Bigfoot And The Dragon In My Garage

[Guest forest]

That is, that this is something that's really interesting, and I think it would be really cool if it existed, but the evidence doesn't add up, so I have to conclude that it probably doesn't, regardless of how I feel. In fact, that's the basically of what Jane Goodall has said about the subject.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[norseman]

I take exception to the "special pleading" part because if Sasquatch does exist? It's his very close relationship with humans that makes everything so hard to sort out.

Take the PGF........

If the creature we were looking for was a 30 ft. fire breathing dragon? Does anyone think it would be as easy to hoax?

The first question is with any photo or video is.......is that a guy in a ape suit? We are looking for something with a head, shoulders, arms, a torso a waist, legs and feet with five toes! Ringing any bells?

I don't think this is just another example of an excuse made by a delusional person with a invisible dragon. I think it is a real problem with most evidence short of a body.

Ultimately though, it's up to us to provide proof. The fact that your uncle Bob who never lies said he saw one once on a fishing trip just isn't going to cut it. We need a type specimen on a lab table.

[Guest]

The essay was intended to illustrate the logical fallacy known as "special pleading." It does so beautifully, and I use that adverb literally.

Not in my opinion. Like Huntster, I took it literally and wondered why Sagan thought he knew what was in everyone's garage.

These animals are not dinosaurs. They are about as closely related to dinosaurs as you are to a rabbit. Birds, however, are dinosaurs. So yes, there are living dinosaurs today (about 10,000 different species in fact). These days, we often refer to the "non-avian dinosaurs" when we mean things like Brachiosaurus or Triceratops. Such creatures had vanished from the planet tens of millions of years before the first human could have laid eyes on them.

I stand corrected, I thought dinosaurs were a form of extinct reptile.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest RayG]

Carl Sagan has never been to my garage, nor millions of other garages. His "confirmation" is limited to the garages he investigated, isn't it?

Yes, exactly where the claimant said it was supposed to be. Given the complete lack of evidence, Sagan asked, "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?"

Not in my opinion. Like Huntster, I took it literally and wondered why Sagan thought he knew what was in everyone's garage.

Nowhere does Sagan say anything about a dragon in everyone's garage. The original claimant never says, a fire-breathing dragon lives in everyone's garage, he says, "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage." Sagan is under no obligation to check every garage on the planet for this dragon, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

RayG

[Guest]

Next, we have to look at what a scientific question is. In science, observations and claims are made based on evidence, and for a hypothesis to try to explain something, it needs to be: 1. testable, and 2. falsifiable.

That's all well and good if what you are doing is a physics experiment or a mathematical proof or some such. The rub is that much BF evidence is observational in nature, and thus not repeatable under laboratory conditions. That doesn't make it "not evidence", however, just not evidence readily amenable to that sort of procedural scrutiny.

However, there IS a lot of evidence that is amenable to repeat examination and scientific analysis. Track casts, track trait data, audio recordings, film/pictures, hair, and now we are working on dna profiling.

This means that the hypothesis must be able to be tested and/or supported by evidence, and that it has to be able to be proven wrong if the evidence doesn't support it. Without those two elements, a question cannot be proven or disproven, and cannot be scientific.

Only under your rigid definition of "testable" and "falsifiable".

In that example, the dragon's existence cannot be disproven, because the assertion of the dragon is not falsifiable. Could the dragon exist? Possibly, but not probably, and without evidence, there is no reason to say that it does, even though you can't say conclusively that it does not exist. A hypothesis that isn't falsifiable is meaningless (at least scientifically), because it can't be answered and doesn't provide a real explanation to anything. Providing such a hypothesis also leads to a dead end; something that can't be proven wrong can't be improved upon or understood better, and it usually can't be proven right.

All well and good, but this is not the case with BF evidence.

For example, saying that we can't physical evidence of bigfoot because bigfoot doesn't leave physical evidence, or that it's hard to capture them on film because they stay away from people. Both are ways to explain a problem, but neither is falsifiable. It may seem tempting to throw out explanations like that, for the very fact that they can't be proven wrong, but asking questions like that is a good way to get nowhere, scientifically speaking.

