Jump to content

Why Are The Pgf Detractors So Persistent?


Recommended Posts

dmaker

You have it wrong. When I say prove me wrong, I mean simply meet your burden of proof. How is that reversing the burden of proof? You claim that bigfoot is the result of alien experimentation. I am saying that I don't believe that bigfoot exists. You could prove me wrong by meeting your burden of proof. Saying that I don't feel that the current evidence proves the case for bigfoot, therefore I do not believe that bigfoot exists, is not reversing the burden. I am open to someone proving me wrong. By all means, do so.


 

 

Really, do we have to act this dense?  If a skeptic has to start every post regarding their opinion on this matter "In my opinion" shouldn't a proponent do so as well since BF is NOT OFFICIALLY recognized as a species?  With an unknown ( such as BF ) we are all forming conclusions based on our opinion of the evidence available?  Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not? 

 

 

 

A Bigfoot proponent doesn't need to qualify their statement about "knowing Bigfoot exists"...if they say that they have actually seen one.

 

For them...if what they say is true....there is proof of their existence.

 

 

For the skeptics....a comparable situation does not exist. All you have is your opinion....possibly supported by evidence, but not proven so.

 

Sorry. :)

 

By your logic Sweaty, someone claiming that werewolves exist is all they need to do. Simply saying they saw one is good enough. I don't care if someone claims to have seen a bigfoot or a werewolf or a leprechaun. That is their subjective proof. That does nothing for me without evidence. Their subjective anecdote does nothing for me, or for science. 

 

 

How about this? Based on the current evidence, I do not feel that proponents have met the burden of proof. Therefore I am not convinced that bigfoot exists. Is that better? Should I copy and paste that in front of every comment I make?

 

This is all very silly, and a very old argument. You act as if skeptics are never allowed to come to a conclusion. That is absurd. The idea that skeptics should exist in some ideological limbo is a cornerstone of pseudoscience. At some point, even for a skeptic, it is acceptable to arrive at, and profess, a provisional conclusion. Otherwise we could sit here and debate teapots in space forever. If the evidence does not support a claim, that claim does not get to live in some semantic loophole and remain valid without sufficient evidence to support it. I am sorry if this level of critical thinking eludes some members. 

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

When I say prove me wrong, I mean simply meet your burden of proof. How is that reversing the burden of proof? You claim that bigfoot is the result of alien experimentation. I am saying that I don't believe that bigfoot exists. You could prove me wrong by meeting your burden of proof.

 

Claiming you don't believe that X exists is different from claiming that X doesn't exist. The latter claim gives you a burden of proof.Since you're claiming the latter, you now have a burden of proof that you have not fulfilled in the eyes of others (including mainstream science). https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

Also, negatives claims like the one you're making are impossible to prove, so it's not logical to make them in the first place. 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

dmaker wrote:

 

By your logic Sweaty, someone claiming that werewolves exist is all they need to do. Simply saying they saw one is good enough.

 

 

I wasn't talking about werewolves....or flying elephants. I was talking about an alleged creature which would be a Hominid, or a very close relative....the type of which....is more plausible than a werewolf type of creature.

 

 

 

 

 I don't care if someone claims to have seen a bigfoot or a werewolf or a leprechaun. That is their subjective proof. That does nothing for me without evidence. 

 

 

That's correct....and that is what I said. :thumbsup:

 

And you are right...it does nothing for you. Where did I say that it did??

 

I was talking about what Bigfoot proponents can state as a 'definite'....without any need for using a qualifier.

 

 

 

 

 

How about this? Based on the current evidence, I do not feel that proponents have met the burden of proof. Therefore I am not convinced that bigfoot exists. Is that better? Should I copy and paste that in front of every comment I make?

 

 

Yes, I think that that is a better way of stating your 'provisional conclusion'. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Really, do we have to act this dense?  If a skeptic has to start every post regarding their opinion on this matter "In my opinion" shouldn't a proponent do so as well since BF is NOT OFFICIALLY recognized as a species?  With an unknown ( such as BF ) we are all forming conclusions based on our opinion of the evidence available?  Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not? 

 

 

 

A Bigfoot proponent doesn't need to qualify their statement about "knowing Bigfoot exists"...if they say that they have actually seen one.

 

For them...if what they say is true....there is proof of their existence.

 

 

For the skeptics....a comparable situation does not exist. All you have is your opinion....possibly supported by evidence, but not proven so.

 

Sorry. :)

 

 

This level of reasoning makes me really pity what the Skype forums may soon be dealing with.  I almost feel obligated to warn them.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Should provisional conclusions remain such forever so that anyone can claim anything they want without evidence and forever leave the question unanswered?

 

That is nonsense.

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Are you talking about kit's 'Patty suit' claim?? ;)

 

I agree, in principle....a 'provisional conclusion' about someone's unsupported claim shouldn't have to hang in limbo forever....unproven.

 

That would be nonsensical.

