Bigfoot

So far, all we've seen is your claims that "experts" are making claims. You need to show us where "experts" are claiming that Bigfoot "can't" exist.And asserting that you saw it on a TV show doesn't count.Edited by Ringo, : Inserted a missing word: TV "show".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

False.Crash is not one of the "experts" you claimed. Nor has he "adopted the mantle of the argument", since there is no evidence that the argument - as you stated it - even exists.I don't see where anybody has said Bigfoot "can't" exist. The arguments have shown a very high probability that Bigfoot doesn't exist. It's called "inductive reasoning".You might still be able to redeem yourself if you back up your claims and address the real arguments instead of just throwing tantrums.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You haven't demonstrated that he is making "the exact same argument" because you haven't established that the original argument even exists. That's what we call a "strawman".Show us where "experts" have made the arguments that you are complaining about.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

As I said, you haven't established that crash is making the same claims.You're claiming that "experts" have made claims and you're claiming that crash is making the same claims. We can see what claims crash is making, but we have only your word that they're "the same claims".That isn't good enough.It's a simple enough request: If such "experts" exist and if such claims exist, show us. Then we can decide for ourselves whether or not crash is making the same claims.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Well, it isn't a "fact" at all until it's been established as a fact.In the OP, you said that the topic is about "why some evidence is acceptable and other evidence isn't, or why some reasoning simply doesn't apply." You have also admitted that there is practically zero hard evidence for Bigfoot.You seem to be suggesting that soft evidence (e.g. eyewitness reports) becomes "more acceptable" if there is no hard evidence - but hard evidence about other living creatures in the same environment is "less acceptable".That reasoning doesn't seem to apply.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

But it's the creatures that are living in that environment that argue against Bigfoot.There are no (other) large, solitary primates living year-round in that environment, so it is reasonable to conclude that the environment is not conducive to year-round habitation by large, solitary primates. The types of food available and the digestive systems of other creatures living in that environment are acceptable evidence. When we observe that there is no herbivorous or omnivorous large, solitary primate living in that environment, it is reasonable to conclude that it's because there isn't enough food.Why don't Bigfootists refute that argument experimentally? Spend a winter in the mountains with no tools, no fire, no shelter - and without leaving any trace of your existence. You're still slinging the word "fact" around too casually. You haven't established that the arguments against Bigfoot are "bad". Nor does it excuse sloppy "refutations" like the ones you used.Nor does it excuse bad behaviour.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What would that presumption be based on? How would that presumption differ from the presumption that another environment would not be capable of supporting large primates? Nobody is saying that. (Strawman.) That's not the issue. If most of the sightings are of solitary creatures, it's reasonable to conclude that it is probably solitary. On the other hand, when we see one human, it's usually reasonable to conclude that there are other humans nearby - because we do normally see humans in groups.The issue has been raised that creatures of that size could not gather enough food without some kind of collective effort. Then you need to explain how a creature of approximately our size (and presumably similar food requirements) could do it.That's where the whole primate/non-primate, herbivore/omnivore issue came from: Bigfoot is presumed by believers to be a primate. Therefore, it would have a primate-like digestive system. (Evolution.) You're welcome to wear clothes for the experiment - just don't use any tools or shelter.(I notice you have the creationist's aversion to experimentation. ) And nobody's doing that. (Strawman.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Bigfootists speculate that Gigantopithecus and/or its descendents - which may or may not include Bigfeet - could have migrated to North America from Asia, across the Bering Strait. How is that not having access to the environment? I'm suggesting that gorillas probably could survive in Brazil but not in the Pacific Northwest. I'm wondering why you don't think the same probability would apply to a similar large primate. Well, we know what similar large primates eat. And we know what's available to eat - pretty much nothing in the winter months. It isn't much of a stretch. The constraint isn't so much on killing the deer as on catching it first. A cowboy can bulldog a calf with no problem, and with a lttle more upper-body strength could probably kill it with his bare hands.But he needs a horse to catch it.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC