Skeptical Pareidolia And Trackway Evidence

[ohiobill]

Don't you know, Sleuth? Proponents are the only ones who have to "prove" anything. Skeptics hold the intellectual "high ground" via that proposition that holds that "BF is not 'proven'. Therefore the burden of proof falls on the claimant that they in fact do exist."

In other words: "BF doesn't exist. Prove me wrong."

Which as we all know is a classic logical fallacy. But Skeptics don't have to apply logic to their arguments. They are presumed correct because they are employing "critical thinking" and "the scientific method".

Why? What makes hoaxing the "most probable" answer in the first place.

And whatever happened to following the scientific principle? If you want to posit hoax, then where's YOUR evidence?

It's your claim to prove, isn't it? That's "the scientific method".

So prove it, if you can.

Classic psuedo-Skepticism, to wit: "If it not 100% demonstrably true, then it must be considered false."

Esp pathetic non-reasoning considering how routinely Science is proven to be wrong. Among other great Scientific "mistakes":

• stones do not fall from the sky (meteorites)
  
• animal [x] is extinct (coelecanth, 7-gill shark, et al)
  
• animal [x] does not exist [gorilla, et al]
  
• maggots are spontaneously generated by spoiled meat
  

good lists here:

http://listverse.com...fs-of-the-past/

http://ca.askmen.com...theories_5.html

When dealing with the arguments of Skeptics, the generalization of Clark's Law should always apply:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist Science states that something is possible, he it is almost certainly right. When he Science states that something is impossible, he it is very probably wrong."

Here's a great modern case of Science completely getting it wrong:

http://www.newscient...s-revealed.html

and

http://news.national...agon-venom.html

Mulder, not sure if you fully understand the concepts that Occam/Newton are discussing...the most probable/simplest explanation should be used until proof is brought forward to prove that a less likely/more complicated explanation is the cause. It doesn't preclude other options, it just simplifies the equation. If you think that using Occam's razor precludes the existence of bigfoot or the possibility of bigfoot then you actually DON'T understand the concept and it may explain your venom. "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P Feynman

Edited September 25, 2012 by ohiobill

[Guest thermalman]

Quote:

"But Skeptics don't have to apply logic to their arguments. They are presumed correct because they are employing "critical thinking" and "the scientific method". "

Really now? Most of us knew there was no logic involved, and a lot of their thinking has no evidenciary substance. Nothing new here.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Mulder, not sure if you fully understand the concepts that Occam/Newton are discussing...the most probable/simplest explanation should be used until proof is brought forward to prove that a less likely/more complicated explanation is the cause. It doesn't preclude other options, it just simplifies the equation. If you think that using Occam's razor precludes the existence of bigfoot or the possibility of bigfoot then you actually DON'T understand the concept and it may explain your venom. "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P Feynman

Occam's Razor seems to be the most misapplied tool of our resident skeptics. The mental gymnastics required to explain some of the wilder hoax scenarios instead of the less complicated (but more uncomfortable) scenario that a large barefoot biped left the trackway is sometimes pushing into the realm of comedy:

• Magic bunny rabbits capable of plunging through crusted snow, leaving alternating right and left footprints, jumping backward out of the hole in the snow, reversing course in mid-air to move forward, plunging repeatedly like this for at least three miles...
  
• Dedicated hoaxers figuring out a way to fake a set of footprints with stilts in deep snow with long strides for three miles in a remote location with less than 0.001% chance of ever being discovered (they must do this just for the exercise)
  
• Hoaxers wearing stilts and stompers on mud flats, leaving dynamic toe movement and gripping, with the ability to slip and recover while wearing said stilts without face planting
  

Of course none of the proffered theories have been tested or demonstrated to be within the realm of possibility. They see "hoaxers behind every bush" but all I see are red circles outlining obtuse arguments.

Step up and prove these trackways can be hoaxed.

Times ticking... the time is perfect at Elbe. The Pineapple Express season is coming soon and the mud flats will be under water. Now's the time to show us all how wonderful these Blob Hoaxers really are, grab those HD video cameras and stomp away.

[Guest RayG]

On oft used argument of skepticism I've noticed states that if something could be a hoax, then it must be a hoax or should be considered a hoax.

I do not think that word means what you think it means. Where is this often argued as a 'skeptical' position? It's certainly not a position or argument I'd present, and I'm about as skeptical as they get. Unless or until an actual bigfoot is presented, it's perfectly normal to think something could be a hoax. Something entirely different to claim it must be a hoax.

However, from the skeptical side of the argument it seems to me that a number of skeptics will jump at reaching a conclusion of hoaxing with scant evidence, simply a claim that something could have been hoaxed is sufficient evidence for them to conclusively declare that something is a hoax.

To which specific skeptics do you refer? I think you've lumped skeptics in with full-blown unbelievers, which is rather unfair to some of us folks.

If it is so easy to make trackway hoaxes, then let's have some of these skeptics "step up" and do a trackway to show us all how it is done.

