What About Bf That Totally Gets To You?

[Rockape]

1 minute ago, dmaker said:

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

 

I mean if the person did not know they had been hoaxed. Not the person doing the hoaxing.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Observation: Joe claims he saw a Sasquatch 

 

Theory: Joe either is or isn't telling the truth

 

Hypothesis: If Joe is telling the truth or lying, then one can use psychoanalysis to determine his truthfulness 

 

Like with black holes, you don't need a smoking gun, you just need to properly analyze the observations that are taken as being evidence.

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[dmaker]

20 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

dmaker's contradiction is that he claims he can determine that Sasquatch aren't real

Whoah, there. I have never said that my personal determination equates to reality. That would be wholly wrong on my part. I am not,obviously, omniscient. I personally believe the evidence points to a social construct. That is my opinion, and provisional conclusion. It is not, however, a pronouncement on reality, nor is it, immutable. I'd love for bigfoot to be real. I think watching the post discovery documentary that introduces bigfoot to the world would be the most fascinating event of my generation. I would love that. But my opinion is my opinion. If asked how I arrived at that opinion, I will continue to point to the lack of evidence.

 

When my opinion is weakly confronted with a mountain of circumstantial, or anecdotal, evidence,  I will continue to maintain my current position. But it is only my position. I believe it to be the correct position, given the current state of evidence, but please understand, I am not the arbiter of reality, obviously. If bigfoot is real, then obviously I am mistaken. I have no problem admitting that. Why would I?

 

As much as I would love bigfoot to be real, I simply cannot supplant reality with fantasy. And at this point, I believe there is more evidence that bigfoot is fantasy than there is that bigfoot is real. A disappointing conclusion to be sure, but it's one in which I feel confident. 

 

I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by dmaker

[hiflier]

31 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

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.

You're moving the goalposts

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.

And it's his prerogative to say that Sasquatch isn't real as no one can definitely say that the reports are true. It's also the prerogative of a proponent to determine that Sasquatch IS real even though a proponent cannot definitely say the reports are true either. The reports alone simply are not good enough, and since neither side can prove them true, they are indeterminate and therefore non-falsifiable. In other words there are no hard facts so they cannot be proved false. Example: Even if porcupine sounds were coming from the box- by your definition of "unseen forces" it still doesn't prove there's a porcupine in the box.

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by hiflier

[dmaker]

1 minute ago, hiflier said:

The report alone simply are not good enough and since neither side one can prove them true they are indeterminate and therefore non-falsifiable

Half true. The reports are unfalsifiable simply because logic dictates such. 

 

Opinions, one way or the other, do not matter. 

 

 

[hiflier]

Opinions do matter but prove nothing beyond the fact that each side has one.

[dmaker]

I give up

 

For the  sake of my sanity, and forum expediency, I have saved two of my responses in this thread. One deals with falsifiability, the other with how my opinion is only my opinion. I will likely just copy paste them going forward since they both cover my thoughts on this whole phenomenon in general. It's not that I think my thoughts are worthy of posterity, but I simply cannot keep typing the same thing over and over again. The energy required does not merit it.

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by dmaker

[Rockape]

34 minutes ago, dmaker said:

I give up

 

You numpties broke Dmaker. This is why we can't have nice things.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Quote

And it's his prerogative to say that Sasquatch isn't real 

 

I'm not saying it isn't. My point is that the reasoning he uses to determine non-existence is the exact same reasoning one can use to determine that reports are false. Worth mentioning though that it's not the observations themselves that are falsifiable, but the interpretation that's made from it. In this case it's "Sasquatch are real", which is based on the reports.

 

 

Quote

The reports alone simply are not good enough

 

It depends on the person's ability in statistics and psychoanalysis. It doesn't make sense to claim it's not good enough as a result of you or someone else being unconvinced. What's "proof" to you, might not be proof to someone else. This shines light on the fact that proof doesn't even exist in science, as it's just different interpretations of the strength of evidence. For instance, I find dmaker's evidence (in this case being the lack of evidence) to be extremely unconvincing, but he himself sees it differently.

 

Luckily, we have a mainstream scientific community that goes by consensus.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[Night Walker]

Observation: Michelle claims to have witnessed satanic ritual abuse

 

Theory: Michelle is or is not telling the truth

 

Hypothesis: If Michelle is telling the truth, then one can use  psychoanalysis to determine her truthfulness

 

Results: Psychotherapy failed miserably as did taking observations as evidence

[Night Walker]

Conclusion 1: People may be sincerely truthful yet wildly inaccurate with their claims and memories

 

Conclusion 2: Trained professionals such as lawyers, judges, social workers, teachers, therapists, and even police investigators are no better at determining the accuracy of apparently truthful claims than the witnesses themselves

 

Epilogue: Unscrupulous psychotherapists moved away from patients claiming satanic ritual abuse and onto patients claiming alien abduction

Edited June 23, 2017 by Night Walker

[dmaker]

8 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Luckily, we have a mainstream scientific community that goes by consensus.

What is the mainstream scientific community consensus on alien engineered bigfoots? You seem reluctant to explore your alien theory lately. You like to wade into threads wagging your finger about evidence and logic and science while ignoring the big "I think aliens created bigfoot" hat you're wearing. 

[gigantor]

I'm curious dmaker, do you consider cosmology to be a science?

[Guest DWA]

17 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

1) The lack of a type specimen isn't enough to properly rule out their existence, especially when we already have every other type of evidence imaginable.

 

2) By holding the belief that they don't exist, you're undermining the argument that you can't make a determination of every report, as the belief automatically creates an interpretation for every report being false. There's no way to get around this. Vice versa; if you believe reports aren't falsifiable, then you're undermining the argument that they don't exist.

 

For determining that they do exist, "you don't need half, you don't need 1%, you just need one (real one)" - Grover Krantz

If you are arguing with *this* try clicking your heels three times, and see if that gets you out of Kansas.

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, gigantor said:

I'm curious dmaker, do you consider cosmology to be a science?

Of course. I know where you are going with this. I understand that many sciences must rely on observation and description. I get that. Biology, or zoology, insofar as classifying an 8 foot ape, of which there are reportedly thousands, does not qualify as one.