Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)

[dmaker]

I wish you the best of luck Norse, I truly do. I have no delusions that you will actually find one, no offense, but I do like the fact that you are curious but not convinced.

[Guest DWA]

 

 

 

'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

 

 

No it's not.

 

You can't just show me that something exists, and could maybe possibly in your skeptical fantasy apply to the phenomenon we are talking about. 

 

You must show me that every single instance  of the phenomenon we are talking about is not what proponents say it is, but something else.  Yesindeedy:  you must take every single bingle gingle piece of the evidence - sightings included - and prove, one by one, that each one is something other than what the proponents claim.

 

(And this is nothing like your insurance example.  Apples and Ganymede.)

 

Hey, we'll even let you start small!  Take Maryland on the BFRO database.  One stupid state! 32 little reports!  Disprove every one of those.  OK, if you'd rather go on the NAWAC database, it's 28 for Arkansas.  Twenty-eight lousy reports!

 

That'd be a good start.  I would be impressed; I would.  My advocacy might (might) [might] {might} quiver a teeny tiny tad.

 

Now, go on to Texas....Alabama...Oklahoma...Alaska....shoot, I'm not even making you do alphabetical order!

 

Sorry, that's how it works.  If you think that is too much work, here's what I have to say to you:

 

1)  Shoulda started earlier there, cowboy!  Why I remember when Maryland had only 25.

2)  If you can't show me that those reports are what you say they are, what you say means nothing.  If I say craziness exists, have I proved you're crazy?

3)  What, are skeptics only bound by the rules of proof of the Planet Oogowooduger20, while proponents have to deal with those of Earth?

4)  Are you crazy, man?

 

If this is too big a job for you, practice saying this:  I consider the evidence unexplained and am content to let - even to advocate - the big dogs of science gettin' in there and huntin'.  Because it doesn't say much for me to have no more curiosity than that.

Oh.  You wouldn't have to do every report in every state and province.  Just enough to convince me it's a likely bet that the rest will go down too.

 

(But you still haven't touched yeti, or orang pendek, or yeren...you sure you don't want to just let science do this for you...?)

[dmaker]

If I can't show you that those reports are wrong, can you show me that they are right? I sure as heck can point you to a bunch of Sasquatch evidence that is wrong. Maybe not those reports specifically, but a butt load of Sasquatch evidence in general that is wrong.

So if you can point me towards one single Sasquatch report that has been proven to be correct, I will concede that ALL the others are also correct. Can you do that? I mean, I'm only asking for ONE confirmation here...should not be that hard, right?

[norseman]

I wish you the best of luck Norse, I truly do. I have no delusions that you will actually find one, no offense, but I do like the fact that you are curious but not convinced.

 

Even if they do exist? The chances of me shooting one are remote. And no I do not know for a fact that they do exist.......I've never seen one. I'll let you know if I do.

If I can't show you that those reports are wrong, can you show me that they are right? I sure as heck can point you to a bunch of Sasquatch evidence that is wrong. Maybe not those reports specifically, but a butt load of Sasquatch evidence in general that is wrong.

So if you can point me towards one single Sasquatch report that has been proven to be correct, I will concede that ALL the others are also correct. Can you do that? I mean, I'm only asking for ONE confirmation here...should not be that hard, right?

 

How does one confirm a Bigfoot report?

[Guest DWA]

If I can't show you that those reports are wrong, can you show me that they are right? I sure as heck can point you to a bunch of Sasquatch evidence that is wrong. Maybe not those reports specifically, but a butt load of Sasquatch evidence in general that is wrong.

So if you can point me towards one single Sasquatch report that has been proven to be correct, I will concede that ALL the others are also correct. Can you do that? I mean, I'm only asking for ONE confirmation here...should not be that hard, right?

 

Did I tell you that

 

1) I don't have to convince anybody of anything?

2) Far as I'm concerned, proof will come when it comes?

3) I don't exactly have a train to catch here?

 

You have stated a conclusion, that you have to prove to get me to believe it, as no evidence currently points in that direction.

 

Meantime, I adhere to a position that all the evidence backs.

 

No train to catch.  [files nails]

[dmaker]

See? That is where we differ. There is quite a bit of evidene that Sasquatch is just a hoax or myth. Quite a bit in fact. You chose to ignore that, and that is your preorgative. I find the evidence in favor of a hoax or myth to be very much more compelling than the evidence otherwise.

See, to date my evidence is more than zero, your evidence, zero. I still like those odds..

