Why has the Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot film never been exactly duplicated?

[LightbulbSun]

There are enough serious people who believe in this stuff that to dismiss it outright as nonsense becomes a leap of faith - it is to say that they are all nuts and I know better.

There are enough serious people who believe in God. Does that mean dismissing the existence of God with 99.99999999999999999% certainty is a leap of faith? Stop being an apologist.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Occams razor is a great rule of thumb, but nothing more.

I don't think you understand Occams Razor.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html"

The big foot believers are the ones "unnecessarily multiplying entities."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think you understand Occams Razor.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html"

The big foot believers are the ones "unnecessarily multiplying entities."

Actually, the invocation of Occams Razor is well known to be fallacious. We aren't multiplying unnecessarily. We aren't working with unnecessary variables in an equation. It is suggested that we rule out evidence based on faith. And you have posted nothing to refute that it is just a rule of thumb, which it is.

The improper application of Occams Razor verges on blatant crackpottery. It is not a scientific test. It is a guide. At most, given the most liberal interpretion, it suggests that we would expect to find that all evidence of bigfoot is hoaxed. But that doesn't mean that OR in itself stands as evidence for a hoax.

There are enough serious people who believe in God. Does that mean dismissing the existence of God with 99.99999999999999999% certainty is a leap of faith? Stop being an apologist.

I have never seen an alleged film of God. And, btw, science has nothing to say about a God except that we have no known evidence for one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is one of the scientists [now deceased] who argued that the film is genuine. His work and papers are referenced.
http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/grover_kranz.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is very telling that the notion of "maybe" should cause so much consternation. And I'm just basing my opinion on those of people who are qualified to have one. It is clear to me that I am arguing against faith based beliefs.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Actually, the invocation of Occams Razor is well known to be fallacious. We aren't multiplying unnecessarily. We aren't working with unnecessary variables in an equation. It is suggested that we rule out evidence based on faith. And you have posted nothing to refute that it is just a rule of thumb, which it is.

The improper application of Occams Razor verges on blatant crackpottery. It is not a scientific test. It is a guide. At most, given the most liberal interpretion, it suggests that we would expect to find that all evidence of bigfoot is hoaxed. But that doesn't mean that OR in itself stands as evidence for a hoax.

It is a pretty sound rule of thumb. You shouldn't assume too much without proper evidence.

I have never seen an alleged film of God. And, btw, science has nothing to say about a God except that we have no known evidence for one.

By the way, science has nothing to say about a flying spaghetti monster, Zeus, teapots orbiting the Sun, Santa Claus etc. except that we have no known evidence for one.

It is very telling that the notion of "maybe" should cause so much consternation. And I'm just basing my opinion on those of people who are qualified to have one. It is clear to me that I am arguing against faith based beliefs.

Just because someone claims something whether it'd be a scientist or a lay person doesn't give that idea any more credence. It's called appealing to authority and it's a logical fallacy. This is why science has the peer reviewed process.