Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies

[Drewbot]

It's sickening to see the footers repeat versions of this list of fallacies.

They claim to be scientific in their search, but claim constantly, that we have to provide evidence that there IS NO BIGFOOT.

What the heck kind of backwards use of a Null hypothesis is this?

 

[Resume]

It's sickening to see the footers repeat versions of this list of fallacies.

They claim to be scientific in their search, but claim constantly, that we have to provide evidence that there IS NO BIGFOOT.

What the heck kind of backwards use of a Null hypothesis is this?

The Half-Assed, Half-Baked, Upside-Down, Backwards Bigfoot Null Hypothesis.

 

[John Nowak]

We need to prove there isn't an 8-foot tall ape wandering North America?

There is something pathetic about it all, isn't there?

 

[Donn]

King Kong, however, is real.

 

[John Nowak]

King Kong, however, is real.

Alaska Bush Pilot observed, and I agree, that most footer tales sound more like horror films than bone fide descriptions of people encountering a wild animal, let alone a wild animal they are specifically hunting. So I think there's something to that.

 

[Spindrift]

King Kong, however, is real.

All you have are some movies. I want real proof.

 

[John Nowak]

All you have are some movies. I want real proof.

IIRC, King Kong is one of the artifacts associated with New York City in the educational game Mario is Missing.

Now you need to prove that King Kong isn't real.

 

[Donn]

Alaska Bush Pilot observed, and I agree, that most footer tales sound more like horror films than bone fide descriptions of people encountering a wild animal, let alone a wild animal they are specifically hunting. So I think there's something to that.

An interesting link to whatever chemistry creates that thrill that horror movies invoke.

Here's a question: could Footery be addictive? Not for the few Big Game Punters, but for the minions — some kind of low-level constant movie-like extra reality overlaid on the mundane world.

I think the Bug Punters are addicted to manipulation and its pathologies.

 

[Donn]

All you have are some movies. I want real proof.

See the latest, with frikken dinosaurs. Yeah; no smart come backs? I thought so.

 

[dmaker]

An interesting link to whatever chemistry creates that thrill that horror movies invoke.

Here's a question: could Footery be addictive? Not for the few Big Game Punters, but for the minions — some kind of low-level constant movie-like extra reality overlaid on the mundane world.

I think the Bug Punters are addicted to manipulation and its pathologies.

I think the spooky aspect of bigfoot is what keeps many of the casual enthusiasts interested. One often quoted source of bigfoot interest is watching The Legend of Boggy Creek as a child. I have seen quite a few enthusiasts fondly recall have the bejeebus scared out of them as a child while watching that film. I can attest to same.

Some, I suppose, want that double hit of nostalgia and pseudo-fear that bigfoot provides. This aligns well with the BLAARG theory as well. Once you openly admit that it it's all just a game, the fear aspect is immediately washed away.

 

[John Nowak]

One often quoted source of bigfoot interest is watching The Legend of Boggy Creek as a child.

MST3K fodder though it is, I have to say that Legend of Boggy Creek delivered more than many, many far more expensive films. I have to wonder if Alien's motion tracker was inspired by the computerized sensor we see in Boggy Creek. I imagine myself as a small child with a big bowl of popcorn seeing it in a dark theater and I can sympathize with people who made that a memory.

 

[Dinwar]

It's sickening to see the footers repeat versions of this list of fallacies.

They claim to be scientific in their search, but claim constantly, that we have to provide evidence that there IS NO BIGFOOT.

What the heck kind of backwards use of a Null hypothesis is this?

This is why I keep bringing up the ICZN. To be scientific in this case means following the rules of biology. In this case, there are FORMAL rules for this sort of thing. For a name to be applied to a species there must be (or have been) a type specimen, with a few exceptions that bigfoot simply doesn't fit. Without that, you CANNOT say that you have a novel species.

Fallacies are irrelevant. They want to make what is fundamentally a taxonomical argument, so they need to follow the rules.

 

[Donn]

They do like their taxing arguments.

 

[John Nowak]

I think the spooky aspect of bigfoot is what keeps many of the casual enthusiasts interested.

I think there's a lot to that. They do seem to keep going on about how awesome and powerful Bigfoot is, all while racking up a confirmed kill rate well below electric fans.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm in California- (I gather you are in Pacific Northwest too) if there is still no rain in the Fall we will begin to kill and distill people for their bodily fluids.

Not a bad idea. I might need to start a petition for this. This is the first time in the decade I've lived here that everyone's lawns are brown.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You want to play semantic games, have at it. The fact of the matter is that this is sufficient justification for us to declare organisms that we know existed to not exist--so it's perfectly justifiable to use this line of reasoning (or logic or whatever you want to call it) to declare bigfoot to not exist.

Repetition doesn't make something true. I have given examples, and others have given others. Please point out where YOU would disagree with, say, my car example. When YOU walk into a garage and see no car, feel no car, and in fact have no evidence that there is a car, is there any doubt in YOUR mind that there is no car? If not, we can dismiss the rest of this argument, because you don't believe it either.

Evidence=data supporting a conclusion. The absence of bigfoot remains counts as data. It supports the conclusion that there is no bigfoot. Ergo, absence of bigfoot remains is evidence of no bigfoot. QED.

Why in the name of all the gods in Hell would I care what HIS credentials are? I'm not studying HIM; I'm looking at the casts. HE is irrelevant for the most part.

Dinwar, I've tried to be clear, but I think I'm failing

In your specific line of work, in this specific context, it is sufficient to deduce a lack of existence based on a lack of evidence.

Outside of specific contexts, however, it is NOT sufficient. It is not universally true. You cannot say "lack of evidence is evidence of lack" as a generality.

We lack evidence to support the hypothesis of dark energy. That does not imply that it does not exist. Until recently, we lacked evidence for the Higgs Boson - that did NOT mean that we had evidence that it didn't exist.

Outside of your field's use, lack of evidence cannot be used in the way you're using. It makes sense to deduce a lack of existence in your field. It does not make sense to do so in other contexts. Logic is universal, it is not context-dependent. Deductive reasoning is not universal, and is context dependent.

This thread is about logical fallacies. In order to discuss logical fallacies, we need to begin with formal logic.

 

[Dinwar]

In your specific line of work, in this specific context, it is sufficient to deduce a lack of existence based on a lack of evidence.

Because.......? Paleontologists did not wake up one day and as a whole say "Starting now, absence of evidence will be considered evidence for absence!" For one thing, getting us all to agree on something is so near to impossible as to be indistinguishable from it; if God came down and said "The sky is blue" we'd break out the Munsells and debate WHICH blue, and whether it was in fact pale green!

The reasons we all (generally) accept absence of evidence as evidence for absence are the same as allows me to say the lack of bigfoot fossils/remains is evidence for the non-existence of bigfoot. They are also the reasons you can say there is no elephant sitting on your lap right now. They are also the reasons police can say someone did not commit a crime. This is not limited to my field of study; it's a fundamental aspect of evidence-based reasoning.

We lack evidence to support the hypothesis of dark energy. That does not imply that it does not exist. Until recently, we lacked evidence for the Higgs Boson - that did NOT mean that we had evidence that it didn't exist.

Both assertions are false. We lacked FIRM evidence, but the fact that we have names for these demonstrates that we have at least some evidence for them. Scientists didn't make up dark energy out of thin air! See the book Black Holes and Time Warps for a detailed discussion.

This thread is about logical fallacies. In order to discuss logical fallacies, we need to begin with formal logic.

I will continue to state that a lack of evidence IS evidence of a lack. It is data that supports a conclusion. It's not GOOD evidence the majority of the time, but it certainly does support the conclusion. One possible explanation for the lack of evidence is always that the thing does not exist, after all. The fallacy comes from attempting to use it, in the improper context, as PROOF OF a lack.

Secondly, since you are so hot on context, you really need to consider the context of this thread. The specific argument presented is within the field you yourself admitted allows for this type of argument. Therefore, to call it a fallacy is incorrect by YOUR logic. It may be a fallacy in some other discussion, but that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Because.......? Paleontologists did not wake up one day and as a whole say "Starting now, absence of evidence will be considered evidence for absence!" For one thing, getting us all to agree on something is so near to impossible as to be indistinguishable from it; if God came down and said "The sky is blue" we'd break out the Munsells and debate WHICH blue, and whether it was in fact pale green!
<snip for focus>

I would buy a ticket to that conference, SO MUCH...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Secondly, since you are so hot on context, you really need to consider the context of this thread. The specific argument presented is within the field you yourself admitted allows for this type of argument. Therefore, to call it a fallacy is incorrect by YOUR logic. It may be a fallacy in some other discussion, but that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You seem very argumentative, where I'm not really trying to argue with you.

I disagree with you stating it as a generality. It is not universally true.

I have no disagreement with you using it in specificity. In this context it is probably true.

Also...

Both assertions are false. We lacked FIRM evidence, but the fact that we have names for these demonstrates that we have at least some evidence for them. Scientists didn't make up dark energy out of thin air! See the book Black Holes and Time Warps for a detailed discussion.

Hypotheses and mathematical models do NOT constitute evidence. Otherwise you're in the position of saying we had evidence for an earth-centered solar system, it just wasn't "firm" proof.

 

[Dinwar]

I would buy a ticket to that conference, SO MUCH...

As I've heard it, Friends of the Echinoderm had to stop advertising their meetings at GSA for a while (they may still be banned, been a while since I've gone) because the police got tired of breaking up the riots. Plus, we're the only scientific field I know of where explosives have been banned because paramilitary tactics and scientific exploration don't go together....