That Damn Bigfoot Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2014, 03:11 PM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2014 10:55 AM by cjlr.)
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Nice try, but no.

You seem to be under the stunning misapprehension that only absolute certainty constitutes a positive claim. This is absurd. I dare say that you are the only person I have ever spoken to who has managed to come to such a misunderstanding. This is not how anyone in any logic book or course anywhere has ever defined things.

To claim something is possible is a positive claim. To claim something is likely is a positive claim. Period. Deal with it. The claim is regarding the possibility itself, and it is most assuredly a clear and definite assertion. A repeated claim of (say) 70% probability is a positive claim. It is not a claim of certain knowledge insofar as it is not a claim of absolute truth. This is indeed so. It is a claim of knowledge as to what the probabilities themselves are. It is puzzling that you do not appear to appreciate the distinction.

Or: "NO U HAV TO PROOF IT WRONG LOL" is not an argument. Come the fuck on.

Incidentally, it is simply not possible to conclusively demonstrate what a few credulous people might or might not have seen over Chicago. That evidence does not exist, nor will it ever. The specific claim is unfalsifiable, and you know it.
(that your best defense against witness fallibility - when presented with eyewitness testimony of far more incredible events and maintained by far more people, and when presented with extensive investigation into the manifest flaws of human memory - is to just plain ol' assert, "but, these guys weren't wrong, because reasons!" is just so much asinine special pleading)

The intellectually honest thing to do, absent reliable evidence and coherent theories, is to not even assign probabilities.

To insist that "possibilities" (with no substantiation beyond hopes and feels?) must then be entertained - because they cannot be "conclusively" dismissed! - is the exact opposite of skepticism.

A positive claim is not merely a claim of existence or non existence, but more so a statement of fact. A statement of fact differs from a stated opinion, not that an opinion cannot be understood as being a positive claim.

When I say that my position is at 70%, I am stating it based upon opinion. What I am not doing is making a statement of fact that absolutely demands the burden of proof, although a burden of proof is also a reasonable expectation to qualify an opinion.

That you are not professing absolute certainty is immaterial. Very few people ever do. You are saying that you can, with great certainty, assess a claim as not only possible but likely, and you are saying that you are doing so in light of considered reflection on available evidence.

We call that a positive claim, bro. "But I only have to prove absolute statements" is disingenuous whining.

(if you want to be so tediously semantic as to define proof as referring only to absolute statements, so be it, but we're left with all other statements of certainty requiring commensurate substantiation in any case)

(09-12-2014 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  When a position is stated as an opinion, then the intellectually responsible thing to do when responding to it is to acknowledge it as an opinion, rather than misrepresent the position as a statement of fact.

If we grant that absolute objective certainty is not a thing anyone is discussing, advocating, or claiming - because it is not a thing anyone is claiming - then one's degree of certainty is a difference of slight degree only; that's immaterial to the larger point of substantiating extraordinary claims.

(09-12-2014 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  It becomes glaringly obvious that- when an opinion is misrepresented as a statement of fact, and when the adversary is stating as fact something that was never even said in the first place- the adversary is intentionally misleading via intellectual dishonesty.

Misrepresentation is a two-way street, Free. Not that I particularly want to waste time on it. Do your accusations relate to me?

(09-12-2014 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  I can concede that you do have a point on a precise definition of "positive claim," and even take it a step further and opine that any statement we make- even a negative claim- is a positive claim.

That is the difference between saying "X does not exist" and saying "I see no reason to agree that X exists" - all the more so if it occurs in a conversation begun by someone else, who is saying "X does exist".
(you might recognise this as the line atheists are all too often forced to deal with where 'X' is 'God'; as it is there, such semantic obsession is really fucking tedious)

(09-12-2014 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  But there are distinct differences between claims stated as opinions and those which make claims of fact. There is a much higher level of burden of proof expected when a statement of fact is issued.

To say that something possesses a discrete, knowable probability is a statement of fact by any reasonable definition. This is the central matter I and others find it hard to credit you unaware of. The positive claim is necessarily implicit in the statement of probability.

It is not honest to entertain as definite possibility that which is utterly unknown. Not without a painfully large truckload of presuppositional special pleading.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
09-12-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
Jesus Christ ta' Hell people, this thread on Bigfoot is 22 goddamn pages long. As of 20 pages ago it's too long to read. What the crap?!

