Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies

[OntarioSquatch]

There was a post like this made on another forum, but since I can't re-post the content, I'm posting a new version. The examples shown here can apply to any cryptid, not just Bigfoot.


Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies


1) Appeal to Ignorance

"After thousands of years of being on the continent, we would have had proof of Bigfoot by now if Bigfoot was real."

This is a fallacy where something is considered to be false either because it hasn't been proven to be true or because it's just hard to believe that it could be true. It's not possible to know about something you haven't discovered yet, so it doesn't make sense to conclude that something isn't real, simply because it hasn't been discovered.


2) Argumentum Ad Populum

"The current consensus is that Bigfoot isn't a real animal, therefore it isn't real and isn't worthy of scientific investigation."

A fallacious argument where it's concluded that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it.


3) Burden of Proof and False Default Position

"Bigfoot doesn't exist and it's up to proponents to prove otherwise."

The denialist assumes a negative default position and shifts the burden of proof to others.

It's not possible to prove a negative in the case of Bigfoot, so the burden of proof in this case can't ever be fulfilled. It's important to at least be theoretically able to back up the claims you make.


4) Special Pleading

"No other film like the PGF has surfaced since 1967, therefore, the PGF isn't evidence for the existence of Bigfoot." or "The film doesn't qualify as evidence."

Moving the goalpost after the claim of there not being any evidence has been shown to be false.



5) Genetic

"The PGF was made by a person with a questionable history, therefore, the film itself should be dismissed."

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that the skeptic leverages existing negative perceptions to make the PGF look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the film itself lacks merit.

 

[marplots]

Argument from Authority
Bigfoot tells me he approves of your post. He says it's 100% spot on.

 

[GT/CS]

OS, how do they apply to bigfoot?

 

[The Atheist]

5) Genetic

Poisoning the well fallacy.

 

[Craig B]

3) Burden of Proof and False Default Position

"Bigfoot doesn't exist and it's up to proponents to prove otherwise."

The denialist assumes a negative default position and shifts the burden of proof to others.

It's not possible to prove a negative in the case of Bigfoot, so the burden of proof in this case can't ever be fulfilled. It's important to at least be theoretically able to back up the claims you make.

If a sceptic or denialist shifts the burden of proof to others, that means that it must fall on those who positively state that BF exists. That's the place the burden should be.

 

[Ladewig]

3) Burden of Proof and False Default Position

"Bigfoot doesn't exist and it's up to proponents to prove otherwise."

The denialist assumes a negative default position and shifts the burden of proof to others.

It's not possible to prove a negative in the case of Bigfoot, so the burden of proof in this case can't ever be fulfilled. It's important to at least be theoretically able to back up the claims you make.

So if I say centaurs don't exist, then I am somehow committing a logical fallacy or am otherwise engaging in a scientific error? I cannot back up that claim. Not even theoretically.

5) Genetic

5) Poisoning the well [The Atheist is right]

"The PGF was made by a person with a questionable history, therefore, the film itself should be dismissed."

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that the skeptic leverages existing negative perceptions to make the PGF look bad,without actually presenting a case for why the film itself lacks merit.

Wait!
You mean to tell me that no one has presented a case as to why the film lacks merit?
Skeptics, is this true?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So if I say centaurs don't exist, then I am somehow committing a logical fallacy or am otherwise engaging in a scientific error? I cannot back up that claim. Not even theoretically.


5) Poisoning the well [The Atheist is right]



Wait!
You mean to tell me that no one has presented a case as to why the film lacks merit?
Skeptics, is this true?

I always thought it was the zipper down the back. Sorry.

 

[Giordano]

I learned a lot about the logic used by Bigfoot advocates from the OP. It explains or confirms much of what I previously believed as to why people believe in Bigfoot, but more clearly and in a more summarized version than before.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

The irony here, of course, Is the list is one giant fallacy in it of itself, I assume that was intentional.

 

[BayWatcher]

Is nutjobbery a real word?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

There was a post like this made on another forum, but since I can't re-post the content, I'm posting a new version. The examples shown here can apply to any cryptid, not just Bigfoot.


Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies


1) Appeal to Ignorance

"After thousands of years of being on the continent, we would have had proof of Bigfoot by now if Bigfoot was real."

This is a fallacy where something is considered to be false either because it hasn't been proven to be true or because it's just hard to believe that it could be true. It's not possible to know about something you haven't discovered yet, so it doesn't make sense to conclude that something isn't real, simply because it hasn't been discovered.


2) Argumentum Ad Populum

"The current consensus is that Bigfoot isn't a real animal, therefore it isn't real and isn't worthy of scientific investigation."

A fallacious argument where it's concluded that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it.


3) Burden of Proof and False Default Position

"Bigfoot doesn't exist and it's up to proponents to prove otherwise."

The denialist assumes a negative default position and shifts the burden of proof to others.

It's not possible to prove a negative in the case of Bigfoot, so the burden of proof in this case can't ever be fulfilled. It's important to at least be theoretically able to back up the claims you make.


4) Special Pleading

"No other film like the PGF has surfaced since 1967, therefore, the PGF isn't evidence for the existence of Bigfoot." or "The film doesn't qualify as evidence."

Moving the goalpost after the claim of there not being any evidence has been shown to be false.



5) Genetic

"The PGF was made by a person with a questionable history, therefore, the film itself should be dismissed."

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that the skeptic leverages existing negative perceptions to make the PGF look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the film itself lacks merit.

Boss story, mate! Now pass me the Special Brew so that I too can waffle bollocks.

 

[Donn]

OntarioSquatch joins me in my lonely corner where we both know that Fairies exist.
1) Appeal to Ignorance

"After thousands of years of being on the continent, we would have had proof of Fairies by now if Fairies were real."

I agree, it's a fallacy. The Fay are out there, no one is looking hard enough.

2) Argumentum Ad Populum

"The current consensus is that Fairies aren't a real species, therefore they aren't real and unworthy of scientific investigation."

Of course the naysayers gang up like this, what else can you expect from people with no magic in their lives?

3) Burden of Proof and False Default Position

"The Fay do not exist and it's up to proponents to prove otherwise."

The deny the very substance of life itself! The vita pocus that generates love. Fools.

4) Special Pleading

"No other film like the Wright/Griffiths has surfaced since 1917, therefore, the Cottingley Fairies aren't evidence for the existence of the Fay." or "The film doesn't qualify as evidence."

We have photos. Photos; and yet they ignore them. "Look," we say, here they are in print. "Oh, look," they say, "shiny" and off they run.

5) Genetic

"The WGF was made by a person with a questionable history, therefore, the film itself should be dismissed."

Smears upon innocence. There can be nothing more vile. How could two sweet little girls be turned into malign liars? For shame.


Thanks for supporting Fairies, OS. There are so few of us left.

 

[AdMan]

There was a post like this made on another forum, but since I can't re-post the content, I'm posting a new version. The examples shown here can apply to any cryptid, not just Bigfoot.


Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies
3) Burden of Proof and False Default Position

"Bigfoot doesn't exist and it's up to proponents to prove otherwise."

The denialist assumes a negative default position and shifts the burden of proof to others.

It's not possible to prove a negative in the case of Bigfoot, so the burden of proof in this case can't ever be fulfilled. It's important to at least be theoretically able to back up the claims you make.

To just point out one of your more obvious mistakes:

The burden of proof isn't shifted anywhere--it starts and ends on the one making the positive, extraordinary claim--in this case that Bigfoot exists. The burden of proof is not on the one saying Bigfoot doesn't exist, so you are wrong. It has nothing to do with proving a negative.

You don't understand this whole logic thing very well, do you?

 

[Resume]

I was going to ignore the usual OS meanderings, but I couldn't pass this up:

1) Appeal to Ignorance

"After thousands of years of being on the continent, we would have had proof of Bigfoot by now if Bigfoot was real."

