Merged Bigfoot follies

[Jodie]

[qimg]http://home.cogeco.ca/~rgavel/I%20know%20what%20I%20saw%20x%20400.jpg[/qimg]

Seemed appropriate.

RayG

Nope, no doubt in my mind about what I saw, but I have no explanation for how Mamma Lee's partial got up in the flush mount light fixture.

 

[Jodie]

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."

Nope, that isn't what I said. I said true skepticism includes provisionalism. Now if you want be practical so that it narrows your point of view to something workable,then it simply becomes belief based on the strength of the evidence, or lack there of, in this case.

 

[Jodie]

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.

I feel honored that my posts prompted your response, thanks for your contributions to the forum.

 

[Jodie]

Spoken like a true woo. I was right. You never left the woo woo train.

I sure as hell don't think it's dead people, I don't know what it was. If you want, I can start a thread about the numerous incidents that happened and let you and others provide alternative explanations.

 

[Jodie]

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.
I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary.
You don't get to redefine a word just because it is inconvenient to your belief system.Only woos and believers use these childish names. It is because that is the only defence they have against demands for logical and evidence.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.

I 'ld say it's you that is trying to redefine skepticism to fit your belief system.

 

[GT/CS]

I sure as hell don't think it's dead people, I don't know what it was. If you want, I can start a thread about the numerous incidents that happened and let you and others provide alternative explanations.

That would be much better than derailing the bigfoot thread with this T-Rex and ghost crap.

 

[Jodie]

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.
Your continued wish to believe in things paranormal does not change the definition of scepticism - "true" or not.

Who said anything about paranormal? I personally think it's something normal that we don't understand, maybe one day we will.

 

[EHocking]

Who said anything about paranormal?

You did.

...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,...

and

..no doubt in my mind about what I saw, but I have no explanation for how Mamma Lee's partial got up in the flush mount light fixture.

The manner in which you have described these experiences most certainly implies paranormal. The fact that you claim to have experienced poltergeist activity is clear evidence.

I personally think it's something normal that we don't understand, maybe one day we will.

Woo semantics - you are describing what you believe to be paranormal experiences.
You know it we know it.

 

[EHocking]

I 'ld say it's you that is trying to redefine skepticism to fit your belief system.

Nope.

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

That's pretty much you telling us what is a sceptic and what is not.

Now, how about addressing the on-topic parts of my posts regarding bigfoot rather than derailing the thread into sophomoric semantics (as I had predicted).

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.

 

[Scordatura]

Wrong thread! Sorry

 

[Pterodactyl]

If I claim with 100% certitude that Bigfoot does not exist inside my refrigerator, am I a pseudo skeptic?

At what point does it simply become unreasonable to allow for such a possibility?

Obviously I can rule out bigfoot in my fridge.
How about in my yard? I think so.
How about on the island of Oahu? Sure.

How about in an entire state full of residents (millions of them), some that regularly venture outdoors, deploy camera traps, hunt to the extent that you can't travel more than 1/4 mile in most any direction on opening weekend of deer season without seeing at least one hunter, yet have never offered even the first bit of verifiable evidence?

Could a single bigfoot exist undiscovered after all this time under such circumstances? Not likely. A population of them? No more possible than one existing in my refrigerator. And you can't have a single bigfoot without also having a population of bigfeet.

 

[carlitos]

Nope, no doubt in my mind about what I saw, but I have no explanation for how Mamma Lee's partial got up in the flush mount light fixture.

See the problem?

 

[Jodie]

Nope.


That's pretty much you telling us what is a sceptic and what is not.

Now, how about addressing the on-topic parts of my posts regarding bigfoot rather than derailing the thread into sophomoric semantics (as I had predicted).

I'm not the one that defined skepticism, I'm just pointing out that you are incorrect to refer to yourself in that way since it is a process. Now if you want to change the definition then obviously you are resorting to sophomoric semantics or a lack of insight/bias regarding your own thought processes.

 

[Jodie]

forum glitch

 

[Jodie]

If I claim with 100% certitude that Bigfoot does not exist inside my refrigerator, am I a pseudo skeptic?

At what point does it simply become unreasonable to allow for such a possibility?

Obviously I can rule out bigfoot in my fridge.
How about in my yard? I think so.
How about on the island of Oahu? Sure.

How about in an entire state full of residents (millions of them), some that regularly venture outdoors, deploy camera traps, hunt to the extent that you can't travel more than 1/4 mile in most any direction on opening weekend of deer season without seeing at least one hunter, yet have never offered even the first bit of verifiable evidence?

Could a single bigfoot exist undiscovered after all this time under such circumstances? Not likely. A population of them? No more possible than one existing in my refrigerator. And you can't have a single bigfoot without also having a population of bigfeet.

It's a matter of probabilities from a technical stand point, but a definite "no" to all of the above if you want to be practical.

 

[Jodie]

See the problem?

Not really, what is the difference between what I observe and what a scientist observes? He might be equally sure of what he saw but did he interpret that correctly? I'm discussing it in the "OK, What Was it" thread and I'm open to other explanations for how it got there.

At any rate, this is a common thing to say to someone who claims a bigfoot sighting, and I have to agree that they are either lying or misinterpreted something else they saw based on the lack of evidence for bigfoot.

That said, when you read any kind of research, do you question the conclusions of that research the same way? Or do you assume the statistical significance cited is correct and go with it?

 

[EHocking]

I'm not the one that defined skepticism, I'm just pointing out that you are incorrect to refer to yourself in that way since it is a process. Now if you want to change the definition then obviously you are resorting to sophomoric semantics or a lack of insight/bias regarding your own thought processes.

No.

You are pretty much the only one here attempting to redefine the word sceptic.

Originally Posted by Jodie
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

Face it.
You are just wrong.

EVERY dictionary defines it as a noun, so it IS appropriate to refer to a person.

YOU are the only one here attempting to redefine it, therefore by your OWN assertion,

...if you want to change the definition then obviously you are resorting to sophomoric semantics or a lack of insight/bias regarding your own thought processes.

To repeat.

Originally Posted by Jodie
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

That is an example of you attempting to redefine the word.

So let's just drop the semantics and actually address the on-topic parts of my posts regarding bigfoot rather than derailing the thread into sophomoric semantics.
You are certainly trying VERY hard to ignore this post, so I'll quote it again.

Originally Posted by EHocking
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.

How about you forget the sophomoric semantic on word definitions and address the point that I first made, and that is that a very firm conclusion regarding the probability/possibility of the existence of bigfoot CAN be made which is not at odds to either the scientific method or the "sceptical method".

 

[EHocking]

Not really, what is the difference between what I observe and what a scientist observes?

Repeatability.

It is the cornerstone of the scientific method.

All you have are unverifiable anecdotes.

...That said, when you read any kind of research, do you question the conclusions of that research the same way?

Yes, of course you do.
It is called science, and indeed, scepticism.

Or do you assume the statistical significance cited is correct and go with it?

No you do not if you are sceptical or scientific in your analysis.

No to the first and Yes to the latter if you practice Bigfoot Science^[TM].

 

[Correa Neto]

"Chicken evolved from T-rexes"

Honestly, the refusal to ackwoledge it was a gross error is even worse than saying chiken are the grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-children of T-rexes.

 

[Drewbot]

Did Kitakaze coin the term Wood Ape?

I found this old post from 2009

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4948640&postcount=142

You see, the effect is basically like you are still enticing Bigfoot enthusiasts and encouraging people to believe that the woods in Michigan harbour monster wood apes.