barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
That's better.
Last edited:
Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies
- Thread starter OntarioSquatch
- Start date
That's better.
Donn
Philosopher
Better than all my rambling put together.
Always a pleasure and an education, Dinwar. Thanks.
What OS, and the other 'footers, forget to mention when they chastise skeptics is that bigfoot is supposedly 9' tall and 6' wide. In that regard the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
They like to use newly discovered insects and small mammals as examples that bigfoot could be real, but no. There is no way there is such a huge animal in the forests, swamps, or grasslands, of North America.
They like to use newly discovered insects and small mammals as examples that bigfoot could be real, but no. There is no way there is such a huge animal in the forests, swamps, or grasslands, of North America.
Maybe the more examples the better the chance of OntarioSquatch getting the idea. Here is one more:
How do we know that it is not raining in my location? Well, if a (if it were raining outside) then b (there would be clouds, water on the exposed ground, and I would feel and see rain when I went outside). There is no b (no clouds, no water on the exposed ground, no sense or sight of rain). So there is no a (no rain right now).
We do this type of logic all the time, and it is by no means a logical fallacy as you indicate. If we accept the first prediction (if a then b) and there is no b then there must be no a.
But let me help you out. You can argue that the "if a then b" prediction is itself incorrect (if there is a Bigfoot (a) then it may not leave a body (b) because perhaps it warps into a different dimension when it dies). Or you can argue that the "if a then b" is correct, but that we don't have enough observations to judge the b result (if there is a Bigfoot then it will leave a body when it dies, but we haven't looked enough places yet to be certain that there are no Bigfoot bodies).
The latter is why most people are unwilling to state that the absence of an observation of a novel fish species at the bottom of the ocean, or an insect in some isolated jungle somewhere, proves that such a species doesn't exist. Our ability to detect these such creatures is limited, so we can't easily rule out their existence; in fact from time to time a new one is documented. But a giant hominid in North America? Not so easy to explain why we haven't clearly pictured it, gotten poop samples, dead bodies, etc. Same as rain- if enough of the expected consequences of rain are not observed under conditions when they should be (i.e. not indoors, not under overhangs), then it is very likely not raining.
How do we know that it is not raining in my location? Well, if a (if it were raining outside) then b (there would be clouds, water on the exposed ground, and I would feel and see rain when I went outside). There is no b (no clouds, no water on the exposed ground, no sense or sight of rain). So there is no a (no rain right now).
We do this type of logic all the time, and it is by no means a logical fallacy as you indicate. If we accept the first prediction (if a then b) and there is no b then there must be no a.
But let me help you out. You can argue that the "if a then b" prediction is itself incorrect (if there is a Bigfoot (a) then it may not leave a body (b) because perhaps it warps into a different dimension when it dies). Or you can argue that the "if a then b" is correct, but that we don't have enough observations to judge the b result (if there is a Bigfoot then it will leave a body when it dies, but we haven't looked enough places yet to be certain that there are no Bigfoot bodies).
The latter is why most people are unwilling to state that the absence of an observation of a novel fish species at the bottom of the ocean, or an insect in some isolated jungle somewhere, proves that such a species doesn't exist. Our ability to detect these such creatures is limited, so we can't easily rule out their existence; in fact from time to time a new one is documented. But a giant hominid in North America? Not so easy to explain why we haven't clearly pictured it, gotten poop samples, dead bodies, etc. Same as rain- if enough of the expected consequences of rain are not observed under conditions when they should be (i.e. not indoors, not under overhangs), then it is very likely not raining.
Last edited:
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
Well, "subtle" is how I described the distinction between "rejecting Bigfoot" and "there is no Bigfoot."
The bad news is that "I reject theory theory X" is binary state (either reject or fail to reject), and the data underlying that decision is not.
I reject the theory of Bigfoot. I reject the theory that there are still Ivory-Billed Woodpeckers in the wild. However, there's a key difference:
If a reputable wildlife expert said he had a sighting of an ivory-billed woodpecker, I'd be very intrigued. If a reputable wildlife expert said he saw Bigfoot, he would cease to be reputable in my mind.
That's dogma, pretty much by definition--you have defined a conclusion as "correct", and base your evaluation of the data on that.
