JDL Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I know of no one, let alone many thousands who have ever reported a giant teapot floating in space, claim to have seen one, or even believe in such a thing; therefore it is a poor example. Now there are a lot of things about bigfoot which I do not believe. I don't believe they are psychic, paranormal, or have any relationship with UFO's for starters. But.... I can't prove any of that, so I simply choose not to engage in any of those discussions. If someone wants to believe in them, fine. They're not hurting me, and who am I to wage war against what they believe or claim to have experienced first-hand. In my advancing maturity I've given up on those kind of control issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) "I know of no one, let alone many thousands who have ever reported a giant teapot floating in space, claim to have seen one, or even believe in such a thing; therefore it is a poor example." Nice dodge. But by your own logic, you are forced to accept that it might exist. Or are things only possible if thousands of people report it? Nice logic there... Edited January 28, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Well, if one is incapable of even admitting the possibility of anything - ANYTHING! - that one cannot personally prove isn't there, one's logical apparatus - not to mention one's advancing maturity and those needling control issues - are in serious disorder and need work, stat. There is a really really really serious problem going on there. Which is the average layman's fundamental error when it comes to science, which is not about denying stuff but about proving stuff. If one continually insists to me THAT THERE IS NO - NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! etc. POSSIBILITY OF A GIANT FLOATING TEAPOT IN SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...well that's daft. I just change the subject. Who cares if there is or isn't? Insisting that there isn't, however, is a fatal indictment of one's critical thinking skills. If you can't prove it, you can't logically rationally say that...right, class...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Ok, I'm willing to accept that someone believes in a giant teapot floating in space. I'll even acknowledge that we can apply the Schroedinger's cat analogy to the teapot. Please direct me to the giant space teapot forum so that I can display my tolerance of the belief. I am, however, confused regarding why one might believe in such a thing. Edited January 28, 2014 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 ^^^Only if you promise not to hang around that forum for over 3,000 posts saying "but in all history there is not one shred of verifiable evidence of said teapot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Hey, I'm even willing to accept that some believe that Elwynn Forest exists within said teapot and is inhabited by those who refuse to believe in bigfoot because of their superior grasp of reality. Edited January 28, 2014 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 There are ways to prove non-existence. The Michaelson Morley Experiment proved that Ether does not exist in light waves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment A claim was made "Light travels on Ether" they set up an experiment to detect the ether, and found that ether had no effect on the light waves, therefore ether did not exist. Another example, is to say "How many birds do I have in this box?", if the answer is zero, then the birds don't exist in the box. We can look at areas of the country as the box, "How many Bigfoots are in Salt Fork Lake State Park?" or "How many Bigfoots are on Staten Island?", or "How many Bigfoots are at Rest Area 35A in Suburban Seattle?" These boxes can be surveyed and counted, and a result given. The utter failure of finding Bigfoot in these boxes, is evidence of absence. If I could show that hairy beasts are often seen during Hypnogogic Hallucinations in Narcolepsy patients, would anyone here accept that as evidence that Some Bigfoot sightings are the result of such sleep disorders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 ^^^You'd have to show that all of them are that. I'm not concerned about the ones that are. I'm concerned about the ones that from all appearances are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 And so we are, back at the OP. Maybe the skeptics are Living In This Paradise On Earth right now. Certainly seems that way. "No proof" seems success for them, each day it happens. So maybe they're successful now and bound for ultimate failure. Or maybe that will be success for them too. Maybe we're all just here to float our boats, and that is success. If a bigfoot skeptic wants to chant Show Monkey with his daily yoga practice, each day he gets to do that may be success for him. If a proponent wants to play Annie Sullivan to a "skeptic's" Helen Keller, and feels she is educating others in how to think about evidence and respond to skeptics, maybe that person is there to do that. If someone feels that the endless wrangle over the smallest details of Patty's eyelashes is worth the bother to respond to Great Pattyfake Believers who are waiting in the BluffCreekPatch 46 years now, then on and on it goes (and it does). In the end, short of the mods, you craft your experience here. I tune out the ones that my tuning fork doesn't resonate with, and all others can do that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 ^^ No, you would not have to prove that all of them are. We know for a fact that some bigfoot sightings are hoaxes. This is indisputable. It does not mean that all bigfoot sightings have to be lies in order for them all to be lies. We have demonstrable proof of that. The same applies for other sources of sightings be it hallucinations, mistaken identifications, paraedolia, etc. To say that you must prove them all to be X or none can be X is highly faulty logic used only as an attempt to discount a legitimate source of bigfoot sightings that do not, in fact, include a bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I can't show all of them are that, what I am trying to do, is show that if some sightings definitely have other explanations, will you ever revise your thinking. I can show some Bigfoot sightings are the result of X. I can show some Bigfoot sightngs are the result of Y. I can show some Bigfoot sightings are the result of X caused by Y. You can show zero Bigfoot sightings are the result of Bigfoot. Will you ever be able to say, 'I have hit the end of the line, I can no longer rationalize that a Giant Hairy Bipedal Hominid with No Fossil Record, is terrorizing certain people in the semi-rural areas of North America's 49 continental states.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbear Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Clearly some proponents get caught up in the search for BF and deep down must feel that they are wasting there time as they then resort to hoaxing their own findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 ^^^^No. Because the evidence screams that the thing is real and an unlisted animal, as loudly as any such thing has ever been screamed. Confirmation, a mere formality. Will you ever be able to revise a thought process that utterly ignores evidence? Science demands it. Which is - and is precisely why I said it - exactly and precisely why I care not a fig for a few marginal cases for which you might be able to provide proof. Crazy drugged people exist. Does this mean they all are? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM....?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 What the evidence screams of is your highly subjective opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) BTW, I know we have talked beyond too many times how irrelevant the fossil record (at least two plausible sasquatch progenitors found thus far, and counting) is to what's happenin' now. Edited January 28, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts