Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies

[Giordano]

Both statement 1 and 2 imply that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Statement 1 may or may not be a response to a positive claim.

Sorry, but statements 1 and two are not paraphrases of each other. Not at all. Phrase 1 presents a classical logic construct: if a then b. There is no b. So there is no a. Phrase 2 says: duh, what? Phrase 2 does not make a direct link between the lack of finding Bigfoot and the implication of such a lack.

The logical construction of phrase 1 is correct. Your only hope is to demonstrate "if a does not necessarily imply b." You and others have tried, but so far I am unconvinced.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Pompous and belittling. Exactly what science is not and should not be.

That's hilarious, since you are delivering the most pompous belittling posts on the thread.

What is there to be so upset about?

This is the disingenuous spin on people that are derisive, and properly so, about a nonexistent gigantic primate: frame them as unreasonable "angry people".

I don't see anyone angry. I only see you pretending people are angry so that you can pompously belittle them.

Simple. Go to bigfoot forums, read some of the threads. The vast majority of them - and there are a lot more supporters there than here - do actually go out in the woods and hunt the mythical beast.

lol. Oh really? That was just mere assertion and since I have indeed been there and was specifically interested in that precise point - I beg to differ. The "In the Field" part of the forum is a pathetic proportion of posts, with a very small portion of the membership participating at all. And wow, are they pathetic topics for people who "hunt the mythical beast" as you put it.

Remember too that I said getting out to any significant degree. I am not a fair comparison since I live on the edge of the wilderness. But take the average birder for example: 110 days in the field.


http://www.parksandrecreation.org/2015/April/The-Birding-Effect/

How much time does the average footer spend in the field Mr. Expert? Your primary assertion is about them "walking in the woods" so where is your evidence? How many days a year? You have done nothing but make an unsubstantiated assertion and wave your hands at a forum, easily disputed by going there and reading. It is remarkable for how little they do - NONE in the case of the OP by his own admission.

Compared to other people who identify with activities it is astonishing for how little they do. Runners? An average of over 200 days a year, and more than a thousand miles.

Nobody gives a rats ass if they walk in the woods. Nobody is complaining about being in the woods. That is merely your straw man attack on people at this forum. You create this straw man to evade what we are discussing, minimize their behavior and make a mountain out of skeptical responses to them.

The interesting question is why, and I think I know the answer.

Photographic and video evidence won't wash for the sasquatch, but it certainly proves these people have been out in the woods looking.

No it doesn't. What proportion of "these people" are actually providing photographic and video evidence? In terms of the forum membership at BFF, what proportion of them has EVER submitted a photo or video on that forum? It is negligible. Has the OP presented a picture or video, ever? No.

This assertion is so obviously wrong it begs the question why you are embarrassing yourself this way.

It is also not true a hoaxer is "looking" for a mythical beast.

Holy crap, even the phrases are getting all biblical!

No, that is you belittling instead of discussing. The forum founder is James Randi and it is entirely appropriate to use him as the example.

Wow, are you going out of your way to be condescending!

Please don't get me started on Randi.

Yes, he did some good things, but seriously. His hiding himself in a closet until it was far too late to matter was unconscionable, in my view, but that's another thread entirely.

So you want to attack Randi, but then not present your evidence as to why he is such a bad example to follow on a forum he founded, dealing with con men/woo.

In other words, you have no argument.

I expose con-men myself, so I'm not against it, but calling them a threat to society is downright absurd. They're a threat to a few idiots' wallets is all.

More belittling, and factually incorrect. First of all, it is exposing the tactics they use that is most important, and this spans far wider than any particular con man under discussion.

But even so, it is bizarre that you would attack people for doing what this forum is specifically set up for! Why are you even here if such topics are so loathsome to you? Do you attend farm fora and rage about their discussions of corn or bean fertilizer?

It is interesting how you so freely call victims IDIOTS at the same time you pretentiously lecture all of us on how civil we are supposed to be to the con men preying upon them.

I sure hope people are paying attention because you just made an extremely important reveal about your character. Manipulative people think that manipulation is smart and the people who fall for it are... idiots. Look how con men never call their targets victims and instead speak about how they deserve what they got. Just look at how you sneer at the idea of anyone being a victim of a 'footer, either calling us derisive names like scofftic, denialist, etc. or all the tactics they deploy straight from the abusive personality disorder literature.

Why you defend that is a very interesting question.

if someone's perpetrating an actual fraud in respect of sasquatch, go get 'em, but I don't imagine any of them are posting here.