Start with a preferred conclusion, sure--but then examine the data. If a reputable biologist told me they had evidence for bigfoot, my first reaction would be "Where's your data?" If the "data" is "I saw this thing that sort of looked like bigfoot", yeah, I'd lose respect for them; I know the way they are trained and they are supposed to know better. If, however, they were able to actually provide some substantive evidence--a footprint cast, some hair, a bone, a tooth, whatever--I would have to examine the evidence. I've seen just how werid footprints can be; a colleague of mine found a sea cow footprint where the critter had twisted as it stepped, and it took us months to figure out it! Hair is equally problematic, and most biologists aren't osteologists. So they could be mistaken but not dishonest or incompetant. I wouldn't know an ivory-billed woodpecker from Woody the Woodpecker, but that doesn't affect my competance at paleoecology.
Skepticism is supposed to be about the process, not the results.
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
That's a fair cop. I find it very hard to take bigfoot evidence seriously, and a better person than I would be objective enough to take the time to investigate it.
I just can't get past the whole "So, two million people visit this park every year, and you're the first to see one?" thing.
Yes, seriously. Footprint casts are not uncommon in biology.
Where you err is in assuming that I accept the legitimacy of the footprint casts that bigfoot believers present. They're rubish, pure and simple. They look nothing like real footprints. I can point to specific failures on the part of the hoaxers to replicate actual footprints--for example, in real footprints the depth of the print relates to the gate o the organism. When you walk, you put weight on your heel first, then role it to certain parts of your foot, trailing with the ball of hte foot and toes as you lift your foot. This leaves distinctive variations in depth in the footprint that allow researchers to figure out how the animal moved while making that print--it's how, for example, we can use ichnofossils to determine therapod gaits while running down prey (the fact that in at least one instance the critter skipped is still considered weird). In contrast, the footprint casts that I've seen for bigfoot could only be made by applying something roughly human-foot-shaped (with some pretty egregious errors) straight down into the soil, a style of walking that no organism engages in as far as I'm aware. There are other issues as well, but that serves to illustrate my point.
Just because I'm willing to accept a certain kind of evidence IN NO WAY indicates that I'm willing to accept all cases where someone attempts to present something as that kind of evidence. I have a brain, I have some training in ichnofossils (not extensive, but enough), and I am both capable of and willing to evaluate such data as is presented. If the data presents obvious signs of fraud, OF COURSE I will dismiss it.
Scientists in my company have a habit of collecting momentos on our desks. I have my bones and dried frog; geologists have rocks and drill bits; archaeologists have (legally obtained) artifacts and attempts at knapping. I once had occasion to chat with a biologist about something, and saw some footprint casts on her desk. They were obviously canid, medium size. I asked her about them, and she said another biologist had made a few casts of the prints outside a field trailer, as evidence for coyote presence in the area (something of a concern at that jobsite). The regulatory agencies accepted that evidence. It's proof that the coyotes were there--biologists better versed than me in track recognition were able to positively identify the tracks. THAT is the kind of data I would accept, and why I would accept it. Obvious fackery? Not so much.
If you say THAT in response, it's not dogma--it's exactly the kind of evidence I was defending against Emily's Cat a few posts ago.
The issue is whether you attack the reasoning, or the conclusion. In the above quote, you're attacking the reasoning by presenting a very substantial issue that the other party has to explain.
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
Not to put words in Dinwar's mouth, but I really don't think that was his point. I did specify "reputable expert" which is, I think, someone who may be honestly mistaken but would not be a fraud or incompetent.
Donn
Philosopher
Reasoning not conclusion. Noted. This is a humbling place.
First, "tenured professor" tells me nothing about his capacity to make or evaluate casts.
Second, "tenured professor" tells me nothing about the casts themselves--and data about the casts is the critical point here.
Third, I've already answered that question, including specific features of bigfoot casts that cause me to dismiss them.
Are you actually going to read my post? If not, I won't bother responding to you anymore.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Aren't processes supposed to reach conclusions?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I don't see how this is a response to my question.Beyond that, the first statement in each set is fallacious, the second is not. Here's why.
First, let's set aside the emotionally-laden content of bigfoot. Let's talk about purple widgets.
Proposition the First: It is impossible to prove that a thing does NOT exist.
Proposition the Second: It is possible to prove that a thing DOES exist.
Let's use notation here:
If (proof is supplied) Then (item exists)
This is in the form of If A then B.