The guy who did the first film of Bigfoot grainy film admitted it was a hoax.

http://www.wnd.com/2004/03/23657/

This reminds me of the damn cropcircles in the UK. Two guys admitted to doing the first cropcircles but no one believes them. Facepalm







Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
09-12-2014, 03:53 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 03:30 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Jesus Christ ta' Hell people, this thread on Bigfoot is 22 goddamn pages long. As of 20 pages ago it's too long to read. What the crap?!

The guy who did the first film of Bigfoot grainy film admitted it was a hoax.

http://www.wnd.com/2004/03/23657/

This reminds me of the damn cropcircles in the UK. Two guys admitted to doing the first cropcircles but no one believes them. Facepalm






conspiracyDrinking Beverage lies and half truths designed to make us stop searching for the TRUTH

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes grizzlysnake's post
09-12-2014, 04:10 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 03:30 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Jesus Christ ta' Hell people, this thread on Bigfoot is 22 goddamn pages long. As of 20 pages ago it's too long to read. What the crap?!

It's secretly been about Free and his UFOs the whole time.

Drinking Beverage

(yeah - not so secretly, actually)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
09-12-2014, 04:53 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 03:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  A positive claim is not merely a claim of existence or non existence, but more so a statement of fact. A statement of fact differs from a stated opinion, not that an opinion cannot be understood as being a positive claim.

When I say that my position is at 70%, I am stating it based upon opinion. What I am not doing is making a statement of fact that absolutely demands the burden of proof, although a burden of proof is also a reasonable expectation to qualify an opinion.

That you are not professing absolute certainty is immaterial. Very few people ever do. You are saying that you can, with great certainty, assess a claim as not only possible but likely, and you are saying that you are doing so in light of considered reflection on available evidence.

Nonetheless, the point being there is indeed a distinction between expressing an opinion and a statement of fact. An opinion is a belief based upon several factors, whereas a statement of fact is a positive claim which expresses absolute truth.

Therefore, there can be no "absolute truth" expressed when a % is applied, whether it be 10%, 50%, 70%, or even 99%.

When I say a claim is "likely," or "more probable," it only means that the percentage indicator is above the 50% mark. Yes, it is a positive claim based upon an opinion regarding the available evidence, but it by no means should ever be interpreted as a statement of fact that cannot be falsified.

Quote:We call that a positive claim, bro. "But I only have to prove absolute statements" is disingenuous whining.

There have been no absolute statements proclaimed. The fact that I used percentages to gauge my position is evidence of that.

Quote:(if you want to be so tediously semantic as to define proof as referring only to absolute statements, so be it, but we're left with all other statements of certainty requiring commensurate substantiation in any case)

I have not defined it that way. All statements require evidence for substantiation. Every statement we utter, even one of a negative claim, is indeed a positive claim because we are professing either a belief/opinion or an absolute truth/statement of fact.

I clearly stated this in my post.

Quote:
(09-12-2014 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  When a position is stated as an opinion, then the intellectually responsible thing to do when responding to it is to acknowledge it as an opinion, rather than misrepresent the position as a statement of fact.

If we grant that absolute objective certainty is not a thing anyone is discussing, advocating, or claiming - because it is not a thing anyone is claiming - then one's degree of certainty is a difference of slight degree only; that's immaterial to the larger point of substantiating extraordinary claims.

Perhaps it's due to my experience, but I find nothing extraordinary about UFOs or the existence intelligent extraterrestrial life. The data on this subject- which includes verified government data- is so extensive as there to be absolutely no legitimate comparison between UFOs/Aliens and other things such a Big Foot, Ghosts, etc.

They are literally ... planets apart. Smile

I perfectly understand how other people who have not investigated this subject would think it's extraordinary, but when you wear the shoes of a trained investigator the mystique of "extraordinary" wears off very quickly.

The statement of "extraordinary claim" could be applied to almost anything. For example, a theist who says that you are making an extraordinary claim about the existence of the singularity would have a valid point from his limited perspective.

I know you understand this point. After all, you likely had to deal with this from a theist, or anyone else who applies a limited perspective to your area of expertise.

Hence, anyone who has a limited perspective on this subject would believe they had a point by saying I am making an extraordinary claim. But, their point is indeed restricted to their limited perspective, just like the theist.

One man's "extraordinary" is another man's "ho hum."

Quote:
(09-12-2014 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  It becomes glaringly obvious that- when an opinion is misrepresented as a statement of fact, and when the adversary is stating as fact something that was never even said in the first place- the adversary is intentionally misleading via intellectual dishonesty.

Misrepresentation is a two-way street, Free. Not that I particularly want to waste time on it. Do your accusations relate to me?

Absolutely not. Despite my aggressive stance on many issues on this forum, you are one of the damn few who keep me balanced and on my toes. Yes, I can be a side-winding fuck-job at times, but do not confuse that with any degree of a lack of respect I actually have for you.

I view you as perhaps the most intelligent person on this forum.

Smile

Quote:
(09-12-2014 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  I can concede that you do have a point on a precise definition of "positive claim," and even take it a step further and opine that any statement we make- even a negative claim- is a positive claim.

That is the difference between saying "X does not exist" and saying "I see no reason to agree that X exists" - all the more so if it occurs in a conversation begun by someone else, who is saying "X does exist".
(you might recognise this as the line atheists are all too often forced to deal with where 'X' is 'God'; as it is there, such semantic obsession is really fucking tedious)

I agree, but when you really put some serious thought behind it, every last damn statement we make is made with the underlying proclamation of truth, and anything that promotes a truth is a positive claim. That is why I say that even if you make a negative claim, you are still professing the truth behind it.

Quote:
(09-12-2014 01:51 PM)Free Wrote:  But there are distinct differences between claims stated as opinions and those which make claims of fact. There is a much higher level of burden of proof expected when a statement of fact is issued.

To say that something possesses a discrete, knowable probability is a statement of fact by any reasonable definition.

Not when it is expressed as an opinion, no it is not. I never made a statement of fact in regards to the craft being alien, but rather demonstrated how much of a % my belief was that it was alien, which was about 50 - 53%.

This is where we differ. With a 50 - 53% belief position, there is no possible way anyone can say I am not using skepticism. I supplied a cohesive argument which included all other possibilities, and none of those other possibilities had a higher %.

Do not confuse this with me saying anything of the sort that it proves that the alien position is correct, or "because you can't prove me wrong, I must be right." That isn't it. All it means is that the alien scenario is possible, given what I know about the case in hand, and what I know about this subject in general.

Quote:This is the central matter I and others find it hard to credit you unaware of. The positive claim is necessarily implicit in the statement of probability.

The statement of probability is not a statement of fact, but rather a statement of opinion. Sure it's a positive claim, but what it is not is a positive claim of the absolute truth.

Quote:It is not honest to entertain as definite possibility that which is utterly unknown. Not without a painfully large truckload of presuppositional special pleading.

It is not utterly unknown. Perhaps to you, and many others here. But it definitely isn't something utterly unknown to me.

Remember, it's all about experienced perspective.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 04:53 PM)Free Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 03:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That you are not professing absolute certainty is immaterial. Very few people ever do. You are saying that you can, with great certainty, assess a claim as not only possible but likely, and you are saying that you are doing so in light of considered reflection on available evidence.

Nonetheless, the point being there is indeed a distinction between expressing an opinion and a statement of fact. An opinion is a belief based upon several factors, whereas a statement of fact is a positive claim which expresses absolute truth.

Therefore, there can be no "absolute truth" expressed when a % is applied, whether it be 10%, 50%, 70%, or even 99%.

When I say a claim is "likely," or "more probable," it only means that the percentage indicator is above the 50% mark. Yes, it is a positive claim based upon an opinion regarding the available evidence, but it by no means should ever be interpreted as a statement of fact that cannot be falsified.

Quote:We call that a positive claim, bro. "But I only have to prove absolute statements" is disingenuous whining.

There have been no absolute statements proclaimed. The fact that I used percentages to gauge my position is evidence of that.

Quote:(if you want to be so tediously semantic as to define proof as referring only to absolute statements, so be it, but we're left with all other statements of certainty requiring commensurate substantiation in any case)

I have not defined it that way. All statements require evidence for substantiation. Every statement we utter, even one of a negative claim, is indeed a positive claim because we are professing either a belief/opinion or an absolute truth/statement of fact.

I clearly stated this in my post.

