Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
Copi's statement here is taken out-of-context. He said that such only applies to well-defined and delimited contexts, such as with a claim like, "There is no sock under the couch." As a general principle, Copi stands with "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." See Copi's <Introduction to Logic>.
|
Given that no purported sightings of Sasquatch and friends have ever referenced a diminutive, lithe figure and that they are regularly observed to be 6'-10' and in excess of 500lbs there would be,
AT THE VERY LEAST, some evidence left as a trail in what you assert to be 'damp forests'.
So that should cover well-defined and delimited contexts, unless they have some physics-defying special power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
Since I have done a great deal of research regarding sasquatch in reputable scientific arenas, let me offer some bigfoot science,
|
Dafuq?!?!??!? Big Foot science? Oxymoron much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
since this is a real science thread.
|
Be honest: Your study of Big Foot was an excuse to wring dry some poor saps grant to your seat of learning, wasn't it?