|
|
|
Bradley
Skeptic Friend
USA
147 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2002 : 10:16:00 [Permalink]
|
There are many animal organisms that were unknown or only known by heresay in western countries before the twentieth century, some of them large mammals, like the okapi and the mountain gorilla. The golden hamster, now a widely used experimental animal and popular pet (I have owned several), was only discovered in 1930 by students doing field study in the University of Aleppo in Syria. They're certainly cute and cuddly, but don't lend themselves to the type of sensationalism elicited by reports of Nessie, Bigfoot, or Mothman sightings.
"Too much doubt is better than too much credulity."
-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833 - 1899) |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 10:43:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Evidence to support my claim?! I'm not the one who has to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist.
That is a common error among self-proclaimed skeptics, especially those with little or no scientific training.
Puhleease...
You plainly said:
quote:
The problem is these creatures have been found
in direct reference to Bigfoot, the Yeti, and the Loch Ness Monster.
quote:
You do not simply question the veracity of the data or whether the conclusion follows logically from the evidence; you are also stating that such creatures cannot exist.
Where?! I said:
quote:
It is, at this time, unreasonable to conclude that Bigfoot, the Yeti, or the Loch Ness Monster exists.
Nowhere have I ever said that it is impossible. Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no.
Show us the evidence, show us the creatures. Your condescending little lecture has nothing to do with anything I've said.
If these creatures have been found, yet mainstream science denies this, what other conclusion should I reach other than that you think there is some conspiracy to supress the "truth"?
Where are the bones? Where are the tracks that have not been found to be fraudulent or explainable by other means (bears, etc.)? Where are the videos that haven't been found to be guys running around the woods in gorilla suits? Or the pictures that haven't been determined to be floating logs?
Let me try it another way:
Show me some evidence that should make me think it is reasonable to think that apemen and dinosaurs are still roaming the earth in relatively populated areas, but we don't have any "dead carcass[es]/live specimen[s]".
(Is "dead carcass" redundant? Just curious...)
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye...
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 07/29/2002 10:43:59 |
|
|
|
Bradley
Skeptic Friend
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 10:48:13 [Permalink]
|
With all the trigger-happy redneck loonies out Bigfoot hunting, we would by this time have a carcass for study, did Bigfoot truly exist.
"Too much doubt is better than too much credulity."
-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833 - 1899) |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 11:04:47 [Permalink]
|
As you say, it is unreasonable to believe these creatures exist.
If something is unreasonable it is by definition against reason.
If it is against reason it is not possible.
If it is not possible then by definition it is impossible.
Ergo, to say it is unreasonable to believe something is to say that it is impossible.
As for my "lecture" it was to instruct you on basic procedure for a scientific debate. Data has already been submitted in support of these creatures; the fact that you dismiss it out of hand indicates that you have seen it.
Therefore it is now your turn to present data showing why these creatures are impossible (or to use your term unreasonable).
It is a false dichotomy (another logical fallacy) to claim that my only alternative to the idea that there is no evidence is to claim that there is a conspiracy to conceal it. There are several other possible alternatives; one of them I already mentioned, being that most mainstream scientists simply go along with the concensus of pundits like you. Those who decide to examine the evidence themselves invariably come away with the impression that it is compelling. They then often start doing their own research on these creatures.
The examples of data you ask for already exist and you have obviously seen them; you simply choose to dismiss them because you do not understand what you are seeing and you have no desire to challenge your preconceptions by investigating them thoroughly. So you dismiss them with a sweeping generalization (another logical fallacy).
As I said, either present your evidence that these creatures are unreasonable (ie, impossible) or stop making groundless bald assertions.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 11:26:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As you say, it is unreasonable to believe these creatures exist.
If something is unreasonable it is by definition against reason.
If it is against reason it is not possible.
If it is not possible then by definition it is impossible.
Ergo, to say it is unreasonable to believe something is to say that it is impossible.
You can't be serious...
quote:
As for my "lecture" it was to instruct you on basic procedure for a scientific debate.
Sorry, but I'm not the one having a problem keeping on track here.
quote:
Data has already been submitted in support of these creatures; the fact that you dismiss it out of hand indicates that you have seen it.
Hmm, I'm sensing some stalling/evading going on...