[dmaker]

Oh yes I am sure that you will continue to file your nails for quite some time. And then the generation after you will file their nails for another generation. And another generation after that. And still, two generations from now your idealogical descendants will still be spouting the same mantra, soon....we haven't really looked yet. Nevermind the NAWAC that , in your generation seem to be on the cusp of discovery, well when that doesn't happen either, then the future NAWAC will be "just on the cusp" too of discovery..And when that doesn't happen, I am sure that they too will have a host of reasons why they are surrounded by Wood Apes but are still incapable of providing proof. I am sure there will be no difference from this conversation now than fifty years from now.

[Guest LarryP]

The paper proves that people can, and will, report seeing things that are not there.

 

 

 

But it doesn't prove that all people report seeing things that are not there.

 

Which proves that out of the thousands of reported sightings at least a portion of them were valid. 

[Guest Cervelo]

Negatory there Larry...no way no how.

That might be what you believe but it doesn't prove anything.

Since we'er just wagging and throwing stuff to see if it sticks....

I'd be willing to guess statistically the numbers of reports start to work against biggie the longer they go undiscovered.

While not fair I discounted almost all reports post Finding Bigfoot....real or not they and their behavior have become the dragon of the modern age.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Cervelo

[bipedalist]

 

The paper proves that people can, and will, report seeing things that are not there.

 

 

 

But it doesn't prove that all people report seeing things that are not there.

 

Which proves that out of the thousands of reported sightings at least a portion of them were valid. 

 

 

 

Element of truth to this, see Rev. Elkanah Walker letter (Washington missionary thread of norseman's) where in 1840 he brings up the stone throwing at houses, whistling, stealing of fish, strong pungent smell, nocturnal stalking and 18 inch footprints.  Yeah it is just a legend in each witnesses own mind for sure......LOL!  

 

Or maybe the Library of Congress placed that letter in all the elementary and private/parochial school for access and required reading.......  so everybody could read the list and fake it.....gee thanks.  

Edited May 26, 2013 by bipedalist

[Guest LarryP]

Negatory there Larry...no way no how.

 

 

 

 

No way now how what?

 

The paper only proves that people can and will report seeing things that in actuality were not there.

 

But the paper does not prove that every single person who has ever or will ever report seeing a BF was seeing something that in actuality was not there.

 

 

That might be what you believe but it doesn't prove anything.

 

 

 

Because of my experiences with them it is not about belief, it is about knowledge. 

 

If you'd been in my shoes you'd have all the proof you'd ever need.

[dmaker]

If I were in your shoes I probably would have seen a bear

[Guest LarryP]

If I were in your shoes I probably would have seen a bear

 

If you had been in my shoes you probably would have flipped out.

[Guest DWA]

 

If I were in your shoes I probably would have seen a bear

 

If you had been in my shoes you probably would have flipped out.

 

 

 I wasn't there and I know what you saw?

 

Him over you, dmaker.  He was there.  Only way to look at it, sorry.  One of the most prominent bigfoot skeptics is in total agreement with me on that, so, um, I win.

 

I have never read a sasquatch report for which "bear" was a reasonable interpretation.  'Course, one only has to read Meldrum's field guide to see that plain as day.  (Or seen as many bears in the wild as I have.  If you have seen more, you're a bear hunter.)

 

The funniest reports to read are the ones that call themselves total hard-boiled skeptics - and now can't even go outside, they're so freaked.

 

The pitfalls of belief untempered by evidence.  Don't let it happen to you, class.  (Getting Meldrum's field guide won't hurt none.)

Edited May 26, 2013 by DWA

[Guest Cervelo]

The paper proves that people can, and will, report seeing things that are not there.

But it doesn't prove that all people report seeing things that are not there.

Which proves that out of the thousands of reported sightings at least a portion of them were valid.

Here's what you said...read it and weep not a single sighting can be proven to be valid or proven true or false.....bottom line is they don't count until a body or significant part hits the floor!

Even then only a few might be "valid" or true.

Are they compelling, interesting and hard to believe their all false.....absolutely!

I'll go to my grave believing whatever circled me while hunting was on two feet and no man...but that doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong.

You and others feel the pile of evidence is so compelling that it makes bigfoot a statistical slam dunk...I believe most of its a big steaming pile of social construct (myth) and history would support this in examples such as dragons, fairies, werewolves, witches...the list is endless with boogie men that we've created and the masses buy into as fact...

The only real difference between myself and a knower is I refuse to "believe" in something that the facts do not support on so many levels, regardless of my own personal experience.