No, that was merely a claim/ suggestion There is no more supporting evidence for that then there is for some mysterious 'monster' in the Loch.
Oh, I disagree. And here's why;
Evidence goes beyond the immediate. If I tell you 'I have a cat at home', and show you a photo of it, you might think that it is only the photo which constitutes evidence. And the evidence for it is weak -- that same article (the photograph) could be accounted for by other phenomena (another person's cat, for instance, or a stuffed one even).
Now, inisinuating that I'm probably mistaken would be ridiculous. Why? Because there is far more evidence here than which is apparent -- every time you've seen a cat at somebody's place constitutes evidence supporting my claim. The very fact that it is historically reported that people have had cats as pets, and that shops sell cat toys...it all constitutes a little bit of evidence supporting the possibility that my claim (I have a cat at home) is true.
So if I told you I had a polar bear at home, and showed you a picture, you might be somewhat dubious, even if I showed you a photo of a polar bear in a lounge room. There is less evidence that polar bears are kept as pets, let alone in some suburban neighbourhood. You'd demand further evidence.
Lastly, if somebody said 'I have a dinosaur at home', and showed a picture, the evidence provided would be near non-existent. Indeed, that single photo would constitute the total evidence, and in itself be rather weak.
The elephant theory is supported by evidence that a) elephants are known to exist, b) a circus was on the shore of the Loch at the approxiamate time of the photographs c) elephants are known to go into the water with their trunks raised and d) the photographs could be of elephant trunks. The 'unknown animal' theory is supported by the photographs, and that on occasion new animal species are discovered (both incredibly weak forms of evidence) and that's all.
I don't think many claim to 'prove' anything. Most suggest the possibilty there 'could be' something mysterious.
Care to quantify that 'could be'? There 'could be' mole men under the earth, yet to take the possibility seriously and waste any time using that information to make decisions would require enough evidence to reach a threshold where people think it's more than just daydream speculation. Otherwise, what's to separate one speculative claim from the next?
Admittedly. But on the flip side it isn't non existant either.
And here's my point. At what point is it safe to say it is non-existent? I'm quite prepared to change my views when supportive evidence reaches my personal threshold, but until then, it just doesn't exist. There's no middle ground here - either it is real or it isn't. And in order for it to be considered real, I require the same amount of evidence that I would for anything else I believe in. Until that happens, it does not exist.
I can keep my mind open to the possibility of new evidence, but that's not the equivalent of having a present stance that something is possibly real.
But is it ruled out completely altogether?
That's not how science works. Acknowledgement of a phenomena relies on accumulation of evidence. Until a claim has that evidence, it cannot be supported. In the same way, I haven't 'ruled out' fairies, aliens, honest politicians or Elvis's clone living in a New York apartment. But none of those things I will entertain a single thought until I have reason to. Until then, they don't exist.
One doesn't even have to accept it. There is a midway. The midway would be "hmmmmmm, possibly"
That 'possibly' is the ability for somebody to change their stance when sufficient evidence accumulates. It is not some Schrodinger's cat, where a claim is both alive and dead at the same time.
Depends on what the 'claim' is. A previously uncatalogued flesh and blood animal? Or supernatural being? Both do not equate to each other.
No, although I suspect you're throwing a bit of a red herring in here.
The notion that uncatalogued organisms have been discovered in modern times is indeed evidence in support of the likes of the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot. But again, in the absence of any other material, it does little to increase the likelihood of these things being real. Dinosaurs once existed, and organisms which have remained unchanged for millions of years have been discovered, which lends evidence to the fact that dinosaurs could to. Yet this does not advance into demonstrating that dinosaurs continue to live today. For that claim to be made, further evidence would be required.
I hear this a lot. I have no deep rooted 'desire' to want bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster or big cats to be out there. No skin off my nose if they aren't. I don't sleep at night dreaming about them. If they are proven not to exist it will not effect my life in any way, shape or form beyond visiting the odd message board.
You're kidding? Well, you must be kidding yourself, at least. Hell,
I have a desire for it to exist. How cool would that be?!! The fact you act blase about their existence seems incomprehensible. You obviously take the possibility seriously enough to defend it...
Anyway, it's that last sentence I find odd. 'If they are proven to not exist...' is a safe out; you know full well that this statement is impossible. Nothing can be proven to not exist, and this comment of yours hints again at the fact that you don't understand how science works.
The reality of something is demonstrated by accumulation of evidence. I can't repeat that enough. I cannot prove that purple unicorns don't exist, but in order for them to achieve 'exist' status, I simply need to produce sufficient evidence.
Athon