Again, only if you straightjacket your definitions such that only a particular methodology qualifies as "true science". Really the argument boils down to a variation of the No True Scotsmen fallacy, to wit:

All "true/legitimate/good science" involves hypotheses and evidence that are amenable to empirical testing. The case for Bigfoot has hypotheses and evidence. However, they much of it isn't readily amenable to empirical testing, therefore it isn't "true/legitimate/good science".

It's also important to look at how the scientific method usually operates: a question or problem is addressed, and conclusions are made based on evidence or observation.

When done correctly, yes.

In regards to bigfoot research, the method for investigation is usually done the opposite way; conclusions are made, and evidence is drawn to support that conclusion.

Uhhh...sorry, but no. BF investigators didn't "draw the evidence"...they GATHERED the evidence. The evidence still came first, as it should.

That may sound fairly harmless, until you realize the bias inherent in that way of researching. Say I want to prove that dragons really did, or do, exist. I could point to stories about dragons and the fact that many cultures around the world have them as evidence. I could even say that since giant reptilian creatures did exist at one point, that one of them could be a dragon, and we just haven't discovered that yet. If I only examined those two points, I (and maybe others) would think that I have a good case for the potential existence of dragons, but I would be mistaken.

I would be leaving out the facts that all those stories are very different, and those giant reptiles lived long before any person could have ever made an account of them, let alone that there's no evidence for them breathing fire or even looking like traditional dragons. How you look at the evidence matters just as much as the evidence itself.

I think you're glossing over (I would hope unintentionally) a very important distinction between BF and dragons. The characteristics of dragons are such that their existence is highly UNlikely as they violate or appear to violate known biological laws/principles. BF does not.

[As an aside, have you ever seen the mock-u-mentary "Dragon's World"? Pure fiction, of course, but it DOES proffer as a thought experiment a pretty well thought out evolutionary paradigm that could produce a dragon purely on the basis of biology, and no recourse at all to magic and/or the paranormal.

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdX8wBMtNLkMAsD1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0dXVkMnE1BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA1FJMDA3Xzc0/SIG=121m9dl0o/EXP=1305172112/**http%3a//movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808646198/info]

My general point is that for the question of bigfoot's existence to be investigated in a credible and scientific manner, it's best to approach it scientifically. And to do that, it's important to know what is science and what isn't, which is what I'm trying to make a little clearer with this post. If the questions are approached in that way, it's much easier to draw credible conclusions, and to have those conclusions taken seriously by others.

And what say you to Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al who have done just that with various items and categories using well known and accepted (for any other relavent purpose) scientific techniques of evidence only to be repeatedly rebuffed?

[Guest]

And what say you to Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al who have done just that . . . only to be repeatedly rebuffed?

By whom?

[Guest]

Also, just another point about dragons: it's pretty much impossible for any human to have seen a living dinosaur. Too many millions of years separated them from us. The closest anyone has come to seeing a dinosaur (besides a bird), would be a fossil.

*cough*cycads*cough*

*cough*coelecanth*cough*

*cough*frilled shark*cough*

It's not at all IMpossible that some species of small (relatively speaking) dinosaur might still be out there in a relict population. The major problems are that of atmosphere and base ecology. Our modern atmosphere is at a lower pressure and oxygen content than that which existed during the time of the dinosaurs. The big sauropods (brontosaurs, etc) would not be able to breathe properly today, and the changeover from a primarily fast-growing fern-based plant ecology to one based on flowers and more woody type plants would not be able to supply sufficient browse to feed them either. Without the big plant eaters, the big theropods likewise would not be able to find sufficient food.

That doesn't mean that a small (elephant/mammoth size...tiny by dinosaur standards) species of plant eaters could not exist today. The mokolo-membe (sp?) would fit that description.

[Guest]

These days, we often refer to the "non-avian dinosaurs" when we mean things like Brachiosaurus or Triceratops. Such creatures had vanished from the planet tens of millions of years before the first human could have laid eyes on them.

Creatures and plants as old or older than some dinosaurs still exist, so your point is easily refuted.

[Guest]

By whom?

