Guest Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 When a skeptic claims something doesn't exist, they are just as obligated to present evidence as the proponents. It's a double edged sword and the evidence for the non-existence of bigfoot is lacking. actually, this is completely untrue. in science, no one is ever obligated to prove a negative, that's not how it works. right now, there is no such thing as bigfoot (except in mythology and popular culture). if you propose that bigfoot exists, then you have to prove it. no one has to prove the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 For me, the cut off date is now. To me it looks like she moved/left her lab and went somewhere quiet to start over and make a living. Wouldn't you do it that way rather than face the flames of rage and ridicule? Look what has been said about her already. Can you just imagine the backlash of anger that would be aimed at her?. I would love to see her pull it off but I just don't think its going to happen. Im done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 OK, but that means you can't jump back in if the paper is published doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Jump in? I have my own experiences, I don't need a someone to publish a paper. I hope she surprises me. No hate, just no hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) actually, this is completely untrue. in science, no one is ever obligated to prove a negative, If a negative can't be proven then the claim "X doesn't exist" is automatically invalid with no real way around it. Edited November 10, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) OS, that's hilarious. Did you really think about that before you posted it? Do you understand that using your logic we must accept dragons, fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, griffins, thunderbirds, and every other mythical creature as being real just because we can't prove they don't exist? Do you then agree that all the creatures listed in this link exist? http://www.mythicalcreaturesguide.com/page/List+of+Mythical+Creatures Edited November 11, 2012 by FuzzyGremlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) I think I'm being misunderstood. I'm saying it's neither proven nor debunked by science Edited November 11, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 At least you admit it. Leaving yourself wide open for a charge of "proving the negative" fallacy. The right way to phrase what you are attempting to say is that when a Skeptic claims that all the eyewitness are lying/crazy/deceived, it is incumbent upon the Skeptic to provide evidence of THEIR positive claim. Likewise with the claim that all tracks are fake, all forensically tped hairs are misidentified, etc. This is just a friendly observation Mulder, but you seem way more concerned with "winning the argument" that bigfoot exists. As opposed to actually proving bigfoot exists. You're all "argument ad blah blah" all the time. Who cares? If BF exists we should know about it by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 So 20 years from now you'll still be hoping for the Ketchum report? Dedicated to disillusionment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) If BF exists we should know about it by now. Unless it truly is "unthinkable", that when presented with adequate grounds for further investigation the ego in defending itself refutes it. It just can't be, it just can't be, it just can't be... Edited November 11, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC Staff Edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) Nope, not at all. Completely false, actually. A lot of people believe in Sasquatch, and they all have a good grip on reality. Edited November 11, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove quoted content that was removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Ah, maybe believers do not attempt to "grip" a predefined reality like a cloak around oneself, but endeavor to experience what exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Nope, not at all. Completely false, actually. A lot of people believe in Sasquatch, and they all have a good grip on reality. All huh? Do you know Janice Carter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 ^^ Yes I know Janice, she sent fox to my house to give me some garlic, then I told him to git. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 This is just a friendly observation Mulder, but you seem way more concerned with "winning the argument" that bigfoot exists. As opposed to actually proving bigfoot exists. You're all "argument ad blah blah" all the time. Who cares? If BF exists we should know about it by now. "If [x] is true, we should know it by now..." is on of the oldest, laziest psuedo-arguments out there. Scientific knowledge is growing and expanding on a daily basis, and we learn things all the time that we never knew, some of which we never even knew that we needed to know. You're treating reality as if it springs into being from the pronouncements of "approved" speakers of truth and fact, when the simple truth is that reality is reality. It is what is, not what we think it is. Your proposition is experientialist nonsense, as it always has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts