Active Skeptics Where Is Your Evidence

[yowiie]

As there are many skeptic on this forum, please show us your evidence/ proof that bigfoot/ almas/ yeti and yowies do not exist

We are all ears, lets start with Crow

[Celtic Raider]

Even if you believe in Bigfoot or sasquatch or whatever, you must realise that a negative can't be proven. I would like nothing better than to be wholly convinced (by real, tangible evidence) that sasquatch exists but it does rest upon the proponents to provide evidence of what they propose not the other way round. 

 

see Dawkins: Flying Spaghetti monster 

 

For some people the evidence currently provided is sufficient, some people claim to have direct experience and know, but for most people, the evidence currently provided simply isn't conclusive enough to be certain.

[Bodhi]

As there are many skeptic on this forum, please show us your evidence/ proof that bigfoot/ almas/ yeti and yowies do not exist

We are all ears, lets start with Crow

You're asking for proof of a negative? How's that supposed to work?

[Old Dog]

Even if you believe in Bigfoot or sasquatch or whatever, you must realise that a negative can't be proven. I would like nothing better than to be wholly convinced (by real, tangible evidence) that sasquatch exists but it does rest upon the proponents to provide evidence of what they propose not the other way round. 

 

see Dawkins: Flying Spaghetti monster 

 

For some people the evidence currently provided is sufficient, some people claim to have direct experience and know, but for most people, the evidence currently provided simply isn't conclusive enough to be certain.

 

 

As there are many skeptic on this forum, please show us your evidence/ proof that bigfoot/ almas/ yeti and yowies do not exist

We are all ears, lets start with Crow

You're asking for proof of a negative? How's that supposed to work?

 

 

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

[Guest Crowlogic]

Oh my where do I begin?  Every crappy bigfoot video, every habber hanging pots and pans full of goodies for bigfoot, every pine cone that lands at the feet of the loyal bigfoot watcher, every cast, print, burp, scream, knock and whoop that comes with either laughably bad sentimentality, camera work or otherwise being within a pine cone toss of the thing that tossed it that ends up without a convincingly good bigfoot attached to it is the foundation that holds the content that the skeptics evidence resides in.  Sorry to say there is not one bullet proof piece of bigfoot evidence anywhere on the planet.  But there is volume after volume of nonsense and shoddy hucksterism.  If there was anything at all concerning bigfoot that comes without question marks, strings and excuses attached then I'd say Ok gents n gals carry on you're on the right track.  You know I posted an example of a horribly sappy habber video that pretty much embodied most of what's wrong with the evidence offerings and the acceptance of those offerings.  That said we the skeptics don't have to furnish anything except what the null set contains.  

[JDL]

 

As there are many skeptic on this forum, please show us your evidence/ proof that bigfoot/ almas/ yeti and yowies do not exist

We are all ears, lets start with Crow

You're asking for proof of a negative? How's that supposed to work?

 

 

See below.  Crow's really, really trying to do so.

 

Oh my where do I begin?  Every crappy bigfoot video, every habber hanging pots and pans full of goodies for bigfoot, every pine cone that lands at the feet of the loyal bigfoot watcher, every cast, print, burp, scream, knock and whoop that comes with either laughably bad sentimentality, camera work or otherwise being within a pine cone toss of the thing that tossed it that ends up without a convincingly good bigfoot attached to it is the foundation that holds the content that the skeptics evidence resides in.  Sorry to say there is not one bullet proof piece of bigfoot evidence anywhere on the planet.  But there is volume after volume of nonsense and shoddy hucksterism.  If there was anything at all concerning bigfoot that comes without question marks, strings and excuses attached then I'd say Ok gents n gals carry on you're on the right track.  You know I posted an example of a horribly sappy habber video that pretty much embodied most of what's wrong with the evidence offerings and the acceptance of those offerings.  That said we the skeptics don't have to furnish anything except what the null set contains.  

 

 

The Bigfoot community is composed of several sorts.  Those who have had direct experiences, and those who find the accounts of direct experiences compelling on one side.  On the other side you have those perceived as kooks, and those who find the kooks compelling.  Some people ^^^^^^ are more compelled by the kooks than by the more rational members of the community.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

You're asking for proof of a negative? How's that supposed to work?

Negative claims have a burden of proof. In this case, it's one that can't be fulfilled.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

You can't prove absence or negative cases. 

