A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest DWA]

Failing to come up with a consistent way to think about something is a fallacy of its own kind.  I don't believe it has a name; maybe it deserves one.

 

If one believes that the subject deserves no research and that the evidence does not need to be followed:  one believes, in essence, that "they are all, each and every one of them, a fake or misidentified track of some kind? No exception."

 

One thinks that...or one follows the evidence.  Or one does not have an intellectual stance on this that deserves time of day. 

 

And that is all.

(Note:  the stance WSA cites shows no attention to the evidence and does not deserve time of day either.  I'm not saying that.  Science is.)

[WSA]

Actually Bodhi, it is a tertiary question, and if you think there is a fourth possibility here, by all means.

 

You need to come to grips with your thinking because it is extremely muddy and incoherent. Here in this world, we who are cogent and not deluded appreciate stuff results from other stuff. You want to plead an exception to this, and you don't care to give any rational explanation of how that will work, exactly. What this tells me is that you can't reconcile what the reality is with what you wish it were.

 

State the obvious: The sheer volume, range, duration, location and consistency in the track evidence makes it nigh-on impossible for these to be all the result of misidentification or hoaxes. This is not an opinion, it just is. If you or anyone else lacks the intestinal fortitude to own that, you are at the least intellectually lazy for not doing the legwork or, at the most, much, more confused and unworthy of attention here than I at first imagined.

 

If you want to match wits here and offer substantive opinions, you are going to have to do much better. So far, it has just been sad. You too Crow. Up your game or leave us alone, would you?

[Guest DWA]

[sigh] I'm not seeing ^^^that last option.  They can't stand the fun we're having, so they keep coming in with what they think is thinking.  Which gives us even more fun, but hey.

[Bodhi]

State the obvious: The sheer volume, range, duration, location and consistency in the track evidence makes it nigh-on impossible for these to be all the result of misidentification or hoaxes. This is not an opinion, it just is. If you or anyone else lacks the intestinal fortitude to own that, you are at the least intellectually lazy for not doing the legwork or, at the most, much, more confused and unworthy of attention here than I at first imagined.

Argumentum ad Populum Fallacy

[Guest DWA]

Rant all you want, gents.  But the track evidence and the sightings are two independent trails of consistent logical hard and followable evidence, of the type science has always followed to the (for now) answers.  If you aren't seeing that but rather arguing that the presence of a vanishingly insignificant few bad apples requires tossing the whole bunch...you just might never have taken a science class.  In your life.

Edited June 29, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

Quia ad opus perquam sensibus lutosa et cohaerens conserere.

 

But o.k., Bodhi, surprise me.

 

Why?

[Guest DWA]

I've found a funny thing about fallacy quoting:  it's only correct when the proponents do it.  So one would expect theirs to be the correct approach to the evidence as well.

[Old Dog]

How does the left one become the right one?  Especially when the right one has young feet in with the mature feet. One side is BS which side say you?     Nothing in my  primary, secondary and graduate education ever postulated the bigfoot style foot morphing going on in mammals humans and primates.  

 

 

Still doesn't answer my question.  By what authority do you make your claims?  You do know the meaning of authority do you not?

[Guest Crowlogic]

Still doesn't answer my question.  By what authority do you make your claims?  You do know the meaning of authority do you not?

Authority by definition:  the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine. 

 

I have invited the proponents to either disprove my position concerning the cast and the extensive foot morphing Dr. Bindenagel claims to be present in bigfoot transition from juvenile to maturity.  So far there have been no takers and that is a telling point.  My authority is my education, my experience within academic studies and direct experience and observation in the natural world.   If it rattles your cage perhaps your cage is not as stout as my ability to rattle it.

[WSA]

Another day in Crazy Town, yeah DWA.  Don't know why I persist, but I guess we all have an obligation to call out lazy thinking when we see it.  Even getting this crew to just admit they don't really know would be a positive development. I could at least inform them of how the could help themselves to get a little more certainty.  Showing up here day after day to only give half-baked opinions on cherry-picked data is tiresome in the extreme.  

[Guest DWA]

^^^And that.  In spades.  Every single day?  I mean, some of us have stuff to talk about here.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^^^And that.  In spades.  Every single day?  I mean, some of us have stuff to talk about here.

 

Another day in Crazy Town, yeah DWA.  Don't know why I persist, but I guess we all have an obligation to call out lazy thinking when we see it.  Even getting this crew to just admit they don't really know would be a positive development. I could at least inform them of how the could help themselves to get a little more certainty.  Showing up here day after day to only give half-baked opinions on cherry-picked data is tiresome in the extreme.  

Gentlemen:  Has bigfoot been put on the confirmed species list yet today?  If I attend a primateology lecture will bigfoot be discussed in the same context of reality as the rest of the confirmed fauna on planet earth?  If it will then I offer my sincerest apologies to the proponent community and will graciously acquiesces that I was wrong.  However if bigfoot is still in the official realm of myth and speculation I suggest you rethink who the residents of Crazy Town are.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Bonehead74]

Touché.

[southernyahoo]

Gentlemen:  Has bigfoot been put on the confirmed species list yet today?  If I attend a primateology lecture will bigfoot be discussed in the same context of reality as the rest of the confirmed fauna on planet earth?  If it will then I offer my sincerest apologies to the proponent community and will graciously acquiesces that I was wrong.  However if bigfoot is still in the official realm of myth and speculation I suggest you rethink who the residents of Crazy Town are.

 

I would refuse to think and reject the opinion I was crazy if I'd seen one of these creatures and I still wouldn't at my current level of accptance because the evidence speaks to me through the visually obvious and through scientific literature. There's so much of it that is lost on people and it makes it too easy to bury their head in the sand.

 

You have two ways to gain acceptance of their existence, 1. through your own experience or expertise in the analysis of the evidence or wait until someone you consider an authority to tell you to accept it. You really shouldn't need everyone else to accept it before you do, because if you're like me, you want to understand the proof, not just take someones word. If you are one that needs a specimen well, it is Crazy Town to complain about how some of the tracks are wonky.

 

You can point out how some of the evidence doesn't fit together and say "see, it must all be garbage", but in my book it's a shallow and lopsided approach to finding the truth. I think sometimes you have to look at the evidence with a different set of eyes to see the cogency of the evidence and the sheer unlikelyhood of happenstance to interfere with it, to get to the proof. That might not be good enough for people who live in ivory towers, but they can be as illinformed as the people here can be crazy.

[Bodhi]

Quia ad opus perquam sensibus lutosa et cohaerens conserere.

 

But o.k., Bodhi, surprise me.

 

Why?

the claim that because there have been a "large" number of trackways/casts collected, it increases the likelihood that some must be true: logical fallacy.

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/numbers.htm

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

The number of casts collected does not increase the likelihood that any one cast is authentic. It might not be intuitive for you I suppose so I'm happy to help clarify the matter.