The Mentality of Skeptics

[Kid Eager]

Well isn't this an excellent troll thread?

The OP isn't even making an effort to substantiate the claims, just add assertion upon assertion.

Sorry, what's that? You want evidence of *my* assertion above? Sure, no problem - just start at the second post and read on. It's all there - or *not* there, if you get my meaning...

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Well you know what you should do then? Actually provide even the tinniest shred of evidence for your magical giant monkey man. That sure would show those strawpseudoskeptics.

There's plenty of "evidence". What's lacking is proof. In other words, a body.

 

[William Parcher]

Almost everyone who regularly posts in the Bigfoot threads. More obvious examples are people like Crowlogic or RedRatSnake.

Again you made a mistake about people. RedRatSnake vanished and hasn't been seen in years.

 

[Resume]

nm

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Are there any woo beliefs you won't defend?

The existence of Sasquatch and alien UFOs are the only "woo" that I've defended and they're they only woo that I've believed.

 

[William Parcher]

You, William Parcher and dmaker come to mind. Also maybe JoeBentley. I'm not sure about him though.

I'm not troubled by indecision about Bigfoot. I say it doesn't exist. I don't say it because I'm troubled by anything. The situation is that the evidence for nonexistence has not been shown to be false. Bigfoot believers have not been able to topple that evidence. It's a mountain that the can't seem to climb in spite of what they say.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

There's no evidence for non-existence, unless you mean the lack of evidence, but given all the reports and the PGF, I'd say it's not lacking enough for someone to rightfully claim that it's not possible.

 

[Resume]

There's plenty of "evidence". What's lacking is proof. In other words, a body.

There is plenty of evidence for menehune and Elvis too. Like footie, it's anecdotal, unreliable and unconfirmable. You are correct, a body would confirm; but that body would have been collected a long, long time ago.

 

[Resume]

There's no evidence for non-existence, unless you mean the lack of evidence, but given all the reports and the PGF, I'd say it's not lacking enough for someone to rightfully claim that it's not possible.

There would have been a body produced to match those reports a long time ago. You have to be woefully ignorant of the natural history of North America to not realize this.

No footie anything, anywhere, ever, is supreme evidence for non-existence.

 

[William Parcher]

There's no evidence for non-existence, unless you mean the lack of evidence, but given all the reports and the PGF, I'd say it's not lacking enough for someone to rightfully claim that it's not possible.

The lack of evidence is evidence. It's the only way that science can determine that animals are extinct and not still living. It can be used to determine that an animal is not on the planet in a living form. How else could it be done?

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's no evidence for non-existence, unless you mean the lack of evidence, but given all the reports and the PGF, I'd say it's not lacking enough for someone to rightfully claim that it's not possible.

We're not getting dragged down into yet another B.S hairsplitting game trying shove woo into the gap between "No evidence" and "Evidence for non-existence."

There's not even close to enough evidence for Bigfoot, to say nothing of your magical alien breed version, to entertain the possibility. Introducing the concept of proof of impossibility is just a diversion and stalling tactic, hopping to bog the discussion down in semantics and obtuseness so you can declare yourself the winner in the manufactured confusion.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

There would have been a body produced to match those reports a long time ago. You have to be woefully ignorant of the natural history of North America to not realize this.

Not footie anything, anywhere, ever is supreme evidence for non-existence.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

By claiming that a body would have been collected long ago, you're setting up pre-conditions for its existence in your mind and appealing to ignorance. Maybe there's a cover-up and/or maybe it's super elusive? There's possibilities that need to be considered.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The truth about most peoples idea of skepticism isn't easy to handle.

I don't suppose you'd be willing to share how it is that you, personally, have knowledge about "...most peoples[sic] idea of skepticism...".

No?

 

[William Parcher]

By claiming that a Tyrannosaur body would have been collected long ago, you're setting up pre-conditions for its existence in your mind and appealing to ignorance. Maybe there's a cover-up and/or maybe it's super elusive? There's possibilities that need to be considered.

I slipped a big creature into your quote there with the idea that I might screw you up.

 

[Resume]

By claiming that a body would have been collected long ago, you're setting up pre-conditions for its existence in your mind and appealing to ignorance. Maybe there's a cover-up and/or maybe it's super elusive? There's possibilities that need to be considered.

I'm not setting up anything. There are conditions for existence and extant animals confirm this. There is no appeal to ignorance because these conditions can be demonstrated. All animals leave evidence of their passing, and it is this that allows us to observe, hunt, and capture them. We don't even need to capture them; we find them dead or fossilized. This has been demonstrated over and over.

What hasn't been demonstrated is any sooper-seekrit footie cover-up. Also undemonstrated and unjustified is this super-elusiveness; it's special pleading, and worse, attributing properties to unobserved, unproved, non-existent creatures is simply not allowed.

Your argument is destroyed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

By claiming that a body would have been collected long ago, you're setting up pre-conditions for its existence in your mind and appealing to ignorance. Maybe there's a cover-up and/or maybe it's super elusive? There's possibilities that need to be considered.

So special pleading is an effective way of gaining knowledge in your world?

The problem with your argument is that you could put literally anything; bigfoot, nessie, invisible garage dragons, underpants gnomes, orbiting teapots, invisible pink unicorns, into it and it works exactly the same.

No matter how much you pretend it otherwise an excuse as to why you can't provide an argument isn't the same thing as an argument.

 

[Slowvehicle]

A "skeptic" who can't handle cognitive dissonance or uncertainty is going to go with a conclusion regardless of whether it's right or wrong. It basically makes them act unskeptically and that's problem that I was originally trying to point out with this thread.

When do you intend to produce evidence of such a critter?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

It's not tyrannosaurs that people are constantly reporting. If it was, we'd be debating the existence of that instead of Bigfoot.

 

[HarryHenderson]

Maybe the most ironic thing in OS's pathetic argument is the fact he's debating any number of former less-than-Bigfoot-skeptics. Folks who at one time or another 'seriously considered' the possibility of the beast's existence, but finally realized the never-ending lack of confirmation had meaning after 40 years. What else are former Bigfoot "dreamers" (who also understand reality) supposed to do besides run with the overwhelmingly obvious answer? Or should they have done what OS does and simply pretend people don't know **** from Shinola™ so they should just BLAARG 'til their hearts content because it's not possible to "know" Bigfoot doesn't exist?

 

[John Jones]

The existence of Sasquatch and alien UFOs are the only "woo" that I've defended and they're they only woo that I've believed.

I'm glad we got that straight.