Such as you can't prove that Australopithecus didn't use tools,

because not finding tools didn't mean they didn't use them.

It just means you didn't find any evidence.

 

So you will never prove Patty doesn't exist...

[Rockape]

 

As there are many skeptic on this forum, please show us your evidence/ proof that bigfoot/ almas/ yeti and yowies do not exist

We are all ears, lets start with Crow

You're asking for proof of a negative? How's that supposed to work?

 

 

 

[Celtic Raider]

 

 

 

As there are many skeptic on this forum, please show us your evidence/ proof that bigfoot/ almas/ yeti and yowies do not exist

We are all ears, lets start with Crow

You're asking for proof of a negative? How's that supposed to work?

 

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

 

 

Really? Quoted from the above link:

 

Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by ‘prove.’ Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens: 

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record. 

2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.

3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

 

 

Obviously this is nonsense, just because no fossils have been found doesn't mean that they can't exist at all unless you've verified every single fossil that ever existed. With regard to bigfoot, no skeletal remains or fossils have been found (unless it is in fact gigantopithecus, that certainly doesn't mean that they haven't ever existed or couldn't exist.

 

It all comes down to evidence again, no fossils is evidence of a lack of something but it isn't proof of such.

[yowiie]

Maybs i should have titled the thread " why do you beleive Bf doesn't exist"

[dmaker]

^^ If you are truly interested in the answer to that question, then perhaps you should start a new thread. If all you really want is to create a place to take pot shots at skeptics and their point of view, then please spare everyone the hassle.

[Old Dog]

Celtic Raider :

 

"Really? Quoted from the above link:

 

Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by ‘prove.’ Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens: 

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record. 

2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.

3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

 

 

Obviously this is nonsense, just because no fossils have been found doesn't mean that they can't exist at all unless you've verified every single fossil that ever existed. With regard to bigfoot, no skeletal remains or fossils have been found (unless it is in fact gigantopithecus, that certainly doesn't mean that they haven't ever existed or couldn't exist.

 

It all comes down to evidence again, no fossils is evidence of a lack of something but it isn't proof of such."

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously the author used abstracts to make a point and to show theory.    One has to be able to understand abstract theories and read the entire article to gather the ideas behind it, not just cherry pick a small portion of the article and call it nonsense.   One must take the article as a whole.

[Celtic Raider]

Celtic Raider :

 

"Really? Quoted from the above link:

 

Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by ‘prove.’ Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens: 

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record. 

2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.

3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

 

 

Obviously this is nonsense, just because no fossils have been found doesn't mean that they can't exist at all unless you've verified every single fossil that ever existed. With regard to bigfoot, no skeletal remains or fossils have been found (unless it is in fact gigantopithecus, that certainly doesn't mean that they haven't ever existed or couldn't exist.

 

It all comes down to evidence again, no fossils is evidence of a lack of something but it isn't proof of such."

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously the author used abstracts to make a point and to show theory.    One has to be able to understand abstract theories and read the entire article to gather the ideas behind it, not just cherry pick a small portion of the article and call it nonsense.   One must take the article as a whole.

 

It's not cherry picking, this is the very example that the author has specifically chosen to illustrate his point..........he could have chosen any number of examples and he chose this one which is blatantly flawed.

 

The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. We’d better not dismiss induction because we’re not getting certainty out of it, though.

 

If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all.

 

Basically it's just a play on words depending upon your own definition of 'prove'. I understand what you're getting at though and am not trying to be belligerent 

It's like the legal system says, I believe that unicorns do not exist beyond a reasonable doubt. I can never prove conclusively they don't.

[dmaker]

The evidence that bigfoot does not exist is best expressed by the absence of evidence that should be present if bigfoot were a real animal. There should be proof by now. There should be plenty of biological evidence collected such as: orts, middens, hair, saliva, scat, blood, etc. There should be undeniable video and photographic evidence. There should be fossils and there should be cultural artifacts that are unmistakably bigfoot in origin. There is a long list of evidence that would be present if bigfoot was real. How do we know this? Because every other large North American mammal has left exactly the type of evidence described. Bigfoot simply cannot be so special that it avoids leaving any kind of objective evidence behind. 

 

I'm not even going to bother getting into hoaxes, pranksters, delusions, hallucinations, etc. That's a slightly different conversation. The simple fact remains that if an animal such as bigfoot is reported actually existed, the animal would have been described and proven to science a long time ago.

Edited March 15, 2016 by dmaker