And if no one has yet proven any trackway to have been made by a sasquatch, how do we know these trackways were made by sasquatches and aren't hoaxes? Skepticism doesn't mean the default position is that bigfoot did it until proven otherwise. As a skeptic I don't know how a trackway was made, whether it was by a legitimate bigfoot or a practical joker, so I'm under no obligation to recreate the trackway.

RayG

[Guest BFSleuth]

The overall point of this thread is to point out that true skepticism is a rare event within the pages of this forum. I'm all for good skepticism that treats evidence fairly and is willing to reach no conclusion where there isn't enough evidence to reach a conclusion. What I'm pointing out is that making leaps of judgment based on conjecture on either side of the argument is disingenuous.

Of a more immediate call to action I'm urging anyone that has stompers and stilts ready to go to proceed to Elbe to recreate a trackway while the conditions are a close match to the trackway find under investigation. We've heard repeated statements that these could be a hoax, so now's a great time to show how it is done.

[Guest RayG]

But in doing so (pointing out that true skepticism is a rare event within the pages of this forum), you have made statements that poorly reflect on skepticism in general, to the point of making what I might consider a straw man argument -- the misrepresentation of an alternate viewpoint.

Would you agree that what you have stated is in fact not an oft used argument of skepticism, but is a position more suited for a full-blown unbeliever?

Would you also agree that your contention that a 'number of skeptics' will conclusively declare something IS a hoax, might be better directed at unbelievers instead of skeptics?

And Mulder, I totally agree... the burden of proof is on the claimant.

RayG

[Guest]

Mulder, not sure if you fully understand the concepts that Occam/Newton are discussing...the most probable/simplest explanation should be used until proof is brought forward to prove that a less likely/more complicated explanation is the cause. It doesn't preclude other options, it just simplifies the equation. If you think that using Occam's razor precludes the existence of bigfoot or the possibility of bigfoot then you actually DON'T understand the concept and it may explain your venom. "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P Feynman

Let's explore Occam's Razor in regards to Bigfoot. Which of the two options is "simpler"

Option 1: There is a rare creature that inhabits the remote parts of the N American continent that people occasionally see or find evidence (tracks, etc) of.

Option 2: There are large numbers of hallucinating people going into the woods

PLUS

There is a vast network of hoaxers spending a great deal of time and effort fabricating additional sightings as well as the trace evidence.

The network of hoaxers is"

• continent spanning in N America, and affiliated with similar networks in Asia and Russia where similar creatures are reported
  
• has been in operation for decades if not centuries
  
• is highly educated in esoteric scientific principles (dermatoglyphics, trait distribution curves, primate locomotion and biometrics)
  
• has a high degree of technical expertise in special effects technology (suit making, foot reprotuction, etc)
  
• is highly disciplined and communicative (ensuring quality of result and consistency throughout the entire spectrum of reported habitats and encounters)
  
• is highly motivated to invest the time and effort with little or no guarantee of the resulting hoax being successful. This includes traveling to remote areas where the chances of the hoax being observed at any one time are nil or next to nil and spending many many hours engaged in the commission of the hoax.
  

Which of those two scenarios involves the fewest "entities" or "complications"?

I know the answer, and if you are at all intellectually consistent, so do you.

And Mulder, I totally agree... the burden of proof is on the claimant.

RayG

Then feel free to step up and start attempting to prove the Skeptic claims that all the sightings, tracks, hairs, etc are in fact not valid.

Quote:

"But Skeptics don't have to apply logic to their arguments. They are presumed correct because they are employing "critical thinking" and "the scientific method". "

Really now? Most of us knew there was no logic involved, and a lot of their thinking has no evidenciary substance. Nothing new here.

True, but the Skeptics award themselves the "high ground" of being correct by default, and the average person, not knowing the intellectual paucity of the Skeptic position, allows them to keep it.

[Guest]

Very good Mulder!

The best proponent is a good skeptic after... they meet a sasquatch!

[Guest]

And if no one has yet proven any trackway to have been made by a sasquatch, how do we know these trackways were made by sasquatches and aren't hoaxes? Skepticism doesn't mean the default position is that bigfoot did it until proven otherwise. As a skeptic I don't know how a trackway was made, whether it was by a legitimate bigfoot or a practical joker, so I'm under no obligation to recreate the trackway.

RayG

As I've said many times, translation: "I'm a Skeptic. I say that it's not evidence. I don't have to prove anything. You have to prove me wrong.

[kitakaze]

I know that some have said the Elbe trackway might be a hoax created by "bigfoot shoes" available from an artist online.

Sleuth, I don't know if someone else suggested this, but when I discussed these stompers, the argument was never that they were used, rather that stompers that are not rigid and can create individual toe movement is not at all some kind of outlandish technical challenge.

Also, there is no evidence presented thus far that truly shows toe movement in the Elbe trackway.