Who are you to tell us what we can post about? Are you the forum president? lol. We are responding to the OP. Do as you say, hypocrite, and don't post in response to me since I am not a fraud nor causing harm to anyone.

Victims? Wow, this is getting very revealing.

I was talking about giving crap to bigfoot supporters, now you're talking about victim-blaming.

But wait, there's more!

A Murderer!

Couldn't you just have used bank robber or rapist? A murderer seems a bit OTT for someone to be compared to just because they believe there's a hairy guy in the woods.

That belittling logical fallacy was predictable from you. It doesn't work on me.

Yes, I absolutely can use rapist or bank robber to make the same point you tried to straw man your way out of: those describe what people have done rather than being attacks on their person.

You knew very well that I was not saying 'footers rob banks, but you didn't have an argument to the point so thank you for conceding by faking a straw man argument. The "personal attack" fallacy is used by them to debilitate skeptics. Calling them con men appropriately risks sanction under forum rules when it is exactly the thing to call them for what they do.

I've met much better manipulators than you - this is child's play. What we learn about manipulative people is that they are the most keen on attacking people that understand their tactics.

Since you use them yourself, yes this would be a reason to pretend 'footers are just walking in the woods instead of doing what we see right here on this thread.

 

[The Atheist]

Unless Bigfoot is Predator

Now that would be bloody excellent.

Especially the part about ripping the spine only out of people who are carrying guns. The woods would be a lot safer and would definitely encourage bigfoot believers to leave the hardware at home.

Can we mate bigfoot with the Predator?

 

[John Nowak]

It really makes sense to me. Where am I going wrong?

It's a subtle distinction and I'm not positive I get it, but I believe it's in the subtle distinction between "There is no Bigfoot" (which is a positive claim) and the more logically correct "I reject the Bigfoot hypothesis."

I have said, several times, that Bigfoot does not exist. I agree this is sloppy shorthand for the more precise and accurate "I reject the Bigfoot hypothesis."

And verily, I shall deny Bigfoot three times.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood.

 

[Mashuna]

Now that would be bloody excellent.

Especially the part about ripping the spine only out of people who are carrying guns. The woods would be a lot safer and would definitely encourage bigfoot believers to leave the hardware at home.

Can we mate bigfoot with the Predator?

Yes, but very carefully.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

It looks like John Nowak gets it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

the example:

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

paraphrased:

"Bigfoot doesn't exist because we haven't found it"

A better line of argument, and the one I would advance myself, would be:

After thousands of years of being on the continent, we would expect with a very high probability to have physical evidence of Bigfoot by now if Bigfoot was real. As no such physical evidence exists, there is a very high probability that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Therefore, as a practical conclusion subject to revision should new evidence arise, we reject the claim that Bigfoot exists unless and until such new evidence is found.

Care to point out anything wrong with that?

Dave

 

[Resume]

It looks like John Nowak gets it.

Yes, he does:

I have said, several times, that Bigfoot does not exist. I agree this is sloppy shorthand for the more precise and accurate "I reject the Bigfoot hypothesis."

The shorthand, sloppy or otherwise is there is no bigfoot.

 

[Garrette]

It's a subtle distinction and I'm not positive I get it, but I believe it's in the subtle distinction between "There is no Bigfoot" (which is a positive claim) and the more logically correct "I reject the Bigfoot hypothesis."

I have said, several times, that Bigfoot does not exist. I agree this is sloppy shorthand for the more precise and accurate "I reject the Bigfoot hypothesis."

And verily, I shall deny Bigfoot three times.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood.

Yes, but very carefully.

I find this fascinating, particularly ABP's marvelous dissection of the thought process and tactics, and this fits right in.

Note how OS reaches for scientific credibility by agreeing with the nuanced verbiage that (a) is really reserved for actual academic settings as opposed to the informal/formal setting mix we have here and (b) he had absolutely nothing to do with expounding; he relied upon others, particularly Emily's Cat, to demonstrate actual understanding so that he could chime in at the end as if it were his intent all along.

More importantly, note how OS steadfastly refuses to apply the same level of scientific rigeur either to himself or to those in the footer community he defends.

Undoubtedly there are mistakes in ABP's analysis, and undoubtedly there are and will be errors in its application, but I must say that it very nicely explains the footer behavior here, and I for one agree with it.

 

[Resume]

More importantly, note how OS steadfastly refuses to apply the same level of scientific rigeur either to himself or to those in the footer community he defends.

This is because proponents engage in pseudoscience, the cargo-cult science Feynman warned about. It looks good and sounds good among enthusiasts, but like me, you can dress it up, but you can't take it out.

