So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?

[slabdog]

Science didn't believe it was possible for anything to exceed light speed either.....until just recently when NEW and HARD EVIDENCE proved otherwise..

Light speed broken

This isn't some "anti-lightspeed / bigfoot" bias....

just give them some new and hard evidence to chew on and they might change their position...

Just like they are doing with light speed.

(researchers!......engage...make it so...get it done)

Edited September 27, 2011 by slabdog

[Guest HucksterFoot]

just give them some new and hard evidence to chew on

I'll take mine without the Opossum gut.

[slabdog]

^^^^

hummm.....(not going to take the bait)......hummmm

Edited September 27, 2011 by slabdog

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Science didn't believe it was possible for anything to exceed light speed either.....until just recently when NEW and HARD EVIDENCE proved otherwise..

Light speed broken

I wouldn't call it hard conclusive evidence quite yet.

"We will repeat our experiment with higher precision, hopefully in the next six months."

lol, this better lead us to at least warp 1.

"Bones, there's a... thing... out there." - Captain James T. Kirk

To add: Even if they find measurement errors:

Retest, revise then resubmit with sound experimental design - A good scientific practice anyways. :]

Edited September 27, 2011 by HucksterFoot

[Guest]

Placing an "extinct" status on a species doesn't prove it is.

Then I guess we'd better place an order for a Steller's version of these before it's too late.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

^^^^

hummm.....(not going to take the bait)......hummmm

I could sugar coat the lure with all sorts of speculation, confirmation bias and Bigfoot apologetics

[Guest parnassus]

No Slab, that's not what Sas is saying. Of course science needs hard evidence to prove something exists. So do I. But a lack of hard evidence does not prove something doesn't exist. Placing an "extinct" status on a species doesn't prove it is. Especially, with the proviso from the biologists that they will revise their status if one turns up. So how does a lack of good bigfoot evidence prove bigfoot doesn't exist? It doesn't.

Whether you realize it or not, you are just doing the straw man thing with "proof" and playing semantic games with it.

When I want to cross the street, I look one way and then the other. Perhaps several times. Im looking for big shiny objects that make noise. At some point I decide it's safe. I can't prove that no vehicles will suddenly appear at high speed while I'm looking the other way, but I reach the conclusion that none will. Im ready to revisit that if I see or hear something different from what I have been seeing and hearing.

See?

Now think about standing on the proverbial side of the street for 400 years and no vehicle has ever come by, and how silly it would be to not reach the conclusion that no vehicles are approaching.

If you and I were standing there and I finally said "there are no vehicles coming," what would you say? "not me, man, you cant prove a negative. Im stayin here on this side. And I'm telling everyone else to stay here. Goodbye"? Lol.

Edited September 27, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

The difference in your analogy and bigfoot is that some have seen the cars going by that the other guy didn't see while standing there on the curb for 400 years.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Jodie

[southernyahoo]

^^^^^

According to Art1972's earlier mentioned BF personality profiles, I consider myself #3) "The skeptical proponent"

With that in mind....southeryahoo, I would ask that you consider pulling together your best stuff and present it to Sas for a review.

Chances are he'll probably still maintain his position, but ya never know.

Maybe seeing your best stuff all in one "box" as opposed to spread throughout, and intertwined within, the BFF might give him a different perspective.

probably not...but what the heck can it hurt?

It would probably be a waist of time, until the hard evidence draws science in to examine the soft evidence where I'd have other scientists backing my interpretations. Until then, the argument of qualification and authority comes into play.

[southernyahoo]

Now think about standing on the proverbial side of the street for 400 years and no vehicle has ever come by, and how silly it would be to not reach the conclusion that no vehicles are approaching.

You are making the assumption that you are standing where people report seeing the vehicles and that they are readily visible if you just stand there. Biologists do have their sightings along with LEO's and forest service workers. You can't definitively say no vehicle has ever passed that spot no matter how few you've personally seen there.

[Guest]

Also, out of those 400 years, most people would be standing there for hours, possibly days, and even fewer for weeks; all randomly throughout those 400 years making that determination.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

When I want to cross the street, I look one way and then the other. Perhaps several times. Im looking for big shiny objects that make noise. At some point I decide it's safe. I can't prove that no vehicles will suddenly appear at high speed while I'm looking the other way, but I reach the conclusion that none will. Im ready to revisit that if I see or hear something different from what I have been seeing and hearing.

See?

What if they present you with really blurry pictures of these shiny objects? :]

[Guest HucksterFoot]

You are making the assumption that you are standing where people report seeing the vehicles and that they are readily visible if you just stand there. Biologists do have their sightings along with LEO's and forest service workers. You can't vehicle has ever passed that spot no matter how few you've personally seen there.

You can't definitively say that a snorkel nosed penguin has never crossed (or ever will) that same street either.

I'm trying to avoid applying anthropomorphic presumptions to snorkel nosed penguins, :] I guess they would cross a street if it were there. :]

Reason to edit: Added n to ever.

Edited September 27, 2011 by HucksterFoot

[Guest]

Whether you realize it or not, you are just doing the straw man thing with "proof" and playing semantic games with it.

When I want to cross the street, I look one way and then the other. Perhaps several times. Im looking for big shiny objects that make noise. At some point I decide it's safe. I can't prove that no vehicles will suddenly appear at high speed while I'm looking the other way, but I reach the conclusion that none will. Im ready to revisit that if I see or hear something different from what I have been seeing and hearing.

See?

Now think about standing on the proverbial side of the street for 400 years and no vehicle has ever come by, and how silly it would be to not reach the conclusion that no vehicles are approaching.

If you and I were standing there and I finally said "there are no vehicles coming," what would you say? "not me, man, you cant prove a negative. Im stayin here on this side. And I'm telling everyone else to stay here. Goodbye"? Lol.

Wow, where ever did you get those pluses??? Science doesn't work that way. Proof is proof. It is clearly defined by the scientific process. Everything else is theory or hypothesis. And you STILL can't prove a negative. But I don't have a problem with you crossing the street. Go ahead.

[Guest]

Straw men, evidence, proof, levels of scientific acceptance.................aaarrrrggghhhh! None of this explains the skeptics hanging around a forum that discusses bigfoot and demanding proof on that forum. Are the skeptics really so interested in learning the answer? I'll suggest they prefer the excercise of debating with the believers, the open minded and questioning researchers and the habituators. If at least some of the skeptics who frequent this forum were hopeful there really is a bigfoot/sasquatch inhabiting the North American forests, would they post the things they do on the JREF forum?

edited for spelling

Edited September 28, 2011 by John T