It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by polomontana
Vance, I'm actually glad you posted because your post shows a good example of pseudoskepticism.
It's basically using skepticism as a crutch to what you already believe instead of a tool to search for the truth.
Polomontana, NephraTari, and Teratoma are mischaracterizing what Vance said, ignoring the context in which it was said, and at the same time, proving his point.
Yes, he did say you are using the unprovable to prove the unproven. He also says: "Let's prove one or the other or both or something lol!"
That is not pseudoskepticism, or whatever non-sense buzzword you want to employ. You are engaging in pseudoscience, "proving" the existence of something unsubstantiated via the unsubstantiated*. You are not forwarding a theory, a hypothesis, or anything of the sort. You are using baseless speculation and circular logic.
What Vance and I are both saying is that instead of using the unsubstantiated to prove Bigfoot's (or any other anomalous phenomena) existence, you should use the observable and verifiable. That is a far-cry from your accusations of pseudoskepticism or from your employment of pseudoscience and circular logic.
(*yes, I believe in the existence of Bigfoot. However, I concede the evidence suggests but does not prove, its existence)
Originally posted by polomontana
Good find Tallwhites, I will have to check out that book.
Originally posted by polomontana
First, you talk about unproven.
Again, things like time travel, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, quantum loop gravity, quantum braids, holographic principle couldn't be discussed according to your standards because their isn't ABSOLUTE PROOF.
You and Vance would wipe out entire fields of study in a SINGLE BOUND with that logic.
Originally posted by polomontana
In my mind these things are proven beyond any reasonable doubt...
Originally posted by polomontana
It seems pseudoskeptics feel the need to turn every thread into a debate on wether these things exist because they are theatened by the mere discussion of these things in the context of logic and reason.
Originally posted by polomontana
If you want to debate wether bigfoot is a myth, then go to the proper folder and start a thread about it.
Look at threads on this board. You will notice the pseudoskeptic trying to start a debate that has nothing to do with the thread.
So please, if you want to debate wether bigfoot is a myth go to the proper folder and start a thread about it.
Originally posted by polomontana
I thank the other posters for their intelligent responses and please excuse Vance and Complex need to try and turn threads into debates about their personal beliefs.
Originally posted by TallWhites
According to a book I have Bigfoot is exactly that, another alien type of species
Here's a scanned page:
Click on this link to view full page: aycu06.webshots.com...
[edit on 14-7-2008 by TallWhites]
Originally posted by Nohup
Yes, there have been notions (not really "theories," because how can you test them?), that Bigfoot and aliens and a lot of this truly paranormal stuff is all kind of linked together.
The overall thought is that reality is not quite as solid as it seems to our little minds, and it's influenced by all kinds of things like:
1. our consciousnesses interacting with spacetime on a quantum level
2. random and perfectly natural fluctuations in time, space, and reality
3. intelligent entities that are creating this reality via consciousness
4. and so on.
So while it's impossible for Bigfoot or UFOs to maintain themselves for long periods of time in our reality, they occasionally "filter through" into our reality from someplace else (who knows where?), and then float back out of it. Which is why UFOs and Bigfoot and other similar things seem to just vanish without leaving behind much in the way of physical traces. Because they only partially exist in this reality.
It's a notion. Like I said, pretty hard to test.
Originally posted by polomontana
With only 4% of the universe known, how can you speak in ABSOLUTES? This happens when a belief system clashes with reason, so your threatened by the mere discussion of topics that threaten your pre-existing belief system.
Should we stop all discussion about the universe because we only know what 4% is?