the parkie Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 The fact that we are the most successful species on the planet suggests that our senses must not be that bad... Define 'successful'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 "Pretty much gonna lay the whole shebang waste" doesn't exactly define successful to me. In the end the dinosaurs will be seen as much more successful than us; in fact, most species will, because most will have lasted much, much longer. Of course this presumes there's any 'intelligent' life around to assess the carnage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 I guess looking at the issue of eyewitness identification/misidentification, the issue can be boiled down to its simplest form. From the skeptical side, one must fight each and every eyewitness report, and must fight each and every argument bolstering any such reports, regardless of weakness or soundness of those arguments. Especially the logically sound and convincing points. If just one report is true then that changes everything. All reports must be discredited in some fashion, if it requires painting all people with the same unreliable brush, then that is done it appears. I am sure that everyone on the planet has somneone whom they trust to believe things that they tell them. This issue apparently allows you to believe and trust all different ilks of competent, sane people, from housewives to soldiers to farmers to scientists on everything EXCEPT this one issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 "Fight eyewitness reports?" Suggesting a fair number of them might be other than presented is far from fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Being skeptical means questioning everything, every piece of evidence, every claim, without exception, even if you personally agree with it. Why is that so hard for True Believersâ„¢ find that hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 "Fight eyewitness reports?" Suggesting a fair number of them might be other than presented is far from fighting. We agree that a significant percentage of reports have little value. Being skeptical means questioning everything, every piece of evidence, every claim, without exception, even if you personally agree with it. Why is that so hard for True Believersâ„¢ find that hard to understand? Being skeptical, however, does not mean being prejudicial, a skeptic remains open to the possibility of existence. If one maintains that bigfoot does not exist at all, no matter what, they are a denialist. There are some very vocal denialists on the site who label themselves as skeptics, and thus damage members' perception of skeptical objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 (edited) You're still entrenched in a logic fallacy. So, you've just acknowledged that "We are not all the same,...", that some members of our species are more reliable than others. Yet your argument to dismiss eyewitness testimony grasps at the lowest common denominator, and then asserts that no one is any more capable than the lowest common denominator, even though this flies in the face of reason, logic, and reality. Do you view yourself as no more capable than the least capable of our species? If one says "yes", we can regard one's argument as put forth by someone least capable. If one says "no", it would be hypocritical (and arrogant) to state that one is capable, but not a single bigfoot witness is. Much of my career has been devoted to identifying the potential in others, specifically in the exceptional, and helping them to develop to their potential. For one thing you're taking two completely separate discussions here and trying to blend them into one. Salubrius based the reliability of our senses on the success of the human race, which is a flawed ideology because we are all different and not all at the same level. Our senses are only as good as each individual person, and not measured by a species. Nowhere did I equate any Bigfoot witnesses to being "least capable" or 'lowest common denominator". Yet your argument to dismiss eyewitness testimony grasps at the lowest common denominator, and then asserts that no one is any more capable than the lowest common denominator, even though this flies in the face of reason, logic, and reality. No. My argument has always been that unverifiable testimony is not reliable, because it is susceptible to human error among other things. It's pretty simple. It saddens me to encounter those who seem to revel in the presumed fallability of others. It saddens me that you keep jumping to conclusions like this. Speaking of reason, logic, and reality, let's take a look at something that should hold no bias here and then tell me your reasoning. What's behind the thousands of years of eyewitness fairy encounters? Should we treat it as a genuine species because so many people have claimed to have had encounters? If I were to go by the logic being pushed here then we would have to assume that fairies really do exist because all these people know what they saw, even though nothing is verifiable. Where are all the creatures these people have seen? Did they really see fairies or could there be an alternate explanation? Of course we can't label them all as misidentified or hallucinated, so there must be something else to it. How would you logically flesh out these ongoing occurrences? Edited April 6, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 If an eyewitness see's a bear in a neighborhood at the same time that several eyewitnesses are reporting a Bigfoot roaming the streets, how many skeptics would doubt the report of the bear witness? I wonder if any would ask if there could have been a bear and a Bigfoot in the same neighborhood? I doubt we have many impartial observers on this board..... on either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 ^ The bear report would be far less questionable because it has already been well documented and verified that bears will go into neighborhoods. There are solid verifiable reports, video, etc. You're comparing this to something completely unverifiable- from behavior to appearance to even existence. Hence the skepticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 (edited) So eyewitness testimony is reliable unless it is of a Bigfoot? Edited April 6, 2014 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 If one person reports a bear in the same vicinity and time frame another person reports a bigfoot, for me, at least, the default conclusion would be "bear." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 So eyewitness testimony is reliable unless it is of a Bigfoot? You got it! neat isn't it? That's why I presume it is such a self-satisfying thing to be participating from the so-called sceptical side: there is no answer that any sasquatch proponent could give that will satisfy someone who flat refuses to accommodate the notion that they may be wrong...it is the perpetual win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 If one person reports a bear in the same vicinity and time frame another person reports a bigfoot, for me, at least, the default conclusion would be "bear." Sounds good, but it's a logical fallacy. ( Appeal to Probability) "Not Bigfoot" cannot be a default position, it is simply confirmation bias. Since no one has interviewed any of the eyewitnesses, we have no idea what is going on in that neighborhood. If someone can misidentify a bear then then can misidentify a Bigfoot,no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 If one person sees a weather balloon and another reports a ufo in the same vicinity/time frame, logical fallacy or not, I'm defaulting to "weather balloon.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted April 6, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 6, 2014 Every person on this planet is susceptible to human error, misidentification, and other faults of the human brain- some more than others. We are not all the same, so trying to argue by species is about as broad as you can get. I know that our senses aren't perfect. You can't see a bullet after it is launched from a gun but it can kill you. Nevertheless I trust my senses well enough to drive a car and respond to email. Not sure I would leave the house otherwise but maybe I might walk through a window and not know it the way you are talking Define 'successful'!There is more human protoplasm on the planet than any other species. Our senses are good for *something*... If an eyewitness see's a bear in a neighborhood at the same time that several eyewitnesses are reporting a Bigfoot roaming the streets, how many skeptics would doubt the report of the bear witness? I wonder if any would ask if there could have been a bear and a Bigfoot in the same neighborhood? I doubt we have many impartial observers on this board..... on either side.That's called 'bearidolia'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts