Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 The more diverse sightings there are the less likely there will be a real Bigfoot because this implies that that there are significant numbers of these things which implies that capturing one physically, on camera or corpse should have happened by now. Fallacy of false cause Fallacy of false cause or non sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow." *** hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that correlation implies a causal relation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) That happens a lot in bigfootery -- false cause, I mean, where it is assumed one thing is the cause of another. We were searching for signs of bigfoot when a pine cone sailed through the air and landed at our feet. Bigfoot! We were searching for signs of bigfoot when we smelled a horrible stench. Bigfoot! We were searching for signs of bigfoot when we got the uneasy feeling of being watched. Bigfoot! We were searching for signs of bigfoot when we noticed a tree with a twisted top. Bigfoot! We were searching for signs of bigfoot when we stumbled upon some sort of stick structure. Bigfoot! We were searching for signs of bigfoot when we heard the thump-thump-thump of footsteps. Bigfoot! We were searching for signs of bigfoot when we heard wood-knocking. Bigfoot! We were searching for signs of bigfoot when we saw glowing eyes reflecting from our campfire. Bigfoot! We were searching for signs of bigfoot when the sounds of the forest suddenly went silent. Bigfoot! We were searching for signs of bigfoot when we discovered an indistinct impression in the ground. Bigfoot! We sent off hairs we found which were identified as unknown primate. Bigfoot! and on and on... RayG Edited February 13, 2012 by RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 On 9/17/2010 at 0:29 PM, Guest said: So skeptics shouldn't be thrown around as an insult. We should all be skeptics. We shouldn't be skeptics versus believers.If you are a "believer," go read something. Evidence is how any proponent whose opinion means anything got where he is on this. And the negative fringe on this topic isn't "skeptical." They're true believers in stuff they don't even understand, like science. The strongest skeptics in this field are the scientific proponents (HI!) Skepticism is, by definition, not buying the BS assumptions of people unacquainted with evidence. Quote Maybe those who are open to the idea, those who are unsure, and those who are not open to the idea. No versus. Working against each other will get us no where. If anything we should have those who are not open to the idea help us look at the evidence. To bring in fresh eyes. There are those who want so badly for sasquatch to be real that they see evidence of such everywhere and they get very passionate in the arguments. Everyone can. We all need to take a step back, take a breath, and try to look at any "evidence" gathered very objectively.Only provided *you know what evidence is and how to look at it.* Most styling themselves skeptics here wouldn't know evidence if it ate their tuchus. Remember, if it ain't obvious, it ain't evidence. I am not sure where this ranks among least-true statements I have read here. But it is tied for some number near the top. Almost everything you "know" - and most of it, by the way, you don't really know, but *have been told* - came from someone following what you might not recognize as evidence. Why they call it science. Takes smart people. (HI!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts