Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Guest]

Same for bigfoot. Eyewitness anecdotes consistently reporting little greys. How could you say these wonderful people are lying or delusional?

[Guest DWA]

Scientists living on earth report seeing them and consider the footprints compelling.

 

How many scientists have seen little green men or their footprints?  Not counting the ones who dream about being abducted.

 

Zero.  Evidence of aliens isn't a planet that looks blue.

 

Now you need to put this pipe dream of little green men away, and get back on topic, to wit:  real animals for which the scientific requirements of frequency and coherence strongly vouch.

Edited September 11, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

How many scientists have seen little green men or their footprints?

 

There's Paul Davies.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

As all of us know, one crank does not exactly count as compelling evidence.

THOUSANDS of people have seen sasquatch, INCLUDING scientists.  We have a MOVIE of one.

 

And in comparison you give me ONE CRANK.

 

You're right.  There sure is no comparison!

[JDL]

The hypothetical is interesting, but as you point out, hardly novel when it comes to BF reports. I would wonder how many of those convictions were coached after the fact by reporting agencies like the BFRO. We have all certainly seen them do it on TV.  "Did it do this....?"   "Was it this high...?"   etc, etc, ....which inevitably leads to "Dude, you totally saw a Squatch! Welcome to the club!" 

 

But ultimately anecdotal evidence does not increase in value based on the volume, consistency, source or tone of the reports.  Period.

 

I have to disagree regarding anecdotal evidence.  Certainly some reports are flawed for any and all of the reasons you have previously cited.  But, to assert that, because reports can be flawed, all must be flawed, is a gigantic leap beyond logic (some apples are red, therefore all apples must be red).  It is based on a huge assumption rather than on an assertion of fact.

 

And once again I'll point out that if one asserts that all people are fallible, then one has to acknowledge that they themselves are fallible, and any argument they may have to sweep away any and all evidence is the product of an inherently fallible mind.

 

I also point out that some have offered anecdotal evidence of mankind's fallibility as the means to discount anecdotal evidence.

 

Anecdotal evidence is used all the time in science.  It does have less value than hard data, but that does not mean that it has no value.  Science has developed multiple models for the analysis of anecdotal data, and any of them, when applied, point to the probability that bigfoot exist.  The only way any of the analytical models can be skewed to demonstrate that bigfoot cannot possibly exist is if one assigns a zero probability to either the independent or to the dependent assumptions one makes when building the model. 

[dmaker]

Yes it does.  The history of science - and any scientist's opinion - is all the proof anyone needs for that.  But that's a world some are trying hard not to live in.

 

A witness report is a story. Some are true, some are not. But not a single one of them can be falsified. Therefore they are not scientific evidence. And that simple fact remains true no matter how many there may be, who reported them or how awesome they sound. 

 

That was my point. As I'm sure you know.

 

 

JDL, I'm not saying that all reports are flawed simply because they are reports. I am saying that all reports are a type of evidence that has a certain value and place. Sure it can be useful in some scenarios. But it makes for poor evidence.   So when someone presents me a hypothetical that is an anecdotal report then my response is going to be the same whether that report sounds convincing or not. And that basically is...cool story bro, got any proof? I am not sure what else one is supposed to do with that type of evidence in a scientific framework. 

Edited September 11, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Everyone knows that the longest shot in the entire history of the universe is Life On Earth.

 

And how much money are these SETI cranks betting that INTELLIGENCE got duplicated, multiple times?  Come on.

 

Once again:  it's not serious just because a scientist says it is.  Get back on topic, now.  There are sasquatch 40 miles from Chicago.

[Guest]

As all of us know, one crank does not exactly count as compelling evidence.

THOUSANDS of people have seen sasquatch, INCLUDING scientists.  We have a MOVIE of one.

 

And in comparison you give me ONE CRANK.

 

You're right.  There sure is no comparison!

Nice tap dancing. Thousands of people have seen UFO including scientists. I name one scientist and you call him a crank. I could call the few scientists who believe in bigfoot cranks.

[Guest DWA]

What's a UFO?  Lights in the sky, right?

 

Can Davies show us footprints?  Can we analyze a film?  No we cannot.

Edited September 11, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Get back on topic, now.  There are sasquatch 40 miles from Chicago.

Then go get them.

[Guest DWA]

I don't tap dance.  Combat boots don't allow it.  They are for stomping on erroneous concepts of evidence.  SETI is built on NONE, at least by comparison to sasquatch.  Shoot, to Nessie for that matter.

[Guest]

DWA is spot on about SETI. Stephen Hawking and I agree with you too. Not that I know him..

Edited September 11, 2013 by Hellbilly

[Guest]

My mistake, its Eric Davis

 

What's a UFO?  Lights in the sky, right?

 

Can Davies show us footprints?  Can we analyze a film?  No we cannot.

 

Maybe you should ask him or look it up. You always demand bigfoot skeptics inform themselves.

[Guest DWA]

And who's gonna go against the Big Bad Hawking?  Well played, Hellbilly.

 

UFOs are evidence for little green men like call-blasters and kids with flashlights are evidence for sasquatch vocals and eyeshine.

 

And to say the very least, ringing the dinner bell intergalactically - when you may wind up being dinner - doesn't speak well for the stellar scientific judgment that bigfoot skeptics rely on when they vouch for the mainstream's opinion ...not even knowing on what it is based.

Edited September 11, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Clearly you're not familiar with the evidence. You're an uninformed skeptic. Now where have I heard that before?

Edited September 11, 2013 by Jerrymanderer