There are some firm and true relationships here:
If A then B leads to If ~B then ~A
What about If ~A? Then it could be B or ~B
Let's take a real example:
If (it rains) Then (the ground is wet)
If (the ground is not wet) Then (it has not rained)
Do you see how the second can be concluded from the first statement?
Now, think about this:
If (it has not rained)... What can you conclude about the ground?
You can't really conclude anything. The ground could be dry, or it could be wet. It could be that someone turned on the sprinklers, or maybe there was a tidal wave. You can't know. Knowing that it hasn't rained doesn't tell you anything about the state of the ground with respect to dampness.
Now, back to the initial statement:
If (proof is supplied) Then (item exists)
If (item does not exist) then (no proof has been supplied)
And the final bit:
If (no proof is supplied) then ????? There is no evidence of the existence or nonexistence of the thing in question.
With respect to bigfoot... no reliable evidence has been supplied. Therefore, we cannot conclude that bigfoot exists.
Now, we can't conclude that bigfoot does not exist either. It's possible.
At that point, it's not an application of formal logic, but an application of deductive reasoning.
If bigfoot were to exist, then we *should* be able to find some evidence. Evidence should exist. If evidence has not been found, then bigfoot needs to:
1) Be magical and be able to erase all traces of himself at will
2) Be extraordinarily intelligent and able to hide his passage and existence thoroughly
3) Not exist.
Given what we understand of our world, items 1 and 2 are very, very, very improbably. Not 100% impossible perhaps... but about as likely as my sister spontaneously splitting into herself and a perfectly replicated doppelganger. Pretty near 0.
That leaves item 3 as the most likely probability by a significant margin.
Therefore, it is reasonable to accept item 3 as true until additional information surfaces that would lead to a different conclusion.
Last edited:
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,377
That's hilarious, since you are delivering the most pompous belittling posts on the thread.
Imitation is a kind of artless Flattery.
Eustace Budgell, October 1714
No need. I've quoted the posts, and they were gleaned form just the first page.
There is no argument on this - you've had your chance to present evidence of all the abuse from bigfoot supporters and I see none. Despite provocation in many cases.
Evidence trumps BS every single time, sorry.
Your repertoire could do with some work.
Very good point!
Most people require a major trip to get to a stage of actually hunting for the beast. It's not something most people can do all that frequently.
I thought that was a given - I have yet to hear of them roaming like bears through suburbs.
Funnily enough, my bigfoot-hunting mate lives in Alaska as well.
That's highly relevant.
This is a very good point.
They don't claim there's a lot of evidence.
You really should read what I say rather than just going with what you think I said.
I didn't say hoaxers were looking for bigfoot - they are creating fake tracks in the hope that some hunter will find them.
That is the height os pathetic behaviour.
More than happy to provide the evidence, but not here. I got pinged the other day for being off-topic and that subject sure as hell is
Start a thread and I will absolutely join in.
Reading trouble again?
I have said on several occasions that rebutting arguments made by claimants is good.
You are however, doing very well at creating strawmen in a thread about logical fallacies, so 10/10 there.
Read the name of the thread.
It started off about logical fallacies. I didn't raise bigfoot.
A magnificent tu quoque.
I'm also still waiting for the examples of abusive bigfoot supporters.
Nice.
You don't need to be either listening, reading or responding to me if you don't like what I'm saying, but as always, I'm just calling it how it is, not how I think it is.
You have no need to modify your behaviour because I treat it with derision, as you say, I don't own the place.
What interests me is how hot under the collar some people get about it. I have no investment in the subject whatsoever. As I've pointed out, I don't attend bigfoot threads, because I don;t give a toss and because I think there are much more important targets than a few intellectually malformed people who think a great beastie lives in the woods.
I repeat - the thread is about logical fallacies.
Oh, you clearly knew that since you're making so many of them!
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I understand what you're say, Dinwar. I don't even disagree with this approach as a valid methodology. But it isn't logic; it's deductive reasoning. It's shorthanding "The probability of non-avian dinosaurs existing after the K/Pg boundary is vanishingly small, therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that there are none"
And that's a perfectly valid thing to do. It is pragmatic and sensible, and has enormous utility.
And yet... "Lack of evidence" does not incontrovertibly equate to "evidence of lack".
Lack of evidence given sufficient rigor and research is sufficient to deduce lack. But lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
ETA: I have no idea what the K/Pg boundary is...
