The Mentality of Skeptics

[Slowvehicle]

It's not too elusive to prove. It just hasn't happened yet.

AH. Equivocation. I wish I had started a bingo card...

 

[Resume]

I didn't see the edit. I saw the first one, but anyway, it seems like you realized what was wrong with that statement

Yes, it didn't fit the reply. It does fit the footie hypothesis though, and not in any way that would flatter it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

How so?

" 'Squatch Lives!" is the positive claim, requiring positive evidence to be accepted.

Suspending acceptance of the existence of your alien/human GMO 'Squatch unless and until practical, non-anecdotal, objective, empirical, testable evidence for its actual existence is presented is not an "argument from ignorance."

"I don't know what it is, so it MUST BE 'Squatch" would, in fact, be an argument from ignorance.

 

[Kid Eager]

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

In a thread full of unintentional irony, yet another: the misconception that a debate is how you arrive at a conclusion based upon evidence.

Or "evidence"... which is something quite separate and distinct.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

"I don't know what it is, so it MUST BE 'Squatch" would, in fact, be an argument from ignorance.

So would " _______ doesn't exist because it hasn't been proven yet."

 

[William Parcher]

Didn't you previously say that skeptics are partially correct in that if Bigfoot were "normal" it would have been confirmed by now, but because it was created by aliens for maximum elusiveness it remains unconfirmed?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Didn't you previously say that skeptics are partially correct in that if Bigfoot were "normal" it would have been confirmed by now, but because it was created by aliens for maximum elusiveness it remains unconfirmed?

Yes, I remember saying something similar to that.

 

[Resume]

So would " _______ doesn't exist because it hasn't been proven yet."

This isn't a philosophical argument or a thought experiment but a claim about an extant creature which according to you is not a supernatural creature, and thus subject to the same natural laws of any other biological entity. You are painted into a corner by the rules you've established.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So basically.

Claim something exists without evidence. When the fact that evidence would exist is brought up make up new special subclass of thing in question defined as non having the traits that would make it leave evidence.

At this point there's no functional difference between your version of Bigfoot and a Bigfoot in your imagination. There's also no practical difference. Or any difference.

 

[Resume]

Yes, I remember saying something similar to that.

Then you are contradicting yourself.

 

[William Parcher]

Yes, I remember saying something similar to that.

If Bigfoot is not something created by aliens then it should have already been confirmed by now. Would you agree?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

At this point there's no functional difference between your version of Bigfoot and a Bigfoot in your imagination. There's also no practical difference. Or any difference.

That's how it should be, unless you mean to say that Bigfoot are imaginary.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

If Bigfoot is not something created by aliens then it should have already been confirmed by now. Would you agree?

No, but I'd say there's a good chance that it would have been confirmed by now if it wasn't.

 

[William Parcher]

No, but I'd say there's a good chance that it would have been confirmed by now if it wasn't.

Your answer was supposed to be preceded with a "yes" instead of no. Was it a mistake in typing? I mean, you are agreeing with what I wrote.

 

[Resume]

That's how it should be, unless you mean to say that Bigfoot are imaginary.

It has not been shown to be anything else but.

 

[Kid Eager]

No, but I'd say there's a good chance that it would have been confirmed by now if it wasn't.

This is a Poe.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

This thread is like a "Greatest Hits" album of wooster baloney. Right now, we're hearing that oldie but a goodie, "The Lack of Evidence is Actually Proof of Aliens!" I love that one.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Your answer was supposed to be preceded with a "yes" instead of no. Was it a mistake in typing? I mean, you are agreeing with what I wrote.

I didn't agree with it because I believe there's still a chance that it could remain undiscovered. Good chance = Most likely. It's not an absolute yes.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Right now, we're hearing that oldie but a goodie, "The Lack of Evidence is Actually Proof of Aliens!"

Please post a link or a quote or something to where I said that.

 

[William Parcher]

I didn't agree with it because I believe there's still a chance that it could remain undiscovered. Good chance = Most likely. It's not an absolute yes.

You are saying that Bigfoot as a non-alien creation could still have maximum elusiveness allowing it to go centuries without confirmation. Would you agree?