 

[Donn]

It's a subtle distinction and I'm not positive I get it, but I believe it's in the subtle distinction between "There is no Bigfoot" (which is a positive claim) and the more logically correct "I reject the Bigfoot hypothesis."

I have said, several times, that Bigfoot does not exist. I agree this is sloppy shorthand for the more precise and accurate "I reject the Bigfoot hypothesis."

And verily, I shall deny Bigfoot three times.

Is it subtle? I'm using rhetoric, because I'm not out in the field ankle-deep in dino poo or parasites. From my small view of the natural world, it's mad with skeins of life. There is little that is subtle; dancing on some edge of non-existence.

Traces are everywhere. You could follow a single insect from egg to husk, with enough expertise. That path will intersect with dozens of others; the flowers it visited and pollinated; the lizard that tried to eat it; the hive or nest it tends.

Not everything will leave a trace, but the living story of the world is connected; all the time. From loins to cradle to belly to grave.

An animal proposed to exist and described as certain fact must intersect with these connections; else it walks aloof and impossible.

Such a beast has to leave evidence, and lots of it. It is a strong has to; as strong as any prediction in physics. A ball travelling a parabola cannot discontinue at any point. Such a ball, flickering in and out of spacetime would be declared impossible. Such a strobing Bigfoot must also be declared impossible.

Now, you say, even the flickering ball may be possible. We always come to this place in every subject: how nothing is known certain. It must be conceded, I fear. This vanishing sliver granted of professional doubt is seized upon as cool water to those thirsty for mystery.

I don't know how to illustrate the proportion of that sliver to what is likely. It involves zooming-in to the zero axis of a graph over and over again, chasing an asymptote to infinity.

To say "I reject the hypothesis" is somehow not enough. The other side will push for yes or no: is such-and-such possible? There must be a practical no.

That there is a possible yes is all that gets attention. The scale difference between the vast landscape of the actual and the piddling possible is ignored.

How can we make it plain?

And, verily, I join you in denying Bigfoot thrice!

 

[Resume]

That there is a possible yes is all that gets attention. The scale difference between the vast landscape of the actual and the piddling possible is ignored.

So you're telling me there's a chance?

 

[Garrette]

This is because proponents engage in pseudoscience, the cargo-cult science Feynman warned about. It looks good and sounds good among enthusiasts, but like me, you can dress it up, but you can't take it out.

I think you are describing the actual footer believers, but this does not apply to the gamers. They don't even engage in pseudoscience; they merely give the impression of it. Standing in front of a fallen tree, having your picture taken with a tape measure extended across the trunk, these are not the activities even of pseudoscientists. They are the actions of players and manipulators who know they don't even need to fake the science; they only need to fake faking it.

 

[Resume]

I think you are describing the actual footer believers, but this does not apply to the gamers. They don't even engage in pseudoscience; they merely give the impression of it. Standing in front of a fallen tree, having your picture taken with a tape measure extended across the trunk, these are not the activities even of pseudoscientists. They are the actions of players and manipulators who know they don't even need to fake the science; they only need to fake faking it.

Ah, pseudopseudoscientists. I like that.

 

[rambaldi]

1) Appeal to Ignorance
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.

There is no proof that OS has comitted a banworthy offense, but it doesn't mean he has not.

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.

So, just claiming that OS has comitted a banworthy offense makes it a default position and OS has to proof otherwise.

Sometimes I really wish the Believers would have to live in a world that works according to their beliefs...

 

[Donn]

So you're telling me there's a chance?

Cruel.

 

[Garrette]

Ah, pseudopseudoscientists. I like that.

I know you're not picking an argument, yet I feel it worth clarifying.

Melba Ketchum does pseudoscience in regard to Bigfoot. As hollow, unsupported, and laughable her claims have been, they do represent some effort to cloak her activities in scientific credibility. The NAWACkers, on the other hand, don't do even that. They go camping, take pictures, and write stories.

So, yeah. Pseudopseudoscience.

 

[Resume]

I know you're not picking an argument, yet I feel it worth clarifying.

Melba Ketchum does pseudoscience in regard to Bigfoot. As hollow, unsupported, and laughable her claims have been, they do represent some effort to cloak her activities in scientific credibility. The NAWACkers, on the other hand, don't do even that. They go camping, take pictures, and write stories.

So, yeah. Pseudopseudoscience.

Yeah, as an early adopter of the BLAARGing hypothesis, I agree with you. I feel the hypothesis needs some fleshing out though.

 

[Garrette]

Yeah, as an early adopter of the BLAARGing hypothesis, I agree with you. I feel the hypothesis needs some fleshing out though.

Oh, sure, play the "I've been here longer than you" card...