Where is this data? All I've seen are proven phoney tracks and proven fake video, and cultists who think we are living alongside extra-dimensional/extra-terrestrial beings.
quote:
Therefore it is now your turn to present data showing why these creatures are impossible (or to use your term unreasonable).
I can't really say any more without repeating myself. I'm quite satisfied that my view is the more correct between us.
quote:
It is a false dichotomy (another logical fallacy) to claim that my only alternative to the idea that there is no evidence is to claim that there is a conspiracy to conceal it.
You said "these creatures have been found". So rather than admit this, scientists would rather lazily go along uncritically with "pundits" like me? (I'm a pundit, now? cool, I think...)
quote:
Those who decide to examine the evidence themselves invariably come away with the impression that it is compelling. They then often start doing their own research on these creatures.
Please, for the love of Bacchus, share this compelling evidence already!
quote:
The examples of data you ask for already exist
Where?!
quote:
and you have obviously seen them;
Obviously not!
quote:
you simply choose to dismiss them because you do not understand what you are seeing and you have no desire to challenge your preconceptions by investigating them thoroughly.
Your ad homs are getting old. I'm asking for you to point out this "compelling evidence". If I had no desire, I wouldn't ask.
quote:
So you dismiss them with a sweeping generalization (another logical fallacy).
Your application of logical fallacies is very spotty, to say the least.
quote:
As I said, either present your evidence that these creatures are unreasonable (ie, impossible) or stop making groundless bald assertions.
No, unreasonable != impossible! You are equivocating.
And bald is beautiful.
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye...
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 07/29/2002 11:34:35 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 12:24:37 [Permalink]
|
Therefore it is now your turn to present data showing why these creatures are impossible (or to use your term unreasonable).
In a sense all of we Zoologists are Crypto-zoologists. We all have our eyes peeled for something new.
Just this year a "new" species of whale was discovered. Anybody lucky enough to get time on a deep sea submersible can be almost guaranteed of getting their name on something.
My favorite new critter is the naked mole rat which, if memory serves, were discovered in the '70's and are now in most big zoos.
But the fact that there are still (I suppose) more animals to be discovered doesn't mean that all claims are true. Some are nothing more than simple bullshit. Local folklore invariably have monsters in them; these are purely the products of imagination. If there's a body of water there is sure to be a big nasty lurking at the bottom. In the River Seine at Paris they had the Gargle (later called the gargoyle) in the Congo River is the Mokele-Mbembe. Dark woods have ape-like monsters Trolls in Scandinavia Big Foot in California.
We have searched for these things with fine toothed combs. We closely examined every last bit of evidence.
These folklore monsters only exist in folklore. As much as you would like to believe in them there is no supporting evidence. They aren't real, there are no boogymen under your bed.
most mainstream scientists simply go along with the concensus of pundits like you.
Since I make my living as a mainstream scientist I would like to know how you came to this conclusion.
Those who decide to examine the evidence themselves invariably come away with the impression that it is compelling.
Bullshit. There is no actual evidence that even remotely suggests the existence of any of these critters.
They then often start doing their own research on these creatures. Yes, they have all been exhaustively researched. That's how we can confidently say that they aren't real.
you simply choose to dismiss them because you do not understand what you are seeing and you have no desire to challenge your preconceptions by investigating them thoroughly That's funny, that's exactly what I was going to say about you.
So you dismiss them with a sweeping generalization Strawman.
As I said, either present your evidence that these creatures are unreasonable (ie, impossible) or stop making groundless bald assertions.
I must say that you are consistent in your philosophy that if you imagine something, be it god or monster, and you enjoy your imaginings, then you insist that your fantasies are fact. You don't seem to have the vaguest concept that reality is independent of your wishes.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 12:44:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hmm, I'm sensing some stalling/evading going on...
That's rather amusing, considering that it is you who is doing the evading.
quote:
Where is this data?
It's reproduced in just about any book on these creatures, as well as in the journals of the cryptoZ societies. You could easily look it up for yourself, if you weren't convinced it is all impossible.
quote:
All I've seen are proven phoney tracks and proven fake video, and cultists who think we are living alongside extra-dimensional/extra-terrestrial beings.