By people like you, for one. By their so-called "peers" (such as those who called for Dr Meldrum's firing from his job), for another.

[Guest Blackdog]

Also, just another point about dragons: it's pretty much impossible for any human to have seen a living dinosaur. Too many millions of years separated them from us. The closest anyone has come to seeing a dinosaur (besides a bird), would be a fossil.

*cough*cycads*cough*

*cough*coelecanth*cough*

*cough*frilled shark*cough*

*cough*not dinosaurs*cough*

These days, we often refer to the "non-avian dinosaurs" when we mean things like Brachiosaurus or Triceratops. Such creatures had vanished from the planet tens of millions of years before the first human could have laid eyes on them.

Creatures and plants as old or older than some dinosaurs still exist, so your point is easily refuted.

What do you think you are refuting? He was talking specifically about dinosaurs.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Blackdog

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, but science draws conclusions based on the best available evidence. If no reliable evidence is available to suggest a conclusion, that conclusion can't be drawn.

That's all well and good if what you are doing is a physics experiment or a mathematical proof or some such. The rub is that much BF evidence is observational in nature, and thus not repeatable under laboratory conditions. That doesn't make it "not evidence", however, just not evidence readily amenable to that sort of procedural scrutiny.

However, there IS a lot of evidence that is amenable to repeat examination and scientific analysis. Track casts, track trait data, audio recordings, film/pictures, hair, and now we are working on dna profiling.

That logic doesn't just apply to things that can be tested in a lab, it applies to everything scientific. As a matter of fact, the person that drilled those points into my head the most is the prefessor of an archeology class. Archeology is kind like bigfoot research (if you want to look at it this way), because it's a science based purely on the study of things that people find. Everything found at at archeological site is evidence, the same way everything found during bigfoot research can be considered evidence. The problem with what is usually presented as bigfoot evidence, including the things you listed, is that (so far) nothing conclusive has been found.

As far as the rest of your points go, you strike me as a person that clearly doesn't trust science, and I don't really feel like defending points when you're not going to listen to them anyway. If you have a question you'd like me to try to answer, I'll do my best, but there's not much I really can say to assertions that science is wrong.

[Guest]

Nowhere does Sagan say anything about a dragon in everyone's garage. The original claimant never says, a fire-breathing dragon lives in everyone's garage, he says, "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage." Sagan is under no obligation to check every garage on the planet for this dragon, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

RayG

That's like saying I've never seen a bigfoot in the woods/garage behind my house. Since I haven't seen bigfoot in my woods/garage there is no way you could have bigfoot in your woods/garage either, therefore it doesn't exist. Isn't that some kind of straw man fallacy?

Edited May 12, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest RayG]

Jodie, you've lost me. Sagan made no such inference or suggestion, and I cannot fathom the logic you've used to arrive at your conclusion.

RayG

[Guest BlurryMonster]

That's like saying I've never seen a bigfoot in the woods/garage behind my house. Since I haven't seen bigfoot in my woods/garage there is no way you could have bigfoot in your woods/garage either, therefore it doesn't exist. Isn't that some kind of straw man fallacy?

Not really. What you did is kind of a strawman, though. In case you didn't know the exact definition, a strawman fallacy is:

"...when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."

Sagan's claim was based on something specific: a dragon in his garage. That claim doesn't include anything about anyone else's garage, and, as RayG explained, Sagan isn't under any obligation to to check everyone's claims along the same lines. If somebody makes a claim, it's up to them to provide the evidence for it.

This line of thinking leads me to another important part of analytical thinking: logical fallacies and avoiding them. It's very easy to fall into using one, and they can be seen quite often (more than most people probably realize). But logical fallacies are another thing that lead to nowhere; if you avoid arguing a position, you're doing nothing to prove or disprove it. It's always best to avoid using them.

[Guest]

Jodie, you've lost me. Sagan made no such inference or suggestion, and I cannot fathom the logic you've used to arrive at your conclusion.

RayG

Maybe I over simplified it, that's OK. Basically I think Sagan's analogy using the invisible dragon in the garage is an over exaggeration of how the majority of folks interested in cryptids behave, therefore, it makes his analogy a straw man fallacy IMO.