Jump to content

Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I take their opinion...until someone shows me their opinion is wrong.

 

That's what we all do with experts.

 

To me the case has long been made that sasquatch deserves the full-time attention of the scientific mainstream.  That both Krantz and Meldrum made mistakes is irrelevant.  I make it a point never to blame an animal's nonexistence on the people looking for it, Matt and Bobo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

"I take their opinion...until someone shows me their opinion is wrong."

 

Do Matt Crowley's dermal ridge experiments count?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what?  My opinion of the reality of sasquatch?

 

All that told me is that some Real McCoy tracks may have artifacts of the casting process on them.  Any mistakes any experts made related to that don't change my opinion of the overall evidence.  I tend to prefer forests over trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryP

And Larry, well I do not have proof that "any and all" BF evidence is faked

 

 

 

Then you should not have made the positive claim that all evidence of BF is "fabricated".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Yes, but there are numerous examples of faked Bigfoot evidence and zero examples of genuine Bigfoot evidence. Ergo, if Bigfoot does not exist, then all BF evidence is the result of human beings. Imaginations, lies or hoaxes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryP

^^ Yes, but there are numerous examples of faked Bigfoot evidence and zero examples of genuine Bigfoot evidence.

 

Numerous examples of faked BF evidence does not relieve you from providing proof that all BF evidence is "fabricated".

 

Yet you've already admitted that you have no proof that all BF evidence is "fabricated".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well do you have even one example of Bigfoot evidence that is proven to have been a result of a Bigfoot? No, of course you do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Yes, but there are numerous examples of faked Bigfoot evidence and zero examples of genuine Bigfoot evidence. Ergo, if Bigfoot does not exist, then all BF evidence is the result of human beings. Imaginations, lies or hoaxes. 

Irrelevant, because it simply uses "no proof yet' to mean "not real."  They're not interchangeable terms.

 

Not to mention which the logic is bassackwards.  If Bigfoot does not exist?  You know that?  How?  LarryP's just right on this one and you're just wrong.  You asserted as a fact something for which you can provide no evidence.   Next!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wudewasa

So all of these purported footprints are proof that sasquatches exist?!

 

Yet no one has a sasquatch foot in possession to test this claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

proof?  Who said anything about proof, other than 'bigfoot skeptics' confused about the difference betwen evidence and proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said anything about proof? Mulder did:

" Individually maybe not. Taken together it proves that there is a real critter out there needing classification. A mountain can be "proven" by one boulder or a huge pile of pebbles."

Maybe you should have your evidence vs proof lecture with him as it seems it's not only skeptics, in your mind, that confuse the two.

Edited by dmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryP

Who said anything about proof? Mulder did:

" Individually maybe not. Taken together it proves that there is a real critter out there needing classification. A mountain can be "proven" by one boulder or a huge pile of pebbles."

Maybe you should have your evidence vs proof lecture with him as it seems it's not only skeptics, in your mind, that confuse the two.

 

This is really very simple.

 

You made the positive claim that all evidence of BF is fabricated and then admitted that you cannot prove that claim.

 

Therefore your claim was disproven by you.

 

As by your own admission you do not have a deductive argument.

 

This is further evidenced by the fact that while there has been BF evidence which was proven to be fabricated by hoaxers, there is also a plethora of evidence which has never been proven to be fabricated by hoaxers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see both sides confuse the two.  I see skeptics turn a blind eye to evidence, and just as often I see believers claiming evidence (that is lacking) as proof. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" This is further evidenced by the fact that while there has been BF evidence which was proven to be fabricated by hoaxers, there is also a plethora of evidence which has never been proven to be fabricated by hoaxers."

Right Larry, nor has it been proven to come from a Bigfoot either. So as time marches on and all we ever have confirmed are more hoaxes, then at some point it is not ridiculous to connect the dots and concede that there is no such beast as Bigfoot, therefore making all the other unconfirmed pieces of evidence either a hoax or a mistake.

Edited by dmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...