Quote:If we grant that absolute objective certainty is not a thing anyone is discussing, advocating, or claiming - because it is not a thing anyone is claiming - then one's degree of certainty is a difference of slight degree only; that's immaterial to the larger point of substantiating extraordinary claims.

Perhaps it's due to my experience, but I find nothing extraordinary about UFOs or the existence intelligent extraterrestrial life. The data on this subject- which includes verified government data- is so extensive as there to be absolutely no legitimate comparison between UFOs/Aliens and other things such a Big Foot, Ghosts, etc.

They are literally ... planets apart. Smile

I perfectly understand how other people who have not investigated this subject would think it's extraordinary, but when you wear the shoes of a trained investigator the mystique of "extraordinary" wears off very quickly.

The statement of "extraordinary claim" could be applied to almost anything. For example, a theist who says that you are making an extraordinary claim about the existence of the singularity would have a valid point from his limited perspective.

I know you understand this point. After all, you likely had to deal with this from a theist, or anyone else who applies a limited perspective to your area of expertise.

Hence, anyone who has a limited perspective on this subject would believe they had a point by saying I am making an extraordinary claim. But, their point is indeed restricted to their limited perspective, just like the theist.

One man's "extraordinary" is another man's "ho hum."

Quote:Misrepresentation is a two-way street, Free. Not that I particularly want to waste time on it. Do your accusations relate to me?

Absolutely not. Despite my aggressive stance on many issues on this forum, you are one of the damn few who keep me balanced and on my toes. Yes, I can be a side-winding fuck-job at times, but do not confuse that with any degree of a lack of respect I actually have for you.

I view you as perhaps the most intelligent person on this forum.

Smile

Quote:That is the difference between saying "X does not exist" and saying "I see no reason to agree that X exists" - all the more so if it occurs in a conversation begun by someone else, who is saying "X does exist".
(you might recognise this as the line atheists are all too often forced to deal with where 'X' is 'God'; as it is there, such semantic obsession is really fucking tedious)

I agree, but when you really put some serious thought behind it, every last damn statement we make is made with the underlying proclamation of truth, and anything that promotes a truth is a positive claim. That is why I say that even if you make a negative claim, you are still professing the truth behind it.

Quote:To say that something possesses a discrete, knowable probability is a statement of fact by any reasonable definition.

Not when it is expressed as an opinion, no it is not. I never made a statement of fact in regards to the craft being alien, but rather demonstrated how much of a % my belief was that it was alien, which was about 50 - 53%.

This is where we differ. With a 50 - 53% belief position, there is no possible way anyone can say I am not using skepticism. I supplied a cohesive argument which included all other possibilities, and none of those other possibilities had a higher %.

Do not confuse this with me saying anything of the sort that it proves that the alien position is correct, or "because you can't prove me wrong, I must be right." That isn't it. All it means is that the alien scenario is possible, given what I know about the case in hand, and what I know about this subject in general.

Quote:This is the central matter I and others find it hard to credit you unaware of. The positive claim is necessarily implicit in the statement of probability.

The statement of probability is not a statement of fact, but rather a statement of opinion. Sure it's a positive claim, but what it is not is a positive claim of the absolute truth.

Quote:It is not honest to entertain as definite possibility that which is utterly unknown. Not without a painfully large truckload of presuppositional special pleading.

It is not utterly unknown. Perhaps to you, and many others here. But it definitely isn't something utterly unknown to me.

Remember, it's all about experienced perspective.

You have repeatedly insisted that your probabilities are accurate - that claim is not supported or supportable.

Also, in what way are you a 'trained investigator'?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 05:00 PM)Rik Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 04:53 PM)Free Wrote:  Nonetheless, the point being there is indeed a distinction between expressing an opinion and a statement of fact. An opinion is a belief based upon several factors, whereas a statement of fact is a positive claim which expresses absolute truth.

Therefore, there can be no "absolute truth" expressed when a % is applied, whether it be 10%, 50%, 70%, or even 99%.

When I say a claim is "likely," or "more probable," it only means that the percentage indicator is above the 50% mark. Yes, it is a positive claim based upon an opinion regarding the available evidence, but it by no means should ever be interpreted as a statement of fact that cannot be falsified.


There have been no absolute statements proclaimed. The fact that I used percentages to gauge my position is evidence of that.