Edited September 26, 2012 by kitakaze

[ohiobill]

Occam's Razor seems to be the most misapplied tool of our resident skeptics. The mental gymnastics required to explain some of the wilder hoax scenarios instead of the less complicated (but more uncomfortable) scenario that a large barefoot biped left the trackway is sometimes pushing into the realm of comedy:

• Magic bunny rabbits capable of plunging through crusted snow, leaving alternating right and left footprints, jumping backward out of the hole in the snow, reversing course in mid-air to move forward, plunging repeatedly like this for at least three miles...
  
• Dedicated hoaxers figuring out a way to fake a set of footprints with stilts in deep snow with long strides for three miles in a remote location with less than 0.001% chance of ever being discovered (they must do this just for the exercise)
  
• Hoaxers wearing stilts and stompers on mud flats, leaving dynamic toe movement and gripping, with the ability to slip and recover while wearing said stilts without face planting
  

Of course none of the proffered theories have been tested or demonstrated to be within the realm of possibility. They see "hoaxers behind every bush" but all I see are red circles outlining obtuse arguments.

Step up and prove these trackways can be hoaxed.

Times ticking... the time is perfect at Elbe. The Pineapple Express season is coming soon and the mud flats will be under water. Now's the time to show us all how wonderful these Blob Hoaxers really are, grab those HD video cameras and stomp away.

Occam's razor seems to be misunderstood by bigfoot proponents. If we apply it to the Elbe trackway we have what? 2 sets of prints, 1 of which are easily within human size limits and the second which are also within human size limits. Tracks in an area easy to get to with MOTOR VEHICLES with terrain described as difficult but which researchers are able to bring cameras and plaster to - HUMAN researchers who are able to walk in the footsteps of the trackway.

Soooo, 2 sets of prints within the realm of human possibility in an area frequented by humans, w/easy access to humans, and which humans are able to navigate through. BFS & Mulder - what does Occam's razor suggest to you in this case? A large barefoot bipedal human or a large unknown barefoot biped? Does choosing one preclude the existence of the other?

[Guest]

Sleuth, I don't know if someone else suggested this, but when I discussed these stompers, the argument was never that they were used, rather that stompers that are not rigid and can create individual toe movement is not at all some kind of outlandish technical challenge.

Also, there is no evidence presented thus far that truly shows toe movement in the Elbe trackway.

We have the testimony of the investigating person. That's evidence in and by itself.

Soooo, 2 sets of prints within the realm of human possibility in an area frequented by humans, w/easy access to humans, and which humans are able to navigate through. BFS & Mulder - what does Occam's razor suggest to you in this case? A large barefoot bipedal human or a large unknown barefoot biped? Does choosing one preclude the existence of the other?

In this case, it suggests you are being disingenuous as you are not accurately portraying the situation as described by DDA.

I quote from his own post:

It looks as if there might be two individuals making the tracks (a 15†and 17â€). There were other smaller barefoot tracks, obviously human, but the big ones were definitely different.

The track way also indicated to me that the individuals making them broke walking together early on and went separate ways, and that this may of taken place in daylight hours. I walked the entire track way and saw 5 foot strides whittle down to mere inches apart. The area the stride was reduced of course was at the bottom of that 10 foot shoreline, where the footing was in muddy silt and approaching a 45 degree angle. All in all, I counted over 200 separate tracks too large to be human.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/33755-200-sasquatch-tracks-in-wa-found/#entry632252

Gonna have to be better than that to get one by us...

[Guest]

What keeps the skeptics around? At some point shouldn't they want to move on to other topics to be pro skeptics on? Even skeptics I daresay are caught up in the sasquatch phenomenon. There is so much ammo for both sides. Lots of actual evidence AND hoaxes. Not to mention the fact that most skeptics don't do anything to actively prove their point.

I view most as interested in debating and showcasing their own superior logic and deduction capabilities. Posting here is a leisurely pursuit.

[indiefoot]

Sleuth, I don't know if someone else suggested this, but when I discussed these stompers, the argument was never that they were used, rather that stompers that are not rigid and can create individual toe movement is not at all some kind of outlandish technical challenge.

In order to make the assertion that dynamic toe movement is not an indicator of a real foot then wouldn't someone have to demonstrate that a stomper can re-create the same effect.

[ohiobill]

In this case, it suggests you are being disingenuous as you are not accurately portraying the situation as described by DDA.

Gonna have to be better than that to get one by us...

It more logically suggests that you simply don't know the size range of the human foot and have simply responded with your aggressive misinformational style - classic Mulder! It's OK, as a pesky skeptic I've done the research for you so you can spend your time NOT answering questions, NOT critically examining evidence, NOT researching and can concentrate on what you do best instead. A 15" HUMAN foot IS common enough that you can buy ready-made shoes on the internet (size 23 if you want to check). HUMANS have been known to have feet up to 18 1/2" inches long (Robert Wadlow). If a hoax - there really is no limit. Do some research, check my info and then for the FIRST time please answer my thrice asked questions - What does Occam's razor suggest to you in this case? A large barefoot bipedal human/hoax or a large unknown barefoot biped? Does choosing one preclude the existence of the other? It's ok if you get the answers wrong - it's your opinion and a critical thinking exercise.