Jump to content

Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just an aside...and not intending to derail the discussion...but I got to thinking (uh-oh, I know), often times we hear or read that the PGF is "One of the all-time great hoaxes", and that was tossed out in this thread as well. Which begs the question for me, what are, exactly, the others?

By that I mean, not things that are still disputed, but the 100% for certain shams that have either been exposed or confessed to. You know, the frauds that only the fringe-of-the fringe still cling to. I want to exclude BF related stuff as well, because we all know how that can be debated. I'm talking about BIG things, that when they were originally perpetrated they rocked established paradigms, and then shook things up even more when the truth came out?

(Now that I think about it, this might just be on-topic)

The Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast for sure. Any others?

Edited by WSA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryP

" 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.

 

Your forward looking assumption assumes that which you've already admitted you cannot prove.

 

I.E.- "all we ever have confirmed are more hoaxes" = "all evidence is fabricated".

 

Only now you've entered into "as time marches on" predictive territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Yes, I understand that Larry. History has shown, so far, many hoaxes and not a single genuine Bigfoot. So I am going with the current trend. :)

I concede your point, however, that I cannot prove every single piece of claimed to be BF evidence is wrong. Can we move on please?

Edited by dmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piltdown Man.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

 

 

One can refer to this as a 'sasquatch cautionary tale.'  But aspects of the find were being called into question almost from the day it was discovered, and it was pretty much bunk as soon as the state of knowledge was sufficient to debunk it.

 

Just tossin' that in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryP

^ Yes, I understand that Larry. History has shown, so far, many hoaxes and not a single genuine Bigfoot. So I am going with the current trend. :)

I concede your point, however, that I cannot prove every single piece of claimed to be BF evidence is wrong. Can we move on please?

 

Yes.

 

Consider me moved on.

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. 

 

Major difference between the two:

 

Fringe proponents (which is what "believers" are) do it.

 

But it is the backbone of the entire skeptical argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dmaker - can you prove that all BF evidence has been faked or mis-ID'd?
 

*ducking and running*

 

;-)

 

Personally, I think that there IS indeed evidence of a purported BF.  As has been discussed in length here and elsewhere.  And some of this evidence had been found/proven to be faked/hoaxed.

 

But there is a huge pile of evidence that has NOT been shown to be faked OR 100% genuine.  But the pile that has not been shown either way is greater than the pile that has been shown to be faked, and infinitely larger than the pile that shows that it is indeed real (divide by zero).

 

However, I don't feel at this time, it is appropriate to concede or assume anything.  There aren't enough data points on either side to make a confident determination......so we should continue to investigate the most compelling of evidence. 

Edited by Cotter
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piltdown Man.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

 

 

One can refer to this as a 'sasquatch cautionary tale.'  But aspects of the find were being called into question almost from the day it was discovered, and it was pretty much bunk as soon as the state of knowledge was sufficient to debunk it.

 

Just tossin' that in.

Reluctantly granted a place in the pantheon of frauds. I say "reluctantly" because the identity of the forger has never been conclusively confirmed. To my way of thinking, to identify a great hoax, you must identify the great hoaxer, or hoaxers. Leave that key piece of evidence out, and you've only got half a loaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of leave that for the confirmation of the animal.

 

Why we don't have it yet is easily understandable.  So that question doesn't bother me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More accurately DWA, the backbone of the "total skeptic's" argument.  I am skeptical, but not "totally" skeptical.  I would consider total skeptics = fringe skeptics. 

 

* point taken on proponent.  Still trying to get the correct nomenclature down.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...