Guest DWA Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 "Actually, the hypothesis of the paper is that every sighting is false..." For which not shred one of evidence is offered. Disqualified; begging the question. One must PROVE that every sighting is false by showing, in each case, what was seen instead. Sorry. Sauce for the goose. Junk science. We hear the phrase a lot but don't see many examples. Here's one. Oh: some = all fallacy There. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) 'cos jerrymander says so? Oh. Ok. That's probably what the editors of the Journal of Psychology did to you when you complained to them about the article. Edited May 26, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 "Actually, the hypothesis of the paper is that every sighting is false..." For which not shred one of evidence is offered. Disqualified; begging the question. One must PROVE that every sighting is false by showing, in each case, what was seen instead. Sorry. Sauce for the goose. Junk science. We hear the phrase a lot but don't see many examples. Here's one. Oh: some = all fallacy There. The paper did, if you cared to actually read it, go on to provide ample evidence for it's hypothesis. But I think I see your position, sure people maybe see things that are not there, but not when it comes to Bigfoot. Special consideration much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 'cos jerrymander says so? Oh. Ok. That's probably what the editors of the Journal of Psychology did to you when you complained to them about the article. Why complain about junk? Particularly to psychologists; they tend to veer dangerously close to junk science anyway, and in this case, whoopsie! over the line. The lines are our Friends, Journal of Psychology. "Actually, the hypothesis of the paper is that every sighting is false..." For which not shred one of evidence is offered. Disqualified; begging the question. One must PROVE that every sighting is false by showing, in each case, what was seen instead. Sorry. Sauce for the goose. Junk science. We hear the phrase a lot but don't see many examples. Here's one. Oh: some = all fallacy There. The paper did, if you cared to actually read it, go on to provide ample evidence for it's hypothesis. But I think I see your position, sure people maybe see things that are not there, but not when it comes to Bigfoot. Special consideration much? No it did not, because I read it, and I just told you what it would have had to do to do that. So: no, it didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 'cos jerrymander says so? Oh. Ok. That's probably what the editors of the Journal of Psychology did to you when you complained to them about the article. Why complain about junk? Particularly to psychologists; they tend to veer dangerously close to junk science anyway, and in this case, whoopsie! over the line. The lines are our Friends, Journal of Psychology. "Actually, the hypothesis of the paper is that every sighting is false..." For which not shred one of evidence is offered. Disqualified; begging the question. One must PROVE that every sighting is false by showing, in each case, what was seen instead. Sorry. Sauce for the goose. Junk science. We hear the phrase a lot but don't see many examples. Here's one. Oh: some = all fallacy There. The paper did, if you cared to actually read it, go on to provide ample evidence for it's hypothesis. But I think I see your position, sure people maybe see things that are not there, but not when it comes to Bigfoot. Special consideration much? No it did not, because I read it, and I just told you what it would have had to do to do that. So: no, it didn't. No, wrong again. Your logic is akin to requiring every MD that makes a medical diagnosis on a patient to have to prove to the insurance company, let's say, that this diagnosis is valid because I have personally went and talked to every previous person who suffers from my diagnosed condition and verified that this is indeed the same pathology. That is ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Does anyone Got Monkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Oh, I'm sure somebody will. I don't have to make a train or anything, I'm content to wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Make a train are you an engineer or conductor? We're talking Bigfoot. Got Monkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Oh, I'm sure somebody will. I don't have to make a train or anything, I'm content to wait. Well, that is good, because it seems to me that waiting is about as much satisfaction as you are going to get on this particular issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 [doesn't see dmaker's crystal ball anywhere] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 don't need crystal ball when I have history on my side. The smart money always goes on what is proven vs what is not proven. And like I have already said, BF proof = zero, ; hoaxes and otherwise = more than zero. Try to beat those odds. I dare you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 ^^^^ Does not Got Monkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Why would I Want Monkey? Jeff Meldrum's keeping it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 I'm sorry, did Dr.Meldrum publish something in a peer reviewed journal that we're not aware of? Or is he witholding proof of BF just for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Oh, I'm sure somebody will. I don't have to make a train or anything, I'm content to wait. Well, that is good, because it seems to me that waiting is about as much satisfaction as you are going to get on this particular issue. Well, I'm sick of waiting..........that's why my guide gun is a constant companion. Just watch...........I'll lean it against a tree, and be sitting over a log, answering the call of nature? And that's when I'll see one. Now that I think about it? It's not much different than elk hunting............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts