Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest alex

Damning For Skeptics

Recommended Posts

Guest

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

How many plants and animals are discovered every year? They didn't magically spring into existence at the moment of "discovery". The laws of physics worked just fine LONG before man ever postulated, formulated, and "proved" them. The gorilla's existence in no way was tied to European man's (or any other man's) acceptance of their validity as a species. Just to name a few examples.

Your position is not credible, given the above...I'll go one step further, it's the embodiment of all that's wrong with the so-called "scientific" community. It's the epitome of intellectual arrogance (to wit: "Nothing is so unless WE say it's so!"), and frankly makes me wonder at the lack of ability of supposedly very smart people to understand the difference between objective and subjective reality.

Edited by Mulder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Folks, WTB1 is merely addressing the existence of bigfoot from an hypothesis-testing perspective. He's (he?) stating a null hypothesis that bigfoot does not exist and examining the evidence proffered to decide if that evidence is sufficient to allow him to reject that hypothesis.

This is a perfectly logical way to approach the phenomenon, even if its literal interpretation could be something really silly like "You're saying that bigfoot doesn't exist until we find it?" Of course that would not be true, and there is a significant movement underway among wildlife biologists to stop using "silly nulls" in our science. For example, if I'm testing deer growth over time, it's silly to do the analysis by testing the null hypothesis that "growth did not increase with time" because we know that it will. Here's another "We tested the hypothesis that grazing did not affect grass height." There are plenty of examples out there.

That said, I don't see a problem with assuming there is no bigfoot until proven otherwise. The only issue would be allowing that perspective to bias the evaluation of some data under consideration, i.e., "this can't be bigfoot evidence because I've already decided there is no bigfoot." While some people employ such rhetoric to make a point from time to time, I don't see anyone here making such statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

Saskeptic,

What does that stance imply to our amateur efforts until there is proof. I get the impression that many professional scientists would rather we (amateur investigators) all went home and forgot about it until/unless a body were to show up as a result of everyday activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Your position is not credible, given the above...I'll go one step further, it's the embodiment of all that's wrong with the so-called "scientific" community. It's the epitome of intellectual arrogance (to wit: "Nothing is so unless WE say it's so!"), and frankly makes me wonder at the lack of ability of supposedly very smart people to understand the difference between objective and subjective reality.

Eh??? I clearly wrote time and again that Bigfoot shouldn't be declared "not to exist". So where do you get, "Nothing is so unless WE say it's so!"??

It's perfectly logical to presume/assume that Bigfoot does not exist, to the best of our collective, current knowledge, until there is proof or the evidentiary balance tilts remarkably the other way. That statement is a current position on the subject - it is not a an assertion that Bigfoot cannot exist. Or even, that Bigfoot does not exist. It's only a presumption or assumption so far given the lack of quality evidence.

Edited by WTB1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

This is a perfectly logical way to approach the phenomenon, even if its literal interpretation could be something really silly like "You're saying that bigfoot doesn't exist until we find it?" Of course that would not be true,

And yet I get the distinct impression that is precisely what a lot of nay sayers are insinuating....that bigfoot doesn't exist because science hasn't catalogued one. At the very least their argument isn't very far from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA
On ‎10‎/‎9‎/‎2010 at 3:18 AM, Guest Kerchak said:

And yet I get the distinct impression that is precisely what a lot of nay sayers are insinuating....that bigfoot doesn't exist because science hasn't catalogued one. At the very least their argument isn't very far from that.

It's not only not very far from it...that is precisely their argument.  More specifically, for a lot of them:  "I haven't seen one...so they aren't real." That lead duck's all over these forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...