Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies

[William Parcher]

The post that I made on the first page basically points out the common issues with arguments that are made in support of the claim that cryptids don't exist...

...this thread further shows that the posts made by some of these so-called skeptics on the subject of Bigfoot are made up of nothing but denial and personal attacks. It's not real skepticism at all. Whatever it is, it's messed up.

How does science go about deciding that an animal doesn't exist (anymore)? This is essentially what extinction is about. When science says that Tyrannosaurus rex is extinct it says that there aren't any out there alive. But how did they figure that out? You can ask that question about any other dinosaur or any species that has been declared extinct.

Does your fallacies list cause problems for scientists with regards to extinction and the non-existence of a species? Would they fall into your fallacy traps?

 

[Donn]

Apoloetics.

Is the art of arguing against horse riders with mallets who chase a tiny ball.

 

[Donn]

Does your fallacies list cause problems for scientists with regards to extinction and the non-existence of a species? Would they fall into your fallacy traps?

T-Rex never went extinct. They shrank. Currently they roam the jungles of Bigfoot's colon.

You evidently can't deny this, therefore it so stands. Roar.

 

[Dinwar]

How does science go about deciding that an animal doesn't exist (anymore)? This is essentially what extinction is about. When science says that Tyrannosaurus rex is extinct it says that there aren't any out there alive. But how did they figure that out? You can ask that question about any other dinosaur or any species that has been declared extinct.

Does your fallacies list cause problems for scientists with regards to extinction and the non-existence of a species? Would they fall into your fallacy traps?

Oddly enough, this was once a serious scientific issue. The possibility for extinction was seriously doubted in the early days of geology and paleontology. That's why, for example, Lewis and Clark went west: to determine if the interior of the Americas, one of the few areas left unexplored by Europeans, held organisms thought to be extinct.

What OntarioSquatch ignores is that a lack of expected evidence is evidence for a lack of the thing. If bigfoot exists, we would expect to see remains--either current remains, or fossil remains. The fact that we have neither is, for an organism of the size proposed for bigfoot, ample evidence for the non-existence of the thing.

 

[John Nowak]

The fact that we have neither is, for an organism of the size proposed for bigfoot, ample evidence for the non-existence of the thing.

So even if we grant Patty isn't a costume, the fact nobody's taken a video since is evidence Bigfoot is extinct? I can dig it.

 

[Dinwar]

So even if we grant Patty isn't a costume, the fact nobody's taken a video since is evidence Bigfoot is extinct? I can dig it.

I go further: the fact that we have no physical remains indicates that any video we do have is not of bigfoot, but is either fraud or misunderstood. It defies belief that an organism of that size and robustness would fail to leave any physical evidence, particularly when we have sufficient remains from rodents of that time period and geography to provide a detailed description of the evolution of that group.

 

[John Nowak]

I go further: the fact that we have no physical remains indicates that any video we do have is not of bigfoot, but is either fraud or misunderstood. It defies belief that an organism of that size and robustness would fail to leave any physical evidence, particularly when we have sufficient remains from rodents of that time period and geography to provide a detailed description of the evolution of that group.

I'm in full agreement.

 

[Donn]

Patty should be part of a network of expected evidence. Sparse jots of data punctured by gaps is evidence of manipulation, or evidence that a new hypothesis is needed.

The longer the periods between jots, the more isolated the islands, the more they disconnect from the narrative. This isolation is more particular where other narratives have continued apace, in real-time, leaving dense and rich traces in the network. The strange peak of evidence that suddenly looms having no tie to the surrounding fabric is a red flag, at the very least.

Yes, I like the expected part in that. Absence of expected evidence is evidence that something's amiss.

ETA - What Dinwar said.

 

[Jerrymander]

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.

So would the reason Bigfoot evidence is not often looked at by mainstream scientists now a days is because of the history of hoaxing?

I think you'd be needed at the Bigfoot forums. There are certain people who need that point hammered into them.

 

[Dinwar]

So would the reason Bigfoot evidence is not often looked at by mainstream scientists now a days is because of the history of hoaxing?

Partly. The reason why certain bigfoot "experts" are ignored certainly is their history of perpetrating hoaxes.

 

[The Atheist]

I see a lot of posters took issue with "all straw mans."

I certainly do. It can never be "mans" only men.

Straw men.

I'm staggered that anyone could think otherwise.

The Atheist, I've been thinking about what you're saying, and I think you've made some serious tactical errors.

First and foremost, let me say that I agree with you that things aren't exactly rational in this forum.

OK, but I hadn't been talking about rationality so much as logical fallacies and downright abuse.

Furthermore, I actually think that the concept of bigfoot isn't wholely irrational.

Well, there's your starter.

And your criticisms haven't been about tone or the like--note that even you couldn't find an example of abusive language in my post--but rather attacked substantive aspects of scientific investigation as such!

Fair cop - that wasn't my intent. The context didn't seen to justify a biologically correct response, but it's certainly a fair tactic.

It looked a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack open a peanut, but it certainly isn't unreasonable.

We need to assess the reputation of the researchers when they present any other type of data (physical remains speak for themselves) because fraud is so easy to perpetrate these days. Anyone can make a video of practically anything.

No problem there - I'd be arguing as hard as anyone else for thorough investigation of physical claims just as I would if someone claimed to be Jesus and able to walk on water.

You dismissed this all as me arguing that science is a religion, for...reasons? I guess?

Not quite.

I targeted you because your statements about science and scientific methods smacked of religious dogma. I didn't accuse you of arguing for science as a religion, just the way you presented the argument.

Unfortunately, you've chosen to attack people, rather than consider their arguments. I would have been on your side, had you addressed the arguments.?

In your case, I admit I was wrong and I can see now that it's probably your frustration rather than a desire to be overbearing, and I can understand that.

My apologies for doubting your intentions.

On other arguments, however, there haven't been any, which is why I quoted a selection of posts that contained nothing but throwaway BS aimed at the OP. At least they neatly displayed what I meant.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I didn't realize there was doubt around the existence of stupidity.

For supporting evidence, I offer up my sibling.

ETA: Also, most of our congresscritters.

 

[William Parcher]

So would the reason Bigfoot evidence is not often looked at by mainstream scientists now a days is because of the history of hoaxing?

That can't be the primary reason. It has to be because essentially no primary evidence has been presented to examine. This would be a body or body part. Tracks, films and photos, stories, etc. are not primary evidence and should not warrant investigation outside of personal time.

 

[Dinwar]

Fair cop - that wasn't my intent. The context didn't seen to justify a biologically correct response, but it's certainly a fair tactic.

It looked a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack open a peanut, but it certainly isn't unreasonable.

I'm not sure what other field could be applicable. The question is "Does this creature exist?" That pretty firmly puts it into biology territory.

I will be the first to admit that non-biologists certainly can weigh in; anyone who can effectively critique an argument is justified in doing so.

I targeted you because your statements about science and scientific methods smacked of religious dogma.

You have failed to make this point, however. How does acknowledging that known frauds are extremely likely to produce bad data (the point where you said I was saying science is religion) in any way similar to religious dogma? Are you aware of what happened to Richard Owen? I chose that specific example because it very clearly demonstrates 1) what a reputation for fraud can do to even the most respected experts in science, 2) the difference between dogma (Owen) and science (pretty much everyone else involved), and 3) why all of this matters. A reputation for fraud taints EVERYTHING a scientist touches.

To be clear, a reputation for honesty is taken as the default. We expect honesty from scientists, and demand it as the minimum standard. A reputation for honesty is vital, but it's not like it's opposed to a repuation for fraud.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Look, The Atheist, I don't know what your point is. Is it the tone? Are we to not argue agin the footers at all? Do we simply shrug and post ellipses?

I didn't think The Atheist's point was particularly difficult.

By all means, argue against those who believe in bigfoot. Argue. A lot of what has happened in this thread is not argument - it's ad hominem attacks. It's mockery and ridicule, it's personal insults. Those are not arguments.

Believing that your opponent's beliefs are false does not negate the terms of the MA.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The post that I made on the first page basically points out the common issues with arguments that are made in support of the claim that cryptids don't exist. It's interesting to read some of the responses here.

Point of clarification: You are shifting goal posts.

The claim being made is: Bigfoot exists

The response is: Claims that bigfoot exists are false because reasons

There is no claim being made that bigfoot does not exist; there is a dismissal of the claim that bigfoot does exist.

 

[Dinwar]

Believing that your opponent's beliefs are false does not negate the terms of the MA.

Or rational discourse.

Though I will say, most of the first few posts addressed the improper categorization of arguments as fallacies.

There is no claim being made that bigfoot does not exist; there is a dismissal of the claim that bigfoot does exist.