This is a fallacy where something is considered to be false either because it hasn't been proven to be true or because it's just hard to believe that it could be true. It's not possible to know about something you haven't discovered yet, so it doesn't make sense to conclude that something isn't real, simply because it hasn't been
discovered.

If it isn't possible to know about something undiscovered (which isn't true, but that's another thread) why do bigfooters go on and on and on about footie's attributes? From its alleged intelligence to its elusiveness to screwy surmises about infrasound to tape lucidum, proponents claim to know a very great deal about ole footie, which you say is impossible.

How about that?

 

[Craig4]

Wait, didn't they guy who made the costume come forward a while ago?

 

[Dinwar]

I'll leave aside the deplorably inaccurate nomenclature...

1) Appeal to Ignorance

"After thousands of years of being on the continent, we would have had proof of Bigfoot by now if Bigfoot was real."

No. This isn't an appeal to ignorance, it's a statement that lack of expected evidence is evidence of a lack. The exact same logic is used in science to justify saying that the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct--after thousands of years, you'd expect SOMEONE to have found them. After hundreds of years fo intense collection, and thirty years of focus on the topic after Alvarez et al., we should have found SOMETHING after hte K/Pg. But we don't. Since we know what evidence to look for, and we have looked very carefully, and we still found nothing, we can conclude there's nothing to find.

2) Argumentum Ad Populum

"The current consensus is that Bigfoot isn't a real animal, therefore it isn't real and isn't worthy of scientific investigation."

While I have no love for consensus science, if you find yourself in a position where every expert in the field disagrees with you, at minimum you require some evidence to support your position. If you have none, you must conclude at minimum that they are right to dismiss you. This is no fallacy; this is a recognition that the other side isn't a bunch of drooling morons too stupid to tie their own shoes.

3) Burden of Proof and False Default Position

"Bigfoot doesn't exist and it's up to proponents to prove otherwise."

Welcome to biology. Your logic is exactly right--EVERY new species is assumed to not exist until someone provides a type specimen. It's in the rules. Literally--the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is a set of rules dealing, in part, with exactly this.

More generally, in science all statements need to be supported by evidence. If you say there's a new species--regardless of what that species is--you are obliged to provide evidence, or we are obligated to dismiss your arguments. We literally have no other honest option.

4) Special Pleading

"No other film like the PGF has surfaced since 1967, therefore, the PGF isn't evidence for the existence of Bigfoot." or "The film doesn't qualify as evidence."

The film doesn't qualify as GOOD evidence (in part because of the element of fraud). But I've never heard anyone make those two arguments; I've heard them say it's been debunked and therefore cannot be included as positive evidence, which is valid. Frauds aren't evidence of anything but the fraud.

5) Genetic

"The PGF was made by a person with a questionable history, therefore, the film itself should be dismissed."

Welcome to science. Your reputation is EVERYTHING, and if you gain a reputation for fraud we will dismiss your evidence without further consideration. This is because science relies on the honesty of its participants, and those who violate that pact of honesty are threates to the entire enterprise. The mere accusation of fraud can kill careers of even the most prestigious of scientists; that's what did in Richard Owen's career, for example, and he was THE leading scientist of his day! If you cannot be trust, we don't want you. Don't like it? Don't defraud people.

 

[jakesteele]

If a sceptic or denialist shifts the burden of proof to others, that means that it must fall on those who positively state that BF exists. That's the place the burden should be.

What if an atheist makes the first claim and says, "There is no God."

Could a religious person then say, "Prove it." Would the religious person have no burden, then"?

 

[Dinwar]

What if an atheist makes the first claim and says, "There is no God."

Could a religious person then say, "Prove it." Would the religious person have no burden, then"?

I think it's important to remember the difference between "There is no evidence" and "There is no GOOD evidence". Many irrational claims have evidence supporting them--and that's the problem, the evidence lends credibility to those claims among those who are unused to evaluating evidence. To say that there's no evidence merely makes us look like we're afraid to confront it.

Remember, evidence is merely data used to support a position. GOOD evidence strongly supports one position while strongly refuting another. Proof is the best possible evidence, permitting only one conclusion and refuting all others. But evidence supporting multiple conclusions--even bat-crap crazy ones--is possible.