I have not defined it that way. All statements require evidence for substantiation. Every statement we utter, even one of a negative claim, is indeed a positive claim because we are professing either a belief/opinion or an absolute truth/statement of fact.

I clearly stated this in my post.


Perhaps it's due to my experience, but I find nothing extraordinary about UFOs or the existence intelligent extraterrestrial life. The data on this subject- which includes verified government data- is so extensive as there to be absolutely no legitimate comparison between UFOs/Aliens and other things such a Big Foot, Ghosts, etc.

They are literally ... planets apart. Smile

I perfectly understand how other people who have not investigated this subject would think it's extraordinary, but when you wear the shoes of a trained investigator the mystique of "extraordinary" wears off very quickly.

The statement of "extraordinary claim" could be applied to almost anything. For example, a theist who says that you are making an extraordinary claim about the existence of the singularity would have a valid point from his limited perspective.

I know you understand this point. After all, you likely had to deal with this from a theist, or anyone else who applies a limited perspective to your area of expertise.

Hence, anyone who has a limited perspective on this subject would believe they had a point by saying I am making an extraordinary claim. But, their point is indeed restricted to their limited perspective, just like the theist.

One man's "extraordinary" is another man's "ho hum."


Absolutely not. Despite my aggressive stance on many issues on this forum, you are one of the damn few who keep me balanced and on my toes. Yes, I can be a side-winding fuck-job at times, but do not confuse that with any degree of a lack of respect I actually have for you.

I view you as perhaps the most intelligent person on this forum.

Smile


I agree, but when you really put some serious thought behind it, every last damn statement we make is made with the underlying proclamation of truth, and anything that promotes a truth is a positive claim. That is why I say that even if you make a negative claim, you are still professing the truth behind it.


Not when it is expressed as an opinion, no it is not. I never made a statement of fact in regards to the craft being alien, but rather demonstrated how much of a % my belief was that it was alien, which was about 50 - 53%.

This is where we differ. With a 50 - 53% belief position, there is no possible way anyone can say I am not using skepticism. I supplied a cohesive argument which included all other possibilities, and none of those other possibilities had a higher %.

Do not confuse this with me saying anything of the sort that it proves that the alien position is correct, or "because you can't prove me wrong, I must be right." That isn't it. All it means is that the alien scenario is possible, given what I know about the case in hand, and what I know about this subject in general.


The statement of probability is not a statement of fact, but rather a statement of opinion. Sure it's a positive claim, but what it is not is a positive claim of the absolute truth.


It is not utterly unknown. Perhaps to you, and many others here. But it definitely isn't something utterly unknown to me.

Remember, it's all about experienced perspective.

You have repeatedly insisted that your probabilities are accurate - that claim is not supported or supportable.

Partly true. Never had time to demonstrate anything as I was far to busy fending off the attacks.

Quote:Also, in what way are you a 'trained investigator'?

Military.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 05:19 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
I'm not getting involved in the main argument here, but I have to cringe every time Free says "12 people seen [whatever]...".

The past tense of "see" is "saw":

I see the moon (right now).

I saw the moon (last night).

I have seen the moon (many times in my life).

"Seen" is appropriate only in the last example. Without the word "have" preceding it ("have seen"), it makes you sound like a hick.

/rant
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
09-12-2014, 05:22 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 05:19 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I'm not getting involved in the main argument here, but I have to cringe every time Free says "12 people seen [whatever]...".

The past tense of "see" is "saw":

I see the moon (right now).

I saw the moon (last night).

I have seen the moon (many times in my life).

"Seen" is appropriate only in the last example. Without the word "have" preceding it ("have seen"), it makes you sound like a hick.

/rant

*Sigh*

When you can snatch the pebble from my hand .... it will be time for you to go, grasshopper.

Fuck it. Let's just say you did it and get the fuck outta here?

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 05:27 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 03:30 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Jesus Christ ta' Hell people, this thread on Bigfoot is 22 goddamn pages long. As of 20 pages ago it's too long to read. What the crap?!

The guy who did the first film of Bigfoot grainy film admitted it was a hoax.

http://www.wnd.com/2004/03/23657/

This reminds me of the damn cropcircles in the UK. Two guys admitted to doing the first cropcircles but no one believes them. Facepalm







I love crop circles. Have actually seen many. They have been reported since long before those two hoaxers made some in the UK.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: