Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)

[Guest Cervelo]

No I don't think you did....like I said since you can't produce the "rules of argument".

One could only assume they exist only in your own head?

If that's the case maybe you should articulate your "rules of argument" for the rest of the fourm members that chose to engage you in discussion.

Here's what you said

Are you now insinuating you where referring to the general fourms rules in the post below?

Right.

One can have an opinion. But that opinion can also be valid, or not.

If you have no opinion on the P/G film, but have seen a bigfoot and know they're real...well, by the rules of argument I don't have to consider your sighting proof, but I have to acknowledge that you are expressing a basis for your opinion and must perforce respect it.

When you just don't care about the most important single piece of evidence for a phenomenon, and out of hand, with no support for your claim, and yes it is a claim, dismiss the phenomenon as just total bunk, well, you may have an opinion.

But under the rules of argument, the opinion garners no respect. There is no basis for it.

Again you use these "rules" to claim "no respect" and "no basis" for ones opinion if this isn't inflammatory enough and yet you chose to invoke these unproven/secret rules that at this point appear to exist only in the world according to DWA!.

In the context of this discussion and future discussion it would be nice to know what and who's rules are being used.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Cervelo

[dmaker]

As far as the PGF is concerned. I fully accept that my opinion will garner no respect. I am fine with that. I have admitted on many occasions that I don't find the PGF compelling. So I am not going to spend a lot of time going through the Munns report or any other exhaustive material on it, because I am simply not interested in that piece of footage. It looks fake to me up front. I am allowed to trust my perception on this ( just like BF eyewitnesses are allowed to trust their perception and claim they saw a Bigfoot).  So guess what? I look at the PGF and I don't see a Bigfoot. You can choose to accept that that is what my perception of it is or not. But if you don't want to do that, it seems odd then that you demand that I trust all the BF eye witnesses when they claim they saw a BF in their backyard. Their powers of perception somehow deserve more respect than mine? 

 

And as far as proving the source of eye witness reports goes? No, I don't have to do that. You ( proponents) are claiming BF exists.  So prove it. Why would a skeptic have to prove anything? It's your claim, you have to prove it.  It is childish asking skeptics to prove a negative. Most of you know this, I feel, but do it anyway because you don't have much else to fall back on.  It's like this: I say that I have a baseball. You say prove it, I show you a baseball, case closed.  In the BF world, I say I have a baseball, you say prove it, and I yell WELL YOU CAN'T PROVE I DON'T!!!   Somehow the rules change for BF for some reason.  Oh yeah, I think I know the reason. It's been quite a while and no BF has shown up yet. So in the complete failure to prove the claim, proponents resort to well, you can't prove it doesn't exist! 

[Guest DWA]

You are not being asked to prove a negative.  You are being asked to prove false positives. 

 

And for all the reasons you put up there:

 

The eyewitness testimony is compelling, and demands the full attention of the scientific community.  So thanks for acknowledging that.

 

(No.  You did.)

 

And don't ask me to opine on the 'opinion' of somebody who doesn't address any of the cogent points made by the  posts responding to him vs. somebody with the courage to tell scientists:  you are wrong, because I saw one.

 

(Never mind the scientists with the courage to go where evidence and common sense say to go.)

Edited May 18, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

This always makes me chuckle a bit. Proponents will say skeptics have to disprove every piece of evidence. Every single one. While quite a few have been disproven already. Some of them cannot be simply because it would involve a time machine and even then might prove fruitless. So yes, in many cases you are asking for the impossible and you know it and it is nothing more than a smoke screen. But all you need to do is prove one single report, one single piece of evidence. And that has not happened yet. At least the skeptical side has disproven quite a few pieces of BF evidence to date. How many proven pieces of BF evidence do we have? Oh yeah, none. 

 

Like has been said many times on this board ( I believe Saskeptic coined it before my time here): I cannot prove to you that Bigfoot does not exist, but you can prove that it does. 

 

You are comfortable in the complete failure of that effort to date. That is fine. You think the evidence is compelling. I do not. I feel the failure to produce one is fairly damning. I think the complete lack of fossil record to be pretty damning as well. Every day that goes by, the odds of BF being real get smaller and smaller, not greater. You like to ignore that, sweep it away, or conveniently say we're just not looking hard enough. That is fine that is your prerogative to do that. You can come here and preach that all you want; just like I can come here all day long and repeat my position as often as I want. As long as we are both within the forum rules ( not your imaginary rules of argument) then we're good. 

 

And last I checked your argument has not changed at all. So pot meet kettle when it comes to accusing me of saying the same thing over and over and over. 

[Guest Cervelo]

You are not being asked to prove a negative. You are being asked to prove false positives.

And for all the reasons you put up there:

The eyewitness testimony is compelling, and demands the full attention of the scientific community. So thanks for acknowledging that.

(No. You did.)

And don't ask me to opine on the 'opinion' of somebody who doesn't address any of the cogent points made by the posts responding to him vs. somebody with the courage to tell scientists: you are wrong, because I saw one.

(Never mind the scientists with the courage to go where evidence and common sense say to go.)

Nope you don't get to write another set of rules for scientific recognition....the eyewitness reports are actually pretty compelling for a social construct/myth/legend ect astounding that they are everywhere!

Almost worldwide distribution yet not a single body.

So feel free to write your own rules and speak of courageous, compelling reports/volume blah blah blah...

But new species will continue to be discovered as they always have.....and maybe someday bigfoot will be as well!

But until then...

