What About Bf That Totally Gets To You?

[hiflier]

Totally agree. And yes, for proponents, the reports, though not testable, do say something is out there. And for those that are say, 50/50 or 60/40? Well there's a reason for that. And it's because as compelling as the reports may be, those on the fence KNOW there's no smoking gun. And all the convincing in the world won't move their needles either. Just so you know

Edited June 23, 2017 by hiflier

[dmaker]

4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

And yes, for proponents the reports, though not testable, do say something is out there

That is great. And perhaps history will yield for them better results than it has so far. I have no problem with that at all.  But people need to realize that the current anecdotes, or even 100,000 more, will not change the status quo in any way. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by dmaker

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Observation: John smith claims there's a porcupine in a box

 

"Proponent's" theory: John is telling the truth

 

dmaker's theory: The aren't any porcupines in boxes

 

*uses whatever reasoning, and determines that there aren't any porcupines in boxes*

 

Proponent's theory has been falsified.

[hiflier]

9 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Observation: John smith claims there's a porcupine in a box

 

"Proponent's" theory: John is telling the truth

 

dmaker's theory: The aren't any porcupines in boxes

 

*uses whatever reasoning, and determines that there aren't any porcupines in boxes*

 

Proponent's theory has been falsified.

 

(See bolded) Not true. What a proponent "thinks" is in the box and what dmaker "thinks" is not in the box doesn't PROVE there is or isn't a porcupine in the box. Neither can prove that without actually looking in the box to see is a porcupine is there. Until they do the 'theory' isn't falsifiable. Neither a proponent nor dmaker can prove each other wrong. There's only one way to test the 'theory'- LOOK IN THE BOX. if both can look in the box then the theory is TESTABLE. And that testing will settle the matter.  

Edited June 23, 2017 by hiflier

[dmaker]

Ah, Schrodingers porcupine. Except you failed miserably to present a workable example. One need merely open the box and reveal the contents. The claim is then falsified or proven true. I have to ask what point, exactly, your example was supposed to prove?

 

Now, if the claim was "I caught a porcupine in a box yesterday", then that moves the claim entirely into the unfalsifiable. Let's imagine an example with supporting evidence. "A porcupine urinated on my porch last night". Let's also imagine that porcupine urine was recovered from the porch. Let's further imagine that somehow that urine was dated to the previous evening insofar as the time of the deposit. That still does not, logically, prove the original claim. Perhaps the urine was poured from a previously gathered sample? The point being, no anecdote can ever be proven, logically, with absolute certainty. It just simply cannot be known, or proven. But, once again, OS displays a remarkable inability to grasp that simple concept. 

 

Bear in mind, it does not matter if the claim involves a known species, like a porcupine, or an unclassified primate, the truth of the claim can never be tested, or ascertained. You could just as easily say there was a fly in my backyard last night or there was a fire breathing dragon, neither one can be proven, or disproven. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by dmaker

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

 

13 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

(See bolded) Not true. What a proponent "thinks" is in the box and what dmaker "thinks" is not in the box doesn't PROVE there is or isn't a porcupine in the box. Neither can prove that without actually looking in the box to see is a porcupine is there. Until they do the 'theory isn't falsifiable. 

 

As I said on the previous page, there's no way to absolutely prove a theory (e.g. evolution, black holes). Even with the example of the porcupine, you still can't rule out that some unseen force manipulated the situation. This is why in science, we go with the best theory based on results obtained by testing various hypotheses. In reality, you can in fact use various psychoanalytical methods to test the truthfulness of a witness.  

 

Unfortunately, I don't think dmaker would even want to understand this.

 

 

 

[dmaker]

7 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Even with the example of the porcupine, you still can't rule out that some unseen force manipulated the situation

Thank you for making my point. 

7 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

you can in fact use various psychoanalytical methods to test the truthfulness of a witness.  

 

Again, you persist in ignoring the fact that any given witness can believe what they say, and still be wrong. Rendering your test inconclusive.

 

Have you personally interviewed witnesses who claim alien contact? Have you applied the methods to which you allude, but do not lay out? Are you qualified in such analysis? Have you then cross referenced to bigfoot reports and arrived at your conclusion that aliens created bigfoot?

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by dmaker

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

there's no way to absolutely prove a theory (e.g. evolution, black holes).

 

Correct but the FACTS supporting the theory ARE testable and repeatable. You were the one who said this in error and started the wrong path:

43 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

"Proponent's" theory: John is telling the truth

 

There is no theory. If there even is it's because you have one fact: There is a box. And that's ALL there is. Your scientific results (facts) say yes, there is a box and that all you have. Of course there's opinion about what is in the box which would be another FACT if it could be tested. But opinion cannot be tested. So again, neither can prove each other wrong- or right. It is therefore unfalsifiable.

Edited June 23, 2017 by hiflier

[Rockape]

1 hour ago, Martin said:

The number of reports from places that Bigfoot clearly doesn't exist leads me to believe that mass hallucination, mis-identfication and fabrication account for most reports.

 

I'd include hoaxing in that. And agree 90% or so are just crap. I tend to discount hallucination however as from what I understand a person having an actual hallucination is quite rare.

[dmaker]

2 minutes ago, Rockape said:

I'd include hoaxing in tha

Fabrication includes hoaxing.

[hiflier]

No, hoaxing includes fabrication

[dmaker]

3 minutes ago, Rockape said:

I understand a person having an actual hallucination is quite rare.

Agreed, but not entirely uncommon. People can have sub-clinical (read, undiagnosed and relatively mild) conditions such as ADHD that may leave one more susceptible to delusional or hallucinatory events. Just sayin..

[Rockape]

4 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Fabrication includes hoaxing.

 

Well, to me fabrication meant just telling what you know is a lie. Someone could be hoaxed and think they actually saw a bigfoot, therefore it would not necessarily be a lie.

[dmaker]

5 minutes ago, hiflier said:

No, hoaxing includes fabrication

If someone fabricates a bigfoot encounter, then how does that fall outside of hoaxing? 

2 minutes ago, Rockape said:

 

Well, to me fabrication meant just telling what you know is a lie. Someone could be hoaxed and think they actually saw a bigfoot, therefore it would not necessarily be a lie.

True. If they were the victim of fabrication and reported it as genuine. But it still falls under the classification of fabrication, be it deliberate or not. Insofar as an explanation of the report. Unless we choose to separate duped from fabrication, somehow, or for some reason. I see no clinical reason to separate duped and fabrication. They have the same root cause. 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by dmaker

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

5 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Correct but the FACTS supporting the theory ARE testable and repeatable. You were the one who said this in error and started the wrong path:

 

There is no theory. If there even is it's because you have one fact: There is a box. And that's ALL there is. Your scientific results (facts) say yes, there is a box and that all you have.

 

It's the predictive statement (hypothesis) that needs to be testable, not the facts (observations). 

 

If one hears the sounds of a porcupine coming from a box, then I think it's reasonable to form a theory that there's a porcupine there. Like with black holes, you don't need what one might call a "smoking gun" to determine that it's there. The effects coming from the box is enough.

 

dmaker's contradiction is that he claims he can determine that Sasquatch aren't real without determining to the same extent that reports are all false.