• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jodie said:
Unfortunately it is provisional. There is no evidence for bigfoot's existence,
Click to expand...
Sorry to post and run. RL got in the way, but frankly, it is not provisional. For the reasons given by the other posters that get the idea - perfectly summarised in The Shrikes' last post.

To entertain the probability that bigfoot or fairies (equally) exist is intellectually dishonest. The "no true sceptic" argument is a Philosophy 101 pseudointellectual bunch of toss that ends up devolving into sophomoric "arguments" over what is the meaning of "meaning" and then what does "what" mean.

There is just no scientific reason to contemplate the probability of bigfoot (or indeed fairies).

There has never been a large primate on continental America - never.
Nothing ever bigger than a squirrel.
And those that DID exist, went extinct around 40 million years ago.

There is no logical, sceptical, scientific reason to even consider the existence of a 9ft primate extant on the N.Am continent if (prosimian) primates went extinct nearly 40 million years ago.

Sod the fact that no evidence has ever been unearthed since human habitation.

Primates have never existed there in the past 40 million years.

Pretending that it is intellectually honest to say that a true sceptic's conclusions can only be provisional is disingenuous.
It is just as disingenuous as pretending that "fairies must be considered to be probable" is a scientific (and thus a correct sceptical) stance to take.
 
I'll never understand people that act as if putting escape clauses on certain statements doesn't hold an obvious ulterior motive that everyone is aware of.

If you force a "ADMIT YOU ARE'T SURE! SAY YOU AREN'T 100% ABSOLUTELY METAPHYSICAL CERTAIN OF THIS THING! SAY IT! SAAAAY IT!!!!" on one topic (all the time, obsessively, to the point it's a fetish) when you don't walk around amending that escape clause to everything else... we're not stupid and we know what you are doing.

There's no bigfoot.
There's no 100 foot sloth tap dancing while wearing a coat with tails and a very fancy hat outside my window right now.

There's absolutely, positively zero intellectual reason I should have to apply a "but I could be wrong" to one statement and not the other.
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
Knights went all ballistic on me when I was posting at the old BFF. I think it was about the gait/leg lift, but I'm not sure..

I wished I had saved some of those discussions...
Click to expand...

Yeah, now you have to pay to see them. And, if memory serves me correctly, you aren't supposed to copy them, even if you were the author.

RayG
 
EHocking said:
Primates have never existed there in the past 40 million years.

Pretending that it is intellectually honest to say that a true sceptic's conclusions can only be provisional is disingenuous.
It is just as disingenuous as pretending that "fairies must be considered to be probable" is a scientific (and thus a correct sceptical) stance to take.
Click to expand...

No, it is the truth. From a practical perspective I agree with what you have said regarding lack of any evidence. This is what won me over to the non believing side once my Dad's encounter was debunked. However, I have had a few previous experiences with poltergeist activity. I don't buy into the latest explanations for that stuff, but I did witness it, along with other family members and co-workers. That tells me we still have a great deal to learn about our existence here on earth and how the universe works.
 
Jodie said:
No, it is the truth. From a practical perspective I agree with what you have said regarding lack of any evidence. This is what won me over to the non believing side once my Dad's encounter was debunked. However, I have had a few previous experiences with poltergeist activity. I don't buy into the latest explanations for that stuff, but I did witness it, along with other family members and co-workers. That tells me we still have a great deal to learn about our existence here on earth and how the universe works.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true woo. I was right. You never left the woo woo train.
 
JoeBentley said:
I'll never understand people that act as if putting escape clauses on certain statements doesn't hold an obvious ulterior motive that everyone is aware of.

If you force a "ADMIT YOU ARE'T SURE! SAY YOU AREN'T 100% ABSOLUTELY METAPHYSICAL CERTAIN OF THIS THING! SAY IT! SAAAAY IT!!!!" on one topic (all the time, obsessively, to the point it's a fetish) when you don't walk around amending that escape clause to everything else... we're not stupid and we know what you are doing.

There's no bigfoot.
There's no 100 foot sloth tap dancing while wearing a coat with tails and a very fancy hat outside my window right now.

There's absolutely, positively zero intellectual reason I should have to apply a "but I could be wrong" to one statement and not the other.
Click to expand...

You can do whatever you want to do, the point of the conversation was that true skepticism is objective. To be objective one has to recognize that the knowledge we have today is always going to be provisional.