 

I think we should investigate kit's claim.   :thumbsup:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

When I say prove me wrong, I mean simply meet your burden of proof. How is that reversing the burden of proof? You claim that bigfoot is the result of alien experimentation. I am saying that I don't believe that bigfoot exists. You could prove me wrong by meeting your burden of proof.

 

Claiming you don't believe that X exists is different from claiming that X doesn't exist. The latter claim gives you a burden of proof.Since you're claiming the latter, you now have a burden of proof that you have not fulfilled in the eyes of others (including mainstream science). https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

Also, negatives claims like the one you're making are impossible to prove, so it's not logical to make them in the first place. 

 

By your logic you can say anything you want. For example, you could say you think there are giant teapots in space. But I don't get to say that I do not believe that to be true because then I have to prove that there are no giant teapots in space. 

 

Welcome to pseudoscience.

 

 

Now let's apply inductive reasoning. How do you know for a fact that your car is not going to blow up tomorrow when you start it? You don't. But all evidence that you have at your disposal indicates that that is not a likely event. But you can't prove it, can you? Not by the strictures or formal logic you can't. If we lived by the strictures of formal logic we could never be absolutely certain of anything. You are abusing the strictures of formal logic to try to needle in the possibility that bigfoots are the result of alien experimentation. I cannot prove that is wrong, but I can be reasonably certain that it is wrong based on the available evidence.

 

^

 

Are you talking about kit's 'Patty suit' claim?? :)

That is a very good point actually. If Kit does not prove his claim, then at some point it becomes reasonable to assume that he cannot prove his claim, therefore his claim is most likely false. But guess what? The same logic applies to the existence of bigfoot. 

 

But if we apply your logic, then Kit's claim gets to live in limbo as "possible" simply because it has not been definitively disproven.

 

Ouch. That must sting a bit for you.

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

Are you talking about kit's 'Patty suit' claim?? :)

That is a very good point actually. If Kit does not prove his claim, then at some point it becomes reasonable to assume that he cannot prove his claim, therefore his claim is most likely false. But guess what? The same logic applies to the existence of bigfoot. 

 

But if we apply your logic, then Kit's claim gets to live in limbo as "possible" simply because it has not been definitively disproven.

 

Ouch. That must sting a bit for you.

 

 

 

 

Ouch !!!  :lolu:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

By your logic you can say anything you want. For example, you could say you think there are giant teapots in space. But I don't get to say that I do not believe that to be true because then I have to prove that there are no giant teapots in space. 

 

Not believing in giant teapots is different from claiming there aren't any. One is neutral, the other is a negative claim. 

Why claim something that theoretically is not possible to prove?

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ Thank-you for making my point.  That the logic behind your failure eludes you is your problem, not mine.  By your logic, I should remain open to the idea that space is filled with giant teapots, absent of any evidence to support the claim, simply because you are hiding behind the pseudoscience claptrap of a negative claim. I cannot force a functional level of critical thinking on you if you persist on clinging to ridiculous absolutes. I would, however, recommend you take one of many freely available introductory courses on logic and critical thinking available on the Internet. 

 

Well, good luck with that. I have to go now, my interplanetary unicorn has arrived to take me to a party on Venus. 

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
 

 

That is a very good point actually. If Kit does not prove his claim, then at some point it becomes reasonable to assume that he cannot prove his claim, therefore his claim is most likely false.

 

 

You got it, dmaker... :thumbsup:

 

 

 

But if we apply your logic, then Kit's claim gets to live in limbo as "possible" simply because it has not been definitively disproven.

 

Ouch. That must sting a bit for you.

 

 

Yeah, kit's claim will "live on"....like a lingering fart. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Yes, Sweaty, much like the PGF.      Oh, snap, PGF....Patterson Gimlin Fart.   Too easy :)  Though personally I prefer Pretty Good Fake.

 

 

 

Sweaty, if you wish to discuss Kit's claim, please do so in the appropriate thread. I don't know why you obsessively drag it into every thread that you participate in. It's not like there is a lack of people willing to discuss it in the threads dedicated to it.

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

By your logic, I should remain open to the idea that space is filled with giant teapots, absent of any evidence to support the claim,

 

Is there a problem with being open to an idea? Last I checked, being open to a claim meant you'll accept it only if the proper evidence arises. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

dmaker wrote:

 

 

Yes, Sweaty, much like the PGF.   

 

 

Not quite the same as the PGF, dmaker. 

 

It lives on....with video evidence...

 

BestOfPattyAG3_zps63a3862f.gif

 

 

 

And all kit has, is....'words and words and words'...

 

"I think it would be more apt to say "why Bigfoot is just really painfully the dumbest thing ever...."

 

"I would think it is reasonable.....four American States...and two Canadian provinces."

 

 

Hey, dmaker....do you smell something rotten?? :stinker:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

By your logic, I should remain open to the idea that space is filled with giant teapots, absent of any evidence to support the claim,

 

Is there a problem with being open to an idea? Last I checked, being open to a claim meant you'll accept it only if the proper evidence arises. 

 

Exactly. Do you have proper evidence that bigfoots are the result of alien experimentation? Did I miss something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...