Edited May 18, 2013 by Cervelo

[dmaker]

 "I did want to note that the most cursory read of this paper reveals a host of assumptions and no underlying review of the cryptid evidence.  Papers get published in psych that just wouldn't cut it in biology, and this is one." -DWA

 

 

DWA, could you please point us to the accepted, peer reviewed BF articles in biology journals?  Nice how you get to summarily discredit the academic standards for psychology journals. What basis do you have for that? Do you have some supporting evidence or credentials that could lend some weight to that assertion, or is it just your opinion, and thus not be taken seriously if there is no demonstrated basis for it?  

 

Thank-you, I eagerly await your list of peer reviewed biology journal articles that review the evidence in favor of Bigfoot.  

Edited May 18, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

And here it is:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368902585&sr=1-1&keywords=the+wisdom+of+crowds

 

and

 

http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-About-Weird-Things/dp/007353577X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368902640&sr=1-1&keywords=think+about+weird+stuff

 

Why I take scientists who show that they are thinking about this - and thousands of sober eyewitnesses - over you.

[dmaker]

I'm sorry, those are peer reviewed, academic biology journal articles?

[Guest DWA]

 "I did want to note that the most cursory read of this paper reveals a host of assumptions and no underlying review of the cryptid evidence.  Papers get published in psych that just wouldn't cut it in biology, and this is one." -DWA

 

 

DWA, could you please point us to the accepted, peer reviewed BF articles in biology journals?  

 

Stick to the topic.  You tossed up a block of Swiss as "defense" of your "position."  Defused.  Oh.  Forgot.  Let's play Mulder for a second.  I like Mulder.

 

Red herring employed; fallback-on-uninformed-"consensus" fallacy

 

Nice how you get to summarily discredit the academic standards for psychology journals. What basis do you have for that? Do you have some supporting evidence or credentials that could lend some weight to that assertion, or is it just your opinion, and thus not be taken seriously if there is no demonstrated basis for it?  

 

One does not have to do that.  I simply saw a whole lot of uninformed statements in it, the same as the biologists make comprising that uninformed consensus that "bigfoot isn't real."  Simple as that.  One does not have to refer to academic standards that discredit themselves in the very crap they publish.  Anyone who has read up on sasquatch evidence can see that these people have not, and that they can be summarily dismissed.

 

Thank-you, I eagerly await your list of peer reviewed biology journal articles that review the evidence in favor of Bigfoot.  

 

Fallback-on-uninformed-"consensus" fallacy

 

Did I say I like Mulder...?

 

I'm sorry, those are peer reviewed, academic biology journal articles?

No, they are just common-sense reasons why I trust, say, Jeff Meldrum and the bigfoot databases over you.

Edited May 18, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

So you see what you feel are  uninformed statements in one paper and thus feel entitled to discredit the standards for academic journals for an entire field?  You then raise the tired old Sasquatch evidence flag. But if you read the paper, it is not about Sasquatch evidence. It is about psychology. So why would the author address Sasquatch evidence in that paper?  That is not the scope of it. Yet you still cannot point to a single peer reviewed article supporting BF in ANY biology journal?   

 

So,  as you say, one does not have to refer to academic standards that discredit themselves in the very crap they publish. I might say the very same thing about certain academics in the BF field, but I would be more polite for sure. Also, like you, I will not feel the need to back that up with any credentials of my own or any demonstrable basis. I just get to say it, because, well, it seems so axiomatic to me.  It's nice to play by the same rules as you.

 

I like Mulder too, he makes me laugh.

Edited May 18, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

I always play by my own rules.

 

As I have said here more than once:  the 'academics' that come down against bigfoot raise the very same 'arguments' that ignorant laymen do.  Disqualified, from the git-go.  Those 'arguments' were swallowed, utterly uncritically whole, by that paper.

 

Your problem with slagging the academics in the bigfoot field is that you have no argument against them, except, take it away, Mulder:

 

No-proof = no-evidence fallacy; fallback-on-uninformed-"consensus" fallacy

Oh, and remember:  you can play by any rules you want.  I know whom to follow in this field and whom to...OK, smart people never dismiss anything, but whom to address:  Sorry, dude, but you have to show me better than that to warrant my time.  Raise your game.

Edited May 18, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Is there any discipline that you are not a master of? You are dismissing psychologists and biologists alike today. And at the doctoral level, no less. That is impressive. I guess they did not get a copy of your rules of argument either. 

 

 

And just to be clear, for about the 100th time. I am not saying No proof= no evidence. I am saying the evidence does not point to an unknown primate. I believe it points to humans. Look in the mirror, see Bigfoot. It's a social construct. That is what I am saying.  That is not, at all  No proof= no evidence.           But for some reason, I have to constantly remind you of that..

[Guest DWA]

....and you are wrong about where the evidence points, but you are allowed to be wrong in America, and it's no problem by me.

 

And I am a skeptic, as well as a proponent, but I have given up trying to remind you of that.

 

Speaking of things I have reminded you of, over and over:

 

When you show me you are not thinking about the topic, I dismiss what you say.  I'm not dismissing the field en bloc; I am dismissing those within it who do not honor it.

 

Now you?  You're committing the

 

appeal-to-authority fallacy

Edited May 18, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

And how do you know that I am wrong about the evidence? Can you prove that?  

[Guest LarryP]

Why would a skeptic have to prove anything? It's your claim, you have to prove it. It is childish asking skeptics to prove a negative.

 

 

 

You made a claim a short while back that you failed to prove.

 

Again, attempting to hide behind a negative claim is what's "childish".

 

The pseudo-skeptic game of trying to make a negative claim that in reality is a prediction, is absurd.