You see, that's the entire problem: you have already passed judgement on anything I could show you without having even seen it. I show you a photo or a film; you say its a man in a monkey suit or a floating log; I show you a cast of a footprint; you say its faked. I could never prove to your satisfaction that anything I showed you was not faked; you're certainly not going to take my word for it, eh? And I have seen nothing in your attitude that convinces me that you would act any differently.
So until I see some indication that you would treat any evidence I might present you on any subject with sober objectivity, I see no reason to waste my time any further.
But I will make a deal with you. You present your evidence for why these creatures are impossible and I give you my word I will present some evidence to show that these creatures may be real. It's up to you.
quote:
You said "these creatures have been found". So rather than admit this, scientists would rather lazily go along uncritically with "pundits" like me? (I'm a pundit, now? cool, I think...)
This freigned ignorance is starting to get on my nerves. It happens all the time, as you well know. All the time you see scientists using cold fusion and ESP as examples of "pseudoscience", saying that there is no evidence for them and the experiments cannot be reproduced and that only "true believers" doing bad science try to keep it alive, all of which is pure garbage. Why should cryptoZ be any different?
quote:
No, unreasonable != impossible! You are equivocating.
No, I am being brutally honest. I have debated so-called skeptics and so-called pseudos for twenty years now and I can recognize rhetorical tricks when I see them. You believe these creatures cannot exist, but you word it in a way that gives you deniability. Personally I think that is the worst form of falsehood that one can utter. Ordinarily I would refuse to debate with you any further as long as you are being so dishonest, but I have already given my word. You present your evidence for why these creatures are impossible and I will present evidence that supports their existence.
Otherwise you may have the last word on this subject. For once surprise me and make it intelligent rather than juvenile.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all!
Edited by - echthroi_man on 07/29/2002 12:48:08 |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 12:50:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just this year a "new" species of whale was discovered. Anybody lucky enough to get time on a deep sea submersible can be almost guaranteed of getting their name on something.
Again, the Ocean is the place to look for new, unusual and even legendary (i.e. giant squid) animals.
"Speaking without thinking like shooting without aiming." - Charlie Chan |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 12:57:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I must say that you are consistent in your philosophy that if you imagine something, be it god or monster, and you enjoy your imaginings, then you insist that your fantasies are fact. You don't seem to have the vaguest concept that reality is independent of your wishes.
Where, pray tell, did I ever say, "I believe these monsters exist." I have never said any such thing. I have maintained that I find the evidence for their existence compelling, even convincing, but that does not mean I "believe" in them. At best it would mean that on the basis of the evidence as it stands I accept their existence, but even that would be pushing it.
This is simply another rhetorical trick used by people who cannot argue rationally. By painting me a "true believer" you try to discredit me so that, hopefully, no one else will listen to the information I have to relate. It is exactly this attitude, which I see in other scientific vigilantes, that convinces me that mainstream scientists tend to go with the concensus rather than dig too deep for the truth.
Ironically, what you said about reality is true, though; fortunately it has no compulsion to mold itself your narrow-minded interpretation of science and nature.
By the way, since there is evidence supporting the existence of these creatures, I find your blanket dismissal of the evidence disengenuous in light of your comments concerning the opinions of mainstream scientists. You are, in fact, doing what I said mainstream scientists tended to do. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 12:59:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
With all the trigger-happy redneck loonies out Bigfoot hunting, we would by this time have a carcass for study, did Bigfoot truly exist.
There are cases of sasquatches turning into headhunters. One can imagine that a hunter encountering one them wound up as a trophy on some sasquatches' wall.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 13:05:44 [Permalink]
|
Otherwise you may have the last word on this subject. For once surprise me and make it intelligent rather than juvenile.
I've lost count, has anyone been keeping track?
Is that six times now, in the past year, that someone has claimed that a Skeptic was being childish for not being credulous?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 13:09:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are cases of sasquatches turning into headhunters.
You certainly seem well-informed on this. Care to share with us some references?
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 13:10:42 [Permalink]
|
Oh wait, my clairvoyance is kicking in and it says.....you can't!
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 13:27:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I could never prove to your satisfaction that anything I showed you was not faked;
You are wrong.
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye... |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 13:30:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Where, pray tell, did I ever say, "I believe these monsters exist." I have never said any such thing.
This is getting too silly to continue.
You said:
quote:
these creatures have been found
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye... |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