For that matter, no one should be labeled as a skeptic since it's a process and not appropriate to use it as a noun to refer to a person. If you want to call your self something kinder than scoftic or pseudo skeptic since you recognize limits to provisionalism, then call yourself a pragmatic realist. But make no mistake, you aren't using the skeptical approach if you do.
 
Jodie said:
I don't buy into the latest explanations for that stuff, but I did witness it, along with other family members and co-workers. That tells me we still have a great deal to learn about our existence here on earth and how the universe works.
Click to expand...

I%20know%20what%20I%20saw%20x%20400.jpg


Seemed appropriate.

RayG
 
It's deeper even then Woo.

I honestly can't imagine anti-intellectualism distilled down any more then the "But we don't know for sure!" special pleading.

Equating things which have some .00000000000000001 chance of being true and things which have a 99.99999999999 chance of being true via constant appeal to some warped sense of fairness (even ignoring doing it obessively for one topic and all the obvious implication that entails) is the pure anti-thesis to knowledge and reason. It's basically throwing your hands up and going "Since I can't be 'sure' of something to some impossible made up level I'm just going to think stuff at random."
 
When somebody is seriously arguing that Tyrannosaurus rex is not extinct, it's time to throw in the towel and lurk for a few more years...
Which I will now do.
 
JoeBentley said:
It's deeper even then Woo.

I honestly can't imagine anti-intellectualism distilled down any more then the "But we don't know for sure!" special pleading.

Equating things which have some .00000000000000001 chance of being true and things which have a 99.99999999999 chance of being true via constant appeal to some warped sense of fairness (even ignoring doing it obessively for one topic and all the obvious implication that entails) is the pure anti-thesis to knowledge and reason. It's basically throwing your hands up and going "Since I can't be 'sure' of something to some impossible made up level I'm just going to think stuff at random."
Click to expand...

...I see you have read the Tablecloth of TurinTM and Tablecloth II: The ResettingTM threads...
 
Jodie said:
You can do whatever you want to do, the point of the conversation was that true skepticism is objective. True! To be objective one has to recognize that the knowledge we have today is always going to be provisional. Not True!

For that matter, no one should be labeled as a skeptic Not True! since it's a process and not appropriate to use it as a noun to refer to a person. Not True! If you want to call your self something kinder than scoftic or pseudo skeptic since you recognize limits to provisionalism Not True! Wait, what?, then call yourself a pragmatic realist. But make no mistake, you aren't using the skeptical approach if you do. Not True!
Click to expand...
The hilarity (for me) is in watching you dig the hole ever deeper while pretending you don't know anything about the hole.
 
Jodie said:
No, it is the truth. From a practical perspective I agree with what you have said regarding lack of any evidence.
Click to expand...
You missed my point. Lack of physical evidence for fairies or bigfoot is not the issue. The fact is that the possibility of their existence is so close to absolutely impossible, that it is intellectually dishonest to claim that a sceptic's conclusion that they can't exist is provisional.
This is what won me over to the non believing side once my Dad's encounter was debunked. However, I have had a few previous experiences with poltergeist activity. I don't buy into the latest explanations for that stuff, but I did witness it, along with other family members and co-workers. That tells me we still have a great deal to learn about our existence here on earth and how the universe works.
Click to expand...
Your continued wish to believe in things paranormal does not change the definition of scepticism - "true" or not.
 
Jodie said:
You can do whatever you want to do, the point of the conversation was that true skepticism is objective. To be objective one has to recognize that the knowledge we have today is always going to be provisional.
Click to expand...
Except in the case of fairies and bigfoot, where the possibility of them ever to have existed is so close to actually impossible, that it is a very reasonable and logical, even scientifically sound, to dismiss their existence.
For that matter, no one should be labeled as a skeptic since it's a process and not appropriate to use it as a noun to refer to a person.
Click to expand...
I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary.
You don't get to redefine a word just because it is inconvenient to your belief system.
If you want to call your self something kinder than scoftic or pseudo skeptic
Click to expand...
Only woos and believers use these childish names. It is because that is the only defence they have against demands for logical and evidence.
..since you recognize limits to provisionalism, then call yourself a pragmatic realist. But make no mistake, you aren't using the skeptical approach if you do.
Click to expand...
This is just woo special pleading - a reiteration of the "no true Scotsman" which is not a valid counter to the arguments being put to you in this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom