All things Science related. λν = c

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

The argument that bigfoot does not exist because we have not found a body fails scientifically. In science, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Although as Irving Copi stated:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

Like dragons, Sasquatch and any deity.

I'd rather go the route of Bertrand Russell's teapot.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Although as Irving Copi stated:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

Like dragons, Sasquatch and any deity.

I'd rather go the route of Bertrand Russell's teapot.

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>.

[RedskinRat]

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.

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?

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?

[mlmpetert]

I think im gonna offer signed prints of my BigFoot artwork.

$25 for the first 50
$10 thereafter

*Additional $2 charge for PayPal. NO EXCEPTIONS

Please pm me to order.