.

Too many skeptics concentrate on the "all or nothing" way of thinking without really concerning themselves with pondering if there is an 'element' of truth to the overall phenomenon.

To be facetious here, Ogopogo might exist even if Nessie and Champ might not exist as well.

[Guest]

Parn....I generally tend to disagree with your views, in regards to BF, but you never fail to entertain...Touché!

[Guest alford anthony]

So many encounters cannot be wrong

[Guest]

Why can't they be wrong?

[Guest Kerchak]

^

Coz he said so.

[JDL]

Why must they all be wrong?

Coz he said so.

[Guest Strick]

Of course there are precedents where the sincerely held beliefs of millions of people are simply believed to be wrong by another group of people.

A good example would be the central truth claim of the revealed religions. Although in philosophical terms the Judeo-Christian religions are very similar to one another, the central revelations at the heart of each faith make them very different in practice. These central truths are simply held to be erroneous by an adherent of an alternative faith. The millions of people that believe that an opposing religion's truth claim is false far dwarfs the number of people that claim to have had a Bigfoot sighting.

It is possible that all the sightings could be wrong.

I realise my analogy sails pretty close to the forum rules, but I hope it can stand as it is used for hypothetical and illustrative purposes only and not to denigrate or promote any religious point of view.

[Guest]

Before 40 people hit the report button, as this was a historical reference it's fine. But I wouldn't wander any further down that road, if y'all get my drift.

Grayjay

[Guest Strick]

Thanks Grayjay,

My finger did hover over the post button before I clicked. Trouble was, my other analogy was even hotter and couldn't be fitted inside the forum rules, so I definitely discarded that one......

[Guest]

And Mulder, how is that list an extended argument from ridicule? Be specific so we can all recognize the ridicule part that you obviously see.

By attempting to draw a connection between BF and UFOs, you are attempting to link the concept of BF, which is very simple and straightforward with a concept (UFOs) that is much more "fantastic" and the subject of ridicule, being considered absurd by many.

It's not only ridiculing, but it's also ad hom. To wit: "Those BF 'believers'...just like those UFO kooks!"

Speaking of appeals to ridicule, mocking my list does not show that it is false. If you can point out how any of those similarities fail, then by all means step up to the plate and nail one out of the park.

I don't know if your list is "true" or not. Even if it is, it's irrelevant to the topic of BF, and nothing but an attempt to divert attention from and raise scorn about the real topic.

Strick, on 02 March 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

Bigfoot can't be everywhere and nowhere. It seems highly unlikely that the most cryptic of North American mammals, and probably the largest, can be represented in every state except Hawaii and yet remain unknown to science.

Totally agree with you 100%.

It's known to Science. Science just refuses to accept it, just like it once refused to accept that meteorites were real (even after they were told about them by lay persons) or that the gorilla was real (again even after being told about them).

The "known by science" card is one of the most worthless cards in the Skeptic hand. Because science has been proven time and time and time again to not "know" as much as it thought it "knew".

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

yes Ray, but BF is a plausible animal, extraterrestrial UFOs are not because they defy the laws of physics, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

Unless we are discussing perpetual motion or precognition, there are no laws of physics being defied. It's only a matter of our current understanding of propulsion. Intergalactic travel is not out of the question in theoretical physics. Interstellar travel is currently on the table for Nasa with the advancements of ion propulsion. That is not the point I wish to debate. I only mention this because it will bring me to the comparison list when I am done rambling.

It's a good list. One comparison that won't make your list because they are not alike is; one is/was studied/funded by our government (and separately from our government) our leading minds in theoretical physics, and one is not. That is a lot of resources put into one and not the other.

If they are so similar, why all for one and disregard completely the other? Maybe they didn't see the maps.

Edited March 4, 2012 by FuriousGeorge

[Guest RayG]

My list is pointing out similarities between bigfootery and UFOlogy. Nothing more, nothing less. I've not stooped to calling anyone from either group ridiculous, absurd, or kooks, like you just did. Do you find the similarities too uncomfortable, so it's easier to mock the list instead of showing it to be false?

Ridiculing the entire list is not utilizing reasoning, so I'm still interested in how you specifically think any of those similarities fail.

RayG

Edited March 4, 2012 by RayG