I'll go ahead and claim it. Bigfoot does not exist. My evidence is the complete lack of all expected physical evidence.

The benefit of such a clear claim is that it provides, if one understands the system, very specific predictions that can be tested against. It actually helps honest bigfoot advocates.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Interesting bit of assuming your consequent.

Let's look again:

It has been explained to you how you are wrong about your inside-out-construction of the "Appeal to Ignorance".

Beyond the fact that you construct your argument incorrectly, you characterize it incorrectly, also.

Here is reality: Large animals leave copious evidence of their existence (middens, orts, dens, tracks, corpses, young, hair...). A 9-foot tall undiscovered primate is a large animal. Since there has yet to be presented actual physical evidence of the existence of 'Squatch (no middens, no ort, no bone, no hair, no corpses, no dens, no young...) there is no reason to accept unsupported claims that "Squatch exists.

#1 is not correct, no matter what you thought you knew beforehand.


While it may, in fact, be true that a majority of scientists and other iterested parties have no reason to accept unsupported claims that "Squatch exists, that consensus is an effect, not a cause. I for one (to give a minor example) am not persuaded by the consensus that 'Squatch does not exist. I am persuaded by the utter lack of actual evidence (se above); and, because of that, I can be counted in the consensus.

#2 is not correct, no matter what you thought you knew beforehand.


It has been pointed out to you , multiple times that you are trying to shift the onus, in #3. "Bigfoot exists" is a positive claim; it must be supported with evidence. "Bigfoot exists, and you can't prove it doesn't" is a schoolyard taunt, not logic.

#3 is not correct, no matter what you thought you knew beforehand.


There is an entire thread devoted to the problems with taking the PF as evidence. More than that, you are again confusing cause with effect. The PF does not in any way address the fact that there is none of the kind of physical evidence left by large animals presented to demonstrate the existence of 'Squatch. The PF is a red herring.

#4 is not correct, no matter what you thought you knew beforehand.


There is an entire thread devoted to the problems with taking the PF as evidence. More than that, you are again confusing cause with effect. The fact that a demonstrated fraud had been equivocal about many points of the provenance and genesis of the PGF is not the reason is is unconvincing, especially in light of the fact that none of the kind of physical evidence left by large animals has ever been presented in support of the existence of 'Squatch.

#5 is not correct, no matter what you thought you knew beforehand.

Hmm. I'd say that the list of fallacies, and the basic descriptions of them are correct... it's the application of them in this context that is false. The fallacies are real fallacies, but the veracity of the statement cannot be measured using that fallacy.

For example:

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.

The maroon sections are correct. That is a true description of an appeal to ignorance.

The error is in the application. The OP is assuming that the lack-of-belief in the existence of bigfoot, in light of an astounding lack of evidence, is an appeal to ignorance. It's an incorrect application of the fallacy.

For it to be an appeal to ignorance, someone would have to be making the negative claim that bigfoot does not exist, and using as evidence in support of that claim the fact that no evidence exists.

That's not what happens. What happens is that a positive claim is made that bigfoot DOES exist. The lack of evidence is used as a reason for the dismissal of the positive claim. It's not an appeal to ignorance at all. It's a reason for rejection of the initiating claim.

I could say "I am a superhero."
You could then say "Throughout your entire life, there have been absolutely no reports of you ever having done anything super, EC. On this basis, I reject your claims of superheroics."

In that example you're not appealing to ignorance.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Anything I post will be argued against with more dishonest tactics and fallacies. That's how the discussion here works. For many here it's about staying in denial at all costs, not about getting to the truth. That's how it's always been over here, at least in the Bigfoot threads.

I don't believe that is generally the case. It's possible that it is the case in some instances, but I don't believe it can be generalized.

Let me try to explain: I don't conclude that it is impossible for bigfoot to exist. It's *possible* that they do exist.

What I conclude, however, is that none of the evidence submitted in support of bigfoot's existence is compelling evidence. There is insufficient evidence for me to accept the existence of said creature. Until sufficient evidence is found, I will take as my default assumption that bigfoot does not exist.

I likewise take a default assumption with respect to god, fairies, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and sentient plants. It's *possible* that they exist, but there's no evidence to support their existence. Without evidence, there is no reason to believing in them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

He'd be the hairiest, biggest, ugliest woman you ever saw.

Hey now! Don't you go insulting my aunt Gertie like that!