(That's a joke, btw).


I adopted the BLAARG hypothesis early on, too, but that's the easy first step. ABP's motivations/tactics analyses have been the enlightening bit.

 

[Dinwar]

Logically, this isn't true. Lack of evidence is NOT evidence of lack.

Wrong. I'm a paleontologist, not a biologist, and "there's no physical evidence of X in time Y" is routinely used to justify saying "X doesn't exist in time Y". There have been numerous debates about this in paleontology, and the general rule of thumb is that once sampling has crossed a certain threshold this line of reasoning is acceptable. Terrestrial Quaternary vertebrates of the Pacific Northwest crosed that threshold a long time ago.

As others have pointed out, we say "There are no non-avian dinosaurs after the K/Pg boundary." We don't equvocate, we don't hem and haw, we don't hide behind symantics--we say "There are none".

The logic is simple: If there were, they would leave evidence. If we find no remains, no traces, NOTHING to indicate they existed, we can confidently state that they did not exist duriing that time period. The fossil record may be sparse, but it's a lot better than people unfamiliar with it believe; see Peter Ward's work on ammonite biostratigraphy across the K/Pg boundary, for example.

In reality we use this logic all the time. We don't say "There's no evidence that the car isn't in the garage" when we go into the garage and see no car--we say "The car isn't in the garage". The absence of sensory data indicating there IS a car there is evidence supporting the notion--and absent some of hte more advanced military transport systems is proof for it--that the garage lacks a car.

We have been looking for cryptids on the North American continent for over a hundred years. Lewis and Clark were part of it. Thomas Jefferson was part of it (it's weird citing him in a scientific context, but kind of fun). We have systematically examined the continent for such organisms for generations, and have utterly failed to find ANY evidence of them. At a certain point even the most pedantic fool has to admit that the difference between "They are not in evidence" and "They don't exist" is irrelevant.

IN GENERAL lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack, sure. But a lack of evidence that is necessary due to the hypothesis, despite repeated systematic analysis, is evidence for that hypothesis being wrong. If the hypothesis is "bigfoot exists", that means that the lack of bigfoot remains counts as evidence against bigfoot's existence.

Remember: I don't think the concept of bigfoot is unreasonable. We've found organisms that could fit the bill, in an area where they could have migrated into North America. It's not up to me to fill in the temporal and geographic gaps, though, and it's incumbant upon me to refuse to evaluate the evidence, which is in fact what you are asking me to do.

Don't like it? Not my problem. When you take your own ideas seriously, I'll care. And by that I mean, when you prove you've started donating to searches for modern dinosaurs. After all, the only reason we say they're no longer around is because we haven't found any yet.

The search for Bigfoot is contemporary biology (as claimed), I'd not invoke paleontology. I agree that far back in time, and into the rocks, one is getting fragments and the network of ancient creatures is harder to arrange. Dinwar is the one to ask about that.

First, the fossil record isn't NEARLY as bad as people claim. Most people get their impressions from museum displays, or plastic toy sets. If you ever saw a museum's back room, you'd be amazed.

We know that organisms of the size and robustness of bigfoot are routinely preserved (or at least parts are) in the fossil record of the areas where bigfoot allegedly lives. We know the environments most likely to preserve them. We have techniques for finding individual teeth and scraps of bone that retain identifiable characters on a scale that would blow most people's minds--I've done multiple analyses for rodent teeth, for example. And let's not forget, ape bones raise all KINDS of alarm bells. Paleontologists are not, in most cases, allowed to make the final call if there's any doubt about it being human (and hominin is close enough to trigger this)--the county corroner is typically the one who has to make this determination. And many of us are cross-trained with archaeologists, so we have more than a passing familiarity with the differences between human and other animal bones. All put together, we have a remarkably complete understanding of the Pleistocene/Holocene of North America, particularly on the west coast.

Could it have slipped by us? Sure. I'm willing to admit that. But you miss the second part of my point: In saying "Bigfoot doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence of it existing" I am making a VERY specific argument, relying on VERY specific data. Anyone with a copy of "Quaternary Nonglacial Geoloy: Conterminous U.S." (R. B. Morrison, ed.) can easily point to a dozen or more sites that I've just said lack bigfoot fossils. And what THAT means is that anyone who is serious about bigfoot's existence now has very specific sites to examine for evidence. By waffling around and hiding behind an overly-pedantic understanding of statistics we add nothing to the conversation. By declaring firmly that bigfoot does not exist and giving specific reasons for this conclusion I have painted a big giant target on myself, handed bigfoot believers a shotgun, and said "Take your best shot."