To use a scientific example, there is evidence supporting the notion that continents do not move (no, I'm not talking Creationism; I'm referring to the debates in geology on this topic). It's not good evidence; in some cases the data are explicable by processes not previously considered, and in others the data support both the existence and non-existence of continental plates. But it would be wrong to say there was NO evidence. There is; it's just not any good.

Same with deities. Any theist can present a long list of evidence for the existence of their god of choice. Most of it is crap--for example, the Bible counts as evidence, but as hearsay at best. But it does in fact exist. It therefore is perfectly reasonable for a theist to say "Here's my evidence, please address it."

Similarly, it's perfectly reasonable for a bigfoot believer to say "Here is my evidence, please address it." The real issue for the bigfoot crowd is that the evidence has been addressed, and has been found lacking. So we're left with "Is there any MORE evidence?"

 

[abaddon]

Is nutjobbery a real word?

Nut jobs exist. QED.

 

[abaddon]

Boss story, mate! Now pass me the Special Brew so that I too can waffle bollocks.

How intriguing. Would you be willing to waffle my bollocks? Would money have to change hands? What has this to do with bigfoot, the topic at hand? Does bigfoot offer such a service of bollock waffling? Where does it advertise?

ETA: Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[abaddon]

Is waffling of bollocks going to become some meme like "event horizon of the formless"?

 

[abaddon]

Possibly a future Olympic event.

Gold medal bollock wobbler. The silver medalist was insufficiently wobbly, and the bronze medalist was simply wasting our time.

 

[Vortigern99]

In one swell foop, the OP has proven the existence of leprechauns, sprites, centaurs, extant non-avian dinosaurs, unicorns, bigfeetsei, denialists, meany-head pseudoskeptics, Loch Ness monstrositudes, vampires, yetis, UFOs and stupidity.

 

[GT/CS]

Wait, didn't they guy who made the costume come forward a while ago?

Yes, the guy who made the base suit that Patterson modified (Phillip Morris) and the guy who wore the suit (Bob Heironimus) have both come forward.

 

[Jono]

The only one that really bothers me is the "poisoning the well"-fallacy, which skeptics and non-skeptics (if we allow for this to be a brief dichotomy in this context) have often been known to use as a personal safe-guard/firewall reflex, in my anecdotal experience.

 

[Donn]

In one swell foop, the OP has proven the existence of leprechauns, sprites, centaurs, extant non-avian dinosaurs, unicorns, bigfeetsei, denialists, meany-head pseudoskeptics, Loch Ness monstrositudes, vampires, yetis, UFOs and stupidity.

Don't forget the Fairies!

The only one that really bothers me is the "poisoning the well"-fallacy, which ..

Bigfoot tried to pee in the well, but he did not exist.

 

[Jono]

Bigfoot tried to pee in the well, but he did not exist.

Ye, still stinks to low basement and high attic though.

 

[Spindrift]

Is there a name for the fallacy of believing in hoaxes that the hoax perpetrator has admitted is a hoax?

 

[Vortigern99]

Is there a name for the fallacy of believing in hoaxes that the hoax perpetrator has admitted is a hoax?

Argumentum ad Bill Munnsum

 

[Donn]

Argument from Incredibullity.

 

[welshdean]

Is there a name for the fallacy of believing in hoaxes that the hoax perpetrator has admitted is a hoax?

See post above:

Is nutjobbery a real word?

 

[Vortigern99]

Argument from Misunderstanding What a Logical Fallacy Is and How It Works

(Latinize that!)

 

[Donn]

Argumentum ad WTF?

 

[calebprime]

Argument from Misunderstanding What a Logical Fallacy Is and How It Works

(Latinize that!)

Argumentum ab studebant Logicus De fallacia secundum quid , et quomodo Works, 'n ****.

 

[Vortigern99]

Argumentum ab studebant Logicus De fallacia secundum quid , et quomodo Works, 'n ****.

Internet officially won.

 

[Donn]

Damn!

 

[Vortigern99]

Damn!

It was CalebPrime's " 'n **** " that really won the contest. If only you had thought of it first, you would now own the entire Internet. Commence kicking yourself.... now.

 

[The Atheist]

I still don't understand the vehemence with which people attack people who think there's a large, hairy beast on the loose. They're not selling sasquatch cure-all, or reading minds or casting spells, they're walking in the woods.

There's a really cool disconnect between Forum Management - where the argument that the poster must not be attacked is agreed upon by 100% of people.

Yet in this - and other "woo" threads - abusing the poster rather than the post is so de rigeur it neatly segues back into logical fallacies:

Argumentum ad hominem.

More generally, in science all statements need to be supported by evidence. If you say there's a new species--regardless of what that species is--you are obliged to provide evidence, or we are obligated to dismiss your arguments. We literally have no other honest option.

This is incorrect.

There is no necessity to dismiss the argument at all. The only necessity is to ask for more evidence.

In terms of evidence, most people aren't relying on PG, but eye-witness testimony. USA has the fortunate point of having bears, which from a distance and in bush cover, can easily look like a large, hairy ape.

So, they're wrong. Big deal.

Welcome to science. Your reputation is EVERYTHING, and if you gain a reputation for fraud we will dismiss your evidence without further consideration. This is because science relies on the honesty of its participants, and those who violate that pact of honesty are threates to the entire enterprise.

Wow. Science as religion. Wish I'd thought that one up.

Isn't that what peer-review is for?

What if an atheist makes the first claim and says, "There is no God."

Could a religious person then say, "Prove it." Would the religious person have no burden, then"?

Correct; the positive claim requires the evidence.

In the case of bigfoot, the lack of skeletal and photographic evidence can be used to back a negative proposition, but if you try that with god/s, you'll come a cropper at the first hurdle.

Bigfoot at least has the property of being a physical object.

 

[Donn]

It was CalebPrime's " 'n **** " that really won the contest. If only you had thought of it first, you would now own the entire Internet. Commence kicking yourself.... now.

Damn!

 

[Dinwar]

This is incorrect.

There is no necessity to dismiss the argument at all. The only necessity is to ask for more evidence.

I'll accept that different groups hold to different traditions. It's pretty clear in biology, however, that no evidence=case dismissed. Again, it's against the rules. Literally. Don't believe me? Fine, I can be convinced. Please cite the specific clause in the ICZN that allows for naming a new species absent evidence for one. (Fair warning: there are two options I know of that you could use if you don't actually understand the ICZN.) The ICZN also provides specific criteria for evidence in this context.

Never forget: This is a biological issue, and specifically a question of whether this organism qualifies as a newly-named species. That's the heart and sole of this issue. Therefore, the applicable criteria are the ICZN.

Wow. Science as religion. Wish I'd thought that one up.

If that's how you interpreted this, I can only conclude you lead a sheltered career. Or are reading this in the absolute worst light possible.

It's not religion--it's all about intellectual integrity. If you demonstrate that you have none, we cannot trust you to provide accurate information and at that point you become irrelevant. I suppose you can still publish, but no one will pay attention to you.

This sort of thing is so well documented that I feel no obligation to provide you with references; if you spend a few minutes looking into it you'll see ample evidence. Again, Richard Owen was one of the top scientists IN THE WORLD and was brought down due to a few cases of fraud. The reason is simple: when you demonstrate that you're going to distort evidence, you demonstrate that you've abandoned science, and generally you cannot be trusted in the future. It calls everything you've done, are doing, and will do into question.

Isn't that what peer-review is for?

No. Not at all. For one thing, the idea that peer review is the sum total of science is a dishonest myth perpetuated by non-scientists. Scientists know that most of science is conducted much less formally. Why do you think conventions such as GSA and the like are a part of scientific culture? Secondly, formal peer review is only the first--and easiest--review process. The INformal review--the analysis of your publication by experts--is at least in theory perpetual (I routinely cite papers 100+ years old) and is much, much harsher.