Damning For Skeptics

[Guest]

The first, assume, is correct.

Why do you ask?

[Huntster]

Because of the prefix "pre". Before.

Before you accept, you want proof. Evidence isn't enough for you to assume (or believe/accept) they exist, so you presume they don't.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest]

Because of the prefix "pre". Before.

Before you accept, you want proof. Evidence isn't enough for you to assume (or believe/accept) they exist, so you presume they don't.

Sure. Whatever word works for you. I want proof before I believe. This does not mean I deny their existence. Nor does it mean I suppress efforts to prove them, or brow-beat those who already believe. I've collected hairs and casts myself. I would love for them to exist.

[Huntster]

Sure. Whatever word works for you.

Thanks. I prefer "presume", because I believe that anyone who claims that sasquatches don't exist is presumptuous.

I want proof before I believe.

That isn't belief. That is knowledge.

-noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

–noun

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.

7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.

9. Archaic . sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.

This does not mean I deny their existence.

If you do not deny their existence, you are not a denialist.

I would love for them to exist.

"Loving" or "wanting" them to exist is not a factor. That is an emotion or desire.

[Guest]

You would know about emotional desire for their existence from what I've read.

Whatever words or labels you want to attribute to me, go ahead.

I cannot deny something exists as an absolute. A negative cannot be proven. I assume, presume, whatever word you like, that Bigfoot does not exist because Bigfoot has not been proven.

[Huntster]

You would know about emotional desire for their existence from what I've read.

Yes, I would. I would absolutely love to see one in the wild.

Problem?

Whatever words or labels you want to attribute to me, go ahead.

Thanks for those permissions. It will go a long way toward soothing the mods.

I cannot deny something exists as an absolute. A negative cannot be proven.

Then you are not a denialist.

I assume, presume, whatever word you like, that Bigfoot does not exist because Bigfoot has not been proven.

Then you are not a denialist. Assuming and presuming are both related to belief. There is no firm assertion of fact. There is acceptance of the belief that Bigfoot does not exist.

However, that doesn't mesh with my wonderful new signature, which is a direct quote from you. It appears that you don't really know what you are.

[Guest]

"It is only logical to assume Bigfoot, Nessie or the Chupa does not exist until they are proven to exist."

That in NO way excludes my view from the "skeptic" views. No where in the quote, which is from me, do I say not to examine evidence. Nice strawman attempt though, Elect B. *wink* lol!

By asserting "It is only logical to assume BF doesn't exist", you're saying "assuming BF exists is not logical." Calling that out is a strawman? *wink* lol indeed!

Nor does it mean I suppress efforts to prove them, or brow-beat those who already believe.

OK, but the rationale "It is only logical to assume BF doesn't exist" is the very foundation of the suppression and brow-beating.

[Guest notrace]

A hoaxer doesnt dress up in an ape suit and start running around in the forest for weeks at a time hoping to be spotted by someone with a camera. They go into the woods with a friend, get into their suit walk around for a few minutes while being taped. Then they go home to download it onto the computer and see how it turned out.

[Guest alex]

A hoaxer doesnt dress up in an ape suit and start running around in the forest for weeks at a time hoping to be spotted by someone with a camera. They go into the woods with a friend, get into their suit walk around for a few minutes while being taped. Then they go home to download it onto the computer and see how it turned out.

Not really, if these sightings are the result's of hoaxer's, I am surprised one of these goon's hasn't introduced themselves to a .38 browning

[Guest]

By asserting "It is only logical to assume BF doesn't exist", you're saying "assuming BF exists is not logical."

It's only logical to assume Bigfoot does not exist until they are proven. That doesn't mean they cannot logically exist, just that from a scientific perspective they have not been proven to exist. Like the Coelacanth (already known to have existed at one time but bear with me for the sake of argument). Until relatively recently science thought the Coelacanth went extinct. While their view on this was active, they assumed the Coelacanth was extinct, logically, based on various scientific parameters. That didn't mean at the time that it was illogical to believe or suspect that the Coelacanth may have survived, just that the preponderance of evidence fell on the side that it was logical to believe it to be extinct. If more evidence came in to suggest or prove that it still existed, then the balance of logic would be swayed to its existence.

Right now in my opinion the collection of evidence so far for the existence of Bigfoot has not tilted enough toward it being a real animal.

OK, but the rationale "It is only logical to assume BF doesn't exist" is the very foundation of the suppression and brow-beating.

What? the mere saying of that is suppression and brow-beating?? Pray tell. Please explain.

[Huntster]

Elect B, on 06 October 2010 - 05:42 PM, said:

By asserting "It is only logical to assume BF doesn't exist", you're saying "assuming BF exists is not logical."

It's only logical to assume Bigfoot does not exist until they are proven.

Actually, since we have the innumerable examples of unknown animals reported to exist that were "discovered" later, it is even more logical to assume that sasquatches might exist since there is so much testimony and trace evidence to indicate that they do.

from a scientific perspective they have not been proven to exist.

Thus, they do not exist for those rigidly locked to the scientific method and also totally reliant for others to provide them proof of everything because they refuse to seek it themselves.

Not all of us are so bound. Many of us have no problem with belief and possibilities.

Thus the ideological impasse.

Like the Coelacanth (already known to have existed at one time but bear with me for the sake of argument). Until relatively recently science thought the Coelacanth went extinct. While their view on this was active, they assumed the Coelacanth was extinct, logically, based on various scientific parameters. That didn't mean at the time that it was illogical to believe or suspect that the Coelacanth may have survived, just that the preponderance of evidence fell on the side that it was logical to believe it to be extinct. If more evidence came in to suggest or prove that it still existed, then the balance of logic would be swayed to its existence.

Good example, poor logic. Had Madagascar fishermen been repeatedly and in great frustration telling science for years and years and years that coelacanths swam around out there with other delicious morsels, and with the heels of science fully dug in to the earth, kicking and screaming at the mere suggestion, we would be approaching the sasquatch situation. But they didn't. They caught and ate coelacanths with complete disregard to science.

[Guest]

Actually, since we have the innumerable examples of unknown animals reported to exist that were "discovered" later, it is even more logical to assume that sasquatches might exist since there is so much testimony and trace evidence to indicate that they do.

Then I agree to disagree.

Not all of us are so bound. Many of us have no problem with belief and possibilities.

Thus the ideological impasse.

Then maybe we reduce the scope of our arguments to ideological. Maybe a new thread?

And I clearly indicated that the coelacanth wasn't a perfect example and asked "bear with me for the sake of argument".

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 07 October 2010 - 07:55 AM, said:

Not all of us are so bound. Many of us have no problem with belief and possibilities.

Thus the ideological impasse.

Then maybe we reduce the scope of our arguments to ideological. Maybe a new thread?

If you wish.

And I clearly indicated that the coelacanth wasn't a perfect example and asked "bear with me for the sake of argument".

I found it to be an appropriate example. Have you found the "perfect example"?

[Guest RayG]

Some of these threads just seem so illogical.

RayG

[Guest]

It's only logical to assume Bigfoot does not exist until they are proven.

This one kills you. It's logical to assume bigfoot doesn't exist if it turns your crank. But this isn't the view of science, which doesn't assume anything, unless it has been verified. Since it hasn't (and can't) be verified that bigfoot doesn't exist, science doesn't make that assumption. Science is indifferent toward bigfoot. It's the scientists that have bias and belief systems regarding bigfoot, not the science they supposedly practice. At any rate, assuming bigfoot does not exist is a personal opinion, not a scientific standard.